Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 811–826 | Cite as

Experimental Use of Strategic Choice Approach (SCA) by Individuals as an Architectural Design Tool

  • Elena TodellaEmail author
  • Isabella Maria Lami
  • Alessandro Armando


The paper proposes the use of the Strategic Choice Approach as a way of structuring the architectural design process, done by individuals and partly supported by meetings and interviews with DMs, experts, and stakeholders. The aim is to stimulate a debate around the use of SCA and its possible merging with architectural design, also analysing how the micro-processes involved in this merging can work in practice. We reflect on the possible use of SCA to determine prescriptive conditions on physical form at a scale that is still intermediate between the single building and the urban tissue: the method is employed as a design tool to provide alternative transformation scenarios. It represents a way of approaching the challenge of planning in an uncertain world, eliciting guidelines and strategies, and furthermore it produces an architectural project or transformation in a physical sense. Moreover, by investigating what occurs during the different micro-processes with the interviewees, we focus on some behavioural issues and effects, in relation to the context, the models of the application and the different entities involved in the interventions. This proposal shows an application to a real-world problem, currently under debate by the City of Turin (Italy), the re-use of abandoned barracks located in a prestigious residential area.


Strategic Choice Approach Architectural design Decision processes 


  1. Ackerman F, Eden C (2005) Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis Negot 14:355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Strategic management of stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Plan 44:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrechts L, Balducci A (2013) Practicing strategic planning: in search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plan. Plan Rev 49(3):16–27Google Scholar
  4. Armando A, Durbiano G (2017) Teoria del progetto architettonico. Dai disegni agli effetti, Carocci, RomaGoogle Scholar
  5. Armando A, Bonino M, Frassoldati F (2015) Watersheds. A narrative of urban recycle. Sandu Publishing Co, GuangzhouGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho D, Antunes CH, Martins AG (2010) Using SSM for structuring decision support in urban energy planning. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eden C, Jones S, Sims D, Smithin T (1981) The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. J Manag Stud 18(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faludi A (2000) The performance of spatial planning. Plan Pract Res 15(4):299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faludi A, van der Valk A (1994) Rule and order: Dutch planning doctrine in the twentieth century. Geo J Libr 28:105Google Scholar
  10. Ferraris M (2009) Documentalità. Perché è necessario lasciar tracce, Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  11. Franco LA (2006) Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development. J Oper Res Soc 57:813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fregonara E, Curto R, Grosso M, Mellano P, Rolando D, Tulliani JM (2013) Environmental technology, materials science, architectural design, and real estate market evaluation: a multidisciplinary approach for energy-efficient buildings. J Urb Technol 20:57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friend JK (1993) Planning in the presence of uncertainty: principles and practice. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng 476:1–9Google Scholar
  15. Friend J, Hickling A (1987) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 1st edn. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Giangrande A, Mortola E (2005) Neighbourhood renewal in Rome. Combining strategic choice with other design methods. In: Friend J, Hickling A (eds) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 322–326Google Scholar
  18. Hämäläinen RP, Luoma J, Saarinen E (2013) On the importance of behavioural operational research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 228(3):623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour B (1988) Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour B (2013) Cogitamus. Sei lettere sull’umanesimo scientifico, Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Mastop H, Faludi A (1997) Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle. Environ Plan 24:815–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mingers J (2003) A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. J Oper Res Soc 54(6):559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mingers J (2011) Soft OR comes of age—but not everywhere!. Omega. Int J Manag Sci 39:729–741Google Scholar
  25. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2001) Diverse unity: Looking inward and outward. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  26. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Keefe R (2016) Experimental behavioural research in operational research: what we know and what we might come to know. Eur J Oper Res 249:899–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tavella E, Lami IM (2018) Negotiating perspectives and values through soft OR in the context of urban renewal. J Oper Res Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. White L (2006a) Evaluating problem structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. J Oper Res Soc 57:842–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. White L (2006b) Aesthetics in OR/systems practice: towards a concept of critical imagination as a challenge to systems thinking. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(6):779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. White L (2016) Behavioural operational research: towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. Eur J Oper Res 249:827–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yaneva A (2009) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. 010 Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Yaneva A (2012) Mapping controversies in architecture. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Architecture and Design DepartmentPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and PlanningPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations