Choosing Atrium Lighting In the new Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center Group 10...

Choosing Atrium Lighting In the new Graduate School of Business

Knight Management Center

Group 10Rachel MartinDavid Mount

Leah StrickmanEmma Wendt

• Existing atrium decision process • Atrium lighting as project focus• Recommended decision process: MACDADI

o Organizationso Goalso Preferences o Optionso Analysiso Value o Innovations

Overview

We speculate atrium selection is problematic

No Stakeholdergoals up front

Few options provided

Stakeholders engaged late; act as designers

Atrium Current State Narrative

Midterm: Pre-data

Midterm: Post-data

Atrium appears in the architect’s plans

We changed our project to a more detailed decision

The Atrium Lighting Decision

We focus our project on lightingActual atrium selection is even more problematic than we suspected

Atrium Current State Narrative

Narrator model from architectThorough atrium lighting design process,

but stakeholders not included

Architect’s Atrium Lighting Decision

Our Future State NarrativeStakeholders matter

Atrium Lighting Decision Future State Narrative

Narrator link

https://www.stanford.edu/group/narratives/community/_a585eb3abbfba08152c47f1ec5a6fb6c/

Designers:ArchitectEngineers

StructuralMechanicalDetailerEngineer

FabricatorFire protectionConstruction manager/crewLEED consultantAcoustic consultantShop guyStanford representatives

Decision Makers:Board of Trustees

StanfordGSB

Phil KnightOther large donorsKathleen Cavanaugh (decision filter)

Stakeholders:StudentsFaculty AlumniAdministration

DeansSenateAcademic Operations

Admissions OfficeStaffLibrarianProject ManagerOutside contractors Corporate sponsorsRecruitersStanford Community (non-GSB)Santa Clara County communityMedia/financial press Peer institutionsDesignersArchitectsInfrastructure/facilitiesPhil KnightOther DonorsBoard of Trustees

Stanford GSB

MACDADI Model → Organizations * Goals * Preferences * Options * Analysis * Value

MACDADI ModelBrainstorming Organizations

Students

Faculty

Staff

Designers

Donors

Owners

Community

Stakeholders


MACDADI ModelOrganizations

Combine and condense key stakeholders

MACDADI ModelBrainstorming Goals

Goals for Atrium:

Wow factorFire safetyReasonable budgetSustainabilityEasy to constructTime to designTime to buildAppropriate noise level

Quiet Group chatting

Added valueFunctionality

Library Study space


PhotogenicAesthetic

Sense of library feel Sense of Stanford feel

UniquenessInnovativeProven designCode compliantAccessible (to community)Comfortable

TemperatureEfficient use of space

MACDADI ModelClarify goals to clarify design decision


MACDADI ModelPreferences

Goals Students Faculty Staff Designers Community Donors Owners AveragePromotion of Academic Excellence 50 55 50 25 30 20 20 35.7Inspire 15 20 20 18 10 15 12 15.7Visual Wow Factor 5 7 3 10 5 10 9 7.0Aesthetic 10 13 17 8 5 5 3 8.7

Functionality 35 35 30 7 20 5 8 20.0Lighting 10 19 20 2 1 0 2 7.7Library Functionality 10 16 5 3 2 4 4 6.3Accessibility 5 0 5 1 10 1 2 3.4Study Space 10 0 0 1 7 0 0 2.6

Economic Responsibility 20 15 10 35 0 50 60 27.1Proven Design 3 0 3 3 0 20 5 4.9Time To Build 7 15 3 4 0 13 40 11.7Ease to Construct 3 0 2 3 0 5 0 1.9Time to Design 7 0 2 25 0 12 15 8.7Materials Needed 7 0 2 25 0 10 5 7.0

Environmental Sustainability 30 30 40 40 70 30 20 37.1LEED Platinum 6 5 10 28 40 20 10 17.0Comfort 18 15 25 4 20 5 5 13.1Innovative 6 10 5 8 10 5 5 7.0TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 242.71



MACDADI ModelWeighting preferences shows

economics and owners matter most

MACDADI ModelDesigners generate 3 options


6 Sawtoothes0 Sawtoothes 3 Sawtoothes

MACDADI ModelAnalysis - Outlined ratings for 3 goals


Goal 1:

Promotion of Academic Excellence

RatingExample:

MACDADI ModelAnalysis


Goal 2:

Economic Responsibility

Rating


Goal 3:

Environmental Sustainability

Rating



MACDADI ModelAnalysis – 6 and 3 panels similar and better

MACDADI Model → Organizations * Goals * Preferences * Options * Analysis * Weights * Value

MACDADI ModelValue

Students

-100

0

100

200

300

400

S tu d e n ts

Faculty

-100

0

100

200

300

400

F a c u lty

Staff

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

S ta ff

Designers

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1

Community

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

1

Donors

0

50

100

150

200

1

Owners

0

50

100

150

200

1

Value of Design Options for Stakeholder Average

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1

Design Options

Rel

ativ

e V

alu

eDesign #1 - 6 panels

Design #2 - 3 panels

Design #3 - no panels


MACDADI ModelValue

• Weighting• Automation

– Greater ability to add, delete and organize goals, options and preferences

• ‘Tiers’ of Goals– Increased ability to roll-up sub-goals into high-level

goals

• Simplify

Innovation

Innovation Weighted the opinions of different stakeholders

to acknowledge the relative importance of each


Innovation Weight stakeholders – owners and economics

become more important


Innovation


Impact of Weighting on Final Value

-100-50

050

100150200250300

Design 1 Design 2 Design 3

Average Unweighted Average Weighted

Weight stakeholders – final design doesn’t change

• Consider stakeholderso Weight stakeholder preferenceso Recognize economics can still be most important goal

• Choose 6-sawtooth option

Summary

Choosing Atrium Lighting In the new Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center Group 10...

Documents

Transcript of Choosing Atrium Lighting In the new Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center Group 10...