Beyond consensus: from diagnosing policy conflict to designing an architecture for action
Seyedarash Aghili, Mehmet Nurettin UğuralPurpose
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.