Kreiner, Organizational decision mechanisms in an architectural competition, 2012 Flashcards
Hvad er Kreiners generelle kritik af arkitektkonkurrencer?
Kreiner argumenterer for, at en konkurrence bruges i stedet for at tage en beslutning.
Man finder den bedste løsning/beslutning ved at finde en vinder.
Dog besluttes vinderen ud fra menneskers vurdering af resultatet, som ofte bliver påvirket af individernes biases.
Man forsøger at minimere/eliminere biases ved at opsætte konkurrencen med specifikke krav og ved at lave komiteer fremfor, at en enkelte personer vurderer resultaterne.
Selvom disse kriterier er til for at sikre en retfærdig vurdering, så mener Kreiner at kriterierne ofte er påvirket af den vindende part inden de udformes.
I artiklen passer kriterierne allerede til den arkitektstue, som vinder.
Arkitektkonkurrence.
Bedømmelsesudvalget var 11 medlemmer.
De mødtes 3 gange over 2 uger for at beslutte vinderen.
I møderne deltog eksperterne fra diverse workshops og flere af medlemmerne havde også deltaget i disse og de efterfølgende præsentationer. Af den grund mener Kreiner, at det er svært at vurdere, hvornår den egentlige vurdering af budene fandt sted.
Konkurrencen blev udgjort af 500 specifikke krav. Rangrækkefølgen af designforslagene skulle baseres på en kvantitativ vurdering, hvor hvert forslag modtog mellem 1 og 10 point på tre foruddefinerede og vægtede dimensioner. Designforslaget med den højeste samlede score vil blive erklæret vinder.
Til første møde gennemgik de diverse projektet, og det var tydeligt, at eksperterne allerede havde besluttet sig for en vinder. De så ingen fejl ved vinderprojekt, og argumenterede imod det andet.
Hvilket spørgsmål ønskede Kreiner at undersøge?
Kreiner: ”Hvornår præcist besluttede ekspertmedlemmerne sig, både individuelt og kollektivt?”.
Herefter argumenterer han for, at de besluttede sig til fremvisningen.
I sidste ende lagde det vindende design grund for, hvordan opgavebeskrivelsen skulle forstås, og ikke omvendt, hvilket også medførte, at de andre designs i en hvis grad blev bedømt ud fra det vindende design.
Core message: 1) A first choice enables the choosing process
Architectural competitions are like wicked problems, where there is no analytical solution and the multiple aspects are discovered and considered sequentially. The briefing is very open and ambiguous and requires interpretation on the briefing’s meaning and where to focus attention (long list of un-prioritised requirements such as a virtual aesthetics profile).
Incommensurable alternatives: the alternatives are unique answers to uniquely defined and interpreted tasks – in other words: they are asked to compare pears and apples.
The decision making process is relevant not to choose but to give legitimacy to the choice.
Core message: 2) Expert intuition drove the choice
Expert intuition in the decision – all architects ‘knew’ that would be the winning model, as it entered the room
Professional judgment was perceived as fair and legitimate, and was “highly functional if not necessary as a starting point for decision making process”
Core message: 3) Yet, the ‘official’ story was still one of fair competition
After the choice, a long process of legitimization followed… The veneer of rationality was kept
Summary and implications
A first choice enables the choosing process. Expert intuition drove this choice, yet, the ‘official’ story was still one of fair competition.
What CAN’T and CAN we generalize from the case?
It is not that the first choice ends up winning, but that it enables a choice as it makes incommensurable options more comparable.
It is not that expert intuition will always be the trigger of the first decisions, but something would.
Extensions to garbage can
The choice was not made by flight (ejection), resolution nor oversight
Instead, exiting the garbage can was made possible as the number of problems reduced, and thereby reducing complexity and enabling the participants to connect the problems and solutions satisfactorily.
Decision making process was not completed with the choice. The task continued and served to legitimise and justify the choice.
Konklusion.
Det var altså ikke denne ”garbage ejection”, der gjorde det muligt at tage et valg. Det var i stedet dette intuitive valg, der satte hele processen i gang.
Kreiner mener, at det intuitive valg er underudforsket som en forudsætning for en beslutningstagningsproces. Han slutter desuden af med:”Maybe an important key to understanding decision making is to realize that outcomes depend more on commitments than on calculations.”
