Analysis of the Characteristics of Production Activities in Chinese Design Organizations

Abstract

This study aims to systematically reveal, from the perspective of organizational scale, the differences between large and small architectural design organizations in China in terms of characteristics of production activities, technological capabilities and innovation levels, resource integration capabilities, and client groups, and to quantify the priority order of clients’ attention to architectural design products, thereby providing a reference for industry structure optimization and strategic decision making. This research combines case analysis and comparative study to construct a four-dimensional comparative framework. The results show that large design organizations, leveraging their advantages in technological research and development as well as resource integration, focus on large-scale complex projects, technology-driven projects, cultural landmark projects, and multi-stakeholder collaborative projects, primarily serving government agencies and large enterprises. In contrast, small design organizations excel in flexibility, concentrating on small-scale simple projects, specialized niche projects, localized projects, and short-cycle, low-budget projects, serving individual owners and small businesses. Furthermore, this study adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to establish an evaluation model. Twenty experts from architectural design organizations, construction organizations, and research institutions were invited to score the survey questionnaires, and quantitative weight analysis was performed. The research findings provide support for the optimization of the industry.

1. Introduction

As the core front-end link in the value chain of engineering construction, engineering design serves as a central bridge for transforming scientific and technological achievements into tangible productive forces, spanning the entire lifecycle of an engineering project from investment decision making to construction implementation [1]. Architectural design refers to the complete technical documentation system systematically compiled by qualified institutions, based on the design brief and the approval opinions of relevant administrative authorities, strictly adhering to the technical specifications and industry standards set by national construction authorities, and presented in forms such as drawings, descriptions, and models according to professional categories. These drawings and related documents constitute the shared foundation for budgeting, bidding, construction, project approval, and other coordination activities. The purpose of architectural design is to ensure that the construction of engineering projects meets the construction objectives, including scale, functionality, investment, and other indicators, complies with relevant regulations, and enables the completed buildings to fully satisfy the various requirements and purposes expected by future end-users and society [2].

The construction industry is closely related to national economic and social development. It represents 6% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) and is projected to surpass 14% by 2030 [3]. Despite its critical role in the economy, the construction industry is widely regarded as one of the most hazardous sectors due to the high incidence of accidents causing injuries, occupational diseases, and even fatalities, arising from the inherent nature of its activities, environment, and work dynamics [4]. Design plays a pivotal role in determining construction methods and schedules; thus, many safety incidents on construction sites are attributable to inadequate or flawed design decisions that, if properly addressed, could have been avoided [5]. Integrating safety and health hazard considerations early in the schematic and detailed design phases allows for more effective risk elimination or mitigation, thereby making the worksite and construction process safer [6]. In addition, Mughees Aslam et al. conducted a systematic review of the literature published in authoritative journals and analyzed the findings, determining through an extensive survey that design changes are one of the primary drivers of cost overruns, potentially raising project costs by 5% to 40% in different cases [7]. As a knowledge-intensive industry, architectural design exerts a decisive influence on key project performance factors such as quality control, cost efficiency, and schedule management. Through technological integration and design optimization, it serves as a core pillar that supports the successful implementation of construction projects.

At present, research in the field of architectural design has broadly addressed key topics such as safety, cost management, and technological innovation. However, existing studies primarily concentrate either on macro-level industry trend analyses [8] or on project cases, design philosophies, and methodological tools. At the project case study level, researchers often focus on specific projects, delving deeply into the applied technical solutions and design concepts. In the study of design concepts, design concepts such as green building [9,10], prefabricated building [11], and people-centered design concepts [12] have received significant attention in academia; and at the architectural design method research level, cutting-edge technologies such as generative AI design [13], deep learning-driven artificial intelligence design [14], and related approaches have received key attention from academics. Artificial intelligence design and other cutting-edge technologies [15] have become hotspots for exploration.

The “14th Five-Year Plan” for the Development of the Construction Industry issued by China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development [16] indicates that there remains significant room for improvement in areas such as industry-wide value chain collaboration and innovation efficiency. China’s current regulations [17] clearly specify the qualification standards and business scopes for design organizations of different scales, and numerous scholars have conducted research on topics such as operational management models [18] and development strategies [19] for these organizations. Against this backdrop, a systematic analysis of the full-cycle production activities of design organizations holds dual critical significance—both for meeting client needs and for enhancing the competitiveness of design organizations. Based on this premise, the present study adopts an organizational scale perspective to systematically examine characteristics of production activities, technological capabilities and innovation levels, resource integration capabilities, and client groups of large and small design organizations, with the aim of providing theoretical insights to support structural optimization within the industry.

Resource integration capability constitutes the starting point for value creation in design organizations. As a strategic behavior reflecting the acquisition and deployment of organizational resources, resource integration emphasizes the selection, acquisition, allocation, and integration of resources from diverse sources to reconstruct and form a resource system aligned with strategic development [20]. Within this process, resource acquisition focuses on the identification and aggregation of valuable external resources, while resource allocation emphasizes the coordinated deployment of internal resources to maximize overall effectiveness. A substantial body of research has confirmed a significant positive correlation between such resource integration behaviors and organizational performance [21].

Technological capability serves as the core driver for transforming resources into value. Resources alone cannot directly generate value; rather, it is through organizational capabilities that resources are converted into products or services that deliver value to end-users. Resources are associated with “having,” whereas capabilities are associated with “doing.” For an enterprise to operate effectively, it requires both resources and capabilities to produce the products or services demanded by clients—and to do so efficiently and effectively [22]. Technological capability underpins the entire value creation chain, from research and development to product commercialization, facilitating cost reduction, product differentiation, and sustained competitiveness.

Product output serves as the carrier of value for resources and capabilities. Products and services represent the tangible or intangible manifestations of value delivered to clients through the utilization of these resources and capabilities. Such outputs act as carriers of value by transforming an enterprise’s internal potential into externally recognized value, competitive advantage, and economic returns.

The customer dimension forms both the closure of the value cycle and the starting point for feedback [23]. Clients complete the value transformation cycle through their selection of products or services, while their feedback serves as the foundation for organizations to optimize resource integration, foster technological innovation, and improve products—thereby driving a new cycle of value creation. This dimension links internal operations with the external market, ensuring the sustainability of the value creation process.

In summary, the four dimensions are based on the complete value cycle theoretical logic of “resource integration–technological capability–product output–client feedback”, covering the entire process from resources to the market. By conducting a comparative analysis of operational characteristic differences arising from variations in organizational scale, it is possible to clearly illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of large and small design organizations from a full-process perspective and to identify their respective adaptability issues. Examining these four frameworks provides a comprehensive perspective and a robust theoretical basis for understanding and comparing the core competitive strengths and development strategies of design organizations of different scales.

Without clients, the company’s products and services lose value. Client satisfaction is regarded as an intangible asset of an enterprise, positively impacting the company’s performance. This is because it reflects the strength of the enterprise through a stable client base and a close relationship between the enterprise and its clients [24]. According to ISO 10004:2018, client satisfaction is determined by the gap between client expectations and client perceptions of the products or services provided by the organization, as well as other aspects of the organization overall. To achieve client satisfaction, the organization must first understand client expectations. These expectations may be explicit, implicit, or even completely unstated. Client expectations form the primary basis for the subsequent planning and delivery of products and services. Client satisfaction indicates the extent to which clients believe that the delivered products or services, along with other organizational aspects, meet or exceed their expectations [25].

In response to the needs of the construction industry, some researchers have investigated a single large enterprise to examine the internal complexity of managing client requirements, aiming to optimize the company’s services throughout the entire architectural product design process, with a particular focus on the organization’s own economic benefits [26]. Other researchers have recognized the significance of client requirements across the full lifecycle of architectural products. Starting from a single specific case, they have introduced systematic client requirement management approaches and applied decision-making tools in practical research. However, they have not performed quantitative analyses of clients’ attention, providing instead a descriptive explanation of the systematic management methodology [27]. Additional studies have explored client satisfaction in the construction industry from multiple dimensions—including service quality, technical performance, and management practices. These studies have aimed to enhance client satisfaction by enhancing and training architects’ competencies during the service delivery process, thereby clarifying the relationship between integrated service quality and client satisfaction to better serve clients. While these works place greater emphasis on improving the internal capabilities of the company’s team, research focusing directly on the level of attention to clients themselves remains limited [28].

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, as effective tools for addressing complex evaluation and decision-making problems, have been widely applied in both the construction industry and the field of organizational management. The Best–Worst Method (BWM) has been applied in various studies and domains, including supplier selection and development [29], social sustainability in supply chains [30], logistics performance measurement [31], and cloud service selection [32]. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) has been utilized by researchers in engineering project management [33], integrated decision making [34], and project risk management [35]. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is also frequently employed in social, policy, and engineering decision-making problems [36], such as the evaluation of advanced construction technologies [37], urban regeneration recommendations [38], and construction safety management and resource allocation [39].

These methods provide a scientific basis for alternative selection, resource allocation, and performance evaluation by systematically processing multi-dimensional and multi-criteria decision information. However, their methodological variants differ significantly in applicable scenarios due to their distinct technical characteristics. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a widely used MCDM method, particularly suitable for handling multi-level decision problems. AHP simplifies the decision-making process by decomposing complex problems into hierarchical levels, each containing multiple criteria or sub-criteria. Through comprehensive pairwise comparisons, AHP constructs a judgment matrix and generates both the hierarchical and overall weights of all criteria. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is an extension of AHP that incorporates fuzzy numbers to represent decision makers’ judgments, enabling better handling of vagueness and uncertainty. This makes FAHP well suited for scenarios involving imprecise or ambiguous information; however, in cases where evaluation criteria can be clearly defined, its fuzzy operations may introduce redundant computations. The Best–Worst Method (BWM) determines the best and worst criteria and compares these with all other criteria to derive decision weights or priorities. In complex multi-level, multi-dimensional evaluation systems, relying solely on comparisons between the best/worst criteria and other criteria may not fully capture the interrelationships among all criteria, potentially resulting in the loss of evaluation information. In summary, this study adopts the AHP method because the research problem involves multiple hierarchical levels, contains no uncertainty requiring fuzzy processing, and necessitates a balanced consideration of interrelationships among multi-dimensional criteria.

Competition in the architectural design industry is becoming increasingly fierce, and client needs are becoming more diversified and refined. Client needs are the starting point and the end point of a company’s operations. Companies must have a deep understanding of client needs and continuously meet or even exceed client expectations in order to gain client trust and sustain ongoing engagement and procurement. Based on this, this paper takes clients’ attention as the core, constructs a hierarchical evaluation model through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, identifies the key factors that affect customer decision making, and provides data-driven strategic guidance for design organizations. This research not only makes up for the lack of quantitative analysis in the existing literature, but also provides an operational framework for practical application within the industry.

The research objective of this paper is to explore the characteristics of design organizations of different sizes by systematically comparing and analyzing the characteristics of production activities, technological capabilities and innovation levels, resource integration capabilities, and client groups of large and small design organizations, and to determine the priority of clients’ attention to architectural design products through the Analytic Hierarchy Process, so as to provide theoretical support for the structural adjustment and development of the design industry.

2. Research Methodology and Data Sources

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework of this study. The “14th Five-Year Development Plan” of China highlights that the construction industry continues to face problems such as suboptimal development quality and insufficient operational efficiency.

This study develops an analytical framework based on the concept of “full production process value chain–scale adaptation–client decision making.” Specifically, drawing upon the relevant literature and the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory, it establishes a closed-loop model of “resource integration capabilities–technological capabilities and innovation levels–characteristics of production activities–client groups.” The core logic is that design organizations transform integrated resources into technological capabilities, which are then converted into design outputs, and ultimately, client feedback completes the value cycle. These four dimensions systematically reflect the full production lifecycle of design organizations.

Design organizations employ a wide range of management techniques, and these techniques vary according to the organizational scale. Accordingly, this paper constructs a comparative analytical framework for the production activity characteristics of large and small design organizations across the above four dimensions.

Existing research confirms that accurately identifying client needs is a critical prerequisite for successful business operations. Given the central role of clients in organizational development, this study adopts a client-centered analytical orientation. By integrating the ISO 10004:2018 with T. L. Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) principles, it establishes a client decision-making model to quantify the diversity of client requirements. In the stage of selecting a multi-criteria decision-making method, this study systematically reviews applications and practices of relevant methods in the construction industry, conducts a comparative analysis of their suitability, and identifies the advantages of AHP, ultimately designating it as the core decision-making tool.

Through detailed analysis of the production activities of both large and small design organizations, combined with the quantified weighting of client requirements, this study provides a well-structured production parameter space. This ensures transparency and reliability in management decision making and offers robust structural support for achieving high-quality and efficient management in the architectural design industry.

2.2. Research Methodology

Figure 2 illustrates the research methodology framework, outlining the sequence and structure of this study. The research begins in Section 1 with an introduction that establishes the background, reviews the current state of research, and clarifies the objectives, scope, and significance of this study from both engineering and managerial perspectives. The following Section 2 introduces the research methods and data sources, and presents the detailed process of this work. Section 3 analyzes large and small design organizations from four dimensions: characteristics of production activities, technological capabilities and innovation levels, resource integration capabilities, and client groups. Section 4 uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process to evaluate and determine the priority of clients’ attention to architectural design products from five dimensions: design, quality, cost, service, and brand. Section 5 and Section 6 comprise the Discussion and Conclusion, which summarize the research content, its significance, and limitations, and provide recommendations for future development.

2.3. Data Sources

Large Design Organizations: Typical design project cases and patent cases are selected through online resources such as websites of relevant large design organizations and websites of the China National Intellectual Property Administration [40], and two hundred representative projects completed by large design organizations are selected, covering ultra-high-rise buildings, public buildings, high-quality residential buildings, complex transportation hubs, urban infrastructure, and other types of projects.

Small design organizations: This study systematically collects and analyzes the service scope and project profiles of small design organizations by relying on online resources such as the official websites of relevant small design organizations.

Questionnaires: Experts from different organizations, such as architectural design organizations, construction organizations, research institutions, and others, scored the questionnaires. All participants are provided informed consent. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for Experimentation with Human Subjects.

To ensure the authority and comprehensiveness of expert opinions, this study invited 20 experts with extensive experience from various segments of the architectural design industry value chain to participate in the questionnaire scoring. Experts and practitioners were selected through stratified sampling from architectural design organizations, construction organizations, and research institutions in the construction industry. All participants had a minimum of five years of professional experience or had been involved in at least five projects, ensuring the authenticity and validity of the data. Each respondent was required to complete 37 pairwise comparison questions evaluating the importance of indicators at each hierarchical level. The questionnaire collection period lasted 15 days. The survey details are presented in

Table 1. Questionnaire survey status table.

Industry	Number	Total Number	Data Collection Methods	Data Processing Methods	Questionnaire Collection Period
Architectural design organizations	7	20	Questionnaire survey	Excel	15 days
Project owners	4
Construction organizations	5
Research institutions	4

.

In this study, during the data collection phase, an online questionnaire survey was adopted to collect ratings of evaluation indicators from experts in various fields. This method facilitated the participation of experts across different regions, improving the efficiency and coverage of data collection. For data processing and analysis, Excel was primarily used. On the one hand, Excel was applied for basic data sorting, cleaning, and statistical description; on the other hand, we independently developed an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) weight calculation table using Excel. Through pre-set formulas, this table enabled core steps such as consistency check of judgment matrices, eigenvalue calculation, and weight normalization, ensuring the accuracy and reproducibility of the AHP weight calculation process.

3. Characteristics of Design Organizations

3.1. Characteristics of Production Activities

3.1.1. Large Design Organizations

This study analyzes representative projects designed by large-scale design organizations and categorizes their production activities into four types based on project characteristics: large-scale complex projects, technology-driven projects, cultural landmark projects, and multi-stakeholder collaborative projects (Figure 3).

• Type 1: Large-scale complex projects

Large-scale complex projects are generally characterized by substantial capital investment, extensive site coverage, considerable building volume, prolonged construction periods, and multifaceted functional requirements. This study examines a sample of 150 representative projects undertaken by prominent architectural design organizations within the construction sector. Statistical analysis of these projects (refer to Figure 4) indicates that construction durations predominantly span multiple years: 13.9% of projects are completed within one year, 42% have durations between two and four years, and 2.8% extend beyond eight years. In terms of capital investment, 10.4% of projects involve budgets under CNY 100 million, the majority (43.4%) fall within the range of CNY 100 million to 1 billion, and 9.4% exceed CNY 5 billion. Regarding gross floor area, 5.3% of projects cover less than 10,000 m², 30.3% range between 10,000 and 50,000 m², and 2.3% surpass 3 million m².

Bridges, as specialized infrastructure, fall under the jurisdiction of municipal design organizations. This study analyzes 50 projects from large-scale bridge design organizations (Figure 5). Construction durations are similarly measured in years: projects with durations under one year account for 4.1%, the majority of projects are concentrated within the 2–4-year range, representing 53.1%, and 8.2% of projects exceed eight years in construction duration. The majority of bridge lengths are concentrated between 1 and 2 km, representing 24% of the sample, with 12% of projects exceeding 20 km in length. Regarding capital investment, the most common range centers around CNY 500 million, accounting for 31.8%, while 6.8% of projects involve investments exceeding CNY 10 billion.

These characteristics of production activities are critical, including substantial capital investment, extensive gross floor areas, and prolonged construction durations. These factors are directly related to the large project scale and the complexity of technical systems involved. Extended construction durations imply that projects must contend with multi-year market fluctuations, technological developments, and changes in management teams. The varied distribution of building scales also indicates that design organizations need to establish flexible management systems capable of handling both routine-scale projects and the collaborative control required for mega-scale developments.

There are also projects with extremely complex functions. A commercial complex in Shanghai [41] integrates multiple functions such as retail, office, and cultural tourism, forming a multifunctional composite. Its design requires coordinated resolution of conflicts among mechanical and electrical systems, pedestrian circulation routes, and comfort requirements, reflecting the complex demands of multi-business collaboration in large-scale projects. Beijing Daxing International Airport integrates aviation technology with transportation planning, architectural design [42], transportation operations [43], and other disciplines to address complex issues such as passenger flow planning, terminal layout, and the configuration of commercial and service facilities, demonstrating the characteristics of multi-disciplinary collaboration. The Chongqing Dadi Industrial Park [44] utilizes macro-level planning to coordinate research and development buildings, factories, and supporting facilities, while considering urban planning, traffic circulation, and environmental landscaping, reflecting spatial optimization capabilities at the macro scale.

In construction project management, the differing perspectives of value engineering, risk control, and full-cycle process research lead to variations in the understanding of project scale in both research and practice. This paper does not attempt to define specific numerical thresholds for classifying projects but instead determines whether a project qualifies as a large-scale project based on existing industry regulations and qualification standards [17]. A project is considered large-scale if it requires comprehensive or specialized high-level qualifications, is subject to mandatory project supervision as per national or local regulations, is included in the scope of national key construction projects, or involves significant multi-disciplinary integration, multiple concurrent specialties, long-term durations, and high levels of technical integration.

• Type 2: Technology-driven projects

Technology-driven projects are characterized by the core application of advanced construction technologies, construction methodologies, and innovative materials, imposing high demands on design organizations’ technical R&D capabilities and innovation capacities. Through in-depth case analysis, it has been found that large-scale design organizations demonstrate significant advantages in technology-intensive fields such as supertall buildings and low-carbon engineering. The Cheng’ao Tower [45] controlled component fabrication errors within 2 mm through full-process BIM coordination and parametric design technologies. The National Speed Skating Oval (“Ice Ribbon”) [46] utilized carbon dioxide transcritical direct cooling ice-making technology, achieving a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and its single-layer saddle-shaped cable-net roof represented a technical breakthrough in the industry. The Tangshan Low-Carbon Living Pavilion integrated multiple advanced energy-saving technologies, including ground-source heat pumps, solar power, and wind power generation, establishing a renewable energy comprehensive utilization system. These technologies not only supply energy to the building and reduce additional consumption but also combine with exhibition design and outdoor installations to visually demonstrate low-carbon technologies to visitors, serving an educational purpose. The Sliding Center [47] developed a “Terrain Weather Protection System” integrating track design, topography, and shading facilities, and completed the 1.9 km track in one continuous pour using millimeter-precision double-curved concrete spraying technology—the first integrated sprayed concrete technology for tracks in China. Its prefabricated steel–wood cantilevered structure reaches internationally leading standards. Facing challenges of complex terrain and extreme structures, large design organizations break through technical bottlenecks through multi-disciplinary collaborative innovation mechanisms. For example, the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge [48] immersed tunnel project established hydrodynamic, seismic wave, and multi-scale material models, combined with full-scale tests to verify sealing performance. This ultimately achieved millimeter-level settlement control over the 6.7 km subsea tunnel. Its technological breakthroughs rely on three major supporting systems: industry–university–research collaboration platforms, digital technology clusters, and standardized knowledge management, accelerating technology iteration through a project experience database.

• Type 3: Cultural landmark projects

Cultural landmark projects are primarily characterized by their role as cultural symbols of a city or region. Their design requires deep integration of regional cultural connotations, shaping unique identities through the excavation of historical traditions and humanistic features. Typical examples include museums, theaters, and cultural centers. Taking a large design firm in Shenzhen as an example, quantitative analysis of its project portfolio (see Figure 6) visually presents the proportional distribution of the firm’s typical production activities. The analysis reveals the firm’s expertise and project focus across different types. Public building planning and design dominate, constituting 79.07% of projects, while cultural, educational, and exhibition projects account for 16.28%, thereby reflecting profound cultural elements and design value.

The Xinjiang Grand Theatre [49], as a cultural landmark of the Belt and Road Initiative, incorporates characteristic elements such as arches, long corridors, and pools inspired by the Tianshan snow lotus and Islamic architectural features. Through abstract design interpretation, it conveys the millennium-long Silk Road civilization, becoming a tangible carrier of multi-ethnic cultural identity in Xinjiang. The golden brick-textured core expresses the strong regional cultural characteristics of Xinjiang.

The Zhuhai Grand Theatre [50], as an island theater in China, employs an unconventional shell-shaped design. The “Sun and Moon Shell” form interprets the maritime philosophy that “Pearls are born from shells, and shells are born from the sea.” Through spatial cantilevering and twisted exceptional structures, it achieves a symbiotic relationship between architecture and ocean landscape, embodying Zhuhai’s urban spirit of embracing marine civilization and becoming a cultural landmark.

Additionally, the Changde Silk String Opera Troupe complex serves as a tangible carrier of intangible cultural heritage. Traditional opera art elements are integrated into the spatial organization and facade vocabulary, demonstrating the comprehensive value of cultural landmark projects in terms of historical inheritance, technological innovation, and economic benefits.

• Type 4: Multi-stakeholder collaborative projects

Multi-stakeholder collaborative projects refer to integrated projects involving a variety of stakeholders such as governments, enterprises, social organizations, and other parties. These projects are often complex and dynamic, requiring close collaboration among all parties to ensure smooth progress. Taking bridge construction within municipal engineering as an example, funding is primarily sourced from government fiscal budgets. The implementation process encompasses specialized disciplines including geological surveying, structural mechanics analysis, and environmental impact assessment. Concurrently, the project must comply with a multi-dimensional regulatory system including government and housing construction authority qualification reviews, quality control by third-party supervision agencies, and public participation in decision making. Under these multiple frameworks, related tasks must be completed interactively to ensure the successful completion of the project.

At the practical level, the Tianjin Municipal People’s Government has established a strategic cooperation framework with China State Construction Engineering Corporation. Both parties will deepen collaboration in areas such as infrastructure development, urban renewal, science, education, culture, health, and livelihood projects, as well as green building promotion [51]. This model innovatively integrates government planning functions with the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) general contracting strengths of enterprises, forming a closed-loop management system characterized by “policy guidance-–capital integration–technical implementation”. Transnational collaborative projects exhibit even more complex regulatory integration characteristics. For instance, the Lusail Stadium Project for the Qatar World Cup [52] required the design team to simultaneously comply with FIFA technical standards, European Union structural codes, and seismic regulations of the Gulf region. By establishing a three-dimensional standards matrix, the project achieved dynamic adaptation to multinational regulatory requirements. This project has been included in the Belt and Road international engineering demonstration case library. Transnational projects operate as temporary cross-border organizational units composed of individuals from different nationalities, working across diverse cultures, business units, and functions, thereby possessing the specialized expertise necessary to address the shared strategic objectives of multinational corporations. Similar to other project types, transnational projects face the challenge of enabling individuals from varied functional domains and groups to collaborate effectively within limited timeframes to achieve specific project goals. Additionally, transnational projects face further challenges, including geographical dispersion, cultural diversity, language barriers, and disparities in technical infrastructure. Project members often have no prior acquaintance and may not have met in person before project commences. Differences may also exist in work practices, communication protocols, and decision-making norms [53].

3.1.2. Small Design Organizations

Based on data collected from the production activities of small-scale design organizations, online resources, and interviews with designers, their production activities can be categorized into four types: small-scale simple projects, specialized niche projects, localized projects, and short-cycle, low-budget projects, as illustrated in Figure 7.

• Type 1: Small-scale simple projects

Small-scale simple projects refer to projects with limited scope, single functionality, and straightforward technical requirements. Small design organizations typically possess Class B or Class C design qualifications. According to Article 8 of the Regulations on the Administration of Construction Engineering Survey and Design, surveying and design units shall undertake construction project surveying and design services only within the scope permitted by their qualification level. It is prohibited for these units to engage in survey and design services beyond their qualification scope or under the name of other qualified entities. Likewise, it is forbidden for these units to allow other entities or individuals to undertake survey and design services in their name [54]. This stipulation means that design organizations are permitted to undertake only projects corresponding to their qualification level. Organizations with Class B design qualification undertake the design of main structures and associated auxiliary works for small and medium-sized construction projects within their industry or specialty. Those with Class C qualification are limited to designing main structures and associated auxiliary works for small-scale construction projects. Medium-sized construction projects include single-building floor areas between 5000 and 20,000 m²; medium-sized public buildings with heights between 24 and 50 m; standard architectural environment design and exterior works; single-story industrial plants or warehouses with spans less than 30 m and crane capacities under 30 tons; multi-story factories or warehouses with spans less than 12 m and fewer than six floors; standard residential buildings under 20 stories; and planning designs not exceeding 300,000 m². Small-scale construction projects include single-building floor areas under 5000 m²; buildings with heights not exceeding 24 m; small public buildings with single functions and simple technical requirements; simple architectural environment design and exterior works; interior decoration projects equivalent to one-star hotels or below; single-story industrial plants or warehouses with spans less than 24 m and crane capacities under 10 tons; and residential dormitories with no more than 12 floors [17]. Structurally simpler projects such as ordinary residential houses and small commercial shops, including street-front stores and community convenience stores, typically do not require complex design or extensive coordination efforts. These project types fall well within the design scope suitable for small-scale design organizations.

• Type 2: Specialized niche projects

Specialized niche projects typically refer to projects of modest scale but with distinctive, personalized characteristics, often involving specific professional domains. For example, in boutique lodging (such as homestay) design, these projects generally entail unique design requirements and individualized stylistic expressions, emphasizing creativity and attention to detail. Small design organizations, leveraging their inherent flexibility and proximity to clients, are able to thoroughly explore clients’ lifestyle needs and esthetic preferences. Employee empowerment, defined as granting staff autonomy, authority, and access to necessary resources to independently make decisions and execute actions within their roles [55], effectively stimulates designers’ personal creativity. This approach enables the development of bespoke, distinctive spaces precisely attuned to client demands. Various design organizations have cultivated specialized expertise. For instance, Jintai Xiangshu Architectural Design Co., Ltd. in Chongqing, China (http://www.jtxiangshu.com/ (accessed on 25 March 2025)) specializes in rural self-built housing design in Chongqing, including small rural villa designs and renovation projects. Their portfolio encompasses villas of various styles and numbers of stories, alongside dissemination of knowledge on their official website covering national policies on rural self-built housing, construction approaches such as turnkey versus subcontracted methods, their respective advantages and disadvantages, and structural detailing for rural villas. This reflects the organization’s strong professional competency in this niche. Similarly, a design studio in Wuhan focuses on interior spatial design, specializing in private residences, upscale renovations, commercial spaces, and precision construction. With a dedicated professional team conducting in-depth research and accumulating domain-specific expertise and technology, the studio has established unique competitive advantages, providing high-quality design services within their respective fields.

• Type 3: Localized projects

Localized projects refer to projects situated within the same geographical region as the design organization, typically exhibiting distinct regional characteristics. Research on typical projects undertaken by small design organizations reveals a pronounced phenomenon of regional service clustering. For example, regional design institutes primarily target markets within a specific geographic area, being deeply rooted in their respective locales, and provide specialized services based on this foundation. These include municipal-level, county-level, and other localized small-to-medium design enterprises. Such institutes generally develop from municipal-level professional institutions, leveraging their established local market presence and accumulated brand equity over years to capitalize on urban development opportunities. They extend their professional services along the primary urban construction industry chain. By relying on local resources and markets, these institutes focus on the economic and social development needs of the region, delivering planning and design services that align with local conditions and requirements. Projects designed by local design institutes inherently demonstrate strong regional service characteristics due to their close integration with local conditions and demands. For instance, a design studio in Wuhan has project locations distributed across Hongshan District, Hanyang District, Donghu High-Tech Zone, Dongxihu District, and others. Similarly, a landscape design studio in Shanghai concentrates its services within Pudong New Area, Changning District, Xuhui District, and other districts without exceeding Shanghai’s administrative boundaries. This phenomenon is further corroborated by in-depth interviews, where a lead designer from a Henan-based design firm explicitly noted: “The vast majority of clients, when selecting us, particularly value our team’s deep understanding of local construction codes, cultural traditions, and approval processes. Local service advantages are a critical factor influencing clients’ choice of design organizations.” Localization encompasses focusing on the local market, employing local talent, using local materials, and forming a distinct regional architectural style. For example, by integrating themes such as energy efficiency, environmental protection, and sustainability, these organizations strive to develop “livable” buildings that optimally correspond to local conditions. This level of regional adaptation is often difficult for large design organizations to achieve with comparable depth.

• Type 4: Short-cycle, low-budget projects

Short-cycle, low-budget projects are typically characterized by tight schedules and well-defined tasks, requiring rapid delivery of outcomes. Therefore, they place high demands on the responsiveness and operational efficiency of design organizations. Analysis of project cases and service processes of small design organizations reveals that project timelines for small architectural design organizations are generally more flexible than those of large design organizations. This flexibility arises from their relatively flat organizational structure, simplified hierarchy, and informal communication channels. Typically, core team members are fewer in number, allowing for direct communication and enabling swift decision making on project issues without undergoing complex multi-level approval procedures. Decision making within these firms is often decentralized, enabling rapid responses to market changes and to empower employees [56], resulting in a faster decision-making process. In contrast, large organizations usually have complex hierarchical structures and multiple management layers, which slow down decision making. Another small design studio in Wuhan follows a well-defined design process, delivering approximately three design proposals for client review within 7–10 days after site measurement completion. Furthermore, small design organizations have lower operating costs, which translates into reduced design fees. These firms typically maintain lean staffing and minimal office space requirements, sometimes operating from home offices or shared workspaces, substantially reducing expenses related to rent and facility maintenance. With fewer team members and simpler management levels, labor costs are comparatively low. Many small design organizations adopt fixed salary structures or flexible employment arrangements to further control labor expenditures. Due to overall lower overhead, small design organizations can offer clients more competitive pricing, making professional design services accessible to clients with constrained budgets. The short decision chain within small teams enables quick response to client needs, reducing project duration and communication costs, which further lowers total project expenses. This advantage makes small organizations particularly suitable for startups and individual owners with limited budgets, allowing them to meet design requirements while effectively controlling costs, thus achieving a mutually beneficial outcome.

3.2. Technological Capabilities and Innovation Levels

Innovation activities are often accompanied by uncertain cost structures, unpredictable returns on investment, and risks faced by the organization [57]. The ability to successfully carry out innovation depends on the organization’s integration of a range of capabilities, including securing funding, understanding market demands, recruiting high-quality talent, and establishing effective interactions with other stakeholders [58]. The majority of innovative enterprises are found within large organizations [59]. Large design organizations typically possess robust technological capabilities. In terms of scientific and technological research and development, they have ample financial and human resources, allowing them to allocate significant investments toward cutting-edge technology R&D and to establish systematic innovation frameworks. This study’s in-depth investigation into the technological innovation of large design organizations reveals that they generally establish dedicated research departments. For example, many large design organizations have specialized R&D centers equipped with advanced laboratory facilities and professional researchers, focusing on the development of new construction materials, structural systems, and digital design technologies.

Due to limitations in funding and personnel, small design organizations face inherent constraints in investing in technological R&D, making it difficult to conduct large-scale laboratory research activities [60,61]. However, it is important to emphasize that, beyond scientific research technologies, any methods, tools, facilities, or even expertise that help organizations reduce costs, shorten cycles, increase value, or solve new problems can be regarded as technology. Examples include knowledge management, project-based research, digital management, professional training, technical summarization, and documentation databases—all of which fall within the domain of technological development [62]. The core characteristic of this type of technological development path is that it is always grounded in project practice and closely iterates around business needs.

Compared to the complex hierarchical structures of large design organizations, small organizations benefit from a flat management structure and flexible staffing arrangements, significantly reducing internal communication costs. They leverage their capabilities to quickly adapt to market changes and demonstrate flexibility and agility in both strategy formulation and execution [63]. Furthermore, organizational agility and open innovation function as mutually reinforcing forces driving competitiveness in today’s dynamic business environment. Organizational agility enhances a firm’s adaptability, enabling rapid responses to market shifts, technological advancements, and client demands. This flexibility allows firms to adopt open innovation practices, collaborating with startups, academia, or clients as external partners to co-create value [64]. As a result, small organizations tend to focus on niche markets or specialized products/services aiming for differentiation and effective competition. This characteristic provides them with a competitive advantage in delivering customized services. They often possess unique expertise in specific domains and, by concentrating on particular design services or client groups, can offer more tailored and high-quality design solutions. In terms of application, small design organizations prioritize flexibility and pragmatism. They select appropriate technological approaches based on the actual project requirements and budgets to achieve optimal design outcomes.

Patents represent the legal recognition of unique technologies, innovative design concepts, and novel design methodologies developed by design organizations. In most countries, patents are primarily categorized into three types: invention patents, utility model patents, and design patents. An invention patent refers to a new technical solution for a product, a method, or an improvement thereof; a utility model patent pertains to a new, practical technical solution related to the shape, structure, or their combination of a product; while a design patent protects new designs that are esthetically pleasing and industrially applicable, involving the overall or partial shape, pattern, or combination of color with shape and pattern of a product [65]. Based on this classification, three design organizations with varying quantities of invention patents were selected for analysis, as shown in Figure 8. Among the patent types, invention patents contain a higher degree of technical content and undergo a stringent technical examination process. The National Intellectual Property Administration conducts a “three-principle” review for invention patents: novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability. The approval process includes patent application, acceptance, preliminary examination, publication, substantive examination request, substantive examination, and authorization. The application process for invention patents is more complex due to the required substantive examination, reflecting high-level technical innovation achievements. Selecting invention patents as the focus helps to ensure patent quality to a significant extent.

In Figure 8, A, B, and C represent three design organizations with 25, 75, and 175 invention patents, respectively. Analysis of these organizations shows that their engineering project design award numbers are over 200, 600, and 1200, respectively. There is a positive correlation between the quantity of engineering design awards and the number of patents. This relationship partially indicates that organizations with a higher number of patents have accumulated extensive technical knowledge through long-term development, providing a solid foundation for designing high-quality engineering projects.

3.3. Resource Integration Capability

Large design organizations leverage comprehensive talent recruitment and development systems to attract professionals from diverse backgrounds, including designers, engineers, and managers, thereby forming highly efficient collaborative teams that ensure project advancement. In terms of technical resource integration, these organizations not only possess their own R&D achievements and coordinate multi-disciplinary technical teams to solve complex problems, but also integrate external advanced technologies by collaborating with technology suppliers and research institutions. This enables them to acquire the latest technical knowledge and resources in a timely manner and apply them effectively to projects. Consequently, they possess significant advantages in internal talent reserves and technical capacity [66], which also allow them to enjoy economies of scale in securing resources for business operations and commercialization activities [67], including diversified funding channels to raise project capital and the ability to procure advanced design and construction equipment. Moreover, they excel at collaborating with stakeholders within and beyond the industry, integrating upstream and downstream industry chain resources [68,69], and establishing long-term, stable partnerships with suppliers, contractors, and operations management firms to facilitate coordinated development throughout the entire project lifecycle.

Small design organizations, due to their limited size, often face challenges in accessing the resources and capabilities necessary to enhance productivity, such as acquiring talent proficient in the latest technologies, financial expertise, and managerial knowledge. Moreover, many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are newly established and operate on a small scale, which makes it difficult for them to secure funding and gain client trust. In addition, non-traditional market players such as crowdfunding platforms and venture capital funds remain underdeveloped in many countries and are often unable to meet the specific needs of SMEs [70]. In terms of human resources and technical capabilities, these organizations typically rely on the personal networks and industry relationships of core designers, who often assume multiple roles including technical coordination, cost control, and client communication. Owing to their limited development platforms and fewer opportunities to participate in large-scale projects, they struggle to attract talent and face significant difficulties in recruitment [71]. Financially and in terms of equipment, small design organizations primarily depend on their own funds, limited loans, and client prepayments to carry out projects, with relatively constrained equipment procurement. However, their smaller scale facilitates close teamwork, efficient communication, and resource sharing, thereby enabling them to maximize the utilization of limited resources and generate value.

3.4. Client Groups

For the classification of client groups, this paper adopts a general classification approach, emphasizing the alignment between the service targets and project requirements. The classification is based on factors such as funding sources, decision-making processes, and organizational governance.

Large design organizations primarily focus on providing professional services to high-end clients such as government agencies and large enterprises. Their projects span multiple sectors including large-scale public buildings, municipal engineering, and urban planning, with the majority of project funding sourced from national or governmental budgets. For large public buildings that require multifunctional integration, high-precision technical coordination, and the translation of cultural symbolism, or for complex integrated projects involving diverse business couplings and full lifecycle multi-interface collaboration, it is recommended to prioritize large design organizations with systematic coordination capabilities and comprehensive lifecycle management experience. These organizations can establish a reliability–guarantee mechanism in the three dimensions of spatial efficiency optimization, regional cultural heritage, and multi-party rights and responsibilities balance by building an inter-disciplinary technology matrix and BIM collaboration platform.

Small design organizations primarily serve a diverse client base, including individual owners and small businesses, with project types focusing on small-scale buildings, interior design, and other specialized design services. Their project funding sources are mainly private. For smaller-scale projects with relatively limited technical complexity and cultural expression requirements, but emphasizing personalized service responsiveness and stringent cost control, it is advisable to prioritize local small design organizations. Such organizations typically possess strong localized resource integration capabilities and flexible communication mechanisms, enabling them to reduce overall costs through streamlined processes and local collaboration while ensuring the achievement of essential project functions and meeting clients’ customized needs.

4. Clients’ Attention to Architectural Design Products

Design organizations must plan and systematically expand into broader architectural design markets. In this process, client needs should be the primary consideration when formulating market development strategies. Given the complexity of client composition in the architectural design sector, analyzing the diverse requirements of different client groups is essential. Only through effective analysis can organizations fully understand client demands, which in turn provides the foundation for formulating accurate and effective market development strategies. The importance of user requirements reflects both their weight in the overall design decision-making process and the degree of client attention to the product. Prioritizing identified user requirements is therefore a critical step in requirements allocation [72].

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), proposed by T. L. Saaty at the University of Pittsburgh in the early 1970s, is a multi-criteria decision-making method [73]. This approach hierarchically structures complex decision systems by decomposing multi-factor decisions into multi-level single-factor problems, enabling the determination of the relative weights or priorities for elements at each level through both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Its advantage lies in combining expert experience with rational analysis, making it well suited for addressing complex, unstructured, multi-objective, multi-criteria, and multi-factor decision problems [74]. AHP has been applied in nearly all decision-making scenarios, including selection, evaluation, cost–benefit analysis, risk assessment, resource allocation, planning, development, prioritization, and ranking [75]. For example, when selecting architectural design products, clients often consider and compare factors such as design, quality, cost, service, and brand, which are interdependent and mutually influential. The decision-making process requires gathering and processing information, weighing the priorities of various factors, and reaching a final decision. AHP is particularly suitable for analyzing unstructured, multi-objective system evaluations like “clients’ preference characteristics for architectural design products”. Through relatively simple computations, AHP can determine the weight of each preference characteristic, thereby establishing an evaluation system to assess the significance of different influencing factors and provide a basis for subsequent decision making. Therefore, this study employs AHP to evaluate and rank the importance of “clients’ attention to architectural design products”, with the process illustrated in Figure 9.

This study examines selected evaluation criteria regarding clients’ attention to attributes of architectural design products [2], and establishes a hierarchical structure model as shown in Figure 10.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model consists of three levels: the goal level, the criterion level, and the indicator level. In this study, the goal level represents the overall objective of the indicator system, which is “clients’ attention to architectural design products”. The criterion level is divided into five dimensions: design, quality, cost, service, and brand. The indicator level further refines and decomposes each criterion into quantifiable or qualitative indicators.

To construct a comprehensive evaluation index system, 20 experts from diverse sectors—including construction organizations, architectural design organizations, and research institutions—were invited to evaluate the importance of each indicator. The rating scale for the importance levels was defined as shown in

Table 2. Importance scale for pairwise comparison of indicators.

Intensity of Importance	Definition
1	The two factors are equally important.
2	The first factor is slightly more important than the second.
3	The first factor is clearly more important than the second.
4	The first factor is strongly more important than the second.
5	The first factor is extremely more important than the second.
Reciprocal (1/n)	If factor i is rated relative to factor j, then factor j is 1/n relative to factor i.

. The geometric mean of the expert scores was taken to construct a pairwise comparison matrix. Then, the eigenvector and maximum eigenvalue were calculated, and consistency was verified (ensuring the consistency ratio (CR) < 0.1). Upon satisfying this condition, the final weights of each level of the indicator system were obtained. The specific computational process is illustrated in Figure 11.

When the consistency ratio (CR) is < 0.1, the consistency check is considered to have passed, indicating that the weight calculations are valid. If CR is > 0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix must be reconstructed and the weights re-evaluated. The Random Index (RI) represents the average consistency index derived by Saaty from 1000 simulations, with reference values shown in

Table 3. Values of RI.

n	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
RI	0.00	0.00	0.58	0.90	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45

[76].

The judgment matrix of the criterion level with respect to the goal level is taken as an example (

Table 4. Judgment matrix.

	Design	Quality	Cost	Service	Brand
Design	1	1/2	1	1/2	2
Quality	2	1	2	2	2
Cost	1	1/2	1	2	3
Service	2	1/2	1/2	1	3
Brand	1/2	1/2	1/3	1/3	1

Note: the data are derived from the questionnaire survey responses of 20 experts.

).

$$W_i={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{W_i}}{{\sum }_{\mathrm{k}=1}^n \overline{W_i}}}(i,j=1,2,\dots ,n)=(0.1590,0.3159,0.2286,0.2044,0.0921)$$

$${\mathsf{\lambda }}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}=1/n{\sum }_{i=1}^n {\displaystyle \frac{(AW{)}_i}{w_i}}=5.266$$

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\lambda }\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}-n}{n-1}}=(5.266-5)/4=0.067$$

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}/\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}=0.067/1.12=0.059<0.1$$

The CR of less than 0.10 indicates that the consistency test is passed, and the judgment matrix A is valid. Therefore, the calculated weight coefficients (0.1590, 0.3159, 0.2286, 0.2044, 0.0921) can be considered reliable and used in further analysis.

Similarly, following the same procedure used to calculate the weights and perform consistency checks between the criterion level and the goal level, the weights of the indicator level with respect to the corresponding criteria can also be computed and evaluated for consistency. The calculation results are summarized in

Table 5. Calculation results.

Criterion Level	Criterion Weight	Indicator Level	Indicator Weight	Global Weight
Design	0.1590	Appearance and environmental utilization	0.158	0.025
		Function and utilization rate	0.178	0.028
		Technological innovation	0.149	0.024
		Environmental protection and energy-saving measures	0.151	0.024
		Material application	0.100	0.016
		Structural safety	0.265	0.042
Quality	0.3159	Drawing quality	0.490	0.155
		Construction supervision	0.312	0.099
		Detail processing	0.198	0.063
Cost	0.2286	Budget transparency	0.187	0.043
		Construction cost	0.579	0.132
		Use and maintenance cost	0.234	0.053
Service	0.2044	Pre-consultation and cooperation	0.334	0.068
		Design scheme comparison	0.142	0.029
		Communication and coordination	0.525	0.107
Brand	0.0921	Industry awards and certifications	0.252	0.023
		Market reputation	0.159	0.015
		Risk resistance	0.589	0.054

Note: the data are derived from the questionnaire survey responses of 20 experts.

. Based on Table 4, the weight distribution diagrams are presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

As illustrated in Figure 12, the ranking of criterion-level weights is as follows: quality (0.3159) > cost (0.2286) > service (0.2044) > design (0.1590) > brand (0.0921). Among the primary evaluation factors, “quality” has the highest weight, indicating that it is the most critical consideration for clients when evaluating architectural design products. Both “cost” and “service” also hold relatively high weights, followed by “design.” “Brand” holds the lowest weight, which may be attributed to the project-based nature of the architectural design industry—clients tend to make decisions based on tangible deliverables rather than brand reputation.

As shown in Figure 13, drawing quality, construction cost, and communication and coordination are the three most critical indicators influencing clients’ attention toward architectural design products.

5. Discussion

5.1. Systematic Characteristics of Differences in Design

Production activities exhibit scale-oriented differentiation: Large design organizations predominantly undertake large-scale complex projects, technology-driven projects, cultural landmark projects, and multi-stakeholder collaborative projects. Small design organizations excel in agility and localization, focusing on small-scale simple projects, specialized niche projects, localized projects, and short-cycle, low-budget projects.

Innovation pathways are constrained by organizational scale: Large design organizations rely on systematic and structured innovation, leveraging dedicated R&D to tackle technical challenges and placing greater emphasis on technological exploration. Small design organizations primarily adopt lightweight innovation, integrating available resources for practical and application-oriented innovation.

Resource integration and client base compatibility differ: Large design organizations mainly serve government agencies and large enterprises, characterized by diversified financing channels, fully leveraging industrial resource integration advantages to achieve monopolistic development of resources. Small design organizations focus on private clients and small enterprises, deeply cultivating localized or customized markets, thereby utilizing their flat organizational structures to efficiently utilize existing local market resources.

The innovation advantages of large design organizations align with the conclusion that large organizations tend to accumulate greater innovation resources. The regional localization focus of small design organizations is consistent with research findings on the embedded development of small organizations [77]. Additionally, due to the explicit qualification constraints imposed on small design organizations under China’s Architectural Engineering Design Qualification System [17], their suitability for small-scale design projects is further emphasized.

5.2. Hierarchical Structure of Client Priorities

Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model analysis, client priorities regarding architectural design products exhibit a clear hierarchical distribution of weights across both the criterion and indicator levels. At the criterion level, the quality dimension carries the highest weight at 0.3159, making it the primary focus of clients. Within this dimension, drawing quality (0.155) emerges as the top-ranked indicator, directly reflecting clients’ strong emphasis on technical feasibility and constructability. Construction supervision (0.099) and detail processing (0.063) further underscore the demand for process control during the project delivery phase.

The cost dimension holds a weight of 0.2286 at the criterion level, reflecting clients’ cost sensitivity, consistent with the findings of Johan, F. et al. [78] that “price influences client purchasing behavior.” At the indicator level, during the project design stage, clients’ focus on construction cost (0.132) significantly outweighs that on use and maintenance cost (0.053), clearly demonstrating the prioritization of short-term economic constraints.

The service and collaboration dimension holds a weight of 0.2044 at the criterion level, with communication and coordination (0.107) assigned a weight approximately 3.7 times greater than that of design scheme comparison (0.029). This finding aligns with the industry characteristic of high coordination costs in construction [3] and supports findings that problem-solving capability is a critical determinant of client satisfaction [24].

The brand dimension carries a comparatively lower weight (0.0921), with risk resilience (0.054) prioritized over industry awards and certifications (0.023), reflecting a result-oriented decision-making logic in construction projects.

The central role of quality and cost weights in this study aligns with the ISO 10004:2018 client satisfaction framework. Unlike the brand-dominated characteristics of the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry, the architectural design sector places greater emphasis on technical deliverables [24]. This conclusion is also consistent with the findings of Karna, S. et al., who pointed out that design quality, project experience, and price are the primary factors influencing clients’ selection of architectural design services [79].

Based on the weight-oriented analysis, design organizations should optimize resource allocation and management strategies across the following dimensions:

Strengthening technical capabilities and standardization: Given the high weight assigned to drawing quality, design organizations should integrate BIM-based collaborative platforms, parametric design tools, and structural simulation technologies, while establishing standardized knowledge repositories to minimize design errors. Cross-disciplinary collaboration—for example, with materials science and digital engineering—should be leveraged to enhance detailed component design and develop reusable technical modules. For complex projects, full-lifecycle BIM management should be implemented to ensure consistency between design concepts and construction drawings.

Comprehensive cost control and supply chain integration: The high priority placed on construction costs necessitates the establishment of refined cost-control mechanisms, including centralized procurement, localized resource integration, and risk transfer through the EPC model. Modular design and prefabricated components should be applied to shorten construction schedules, while transparent bill-of-quantities reporting can improve clients’ cost perception. Strategic alliances among suppliers, contractors, and design organizations should be developed to reduce overall project costs.

Agile service and collaboration system optimization: Given the high weight attributed to communication and coordination, design organizations should implement cross-departmental collaboration platforms to enable real-time engagement with clients, regulatory bodies, and contractors, thereby avoiding delays caused by procedural inefficiencies. A rapid demand-to-deliverable conversion mechanism should be established, enabling frequent design iterations and on-site adjustments to strengthen client trust. For example, in boutique accommodation projects, a weekly progress reporting system can balance operational efficiency with personalized client requirements.

Dynamic risk management and resource allocation: Priority should be given to investment in technical R&D and cost-control initiatives. Large organizations may collaborate with universities to establish industry–academia–research platforms that drive technological innovation, while smaller enterprises should focus on localized resource integration and flexible service capabilities. A dynamic client-demand tracking system should be maintained, incorporating satisfaction feedback to update the weighted indicator system. Contingency plans should be developed to address policy shifts or market volatility.

6. Conclusions

This study, from the perspective of organizational scale, systematically elucidates the characteristics and underlying logic of production activities in large and small design organizations. By constructing a comparative framework encompassing production activity features, technological capabilities and innovation levels, resource integration capacity, and client base, it clarifies the operational differences between organizations of different scales. Furthermore, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model was developed to evaluate clients’ attention to architectural design products. Through quantitative analysis, this study reveals the weight of influence across hierarchical indicators, thereby providing theoretical guidance for industry development.

The findings indicate that large design organizations, leveraging their technological R&D advantages and cross-disciplinary resource integration capabilities, dominate large-scale complex projects, technology-driven projects, cultural landmark developments, and multi-party collaborative initiatives, serving primarily governmental departments and large corporate clients. In contrast, small design organizations, capitalizing on flexibility, localized knowledge, and agile response mechanisms, focus on small-scale simple projects, specialized niche projects, localized developments, and short-cycle, low-budget projects, with a core client base comprising individual owners and small enterprises.

AHP results show that, within the criterion layer, quality (weight: 0.3159) and cost (weight: 0.2286) are the key decision factors, with a combined contribution rate of 54.45%, underscoring clients’ core demand for value performance in architectural products. Further analysis of the indicator layer identifies drawing quality (weight: 0.155), construction cost (weight: 0.132), communication and coordination (weight: 0.107) as having significant weight advantages. Based on these findings, four optimization strategies are proposed for design organizations: strengthen technical capabilities and standardization to improve design quality and craftsmanship; enhance end-to-end cost control and supply chain integration to ensure economic efficiency; optimize agile service and collaboration systems to improve client satisfaction and communication efficiency; and establish dynamic risk management and resource allocation mechanisms to increase adaptability and stability. By comprehensively optimizing these critical factors, design organizations can better meet client demands and improve the scientific rigor and rationality of project decision making.

The core contribution of this study lies in systematically revealing the differentiated characteristics of design organizations by scale, offering a scientific perspective for understanding their core competitive advantages and development strategies. The AHP model quantitatively prioritizes client concerns, providing theoretical support for optimizing resource allocation, structural adjustments within the industry, and advancing high-quality development.

Limitations: The primary limitation is that the dataset is derived mainly from Chinese design organizations, which may constrain applicability to other regions. The generalizability of conclusions should be validated through empirical research in other countries or regions. Moreover, while this study compares large and small organizations, it does not systematically differentiate intra-scale variations such as ownership type, internal governance structures, or degree of specialization. The priorities and decision-making criteria of different client groups may also vary. In the quantitative analysis, emphasis was placed on project counts and patent counts, without fully integrating quality assessment metrics or contextual factors.

Future Research: Future studies could integrate detailed case analyses to deepen contextual understanding, and construct a “quantity–quality–impact” three-dimensional evaluation framework. Project analysis could incorporate “technical complexity coefficients” and “social impact indices” while patent analysis could be supplemented with citation frequency, technology conversion rates, and adoption rates in industry standards. In research on clients’ attention to architectural design products, an additional “social impact” dimension could be introduced.