Beyond consensus: from diagnosing policy conflict to designing an architecture for action
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, ss.1-20, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1108/ecam-02-2026-0198
- Dergi Adı: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, ABI/INFORM, Compendex, ICONDA Bibliographic, Index Islamicus, INSPEC, The International Construction Database (ICONDA), Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO), Materials Science & Engineering Collection (ProQuest), Technology Collection (ProQuest)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-20
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Advocacy coalition framework (ACF), AHP-ANP cross-validation, Consensus trap, Institutional logics, Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), Nearly Zero energy Building (NZEB), Policy conflict, Robustness testing, Spearman’s correlation
- Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose – This study examines why Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB) policy debates remain polarised despite technical maturity. It argues that conflict arises from a clash between market-oriented and state-oriented institutional logics and proposes a diagnostic approach to identify “bridge policies” that enable sequenced negotiation across coalitions. Design/methodology/approach – A four-stage conflict-aware diagnostic framework (CADF) reframes multi-criteria decision-making from consensus-seeking to conflict diagnosis. Integrating Delphi (n = 60), social network analysis (n = 30) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the model was validated using DEMATEL, BWM and SMAA-2. Crucially, cross-validation against an analytic network process (ANP) model yielded a Spearman’s correlation of rs = 1.000, confirming the robustness of the hierarchical simplification. Findings – Conventional aggregation creates a “contested average” masking deep division. Builders prioritise economic incentives, whereas policymakers emphasise regulations. The results reveal three policy categories that integrate market logic with accountability: zones of agreement, core conflict and “bridge policies” such as performance-based subsidies. Architects and engineers served as vital brokerage agents during this transition. Practical implications – The findings support the design of phased, durable policies that align divergent institutional logics to enhance legitimacy and implementation stability. Originality/value – The CADF transforms conflict into a measurable asset by quantifying belief strength, thereby extending the advocacy coalition framework. It theorises “bridge policies” as policy-oriented learning mechanisms and provides a transferable “architecture for action” for socio-technical transitions.