The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking
Abstract
The Design Quality Indicator (DQI) is based on a research project to provide a toolkit for improving the design of buildings. It seeks to complement methods for measuring performance in construction by providing feedback and capturing perceptions of design quality embodied in buildings. The research team worked closely with the sponsors and an industry steering group to develop the indicators that could be readily used by clients and practitioners to better understand and promote value through design. The development and piloting process was explored within a context of lessons from earlier attempts by others. The three main elements of the DQI toolkit (conceptual framework, data-gathering tool, weighting mechanism) mapped the value of buildings in relation to their design for different uses and their ability to meet a variety of physical, aspirational and emotional needs of occupants and users. The DQI pilot studies consisting of five design and construction projects are discussed along with their graphical representation of results generated by end-users, individual team members and project teams. The process raises questions about the difficulties in the description and application of indicators for design quality. It is argued that the benefit of the DQI is a ‘tool for thinking’, rather than an absolute measure, because it has the potential to capture lessons from current building design for strategic future use as well as initiate, represent and inform discussions involving designers', clients', producers' and end-users' perceptions on the tangible and intangible aspects of possibilities within live design projects. The limitations of the approach, the next phase of development and further research issues are raised. Les indicateurs de qualité de la conception (DQI) sont le fruit d'un projet de recherche ayant pour objectif le développement d'une «boîte à outils» à utiliser pour améliorer la conception des bâtiments. Les DQI complètent les méthodes de mesure des performances dans la construction en assurant un retour d'information et en appréhendant la perception de la qualité de la conception dans les bâtiments. L'équipe de recherche a travaillé en étroite coopération avec les commanditaires et un groupe industriel pilote pour développer des indicateurs qui pourraient être facilement utilisés par les clients et les professionnels afin de mieux comprendre et de faire la promotion de la valeur à travers la conception. Le processus de développement et de pilotage a été exploré dans le contexte d'enseignements acquis dans le passé dans le cadre de tentatives antérieures menées par d'autres. Les trois principaux éléments de la «boîte à outils» DQI (cadre conceptuel, outil de collecte de données, mécanisme de pondération) ont permis de mettre en correspondance la valeur des bâtiments et leur conception pour différents usages et leur aptitude à répondre à une variété de besoins physiques, aspirationnels, et émotionnels des occupants et des utilisateurs. Les auteurs de cet article examinent les études pilote DQI comprenant cinq projets de conception et de construction ainsi que la représentation graphique des résultats générés par les utilisateurs, les membres des équipes et les équipes de projets. Ce processus suscite des questions sur la difficulté de description et d'application des indicateurs de qualité de la conception. La discussion porte sur le fait que les DQI sont plutôt un outil de réflexion qu'une mesure absolue car ils sont aptes à tirer des leçons de la conception de bâtiments actuels au profit d'une stratégie d'avenir ; ils permettent également, temps réel, d'engager des discussions, de représenter et de renseigner la perception qu'ont les concepteurs, les clients, les constructeurs et les utilisateurs des aspects tangibles et intangibles des possibilités de projets de conception. Les auteurs examinent les limitations de cette approche, la prochaine phase de développement et les futures recherches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
(2014) · The Reflective Practitioner in Professional Education · doi:10.1057/9781137399595.0007 · Cited by 8,325
Proceedings of the American philosophical society
(1838) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/s0016-0032(38)92229-x · Cited by 5,524
The visual display of quantitative information
(1985) · General Pharmacology: The Vascular System · doi:10.1016/0306-3623(85)90230-7 · Cited by 5,070
Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts
von Hippel, E. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791 · Cited by 4,650
The Architecture of Complexity
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Facets of Systems Science · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_31 · Cited by 4,433
The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets
Sveiby, K. (1997) · Cited by 3,529
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
What Engineers Know and How They Know It
Vincenti, W. (1993) · Johns Hopkins University Press eBooks · doi:10.56021/9780801839740 · Cited by 1,341
Monden, Y. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-9714-8 · Cited by 1,303
Cited by
The built environment and obesity: A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence
Feng, J., Glass, T. A., Curriero, F. C., Stewart, W. F., & Schwartz, B. S. (2010) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.09.008 · Cited by 806
Akinade, O. O., Oyedele, L. O., Ajayi, S. O., Bilal, M., Alaka, H. A., Owolabi, H. A., Bello, S. A., Jaiyeoba, B. E., & Kadiri, K. O. (2017) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.017 · Cited by 310
Transitioning from green to regenerative design
Cole, R. J. (2012) · Building Research & Information · doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.610608 · Cited by 264
Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: experiences and perspectives from UK practice
Hay, R., Samuel, F., Watson, K. J., & Bradbury, S. (2018) · Building Research & Information · doi:10.1080/09613218.2017.1314692 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J.
- Venue
- Building Research & Information
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 318-333
- ISSN
- 0961-3218 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4321
- OpenAlex
- W1985528274
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 39.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0961321032000107564
- The paper
- Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321032000107564
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.