Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Incorporating User Values into Housing Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-QFD Model

Vahid Moghimi, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusan, Payam Izadpanahi, Jamaleddin Mahdinejad

www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII:DOI:Reference:

S2352-7102(16)30153-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.012 JOBE202

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering

Received date: 23 August 2016Revised date:12 November 2016Accepted date: 15 November 2016

Cite this article as: Vahid Moghimi, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusan, Payam Izadpanahi and Jamaleddin Mahdinejad, Incorporating User Values into Housin Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-QFD Model, Journal o Building Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.012

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted fo publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version o the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, an review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered whic could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain

Incorporating User Values into Housing Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-

QFD Model

Vahid Moghimia,*, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusana, Payam Izadpanahib, Jamaleddin

Mahdinejadc aDepartment of Architecture, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor

Bahru, Malaysia bDepartment of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan, Isfahan,

Iran cDepartment of Architecture, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran. *Corresponding author. vmoghimi1@gmail.com

Abstract

This study aims to incorporate user values into housing design. Incorporating user values is

essential for developing quality housing. Data was gathered in three stages using the Means-End

Chain and Quality Function Deployment models. To identify the factors that create values, the

MEC model was conducted using soft laddering interviews with 15 apartment occupants in

Bushehr, Iran. Next, weight assessments were done for value creators. With data from the first

phase, a hard laddering questionnaire survey of MEC was created and distributed among 150

respondents. Nine architects developed design strategies in a focus group discussion to establish

the House of Quality of QFD based on responses. The developed strategies involved four main

categories including Building Organizational Emphasis, Interior Design Emphasis, Exterior

Design Emphasis, and Indoor Environmental Emphasis. The combination of MEC and QFD

facilitates indirect user participation and fulfills person environment congruence.

Keywords

Incorporating user values; Quality housing; User participation; Means-end chain; Quality

Function Deployment

1. Introduction

The issue of translating end user values into their living environment is a universal

concern. This is because end user values play a fundamental role in delivering quality housing.

Åslund and Bäckström (2015) maintained that quality improvements are achieved based on the

creation of value for end-users. Cockton (2004) believed that quality in use and fit to context is

insufficient, and that design should be broadened to include the concept of value as the ultimate

goal. Efforts to enhance quality should focus on closing the gap between internal production

quality and external consumer values. Closing this gap means translating quality aspects through

the value chain (Schauerte, 2013). Evidence suggests that the creation of superior value for users

is an effective instrument for business success (Boztepe, 2007). Design practice, design thinking,

and users are beneficial for value creation (Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009; Leavy,

2010). The quality of mass-produced housing in Iran is negatively affected by the disparity

between housing design and occupant values, along with a lack of user participation in housing

development (Asadi and Tahir, 2012; Berahman et al., 2013).

In Iran, qualitative housing design issues are of great concern. These issues stem from a

disparity between housing design and occupant lifestyle and values. This is considered part of

the recently acknowledged “crisis of identity” which is a major concern experienced by various

groups in Iran (Shojai and Mori, 2012). To create suitable design solutions, designers have to

refrain from foisting their values upon end-users (Siu, 2003). This is because architects and users

have different values and perceptions of built environments (Gibson, 1979; Moore, 1979).

Architects usually design mass produced houses without end-user inputs, thereby disregarding

the values of end-users. A failure to incorporate social aspects and user values has negative

effects on residents (Abbaszadeh et al., 2009). Users play a key role in value creation (Kujala

and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009). The unsuccessful identification and incorporation of user

needs and user activity patterns results in inferior systems that do not have much value. Existing

issues in produced houses originate from incongruities between the values of designers and users

(Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011).

Several authors discussed the significance of values in housing (Hentschke et al., 2014;

Jansen, 2014; Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011). In recent years, there has been increased interest

in the incorporation and translation of user values into housing design (Boztepe, 2007; Edman,

2010; Flanagan et al., 2008; Jensen and Maslesa, 2015; Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,

2009; Van de Poel, 2013; Van den Hoven, 2007). This is because value creation is an important

factor in quality design for end users (Moghimi et al., 2016). Establishing optimum

psychological congruence between users and their built environment is crucial (Sime, 1986).

Place making is shifting away from the geometric design of spaces towards a more

comprehensive consideration of user perceptions and behaviours within physical settings

(Mourshed and Zhao, 2012). Since uncertainty still exists regarding strategies for incorporating

user values into housing design, it is necessary to examine how designers deliver user values in

the form of quality housing. Research is required to develop design practice tools that enable

designers to actively enhance value creation. This study aims to translate and incorporate user

values into housing design. Two models, MEC and QFD in three sequential stages were

combined to accomplish the objectives of this study.

2. Incorporating User Values through Indirect User Participatory Design Process

User participation is essential for the development of sustainable housing (Gustavsson

and Elander, 2016). Effective user participation fosters project sustainability (Kaatz et al., 2005).

Creating suitable design solutions requires user participation (Aguwa et al., 2012). User

participation is a process which gives opportunities to both designers and users to express their

ideas (Luck, 2012). It facilitates user involvement in essential design decisions, helping them

express their needs in their desired living environment (Lee and Li, 2011). It may occur in the

planning phase, the design phase, construction, or the evaluation phase (Saleh, 2006). User

involvement not only helps designers to meet user values, it is also important during the

construction phase because it prevents unnecessary modifications after occupancy (Jusan, 2010).

Keinonen (2009) identifies three types of user participation: inactive, reactive, and

proactive. Saleh (2011) divides participation levels into five categories depending on architect

control or user requirements. The first level is “non-participating”, where the architect is the

main controller of the project. The second level is “low level”, where user participation is

insignificant. The third level is “equally-balanced level”, in which the opinion of the user is

equal to the opinion of the architect. The fourth level is “high level”, in which the architect is

only there to guide and to advise the user. The fifth level is “top level”, where the role of the

architect disappears and the user is the main controller of the project.

In spite of the significance of user participation, a lack of user participation in housing

development is typical in Asian countries (Lee and Li, 2011). For most Iranians, the designs of

their dwellings are far from their ideal conditions (Berahman et al., 2013). The problem is that

existing approaches that involve user participation are not applicable or are difficult to conduct

within current mass housing production. There is a need for an Indirect User Participatory

Design Process (IUPDP) to accommodate user participation in the current process of housing

design and delivery. The nature of user values influences design solutions. IUPDP refers to the

identification, structuring, analysis, rationalization, and translation of user values into relevant

design attributes. It was developed to formulate a method for processing indirect user

participation and translating user values into housing design. Figure 1 shows a representation of

IUPDP, which shows the work process divided into mechanisms, phases, and participants. The

boxes in the middle show the phases. Mechanisms are on the left side and participants are on the

right side and they specify research approaches and participants, respectively. The arrows

leading into the boxes represent inputs while the arrows leading out from the boxes represent

outputs. Inputs are converted into outputs throughout each phase.

Mechanisms Phases Participants

Users’ Perception

Soft

Defining Value Creators

Laddering

List of Value Creators asthe Quality aspects of

Dwelling Design

Hard Weight Assessment of

Users

Laddering Value Chains

Priority of ValueCreators according to

their significance

Quality Function

Translating Value

Creators into Housing Designers

Deployment

Design

Design Attributes

Figure 1: Indirect User Participatory Design Process (IUPDP)

Translating user values enhances the quality of a housing environment and makes indirect

user participation possible. QFD is a major tool used in the indirect participatory design process

and the incorporation of user values. It is a model that forms links between people and the

housing industry. The HoQ of QFD was used to develop design attributes based on customer

voices. The process of translating user values through indirect participation was done by

examining value creators and conceptualizing design attributes. MEC and soft laddering were the

mechanisms used to identify factors that create value for future occupants. The second phase of

this process involves the weight assessment of value creators for further analysis. Measuring the

importance of identified requirements is the second step in establishing the HoQ of QFD.

Although the data obtained from MEC and soft laddering is ranked according to their level of

significance, the ranking is only based on an ordinal scale and the distance of differences

between the weights of elements are unclear. To overcome these weaknesses and prepare the

data for QFD, a hard laddering approach for the MEC model using Association Weight Matrices

(AWM) was adopted. This stage targeted housing occupants as the sample population. After

defining value creators and prioritizing them according to their weight of importance, the data

was transferred into HoQ of QFD. Using this mechanism, designers developed the necessary

design considerations for incorporating user values.

MEC-QFD makes indirect user participation possible. Designers represent users using

user information. The development of design strategies based on identified needs and concerns

contributes to indirect user participation, allowing users to meet their desired values. It also

decreases the existing gap between users, designers, and the housing industry.

2.1 MEC

MEC is a model that details how user values are fulfilled by services or products

(Gutman, 1982). It is a model that draws a connection between conscious user choices, and the

attributes that contribute to achieving values (Lagerkvist et al., 2012). By asking questions like

“Why is that important to you?”, laddering describes the relationships between attributes,

consequences, and values (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Means-end chains or laddering refers

to the links between attributes, consequences, and values. Studies that have adopted the laddering

technique used “soft” or “hard” laddering techniques (Voss et al., 2007). Attributes are known as

the characteristics or properties of the goods, services or performances that customers desire or

pursue (Jung and Kang, 2010). Consequences refer to what the product provides or does to the

customers at a psychosocial or functional level (Ter Hofstede et al., 1998). Valette-Florence and

Rapacchi (1991) believe that personal values are a part of life that provide guidance. Schwartz

(1994) defines values as “desirable goals, varying in importance which provide

guiding principles in people’s lives”. MEC has been used by several housing studies (Alaraji and

Jusan, 2015; Bako and Jusan, 2012; Coolen and Hoekstra, 2001; Hentschke et al., 2014; Jusan,

2010; Lundgren and Lic, 2010).

2.2 QFD

Quality Function Deployment is an accepted tool used to design customer-driven

products (Gremyr and Raharjo, 2013). Akao (2004) explains QFD as “a method which

establishes a design quality through translating customers’ demands into design attributes and

also important quality assurances to be used throughout the production process”. This method

transfers expected desires into quality characteristics and creates systematic development using

the relationships between customer needs and technical characteristics (Ictenbas and Eryilmaz,

2011; Lee et al., 2000). To practice QFD, the House of Quality (HoQ) must be established. The

HoQ provides product-design factors and their associations, namely customer needs and their

importance, design attributes, the relationship between customer needs and design attributes, and

correlations between design attributes (Chen et al., 2013). HoQ is made up of an expected quality

chart combined with a quality attributes deployment chart (Akao, 2004). HoQ demonstrates how

engineering characteristics meet customer requirements (Li et al., 2014). It has seven

components (Liao and Kao, 2014). To establish HoQ, the components must be fulfilled in their

numerical order of 1 to 7 (Figure 2). Room 1 is considered to contain customer needs and

requirements. Room 2 presents the relative importance of these requirements. Room 3 has

information required to transform customer needs into technical characteristics. The correlation

between the formulated technical characteristics is depicted in room 4, whereas the correlation

between each of the customer’s wants and each technical characteristic is in room 5. Rooms 6

and 7 have the importance weights and a prioritized level of quality improvements to be made

(Haron et al., 2015).

Correlation Matrix(4)

Design Attributes(3)

Customers’ Needs

Relationship Matrix Customers’

(5) Evaluation

(1)

(2)

Importance Weight

(6)

Prioritized Level of Quality

Improvement

(7)

Figure 2: House of Quality (HoQ)

3. Research Methodology

The process of incorporating user values into the housing design process is done by

identifying the factors that create user values and translating them into proper housing design

attributes. For this purpose, two models, MEC and QFD, were combined.

3.1 Probing Value Creators

QFD is a major tool for developing the necessary design attributes for value

incorporation. According to QFD methodology, identifying the voice of the customer is the first

step. In this study, MEC and soft laddering were adopted to probe users for factors that create

value. The first phase of this study used a modified version of the laddering approach as

suggested by Coolen and Hoekstra (2001). Identifying value creators residing in the

consequences zone was followed by exploring both values and attributes. By adopting soft

laddering interviews, user perceptions of essential functions, purposes, and characteristics

leading to user values were examined. To accomplish this objective, three types of questions

including “What”, “How” and “Why” were adopted in a sequential manner. “What” questions

aimed to determine expected factors. “How” questions tried to ascertain housing attributes that

satisfy identified expectations. This process was continued by asking “Why” questions to

determine the details behind the importance of these desired key factors. Data was analysed

based on the MEC model using a content analysis tool. Through a purposive sampling, 15 mass

apartment dwellers were individually interviewed.

3.2 Weight Assessment of Value creators

Conducting the hard laddering technique utilizing association weight matrices starts by

obtaining ladders, constructing association matrices, constructing aggregate association matrices,

constructing hierarchical value maps, and determining value weights and dominant ladders

(Chiu, 2005). In this study, the ladders acquired in the first phase were used to construct an

Attributes-Consequences (AC) and Consequences-Values (CV) association weight matrix

questionnaire. This provided two tables made up of Attributes-Consequences and Consequences-

Values. In order to establish aggregate association matrices, respondents were asked to determine

the association strengths between Attributes-Consequences and Consequences-Values. This was

done by using a 10-point scale ranging from (1) “not associated” and (10) “strongly associated”.

In addition, respondents were required to specify the perceived importance of each attribute and

consequence through the 10-point scale. For the hard laddering technique, respondents were

selected using convenience sampling. Data were gathered from 150 housing occupants. 124

questionnaires were filled correctly, indicating a response rate of 83%.

3.3 Incorporating User Values into Housing Design

The necessary design attributes for incorporating user values were established using the

HoQ of QFD through conducting a structured focus group discussion. According to Wilson

(2014), a focus group session is run with five to twelve people. Based on the data obtained from

“Bushehr Construction Engineering Organization”, architects who work in mass housing

production were contacted. Nine of the contacted architects replied, which was enough to

conduct this study. Identified value creators were considered as the “voice of customer” for QFD

applications. The participants were asked to suggest relevant design strategies to fulfil the voice

of customer. Participants were required to specify association strengths between design strategies

and value creators. The relationship matrix was established based on four levels of 9, 6, 3 or 1

points. Empty cells depict no association between value creators and design strategies.

Establishing the relationship chart between value creators and design strategies was followed by

calculating the importance and relative weight of design strategies. Using an independent scoring

method, the Degree of Importance (DI) of user expectations was converted into Importance

Weights (IW) and the Relative Weights (RW) for housing design strategies. The IW and RW

were computed as follows:

∑∑ ∑

4. Results

Data was collected from three different groups of participants as described in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristic of Respondents

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3Demographic Items Frequency Frequency Percentage FrequencyGender

Male 8 61 49 8Female 7 63 51 1Total 15 124 100 9

Marital statusSingle 8 50 40 5Married 7 70 57 4Widow - 1 1 -Divorced - 3 2 -Total 15 124 100 9

Age20-30 7 69 56 731-40 6 36 29 241-50 2 15 12 -51-60 - 2 1 -Over 60 - 2 2 -Total 15 124 100 9

Level of educationLess than diploma - - - -Diploma level - 12 10 -Bachelor degree 10 67 54 3Master degree 5 44 35 6PhD degree - 1 1 -Total 15 124 100 9

Household Monthly IncomeLess than 335 $ 7 45 36 -Between 335 $ to 670 $ - 43 35 -Between 670 $ RM to 1000 $ 3 21 17 -Between 1000 $ to 1335 $ 2 9 7 -More than 1335 $ 3 6 5 -Total 15 124 100 -

Work ExperienceLess than 5 years - - - 1Between 5 to 7 years - - - 3Between 8 to 10 years - - - 4Between 11 to 13 years - - - 1More than 13 years - - - -Total - - - 9

4.1 Identification of Value Creators

Identifying value creators through the use of MEC model utilizing soft laddering

interviews demonstrated that the concept of value creators has both functional and psychological

aspects. These include environmental awareness, spaciousness, pleasant environment, privacy,

beauty, comfort, healthy environment, order, vitality, integrity and intimacy of the family,

efficiency, safe environment, and saving resources. The perception of value creators is

influenced by family security, achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, self-direction,

and stimulation.

Table 2: Elements of Value Chains

Elements of Value Chains Variable NameAttributes Proper dimension of housing spaces

FurnitureArticulating Open and Closed SpaceWindowsInterior finishing materialsSeparation between public and private spacesFamily togetherness spotSpace coloursPosition of space accessibilityNature

Consequences Pleasant environmentVitalityHealthy EnvironmentComfortPrivacySaving resourcesSpaciousnessOrderEnvironmental awarenessEfficiencyIntegrity and intimacy of the familyBeautySafe environment

Values Self-directionStimulationHedonismAchievementFamily securityConformityBenevolence

4.2 Weight Assessment of Value creators

The identification of value creators was followed by measuring the weight of value chains. Table

3 shows the importance weight of value creators.

Table 3: Weight assessment of value creators

Value Creators Degree ofImportance

Saving resources 0.51Beauty 0.57Spaciousness 0.57Environmental awareness 0.59Order 0.64Privacy 0.65Efficiency 0.67Pleasant environment 0.67Safe Environment 0.71Intimacy and integrity of the family 0.72Vitality 0.73Comfort 0.78Healthy environment 0.78

4.3 Identifying Design Attributes for Value Incorporation

The developed strategies aimed to fulfil 13 quality factors known as value creators. As

shown by the HoQ matrix (Figure 3), these strategies are divided into four main categories of

design emphasis. Based on the cumulative percentage of the main categories of necessary

housing attributes, “Building organizational emphasis” has the highest degree of importance

(34%), followed by “Interior design emphasis” (29%), “Exterior design emphasis” (20%), and

“Indoor environmental emphasis” (17%).

As Figure 3 demonstrates, “Having audio-visual contact with the outside of the housing

unit”, with the relative weight of 6.38%, is the design strategy with the greatest influence on the

perception of spaciousness, environmental awareness, creation of safe as well as pleasant

environment, human vitality, privacy and comfort. At the relation level of 6 points, it impacts

resource saving and efficiency.

The second most influential design strategy included “Sufficiency of daylight distribution

in interior spaces” with the relative weight of 5.83%. At the relation level of 9 points, this

attribute plays an essential role in saving resources, perception of spaciousness, environmental

awareness, creation of pleasant as well as safe environment and occupant vitality. Daylight

distribution beautifies housing environments and creates safe environments at the relation level

of 6 points. The significance of “Appropriate Lighting” was less than daylight distribution. At

the highest relation level between design attributes and users’ requirements, this attribute with

the relative weight of 4.99% has a great impact on the similar users’ requirements satisfied by

daylight distribution excluding saving resources, and instead of that it has a noticeable role in

beautification of living environments.

The relative weight of “Adequacy of spatial layout size and proportions according to the

human needs” was 5.7%. At the highest level of relation, adequate size affects the occupants’

perception of spacious spaces and beautiful environments. Adequate size and proportion has a

significant role in efficiency of housing, creation of pleasant environment, dweller vitality and

comfort. At the relation level of 6 points, this attribute impacts integrity and intimacy of the

family.

At the highest relation level, while “Housing Private Spaces” with the relative importance

weight of 5.41% is related to protecting occupant privacy, enhancing occupant efficiency,

creating safe as well as pleasant environment, occupant vitality and comfort, “Housing Public

Spaces” with the relative weight of 4.73% impacts the perception of spaciousness, creation of

pleasant environment and enhancing integrity and intimacy of the family members. The relative

weight of “Separation between public, semi-public and private spaces” is not as significant as the

attributes of private and public space. This attribute has the relative weight of 5.01% and

influences order of housing environment, occupant privacy as well as efficiency, creation of a

pleasant environment and resident comfort at the most significant level.

“Access priority consideration in the spatial layout designing” has the relative weight of

5.32%. At the relation level of 9 points, it influences the order of housing spaces. It also plays a

noticeable role in protecting occupant privacy, comfort, efficiency and creation of safe and

pleasant environment.

“Interior Finishing Materials” possessing the relative weight of 5.24% has significant role

in occupants vitality, resource saving, beautification of living environments, promoting

environmental awareness, creation of pleasant and healthy environments.

“Adequacy of Natural ventilation and air circulation” having the relative weight of 4.25%

is related to saving resources, efficiency, creation of pleasant environment, and occupants vitality

and comfort at the highest relation level. The participated designers perceived that proper

furniture arrangements with the relative weight of 4.21% has significant impact on beautification

of housing environments, perception of spaciousness, order of housing environment, and

integrity and intimacy of the family.

At the relation level of 9 points, “Providing occupants with pleasant view of the

surrounding environment” with the relative weight of 4% has effects on the perception of beauty,

environmental awareness and occupant vitality. Designers believed that considering diversity of

spaces affects experiencing pleasant environments and occupant vitality at the relation level of 9

points.

At the highest relation level, “Adjacency of complementary spaces in terms of functional

aspects” with the relative weight of 3.69% has impacts on order of housing environment,

dwelling efficiency, creation of pleasant environment and resident comfort. “Coherent

interrelations between housing spaces” possessing the relative weight of 3.61% impacts the same

users’ requirements influenced by “Adjacency of complementary spaces in terms of functional

aspects” excluding efficiency.

These results highlight the most influential design strategies and their relation with the

users’ requirements. These results provide designers with a priority list of the most effective

design strategies.

Build

ing

Org

aniza

tiona

l Em

phas

isIn

terio

r Des

ign

Emph

asis

Ind

oor E

nviro

nmen

tal E

mph

asis

Exte

rior D

esig

n Em

phas

is

semi-public and private spaces

Separation between public,consideration in the spatial layout designing

Access priority

Well-designed spatial layout circulation

spaces in terms of functional aspectsAdjacency of complementary

spacesCoherent interrelations between housing

Housing private spaces

Housing semi-public spaces

Housing public spaces

view of the surrounding environmentProviding occupants with pleasant

circulationAdequacy of Natural ventilation and air

Air Conditioning

distribution in interior spacesSufficiency of daylight

Well-designed furniture arrangements

of building components in the spacesQuality and functional performance

Appropriate Lighting

fulfill aesthetical and functional aspectsAdopting interior finishing materials to

Diversity of housing spaces

proportions according to the human needsAdequacy of spatial layout size and

with the outside off the housing unitsHaving audio-visual contact

Façade attributes performance

fulfill aesthetical and functional aspectsAdopting facade finishing materials to

aspects in designing building formConsideration of aesthetical and functional

buildingDesigning Proper volume proportions of

surrounding environmentHarmonization of buildings with the

Degree of Importance

3 3 9 9 9 9 6 9 6 9542

.5.

01

6 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6445

.5.

32

1 6 3 6 6 6 9 1 9 1 31.8

53.

71

3 6 1 9 1 9 9 9 1 6931

.3.

69

1 3 1 9 6 6 9 1 9 1 9330

.3.

61

3 6 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 3 46.3

75.

41

3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 18.9

92.

21

3 9 3 6 1 6 9 6 9 3 3 3 6040

.4.

73

9 6 9 1 6 3 1 6 9 3 34.3

34.

00

9 3 9 9 3 9 9 3 4536

.4.

25

6 9 3 3 9 9 28.3

93.

31

9 6 9 9 1 1 3 9 6 3 9 9 3 0450

.5.

83

1 9 9 1 9 1 6 3 1 9 3 3 1 36.1

24.

21

6 3 3 1 9 3 9 9 3 3 9 6 3 44.6

05.

20

9 9 3 1 3 9 9 3 9 6 3 42.8

34.

99

9 9 1 9 1 3 3 9 3 1 9 3 9 9844

.5.

24

3 6 3 3 6 9 3 3 9 3 1 32.8

93.

83

3 9 9 1 3 3 9 9 3 6 9 9 1 48.9

35.

70

6 3 9 9 1 9 6 9 9 1 9 9 3 7054

.6.

38

6 6 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 1 27.2

43.

18

9 9 3 9 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3032

.3.

77

3 9 3 6 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3319

.2.

25

1 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 7612

.1.

49

1 9 9 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 8622

.2.

66

0.51

0.57

570.

590.

0.64

0.65

0.67

670.

710.

720.

730.

0.78

780.

Impo

rtan

ce W

eigh

t

Savi

ng re

sour

ces

Beau

tySp

acio

usne

ss

Envir

onme

ntalaw

arene

ss

Orde

r

Priv

acy

Effici

ency

Pleasa

ntenv

ironm

ent

Safe

env

ironm

ent

Inte

grity

and

intim

acy

of th

e

fam

ilyVi

talit

y

Com

fort

Healt

hyen

viron

ment

Perc

ent

Users' Requirements

Figure 3 : House of Quality (HoQ) Matrix

5. Discussion

The most important strategy for meeting user values involves experiencing audio-visual

contacts from outside the housing unit. Multiple suggested strategies were satisfied by utilizing

relevant building components. “Having audio-visual contact with outside from the housing

units”, “Sufficiency of daylight distribution in interior spaces”, “Adequate natural ventilation and

air circulation”, and “Providing occupants with pleasant view of the surrounding environment”

were all satisfied by a proper consideration of building components connecting the housing unit

with the outside world. It is crucial to adopt the most effective attributes of relevant building

components to improve strategy effectiveness. Attributes related to dimension, position, and

orientation play a major role in improving functional performance.

Connecting indoor and outdoor environment prevents the perception of cramped spaces

and creates a sense of spaciousness. “Adequacy of natural ventilation” and “Sufficiency of

daylight distribution” create a pleasant environment that supports human comfort, physiological

well-being, and psychological well-being. Studies show that occupants are better off when they

have access to natural lighting and natural views (Charnofsky, 2012). Kaplan (1995) showed that

viewing nature through a window decreases frustration, improves physical and psychological

health, and increases satisfaction. Environmental awareness influences psychological senses and

human vitality. Natural environments bring about positive changes in emotional states and

reduce negative moods. These positive changes in emotional states are essential for recovery

from psycho-physiological stress (Ulrich et al., 1991). According to a recent study, human

vitality is directly associated with exposure to nature (Capaldi et al., 2014). The connection

between man and nature improves vitality and comfort. The type and quality of a view also

influences dweller physical and psychological comfort (Aries et al., 2010). All these positive

factors are accomplished by incorporating windows that provide adequate sunlight, natural

ventilation, and a good view of nature (Korkut et al., 2010). Improper consideration of these

relevant attributes has a negative impact on privacy.

The third most important strategy for meeting user values involves the provision of

adequate space. Stamps (2008) views sufficient space as a vital human need. The results of this

study match the findings of Kowaltowski and Granja (2011), who determined that adequate

space is an important housing design value. Franklin (2001) identified adequate space as an

indicator of quality. Alaraji and Jusan (2015) found that attributes for spatial improvement and

the provision of desired space are strategies for meeting occupant values.

Adequate space has a significant impact on the functional quality of a building.

Functional quality is related to the usability of housing spaces and includes the degree that

spaces are well designed for intended activities. Desired space makes housing environments

more effective. Space efficiency is a factor which affects housing preference decision-making

(Moghimi and Jusan, 2015). One of the most important aspects of quality architecture involves

the concept of usability. Usability has three main dimensions, effectiveness, efficiency and

satisfaction (Alexander, 2008). The effectiveness of organization of spaces regarding the

usability of the living environment is what defines efficiency. The efficiency of a housing

environment refers to achieving occupant satisfaction through facilitating a wide range of desired

activities with minimum human effort and time. Spaciousness affects proximity, privacy, and

crowding. Accommodating desired space protects occupant privacy, prevents crowding,

increases comfort, and increases healthy social interactions (Carney, 2007).

Private, public, semi-public spaces and their separation are strategies for satisfying user

values. In this study, the significance of private spaces is far greater than public and semi-public

areas. Identifying housing spaces based on their degree of privacy is a principle attribute of

Iranian architecture (Shabani et al., 2011). Privacy refers to control over acoustical, visual,

olfactory, informational, and physical access. Private spaces that are separate from public and

semi-public areas prevent privacy invasions, improve housing design, and provide a safe and

pleasant environment. The comfort of these private spaces is related to the degree of privacy,

well-being, and convenience (Rybczynski and von Staa, 1996). Comfort is an influential factor

affecting individual performance (Chappells and Shove, 2004). Allowing occupants to control

social interactions is beneficial to social relationships. Control in this context refers to the ability

to change a space or restrict access. Sommer (1969) concluded that a failure to identify

boundaries and a lack of organization causes spatial disputes. When people do not feel in control

of what happens to them in a space, they become stressed, discouraged, and frustrated (Augustin,

2009). The identification of spaces that meets expectations for private, public and semi-public

areas is necessary.

Access consideration is an influential factor in housing design. The importance of access

is related to privacy. Access identifies an environment and each environment requires a specific

degree of privacy. Access is a spatial layout design strategy that improves occupant control over

social contacts and it is an important principle of Iranian architecture.

Interior finishing materials that fulfil aesthetical and functional needs are an important

strategy. Beautifying living environments, saving resources, creating hygienic environments, and

improving human vitality involve designer perceptions on interior finishing materials. Interior

finishing materials improve housing values (Lang and Nelson, 2007). Interior finishing materials

influence the aesthetics of a living environment (Bako and Jusan, 2012; Hentschke et al., 2014;

Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011). Interior finishing materials play a critical role in efficient

buildings. Efficiency involves the effectiveness of a wall in achieving maximum performance at

minimum cost with minimum maintenance requirements. The selection of a wall that is

functional, cost-effective, and easy to maintain is valuable (Lavy and Dixit, 2010). Proper

interior finishing materials can positively affect human efficiency and productivity because of its

physical and psychological effects (Rice et al., 2007). Pellegrini, et al. (1981) found that room

colours impact motor activity and emotional states in children. Another study found that colour

has a vital role in addressing the physiological and psychological functions of occupants (Jalil et

al., 2012; Shamsul et al., 2013). Housing spaces should utilize interior finishing materials with

attributes that fit the expected affordances of a particular space.

Satisfying user values in housing design necessitates a diversity of spaces. A diversity of

spaces makes a housing environment pleasant. Monotony in housing design is boring and

negatively impacts value. A house is composed of different spaces that are meant for different

functions. These spaces are used by a specific group of occupants at a particular time. It is

imperative that these places are properly located and support adjacent areas. Coherent

interrelations between housing spaces are critically important. These factors influence the

usability and functional quality of a building.

6. Conclusion

The goal of this study was to develop strategies for incorporating user values for

architectural applications in housing design though indirect user participation. Building

Organizational Emphasis, Interior Design Emphasis, Exterior Design Emphasis, and Indoor

Environmental Emphasis involved the required means for applying user values to dwelling

design. Incorporating user values into housing design is fundamental for delivering quality

housing and achieving person environment congruence. Applying user values to dwelling design

involves the consideration of human perceptions for their living environment, creating a value

oriented housing design.

Using QFD in housing development systematizes the process of developing design

attributes. Through systematic procedures, housing design considerations are developed based on

the perceived values of occupants. The outcome of HoQ ranks suggested design attributes

according to their importance. Based on this ranking, it is possible for designers to prioritize

design attributes that meet end-user values. Providing mass housing designers with a list of

priority-based approaches increases the chance of successful housing design. Prioritization of

requirements is necessary, but the least important strategies should not be neglected. This study

aims to guide designers in adopting effective and efficient strategies.

IUPDP using MEC-QFD facilitates an effective processing of indirect user participation

for incorporating user values. It is beneficial to users and designers in the construction process.

Although the process of user participation is indirect, the outcome is effective. IUPDP allows

users to explain their views on possible housing developments. It helps users make sure that their

expectations and requirements are well-defined at the initial stage of development, which leads

to the fulfillment of their values. These factors are used to check how well the performance and

compliance of developed concepts align with user expectations, ensuring the quality of provided

housing units. The encapsulation of important aspects in a solution-neutral format enables a

design team to formulate design solutions that meet user needs in innovative ways unconstrained

by initial design. Project risk is decreased by properly defining important aspects that accomplish

user values and resolve “downstream” problems in initial development. Through this approach,

the probability of missing user expectations was mitigated. Clarifying project requirements

enhances communication and teamwork. The large amount of repetition and duplication in the

conventional construction process is decreased, shortening project duration and decreasing costs.

This constitutes a mutually beneficial outcome where designers are sure that they have satisfied

occupants, and occupants secure housing that fulfills their values.

References

Abbaszadeh, S., Ibrahim, R., Baharuddin, M. N., and Salim, A. (2009). Identifying Persian Traditional Socio-Cultural Behaviors for Application in the Design of Modern High-Rise Residences. International Journal of Architectural Research, 121.

Aguwa, C. C., Monplaisir, L., and Turgut, O. (2012). Voice of the Customer: Customer Satisfaction Ratio Based Analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(11), 10112-10119.

Akao, Y. (2004). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into ProductDesign: Productivity Press.

Alaraji, K. A. M. H., and Jusan, M. B. M. (2015). Flexible House Attributes as Perceived by the End-Users. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(7), 18313-18324.

Alexander, K. (2008). Usability: Philosophy and Concepts. Usability of workplaces, Phase, 2.Aries, M. B. C., Veitch, J. A., and Newsham, G. R. (2010). Windows, View, and Office Characteristics

Predict Physical and Psychological Discomfort. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(4), 533-541.

Asadi, M., and Tahir, M. M. (2012). The Social Relationship of Contemporary Residants in Iranian Housing. e-BANGI, 7(1), 8.

Åslund, A., and Bäckström, I. (2015). Creation of Value to Society–a Process Map of the Societal Entrepreneurship Area. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(3-4), 385-399.

Augustin, S. (2009). Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture: John Wiley & Sons. Bako, Z. Z., and Jusan, M. M. (2012). Motivational Factors Influencing Housing Interior Finish Choice

and Preference. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 177-186.

Berahman, P., Memarzia, K., and Habib, F. (2013). Stages of Participation in the Dwelling Process-an Analytical Model of Iran. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(4).

Boztepe, S. (2007). Toward a Framework of Product Development for Global Markets: A User-Value-Based Approach. Design Studies, 28(5), 513-533.

Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., and Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The Relationship between Nature Connectedness and Happiness: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 5.

Carney, K. (2007). Affordable Housing: A Holistic Design Approach to the Domestic Environment.Washington State University.

Chappells, H., and Shove, E. (2004). Comfort: A Review of Philosophies and Paradigms.Charnofsky, L. (2012). The Interrelationship between Human Behavior and Sustainability in the Built

Environment. Kent State University.Chen, L.-H., Ko, W.-C., and Tseng, C.-Y. (2013). Fuzzy Approaches for Constructing House of Quality

in QFD and Its Applications: A Group Decision-Making Method. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 60(1), 77-87.

Chiu, C.-M. (2005). Applying Means-End Chain Theory to Eliciting System Requirements and Understanding Users Perceptual Orientations. Information & Management, 42(3), 455-468.

Cockton, G. (2004). From Quality in Use to Value in the World. Paper presented at the CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.

Coolen, H., and Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as Determinants of Preferences for Housing Attributes.Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(3-4), 285-306.

Edman, K. W. (2010). The Concept of Value in Design Practice–an Interview Study.Flanagan, M., Howe, D., and Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and

Practice. Information technology and moral philosophy, 322-353.Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing Quality And?

Good? Housing Design. Housing, Theory and Society, 18(1-2), 79-92. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Psychology Press.

Gremyr, I., and Raharjo, H. (2013). Quality Function Deployment in Healthcare: A Literature Review and Case Study. International journal of health care quality assurance, 26(2), 135-146.

Gustavsson, E., and Elander, I. (2016). Sustainability Potential of a Redevelopment Initiative in Swedish Public Housing: The Ambiguous Role of Residents’ Participation and Place Identity. Progress in Planning, 103, 1-25.

Gutman, J. (1982). A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes. The Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.

Haron, N. A., Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., and Wood, L. C. (2015). Quality Function Deployment Modelling to Enhance Industrialised Building System Adoption in Housing Projects. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(7-8), 703-718.

Hentschke, C. S., Formoso, C. T., Rocha, C. G., and Echeveste, M. E. S. (2014). A Method for Proposing Valued-Adding Attributes in Customized Housing. Sustainability, 6(12), 9244-9267.

Ictenbas, B. D., and Eryilmaz, H. (2011). Linking Employers’ Expectations with Teaching Methods:Quality Function Deployment Approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 568-572.

Jalil, N. A., Yunus, R. M., and Said, N. S. (2012). Environmental Colour Impact Upon Human Behaviour: A Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 54-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.062

Jansen, S. J. T. (2014). Different Values, Different Housing? Can Underlying Value Orientations Predict Residential Preference and Choice? Housing, Theory and Society, 31(3), 254-276.

Jensen, P. A., and Maslesa, E. (2015). Value Based Building Renovation – a Tool for Decision-Makingand Evaluation. Building and Environment, 92, 1-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.008

Jung, Y., and Kang, H. (2010). User Goals in Social Virtual Worlds: A Means-End Chain Approach.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 218-225.

Jusan, M. B. M. (2010). Means End Chain, Person Environment Congruence and Mass Housing Design.Open House International, 35(3), 76-86.

Kaatz, E., Root, D., and Bowen, P. (2005). Broadening Project Participation through a Modified Building Sustainability Assessment. Building research & information, 33(5), 441-454.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182.

Keinonen, T. (2009). Design Contribution Square. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), 142-148. Korkut, D. S., Dilik, T., Erdinler, E. S., Koc, K. H., and Kurtoglu, A. (2010). User Preferences and

Problems Encountered in the Selection of Housing Windows in Turkey. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(22), 3522-3528.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., and Granja, A. D. (2011). The Concept of Desired Value as a Stimulus for Change in Social Housing in Brazil. Habitat International, 35, 435-446.

Kujala, S., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2009). Value of Information Systems and Products: Understanding the Users' Perspective and Values. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 9(4), 4.

Lagerkvist, C. J., Ngigi, M., Okello, J. J., and Karanja, N. (2012). Means-End Chain Approach to Understanding Farmers' Motivations for Pesticide Use in Leafy Vegetables: The Case of Kale in Peri-Urban Nairobi, Kenya. Crop protection, 39, 72-80.

Lang, R. E., and Nelson, A. C. (2007). Boomburb Politics and the Rise of Private Government. Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), 627-634.

Lavy, S., and Dixit, M. (2010). Facility Managers’ Preferred Interior Wall Finishes in Acute-Care Hospital Buildings. Paper presented at the CIB, 18th CIB World Building Congress: Facilities management and maintenance. , Salford, United Kingdom.

Leavy, B. (2010). Design Thinking-a New Mental Model of Value Innovation. Strategy & leadership, 38(3), 5-14.

Lee, J.-H., and Li, T.-C. (2011). Supporting User Participation Design Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24(5), 850-865.

Lee, S. F., Lo, K. K., Leung, R. F., and Ko, A. S. O. (2000). Strategy Formulation Framework for Vocational Education: Integrating Swot Analysis, Balanced Scorecard, QFD Methodology and Mbnqa Education Criteria. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(8), 407-423.

Li, M., Jin, L., and Wang, J. (2014). A New MCDM Method Combining QFD with Topsis for Knowledge Management System Selection from the User's Perspective in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment. Applied soft computing, 21, 28-37.

Liao, C.-N., and Kao, H.-P. (2014). An Evaluation Approach to Logistics Service Using Fuzzy Theory, Quality Function Development and Goal Programming. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 68, 54-64.

Luck, R. (2012). Kinds of Seeing and Spatial Reasoning: Examining User Participation at anArchitectural Design Event. Design Studies, 33(6), 557-588. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.002

Lundgren, B. A., and Lic, T. (2010). Customers’ Perspectives on a Residential Development Using the Laddering Method. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1), 37-52.

Moghimi, V., and Jusan, M. B. M. (2015). Priority of Structural Housing Attribute Preferences: Identifying Customer Perception. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(1), 36-52.

Moghimi, V., Jusan, M. B. M., and Izadpanahi, P. (2016). Iranian Household Values and Perception with Respect to Housing Attributes. Habitat International, 56, 74-83.

Moore, G. T. (1979). Environment-Behavior Studies. Introduction to Architecture, McGraw-Hill. Mourshed, M., and Zhao, Y. (2012). Healthcare Providers' Perception of Design Factors Related to

Physical Environments in Hospitals. Journal of environmental psychology, 32(4), 362-370.

Pellegrini, R. J., Schauss, A. G., and Miller, M. E. (1981). Room Color and Aggression in a Criminal Detention Holding Cell: A Test of the “Tranquilizing Pink” Hypothesis. Journal of Othomolecular Psychiatry, 10, 174-181.

Reynolds, T. J., and Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and Interpretation. Journal of advertising research, 28(1), 11-31.

Rice, J., Kozak, R. A., Meitner, M. J., and Cohen, D. H. (2007). Appearance Wood Products and Psychological Well-Being. Wood and fiber science, 38(4), 644-659.

Rybczynski, W., and von Staa, B. (1996). Casa: Pequena História De Uma Idéia: Record.Saleh, A., Rafi, A., Woods, P., Senan, Z., and Marei, K. (2011). An Investigation of User Participation in

the Architectural Design Process in Palestine. Paper presented at the Research and Development (SCOReD), 2011 IEEE Student Conference on.

Saleh, A. M. A.-H. A. (2006). Participatory Design, Theory and Techniques (Evaluation of Al-Maageen Housing in Nablus). (Master Thesis), An-Najah National University, Palestine.

Schauerte, T. (2013). Identifying Product Attributes for Quality Function Deployment: Consumer Perceptions in the Case of Wooden Multi-Storey Houses. Pro Ligno, 9(4), 773-779.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of social issues, 50(4), 19-45.

Shabani, M. M., Tahir, M. M., Shabankareh, H., Arjmandi, H., and Mazaheri, F. (2011). Relation of Cultural and Social Attributes in Dwelling, Responding to Privacy in Iranian Traditional House. e-BANGI, 6(2), 15.

Shamsul, B. M. T., Sia, C. C., Ng, Y. G., and Karmegan, K. (2013). Effects of Light’s Colour Temperatures on Visual Comfort Level, Task Performances, and Alertness among Students. American Journal of Public Health Research, 1(7), 159-165.

Shojai, A., and Mori, S. (2012). Rethinking Iranian Urban Housing—a Review on the Housing Attributes under the Current Development of Tehran. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 6(7), 884.

Sime, J. D. (1986). Creating Places or Designing Spaces? Journal of environmental psychology, 6(1), 49-63. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80034-2

Siu, K. W. M. (2003). Users' Creative Responses and Designers' Roles. Design Issues, 19(2), 64-73.Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space. The Behavioral Basis of Design.Stamps, A. E. (2008). On Shape and Spaciousness. Environment and Behavior.Ter Hofstede, F., Audenaert, A., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Wedel, M. (1998). An Investigation into the

Association Pattern Technique as a Quantitative Approach to Measuring Means-End Chains. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(1), 37-50.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), 201-230.

Valette-Florence, P., and Rapacchi, B. (1991). Improvements in Means-End Chain Analysis. Journal of advertising research, 31(1), 30-45.

Van de Poel, I. (2013). Translating Values into Design Requirements Philosophy and Engineering:Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process (pp. 253-266): Springer.

Van den Hoven, J. (2007). Ict and Value Sensitive Design The Information Society: Innovation, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy in Honor of Professor Jacques Berleur Sj (pp. 67-72): Springer.

Voss, R., Gruber, T., and Szmigin, I. (2007). Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of Student Expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.

Wilson, C. (2014). Chapter 5 - Focus Groups Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners (pp. 83-111).Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.

Highlights

Value incorporation is essential for establishing quality housing Applying user values facilitates consideration of human perception in housing design Value incorporation accommodates indirect user participation