From Conflicting Stakeholder Priorities to Robust Choice: Developing a Scenario-Based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Commercial Façade Design in Tehran

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a scenario-based multi-criteria decision-making framework for commercial façade design and to assess the robustness of the final choice against changes in stakeholder value structures and evaluation algorithms. This applied study adopted a quantitative decision-support design. Perceptual data were obtained from 309 respondents, including 187 external observers and 122 users, while expert judgments were derived from a 16-member panel representing architecture, building operation, and urban management. Five stakeholder groups—observers, users, architects, operators, and urban designers—and ten perceptual and performance criteria were considered. Criterion weights were calculated using the Best–Worst Method (BWM), after which three people-centric, operations-centric, and design-centric scenarios were formulated. Following the application of non-compensatory adequacy constraints, eligible alternatives were ranked using TOPSIS and VIKOR. Decision robustness was subsequently examined through 200 sensitivity-analysis iterations. Stakeholder disagreement was greatest for invitingness, with a weight range of 0.10, followed by legibility with a range of 0.08, whereas safety and sustainability showed substantially greater consensus, each with a range of 0.04. Changes in scenario logic altered both criterion-weight structures and the feasible set of design alternatives. The ranking and sensitivity analyses demonstrated that Alternative 4 was the most robust choice under the people-centric and design-centric scenarios, achieving first-rank win shares of 0.970 and 0.945, respectively. The consistency between TOPSIS and VIKOR outputs, together with the persistence of its leading position under repeated weight perturbations, supported the robustness of the decision. The proposed framework demonstrates that commercial façade evaluation should move beyond abstract form selection toward a transparent decision rationale that preserves stakeholder heterogeneity, incorporates minimum performance requirements, and evaluates the stability of alternatives under changing assumptions. Such an approach can support more defensible and resilient architectural decisions.