Facilities Management in the U.S. – R.I.P.

Facilities Management in the U.S. – R.I.P.

If I see another article about how great facilities management professionals (FMers) are, or how misunderstood, I think my head will explode.

Real property owners, aka FMers, simply aren’t doing their jobs.   It they were, physical infrastructure (buildings, roads, bridges, utilities, ….) deferred maintenance wouldn’t be continuing to climb AND construction would not still be one of the least productive industries of all.

Sure, they are good, if not great FMers, but in general, there is are major professional capability and competency issues.

First and foremost Owner must demonstrate LEADERSHIP throughout all aspects of physical asset life-cycle management.  This means they must understand the concepts of asset life-cycle modeling, LEAN collaborative construction delivery, capital planning and management, total cost of ownership, best value procurement, maintenance strategies, utilization and space planning, physical and functional condition assessment and more…

No one can be an expert in the above competencies, but being able to lead teams of internal and external teams IS a requirement for any FMer with a real property portfolio.

Then, of course, you get the folks that say…”Oh, I can just outsource FM.”   Again my head explodes.   Are facilities and infrastructure core to your organization?   And… you are going to outsource their management?  Really?   Good luck with that.

Here’s a list of topics, areas, in which a real property owner should have a working level of competence.  How do your rate yourself?

  • Outcome-focused planning and management
  • LEAN best management practices
  • Collaborative construction delivery methods (IPD, JOC)
  • Share risk/reward
  • Facility Condition Index
  • Adequacy Index
  • System Condition Index
  • Risk prioritization
  • Financial Transparency
  • Common terms, definitions, data architectures
  • Best value procurement
  • Integral contract execution/operations manuals
  • Mandatory collaboration
  • Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
  • Performance Audits
  • User & service provider surveys
  • Long term service provider relationships
  • Internal owner cost estimates
  • Plug-in / modular technology
  • Asset modeling

Asset Comptency Model

BIM asset life-cycle competenciesasset life-cycle model for buildings and infrasructure

If you aren’t concerned about FM and AEC service delivery models… you should be.

Owner competency, owner/service provider relationships, and outsourcing trends are alarming at best.

Here’s just a few points to ponder…

  • Owner believe that technology is key to improving the renovation, repair, maintenace, and delivery services and financial transparency.   Well, I have news, if you don’t have sound business process and workflows, not to mention viable strategic and operational plans, technology will just automate you poor practices.
  •  ‘Big data’ and analytics, specifically being able to link data to decision making to improve productivity and service quality is seen as another “game changer”.    Well, two things here.  There IS such a thing as TOO MUCH INFORMATION.   Unless, the information is maintained in standardized formats and in plain english that everyone understands…and its both timely and actionable.   Big data and analytics are worthless.  Again…process and planning MUST come before any attempt to leverage data and/or analytics.
  • Owners are hoping for “culture change” – changing attitudes towards facilities, architecture, construction, and engineering.   They assume changes in the AECOO working/workplace with result  in changes in how people work and communicate – be it through technology or changes to the built environment.   Well, again, newsflash…. Owner MUST DRIVE CHANGE… IT’S UP TO YOU!
  • Increased competition for economic and environmental resources continues… reduced budgets and high expectation of service users are becoming the norm. Despite this obvious trend, real property owners are doing little to change their practices accordingly.
  • Last but not least… and only last, as I am sure you don’t want to read more… it that the trend towards outsourcing continues.  A high percentage of owners outsource more than 50% of their FM services.   Well…. last time I checked, FM is not a commodity, and outsourced service delivery is less efficient than a properly managed owner provided service.    The promises from outsourcing providers of financial savings, better technical expertise, buying efficiencies, and access to management best practices are rarely confirmed… or even measured… and even more rarely fulfilled.  So, again… the rampant trend towards mediocrity, waste, and inefficiency is supported versus mitigated.

Communication, working together as a team and better alignment of strategies and plans are the top areas of focus for most FMers.  However, without proper tools, training, and competencies, most will never achieve measurable positive results.

You don’t believe the situation is dire?

Surveys show that a high percentage of (approximately 50%) Owners don’t feel there is much room for improvement regarding initial request for proposals and briefings, etc.   REALLY?  ARE YOU SERIOUS?

How can that be?   Have they actually read the RFI’s, RFP’s?   Most (60%+) of contractor, engineers, etc. feel their is a LOT of room for improvement relative to Owner RFI’s, RFP’s etc.   This DISCONNECT simply should not exist.    It is another indicator of lack of owner due diligence.

The same percentage hold for questions relative to KPIs, reporting, etc.

What will it take for the U.S. FM and AEC industry to truly adopt innovation and collaborative LEAN business practices?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How the Brits View BIM – Buildling Information Modelling

What is BIM?

A multi-dimensional tool, Building Information Modelling (BIM) involves generating a visual model of the building which also manages data about it, at the design stage, throughout the construction phase and during its working life. Typically BIM uses real-time, dynamic building modelling software working in 3D, 4D (workflow) and, increasingly, 5D (quantity surveying) to increase productivity and efficiency, save costs in the design and construction stages, and to reduce running costs, after construction.

 

Introduction

Building Information Modelling (BIM) covers geometry, spatial relationships, light analysis, geographic information, quantities and properties of building components, project management and post-construction facilities management. BIM data can be used to illustrate the entire building life-cycle, from cradle to cradle, from inception and design to demolition and materials reuse; quantities and properties of materials, which can be easily extracted from the model; and the scope of works, including management of project targets and facilities management throughout the building’s life. Furthermore, systems, components, assemblies and sequences can be shown in relative scale to each other and, in turn, relative to the entire project.

NBS National BIM Report 2012NBS National BIM Report 2013
Our national survey on knowledge and uptake of BIM in the UK construction industry
Download report

 

IFC/COBie Report 2012IFC/COBie Report 2012
Is the buildingSMART IFC file format capable of supporting the creation of COBie datasets?
Download report

The Government’s Industrial Strategy, published in early 2013, states that £40 billion of public money is spent on Centrally Funded Public buildings, every year. From this, millions of pounds are lost through poor integration and not learning from past mistakes. The strategy suggests that:

  • 30% of the construction process is rework
  • 60% of the labour effort is wasted
  • 10% loss is due to wasted materials
  • 3-5% of the construction turnover is wasted due to loss of interoperability.

It follows that construction information is, therefore, often:

  • Inaccurate
  • Incomplete
  • Ambiguous.

By 2025, Government is aiming to maximise efficiency in the construction industry through legislation and best practices aimed at:

  • Lowering costs
  • Speeding delivery
  • Lowering emissions
  • Increasing exports.

Early BIM demonstration projects have already achieved savings of around 20% during the construction phase, with some on course to make 33% savings over the life of the building; future projects are targeting even greater savings.

However, BIM goes beyond simply switching to new software. It requires changes to the definition of traditional architectural phases, more data sharing than architects and engineers are used to, and a willingness to embrace partnering in an approach that collects all project related information digitally. BIM is able to achieve this by modelling representations, specifications, and the critical paths of actual parts and components used in the construction process, representing a major shift from traditional computer aided design.

The interoperability of the model requires that drawings, master building specifications, standards, regulations, manufacturer product specifications, cost and procurement details, environmental conditions (emissions data), critical paths, clash detection and submittal processes all work together. The whole process is about disparate information resources feeding into a central store of digital documentation, which then becomes the heart of the building information model.

BIM is far more than 3D CAD modelling; it is a rich information source containing geometric, visual, dimensional, and process information. If the software is the interface to a building information model; rich information content is its body and soul. Managed BIM will reduce the information loss associated with handing a project from design team, to construction team and to building owner/operator, by allowing each group to add to, and reference back to, all information they use/create during their period of contribution to the BIM model. To put it simply, without the embedded information, BIM is little more than 3D pictures.

For further discussion on the introduction of new legal and contractual documents that will underpin the adoption of BIM in UK projects, read The CIC BIM protocol – a critical analysis.

How does BIM work?

Building Information Modelling can, of course, still produce drawings, but the process is no longer focussed on lines, shapes and text boxes; it is now based on data sets that describe objects virtually, mimicking the way they will be handled physically in the real world. The real difference that BIM offers, however, is that it is a truly interoperable system, offering full integration, allowing the inputs of the various professionals and specialists involved in every stage of the life-cycle to work together, without data or process conflict.

Video: NBS Lakeside Restaurant

Discover the benefits of incorporating information rich Building Information Modelling (BIM) through the case study project ‘NBS Lakeside Restaurant’

Depending upon the perspective of approach to BIM, it can relate to lots of different things:

  • • To an engineer – energy consumption
  • To a contractor – buildability
  • To a client – useable space
  • To a manufacturer – product maintenance, servicing, product performance.

On a technical level Industry Foundation Classes (IFC or ifcXML) is an open specification for Building Information Modelling; they are effectively an object-based file format tied to a specific data model. IFC was originally developed by buildingSMART to facilitate interoperability in the architecture, engineering and construction industries, and forms a commonly used collaboration format in BIM projects.

Green Building XML (gbXML) is a schema specifically focused on green building design and operation and is used as the input in several energy simulation applications; gbXML powers a number of building energy simulation tools available to the market.

The IFC model specification is an open and available online (see Further information). The IFC format is registered by the International Standards Organisation (ISO 16739:2013).

A more in-depth view of the technical aspects of Building Information Modelling, can be accessed through BIM and building properties.

Workflow/4D
4D scheduling in BIM allows the designer/manager to see problems scheduled in the works durations and analyse congestion and accessibility more effectively than through standard Gantt charts. A more powerful aspect of 4D schedules are that, unlike a static building model, they are in a dynamic state. By linking time to structural components, it is possible to carry out time related structural analysis using the actual BIM model.

If workflow analysis of the model is carried out at design stage, it may determine the preferred material and the construction methodology in order to save time and money.

Clash detection
Clash detection is one of BIM’s buzz phrases, primarily because it puts a value on the savings made from eliminating problems found during a review. Clash detection can be broken into three categories or types:

  • Hard clash
  • Soft clash/clearance clash
  • 4D/workflow Clash.

A hard clash is simply when two objects occupy the same space. For example, a pipe going through a wall where there is no opening.

Soft clashes refer to allowable tolerances or space; for example, buffer zones between components left to provide space for future maintenance.

4D/Workflow clashes refer to clashes in scheduling work crews, equipment/material fabrication delivery clashes and other timeline issues.

Quantity Surveying/5D
The level of BIM utilised is often down to the maturity level of the team and that of its respective parts, so utilising fully integrated 4D and 5D is still uncommon, mainly down to software costs and educational/training limitations. However, the certainty of quantities generated from the BIM model allows several different assessments in finding the most effective solutions prior to construction – BIM modelling means that a schedule of quantities can be produced instantly; whereas previously a QS could spend considerable time measuring and taking quantities from 2D drawings. However, despite BIM’s accuracy, there remains the issue of differences in ‘standard methods of measurement’. The UK uses several SMMs, Ireland mainly uses a version of ARM (Agreed Rules of Measurement), and the US and Australia use other variants. So, a common international standard method of measurement, compatible with all BIM software, seems to still be a way off.

Classification in BIM and the differences in standard methods of measurement is discussed in greater detail in Coordinating common arrangement, Uniclass, NBS and rules of measurement.

Benefits of BIM

Managing a construction project and building lifecycle using a building information model can result in substantial savings, in both time and money, from design and construction through to on-going maintenance.

The model saves time and waste on site, and renders extra coordination checks largely unnecessary; the information generated from the model leads to fewer errors on site, caused by inaccurate and uncoordinated information. When all members of the construction team work on the same model, from early design through to completion, introduced changes are automatically coordinated through the BIM, across the whole project, and information generated is therefore of high quality.

BIM has already given the industry measurable positives:

  • Increased understanding and predictability – offering greater certainty and reduced risk
  • Improved efficiency
  • Improved integration and coordination – meaning less problems onsite
  • Less waste
  • Better value and quality
  • Better buildings throughout their life-cycle.

Information technology is an integral part of today’s commerce, and transferring design/construction information from designers to producers/constructors is an example where, with the availability of modelling software, the tools are already in place. However, when choosing which simulation tool to use for a project, the teams involved must consider the application’s accuracy, reliability, user base and possible needs for training, considered against the project information they will have at their disposal.

Construction is the world’s most wasteful industry; it is the largest consumer of global resources, raw materials and global energy supplies; it creates the largest amount of global solid waste; and it is responsible for around 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is worth trillions of dollars per annum globally.

BIM technology presents a great opportunity for manufacturers, but they must ensure that they keep up and are part of the industry changes, not a future ‘Kodak’.

BIM in the UK

The proliferation of interpretations of BIM currently hampers the adoption of a working strategy to improve the built environment, and in turn the quality and sustainability of deliveries from design and construction teams to clients. In the UK, the Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC), responsible for providing best practice guidance on construction production information, proposed a definition of Building Information Modelling for adoption throughout the UK construction industry. This was jointly forwarded by the RIBA, CPIC and buildingSmart as a definition of BIM for the UK construction industry, to act as a starting point for discussion and refinement. It is:

‘Building Information Modelling is digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility creating a shared knowledge resource for information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle, from earliest conception to demolition.’

It should be borne in mind that adoption of BIM in the UK is not a mandatory undertaking, yet. However, the Government aims for all publically funded works begun after 2015 to be carried out through a building information model; it is anticipated that where the government goes, regulation and the rest of the construction industry will follow. And, because the public purse funds so much of the building work in the UK, within a very short time, what is currently voluntary is very likely to be mandatory.

The article The buildingSMART Data Dictionary offers a brief introduction to what the dictionary project is all about.

BIM and the NBS

As leading providers of information to the UK construction industry, NBS offers a range of software tools and information resources that support the design team across the project timeline, enabling the production of co-ordinated digital information. NBS are investing heavily in turning specification and product information into digital objects in anticipation of the industry-wide adoption of BIM. As part of this NBS aims to regularly publish guidance and information on BIM resources for the construction industry.

The NBS National BIM Library, NBS Plug-ins and NBS Create will aid information flow throughout the BIM process, enabling more efficient and accurate working when generating design documentation. Even from the project concept stage, objects can be selected from the NBS National BIM Library and added directly to design models; and, due to the direct linkage between design and specification through NBS Plug-ins, access to expert guidance is maintained within NBS Create. By using the plug-in, an outline specification can be automatically produced from the design model. Both specification and model are synchronised, making it possible to manage links to the specification throughout the project.

As the design evolves, proprietary objects can be substituted from NBS National BIM Library, while developing the specification detail within NBS Create, providing real-time information on cost and performance.

BIM and data modelling techniques offer the opportunity to create specifications differently, meaning a big change in the process. This is outlined in What does Building Information Modelling (BIM) mean for specifications?

NBS National BIM Library

A digital model is built using lots of small digital components, called BIM objects. These objects are the building blocks of all digital models. However, in the case of BIM, the objects are not about imitating catalogue products; they are digital replications of products and are assembled in the information model.
There is currently a huge demand from designers for manufacturers’ BIM objects, but creating and maintaining them requires expertise that architects and designers don’t have time to commit. Furthermore, there’s no efficiency for UK construction if every designer creates their own BIM objects for each manufacturer. This is where the NBS National BIM Library comes in.

NBS National BIM Library is a publishing tool, which uses the latest web technology to place manufacturer’s products in the cloud, connecting them to other objects, and getting them used by the construction industry. The NBS National BIM Survey 2013 says that:

  • Over 110,000 BIM objects have been downloaded so far this year
  • NBS National BIM Library hosts an active user community, who are passionate about BIM
  • NBS National BIM Library covers all formats
  • NBS National BIM Library uses cloud technology so that objects can be used anywhere
  • NBS National BIM Library offers manufacturers detailed usage analysis to help win business.

NBS National BIM Library maintains a focus on high quality digitised objects, available on all platforms. As BIM unfolds and becomes the de-facto source of design information for the industry, quality and ubiquity of data objects will separate success from also ran. Simply put, if your object is not available as a digital object, then your product is unlikely to be bought.

Best of all, for users of the NBS National BIM Library resource, it’s free…

BIM objects are much more than just graphical representations and using them as placeholder to connect to wider sources of information provides a powerful design tool. A picture paints a thousand words, but never underestimate the power of text investigates linking NBS National BIM Library objects to NBS Create.

BIM for existing buildings

Laser surveying and cloud points can replace the need for traditional 2D surveys, delivering accurate models of existing buildings and infrastructure as 3D models. This can also be achieved faster, with a greater accuracy than traditional methods reducing overall project costs.

3D laser scanning has been around in the offshore sector for many years, creating accurate ‘As-Built’ models of oil rigs and plant facilities. However it is only in the last couple of years that the technology has been cost effective to use in the built environment sector.

While there have been attempts at creating a BIM for older, pre-existing facilities; trying to model a standing building or structure requires numerous assumptions about building design standards and codes, construction methods and materials available at the time of construction. These factors should be borne in mind before undertaking a 3D survey of an existing structure.

Future of Building Information Modelling

The future of architecture and the construction industry is digital; of this there can be no doubt, and BIM is the future of design and long term facility management; it is government led and technology driven; and it is implementing change across all industries, but there is still much confusion about what exactly it is and how it should be utilised and implemented. BIM is a digital model which helps everyone understand the building; however, it is a new technology in an industry typically slow to adopt change. Rest assured though, BIM will grow to play a crucial future role in building design and documentation.

BIM provides the potential for a virtual information model to be handed from Design Team (architects, surveyors, consulting engineers, and others) to Contractor and Subcontractors and then to the Owner, each adding their own additional discipline-specific knowledge and tracking of changes to the single model. The result greatly reduces information losses in transfer; makes buildings work, and helps build better value constructions. By signalling conflict detection BIM prevents errors creeping in at the various stages of development/construction, because the model actually informs the team about parts of the design which are in conflict or clashing. Finally BIM offers detailed computer visualization of each part and assembly in relation to the total building.

As hardware, software and cloud applications herald greater capability to handle increasing amounts of raw data and information, use of BIM will become even more pronounced than it is in current projects.

This article was produced with the technical assistance of Ian Chapman and Stefan Mordue, both of NBS.
Michael Smith is a member of the Construction Information Service editorial team. He is a mechanical engineering and building services specialist, chartered information specialist (MCLIP) and chartered environmentalist (CEnv).

Further Information

NBS BIM information pages
NBS Published guidance and information on BIM resources for the construction industry

NBS National BIM Library
NBS National BIM Library contains over 5000 proprietary and pre-configured generic objects covering all major building fabric systems for walls, ceilings, roofs and floors; with new content added every few weeks, and all available free

NBS National BIM reports
Includes links to the National BIM Survey reports, IFC/COBie report and BIM for the terrified, all available for free

BIM – Changing our industry
WSP Group’s online hub exploring BIM in the construction industry

Construction Project Information (CPIC)
Promoting collaborative working within the construction industry.

Industry Foundation Classes (IFC/ifcXML)
Official source of all information about the technical specifications issued by buildingSMART International and of the supporting interoperability implementation programmes.

IFC Model specification pages
Contains an overview about IFC releases, including current IFC release, background information about previous releases, and preview of future releases

Green Building XML (gbXML)
gbXML open schema helps facilitate the transfer of building properties stored in 3D building information models to engineering analysis tools

November 2013

 

BackToTop

Email Updates

Receive regular email
updates from NBS

Follow @TheNBS on Twitter

Buy This Book

BIM Demystified (2nd edition)

Available now from
RIBA Bookshops

BuyNow

Facility Management Executives Lax in Helping to Define BIM?

Facility management executives need to play a role in defining BIM.  Having personally reached out to several leading FM professional organizations I am amazed at how little interest and/or awareness there is relative to BIM… not to mention other ‘disruptive technologies’ such as ‘cloud computing’.
Unfortunately this also appears to be the case for many large facility portfolio Owners.

As a direct result, the ‘life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology’, BIM, which is so critically linked to major economic and environment factors, continues to falter.

True, BIM is in the ‘disillusionment’ phase of a typical technology adoption curve, however, the degree of resistance to ‘getting everyone on the same page’ (Owners, AEs, Contractors, Sub, Building Product Manufactures, Oversight Groups, Building Users), is almost overwhelming in the US…. vs. other Countries.  

It’s beyond time for everyone to “visualize the possibilities and realities of what we can do quickly and what will take more time to really get right.”

The best “starting point” is to understand that the ‘ construction delivery method ‘ sets the tone and ultimately plays a key role in defining the success or failure of any renovation, repair, sustainability, or new construction project.  The method must be collaborative, value-based, and have some form of risk/reward and/or performance basis.  Integrated project delivery, IPD and Job Order Contracting, JOC and other “emerging” construction delivery methods have this characteristics.

facility-life-cycle-technology-and-process-roadmap1-300x172BIMF - Building Information Management Framework

 

Construction Disruption – BIM, Cloud Computing, and Efficient Project Delivery Methods

By Peter Cholakis
Published in the March 2013 issue of Today’s Facility Manager

Emergent disruptive technologies and construction delivery methods are altering both the culture and day-to-day practices of the construction, renovation, repair, and sustainability of the built environment. Meanwhile, a shifting economic and environmental landscape dictates significantly improved efficiencies relative to these facility related activities. This is especially important to any organization dependent upon its facilities and infrastructure to support and maintain its core mission.

The disruptive digital technologies of building information modeling (BIM) and cloud computing, combined with emergent collaborative construction delivery methods are poised to alter the status quo, ushering in increased levels of collaboration and transparency. A disruptive technology is one that alters the very fabric of a business process or way of life, displacing whatever previously stood in its place. BIM and cloud computing fit the profile of disruptive technologies, individually, and when combined these stand to create a tidal wave of change.

BIM is the life cycle management of the built environment, supported by digital technology. While a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon 3D visualization, this is just a component of BIM. The shift from a “first cost mentality” to a life cycle cost or total cost of ownership is a huge change for many. Improving decision making practices and applying standardized terms, metrics, and cost data can also prove challenging. An understanding and integration of the associated knowledge domains important to life cycle management is required, resulting in what is now being referred to as “big data.”

Cloud computing is also a disruptive technology, and it’s one that impacts several areas. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of cloud computing is as follows, “Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. The cloud model is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.”

It is perhaps helpful to define cloud computing in terms of its benefits. Cloud computing enables far greater levels of collaboration, transparency, and information access previously unavailable by traditional client/server, database, or even prior generation web applications. Multiple users can work on the same data set with anyone, anywhere, anytime, in multicurrency, multilanguage environments. All changes can be tracked to “who did what” within seconds (potentially the best form of security available), and information is never deleted.

The disruptive technologies of BIM and cloud computing will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods and foster new frameworks. Design-bid-build, the traditional construction delivery method for decades, is inherently flawed. As a lowest bid deployment it immediately sets up adversarial relationships for involved parties. Owners prepare a solicitation for construction projects based on their understanding of them1, with or without third-party A/E assistance, and in most cases they go out in search of the lowest bidder. Then without a thorough understanding of the owner’s facility, bidders base their responses on the owner’s solicitation, plans, and specifications. Owners typically allow a period of time for bidders’ questions and clarifications; but the quality of this interchange is at best questionable if based solely on a written scope, plans and specifications, and/or a meeting with suppliers.

Design-build, arguably a step in right direction, falls short of bringing all stakeholders together. More responsibility of design and construction is shifted to the contractor and/or A/E. However, the dual level participation structure doesn’t assure the interests of all parties are equally addressed. Furthermore, the design-build process is typically reserved for major new construction projects versus the numerous sustainability, repair, renovation projects, and minor new construction projects typically encountered by facility managers (fms).

Because BIM brings together previously disparate information into a framework that enables decision support, using the technology requires a collaborative construction delivery method. The integration of the domain knowledge and robust processes required to allow fms, A/Es, and other stakeholders to achieve heightened levels of information sharing and collaboration is enabled by methods that include Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Job Order Contracting (JOC).

Key characteristics of these emergent construction delivery methods include: choices based on best value; some form of pricing transparency; early and ongoing information sharing among project stakeholders; appropriate distribution of risk; and some form of financial incentive to drive performance.

Both IPD and JOC allow, if not require, owner cost estimators and project managers to “partner” with contractors, subcontractors, and A/Es to conceptualize, create, cost, prioritize, start, and report upon projects—in the very early phases of construction.

IPD, JOC, and Simplified Acquisition of Base Civil Engineering Requirements (SABER)—the U.S. Air Force term for applying JOC practices—are practiced simultaneously by a growing number of organizations and supported by digital technologies. These construction delivery processes are embedded within software to allow for rapid, cost-effective, and consistent deployment as well as the associated level of collaboration and transparency.

BIM and cloud computing are disruptive technologies that will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods such as IPD and JOC. Construction delivery methods set the tone and level of interaction among project participants and can be viewed as the management process framework. When supported by BIM and cloud computing, the life cycle management of the built environment, and the associated management of big data, can be expected to become commonplace for many construction projects.

1303 profdev a 150x150 Professional Development: Construction Disruption

Cholakis

Cholakis is chief marketing officer for 4Clicks Solutions, LLC, a Colorado Springs, CO provider of cost estimating and project management software. With expertise in facilities life cycle costs and total cost of ownership in various market segments, he is involved in numerous industry associations and committees including the American Society of Safety Engineers, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Society of American Military Engineers, BIM Library Committee-National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), and National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee.

1 “The Art of Thinking Outside the Box;” Vince Duobinis; 2008.

The Current Status of OMNICLASS – A Critical BIM Requirement

(source: OmniClass Development Committee Status Report – April 16, 2013)

To:        OmniClass Development Committee members
From:   Dianne Davis, OmniClass Development Committee Chair
Kelly Sawatzky, OmniClass Development Committee Vice Chair
Greg Ceton, OmniClass Secretariat

These OmniClass Status Reports will be issued every few months through this review cycle. They are
designed to keep you apprised of ongoing OmniClass development work and afford you the opportunity
to ask questions or get involved. The report is organized to give updates on the development work
being performed by the three Working Groups (WGs) that are each independently working on a
different area of OmniClass development.

We are just commencing the 2012-2014 review cycle. Generally speaking, WGs are just beginning to
identify review issues and set priorities for areas of work needed.

OmniClass Spaces WG (Lead: Alan Edgar)
(Table Responsibilities: 13 – Spaces by Function and 14 – Spaces by Form)
The Spaces WG is charged with reviewing Table 13 – Spaces by Function and Table 14 – Spaces by Form
to determine the nature of any development work needed to expand or modify Table 13 contents, to
provide a baseline review of Table 14, as it has not been reviewed in depth since its initial
publication in 2006, and to harmonize the work of other existing space classifications with the revised contents
of both Tables.  The Working Group has commenced review work on both Table 13 – Spaces by Function and Table 14 –
Spaces by Form.  Table 13 review has been focused on laboratory space organization to start. Additional review of
medical spaces is also anticipated.
Table 14 review has begun with comparison of form-based aspects of other classification systems,
including those used as references in the prior work on Table 14. Some simplification of the table
to address purely formal concerns may be needed.
If you would like to participate in review work on either of these tables or have any comments to
share, please send them to Spaces WG lead Alan Edgar at alan.edgar@rsparch.com and to Greg Ceton at
gceton@csinet.org

OmniClass Products WG (Lead: Robert Keady)
(Table Responsibilities: 23 – Products)
The Products WG is charged with examining the structure of Table 23 – Products and confirming that
the contents and organization support the needs of users.

Work has commenced with the examination of Table 23 – Products. The WG Lead, Robert Keady, has
started cross-referencing Table 23 with Tables 21 (Elements) and 22 (Work Results). Additionally,
there have been equipment additions (200 to date) proposed to Table 23. Currently there is an
effort being made to identify Work Group members who will focus on specialized areas for review
within Table 23. This review cycle, the Work Group will also be focusing on adding definitions for
Table 23 entries.
If you have any comments or resources to lend to this effort, please send them to Properties WG
Lead Robert Keady at robertkeady@hotmail.com and to Chris Gummo at cgummo@csinet.org
OmniClass Activities and Processes WG (Lead: Dianne Davis)

The Properties and Materials WG is charged with examining and revising content and organization of
Table 32 – Services, Table 35 – Tools, and Table 36 – Information in light of recent work on Table
31 – Phases, Table 33 – Disciplines, and Table 34 – Organizational Roles.

Work has commenced with the examination of Table 32 – Services. The WG has tapped Robert Keady,
CEM, CDSM, FMP for his specialized knowledge of tasks, and how they may be fit into the structure
of Table 32 while limiting the impact on the table as a whole. The group has agreed that any
changes to Tables 32 and 36 must be in response to intended or known table usage that currently not
being met. Adding content or improving the tables without reference to a real improved process will
not satisfactorily address the WG charge.
Definition creation and harmonization with existing OmniClass Tables and creation of transition
matrix for each reviewed table will be commenced further along in the review cycle.
Work on other tables will be initiated after the work on Table 32 – Services has progressed
further.
If you have any comments or resources to lend to this effort, please send them to Properties WG
Lead Dianne Davis at  d.davis@aecinfosystems.com and to Rob Holson at rholson@csinet.org

If the work of any of these Working Groups interests you, or you would like to participate
in their development work, please contact Greg Ceton at gceton@csinet.org

BIM, Value Management, Life-cycle Cost Management

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

Correspondence: abdullateef.olanrewaju@ymail.com

ABSTRACT

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

I. INTRODUCTION

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

alt

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).

V. DISCUSSION

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”!

REFERENCES

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

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Facility Life-cycle Costs and BIM

Understanding facility life-cycle costs is a core component of any BIM strategy for Owners, AE’s, Contractors, Subs, Business Product Manufacturers, Oversight Groups, Building Users, … or any stakeholder.

There are many components of life-cycle costs:

  • First Costs – Planning, Selection, Acquisition, Construction
  • Maintenance, Repair – Routine, Preventive, Unscheduled (typically expenditures of $10,000 per job or less)
  • Capital Renewal (major system/subsystem cyclical replacement)
  • Renovation, Adaptation (altering, updating spaces based upon functional needs)
  • Operations (utilization, utilities, security, safety, sustainability, waste, cleaning, grounds management )
  • Deconstruction, Transition, Disposition

BIM is just now beginning to lay the foundation for new processes and supporting technologies to enable more efficient life-cycle management of the built environment.   An important challenge is the establishment of common terms, definitions, metrics, and ‘best-practices’.   Some off these will be new, however, many/most  will likely be existing… the latter simply better shared, communicated, and consistently applied.

Facility Lifecycle Costs
Facility Lifecycle Costs

Why BIM is in trouble.

Read this post and please comment.  It is part of discussion on linked-in.  To me it is very telling of the educational and cultural issues that are preventing the widespread adoption of BIM.

I still don’t understand what FM has to do with it. As architects we get enormous benefits from using BIM, from being able to do more complicated and therefore better designed buildings to doing more with less staff. Engineers can do the same.  Contractors benefit from accurate documents and schedules, and more certainty over clash detection. All this can be done with NO consideration of FM.
So “BIM can not be leveraged without the input and consideration of FM” is simply not true, and a great misunderstanding in the AEC industry.

So, the author believes that BIM can be practiced without the input and consideration of FM?  I think NOT.   Certainly components of BIM can be practiced separately, with the ultimate goal of integration.  That said, the above statement not only shows a lack of understanding of the meaning and major value of BIM, but also demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the role of FM professionals.

It is my hope that organizations like IFMA, APPA, NIBS, buildingSMART, CEFPI, et al, rapidly address the pervasive lack of understanding relative to FM.  Failure to address this core issue stands to place BIM in silos…. exactly what we all don’t need.

Project Delivery Methods of the Future – IFMA World Workplace 2012 Paper and Presentation

IMFA – Presentation

Project Delivery Methods of the Future – IFMA WORLDWORKPLACE 2012 – San Antonio, TX  

Job Order Contracting (JOC) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) converge with Cloud Computing, Big Data, and BIM.

Project Delivery Methods FINAL FOR PRESENTATION

IFMA OCTOBER 2012

BIG DATA, Life-cycle Management JOC, SABER, Cloud Computing and More!

BIM Life Cycle Operations IFMA Community of Practice Business Meeting – BIM for FM

BIG DATA – BIM Framework

See more at: http://www.gosee.tv/bimlco/

Project Delivery Methods FINAL FOR PRESENTATION

IFMA OCTOBER 2012