EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER MEGA-PROJECT IN ISFAHAN METROPOLIS

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

Silesian University of Technology

Subject: Architecture, Civil Engineering, Engineering, Environmental

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 1899-0142

DESCRIPTION

11
Reader(s)
21
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 1 (March 2018) > List of articles

EVALUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER MEGA-PROJECT IN ISFAHAN METROPOLIS

Homayoon NOORAIE * / Ali YADEGARI / Masoud GHORBANI / Sepideh GHORBANI

Citation Information : Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment. Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 43-57, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/ACEE-2018-005

License : (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Received Date : 19-October-2017 / Accepted: 08-March-2018 / Published Online: 01-April-2019

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Streszczenie

Jednym z megaprojektów budowanych w metropolii Isfahan jest projekt Międzynarodowego Centrum Konferencyjnego Metropolii Isfahan, które pomimo wielowymiarowych i dogłębnych analiz nie zostało jeszcze w pełni zbadane. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest ocena megaprojektu pod względem zróżnicowanych aspektów fizycznych, społecznych, ekono-micznych, zarządczych i środowiskowych. W związku z tym wykonano połączone badania – kombinację metod jakościowych i ilościowych. Dane zostały zebrane za pomocą zarówno dokumentów jak i metod sondażowych (typ wywiadu). Do oceny i analizy użyto skali Likerta, metody AHP i oprogramowania Expert Choice. Wyniki pokazują, że prócz pozytywnych cech megaprojektu w sektorach społecznym, fizycznym i środowiskowym, megaprojekt w sektorze gospodarczym i zarządzania ma wiele niedociągnięć a w szczególności wykazuje nieadekwatne odniesienie kosztów do osiągniętych celów w określonym czasie. Wprowadzone zostają sugestie naprawcze odnoszące się do tego błędnego rozwiązania.

Graphical ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION

Evaluation is one of the important stages in the planning process, which, if targeted, can prevent the occurrence of unintended consequences and the resulting problems. In other words, the main purpose of the evaluation activities is to help decision makers create new social policies and assess the value of future programs [1]. For this purpose, urban plans should be assessed and modified prior to the implementation stage if necessary, through which the occurrence of unexpected effects and outcomes during the project is minimized. But despite the above importance, most of information in urban programs and projects in the country remains confidential until the time of implementation as a black box and makes it impossible to make a preliminary evaluation before entering the implementation phase. Therefore, considering the aforementioned issue, as well as the evaluation importance during urban projects and identifying the broader aspects of the subject after the implementation of some of its parts, the evaluation during the implementation is very important in introducing the strengths and weaknesses of the projects and can reduce the incidence of unwanted and/ or negative effects [2].

One of the large-scale projects currently pursued and implemented in Isfahan metropolis as the capital of Islamic culture and civilization is the project of the International Conference Center of Isfahan Metropolis. The idea of this national project returns to July 2009 on Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Leadership Plan (the 16th) hosted and chaired by Iran. Although it was supposed to be built in Kish, but due to the continuous pursue of management of the province and municipality of Isfahan on holding NAM Leadership Plan in the Isfahan metropolis it was transferred to the city and it was prescribed to be implemented and completed with the help of state credits (over 1,000 billion rials) on the Isfahan Shahid Keshvari site within a maximum of 3 years. But despite the mentioned agreements, due to the lack of timely allocation of national credits to this project, the mentioned project was transformed from a national project into a provincial project and by 2016 it had grown by about 68% [3].

Therefore, regarding the above-mentioned challenges, as well as the multidimensional effects on Isfahan and the research gap in this regard, the purpose of conducting this research is to assess the conference center of Isfahan in various aspects and as multi-dimensional. In this regard, first the research theoretical and empirical literature was reviewed and then the methodology of the research has been explained. In the following, according to the theoretical, empirical and methodological framework, the project has been recognized and assessed and, finally, conclusions and suggestions have been presented.

2. THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

Because of the widespread use of the evaluation, there are a variety of definitions available. However, despite the diversity of definitions and controversies about it, in this regard there is a consensus that the main objective of the evaluation studies is to measure the effects and consequences of various human activities in the social, economic and environmental aspects [4-7]. Therefore, in addition to helping to maintain the characteristics of the social, economic, and environmental aspects, the evaluation facilitates the achievement of programs’ objectives.

Also, there is no specific agreement on how to assess and apply the measures for the evaluation such as the evaluation definition, and different thinkers and theorists have provided different categories for measures in the evaluation, which is due to the type of dominant approach in the evaluation of special research case. But despite this disagreement, the determination of the evaluation criteria and measures is always the most important element in the evaluation. Because the measures’ bias can lead to the results’ bias and the truth of the effects is hidden [1,8]. Hence, in this study, in order to achieve the measures and criteria of the Megaproject of International Conference Center in Isfahan metropolis, first theoretical literature related to the evaluation was described as the general concept in Table 1, and then, by referring to the national and international experiences (including “Center for International Conference of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, “Edinburgh Conference Hall” and “London International Conventions and Conferences”), in Table 2, the measures and criteria have been extracted specific for the evaluation of relevant projects.

Table 1.

The general criteria of the evaluation [6-13]

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl1.jpg
Table 2.

The general criteria of the evaluation [6-13]

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl2.jpg

In the following, also according to the aforementioned theoretical and empirical literature, the needed aspects, components and measures to assess the megaproject of International Conference Center in Isfahan metropolis were identified in Table 3 as the research conceptual framework.

Table 3.

The research conceptual framework

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl3.jpg

3. METHODOLOGY

In the present study. The purpose is to assess the International Conference Center of the Isfahan Metropolis in terms of various dimensions and in a multidimensional manner. On this basis, according to Johnson & Christensen classification [19], the methodology paradigm in this study is the mixed research. In this way, at the first stage in order to focus on the given subject and avoid generalization, the case study research method of the qualitative research methodology paradigm has been used. Among the existing megaprojects, the International Conference Center of the Isfahan metropolis has been selected as the case study. . at the second stage, a non-experimental research method of quantitative research methodology paradigm has been used to explain and analyze the subject (evaluation of the conference center in various dimensions).

The method of data collection is both documents (using existing project documents) and survey (interview). In this way, after determining the evaluation measures of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis, through the review of theoretical and empirical literature of the research (documentary study), the data required for 14 measures (including the status of the project area in relation to its performance, matching the number of parking lots with the capacity of the complex, the status of the services required according to the project purpose, the rate of future development capability if needed, the status of the route access from the entrance to the main hall, the status of the project green space to the total area of the project, the status of the project furniture, the materials’ resistance to fire, the building resistance to earthquake, the project effect on introducing the Iranian Islamic culture to other nations, the level of compliance with the cost per efficiency (budget), the rate of employment, the amount of money earned on the costs incurred, the rate of attraction of the tourist towards the goals specified) were collected through the reference to the project documents (documentary study), the data required for 7 measures (including external view status, intra-axis view status, the facade of the project to the background, the distance from the project to the airport, the status of the project access to the main road, the slope and topography status, the distance from the project to the city center) were collected through a field study of type of observation, the data required for two measures (including the effect of the project on the fixation of the population of surrounding villages and neighborhoods and the effect of the project on the property prices of neighboring neighborhoods) were collected through a survey study of the type of interview and the data required for other measures (including the effect of the project on the development of surrounding neighborhoods, the inclusiveness of the conference hall, the extent to which objectives are achieved to the time specified, The status of construction location to the environment, Water consumption rate, Energy consumption rate, The rate of using environmentally friendly materials, The quality of indoor spaces in terms of energy, consumption, inventions and innovations in terms of energy consumption.) were collected as a combination of documentary and survey study. In addition, the Likert spectrum (as shown in Table 4) was used to score the measures individually. Finally, also due to the simplicity, multi-criteria decision making was used (MCDM) as a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making. While among the commonly used methods in MCDM we have:

Table 4.

Five-option Likert scale

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl4.jpg

Outranking approach, merit point system, linear goal programming, multiple attribute utility theory, AHP, regime method, convex cone approach, hierarchical interactive approach, aspiration-level interactive method and Bayesian analysis [20-22 Cited in 23].

Flexibility, possibility of hierarchical organization of the elements of a system, the possibility of using quantitative and qualitative criteria simultaneously, the ability to control the logical adaptation of the judgments used in determining the priorities of the methodology of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and Expert Choice software were used to determine the weights of each measure and finally the analysis and conclusion.

4. INTRODUCING THE MEGAPROJECT OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER IN ISFAHAN METROPOLIS

The idea of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis project returns to July 2009 on Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Leadership Plan (the 16th) hosted and chaired by Iran. Although it was supposed to be built in Kish, but due to the continuous pursue of management of the province and municipality of Isfahan on NAM Leadership Plan in the Isfahan Metropolis it was transferred to the city and it was prescribed to be implemented and completed with the help of state credits (over 1,000 billion rials) on the Isfahan Shahid Keshvari site within a maximum of 3 years. But despite the mentioned agreements, due to the lack of timely allocation of national credits to this project, the mentioned project was transformed from a national project into a provincial project and by 2016 it had grown by about 68% [3].

The hall, which is being built on a site of about 70 hectares, is located at the end of Shahid Rouholamin Street near the eastern highway of Isfahan, and is surrounded by Shahid Keshvari, Radan, Fizadan, Ashkhavand, Sarv and Isfahan townships [3].

Regarding the external and internal features of this project, it should be noted that according to the designs, the internal uses have been defined in the three main zones along with public spaces described in Table 5.

Figure 1.

The location of the megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-f001.jpg
Table 5.

The use and activities of the site of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis and assigned levels [3]

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl5.jpg

Also, the architecture of this complex, shown in Figure 2, has been presented by taking into account some of the principles of the school of Isfahan (the principle of balance, the principle of simplicity, the principle of complexity, the principle of proportionality) and the integration of this architecture with modern architecture, while the main hall is like a hemisphere that indicates the slogan “Isfahan, half of the world”.

Figure 2.

The external and internal view of the megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis [3]

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-f002.jpg

5. RESULTS AND THE PROJECT EVALUATION

According to the aspects, components and measures introduced in the research conceptual framework, and taking into account the recognition of the documentary and survey study (interview), the Megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan Metropolis can be scored as the following Tables.

Table 6.

Assess physical aspect

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl6.jpg10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl6a.jpg10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl6b.jpg10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl6c.jpg
Table 7.

Assess the social aspect

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl7.jpg
Table 8.

Assess the economic and managerial aspect

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl8.jpg
Table 9.

Assess the environmental aspect

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl9.jpg10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl9a.jpg

Then, in order to achieve the weights of each measure, and finally, the analysis and conclusion, the methodology of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Expert Choice software were used, using the opinion of the relevant experts, and the weights available according to the obtained score, the final value of each of aspects and components as well as the final value of the Megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis was obtained according to Table 10 and it was determined that the mentioned project in the physical, social, economic, managerial and environmental aspects has obtained a score of .71 out of 1, which is slightly higher than the pass mark.

Table 10.

The final value of the megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis

10.21307_ACEE-2018-005-tbl10.jpg

6. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to assess the project of the International Conference Center in Isfahan metropolis that is considered as one of the national projects in terms of the importance and one of the megaprojects in terms of the scale. The obtained results indicate that the international Conference center in Isfahan metropolis, despite its positive physical and functional features, such as location and relatively proper architecture (with a mean score of 0.875 out of 1), as well as relatively proper social features due to the positive effect of the project on the development of surrounding neighborhoods, the inclusiveness of the Conference center and the ability of the project to introduce the Iranian Islamic culture to other nations (with a mean score of 0.84 of 1), as well as relatively suitable environmental features such as minimizing construction pollution and maximizing energy efficiency (with a mean score of 0.83 out of 1), the project had economic and managerial weaknesses and has encountered problems such as non-matching of costs with efficiency and non-achievement of objectives over the specified time (with a mean score of 0.44 out of 1). The fact that this project has become obsolete suggests that the implementation of the project of International Conference Center of Isfahan Metropolis has often been viewed as one-dimensional and lacking comprehension. In addition, some problems in the field of the vision from the outside, the axis of vision from the inside and the status of the project view to the background also need to be addressed.

Hence, due to the mentioned problems during the implementation of the Megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan Metropolis, it is suggested to complete it as soon as possible along with reforming the project implementation process, such as reinforcing the inner-axis of vision from the project by partitioning the path using the commercial complex walls wall and creating a balance at the entrance to the center by creating side buildings facing the commercial complex and strengthening the outer-axis of vision by creating a long flag, focusing on the brand and index of Conference center for the public, especially investors, as well as providing investment facilities and motives for the private sector, so that the mentioned project can achieve their original goals, including holding national and international Conference and meetings and faster return of capital.

In general, also this study emphasizes the need for assessing projects in general, and especially megaprojects in particular, due to the profound and multidimensional effect, as well as high cost of launching, at the three stages before, during and after implementation and in different economic, managerial, social, physical and environmental areas. This is especially true for underdeveloped and developing countries, because in these countries, generally, the sources of cost financing, including foreign and domestic private sector investments, are more limited and, in terms of the management, less capital is considered strategically and with the logic of prioritizing projects.

References


  1. Rossi, Peter H., Lipsey, Mark, W., and Freeman, Howard, E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage Publications.
  2. Ariana, A. and Salehi Najafabadi, M. (2015). Introduction of post-implementation assessment methods of urban development programs (with the emphasis on Tehran Master Plan document). Tehran: Secretary of the Supreme Council for Urban Development.
  3. Project Management of Isfahan Conferences Center. (2015). Report on Knowledge and Fundamentals of Structural Principles. Assistance of urban development of Isfahan municipality.
  4. HadiZadeh Zargar, S. (2012). Measurement and assessment of social sustainability (Case study: Mashhad neighborhoods). Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  5. Mohammadi, M. (2014). Measuring and assessing the sustainability of urban neighborhoods with the emphasis on the notion of quality of life. Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  6. Lehtonen, M. (2014) Evaluating megaprojects: from the “iron triangle” to network mapping. Evaluation, 20(3). 278–295.
    [CROSSREF]
  7. Zidane, Y J-T., Johansen, A., Ekambaram, A. (2015). Project Evaluation Holistic Framework – Application on Megaproject Case. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 409–416.
    [CROSSREF]
  8. Ghasemirad, H. (2010). Assessment of the detailed plan of Izeh. Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  9. Kiakejori, S. (1986). Monitoring and evaluation of rural development. Tehran: Plan and Budget Publications.
  10. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. CPL bibliography, 24(4), 343–361.
  11. Yarihesar, A, Badri, A., Pourtaheri, M. and Faraji Sabokbar, H. (2011). Measuring and assessing the sustainability of the rural area of Tehran metropolitan area. Rural Research, 89–122.
  12. Qaragozlu, Z. (1896). The role of assessment in the urban and regional planning process and its common techniques. Tehran: Building and Housing Research Center, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
  13. U.S. Green Building Council. (2005), LEED-NC Green Building Rating System For New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2.
  14. Edinburgh International Conference Centre. (2017). About EICC. Available at: http://www.eicc.co.uk/about-eicc/ (Access on 10/3/2017).
  15. ExCeL London. (2017). Experience more in the heart of London, Available at: https://www.excel.london/visitor/experience-london (Access on 22/3/2017).
  16. Salonyab. (2016). Center for International Conferences of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Hall of Leaders’ Summit). Available at yon.ir/uIyV1, (Access on 2017/03/07).
  17. Online Hamshahri (2016). Abbas Akhundi memories of the leaders’ summit hall building. Available at http://www.hamshahrionline.ir/details/202006, (Access on 2017/03/07).
  18. Pirraz Consulting Planners, Architects & Engineers. (2000). I.R.Iran International Conference Center, Tehran (1997), Available at: http://www.pirraz.com/projects/iccc.html. (Access on 18/3/2017).
  19. Johnson, R. B. and Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 4th Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  20. Cho, K. T. (2003). Multicriteria decision methods: an attempt to evaluate and unify. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9-10), 1099–1119.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Ho, W., Xu, X. and Dey, P.K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Moshkovich, H. M. (2009). Conceptual model for evaluating multiple criteria methods and systems. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 169–173.
  23. Ganesh A. Devkar, Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi, (2013). Modeling and assessment of competencies in urban local bodies for implementing PPP projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(1), 42–57.
    [CROSSREF]
XML PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 1.

The location of the megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Figure 2.

The external and internal view of the megaproject of the International Conference Center of Isfahan metropolis [3]

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

REFERENCES

  1. Rossi, Peter H., Lipsey, Mark, W., and Freeman, Howard, E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage Publications.
  2. Ariana, A. and Salehi Najafabadi, M. (2015). Introduction of post-implementation assessment methods of urban development programs (with the emphasis on Tehran Master Plan document). Tehran: Secretary of the Supreme Council for Urban Development.
  3. Project Management of Isfahan Conferences Center. (2015). Report on Knowledge and Fundamentals of Structural Principles. Assistance of urban development of Isfahan municipality.
  4. HadiZadeh Zargar, S. (2012). Measurement and assessment of social sustainability (Case study: Mashhad neighborhoods). Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  5. Mohammadi, M. (2014). Measuring and assessing the sustainability of urban neighborhoods with the emphasis on the notion of quality of life. Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  6. Lehtonen, M. (2014) Evaluating megaprojects: from the “iron triangle” to network mapping. Evaluation, 20(3). 278–295.
    [CROSSREF]
  7. Zidane, Y J-T., Johansen, A., Ekambaram, A. (2015). Project Evaluation Holistic Framework – Application on Megaproject Case. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 409–416.
    [CROSSREF]
  8. Ghasemirad, H. (2010). Assessment of the detailed plan of Izeh. Master’s thesis of Isfahan University of Art. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.
  9. Kiakejori, S. (1986). Monitoring and evaluation of rural development. Tehran: Plan and Budget Publications.
  10. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. CPL bibliography, 24(4), 343–361.
  11. Yarihesar, A, Badri, A., Pourtaheri, M. and Faraji Sabokbar, H. (2011). Measuring and assessing the sustainability of the rural area of Tehran metropolitan area. Rural Research, 89–122.
  12. Qaragozlu, Z. (1896). The role of assessment in the urban and regional planning process and its common techniques. Tehran: Building and Housing Research Center, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
  13. U.S. Green Building Council. (2005), LEED-NC Green Building Rating System For New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2.
  14. Edinburgh International Conference Centre. (2017). About EICC. Available at: http://www.eicc.co.uk/about-eicc/ (Access on 10/3/2017).
  15. ExCeL London. (2017). Experience more in the heart of London, Available at: https://www.excel.london/visitor/experience-london (Access on 22/3/2017).
  16. Salonyab. (2016). Center for International Conferences of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Hall of Leaders’ Summit). Available at yon.ir/uIyV1, (Access on 2017/03/07).
  17. Online Hamshahri (2016). Abbas Akhundi memories of the leaders’ summit hall building. Available at http://www.hamshahrionline.ir/details/202006, (Access on 2017/03/07).
  18. Pirraz Consulting Planners, Architects & Engineers. (2000). I.R.Iran International Conference Center, Tehran (1997), Available at: http://www.pirraz.com/projects/iccc.html. (Access on 18/3/2017).
  19. Johnson, R. B. and Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 4th Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  20. Cho, K. T. (2003). Multicriteria decision methods: an attempt to evaluate and unify. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9-10), 1099–1119.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Ho, W., Xu, X. and Dey, P.K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Moshkovich, H. M. (2009). Conceptual model for evaluating multiple criteria methods and systems. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 169–173.
  23. Ganesh A. Devkar, Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi, (2013). Modeling and assessment of competencies in urban local bodies for implementing PPP projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(1), 42–57.
    [CROSSREF]

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS