Journal Home Page

OPEN ACCESS

Balancing Creativity and Budget: Financial Management in Interior Design Practices

1Sabiha Yasmeen Sania ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1019-0683 1Mahboboor Rahman ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4072-9957 2Mimyea Moon Puspita ORCID: 1Department of Interior Architecture 2Department of Drawing & Painting Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh

Prof. Dr Kazi Abdul Mannan Department of Business Administration Faculty of Business Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: drkaziabdulmannan@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-132X   Corresponding author: Sabiha Yasmeen Sania: sabihayasmeen11@gmail.com

Cap. mark. financ. rev. 2026, 6(1); https://doi.org/10.64907/xkmf.v6i1.cmfr.1

Submission received: 1 October 2025 / Revised: 9 November 2025 / Accepted: 21 December 2025 / Published: 2 January 2026

Download PDF (823 KB)

Abstract

Interior design practices must continually negotiate the tension between creative ambition and budgetary constraints. This qualitative study examines how interior designers manage financial resources while preserving design quality and creative intent. Drawing on interviews with fifteen practising interior designers across small and mid-sized firms, document analysis of project budgets, and analysis of design proposals, the study investigates strategies, decision-making heuristics, and organisational practices that support financially sustainable creativity. Using Amabile’s componential theory of creativity and project-based financial management frameworks as a theoretical lens, the research identifies five core strategies: (1) early-stage value framing and client education, (2) modular specification and staged upgrades, (3) rigorous cost transparency and collaborative sourcing, (4) prioritization of design-critical elements, and (5) leveraging cross-subsidization and value-engineering as creative tools rather than compromises. Findings suggest that designers who proactively integrate financial fluency into the creative process achieve higher perceived client satisfaction and project viability. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for training, contractual practices, and firm-level financial governance to sustain creativity within fiscal realities.

Keywords: interior design, creativity, budget management, qualitative research, value engineering, client education

1. Introduction

Interior design is a profession situated at the nexus of creativity, technical expertise, and financial stewardship. Practitioners are tasked with producing environments that are not only visually compelling and functionally effective but also economically viable. Clients typically enter design projects with competing expectations: they seek unique, innovative spaces while simultaneously imposing budgetary restrictions that often limit material choices, spatial interventions, or construction techniques (Lawson, 2006; Cross, 2006). This dual expectation creates one of the most enduring tensions in the field: balancing creative aspirations with financial feasibility. For interior designers, financial mismanagement can undermine trust, derail projects, and diminish creative potential, while successful financial stewardship can enhance professional credibility and sustain long-term client relationships (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017).

The issue of balancing creativity and budget is particularly acute in the contemporary design economy, where globalisation, digital tools, and heightened client awareness amplify both opportunities and constraints. On one hand, the proliferation of design resources—such as online inspiration platforms and computer-aided visualisation tools—has raised client expectations for bespoke and highly creative outcomes (Poldma, 2013). On the other hand, volatile material costs, tight construction schedules, and competitive bidding environments place intense pressure on financial control (Alarcon & Mourgues, 2010). The confluence of these trends underscores the necessity for designers to develop robust strategies for integrating financial management into the creative process.

Historically, scholarly attention to design has privileged the cognitive and processual dimensions of creativity. Researchers such as Cross (2006) and Lawson (2006) have examined how designers frame problems, generate solutions, and navigate iterative prototyping. Amabile’s (1996) componential theory of creativity provides a psychological framework for understanding the interplay between domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrinsic task motivation. While these perspectives illuminate how designers produce novel and effective solutions, they largely omit the role of financial constraints in shaping creative practice. As a result, the literature has often positioned budgets as external inhibitors of creativity rather than as integral components of design thinking (Stokes, 2001).

At the same time, management and project-based research have extensively addressed budgeting, resource allocation, and governance in fields such as construction and engineering (PMI, 2017). Financial frameworks such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996) and value-engineering methodologies (Dell’Isola, 1997) emphasise measurable efficiency and performance but often appear rigid when applied to design-led contexts where flexibility, iteration, and client preferences play central roles. This disciplinary divide—between design studies privileging creativity and management studies privileging financial control—has left a conceptual and empirical gap in understanding how financial management and creativity can be effectively integrated in interior design practice.

The practical stakes of this gap are significant. Empirical evidence shows that cost overruns and misaligned expectations are common in interior projects, leading to disputes, reduced client satisfaction, and reputational damage for firms (Hwang & Ng, 2013). Conversely, when designers can creatively adapt to budgetary limits—through strategies such as modular specification, staged upgrades, or innovative sourcing—projects often achieve both financial discipline and high-quality design outcomes (Poldma, 2013). Recognising budgets not as obstacles but as creative parameters may enable designers to produce solutions that are both resourceful and aesthetically compelling.

This study addresses the central research question: How do interior designers balance creativity and budgetary constraints in practice, and which strategies enable financially sustainable creative outcomes? By exploring this question qualitatively, the research seeks to illuminate tacit knowledge, decision-making heuristics, and interactional practices that are often invisible in quantitative assessments of project success. A qualitative focus is particularly important in interior design, where creativity is context-dependent and financial practices are often embedded in interpersonal negotiations between designers, clients, and contractors.

The significance of this inquiry lies not only in filling a scholarly gap but also in offering practical guidance for the profession. As interior design evolves into a more globally competitive and professionalised field, designers must demonstrate not only artistic skill but also managerial competence (Poldma, 2013). Educators and accrediting bodies increasingly call for integrating financial literacy into design curricula, while firms seek project delivery models that balance innovation with economic discipline (Hwang & Ng, 2013). Understanding how practising designers already navigate this balance can inform both education and practice, equipping the next generation of designers with frameworks and tools to sustain creativity under financial constraints.

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature on creativity in design, financial management in project contexts, and the perceived tension between the two. Section 3 outlines the theoretical framework, combining Amabile’s componential theory of creativity with project financial management principles to conceptualise the integration of creative and financial dimensions. Section 4 describes the qualitative methodology used, including interviews, document analysis, and practitioner reflections. Section 5 presents findings on strategies designers employ, while Section 6 discusses these findings in relation to theory and practice. Section 7 concludes with practical recommendations and implications for education, firm practice, and future research. By examining the intersection of creativity and finance, the study seeks to reframe budget not as a limitation but as a generative force that, when managed skillfully, enriches the creative process.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Creativity in Design Practice

Creativity in the built environment is a multi-dimensional construct involving problem framing, ideation, and the translation of abstract concepts into material forms (Cross, 2006; Lawson, 2006). Amabile’s (1996) componential theory identifies domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrinsic task motivation as central to creative outcomes. In interior design, domain knowledge includes materiality, ergonomics, codes, and cultural aesthetics; creativity-relevant processes include divergent thinking and iterative prototyping.

2.2 Financial Management in Project-Based Design

Project management literature highlights the importance of early cost estimating, scope control, and stakeholder communication for budget adherence (PMI, 2017). The Balanced Scorecard and other strategic performance frameworks connect financial management to broader organisational goals (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). However, conventional financial frameworks can appear rigid when applied to design-led, client-driven projects that require flexibility and iterative change.

2.3 Creativity vs. Cost — The Tension

Several scholars have noted the perceived antagonism between creativity and cost control (Amabile et al., 1996; Lawson, 2006). Cost constraints can prompt risk-averse behaviour, reducing experimentation and novel solutions. Yet cost constraints may also stimulate creativity—forcing designers to find inventive uses of inexpensive materials or novel programmatic arrangements (Stokes, 2001). Research in other creative industries (music, film, software) indicates that constraints can foster original solutions when managed as design parameters rather than mere limits (Boden, 2004).

2.4 Strategies in Construction and Design for Budget Control

Value engineering and life-cycle costing are established approaches in architecture and construction for reconciling cost and performance (Alarcon & Mourgues, 2010). In interior design, tactics such as staged implementation, specification substitution, and client co-design are commonly recommended in trade literature, yet empirical study of their application in practice remains limited (Lawson, 2006).

This study builds on this literature by empirically exploring the micro-level practices interior designers use to align creative outcomes with budgets.

3. Theoretical Framework

This research uses a dual-theory framework:

Amabile’s Componential Theory of Creativity (Amabile, 1996) provides a lens to examine how intrinsic motivation, domain expertise, and creativity-relevant processes contribute to design outcomes and how these interact with external constraints (i.e., budgets). The framework helps explain when budgetary constraints stifle creativity and when they catalyse alternative creative strategies.

Project Financial Management & Value-Based Decision Making — drawing on project management principles (PMI, 2017) and strategic financial management (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), the study treats budgets not only as numbers but as governance tools that structure decision points, trade-offs, and stakeholder communication. Combining financial governance with creativity theories foregrounds how designers operationalise budgetary constraints as part of the design brief and process.

The integrated framework focuses on three analytic dimensions: (a) cognitive/creative processes of designers, (b) financial governance and instruments (estimates, contingencies, contracts), and (c) interactional practices with clients and contractors (communication, negotiation, co-creation). This permits investigation of how creativity and financial management are co-produced in practice.

4. Research Methodology

4.1 Research Design

This is a qualitative, multiple-case, exploratory study using semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and reflective practitioner narratives. The goal is to surface tacit strategies and processual routines through which interior designers balance creativity and budget.

4.2 Sampling and Participants

Purposeful sampling targeted practising interior designers from small-to-medium firms (5–50 employees) with project portfolios including residential, hospitality, and commercial interiors. Fifteen designers were recruited across three metropolitan regions to provide diversity of practice contexts and client profiles. Participants included principal designers (n = 6), senior designers (n = 5), and project designers (n = 4). All participants had at least five years of professional experience.

4.3 Data Collection

Data collection comprised:

• Semi-structured interviews (60–90 minutes) probing participants’ experiences balancing design and budget, specific project case studies, decision heuristics, and firm practices. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
• Document analysis of project briefs, budget summaries, and specification excerpts for five projects provided with consent, to triangulate interview accounts.
• Reflective practitioner notes: participants provided short reflective memos on a recent project where budget and creativity were in tension.

Data collection followed ethical approval procedures, including informed consent and anonymisation.

4.4 Data Analysis

Transcripts and documents were analysed using thematic analysis and iterative coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Initial open coding identified recurring practices (e.g., early client education, value-engineering). Axial coding grouped codes into higher-order themes related to the theoretical framework’s three dimensions (creative cognition, financial governance, interactional practices). NVivo software supported data management. Credibility was enhanced via member-checking (participants reviewed theme summaries) and triangulation across interviews and documents (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).

4.5 Trustworthiness

The study followed qualitative rigour guidelines: credibility (member-checking), transferability (rich description), dependability (audit trails of coding), and confirmability (researcher reflexivity). Limitations of qualitative generalizability are acknowledged; results are intended as analytically generalizable to similar practice contexts.

5. Findings

Five primary strategies emerged that designers used to balance creativity and budget:

5.1 Strategy 1 — Early-Stage Value Framing and Client Education

Designers emphasised the importance of aligning creative aims with client values at project inception. Practitioners reported dedicating early client meetings to “value-framing” — identifying what elements are essential to client satisfaction (e.g., material tactile quality, daylighting, spatial flow) and which are negotiable. One principal designer described using visual precedents and staged cost scenarios to make trade-offs concrete: “When clients see three levels of finish and what changes, they suddenly can choose values to prioritise.” Interview data showed that designers who invested in early value alignment reduced late-stage scope changes and budgetary overruns.

This practice aligns with Amabile’s notion of intrinsic task motivation: when clients and designers share values, designers report higher intrinsic motivation and clearer creative direction (Amabile et al., 1996).

5.2 Strategy 2 — Modular Specification and Staged Upgrades

Several firms specified modular furniture, interchangeable finishes, and a “phase 1/phase 2” implementation approach so that a core creative concept could be realised within budget while allowing future upgrades. Designers described staging as both a financial and design strategy: it preserves the overarching design language while enabling clients to defer costly elements.

Document analysis showed staged budgets often included a prioritised list of “must-have” and “defer-to-phase-2” items, with cost estimates and performance impacts documented.

5.3 Strategy 3 — Cost Transparency and Collaborative Sourcing

Transparent budgeting practices—detailed line-item cost breakdowns and open-book procurement—were common among participants. Designers reported that clients respond positively when costs are explained in relation to design benefits. Collaborative sourcing—engaging clients in vendor selection and leveraging relationships with manufacturers—yielded cost savings without major quality loss.

One senior designer recounted how collaborative procurement for a hospitality project saved 18% on FF&E costs while preserving material quality through negotiated bulk discounts.

5.4 Strategy 4 — Prioritisation of Design-Critical Elements

Designers routinely identified and protected “design-critical” elements (e.g., spatial reconfiguration, key material junctions, signature fixtures) while allowing concessions in non-critical areas (e.g., secondary lighting, non-visible millwork). This prioritisation was described as a heuristic to preserve the project’s aesthetic and experiential integrity under constraints.

Analytically, protecting design-critical elements can be conceptualised as selective resource allocation informed by domain expertise, consistent with Amabile’s domain-relevant skills premise.

5.5 Strategy 5 — Value-Engineering as Creative Practice

Contrary to the view of value-engineering as merely cost-cutting, participants reframed it as a creative constraint that could generate innovative solutions (e.g., repurposing discarded timber as a feature wall). Designers who treated cost constraints as a design parameter reported more inventive outcomes and higher client praise.

5.6 Organisational and Contractual Supports

Beyond project-level tactics, firms used contractual mechanisms (clear change-order clauses, contingency provisions) and internal governance (project cost reviews) to institutionalise financial discipline. Training (mentoring junior staff in cost awareness) and cross-functional meetings with procurement and contractors further supported balanced outcomes.

6. Discussion

The findings of this study reveal how interior designers balance creativity and financial management through a range of strategies that include early-stage value framing, modular specification, cost transparency, prioritisation of design-critical elements, and value-engineering as a creative practice. While each of these strategies is unique, together they suggest a reorientation of the budget from being a restrictive boundary to becoming a productive parameter that shapes creative decision-making. This section discusses the findings in relation to the theoretical framework—Amabile’s componential theory of creativity (1996) and project financial management principles (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; PMI, 2017)—and explores broader implications for design practice, education, and research.

6.1 Reframing Budgets as Creative Catalysts

Conventional wisdom in design often casts budgetary constraints as antagonists to creativity (Lawson, 2006; Cross, 2006). The assumption is that limitations on material choice, labour, or scope suppress experimentation and reduce the capacity for novel outcomes. However, this study’s findings align with Stokes’ (2001) and Boden’s (2004) perspectives that constraints can act as enablers of creativity. By treating budgets as part of the design brief rather than as external impositions, designers were able to generate inventive responses such as repurposed materials, modular furniture systems, and staged implementation.

This finding resonates with Amabile’s componential theory (1996), which emphasises intrinsic motivation as central to creativity. When designers and clients jointly frame budgets as value-driven priorities rather than prohibitive limits, intrinsic motivation is preserved. Designers reported that clear value framing at the project outset reduced frustration and enabled them to focus on core design drivers. In essence, budgets were not seen as roadblocks but as challenges that stimulated creative problem-solving. This reorientation reflects what Stokes (2001) terms “constraint-based creativity,” where limits inspire new avenues of exploration.

6.2 Protecting Design-Critical Elements Through Financial Governance

A recurring theme in the findings was the deliberate prioritisation of design-critical elements—those aspects of a project that most directly contribute to its aesthetic and experiential integrity. Designers reported defending these elements from cost-cutting measures while allowing flexibility in secondary areas. This aligns with project financial management principles, particularly the concept of scope control (PMI, 2017). By embedding financial governance mechanisms such as change-order clauses and contingency provisions, firms institutionalised the capacity to safeguard creative priorities.

From a theoretical perspective, this practice reflects Amabile’s (1996) notion of domain-relevant skills. Identifying which design elements are most critical requires deep domain expertise in both aesthetics and user experience. Financial literacy complements this expertise by enabling designers to articulate why protecting these elements is essential and to negotiate effectively with clients. Thus, the combination of financial governance tools and domain knowledge allows designers to maintain creative integrity while operating within budgets.

6.3 Transparency and Trust in Client Relationships

Another important finding concerns the role of cost transparency and collaborative sourcing in fostering trust between designers and clients. Transparent communication—providing detailed line-item budgets and explaining the design implications of cost decisions—was reported as central to maintaining client satisfaction. Collaborative sourcing, where clients are actively involved in procurement decisions, further enhances trust by giving clients a sense of agency.

This relational dimension underscores the social nature of design practice. Creativity, as Amabile et al. (1996) note, does not occur in isolation but within a social environment that can either support or hinder innovative outcomes. A supportive client-designer relationship, built on transparency, reduces adversarial dynamics and facilitates co-creation. Moreover, trust enables clients to accept innovative, lower-cost alternatives that they might otherwise resist. Thus, transparency is not merely a financial practice but a relational strategy that sustains both creativity and budgetary discipline.

6.4 Value-Engineering as Creative Practice

Traditionally, value-engineering has been associated with cost-cutting measures that often compromise design intent (Dell’Isola, 1997). However, the designers in this study reframed value-engineering as a creative practice. For example, one participant described transforming reclaimed wood into a signature design feature, thereby reducing costs while enhancing aesthetic uniqueness. This aligns with Boden’s (2004) conceptualisation of creativity as the production of ideas that are both novel and valuable. By reimagining value-engineering as an opportunity for creative recombination, designers shifted its role from constraint to catalyst.

This finding challenges traditional distinctions between “design” and “management” activities. Rather than being separate, cost management and creativity were integrated into a single process. This integration supports calls in design management literature for more holistic approaches that bridge financial and creative domains (Borja de Mozota, 2003). It also highlights the need for designers to develop financial fluency as part of their creative toolkit.

6.5 Implications for Firm Practices

The study’s findings have significant implications for how interior design firms organise and support practice. First, institutionalising financial governance mechanisms—such as regular cost reviews, contingency planning, and clear contractual terms—provides a structural foundation for balancing creativity and budget. These mechanisms reduce uncertainty and protect design-critical elements from erosion during project delivery (PMI, 2017).

Second, firms should invest in developing designers’ financial literacy. Several participants emphasised that junior designers often lacked confidence in discussing budgets with clients, leading to either overpromising or underexplaining cost implications. Structured mentoring, training workshops, and cross-functional collaboration with procurement teams can build the necessary skills. Such investments align with Borja de Mozota’s (2003) argument that design management should integrate business competencies with creative expertise.

Third, adopting collaborative procurement models may enhance both financial and creative outcomes. By involving clients in sourcing decisions and leveraging vendor relationships for discounts, firms can reduce costs while maintaining design quality. This model also strengthens client trust and positions the designer as both creative leader and financial steward.

6.6 Implications for Design Education

The findings also highlight the need for curricular reform in design education. While design schools traditionally emphasise aesthetics, history, and technical drawing, less attention is given to financial management. Yet, as this study demonstrates, financial fluency is not ancillary but central to creative practice. Educators should integrate courses on cost estimation, procurement processes, and contract negotiation into design curricula. Studio projects could incorporate budgetary constraints as part of the design brief, encouraging students to treat financial limits as creative parameters rather than external obstacles (Poldma, 2013).

Moreover, pedagogical approaches that emphasise collaboration—between design students and peers in business or construction programs—can simulate the interdisciplinary nature of professional practice. Such approaches prepare graduates to navigate the realities of balancing creativity and budget from the outset of their careers.

6.7 Contributions to Theory

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of creativity in design by extending Amabile’s componential model (1996) to include financial constraints as active components of the social environment. Rather than simply hindering intrinsic motivation, budgets can enhance motivation when reframed as shared value priorities. Similarly, the findings suggest that domain-relevant skills should encompass not only aesthetic and technical expertise but also financial literacy, as this competence enables designers to defend design-critical elements effectively.

The study also contributes to project financial management literature by demonstrating that financial tools are not merely control instruments but creative enablers. Line-item budgets, contingency planning, and transparent contracts provide decision points that structure creative exploration. This challenges the view of financial management as rigid and oppositional to creativity, instead highlighting its role in supporting innovation within constraints.

6.8 Limitations and Future Directions

While the study provides valuable insights, its qualitative design and purposive sampling limit generalizability. Findings are most applicable to small-to-medium firms in metropolitan contexts and may not fully represent practices in large corporate firms or public-sector projects. Future research could build on these insights using mixed-methods approaches, measuring the relationship between specific strategies (e.g., value framing, staged implementation) and quantifiable project outcomes such as budget adherence or client satisfaction.

Additionally, client perspectives warrant further exploration. While this study examined designers’ practices, understanding how clients perceive transparency, value framing, and collaborative sourcing could provide a more holistic picture. Comparative studies across cultural contexts may also reveal how differing norms around money, negotiation, and creativity influence strategies for balancing budget and design.

6.9 Summary

In sum, this discussion underscores that creativity and financial management in interior design are not opposing forces but interdependent dimensions of practice. By reframing budgets as creative parameters, protecting design-critical elements through governance, fostering trust through transparency, and reimagining value-engineering as innovation, designers can achieve outcomes that are both aesthetically compelling and financially viable. These findings suggest a need for both theoretical reframing and practical reform—at the level of firms, education, and professional standards—to equip designers with the skills and mindsets necessary for sustainable, financially responsible creativity.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusion

Balancing creativity and budget in interior design is a dynamic, multi-layered practice. Successful designers synthesise creative thinking and financial management through early value framing, staged implementation, transparent budgeting practices, clear prioritisation of design-critical elements, and a creative approach to value-engineering. Integration of financial instruments into the creative workflow and cultivation of client co-creation are central to achieving design excellence within fiscal constraints. These practices align with and extend theoretical insights from creativity research and project financial management, demonstrating that budgets need not be enemies of creativity; instead, when managed as design parameters and communicative tools, they can catalyse innovation.

7.2 Practical Recommendations

From the study, practical recommendations for designers and firms include:

• Adopt value-framing workshops at project kick-off to align client priorities and create a transparent rubric for trade-offs.
• Use staged implementation and modular specifications to preserve core design intent while deferring non-critical expenditures.
• Institute open-book budgeting for clients with clear line-item explanations tied to design outcomes to build trust and informed decision-making.
• Train designers in procurement and cost estimation through firm-level workshops and mentorship; integrate these topics into design education.
• Treat value-engineering as a creative opportunity: create in-house sessions where teams reimagine cost-saving alternatives that respect design intent.

7.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study’s qualitative approach yields rich insight into strategies and heuristics, but has limits. The sample size (n = 15) and focus on small-to-medium firms mean findings may not apply identically to large design/architecture practices or public-sector procurement contexts. Future research could:

• Conduct mixed-methods studies linking specific strategies to measurable outcomes (e.g., percentage budget variance, Net Promoter Score).
• Explore client perspectives to triangulate designer accounts of trust and satisfaction related to transparent budgeting.
• Examine the role of digital tools (BIM, cost-estimating software) in facilitating creative-budgetary integration.
• Investigate cross-cultural differences in client expectations and how they shape budget-creative negotiations.

References

Alarcon, L. F., & Mourgues, C. (2010). Performance modelling for lean construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000181

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design management: Using design to build brand value and corporate innovation. Allworth Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.

Dell’Isola, A. J. (1997). Value engineering: Practical applications for design, construction, maintenance & operations. R. S. Means Company.

Hwang, B. G., & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.004

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Poldma, T. (2013). Meanings of designed spaces. Fairchild Books.

Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.

Stokes, P. D. (2001). Variability, constraints, and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(2), 127–134.