INTERIOR SURFACING Method Summary EBD
Uses evidence to enhance health in built environments, but may be costly and challenging to implement.
Systematically selects hospital
MCDM materials considering multiple criteria, offering transparency, but may be complex for non-experts.
CBA
Focuses on material advantages for transparent decision-making, but may overlook disadvantages, and requires proficient use.
Pros
• Informed decisions based on evidence. • Positive impacts of health demonstrated.
• Enhances human health. • Systematic and transparent.
• Considers multiple criteria simultaneously.
• Potential for improved outcomes. • Ensures transparency.
• Enables informed decisions. • Systematic process.
Cons
• Implementation may be costly and challenging.
• Varying research quality and availability. • Collaboration challenges.
• Complexity may challenge non-experts. • Requires significant data and resources.
• May overlook disadvantages. • Proficient use required.
• Subjective weight allocation.
Figure 3: The ‘pros and cons’ of the three decision-making methods for hospital material selection discussed in this article. MCDM involves several steps – including
problem definition, criteria selection, alternative identification, performance evaluation, and selection of the best alternative.20
When selecting materials for
hospital interiors, the problem definition would be identifying the need for hygienic and durable materials. Criteria selection would involve identifying the most important factors to consider in the selection process, such as hygiene, durability, sustainability, cost, and ease of maintenance. Alternative identification would involve identifying the materials that meet the identified criteria, while performance evaluation would involve evaluating the performance of each based on the identified criteria. Finally, the selection of the best alternative would involve choosing the material that performs the best based on the identified criteria.
A systematic and structured approach One advantage of MCDM is that it allows for a systematic and structured approach to decision-making. Multiple criteria can be considered simultaneously, rather than focusing on a single criterion. This helps to ensure that the selected material is well- suited to the specific needs of the hospital, and can lead to better overall outcomes. The application of an MCDM method can potentially offer several advantages to a design team. For instance, it can facilitate transparency in the decision-making process. By adopting an MCDM approach, the team can establish a shared and coherent rationale to support the selection of sustainable alternatives.15 The Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method is a reliable and effective way of solving complex problems. It involves various techniques that may result in different rankings of management
‘‘
alternatives, but studies indicate that the top choices are generally consistent across methods. Even when the leading option differs, there is usually a significant overlap in the top two or three alternatives. However, as the number of alternatives increases, the overlap tends to decrease.21 Despite its benefits, selecting the MCDM method may have some drawbacks. For example, there may be certain limitations, such as the assumption of criterion independence, which may not accurately reflect the complexity of the decision.21 Furthermore MCDM methods can be incomprehensible to non-experts, leading to transparency and credibility concerns. Moreover, when chosen criteria are either redundant or not comprehensive, certain aspects may be overestimated or underestimated. While some studies suggest using the frequency of use of a particular MCDM method to inform a choice, others have questioned the validity of this approach, as it may consider the quality of the methods.15,22
Additionally,
the MCDM method requires a significant amount of data collection. Many decisions are often made informally, without a structured approach or dialogue, leading to conflicts and inefficiencies in the design process. Additionally, many practitioners may not be aware of the availability or applicability of MCDM methods in practice.23 Regardless of these limitations, the MCDM method is a powerful tool for selecting hygienic materials for hospital interiors. By considering multiple criteria and stakeholder preferences, MCDM can provide a more objective and comprehensive approach to decision- making. In many real-world scenarios decisions
are made without any formal structure or process, potentially resulting in complications and drawbacks in the
For instance, using smooth, non-porous surfaces such as glass, stainless steel, and certain plastics, can significantly reduce the adherence of microorganisms, minimising transmission risk
60 Health Estate Journal March 2024
design process. Designers need to have a systematic approach to decision-making to minimise inefficiencies and conflicts. However, it can be challenging to identify appropriate resources to improve their decision-making methods. They can, however, draw on various
resources, such as academic literature, case studies, and professional networks, to find effective decision-making methods. For instance, they can consult published research on decision-making frameworks, consult with experts, or attend industry conferences to learn about emerging methods and tools. By leveraging these resources, designers can enhance their decision-making methods and create more efficient and effective designs that meet their clients’ and stakeholders’ needs.15
A valuable tool for architectural designers
When selecting hygienic surfacing materials for hospitals, the CBA method can be a valuable tool for architectural designers. CBA is a decision-making method that has been applied in different fields – including architecture and interior design. A process that helps decision-makers identify and compare the advantages and disadvantages of different options and select the best based on predefined criteria, it is a structured and transparent decision-making system that enables decision-makers to make informed decisions and explain their decision-making process to stakeholders.24 Choosing by Advantages facilitates sound decision-making by comparing the advantages among alternatives. Unlike traditional decision-making processes, which often involve weighing both advantages and disadvantages, CBA only considers the advantages of each option. This eliminates any potential for double- counting, and ensures a more effective decision-making process.15 The system is grounded on four key principles: firstly, decision-makers need to be proficient in the use of sound decision- making methods; secondly, decisions should be based on the significance of the advantage; thirdly, decisions must be anchored to the relevant facts,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85
