The Buildings Performance Database (BPD) unlocks the power of building energy performance data. The platform enables users to perform statistical analysis on an anonymous dataset of tens of thousands of commercial and residential buildings from across the country. Users can compare performance trends among similar buildings to identify and prioritize cost-saving energy efficiency improvements and assess the range of likely savings from these improvements. Register/Access
- The BPD contains actual data on tens of thousands of existing buildings — not modeled data or anecdotal evidence.
- The BPD enables statistical analysis without revealing information about individual buildings.
- The BPD cleanses and validates data from many sources and translates it into a standard format.
- Peer Group Tool. Allows users to peruse the BPD and create peer groups based on specific building types, locations, sizes, ages, equipment and operational characteristics. Users can compare the energy use of their own building to a peer group of BPD buildings.
- Retrofit Analysis Tool. Allows users to analyze the savings potential of specific energy efficiency measures. Users can compare buildings that utilize one technology against peer buildings that utilize another.
- Coming Soon!
- Data Table Tool. Allows users to generate and export statistical data about peer groups.
- Financial Forecasting Tool. Forecasts cash flows for energy efficiency projects.
- Application Programming Interface (API). Allows external software to conduct analysis of the BPD data.
Attend a presentation titled Climate Change Adaptation for Built Infrastructure. During this presentation, Kim Magraw (US Department of Interior), Bridget Deemer (Washington State University), John Hall (US Department of Defense), and Ann Kosmal (General Services Administration) will provide the latest update on the preliminary results on research and information needs identified in the FY 2013 Agency Adaptation Plans.
The details for the meeting are as follows:
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street NW
If you are planning to attend in person, please register on-line at the following website to ensure that your name is on the security guard’s sign-in sheet.
For those that will not attend in person, you can view the presentation via WebEx; please register on-line at the following website:
Above is from the Federal Facilities Council and shared via 4Clicks.com – leading provider of cost estimating and efficient project delivery software and services for JOC – Job Order Contracting, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, BOS and more. Featuring an exclusively enhanced 400,000+ RSMeans unit price cost database and integrated contract, project, and document management, as well as visual estimating and electronic quantify takeoff (QTO).
(Source: UMass Amherst)
“New recommendations by a National Research Council (NRC) expert panel on green and sustainable building performance could lead to a revolution in building science by creating the first large building performance database” – Paul Fisette, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
NRC panel members were asked to consider whether nearly 500,000 structures owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) worldwide are being operated as sustainably and as efficiently as possible according to a number of green building standards, including Green Globes, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). After a nine-month assessment of energy efficiency, water use and many other sustainability factors at about 300,000 of the DOD facilities, one of their top recommendations is that the department should start metering such variables as energy and water use, to collect information on how different facilities perform in many different environments.
What is lacking in building science has been this consistent set of data, really large samples over time.
One of the things learned from this study is that the Defense Department is the perfect organization to be able to provide ongoing data. The DOD is a “single” owner of a lot of property and they have control over how it’s operated, along with costs, uses and standards.
The DOD has the opportunity to continue to take a leadership role in improving the knowledge base about high-performance buildings, improving decision-support tools and improving building models by collecting data on measured energy, water and other resource use for its portfolio of buildings and by collaborating with others.
Central to any sustainability effort, however, is the ability to execute the numerous associated renovation, repair, and minor new construction projects. Proven collaborative, transparent, and productive construction delivery methods such as Job Order Contracting, JOC, are an important component of success.
Via: http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software and service for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, BOS…, featuring an exclusively enhanced 400,000 RSMeans Cost Database with modifiers and full descriptions, and integrated visual estimating, QTO, contract management, project management, and document management… all in one application.
Source: International Journal of Facility Management, Vol 4, No 1 (2013), via http://www.4Clickscom – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC POCA, BOA, BOA… including exclusively enhanced 400,000+ RSMeans line item cost database, contract/project/document management, and visual estimating/QTO.
BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology. Unfortunately, too much emphasis has been placed upon 3-D visualization and other technology components vs. the process of life-cycle management.
Facility / Infrastructure Life Cycle Cost: Costs associated with designing, acquiring, constructing, adapting, maintaining, repairing, and operating a built structure.
While Value Management is used as term in this paper, it is arguably interchangeable with Capital Planning and Management (CPMS). The latter is a process involving the construction and management of physical and functional conditions of a built structure over time.
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VALUE MANAGEMENT AND WHOLE LIFE COSTING ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Abdul Lateef A, Olanrewaju
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan
It is the aim of this paper, to present the complexity of the body of knowledge capturing the range of conflicting assumptions and understanding on the theories and practices of value management (VM) and life cycle-cost (LCC). Life cycle cost in facility construction projects is a management tool that is used to analyze the cost of constructed facilities in terms of cost of acquiring the facility and as well as maintaining and operating the facility. It makes a lot of sense to consider the capital costs of projects with their associated operation and maintenance costs. This is so that the project that is procured would economically viable through its entire life span. The recent increase in demand for sustainable or green buildings is further making the consideration of life cycle cost an issue.
However, life cycle of the project alone is not sufficient as source of creating value to the clients and end users. Consequently, the need for value management emerges. Based on extensive literature review this paper has shown that the life cycle costing techniques is a tool in the value management methodology an basic finding from the connection is that both VM and LCC can be embedded into the wider context of FM.
Keywords: life cycle cost; value management; reflexivity in research, facility management, best value; construction projects
In this paper, our aim is to represent the complexity of the body of literature capturing the range of conflicting assumptions and understandings about the theories and practice of VM and LCC. Before proceeding however, it is important to acknowledge what although we attempt to offer a balanced portrait of opposing views, our opinions and biases will come through whether we want them to or not. Although we are more comfortable with usual impersonal academic writing style, we believe it will help readers to differentiate what we believe from what other believe if we are honest and explicit about where we stand on some of these issues under investigations. We do this here and again wherever we view it is necessary. This kind of discussion of the preference and opinions of an author is reflexivity paradigm, and it is particularly important in value management issues, in which so many divergent assumptions are often left unsaid or asserted as truth. While some could argue that some issues are better left unsaid, it is not at any one interest to continue to pretend as everything is right and thus failed to present our side of the case. At least, this could serve as impetus to some writers and commentators.
Published literature revealed a wide range of opinion which tends to polarize either towards life cycle costing or value management. In other words, there are misconceptions and misunderstandings as to which of the two techniques is more involving, proactive and can ultimately create and sustain best value for construction projects. However, the purpose of life cycle costing is to maximize the total cost of ownership of the projects over the project’s life span (Morton and Jaggar, 1995 and Arditi and Messiha, 1996). It is also defined as the total cash flow of the project from the conceptual stage to the disposal stage (Bennett, 2003). Life cycle analysis takes into account the capital costs of the project as well as costs of operation and maintenance. The fundamental issue in the LCC is the determination of the operation and maintenance costs of all possible alternatives which are then discounted to present worth of money (Pasquire and Swaffield, 2006) for analysis.
However, while selecting alternative proposals or elements, the criteria of selections are more than just the issues of total costs. Many criteria, in addition to the cost criterion must be analyzed and adequately considered if maximum value is to be delivered to the client (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983). VM takes into accounts all the criteria that the client / user desire in their project. Value management involves the identification of the required functions and the selection of alternative that maximize the achievement of the functions and performance at the lowest possible total cost (Best and De-Valennce, 2003). The value management approach reduces the risk of project failure, lower cost, shorten projects schedules, improve quality, functions, performance and ensure high reliability and safety. While, life cycle costing is useful when a “project” has been “selected or defined”, value management is introduced much earlier. Value management is introduced when a decision has not been made yet either to build or not. At this stage, the “project” is still soft; the client’s solution to the client’s problem might not even be constructed facilities. For instance, if a client wants higher return for investment, value management is introduced to determine the kind of project that will provide to the client the expected return on investment (Kelly and Male, 2001). Perhaps the project in this case may be for the client to invest in agricultural activities. So from the beginning, the clients and other stakeholders are explicitly aware of the kind of project in which to invest.
This paper used literature review to achieve its aim. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. It commences in II “epistemology of reflexivity, in this section, overview of reflexivity are presented. This section is preceded with the section on the “introduction”. Section III; dwell on the “principle of life cycle costing”. The section III reviews literature on the technique of life cycle costing. The purposes and methodology of the technique were provided and discussed. In section IV, the principle and methodology of value management were discussed. In this section, explicit references on the two important phases in the value management methodology where life cycle analysis is mainly used were outlined. Analytical comparisons of the two techniques are then presented in section V as discussion. However, before detail information on comparing the two techniques is provided, linkages between facilities management, value management and life cycle cost are provided. A basic finding from the connection is that both VM and LCC can be embedded into the wider context of FM. The paper is concluded in section VI by bringing together major themes of the paper in: “conclusion and observations”.
II. EPISTEMOLOGY OF REFLEXIVITY IN RESEARCH
Research could involve quantitative or qualitative data or both. The degree of influence the researcher has on a research depends on the type of data being collected. For instance data collected through interviews are more prone to bias as compared to survey questionnaire instrumentation. Being reflexive involves being conscious on how the researcher’s personal values, opinions, views, actions will not creep into the data collection, analysis, results and interpretations. For instance, bias could also creep into research because of how the researchers analyze and interpret previous related works-i.e. through literature review. However, bias could creep into research knowingly or unknowingly. According to Dainty, there is a “traditional of reflexivity in qualitative enquiry where researcher openly questioned the effectiveness of their research methods on the robustness of their results and debate the influence and effect that their enquiry has had on the phenomena that they have sought to observe” (Dainty, 2008). Cohen, et al., (2006) also outlined that reflection occur at every stage of action research. In that regards, in actual practice, biasness is difficult to eliminate in all type of research. However, being aware of it and the ability to control or minimize it is the most important element in research. In order to minimize biases, researchers should apply to themselves the same decisive criteria they set for other people works to pass through (Cohen, et al., 2006). However, we are consciously aware of the effects of the reflexivity on this study. In other words, we recognized the influence our sentiment, perceptions, values, feelings, thoughts and understandings may have on this study. For these reasons, we have made all possible efforts to be on the fence– yet to be decisive and analytical. In other words, as far as this issue is concerned, we have not taken a neutral position but a middle course position.
III. LIFE CYCLE COST TECHNIQUE IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
While information on the exact time, on the origin of LCC and the time it was first applied to the construction projects is not available, but it can be safely concluded that it preceded the VM techniques. Life cycle costing is also being referred to as whole life cost or cost-in-use. However, life cycle cost is preferred here as it is the most familiar time term even among the practitioners. Regardless of the nomenclature, the main purpose is to consider future costs in the determination of true cost of projects. In other words, LCC is a technique that is used to relate the initial cost with future based costs like running, operation, maintenance, replacement, alteration costs (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983; Morton and Jaggar, 1995; Bennett, 2003 and Kiyoyuki, et al., 2005). Elsewhere, it is defined as the total cost of project measured over a period of financial interest of the clients (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005). LCC enables a practical economic comparison of the alternatives, in terms of both the present and future costs. This is to allow in the final evaluation, to find out how much additional capital expenditure is warranted today in order to achieve future benefit over the entire life of the project. It is therefore the relationship of initial cost and other future based cost. Certainly, there is a need to relate capital cost with operation and maintenance costs in order to procure buildings that present value for money invested to the clients. This requirement is becoming more of a necessity with the increase in drive and subsequent demand for sustainable or green buildings. Since the 1960s, studies have shown there are the needs to balance capital costs against the subsequent maintenance costs of the buildings (Seeley, 1996).
Decision regarding the life cost of a project has to be ascertained right from the project’s conceptual stage as to whether to reduce the initial cost at the detriment of the maintenance and running costs. This depends on the client’s value system on the projects; however, effective balance must be strike to ensure meaningful selection. In addition to the initial construction costs which are foreseeable cost, other unforeseeable cost that should be considered are the operation cost, cost of energy usage, maintenance cost, disposal cost / salvage cost. Today clients are wiser, as they seem to prefer investing little more today for tomorrow savings. Clients are becoming knowledgeable about construction projects, as to what the future might likely portray regarding collateral costs. Issues of LCC are more important to the owner-occupier than to the developer who only builds to let or sell the construction projects on completion or over a certain period of time. In this case, end-users are left to bear the maintenance costs. The modern procurement system (i.e. design, building and operate) is possibly a good channel to consider building life cycle. In fact, the LCC is a tool that is often used by the management team to procure value for money invested
IV. VALUE MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Various terms – value engineering, value control, value analysis and value engineering- have been used to describe the principle of value engineering. However, in this paper all the terms are synonymous. The most common are value management and value engineering, though. The two terms are used interchangeably in this paper. VM was developed due to shortage of materials and components that faced the manufacturing industry in the North America during the WW11. VM is both problem solving and problem seeking processes. As a problem seeking system, it identified problems that might arise in future and develop or identified solution to the problem. Value management is a proactive, problems solving management system that maximizes the functional value of a project by managing its development from concept stage to operation stage of a projects through multidisciplinary value team (Kelly and Male, 2001). It make client value system explicitly clear at the project’s conceptual stage. It seeks to obtain the best functional balance between cost, quality, reliability, safety and aesthetic. The approach could be introduced at any stage in the projects’ life cycle, but it is more beneficial if it is introduced from the pre-construction phase of the projects; before any design is committed (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).
The tools and techniques of VM push stakeholders to provide answers to questions that might not ordinarily be considered if other approaches were used (Olanrewaju and Khairuddin, 2006). Value engineering identifies items of unnecessary costs in a project and develops alternative ways of achieving the same functions at the lowest possible cost, without impairing on the quality, aesthetic, image, safety and functional performances of the building and at the same time improves the project schedules. VM programs commonly take the form of arranging a workshop in which the client, contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, specialists and other stakeholders involved take part and put forward suggestions for discussions and investigations (Harry, 2000). This will make the consultants and designers understand what a client will accept as the benchmark to measure the outcome of their investment (Leung, Chu and Lu, 2003).
Consequently, the client will be provided with projects they can occupy, operate, maintain, at their preferred location, on schedule without compromising the require quality, function, aesthetic and images with acceptable comfort. If the client value system is not made explicit, consultants and designers merely focus on requirements that were not intended by a client. Thus, opportunity for maximizing concept, design, construction and maintenance might not be possible. However, the VM workshop or session is different from the normal project meeting as the objectives of each are distinct.
Value management is defined as an organized set of procedures and processes that are introduced, purposely to enhance the function of a designs, services, facilities or systems at the lowest possible total cost of effective ownership, taken cognizance of the client’s value system for quality, reliability, durability, conformance, durability, aesthetic, time, and cost (Olanrewaju and Khairuddin, 2007). The methodology is about being creative, innovative, and susceptible to changes, consensus, enhancing the use of resources, analytical, togetherness and good communication (Stevens, 1997). Value engineering program is commonly carried out in the systematic stages of; feasibility, concept design, design development, construction and operations and occupancy phase of the projects (Table 1). The work activities are strategically carried out in the job plan. The job plan is the frame works that guide the systematic maneuvering of ideas to ensure that alternatives are not unnecessarily omitted (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).
Table 1.Value Management’s Job Plan
The value management job plan is an organized framework that guides the processes of analyzing the project, products, services or components under study, to enable the development of numbers of viable economical and functional alternatives that meet clients’ requirements. The strict adherence to the framework ensures maximum benefits and offer greater chances for flexibility. It also ensures that no step or phase is over-sighted or omitted. The value management process can be broken down into various phases. Regardless of the number of phases in the process, the major activities still holds. In many cases, the phases are however broken down into five major phases. However, in this paper, it is broken onto nine major phases for easy understanding. Life cost of project of an item or element is mainly considered during two of the value management phases, namely, the evaluation phase and the development phase. Therefore, the next two sections will discuss in-depth the two main phase.
IV.1 The evaluation phase
This is the fifth phase in the value management methodologies. The evaluation phase is some time call the investigation phase. The evaluation phase is very important phase of the value management process. It is a strategic planning stage of the process (Stevens, 1997). The phase should be considered with the spirit of creative thinking that is associated with the analytical phase. The refined and modified results of the analytical phase are considered in detailed in evaluation phase, on one to one basis judging among themselves. Primarily, the basic activities of this phase is elimination, pruning, modifying and combining ideas in order to reduce the large quantity of ideas collected from the analytical stage to meaningful and workable ones. Generally, alternatives are evaluated in terms of its total cost, availability, technology, its merits, its constraints, ease of construction, effect on schedules of works, safety, ease of procurement, coordination (Bennett, 2003). The evaluation should not just be based on what similar design had cost before or currently cost, but the comparison should include physical appearance, similar properties, and methods of designs, technology and maintainability (Ahuj and Walsh, 1983).
In the course of pruning ideas, some ideas might appear to have potentials but perhaps due to the prevalent technological advancement, they might not be considered. Those ideas should be put aside for later discussions with interested manufacturers or vendors for productions or purchase (Dell’Isola, 1982) where possible. Overall, the project must be looked at from different dimensions. In order to avoid fall-out during the evaluating process, a benchmark should be set against which to establish and measure whether idea should be rejected, pruned, modified or combined. However, it is important to invite some if not all members of the designing team in order to listen to their opinion regarding the evaluated alternatives, particularly, those that were selected. This is important in case they might have considered inculcating some of the analyzed alternatives earlier on. And, if they had, a request should be made as to why they did not consider using these alternatives. Their ground of rejection might be important to the study team (Kelly and Male, 2001) in search for better alternatives.
IV.II: The development phase
Based on the outcome of the evaluation phase, some or the entire item will require further development so that best value proposal can be made more explicit. In other words, the purpose of this phase is to enable further development of the alternative proposals. The major activity that is performed in the development phase includes the preparation of alternative design and cost so that a justification can be made on the viability and feasibility of the new proposals (Dell’Isola, 1982; Ahuja & Walsh, 1983 and Ashworth, and Hogg, 2002). Further benchmarking is to be considered here aside the one in the preceding phase such as; if the idea will work and meet the client’s requirements considering the prevalent advancement of technology. In addition, the interests of the clients who will approve the recommendations require systematic consideration to avoid unnecessary objections. All the relevant information regarding the development of a project must be documented, as this will later be presented to the clients as evidence. The associated risk inherent in the alternative proposals are determined, documented and solutions proffer in advance (James, 1994).
This section discusses the crossing point between value management and life cycle cost. But before proceeding, a brief discussion on how the two strategies relate with facility management is provided. The question can be asked, whether LCC or VM fit with facility management? Facilities include all fixed properties of an organization such as buildings, plants and equipments. Assets entail both fixed and non-fixed properties of an organisation. Facilities contribute significantly to the enhancement in productivities, profit-abilities and service quality of an organization. Facility management (FM) involves the management of all the services that support core business of an organization (Amaratunga, et al., 2000). FM focuses on meeting organization’s performance in terms of relationship between operational facilities and business outcome. Although, both VM or/ LCC are applicable to all classes of facilities (management), the focus of the classes of the facilities that this paper is concerned with are the constructed facilities and the building projects in particular. Building in this context involve the building’s fabrics, structure and engineering services. The value of a building is determined in relation to its current ability to provide user functional requirements, the current market value and the building condition and performance rating in comparison to that of a new building (Kyle, 2001). The roles are consistent with functions of professional including value managers, asset managers, facility managers and the real estate managers.
One of the major functions of facility management is to ensure that building projects receive adequate maintenance in order to continue to function efficiently and effectively to support the organisation’s corporate objectives. Maintenance process is a fundamental stage in the building life cycle. Maintenance has to be initiated if the building is still functionally sound and cost-efficient to do so against procuring new building or embarking on activities including refurbishment, conversion and alteration. In order to ensure high building performance, maintenance must be considered from the initiation of the buildings. From the foregoing, the opening question is pertinent, because LCC is a technique that is used by the facility management organisation or team to procure value for money invested (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005). In other words, LCC enables facility managers to make informed decisions on how much to invest today for future economic benefits. While the needs for space requirements in an organisation can be triggered by organisation’s asset / facility management unit, the strategic nature of VM allows it to be explicitly clear whether the proposed facility is require and what nature and form it should takes. Generally, the primary functions of the facility managers concern the coordination of the needs of properties users, equipments and plants and operational activities taken place within the space (IREM, 2006). This role is different from that of the value managers. The feedback from the post occupancy evaluation, which forms part of the FM directive, can also serve as feedback to the VM workshop in order to provide best values to the stakeholders. In general, VM can be integrated into the largest context of FM (Green and Moss, 1998) as FM provides a wider platform for decision making throughout the building life cycle. Therefore, FM focuses on space planning. Thus, the combination of VM and FM would produce good outputs. Having provided connections between facility management, life cycle costing and value management, in the remaining paragraphs the discussion emphasises LCC and VM.
Issues relating to LCC of facility have received wider acceptance, because what appears to be cheaper might in actual fact be expensive taking into account future-based costs. Therefore, when selecting a design solution capable of achieving the client value system, alternative that has the lowest cost, will in most cases be the first to be selected, if other performance criteria are satisfied. However, criteria like aesthetic (inspiring and harmonious), images (reputable and progressive), fitness for purpose, sustainability, buildablity, maintainability, technology, quality, safety, convenience, comfort, reliability must be included if best value is to be achieved. Construction clients are becoming more demanding, complex, sophisticated and in fact wiser compare to how they use to be in the past. Today’s clients want to see and in fact have projects that will perform the required functions; that costs less, be sustainable, completed within shortest possible time and also meet other basic requirements (Fong, 1999). Whereas, life cycle costing concentrate on the cost criteria (capital, operation and maintenance cost though), value management takes account all of the criteria within the client value system. Indeed, today clients are taking into account various set of complex algorithm that defined value to them (Halil, and Celik, 1999). The benefits and satisfactions they are getting from other industries like the automobile, aircraft industries are all fascinating experience. These are also making them to be more aggressive with the construction industry. The LCC techniques might be capable of providing best price, but best price does not in any way connote best value.
LCC is introduced after it has been decided that the best alternative proposals that will meet the client’s corporate objective is construction project, whereas VM examine the client’s business case to establish what type of “projects” a client required. Project in this stage is not necessarily a construction projects, but any alternatives that would provide the best return for the client’s investment in terms of money, time and other criteria of their value system.
VM precedes other strategies in that it is introduced before the design even commences (Kelly and Male, 2001; (Qipping, and Liu, 2004 and Shen, 2004). It is also unique in that it makes explicitly the client value system and goes ahead to determine weather the projects is desirable, viable and feasible before any commitment is made to whether to build or not. In that regards, it entail getting it right from the concept. It is only when the correct problem is identified that the correct solution can be developed. Regardless of the sophistication of the instrument used, if the client’s needs and wants are not known, it is either the projects is abandoned, completed but unoccupied or very expensive to operate and maintain. While LCC is tactical; VM is both strategic and systemic. While the LCC could be described as a strategy that provides answer to the question “how do we do it efficiently”, VM ask and provide answer to the question “why do we do it-why do we need the projects”. This is achieved using the functional analytical procedure of the VM. VM is certainly not a replacement alternative to the previous cost saving approach but it is certainly a viable alternative for achieving client value system (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).
In the value management of construction projects, techniques like the supply chain, risk management, procurement, system engineering, concurrent engineering, safety management and partnering are applied during the development stage of the VM workshop; when developing alternative proposals, elements, components, equipments, items, materials and construction methods that provide value for money to the client. Therefore, these techniques are tools in the kits of the value management process. Apart from the LCC technique, VM makes used of other tools and techniques including, functional analysis, decision matrix, criteria scoring, brainstorming and functional cost model, SWOT analysis, supply chain analysis, risk analysis and checklists. To underscore the holistic and uniqueness of value management, various writers including Male, et al., (1998) and Fong (2004) have found that value management is more involving and unique than many methods / systems including total quality management, supply chain management, risk management, time management, cost management and lean construction.
VI: CONCLUSION AND OBSERVATIONS
The study has been able to investigate the relationship between value management and life cycle costing through literature review. This is done by bringing the theory behind each of the concept into context through literature survey. The paper has revisited the debate on VM and LCC which began sometime ago perhaps unnoticed. While the exact time cannot be traced the debate probably began on the arrival of the VM into the construction scene around 1960. This paper should be regarded as reflective contributions of the authors to the debate about the two concepts and tools. Life cycle costing technique is specific to particular stages and it is useful when it has been established that a “project” will satisfied the client requirements. The techniques and tools used in VM are not new per se, however the methodologies, consistent, systematic and holistic ways they are applied in VM is prominent. While value management has reached certain level of popularity and maturity, the LCC is yet to gain similar recognition even in the construction.
In conclusion, hopefully, we have been able to provide intermediate interpretations of the two concepts because we do not intend to provide extreme viewpoints. This paper does not claim that total cost of building is not important, but what it claimed is that, the value of projects does not ends with the consideration of the cost alone. Many “soft or qualitative” issues in actual fact are more important to the “hard or engineering” issues in majority or all of the cases. Perhaps, we should also add that considerations of the quality and completion time of project are also engineering or hard issues. Our aim is to provide a broad overview over a significant, yet complex issue and the emphasis has been to demonstrate the connection between the two concepts. Since we are aware of the bias that might creep into research like, attempts were made consciously to bring them to the barest level even though it is very difficult to eliminate it altogether. The conclusions of this paper are based on literature review In future primary data through survey or case studies will be collected from those that are consider to have adequate knowledge on the two techniques to see how our opinions differ from that of others’. On a final note, VM is about getting the initial concept right from the word “go”!
Ahuja H, N, and Walsh M, A. (1983), Construction Management and Engineering: Successful Methods in Cost Engineering. Canada: John Wiley & Son Inc.,
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M (2000). Assessment of facilities management performance – what next? Facilities, Vol. 18. Number 1 / 2 pp.66-75
Arditi, D. A and Messiha, H. M. (1996), Life Cycle Costing in Municipal Construction Projects. Journal of Infrastructure System, Vol. 2 No. 1, March 1996, pp.5-14 (doi 10.1061/ (ASCE) 1076 – 0342 (1996)2; 2:1(5)
Ashworth, A. and Hogg, K. (2002), Willis’s practice & procedure for the quantity surveyor. 11th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science
Benntte, F. C. (2003), The management of construction: a project life cycle approach, Butterworth – Heinemann, Oxford
Best, R., and de Valence, G., (eds) (2002), Design and Construction: Building in value, Butterworth – Heinemann, Woburn.
Booty, F. (Editor) (2006), Facilities management, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2006), Research methods in Education. 5th Edition. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer
Dainty, A. (2008), Methodological pluralism in construction management research, In: Knight, A and Ruddock, L (editors) (2008) Advanced Research Methods the Built Environment. UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Pasquire, C. and Swaffield, L. (2004), Life-cycle / whole-life costing. In Kelly, J., Morledge R. and Wilkinson, S (editors) (2004) Best Value in construction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Dell’ Isola, A. (1982), Value Engineering in the Construction Industry. 3rd Edition, Van Nostsrand and Reinhold Company Inc., New York
Dell”Isola A. J. (1997), Value engineering: practical application for design, construction, maintenance and operation, R. S Means Company, In: Shen, Q and Liu, G (2004) Applications of value management in the construction industry in China, Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architecture Management, Vol. 11 No. 12004 pp9-19 ISSN 0969-9988
Duncan, C. (2002), New Aspect of Quantity Surveying Practice: A Text for All Construction Professionals, Elsevier Butterworth – Heinemann, UK
Flanagan, R. and Jewell, C. (2005), Whole life appraisal for construction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited
Fong, P. S. (1999). Organization knowledge and responses of public sector clients towards value management: responses of public clients. The International Journal Of Public Sector Management, Vol. No. 5 1999 pp445 – 454
Halil, S. N., & Celik, T. (1999), Value of a Product: A Definition, International Journal of Value – Based Management, 12; pp181 – 191
IREM (Institute of Real Estate Management, 2006), Principles of real estate management. 15th Edition. Chicago: Institute of Real Estate Management
James O. J. (1994), Preconstruction Estimating: Budget through Bid. USA: McGraw – Hill Inc.
Kelly, S. R. and Male, S. P. (2001), Value management in design and construction: the economic management of project. 1st Edition. E and FN Spon. London:
Khairuddin, A. (2002), Construction Procurement in Malaysia: Processes and Systems: Constraints and Strategies. Research Centre, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
Kiyoyuki, K., Sugisaki, K., and Kobayashi, K. (2005), Statistical deterioration prediction considering the non uniformity of the visual inspection interval, In Proceedings of the International seminal on asset management. Jointly organized by Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design and Kyoto University Japan. Held on 24th – 25th, 2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Kyle, B. R. (2001). Toward effective decision making for building management. In Proceedings of APWA International Public Works Congress, Philadelphia, Sep. 2001 NRCC/CPWA/ IPWEA Seminar Series “Innovation in Urban Infrastructure. Available at www.nrc.ca/irc/uir/apwa pp52- 69
Leung, M. Y., Chu, H. Y. and Lu, X. (2003), Participation in value management. Report for RICS Education Trust Founded Project
Male, S., Kelly, S., Fernie, S., Gronqvist, M., & Bowles, G. (1998), The Value Management Benchmarks: A Good Practice Framework for the Clients and Practitioners. London: Thomas Telford Publishing,
Morton, R. and Jaggar D. (1995), Design and the economics of building, London: E and FN Spon.
Qipping, S., and Liu, G., (2004), Application of Value Management in the Construction Industry in China. Journal Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol. 11 No. 1 Pp9-99. ISSN 0969 – 9988
Olanrewaju, A. A., and Khairuddin, A. (2006), Value Management: New Direction for the Nigerian Quantity Surveyors. P102 – 109, Proceedings of Quantity Surveying National Convention, Organized in conjunction with the International Construction Week. 4 – 5 September 2006. ISBN: 983 – 41749 -2 -6, Held at University Science Malaysia (USM)
Olanrewaju, A. A., and Khairuddin, A. (2007), Determining whether Value Management is practiced in the Nigerian Construction Industry, In: Proceeding of Quantity Surveying International Convention (QSIC). Jointly organized by Visit Malaysia 2—7; International Islamic University Malaysia; Board of Quantity Surveyors Malaysia; Institution of Surveyors Malaysia; JKR and CIDB. Held on 4-5th September 2007, Kuala Lumpur.
Seeley, I. H. (1996), Building Economics: Appraisal and control of building design and efficiency. 4th Edition. New York: Palgrave
Shen, Q. (2004), Application of Value Management in the construction industry in China. Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 11(1): pp. 9-19
Stevens, D. (1997), Strategic thinking: success secrets of big business projects. Australia: McGraw-Hill Companies
Green, S. D. and G.W. Moss, (1998), Value management and post-occupancy evaluation: closing the loop, Facilities, Vol. 16 Iss: 1/2, pp.34 – 39
Zavadskas, E. K and Vilutiene, T. (2006), A multiple evaluation of multi-family apartment block’s maintenance contractors: I Model for maintenance contractor evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria. Building and Environment 41 (2006), p621 -632
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Efficient project delivery methods such as JOC, Job Order Contracting, and SABER are an important element in the renovation, repair and sustainability of facilities.
The incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green buildings typically range from zero to eight percent higher (0 to 8%) than the costs to design and construct conventional buildings.
The additional incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green buildings are relatively small when compared to total life-cycle costs.
Effective operation of high-performance buildings requires well-trained facilities managers.
Finding 1: The committee did not identify any research studies that conducted a traditional benefit-cost analysis to determine the long-term net present value savings, return on investment, or long-term payback related to the use of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011, and the LEED or Green Globes green building certification systems.
Finding 2: There is some limited evidence to indicate that provisions within ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2011 may need to be selectively adopted if use of this standard is to be cost effective in the DOD operating environment.
Finding 3. Research studies indicate that the incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green buildings typically range from 0 to 8 percent higher than the costs to design and construct conventional buildings, depending on the methodology used in the study and the type of building analyzed. The additional incremental costs to design and construct high-performance or green buildings are relatively small when compared to total life-cycle costs.
Finding 5: The evidence from the literature search indicates that high-performance or green buildings can result in significant reductions in energy use and water use. The cost savings associated with the reductions in energy and water use will vary by geographic region, by climate zone, and by building type.
Finding 6: Not every individual high-performance or green building achieved energy or water savings when compared to similar conventional buildings.
Finding 9. Effective operation of high-performance buildings requires well-trained facilities managers.
Recommended Approach 1. Continue to require that new buildings or major renovations be designed to achieve a LEED-Silver or equivalent rating in order to meet the multiple objectives embedded in laws and mandates related to high-performance buildings.
Recommended Approach 3. Put policies and resources in place to measure the actual performance of the Department of Defense’s high-performance, green, and conventional buildings to meet multiple objectives.
Source: Energy-Efficiency Standards and Green Building Certification Systems Used by the Department of Defense for Military Construction and Major Renovations, NRC
via ww.4Clicks.com – Premier technology for cost estimating and efficient project delivery – JOC, Job Order Contracting, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, BOCA, BOA, BOS… featuring and exclusively enhanced 400,000+ line item RSMeans Cost Data electronic database.
In the long history of humankind, those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.
– Charles Darwin
BIM, the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology, requires a fundamental change in how the construction (Architects, Contractors, Engineers) and facility management (Owners, Service Providers, Building Product Manufactures, Oversight Groups, Building Users) sectors operate on a day-to-day basis.
BIM, combined and Cloud Computing are game changers. They are disruptive technologies with integral business processes/practices that demand collaboration, transparency, and accurate/current information displayed via common terminology.
The traditional ad-hoc and adversarial business practices commonly associated with Construction and Facility Management are changing as we speak. Design-bid-build and even Design-Build will rapidly go by the wayside in favor of the far more efficient processes of Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and Job Order Contracting – JOC, and similar collaborative programs. (JOC is a form of integrated project delivery specifically targeting facility renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction).
There is no escaping the change. Standardized data architectures (Ominclass, COBie, Uniformat, Masterformat) and cost databases (i.e. RSMeans), accesses an localized via cloud computing are even now beginning to be available. While historically, the construction and facility management sectors have lagged their counterparts (automotive, aerospace, medical, …) relative to technology and LEAN business practices, environmental and economic market drivers and government mandates are closing the gap.
The construction and life-cycle management of the built environment requires the integration off several knowledge domains, business “best-practices”, and technologies as portrayed below. The efficient use of this BIG DATA is enabled by the BIM, Cloud Computing, and Integrated Project Delivery methods.
The greatest challenges to these positive changes are the CULTURE of the Construction and the Facility Management Sectors. Also, an embedded first-cost vs. life-cycle or total cost of ownership perspective. An the unfortunate marketing spotlight upon the technology of 3D visualization vs. BIM. Emphasis MUST be place upon the methods of how we work on a daily basis…locally and globally − strategic planning, capitial reinvestment planning, designing collaborating, procuring, constructing, managing and operating. All of these business processes have different impacts upon the “facility” infrastructure and construction supply chain, building Owners, Stakeholders, etc., yet communication terms, definitions, must be transparent and consistently applied in order to gain greater efficiencies.
Some facility life-cycle management are already in place for the federal government facility portfolio and its only a matter of time before these are expanded and extended into all other sectors.
BIM, not 3D visualization, but true BIM or Big BIM, and Cloud Computing will connect information from every discipline together. It will not necessarily be a single combined model. In fact the latter has significant drawbacks. Each knowledge domain has independent areas of expertise and requisite process that would be diluted and marginalized if managed within one model. That said, appropriate “roll-up” information will be available to a higher level model. (The issue of capability and productivity marginalization can be proven by looking a ERP and IWMS systems. Integration of best-in-class technology and business practices is always support to systems that attempt to do everything, yet do not single thing well.)
Fundamental Changes to Project Delivery for Repair, Renovation, Sustainability, and New Construction Projects MUST include:
- Qualifications Based or Best Value Selection
- Some form of pricing transparency and standardization
- Early and ongoing information-sharing among project stakeholders
- Appropriate distribution of risk
- Some form of financial incentive to drive performance / performance-based relationships
Today the world of energy has many of the features established in the 20th century:
– Energy consumption grows on average at 2% per year, most of it (80%) originates in fossil fuels
– Energy growth is driven by population growth and economic growth, now predominantly in developing countries
and high levels of consumption in the developed countries
– 3 billion people don’t have access to basic energy services and have to cook with solid fuels
However, the present path of uninterrupted reliance on fossil fuels poses four challenges to sustainability:
– Soaring greenhouse gas emissions
– Decreasing energy security
– Air pollution at the local and regional levels with resulting health problems
– Lack of universal access to energy services
Most reviews of the energy system needed for the 21st century start with “business as usual” futures and then analyze the effectiveness of specific corrections of course. For many the preferred options are technological fixes such as such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy and even geo-engineering schemes. However, to achieve sustainable development all the needed attributes of energy services, that is availability, affordability, access, security, health, climate and environmental protection, must be met concurrently.
– Stabilizing global climate change to 2°C above pre-industrial levels to be achieved in the 21st century
– Enhanced energy security by diversification and resilience of energy supply (particularly the dependence on imported oil),
– Eliminating household and ambient air pollution, andEssential technology-related requirements for radical energy transformation:
• significantly larger investment in energy efficiency improvements especially end-use across all sectors, with a focus on new investments as well as major retrofits;
• rapid escalation of investments in renewable energies: hydropower, wind, solar energy, modern bioenergy, and
geothermal, as well as the smart grids that enable more effective utilization of renewable energies;
• reaching universal access to modern forms of energy and cleaner cooking through micro-financing and subsidies;
• use of fossil fuels and bioenergy at the same facilities for the efficient co-production of multiple energy carriers and
chemicals with full-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage; and
• on one extreme nuclear energy could make a significant contribution to global electricity generation, but on the
other extreme, it could be phased out.
The world is undergoing severe and rapid change involving significant challenges. Although this situation poses a threat, it also offers a unique opportunity – a window of time in which to create a new, more sustainable,
more equitable world, provided that the challenges can be
addressed promptly and adequately. Energy is a pivotal area for actions to help address the challenges.
The interrelated world brought about by growth and globalization has increased the linkages among the major challenges of the 21st century.
We do not have the luxury of being able to rank them in order of priority.
As they are closely linked and interdependent, the task of addressing them simultaneously is imperative.
14 Reasons to Register: Building Innovation 2013
1: Building Innovation 2013 is delivered by the National Institute of Building Sciences – an authoritative source of innovative solutions for the built environment. For nearly 40 years, the Institute, a non-profit, non-government organization, has served as an interface between government and the private sector, with the primary purpose of bringing together representatives of the entire building community to review advancements in science and technology and develop solutions for our built environment.
2: Building Innovation 2013 is focused on Improving Resiliency through High Performance and will present the latest advancements in a wide-range of building industry areas that offer genuine solutions for improving security, disaster preparedness, performance, sustainability, information resources and technologies for our nation’s buildings and infrastructure. Within four tracks, Conference attendees will experience the Institute in action as a leader and advocate for the industry and discover how the Institute’s programs and activities work to develop innovative solutions for a number of building-related challenges.
3: Building Innovation 2013 is the only place you’ll find the authentic event on federal construction: FEDCon® — The Annual Market Outlook on Federal Construction — where attendees will hear the most authoritative, up-to-date information on federal agency building and infrastructure budgets, construction forecasts and regulatory updates. The Institute initiated FEDCon®, now in its 20th year, to give private-sector architects, engineers, general and specialty contractors, and manufacturers insight into what they need to know to deliver services and products to the U.S. Federal Government — the world’s largest facility owner and procurer of design and construction services.
4: Building Innovation 2013 is where the popular and informative buildingSMART alliance Conference is on the schedule. It’s the only place where the very experts who make the critical decisions on building information modeling (BIM) standards come together to share their knowledge on the various aspects of implementing BIM. This Conference, focused on Integrating BIM: Moving the Industry Forward, will deliver an understanding of how BIM can better integrate the design, construction, fabrication and operation processes, and also provide you with the latest metrics available to assess industry progress.
5: Building Innovation 2013 is the only Conference that gives you Innovative Technology Demonstrations directly from the developers who initiated the cutting-edge tools. Don’t settle for second-hand information on the Construction Operations Building information exchange (COBie) Calculator and Specifiers Properties information exchange (SPie) Catalog. Find out first-hand all about these IE standards, as well as the new information exchanges for Building Programming (BPie), HVAC (HVACie), Electrical Systems (SPARKie), Building Automation Modeling (BAMie) and Water Systems (WSie). Attend these demonstrations, along with the buildingSMART Challenge at Building Innovation 2013, and gain insights straight from the source.
6: Building Innovation 2013 is home to the popular Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC) Symposium, where the field’s leading experts in building enclosure research, design and practice unite to tackle the latest issues. For 30 years, BETEC has delivered quality symposia and continues its commitment with this Symposium titled, Fenestration: A World of Change, which will examine the most current data available on fenestration performance and technology.
7: Building Innovation 2013 kicks off the inaugural Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) Symposium, designed to guide hazard mitigation policies for the next decade. At this Symposium, focused on Large-Scale Mitigation Planning and Strategies, industry experts will participate in interactive sessions to tackle long-standing multihazard mitigation problems in the United States and then present their conclusions to a panel of high-level policy makers, with the goal of setting long-term solutions.
8: Building Innovation 2013 highlights the revolutionary tools developed through the Institute’s collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division (IDD) for use in evaluating buildings against the threat of multiple hazards. The Integrated Resilient Design Symposium: Evaluating Risk, Improving Performance, introduces attendees to these invaluable tools and demonstrates how they are being used to assess potential risks to buildings from blast, chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) threats, and natural hazards, while incorporating high-performance attributes into building design.
9: Building Innovation 2013 offers the only Symposium specifically addressing the needs of persons with low vision. The Low Vision Design Committee Symposium: Creating Supportive Environments for Persons with Low Vision, presents the latest state-of-the art theory and practices for designing for people with low vision from the designers, users, clients and low vision medical specialists that focus on this growing segment of the population – which is expected to be more than 50 million people by the year 2020. Find out how designing for persons with low vision can create environments that are more universally user-friendly for everyone.
10: Building Innovation 2013 provides the chance to explore what social, economic and environmental sustainability means to various segments of the building industry and how an effective, holistic approach can move the industry Beyond Green™. The Sustainable Buildings Industry Council Symposium: Fostering Innovation to Go Beyond Green™, is the only event where you’ll meet the winners of the 2012 Beyond Green™ High-Performance Building Award and see their real-world examples of sustainability first-hand.
11: Building Innovation 2013 is the place where academic professionals will gather to work on establishing a common educational strategy for BIM education. During the BIM Academic Education Symposium: Setting the Course for a BIM Educational Strategy, representatives from more than 25 colleges and universities will focus on certification, accreditation and credentialing. Coordinated by the buildingSMART alliance for the 4th year, this event will be held in collaboration with the AGC BIM Forum.
12: Building Innovation 2013 allows you the opportunity to meet the industry’s leaders as they are recognized for making exceptional contributions to the nation and the building community. The Institute’s Reception and Annual Awards Banquet will highlight the State of the Institute and honor individuals and organizations that are moving the industry forward.
13: Building Innovation 2013 gives you a full week to make quality one-on-one connections with industry experts and innovators; collaborate with colleagues; learn from the best; and share your expertise and experiences. From the varied Symposia and Educational Sessions to the Exhibitor Reception and Keynote Lunches, there are many excellent reasons to attend.
14. Visit 4Clicks and see CEASAL, the ONLY CLOUD-BASED, Collaborative COST ESTIMATING and EFFICIENT PROJECT DELIVERY system with 400,000+ detailed RSMeans Line Items, ability to leverage your custom cost data, and incorporate IPD – Integrated Project Delivery, JOC – Job Order Contracting, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, POCA, BOA and more! (multiple Patents Pending). Exhibit Space #5.
Cloud-computing will have a much more significant impact upon how the built environment is managed than 3D visualization. Information drives cost savings and higher efficiency. How and when we access information will forever alter day-to-day and strategic business practices for Owners, AEs, Contractors, SubContractors, Business Product Manufacturers, Building Users, Oversight Groups, and the Community.
BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment support by digital technology.
Currently, the efficient life-cycle management of the built environment is being retarded by several factors:
- Existence of data silos;
- Organizational/professional cultures;
- Reliance archaic construction delivery methods (design-build-build, vs. IPD, JOC), and
- Poor life-cycle management knowledge transfer.
Most disconcerting is that, in most cases, methods for gathering and working on significantly enhanced tactical and strategic facility life-cycle management practices are readily available. Primary failures and relative lack of progress relative to BIM occur due to lack of applying information to resolve planning, resource allocation, and execution in a timely, collaborative manner. Cloud computing uniquely addresses all of these important issues.
Data silos evolved from improper higher education and professional training practices, inefficient and adversarial construction delivery methods, as well as piecemeal IT procurement policies.
Traditional data processing systems and application specific software solutions were confined by the high cost of memory and storage. Memory, storage, and processing power are now relatively inexpensive, to the extent that they are mathematically approaching zero. As a result Internet massive scale storage, search, and processing paradigms are rapidly becoming commonplace. That said, Excel and similar spreadsheet-centric programs, and even relational database technology are not up to the task of accessing and working upon data fast enough.
Cloud computing however enables the searching and use of massive data sets in milliseconds. Additionally real-time, multi-point collaborative access is securely enabled by cloud computing. In short, cloud computing eliminates the need for data silos.
Moving the currently disparate knowledge domain AECOO (Architecture Engineering, Construction, Owner, Operations) practices into a collaborative process, and shifting information access to an earlier point within the construction project planning process are also enabled by cloud computing and associated “newer” construction delivery methods (Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and Job Order Contracting – JOC). Former time-line and silo restricted aspects of present day-to-day AECOO business practices stand to be vaporized by the precision search and analytic capabilities of modern cloud computing. Cloud computing is a highly standardized and virtualized commodity infrastructure, when combined with with standardized terms, cost data architectures, and similar generalized information hierarchies enables real-time continuous processing of open digital document/ information flow.
Fear that cloud computing will reduce the importance of Architects, Cost Estimators, Construction Managers, and other related profession is unfounded. Certainly inter-relationships and roles will evolve, however for those that are receptive, capabilities and potential within each profession will be expanded.
BIM (Building Information Modeling) is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology. 3D visualization vendors have marketed BIM poorly. Their focus has generally been upon 3D modeling and associated visual objects vs. the collection and use of valuable and enabling INFORMATION. Sure 3D visualization is a great tool, and a useful component of BIM, however, it’s not even the most important aspect.
Many, if not most organizations will require significant “change management” in order to successfully implement life-cycle management / BIM. Owners, AEs, Contractors, Oversight Groups, Business Product Manufacturers, and Software Vendors will need to adopt a better understanding of several, currently disparate knowledge domains / competencies and technologies and work towards efficient, transparent information sharing and collaboration among all area, professionals, and stakeholders.
Cloud computing / social media, BIM, and other ‘disruptive technologies’ combined with market demands driven but altered environmental and economic global landscapes will likely help to drive change, however, timing is uncertain.
There is a serious hole in the Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Owner Sectors’ level of understanding of building performance and legacy beliefs and process simply don’t work. – adaptation of work by Melanie Thompson of Get Sust!
We must initiate a wider discussion on what constitutes an appropriate, progressive life-cycle management of the built environment.
“We are moving from the era of ‘talking about deployment’ to the era of ‘deployment’ – over the next few decades there will be billions spent on energy-efficiency retrofit projects and it is crucial for policies to be underpinned by reliable technical data and strong evidence of the benefits that can be achieved.” – Bob Lowe, Deputy Director of University College London’s Energy Institute
The effectiveness and efficiency of this deployment will be dependent upon people asking the right questions. Efficient project delivery methods such as Job Order Contracting – JOC, a form of Integrated Project Development – IPD, that specifically targets renovation, repair, sustainability and minor new construction will be integral to successful BIM or life-cycle management based solutions. Collaboration and longer term relationships are primary components of JOC and equally central to BIM processes.
“… We are in a war-like situation and therefore have to accept a two-stage process: do the best we can with what we’ve got, plus keep on researching.” – Jim Skea, Chair – Sustainable Energy, Imperial College of London
Behaviors across all AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner) professions, building users, and oversight groups must change. Ad-hoc, inefficient, and adversarial construction delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build represent a serious impediment to efficient use of resources. Additionally, life-cycle management must be addressed on portfolio and local levels within the context specific buildings (or structures), inclusive of type, activity, and utilization. For this we need a fundamental shift in approach, applying the proven as well as yet to be developed methodologies and tools developed.
The impacts of social media and social sciences will expand exponentially. ” Conventional building researchers are ‘positivistic’ (measuring and monitoring objects and systems) while the social scientists, who inhabit a world of case studies and qualitative data, are ‘interpretivist’. Interpretivist research include studies of:
- occupants and their engagement with technologies;
- technologies and policy mechanisms in-use (implementation); and
- changes in business models, supply chains, the distribution of risk and responsibility, professional identities, the division of labor and so on.