Proceso metodológico para optimizar la toma de decisiones en el proyecto de envolventes arquitectónicas multicapa = Methodological process for the optimization of the decision making in multilayer building envelope projects

La presente tesis doctoral se enmarca dentro del concepto de la sistematización del conocimiento en arquitectura, más concretamente en el campo de las construcciones arquitectónicas y la toma de decisiones en la fase de proyecto de envolventes arquitectónicas multicapa. Por tanto, el objetivo principal es el establecimiento de las bases para una toma de decisiones informadas durante el proyecto de una envolvente multicapa con el fin de colaborar en su optimización. Del mismo modo que la historia de la arquitectura está relacionada con la historia de la innovación en construcción, la construcción está sujeta a cambios como respuesta a los fracasos anteriores. En base a esto, se identifica la toma de decisiones en la fase de proyecto como el estadio inicial para establecer un punto estratégico de reflexión y de control sobre los procesos constructivos. La presente investigación, conceptualmente, define los parámetros intervinientes en el proyecto de envolventes arquitectónicas multicapa a partir de una clasificación y sistematización de todos los componentes (elementos, unidades y sistemas constructivos) utilizados en las fachadas multicapa. Dicha sistematización se materializa en una hoja matriz de datos en la que, dentro de una organización a modo de árbol, se puede acceder a la consulta de cada componente y de su caracterización. Dicha matriz permite la incorporación futura de cualquier componente o sistema nuevo que aparezca en el mercado, relacionándolo con aquellos con los que comparta ubicación, tipo de material, etc. Con base en esa matriz de datos, se diseña la sistematización de la toma de decisiones en la fase de proyecto de una envolvente arquitectónica, en concreto, en el caso de una fachada. Operativamente, el resultado se presenta como una herramienta que permite al arquitecto o proyectista reflexionar y seleccionar el sistema constructivo más adecuado, al enfrentarse con las distintas decisiones o elecciones posibles. La herramienta se basa en las elecciones iniciales tomadas por el proyectista y se estructura, a continuación y sucesivamente, en distintas aproximaciones, criterios, subcriterios y posibilidades que responden a los distintos avances en la definición del sistema constructivo. Se proponen una serie de fichas operativas de comprobación que informan sobre el estadio de decisión y de definición de proyecto alcanzados en cada caso. Asimismo, el sistema permite la conexión con otros sistemas de revisión de proyectos para fomentar la reflexión sobre la normalización de los riesgos asociados tanto al proprio sistema como a su proceso constructivo y comportamiento futuros. La herramienta proporciona un sistema de ayuda para ser utilizado en el proceso de toma de decisiones en la fase de diseño de una fachada multicapa, minimizando la arbitrariedad y ofreciendo una cualificación previa a la cuantificación que supondrá la elaboración del detalle constructivo y de su medición en las sucesivas fases del proyecto. Al mismo tiempo, la sistematización de dicha toma de decisiones en la fase del proyecto puede constituirse como un sistema de comprobación en las diferentes fases del proceso de decisión proyectual y de definición de la envolvente de un edificio. ABSTRACT The central issue of this doctoral Thesis is founded on the framework of the concept of the systematization of knowledge in architecture, in particular, in respect of the field of building construction and the decision making in the design stage of multilayer building envelope projects. Therefore, the main objective is to establish the bases for knowledgeable decision making during a multilayer building envelope design process, in order to collaborate with its optimization. Just as the history of architecture is connected to the history of innovation in construction, construction itself is subject to changes as a response to previous failures. On this basis, the decisions made during the project design phase are identified as the initial state to establish an strategic point for reflection and control, referred to the constructive processes. Conceptually, this research defines the parameters involving the multilayer building envelope projects, on the basis of a classification and systematization for all the components (elements, constructive units and constructive systems) used in multilayer façades. The mentioned systematization is materialized into a data matrix sheet in which, following a tree‐like organization, the access to every single component and its characterization is possible. The above data matrix allows the future inclusion of any new component or system that may appear in the construction market. That new component or system can be put into a relationship with another, which it shares location, type of material,… with. Based on the data matrix, the systematization of the decision making process for a building envelope design stage is designed, more particularly in the case of a façade. Putting this into practice, it is represented as a tool which allows the architect or the designer, to reflect and to select the appropriate building system when facing the different elections or the different options. The tool is based on the initial elections taken by the designer. Then and successively, it is shaped on the form of different operative steps, criteria, sub‐criteria and possibilities which respond to a different progress in the definition of the building construction system. In order to inform about the stage of the decision and the definition reached by the project in every particular case, a range of operative sheets are proposed. Additionally, the system allows the connection with other reviewing methods for building projects. The aim of this last possibility is to encourage the reflection on standardization of the associated risks to the building system itself and its future performance. The tool provides a helping system to be used during the decision making process for a multilayer façade design. It minimizes the arbitrariness and offers a qualification previous to the quantification that will be done with the development of the construction details and their bill of quantities, that in subsequent project stages will be executed. At the same time, the systematization of the mentioned decision making during the design phase, can be found as a checking system in the different stages of the decision making design process and in the different stages of the building envelope definition.

CERCLA: A Case Study of Local Government Involvement in the Decision-Making Process in Colorado

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 strengthen roles of the community in the CERCLA process. Many layers of bureaucracy and the complexity of regulations make the implementation and enforcement of environmental policy a burdensome process. Local government, the public and private corporations have a critical role in the CERCLA decision-making process by implementing a comprehensive public participation process. This paper examines a case study in which a local Colorado health department implemented a successful public participation process in order to positively affect the remediation decision-making process.

Enrichment of the Phenotypic and Genotypic Data Warehouse analysis using Question Answering systems to facilitate the decision making process in cereal breeding programs

Currently there are an overwhelming number of scientific publications in Life Sciences, especially in Genetics and Biotechnology. This huge amount of information is structured in corporate Data Warehouses (DW) or in Biological Databases (e.g. UniProt, RCSB Protein Data Bank, CEREALAB or GenBank), whose main drawback is its cost of updating that makes it obsolete easily. However, these Databases are the main tool for enterprises when they want to update their internal information, for example when a plant breeder enterprise needs to enrich its genetic information (internal structured Database) with recently discovered genes related to specific phenotypic traits (external unstructured data) in order to choose the desired parentals for breeding programs. In this paper, we propose to complement the internal information with external data from the Web using Question Answering (QA) techniques. We go a step further by providing a complete framework for integrating unstructured and structured information by combining traditional Databases and DW architectures with QA systems. The great advantage of our framework is that decision makers can compare instantaneously internal data with external data from competitors, thereby allowing taking quick strategic decisions based on richer data.

The Contribution of Structured Activity and Deliberate Play to the Development of Expert Perceptual and Decision-Making Skill

The developmental histories of 32 players in the Australian Football League (AFL), independently classified as either expert or less skilled in their perceptual and decision- making skills, were collected through a structured interview process and their year-on-year involvement in structured and deliberate play activities retrospectively determined. Despite being drawn from the same elite level of competition, the expert decision-makers differed from the less skilled in having accrued, during their developing years, more hours of experience in structured activities of all types, in structured activities in invasion-type sports, in invasion-type deliberate play, and in invasion activities from sports other than Australian football. Accumulated hours invested in invasion-type activities differentiated between the groups, suggesting that it is the amount of invasion-type activity that is experienced and not necessarily intent (skill development or fun) or specificity that facilitates the development of perceptual and decision-making expertise in this team sport.

The relief of Vienna in vain. Assessing the Implications of Turkish EU-membership for Council of Ministers’ Decision-making. IES WORKING PAPER 1/2011

This research forecasts the implications of Turkish membership for decision-making effectiveness and dynamics within the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU). Effectiveness is determined in this research by 'passage probability': the chance that a random proposal as put forth by the European Commission (EC) is accepted by the Council of Ministers. Dynamics are determined by means of the Shapley-Shubik Index (SSI), which plots power values of individual member states by forecasting a number of possible EU enlargement scenarios. This study falsifies earlier research by Baldwin and Widgrén.1 It finds that the implications of Turkish EU-membership for EU decision-making efficiency are ambiguous and depend on the number of other candidate states entering the EU alongside Turkey, as well as the timeslot - 2014 or 2020 - at which the accession would take place. Moreover, this study asserts that Turkish EU-accession would result in unequal- but generally negative - power changes among other EU member states, although member states with similar demographic weight will experience comparable changes. Finally, it appears that the larger a EU member state is, the more power it loses if Turkey would join the EU.

Looking beneath the Surface: Differences in Decision-Making Structures across Processes

The previous chapter presented the overall decision-making structure in Swiss politics at the beginning of the 21st century. This provides us with a general picture and allows for a comparison over time with the decision-making structure in the 1970s. However, the analysis of the overall decision-making structure potentially neglects important differences between policy domains (Atkinson and Coleman 1989; Knoke et al. 1996; Kriesi et al. 2006a; Sabatier 1987). Policy issues vary across policy domains, as do the political actors involved. In addition, actors may hold different policy preferences from one policy domain to the next, and they may also collaborate with other partners depending on the policy domain at stake. Examining differences between policy domains is particularly appropriate in Switzerland. Because no fixed coalitions of government and opposition exist, actors create different coalitions in each policy domain (Linder and Schwarz 2008). Whereas important parts of the institutional setting are similar across policy domains, decision-making structures might still vary. As was the case with the cross-time analysis conducted in the two previous chapters, a stability of 'rules-in-form' might hide important variations in 'rules-in-use' also across different policy domains.

Reactive, Slow and...Innovative? Decision-making Structures and Policy Outputs

Consensus democracies like Switzerland are generally known to have a low innovation capacity (Lijphart 1999). This is due to the high number of veto points such as perfect bicameralism or the popular referendum. These institutions provide actors opposing a policy with several opportunities to block potential policy change (Immergut 1990; Tsebelis 2002). In order to avoid a failure of a process because opposing actors activate veto points, decision-making processes in Switzerland tend to integrate a large number of actors with different - and often diverging - preferences (Kriesi and Trechsel 2008). Including a variety of actors in a decision-making process and taking into account their preferences implies important trade-offs. Integrating a large number of actors and accommodating their preferences takes time and carries the risk of resulting in lowest common denominator solutions. On the contrary, major innovative reforms usually fail or come only as a result of strong external pressures from either the international environment, economic turmoil or the public (Kriesi 1980: 635f.; Kriesi and Trechsel 2008; Sciarini 1994). Standard decision-making processes are therefore characterized as reactive, slow and capable of only marginal adjustments (Kriesi 1980; Kriesi and Trechsel 2008; Linder 2009; Sciarini 2006). This, in turn, may be at odds with the rapid developments of international politics, the flexibility of the private sector, or the speed of technological development.