C. PreferencesThis phase indicates the relative importance of the comparably competing goals and thus is rather important in the MACDADI process so as to make the tradeoff of competing interests of the stakeholders involved in the project. Based on the goals model that our group developed previously, the group allocated up to a total of 100 points (all using integers) among the second- level/lowest-level goals for each stakeholderin the Teams model. In this case, the group assumed that each stakeholder was weighted equally. Though the group didn’t have direct contact with these stakeholders and didn’t get feedback from them, the group researched relevant websites and follow-up news and reports in order to settheir weights on each sub-goal as accurate as possible. Feedback was received from our mentor Professor Barton, a part of the city council on our teams model, and the weights of the preferences were modified consequently according to his comments and advice.Figure 1 – Stakeholders’ Preferences for Each GoalFigure 1 has illustratively shown the weights allocated to each goal by each stakeholder, representing their relative preferences for each goal. This process helps to obtain a betterunderstanding of both the teams and goals model developed in the early phase of the research project, which were revisited and modified consequently several times.Figure 2 – Overall Goal Preferences by Individual StakeholdersFigure 2 shows the overall preference of each goal, broken down by stakeholders. The height of each column represents the sum of the preference percentage each goal gained from the weights given by stakeholders. As could be seen from the above chart, the economic goals were the most important goal to the stakeholders in general, which was in alignment of the previous analysis of goals model. This could be explained as that the concerned project would not be funded sufficiently if it is not deemed economically feasible in the eyes of developers, Caltrain, Stanford, who account for 60% of the stakeholders (weighted equally). Specifically, the project would not be going without the investment of the developers, who would provide funding for theconstruction of tunneling and then gain revenue for their own development costs. Similarly, as the landowners, Caltrain and Stanford would incorporate into consideration the benefits of their investments in the form of properties. The rather high weights of all social goals also represent the emphasis of the monetary interests of the stakeholders the realization of these goals would increase the density of the city to some extent and thus increase their revenues subsequently. On the contrary, the environmental goals were not paid much emphasis by the stakeholders. The exception of traffic results from the impact on the density it will bring about.Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the lack of constituency in favor the environmental aspects lead to the unbalance of the weights of the project goals, which should be considered in the future work. The group believe that it would help if some other participants could be considered as stakeholders or the PA residents/Other transit authorities could be given more weights while they give preferences. D. OptionsFrom the above discussion, the group developed two design options, mainly focusing the building product options as opposed to organization and process variations. The first design strategy was produced by the visionaries and passed on to the group through our mentor, Professor Barton. The developing strip begins from Palo Alto Avenue, extends along Alma Street, and ends near San Antonio Road. The development strategy consists of four different types of buildings, which are residential, commercial, mix-used buildings, and also strip parks. Based on the proposed floor plan, the group built up a 3D Revit model and exported it into Google Earth to position the design on the specific location. Option 1 was later set as the baseline project and the whole design is illustrated in Figure 3.Figure 3 – Option 1Essentially, the group was going to look at look at what effect changing the construction order of some buildings would have on the development goals. After talking to Professor Barton and Professor Haymaker, the group decided to focus the effect of changing the density, i.e. changing the heights of the building. This leads to Option 2 which doubles the heights of all the buildings and keeps the same layout and construction sequence as Option 1. Again, the 3D model was builtand Google Earth was used for positioning for Option 2.Figure 3 – Option 2The reason for proposing the option of doubling the density mainly lies in that the preferences of stakeholders towards economic goals would be addressed better by this consideration, which would be reflected during the process of Analysis. This proves that the criteria of choosing options would greatly influence the impacts of options on goals.Notably, the above process of choosing these two options was not presented or impacted by the MACDADI
View Full Document
Unlocking...