Performance Based Building
PerformancePerformance BasedBased BuildingBuilding
Pekka Huovila
Combining Forces • Advancing Facilities Management & Construction through Innovation Series Performance Based Building
Edited by
Pekka Huovila Technical Research Centre of Finland Copyright © 2005 VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland, and RIL – Association of Finnish Civil Engineers
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publishers or in the case of individual chapters, from the author(s) of that chapter.
Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers or the authors of individual chapters for any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland (www.vtt.fi), and RIL – Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (www.ril.fi)
ISBN: 952•5004•66•X
Printed in Finland Table of contents
Table of contents...... iii Preface ...... v
SECTION I: The PeBBu Network
The Performance Based Building Network: Impacts and Perspectives...... 1 Mansi Jasuja, CIBdf Life Performance and Innovation on Construction Materials and Components ...... 14 Wolfram Trinius, University of Gävle & Ingenieurbüro Trinius Christer Sjöström, University of Gävle Jean•Luc Chevalier, CSTB Julien Hans, CSTB Performance Based Building and its Application to Healthy Buildings...... 25 Marcel Loomans, TNO Philomena Bluyssen, TNO The relationship between performance•based building and innovation: An evolutionary approach ...... 37 Martin Sexton, University of Salford Peter Barrett, University of Salford Angela Lee, University of Salford Performance•based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date ...... 44 Dik Spekkink, EGM architecten / Spekkink C&R Facilitating Innovation & Enhancing Trade – The Performance•Based Building Networks in Australia & Asia...... 55 Greg Foliente, CSIRO Peter Boxhall, CSIRO Lam Pham, CSIRO
SECTION II: Performance Based Building Framework and Tools
A Comparison of International Classifications for Performance Requirements and Building Performance Categories Used in Evaluation Methods...... 61 Thomas Lützkendorf, University Karlsruhe Thorsten Speer, University Karlsruhe Françoise Szigeti, International Center for Facilities Gerald Davis, International Center for Facilities Pieter le Roux, University of Toyohashi / Nagoya Akikazu Kato, University of Toyohashi / Nagoya Kazuhisa Tsunekawa, University of Toyohashi / Nagoya
iii Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – a step towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB)...... 81 Janne Porkka, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Pekka Huovila, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland The PeBBuCo study: Compendium of Performance Based (PB) Statements of Requirements (SoR)...... 94 Françoise Szigeti, International Center for Facilities Performance•Based Framework & Applications for nD Models in Building and Construction ...... 108 Greg Foliente, CSIRO Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology Selwyn Tucker, CSIRO Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology Pekka Huovila, VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland
SECTION III: Performance Based Building Standards and Practices Performance Based Building Regulations...... 113 David Pilzer, Ministry of the Interior Performance•Based Procurement in Denmark...... 125 Kim Haugbølle, SBi Danish Building Research Institute Performance•Based Building from a Mediterranean Perspective...... 137 Giuseppina Varone, ITC – CNR Construction Technologies Institute Paolo Cardillo, ITC – CNR Construction Technologies Institute The Status of PBB in the NAS countries ...... 147 Gábor Tiderenczl, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building Károly Matolcsy, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building Peter Matiasovsky, Slovak Academy of Sciences Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive ...... 159 Eric Winnepenninckx, BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute Luk Vandaele, BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute Piet Vitse, BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute
SECTION IV: Performance Based Building Experiences outside the PeBBu Network Energetic•Environmental Certification of the Urban Lighting Installations ...... 171 Pierluigi De Berardinis, DAU– Faculty of Engineering L’Aquila Lisa Di Bartolomeo, DAU– Faculty of Engineering L’Aquila Sustainable Procurement: Is Partnering the key? ...... 183 Kate Carter, Heriot•Watt University Chris Fortune, Heriot•Watt University Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Performance Based Standards in Singapore...... 193 Evelyn Ai Lin Teo, National University of Singapore Kelvin Yu Ngee Ng, National University of Singapore
iv Preface
This book highlights Performance Based Building (PBB) experiences from four continents as they were presented in the international CIB Symposium COMBINING FORCES in Helsinki in June 2005. Eighteen papers describing different PBB perspectives are classified into four sections. Fifteen presentations in the first three sections report the main outcomes of the EC funded PeBBu Thematic Network.
The first section starts by describing the structure and impacts of the PeBBu network followed by presentations of the main technical PeBBu Domains: life performance on construction materials and components, application of PBB to healthy buildings, innovation and design. The last paper in the first section extends the European networking to Australia and Asia.
The second section deals with the PBB framework and tools. The first paper makes a pan• European comparison of international classifications for performance requirements and building performance categories used in various evaluation methods. It is followed by a presentation of a decision support toolkit, which can be seen as a step towards an integrated platform for performance based building. After that a compendium of statements of requirements is reported. The last paper in this section bridges the PBB framework to the nD models in building and construction.
The third PeBBu section deals with performance based building standards and practices. It starts by giving an overview to regulations and finishes by discussing the construction product directive. In between, the procurement issue is described from the Danish perspective followed by sharing the Mediterranean and NAS (newly associated states) views on performance based building.
The last section in this book is not part of the PeBBu Thematic network. It discusses the energetic•environmental certification issue of urban lighting installations and contemplates partnering as an answer to procurement in performance based building. Finally, an analysis is given on the factors affecting the effectiveness of performance based standards in Singapore.
We hope this book finds interest among practitioners and researchers willing to implement and develop further the concept of performance based building.
Pekka Huovila VTT • Technical Research Centre of Finland Helsinki, June 2005
v vi Section I
The PeBBu Network The Performance Based Building Network: Impacts and Perspectives
Mansi Jasuja, CIBdf, International Council of Research & Innovation in Building and Construction (email: [email protected])
Abstract
This paper provides the background on the establishment and operation of the EU funded and CIBdf managed Performance Based Building (PeBBu) network. It gives an overview of the program, components, activities of the network so far. CIB has traditionally played a crucial role in the development of the performance concept and in its practical applications in the development of standards and regulatory requirements. With the establishment of the PeBBu project, the development of the performance concept has taken on a new dimension of practical approach and involvement of a large variety of stakeholders internationally.
Since its conception, the project has grown to include aligned activities such as two compendia projects and involvement with several CIB commissions. Extension into the Newly Associated States (NAS) countries and recent launch of the Australian network of PeBBu are examples of the fast spreading phenomenon of the performance approach. The PeBBu programme of work includes 6 scientific domains and several other tasks including PBB and CPD, PBB Decision making toolkits and CRISP Sustainability indicators.
The paper provides key lessons learnt from the experience of running the network programme. This is very useful for similar future endeavours that can learn from the PeBBu experience to succeed in hastening and widening the adoption of the performance approach in the building industry. These lessons include the dynamics of the various stakeholders in the building and construction sector for adoption of performance based principle. The lessons learnt are based on first hand experience of coordinating and managing the network and feedback from network participants.
The major accomplishments of this network such as expansion of the network and establishment of several aligned activities and strategic relations are also part of the paper. Activities and outputs that engage and benefit various stakeholders are described. There are still many hurdles to face and many challenges to encounter. This paper concludes with a perspective on the future of Performance Based Building in the times to come.
Keywords: Performance Based Building, Thematic Networks, performance approach/concept
1 1. Performance Based Building: an Overview
Performance Based Building is not a new concept! It has been practiced in some measure since ages even though it was not formally known as the performance approach. The earliest example of this can be found in the Hammurabi Code (c. 1950 to 1910 BC), which gave a dictum that a house should not collapse and kill anybody. This concept was also reflected in the early architectural philosophy of the Romans, as described in Vitruvius’s De architectura libri decem (1st century BC). Let us try to understand how we in the current times define the performance concept.
1.1 The Performance Concept
The process of designing, planning, coordinating and constructing a building involves an entire spectrum of building professionals who work cohesively together to address the needs of the client. However, this process is not so straightforward. Construction professionals, often new to each other, have to operate within unclear and dynamic processes and procedures. The way in which the building fulfils the expectations of all the stakeholders, including the providers, managers or occupants of the building, is increasingly becoming the measure of its success.
The design not only has to be buildable (in terms of cost and time), but stakeholders are increasingly enquiring about its maintainability, sustainability, accessibility, fire deterrent features, and its functional acoustic, energy and the performance. Each of these parameters has to satisfy a whole host of social, economic and legislative conditions. Traditionally, these conditions are governed by prescriptive codes and standards. Prescriptive standards are easy to understand and follow and the results are easy to monitor. However, their inherent inflexibility stifles innovation, leading to a poor match between true user requirements and the building, and poor value for money. By changing the focus from the input material’s specifications (traditional, prescriptive approach) to the output user requirements (performance based) we will increase both the quality and the long•term value for money of our buildings. [1]
The performance based building (PBB) concept provides a flexible and technically non• prescriptive framework for building design and construction. The PBB approach enables greater innovation, aids international trade and cost reduction. Its application consists of translating human needs (functionality, comfort, etc) first into functional and then into technical performance requirements, implementing them within a regulatory framework and enabling the construction of buildings that provide long•term satisfactory performances. The Performance Based Building (PBB) concept applies itself to the constructed asset planning, programming, design, procurement and construction, life cycle management and operation, and to building regulation control. Although its definition is acutely debated, it is considered in broad terms the as practice “ of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means”. [2]
2 2. Establishment of the PeBBu Network
Recognising the relevance of the performance based building concepts for the building and construction sector of Europe, the PeBBu Thematic Network was established in 2001 and runs until September 2005 to further the knowledge, dissemination and application of the PBB concept worldwide. It is funded under the European Commission’s (EU) 5th framework – Competitive and Sustainable Growth. Organisations from both EU and non•EU countries involved in PeBBu are research institutes; research funding organisations; universities; architectural and engineering offices; contractors; manufacturers; regulatory bodies, building and construction consultants, industry associations and governmental agencies.
2.1 Objectives of the PeBBu network
The main objective of the PeBBu Network “Stimulation is and pro•active facilitation of international dissemination and implementation of Performance Based Building in building and construction practice”, and in that context to maximisation of the contribution to this by the international R&D community. [3]
The Network aims at combining fragmented knowledge in the area of Performance Based Building in order to build a systematic approach towards innovation of the building industry and applying user requirements throughout the building process. From this, white spots and a coherent future research agenda can be derived. End•users, policy makers, building industry and regulatory communities are closely involved in this development in order to facilitate dissemination and implementation of research results.
2.2 Components of the PeBBu Network
The PeBBu programme1 includes the following “core” components (refer to Figure 1)
• International programming / coordination of research within 6 Scientific Domains. • Involvement of target groups / stakeholders through three User Platforms for respectively a) Buildings Owners, Users and Managers, b) Building and Construction Industry and c) International Standardisation and Conformity Community.
1 More detailed information on the PeBBu Network, its program of activities and its organisation can be found in the designated PeBBu website at www.pebbu.nl. This website contains an online database with information on current PeBBu member organisations, all ±250 persons active in the various tasks, task description, meetings and publication; More information on the established Scientific Domains with downloadable PDF versions of recent Domain Reports; 1st International State of the Art Report on PBB; Newsletters; International Research Mapping Database.
3 • Four Regional Platforms in Europe to act as the bridge to and the initiator of aligned national activities (Northern, West/Central, East and Mediterranean). • Network Management • Establishment of a Network Steering Committee, a Technical Committee and a Network Secretariat. • Mapping of national and international research related to various aspects of Performance Based Building. At the onset of PeBBu, the project began with 9 scientific domains2. These spanned across the various themes and aspects of performance based building. In the middle of the project, it was decided to terminate 3 of these domains (the domains on Built Environment, Organisation and Management, Information and Documentation) due to the vast scope of these domains, the lack of ongoing research and/or overlap with other domain work.
In addition to these core components, there are various aligned activities in support of PeBBu (Figure 1). These however, are not funded from the EU PeBBu budget. These aligned activities have been contributing to major achievements of the PeBBu Network. Meanwhile, in the first 2 years of PeBBu Programme, some other topics of interest relevant to PBB arose. These have now being developed as new tasks and are incorporated within the PeBBu workplan. The 3 new tasks are:
1. PBB & Construction Products Directive (CPD) 2. PBB Decision Making Tool•Kit 3. (CRISP) Sustainability Indicators for PBB.
2 Domain 1: Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components, investigates the performance of a material/component over its design life and predicts the service life, given the variables. Domain 2: Indoor Environments, deals which the performance criteria and evaluation methods for healthy buildings. Domain 3: Design of Buildings defines the user requirements in performance terms, implementation of knowledge and training needs for professionals. Domain 4: Built Environment provides an interface between building and urban design. Domain 5: Organisation and Management manages the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a building using the performance concept. Domain 6: Legal and Procurement Practices, deals with legal issues of defining building quality in performance terms. Domain 7: Building Regulations involves implementation of PBB regulatory systems & the role of national/international standards Domain 8: Innovation, establishes connections between innovation building life cycle phases using comparisons with other more innovative industries. Domain 9: Information and Documentation emphasises the new information requirements needed to support the performance based approach.
4 2.3 Key Achievements to Date
The PeBBu Network has made considerable progress in its first two years of operation. Some of the main achievements of the 1st two years of the existence of the Network are:
2.3.1 Successful operation as a Network
The foremost aim of the PeBBu project is to be operational as a Thematic Network. In that aspect, the network is a big success with the network in place and regular meetings held to strengthen this network.
2.3.2 Expansion of the Network
This entails the expansion of the Network to include several new countries from the Newly Associated States (NAS Countries). This ensures a complete European perspective for the stimulation and establishment of PBB practices. 13 new organisations from the NAS countries are now members of the PeBBu Network. Apart from this, several observer•members have become a part of the Network.
Figure 1: PeBBu Structure 2.3.3 Launch of Aus•PeBBu
An Australian version of the PeBBu Network has been launched in October 2003 in Australia. The Australian programme, referred to as Aus•PeBBu3, is similar in structure to (EU)PeBBu.
3 More information on Aus•PeBBu can be found on:www.auspebbu.org
5 With the launch of Aus•PeBBu, Australia is now able to participate in the global move towards the performance approach, which has occurred through regulatory changes from a prescriptive to a performance based building code. It is expected that Aus•PeBBu will expand to include countries in the Pacific Rim and South East Asia with which Australia and cooperation agreements in place (including New Zealand, China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and India).
2.3.4 Establishment of aligned activities such as the PeBBu Compendia
The Compendium of PBB models developed a database that at present includes 30 such PBB models. PBB Compendium of Statements of Requirements aims for the development of a consensus based PBB conceptual framework and key•terminology. This has ultimately led to a consensus on PBB language, concepts and issues.
2.3.5 Production of the 1st International State of the Art Report
This gives an overview of the status off PBB in an international context. The International SotA analysis the spread of PBB principles through many National SotAs from the European context and a secondary research about proliferation of PBB principles in other parts of the world. [4] The International SotA has being published as a CIB publication and this is a good tool to disseminate vital information on PBB.
2.3.6 Establishment of many strategic relationships
Examples of these are:
1. Co•operation with ISO TAG8 (the ISO Technical Advisory Group that is responsible for building related standards) on a multi•year programme within ISO that aims for the production of performance based standards that are to replace or to be added to the current prescriptive ones. 2. Between PeBBu Domain 1: Life Performance of Construction Materials, Components and ISO. This relationship has influenced writing of standards related to durability of construction materials and components. 3. PeBBu has also established relationship with the E•CORE projects where PBB will be one of the main building blocks in a future European RTD strategy. 4. Co•operation with the Liaison Committee’s of International Associations of Structural Engineering aiming for the establishment of a joint committee on PBB related pre• standardisation issues in the area of structural engineering.
6 2.3.7 Involvement with / and support of several CIB Commissions
Several CIB (Task Groups and Working) Commissions have been established to facilitate international exchange and co•operation in areas that cover aspects of PBB on a voluntary basis. As an average each such commission incorporates 50 appointed representatives of organisations worldwide who meet on a regular basis and aim for joint, voluntary, international R&D projects in their area.
3. Status of PBB
Over the last 50 years, there has been considerable development in the performance based approach. These developments have led to a clearer description of what the performance approach means in both concept and practice as well as its potential benefits and challenges [5]. These developments can be traced through the reports from the US Nationanl Bureau of Standards (1925, 1977), the proceedings of many conferences, and various CIB publications. [6]. Despite several leading programmes, implementation of the performance concept has been somewhat sporadic.
3.1 Status of PBB Domains
Although PBB is whole encompassing of the design, operation and maintenance of a building’s lifecycle, under the PeBBu Network it has been divided into 9 (6 continuing) scientific domains to aid the investigation process. These domains span the complete lifecycle of a constructed facility • from the conceptual/ brief stage through to operation and maintenance (Figure 2). Moreover, they encroach on both soft and hard issues facing the design and construction process. The potential new activities of FM (facilities management) and education occupy definable "gaps" in the current PeBBu programme. This section summarises the state•of•the•art of the performance based approach in each of the 6 remaining domains of PeBBu and provides a brief future research agenda. [7]
7 Figure 2: Domain Lifecycle Stages 3.1.1 Domain 1: Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components
The overall performance of a building relies on the performance of its materials and components. Therefore, how can the performance of materials and components be assessed in advanced to ensure the building performs as required? PeBBu domain 1 aims to address methods for predicting service life, particularly for novel building materials and components. Under PeBBu programme, this domain will further develop the Factor Method (system to estimate the service life when there is limited knowledge of long•term performance of components), develop an international suite of standards, and to design and prepare training sessions for both industrialists and academics.
3.1.2 Domain 2: Indoor Climate
This domain maintains that healthy buildings can be pursued by designers, constructors, building owners and building occupants, through the application of a number of qualitative and quantitative health•based criteria (methods, guidelines, protocols and tools to design, evaluate and measure the health status of buildings/ designs). The health of buildings in this context relates to air quality, ventilation, thermal comfort, noise and visual comfort. Although there is rich scientific literature and several experiences on the quality of the indoor environment, a uniform set of criteria across Europe or the world has not been defined. The majority of PBB implementation is isolated to different components and not in terms of the building as a whole. A general translation from subjective criteria to objective design parameters, and reverse when dealing with the evaluation, to a large part is still lacking. Research initiatives into the health and
8 comfort of the building environment are ongoing. However, a lot of work is still required before PBB can completely replace current prescriptive buildings methods.
3.1.3 Domain 3: Design of Buildings
It has now become an economic necessity for the building industry to pay more attention to meeting user requirements. Therefore, there should be a focus on both the (technical) performance specifications for building parts, and on the management of (functional) user requirements and involvement during the building process. Thus, the problem of 'meeting with performance specifications' in the design stage of the building process should be addressed: •
5. The translation of client and user requirements into objective, measurable performance specifications. 6. Classifications and formats for performance specifications. 7. The testing of (preliminary) design results against agreed performance specifications. PBB in the design of buildings has mainly been undertaken in research and education rather than practice. In several countries there are programmes aimed at structural changes in the building industry. Examples are ‘Rethinking Construction’ in the UK and the ‘Process and Systems Innovation Programme for the Building Industry’ (PSIB) in the Netherlands. The primary barrier for performance based design of buildings rests with the culture and existing fragmentation of the construction industry. In retrospect, linking performance based design with IT (product modelling systems), demonstrating its value in educational programmes and developing a universal language of specifications, could speed its adoption.
3.1.4 Domain 6: Legal and Procurement Practices
This domain focuses on the problems encountered towards PBB specifications via procurement and the legal issues that subsequently arise. There is currently no state•of•the•art that could be applied across the EU, rather a collection of national practices. There are two significant factors driving towards PBB, international and government influences. International influences have arisen from experiences of multi•national companies around the world and a desire to replicate best practice in other countries. Government influences have been founded on their responsibility for construction output, and that they need to maintain or increase output whilst at the same time reducing public sector expenditure. In order to reconcile these two forces, governments have increasingly turned to methods that involve private finance in projects. These methods include: Design and Build (D&B); Design Build Fund Operate (DBFO); Build Operate Transfer (BOT); Build Operate Own Transfer (BOOT); Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs); Public Private Partnership (PPP). Currently it is reported that in excess of 100 countries are procuring construction and engineering works under the generic heading of PFI. The majority of uncertainty lies with risk and liability, not least the issue of duty of care v duty of result. Both private and government influences have resulted in moves towards PBB since performance specification lies at the heart of both D&B and PFI philosophy.
9 3.1.5 Domain 7: Building Regulations
Innovation in construction is heavily dependant on the building regulatory system. In many countries, the system is based on what is termed a ‘prescriptive’ approach, where a single, or very few solutions are provided as ways to comply with building regulations. This has the effect of creating a design and construction industry that is restricted to designs that fit those specific solutions. Performance regulations, which focus on intended outcomes, are intended to encourage innovation and trade by expressing what regulations are intended to achieve. Many countries are moving in this direction or have already implemented PBB building regulations. However, there is very little research in the area of performance based regulatory system issues on a policy level. Research, in most cases, focuses on the technical solutions to the regulations. On a national level the Australian Building Codes Board has been fairly active in conducting research that relates to the building regulations. More specifically, Australia formed what is called the ‘Fire Code Reform Centre’ in 1994 to look at various issues relating to fire safety in an effort to improve the building code. Countries such as France and Canada also conduct similar research in various areas. In the United States, there has been some research in the area of risk and public policy as it relates to building regulations.
3.2 Domain 8: Innovation
The principal focus of PeBBu Domain 8 is to examine innovation through the ‘performance of buildings in use.’ Innovation is taken to concern the multifaceted value creating, capture and delivery role of buildings. This includes the building appropriately meeting the needs of the client system and of whole life cycle performance. Currently, there is a mass of technical, product• related criteria (principally from a top•down regulatory direction) that helps maintain a base•line standard of construction for health and safety purposes. This does not cover all areas of construction, such as the process of construction, or many aspects of the use of buildings and their impact on society. Both the EU Innovation Scorecard and the UK’s ‘Key performance indicators’ do not reflect any indicators in the area of innovation and learning. Nor do they focus on the client’s/ user’s needs. Performance metrics for innovation in PBB thus need to appropriately integrate building and business considerations. For the industry to succeed it needs to maintain a minimum level of innovation as a norm and this should be reflected in explicit innovation performance objectives for the various parts of the industry. The challenge for the domain will be to identify clear and realistic innovation objectives and measures, differentiated as appropriate by industry sector, which can make a real impact in practice. Part of this aspect will include consideration of the interactive roles of the various stakeholders running from materials suppliers, through builders merchants, designers, specialists and builders, to users and owners of the built facility.
10 4. Key Lessons from the PeBBu Network
The PeBBu project has provided the opportunity to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in moving towards the widespread application of the performance concept in building and construction. Some of the lessons learnt from running this project have been presented in this section. These are based on first hand observation and knowledge, and informal feedback from some network participants. The key lessons learnt are presented below:
1. Importance of funding: The benefits of the PBB concept are not always recognised by the industry to be of real and significant value and therefore, many critical stakeholders are hesitant to participate. The funding by the European Union of the project has proved to be a key push to the concept whereby several opportunities towards global and lasting promotion of the performance concept have emerged. The worldwide development and promotion of Performance Based Building has a much wider scope than the current scope of the PeBBu network. Much additional effort and in•kind contributions of time have been made by PeBBu participants to cover work that is not funded. Further funding of priority areas, which are not yet funded is therefore required. [8] 2. Addressing fragmentation of the industry: Fragmentation in the building exists at both the differing levels of expertise as well as working in different phases of a project (e.g. design phase vs. installing services phase). A rigid programme structuring is also likely to have similar fragmented effects. A more flexible programme of domains and tasks, which promotes maximum interaction and participation in various themes should be encouraged to remove barriers. An understanding of this prompted the movement from stand•alone meetings to organising series of meetings that promote greater interaction in the PeBBu project. 3. Stress on value and benefits: It is very important for a project like PeBBu with a strong research focus to identify and communicate the benefits and value of the application of PBB to the stakeholders. Producing such a statement of value and benefits should become a priority for the project. 4. Necessity to engage the right stakeholders at a right : time This implies that it is not necessary to involve all the stakeholders in all the phases of the project. Critical people who can easily become the stakeholders champions in the project need to be engaged at the outset. 5. Effective communication and collaboration: This is a practical lesson from the PeBBu network that brings forth the need to facilitate collaboration through effective communication. Despite the developments in the IT sector where electronic communications have taken over the majority of meetings, it was realised in the course of the project that face• to•face meetings were essential to the operation of the network. Similarly there is a need to communicate the right message in the best possible way to the right stakeholders!
11 5. FUTURE CHALLENGES & MAIN PRIORITIES
Performance based regulations and practices are currently both mandatory and voluntary. Culture and a lack of resources have somewhat prohibited the regulation bodies to fully ‘prescribe’ PBB practices. PBB must be contextualised to suit a particular country and lessons learnt from other PBB applications must be reviewed and adapted to differences in government, culture, and economy. Successful application of PBB requires the development of new knowledge, understanding and PBB tools.
Prescriptive•based building sometimes works well in simple deemed•to•satisfy buildings, thus, the application of PBB principles is not always necessary. Therefore, the two approaches should work in harmony: the performance approach should be available to those who require more complex innovative developments or design concepts driven by stakeholder requirements.
In order to obtain the maximum benefits of PBB, the following needs to be delivered: •
1. Actions to progressively align organisations business processes to PBB 2. Education and training regarding the appropriate circumstances for using PBB 3. The steady increase of the performance criteria captured within PBB Other framework issues that need to be addressed to support the PBB concept include public policy, regulations, innovation (in various fields such as materials, building technology, design and construction process etc.). In particular, developing assessment methods that verify the approach to support the regulators, methods that allow the client to ensure that their performance requirement is actually delivered, and guidance of how to include PBB in an organisation’s business strategy are crucial for the assurance of both the client and construction professionals.
The PeBBu project expects a further increase in stakeholder involvement in various aspects of PBB. However, specific methods need to be explored to engage effectively the critical stakeholders that can help hasten and broaden the adoption of the performance concept. One of the main challenges lying ahead of the project is to identify clear value and benefits of the Performance approach for various stakeholder groups, substantiated with real case studies, and to package them for a compelling presentation. This will ultimately facilitate client• or demand• driven innovation, made possible by the performance approach.
References
[1] Prior, J.J. & Szigeti, F. (2003). Why all the fuss about performance based building?, CIB Bulletin. Available from http://www.pebbu.nl/resources/literature/
[2] CIB Publication. (1982). Working with the Performance Approach in Building. Report of Working Commission W60, Publication 64, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
[3] PeBBu Website: www.pebbu.nl
12 [4] CIB Publication. (2003). Performance Based Building – 1st International State•of•the•Art Report, Publication 291, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. (Available online at: http://www.pebbu.nl/resources/pebbupublications/)
[5] Foliente, G. (2000). Developments in performance•based building codes and standards. Forests Products Journal, 50 (7/8), pp. 12•21.
[6] CIB Publication. (2002). Measurement and Management of Architectural Value in Performance•Based Building. Report of working commission W60/W96, Publication 283, CIB. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
[7] PeBBu Domain Reports. (2004). (Available online at: http://www.pebbu.nl/maincomponents/scientificdomains/)
[8] Foliente, G. (1998). Facilitating Innovation and World Trade – the CIB Pro•active Programme in Performance Based Building Codes and Standards, CIB Information Bulletin 2/ 98, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
13 Life performance and innovation on construction materials and components
Wolfram Trinius Center for Built Environment, University of Gävle, 80176 Gävle Sweden Ingenieurbüro Trinius, Dorotheenstr. 21, 22301 Hamburg Germany (email: [email protected]) Christer Sjöström Center for Built Environment, University of Gävle, 80176 Gävle Sweden Jean•Luc Chevalier, Julien Hans CSTB Dep. of Sustainable Development, 24 Rue Joseph Fourier, 38400 Saint•Martin•d’Hères France
Abstract
PeBBu domain 1 on life performance of construction materials and components is part of the EU financed thematic network on Performance based Building. Domain 1 addresses issues in a thematic field, where performance based building, service life, life performance and environmental declaration of products draw attention to each other. As can be seen in the recent development of international standards, service life and performance requirements gain a significant position as part of sustainability assertions of buildings and building products. Domain 1 aims to identify aspects of practical application of the ISO standards series 15686 on service life planning, as these standards provide the methodological basis to identify service life, and to provide the market with service life information. As service life per se relates to performance requirements and performance over time, and as sustainability in building construction related to fitness for purpose, performance based building fulfils a central hot•spot of concern in relation to building sustainability.
D1 addresses stakeholders’ concerns when involving service life – both concerning the provision of information as the adaptation of information to a specific building design. Hence, concerns of manufacturers as well as designers and other relevant stakeholders are dealt with. Issues of concern for further R&D as well as feedback and input to ongoing international standardisation, are identified by D1. With the direct link to the durability and service life research community and the involved standardisation bodies, the thematic network can play an important role in promoting performance based building.
Keywords: Virtual enterprise, information exchange, information systems, distributed engineering
1. Introduction
PeBBu is a thematic network, funded under the European Commission’s 5th framework addressing competitive and sustainable growth. The Performance•based building network was initiated in October 2001 and will be running through to September 2005. One of the main reasons to establish the network was to facilitate and enhance the existing performance•based building research and activities by networking with the main European and international stakeholders. The creation of a network that is
14 supposed to utilize synergy•effects well beyond the termination of EU funding is the main aim. Involved are currently more than 60 organisations worldwide.
Currently ongoing international standardisation projects, both on ISO (ISO/TC59/SC17) and CEN (CEN BT/WG174) level set environmental declaration of building products into the context of sustainability assertions (“sustainable building” in ISO and “integrated environmental performance of buildings in CEN”). In that context, it is of outmost importance to address the entire life cycle of the product, per se or as part of a larger functional component or ultimately the building. This in turn requires information about all relevant stages of the life cycle, including predictions or estimations of service life aspects. First based on a reasonable understanding of the post production life cycle stages, an identification of processes occurring during the life cycle can be made, and hence first then, such scenarios and their associated environmental impacts or sustainability aspects can be identified and included in declarations. Where these developing international standards are relating to service life, they may take benefit from the establishment of standards or standardised routines for the declaration of service life of products. Meanwhile, it must be obviously clear, that for a manifold of products used in building construction, an expression of service life appears meaningless to establish. Examples for this are ancillary products as well as generic products that are produced and supplied without any knowledge about their application. Examples are cement / concrete, construction wood, etc. For other mass products, such as screws and nails, the link between exposure environment and product choice may be so obvious, that a service life declaration is not needed in practice. A declaration of service life information for products is intended to enable stakeholders, like e.g. the designer or the investor, to take decisions among product options, and to enable the methodology of service life planning to be operational, with all its potential applications and benefits.
Assessment of service life, and declaration of service life, may follow a three•step sequence, along: • A description of product properties • An analysis of the durability of a product under certain conditions • A testing•based or estimation•based expression of service life of a product under given conditions In order to identify the current status of service life consideration in the construction sector, and in order to inform about the ongoing work, PeBBu D1 has established enquiries among material producers and building consultancies. The goal is to identify to what extent the ISO standards are known and applied throughout industries, or whether and on what basis claims relating to service life of products are being made. Preliminary findings from the enquiries directed to manufacturers allow the conclusion that the industries in general are aware of the market relevance of service life information, and that many manufacturers are ready to provide information, or have started consideration of service life aspects of their products. In general, service life information is not yet systematically provided to the market, as well as it is not yet demanded either, but the actors appear to be able to provide and handle such information within reasonable time frames. A rising demand for service life declaration formats can therefore be foreseen. Ultimately, the demand for service life information will raise due to the attention the issue receives in international standards related to sustainability. In order to allow the industries to supply the market with service life information, a clear demand for harmonized rules on how to declare service life can already be detected.
15 2. Introduction
The international council for research and innovation in building and construction (CIB) began work on the subject of building performance in the 1970es. The “performance approach” was described as “first and foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building is required to do, and not with prescribing how is it to be constructed” [4]. Over the years, CIB has started numerous working groups addressing performance•based building; among these the thematic network PeBBu, being a thematic network addressing performance•based building in 6 scientific domains, 4 regional platforms and 3 user platforms.
The six scientific domains are: 1. Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components 2. Indoor Environment 3. Design of Buildings 4. (Built Environment) cancelled 5. (Organisation and Management) cancelled 6. Legal and Procurement Practices 7. Regulations 8. Innovation 9. (Information and Documentation) cancelled Even though domains 4, 5 and 9 have been cancelled, domain reports as well as an international R&D agenda will be produced.
Domain 1 on life performance of construction materials and components draws its rationale from the fact that the overall performance of a building relies on the performance of its materials and components. While performance aspects of materials, components, and systems cannot sufficiently and entirely describe building performance, evidently the assessment of material and component performance is a necessity to ensure the building performs as required. Domain 1 has been established to focus on methods for predicting the service life of construction materials and components.
As service life and life performance information may be based on experience and with that may be available for materials that long since have been applied and / or tested, for new and innovative materials, such information is not available for obvious reasons, but ever so needed for application in performance based building. Hence, a method forestimation of service life is needed. The ISO standard series 15686 addresses service life planning of buildings and constructed assets. This standard series also provides a method for estimation of service life, and the PeBBU domain 1, with its focus on life performance of construction materials, components and systems specifically relates to these standards. Domain 1 intends to exemplify these standards with the goal to enable wider provision of information needed for the process, as well as enabling a wider application of service life information in project planning and building design.
While focussing building materials and components, the context of functional application of materials and components deserves consideration. Consequently, D1 also addresses systems. An example for the reporting of D1 is given in the French state of the art report on the performance approach [7].
16 3. Performance approach as key element in sustainable construction
Application of the performance approach has recently led to the establishment of performance based building regulation, see for instance [8] and the New Zealand Building Codes [9]. Another driver for the application of a performance approach in building construction are “Public•Private•Procurement” (PPP) contracts, which are a growing trend in numerous countries. While earlier public institutions generally became the owner of works as delivered by industry, they automatically assumed the induced costs of a bad prediction of the service life. With PPP, they are now contracting with companies which will build and manage a works for a beforehand agreed number of years: for their own interest, these companies will then try to get better control on the service life of the works, and ask commitments from the product manufacturers. [10].
Additionally, there also is an obvious role of performance based building in the context of sustainable construction. As the performance approach starts off with an expression of what is expected from a building, in terms of functionality, the identification of performance requirements can perform as an anchor in other elements of sustainable construction. Based on durability assertions, service life planning can assist in the identification of reasonable scenarios for the service life and for the development of performance over time. As the service life is defined as ending when the building or parts thereof no longer meet or exceed established performance requirements, these requirements turn significant for the description of the building or product life cycle. Additionally, the performance requirements help to identify processes employed during the use phase. These in turn are needed in order to establish environmental declarations and to enable life cycle cost calculations that do consider the entire life cycle. As the identification of scenarios and processes is depending on the current application context and user requirements as well as to the development of performance over time, this means that the declarations and life cycle calculations depart from default scenarios and consequently reflect a building specific situation. While a building specific consideration enables decision takers to tailor the information underlying decision making to the developing design, it must be noted that due to this adaptation, the generated declarations and assessment results may loose their validity for generic interpretation [11][12].
17 Figure 1: Performance based building and service life planning as central elements of sustainable building [13].
4. Link to Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Assertions
Where the topic of sustainable construction on one hand provides the contextual frame and the philosophical reason for acting on the topic of service life, the methodologies developed to identify reference service lives and estimated service lives, also in terms of service life declarations, provide input to in especially environmental product declarations of building materials and components, and equally evident, to the assessment of environmental performance of buildings, both items addressed in ISO/TC59/SC17 and in CEN/BT WG 174.
These international standardisation projects also identified, similar to the content of figure 2 below, that the assessment of environmental performance of a building goes well beyond the aggregation of product level information. The performance of products throughout their use phase as part of the assessed building becomes a key point of interest.
18 Fig 2 – the route from product information to assessment of building performance [14]. The consideration of product performance as an element of building performance, and the recognition that a correct description of a product life cycle often is not possible isolated from an inclusion of the building in which the product actually is performing, leads to the necessity to identify the functional context of a product, component or system. This context on the one hand requires performance from its parts, while each part may provide preconditions of functionality and performance to other parts, or the entity. At the same time, performance requirements as expressed by users and other stakeholders, may concern the entire building, or may be directed to specific elements of performance. This inter• dependency of performance in a building context can be illustrated as in figure 3 below.
Fig 3 – Dependence of performance of products, components and buildings [15].
19 5. Modelling Durability and Life Performance – PeBBu D1
PeBBu domain 1 ‘life performance of materials and components’ has as one of its main objectives to further develop the methodologies contained in the ISO 15686 standards series in order to bring the concepts closer to practical application. The demand for this objective stems from the situation, where product manufacturers are willing to provide environmental declarations about their products, and where they also are generally willing to provide information about durability and long time performance of their products. They can however not be made responsible to provide the market with information on durability and performance for situations that are highly specific. In other words, manufacturers can only provide information valid for a small selection of situations that correspond to the main purpose of their products, and that reflect a small selection of conditions in which their products are applied. These restrictions refer both to the application of the product, the integration into a building, the product wear due to use, the exposure to environmental degradation, climatic situation etc.
For situations, where the actual product application, or the specific use conditions do not coincide with the expectations the manufacturer had in mind when providing information, this information may not be valid. In cases of extreme deviation, the information may even be considered as irrelevant. Ultimately, the manufacturer can neither be held responsible for provided information.
Still, designers and other stakeholders have to make decisions related to the integration of products into a building design, or related to the expression of performance requirements, be it in the clients brief or in performance based regulation. The expression of reasonable performance requirements relies on competent and well informed bodies establishing these requirements. “Classification of stakeholders as demand and supply sides is a convenient simplification. However, in reality the industry cannot be so easily categorized as consisting of these two sides. In some instances, some stakeholders can be on both sides (e.g. a developer), and in other instances can be on either side. Since the performance approach is mostly about fulfilling the desired “ends” of the demand side, any project that involves educated and innovative stakeholders on the demand side and well•equipped stakeholders on the supply side has a much higher possibility of success.” [16]
D1 strives to identify the knowledge•demand of relevant stakeholders and to equip them with information so that they each can adopt their behaviour on the product• and building•related “information market” to the demands arising from an application of the performance approach. Concerning life performance of materials and components, this means that the suppliers of information must deliver information that reflects well established “main stream” scenarios for the life cycles of their products, rather than the most beneficial case, while providing information in transparent means, that enable the user of information to identify, analyse, and where necessary adapt and replace parts of the information provided.
For this, the user of information must be equipped with sufficient knowledge about scenarios and their validity as well as their significance for provided information. Further, they must be enabled to identify when scenarios need adaptation of replacement in combination with information about other scenarios and associated data.
20 When a designer of a building, or another relevant stakeholder, detects that the basis on which declarations have been provided does not sufficiently coincide with the application in the planned building, the designer appears to be the only reasonable initiator of the adaptation process. This does not mean that he has to perform the process, but it will have to be performed as part of his initiative and responsibility. The process to adapt declarations from a generic to a case specific context is illustrated in figure 4 below, where additionally, the spheres of responsibility are indicated. Even where the information is modified, the starting point has still been the information contained in the RSL, meaning also the adapted declaration / assessment is based on manufacturer information.
As product manufacturers are the primary source for product information, they may provide the market with life cycle and service life information based on the reference service life, as established in ISO 15686•1 [17]. Based on enquiries cast to manufacturers, it can be said, that a large share of manufacturers is addressing the issue of durability and service life of their products. Not all are aware of the ISO standards, however. The procedures of addressing service life and durability are different between companies, likewise the communication of such information to the market. Where some manufacturers provide information, others appear to rather use information for internal purposes in product development. Currently, the variety of approaches to the issue of service life appears to create some doubts as to the value of provided information. While different approaches all may have their justifiable fields of application, there is an evident demand arising for guidance and harmonization, especially in a situation, where forthcoming standards are relying on information about service life, [6] For these standards to succeed, there is an evident demand for the establishment of a common basis for identification and communication of service life information.
Fig 4 – The role of manufacturers and designers concerning determination of RSL and ESL [14]. Manufacturers appear to a certain extent reluctant to provide data on reference service life of their products, claiming that the service life of a product depends not only on the quality of the product itself, but as well on the way it is installed in the building, the conditions of use and the care with which it is maintained. Therefore, it may be realistic to think about a more open way to communicate information and data on service life. Two tools have been developed in CSTB for addressing that
21 point: data fusion and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), where data fusion [18] can be applied for an exhaustive compilation of various heterogeneous data available on the service life of a product (test results, expert advices, field data, manufacturer assumptions), and FMEA [19] for anticipating the different ways a product may fail, and for drawing event graphs to illustrate it.
Such a set of data, more explicit and transparent than only a number for service life expectation, may cause less resistance for manufacturers to provide, and may be more open for designers to adapt to their actual project.
6. Conclusions
Innovation in the building sector may be described as either supply•driven or demand•driven. In the first case, the provider of innovative solutions will seek to convince key market actors to recognize and apply the innovative products, in the latter case, the suppliers of products are to develop solutions that meet the requirements originating from the innovation demand. In both cases the communication of life performance, or service life, aspects is an essential element of information. For innovative solutions, which in many cases are new developments rather than adaptations of existing solutions, no information on long•term performance and service life will be available. Such information hence must be estimated, e.g. in accordance to the EOTA guidelines and the ISO 15686 standards.
Where service life information is communicated between various stakeholders of he building sector, it has to be assured, that a common understanding, also of the underlying scenarios for which information has been provided, as well is communicated and understood by all parties participating in the communication. A harmonized approach to service life declaration may be very helpful.
PeBBu D1 aims to investigate to what extent actors in building construction already today are informed about the ISO standards, to what extend they make use of service life information and apply the performance based building concept. A general conclusion is that the concepts appear to be well known, but there still is a significant lack of experience and feedback form examples, where the concepts have been applied systematically and successfully. However, the availability of information and the number of examples of application is rising, all while the development of tools for the application of service life planning has taken up momentum. From this, in combination with the general awareness of the usefulness of the concepts of performance based building and service life planning, it can be assumed that the development of tools, and the integration into standards relating to building sustainability, will spur the application of the concepts.
The communication of service life information within the construction sector sets high requirements concerning transparency of the information. A declaration of service life can only reflect one or a few scenarios for product application. Therefore, designers for instance, may need to perform or initiate a process of modification of declared information, all in order to obtain information that is relevant to the situation in a specific building context. The primary source of information will still be the manufacturers, while recognizing that information provided by them only can be based on reference scenarios. Such scenarios must be available for scrutiny by those applying the provided information.
22 References
[1] Council of the European Communities CEC (1988) Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to Construction Products. [“The construction products directive (CPD)”] 89/106/EEC, CEC, Brussels
[2] EOTA (1999) Assessment of working life of Products, EOTA Guidance document 003/edition December 1999, European Organisation for Technical Approvals, Brussels
[3] ISO (2001) ISO 15686•2 Buildings and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – Part 2: Service life prediction procedures, International Standardization Organization, Geneva
[4] CIB (1982) Working with the Performance Approach in Building. Report 64, CIB, Rotterdam
[5] Sjöström et al (2002) Sjöström, Ch.; Jernberg, P.; Caluwaerts, P.; Kelly, S.; Haagenruud, S.; Chevalier, J.•L.: Implementation of the European Construction Products Directive via the ISO 15686 Standards, 9DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Brisbane
[6] Sjöström et al (2005) Sjöström, Ch.; Caluwaerts, P.; Jernberg, P.; Haagenruud, S.; Ilomäki, A.; Davies, H: Product Declarations with respect to Durability – A progress report, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon
[7] Chevalier, JL; Hans, J. (2003) Performance based approach, French State•of•the•Art, PeBBu West and Central Platform meeting, Brussels
[8] Blachere, G. (1996) Presentation of any regulation along the requirement and performance line is possible, 3rd Int. Symposium on “Application of performance Concept in Building”, Tel Aviv
[9] Standards NZ (1992) The New Zealand Building Code Handbook and Approved Documents, Building Industry Authority 1992, Standards New Zealand, Wellington
[10] Adeline, R. (2004) Les relations Concepteur – Constructeur – Exploitant en Angleterre Le Cas du PFI Journée “Performances, durées de vie et durabilité des ouvrages et des produits de construction” Paris, Nov 2004
[11] Trinius, W. (2005a) ISO 15686•6 – Procedure for Considering Environmental Impacts, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon
[12] ISO (2004) ISO 15686•6 Buildings and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – part 6: Procedure for considering Environmental Impacts, International Standardization Organization, Geneva
[13] Trinius, W. (2004) Sustainable Building • Integrated planning concept and realization in project planning, European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP), Bilbao
23 [14] Trinius, W. (2005b) Modules of Environmental Assessment related to Durability and Service Life, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon
[15] Trinius, W. & Sjöström, Ch. (2005) Service Life Planning and Performance Requirements, Building Research & Information (March•April 2005) 33(2), 173•181
[16] Bakens et al (2005) Bakens, W.; Foliente, G.; Jasuja, M.: Engaging stakeholders in performance• based building: lessons from the Performance•Based Building (PeBBu) Network, Building Research & Information (March•April 2005) 33(2), 149•158
[17] ISO (2000) ISO 15686•1 Buildings and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – Part 1: General Principles, International Standardization Organization, Geneva
[18] Hans, J. and Chevalier, JL. (2005) Sustainable tools and methods for estimating building materials and components service life, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon
[19] Talon et al (2004) Talon, A.; Boissier, D.; Chevalier, JL.; Hans, J.:A methodological and graphical decision tool for evaluating building component failure, CIB World Building Congress, Toronto
Net•bibliography www.cibworld.nl and www.pebbu.nl
24 Performance Based Building and its application to Healthy Buildings
Marcel Loomans, TNO – Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (email: [email protected]) Philo Bluyssen, TNO – Netherlands (email: [email protected])
Abstract
The European funded Project PeBBu, Performance Based Building, is a Thematic network under the Competitive and Sustainable Growth program, which started September 1st, 2001 and will run for 4 years. In one of the domains of PeBBu, the domain Indoor Environment, a state•of•the•art on the Performance Based Building (PBB) approach with respect to healthy buildings is prepared.
The state•of•the•art on performance criteria for healthy buildings deals with current available methods, guidelines, protocols and tools to design, evaluate and measure the health status of buildings or designs for buildings. The health of buildings in this context relates to: air quality, ventilation, thermal comfort, noise and visual comfort. The work furthermore presents a framework in which the state•of•the•art and future research in this area can be positioned.
After a short introduction into PBB and its definition, this paper will summarize the state•of•the• art with respect to performance and healthy buildings, i.e. the results from the work of this domain within the PeBBu Network. With the developed framework as a base, different points of departure are chosen to indicate the status of performance based building: the building point•of• view and the environmental attributes point•of•view.
The main conclusion is that the PBB•approach already has a basis in the building process, but that some specific topics are lacking that currently impede the further integration of PBB. Indoor environmental attributes appear specifically suited for the PBB•approach and some interesting initiatives of performance based approaches for healthy building are ongoing or have been developed in recent years. Nevertheless, a lot of work still is required before PBB can completely replace the current prescriptive building methods, if possible at all.
Keywords: performance based building, indoor environment, healthy building, thematic network
25 1. Introduction
1.1 Performance Based Building
Performance is a concept that has gained increasing attention over the last couple of decades. In 1982 CIB [1] already presented statements that define performance for the building industry:
· The performance approach is thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. · Performance is concerned with what a building or building product is required to do and not with prescribing how it is to be constructed. · A design solution, traditional or novel, will always need a quantitative base for testing and evaluation of its performance.
Initiated by CIB, PeBBu is a Thematic Network under the EU•Competitive and Sustainable Growth program. It started in 2001 and runs for 4 years. The overall objective is to stimulate and pro•actively facilitate the international dissemination and implementation of performance based building (PBB) in the building and construction practice. It is not intended to present the ultimate solution for PBB, but to allow for a more fundamentally motivated and integrated continuation of the further development of PBB.
The PeBBu•project has been divided in nine domains for which the PBB approach should be investigated. The here described work deals with thend Domain: 2 Indoor Environment. The intention of this domain is based on the believe that the achievement of healthy buildings can be pursued by designers, constructors, building owners and building occupants, through the application of qualitative and quantitative health•based criteria. From the occupant point•of•view, the ideal situation is an indoor environment that satisfies all occupants (i.e. they have no complaints) and does not unnecessarily increase the risk or severity of illness or injury. This environment is directly related to attributes as:
· air quality: health and comfort related to sensory, chemical and toxicological effects of compounds in the air,… · ventilation: fresh air rate, re•circulation, efficiency,… · thermal comfort: temperature, air velocity, humidity,… · noise: noise from outside, indoors, vibrations,... · visual comfort: view, illuminance, luminance ratios, reflection,…
Although there is a rich scientific literature and several national experiences on this subject, a uniform set of criteria across the European countries has not yet been defined. In PeBBu one of the objectives for the Indoor Environment domain is to deliver a state•of•the•art report on existing performance criteria for healthy buildings.
26 1.2 Definition
The concept of PBB and its methodology have been described in CIB•Report 64 in 1982 [1]. In the report of Foliente et al. [2] the state•of•the•art on PBB is updated. These two documents form the line of thinking that has been aimed for within the domain. In literature one can find a large amount of information on PBB and on performance criteria, but also a lot of different definitions. Foliente et al. [2] already noted that “first and foremost, a clear definition of the performance• based concept is needed and agreed on”.
A definition of performance is context based. With respect to buildings, examples of contexts are the stakeholder, the building phase or a building object. E.g., with respect to the stakeholder, the user will have very different performance requirements than the contractor. The user wants to live comfortably in the building, whereas the contractor is interested in the performance of individual building objects to obey to the design plan. In the end of course everyone is interested in the total performance, in the building process this is not necessarily the case. This also means that PBB does not end with the completion of the building. Performance during the building life is considered just as important. Performance therefore is also a function of time.
With PBB the initiator does not have to deal with the indoor air temperature or the insulation thickness. He just can identify that he would like it to be comfortable under given specific conditions and/or that he wants the building to be energy efficient and healthy. In the design process then however translation rules are required to convert this subjective information into objective design rules and to define evaluation procedures. Translation and evaluation procedures are found in, e.g. legislation, rules of thumb and more sophisticated tools as modeling and case/knowledge based reasoning.
The above described definition of performance in the building process has been visualized in Figure 1. It has been compared to the non•performance approach. The performance approach part of the figure was adapted from Huovila and Leinonen [3] and originates from illustrations by the Dutch Government Building Agency. The total figure was developed and agreed on during the 1st PeBBu Domain 2 Workshop and the NAS Workshop [4].
Figure 1: Performance based [left]versus a non•performance [right] approach.
27 The idea for the non•PBB approach is that maintenance is performed at a point of time of the building life when problems already have arisen and extra costs are required to correct the situation. With the PBB•approach the performance of the building should stay at its desired performance level throughout the building lifetime, and this is checked regularly. The zoomed out process for a specific change in the user requirements is similar for other required (performance) changes during the building life and is also the same for the initiation, design and construction of the building. Feedback loops are introduced to indicate the evaluation process that is an important part of the performance based approach.
1.3 Framework
Given the number of performance definitions and the different contexts that can be found, it is difficult to keep track on all the building performance information that is available. This also accounts for all the translation rules that can be derived. Therefore a system should be developed that allows a logical structuring of all the information related to performance based building, but also may improve the applicability of the PBB•approach. Obviously we are looking for a framework in which we can fit the PBB•approach and the available information in a logical and unambiguous way.
Several parameters should be incorporated in the framework. The most important parameter is the performance requirements that are set by the stakeholders. Furthermore, the point of time in the building process will determine the type of requirements that are set. This will be closely related to the building phases that can be identified. Finally, the actual building performance is of interest. This parameter has a close relation with the building objects.
Interrelations between the building phase and the type of stakeholder are obvious, as is the case for building objects and building phase. Each specific performance criterion therefore can be related to the individual contexts. By presenting these contexts on axes in a three•dimensional format a matrix is developed that facilitates the performance•based matrix. This approach has been derived from the work of Mallory•Hill [5] and can also be found, though in a different context, in Foliente et al. [2].
The framework is visualized in Figure 2. The matrix approach presents a database that allows filtering to come up with the specific performance requirements that relate to a specific building phase or stakeholder. It may also relate to a specific environmental attribute X or Y that is addressed differently (i.e. different target values and evaluation methods) at different points in the building process.
28 Figure 2: The Performance•Based Matrix.
2. State•of•the•Art
The above presented definition of PBB and the developed framework were required to come up with a state•of•the•art on PBB, and PBB and the Indoor Environment in particular. This state•of• the•art in the PeBBu project is derived through a literature study and a study of ongoing research in combination with input from the participants in the network. This is an ongoing process given the enormous amount of work that already has been devoted to PBB.
The intention also was to organize and categorize this information, in order to identify gaps in the PBB•information. That is why the state•of•the•art has been summarized according to the different axis of the framework in Figure 2. A database structure has been developed for this. For a categorization to the indoor environment the attributes as Air quality, Ventilation, Indoor climate, Acoustics and Lighting have been used. Assuming that the framework/database can be filled with information derived from literature and ongoing research, it eventually should be possible to identify the gaps in the matrix. These gaps should be valued and commented on and it should be determined whether they require additional research. This presents the goal of the PeBBu•project. Of course, available references may fit well in the eventual future PBB framework, e.g., as a reference to a target value or an evaluation procedure, or as a translation technique.
Summarizing the information that has been gathered from the literature research thus far, and assuming the above described context based performance approach, one can conclude that a lot of information on PBB is already available. However, most of this information deals with isolated topics and lacks the connection to the larger point•of•view. For example, with respect to materials (e.g., material emission) and some individual building objects (e.g., energy performance) the performance thinking is well established. Though differences between EU•countries are obvious, with at a first stage focus on the energy performance and in a second phase on, e.g., material emission. Furthermore, focus has mainly been put on the separate (building) phases and not on the translation between higher level performance requirements and lower level implications (see Figure 1 [left]). A general translation, beyond the traditional solutions, from subjective criteria to
29 objective design parameters, and reverse when dealing with the evaluation, to a large part is still lacking. This hampers innovative developments, which forms one of the important drivers for the application of the performance based approach. Individual initiatives on several aspects however can be found. The coupling of these initiatives and the generalization appear to be important research areas for PBB. The Indoor Environment domain is one of the domains within PeBBu for which the translation from subjective to objective information is a key•item.
Some interesting examples of PBB and the Indoor Environment already can be found. For example, the Government Building Agency in the Netherlands presents a progressive approach with respect to the application of PBB. It builds on developments in the Dutch Building Decree [6]. The integral quality of buildings that are designed by the Agency is captured through the use of performance specifications. Indoor environmental attributes form an important part of these requirements. The performance specifications for building environmental attributes are presented in a subjective manner that fits in with the brief phase. Translation into the next phases, as visualized in Figure 1, is partly made by referring to, e.g., rules of thumb and guidelines. On the other hand for some attributes values are prescribed that restrict the freedom of design. So the trade•off between performance and prescriptive based values is still under discussion. Regulations currently restrict the unprecedented use of the performance approach in the design phase. On the other hand, the equivalence principle that is introduced in the Dutch Building Decree allows for new developments. From the literature study it appears that the Government Building Agency presents the state•of•the•art with respect to PBB as currently implemented in the actual building process. Note that this only applies to the first phases of the building process.
A different approach with regard to PBB has been developed by the Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (FiSIAQ). They have combined specific performance criteria in order to come up with a classification of the indoor climate [7]. The classification deals amongst others with target and design values for thermal conditions and the indoor air quality, with criteria for construction cleanliness and moisture control and criteria for material emissions and clean HVAC components. For these topics a categorization is proposed from which target values and material use are derived including general verification procedures. The classification affects the design as well as the construction phase. For the latter, categories are determined that rank the construction cleanliness. For building materials classification labels have been developed that objectively qualify a building product. In general, the highest classification for construction and building materials is required to obtain the highest classification for the indoor climate. This classification is in action in Finland since 1995 and has been developed further since then. The FiSIAQ• classification is voluntary, but currently it is a code of practice to apply this classification of the indoor climate, especially when it is used for marketing purposes. Developments in the building industry, e.g. labeling of materials and cleanliness of HVAC systems, are adapted to this procedure. The significant reduction in material emission that has been achieved through the introduction of the material label indicates the possibilities of the PB•approach.
The above two examples relate performance thinking mainly to the design and construction phase. The user phase nevertheless is just as important. This is where the ASTM Standards on whole building functionality and serviceability may be applied [8]. This evaluation procedure
30 captures the quality, i.e. the performance, of a building by comparing the present•day requirements set by the occupant with a rating of the facility. To a large part relative objective descriptions are given to perform this comparison. This is one of the several examples of serviceability rating, as a part of the post occupancy evaluation, that are available and applied in practice.
In [4] approximately 30 other approaches that are performance•based have been categorized to the building phase(s) in which they can be applied. Such a categorization has also been made for the other axis of the framework, i.e. stakeholders and the building objects. From this categorization one can conclude that the (limited) translation between building phases as found in the approach by the Dutch Government Building Agency and FiSIAQ are relatively scarce. An important question of course is how this translation should be determined. In this respect interesting initiatives on PBB, that specifically deal with indoor environmental attributes, present possible solutions. These initiatives try, e.g., to translate complex material properties in low•level user friendly performance characteristics [9] or present design decision support in the early design phase to adhere the design to desired performance requirements [10].
With respect to health and comfort we can find several initiatives on defining performance criteria and translating them into design solutions. In the EU th5 FW Project HOPE (Health Optimisation Protocol for Energy•Efficient Buildings) a procedure has been develop to determine the health and energy performance of existing office and apartment buildings [11]. Recently also the ISIAQ• CIB TG42 Guideline on Performance Criteria of Buildings for Health and Comfort has been published [12]. In this guideline performance criteria and design information has been gathered to design healthy buildings. The guideline has been developed from the information that has become available from, amongst others, the HOPE•project and from the FiSIAQ approach as described above. These references present the state•of•the•art with respect to performance and healthy buildings.
3. Practical application
Performance•Based Building over the last two decades has found itself a basis in the building design, construction and use. The main difficulty with the term performance is that its scope has become so broad that different definitions are used. In principle the difference in definition is not problematic as they often refer to different parts of the building process. This means that the definitions for performance to a large part are context•based.
An important step in the development of PBB must be the unambiguous definition of performance in the different phases of a building life. Figure 1 visualizes the possible steps in the building life that can be distinguished (initiation•brief, design, construction, use, renovation•demolition). As indicated in the figure and in the text, in between these steps it often will be necessary to perform some kind of translation in order to deal with the performance criteria in the next step. In Table 1 the different performance definitions in the different steps are summarized. The Indoor Environment Domain of the PeBBu•project can be found in all steps (phases) of the building life
31 and adheres to the performance context described in Table 1. This makes the indoor environment one of the more important topics in relation to performance•based building.
Table 1. Short description of the different context in which performance is used throughout the building life.
Steps Performance context Initiation•Brief Functional and (qualitative) performance requirements as defined by the investor/owner. Translation Link qualitative requirements to quantitative (performance) criteria and define evaluation methods (e.g. conditions for evaluation) or otherwise determine other objective evaluation methods. Design Quantify the requirements/performance criteria either through the evaluation of the design via tools or by applying expert/knowledge•based or other objective information that enables the evaluation as agreed on. Translation From the design process the importance of performance requirements for the construction process and material use should be indicated, including evaluation procedures. Construction Evaluation of the quality of the applied materials and the built constructions during the building process as agreed on. Translation Evaluation procedures for whole building systems in principle should be described in the design phase. Use Evaluation of the quantitative performance criteria of the new building, that were derived in the design phase. They may be linked directly to the functional/qualitative performance requirements in the brief. Translation If the user requirements change, the building performance should be weighted to the new requirements. Renovation – The building performance should be checked on a regular base to identify whether Demolition the building meets the performance requirements set. Deviation may lead to a renovation plan or a new building (> Initiation•Brief).
To validate the developed framework principle (Figure 2), in relation to Table 1, the ISIAQ•CIB TG42 Guideline on Performance Criteria of Buildings for Health and Comfort [12][12][12] has been applied to fill the framework. The result of this is a database where the separate paragraphs of the report are organized towards the three axes of the framework and to the environmental attributes that are dealt with. A search on, e.g., a specific stakeholder or building phase results in the specific paragraphs that relate to those criteria. This example has been made accessible through the PeBBu Domain 2 homepage (http://www.bouw.tno.nl/pebbu).
The idea of the framework is that such a database is extended with similar information (reference or fully included) for all building phases, stakeholders and building objects, preventing overlapping and contradictory information. It should also include translation guidelines, amongst others evaluation procedures. In a further development the database may also function as a digital blueprint of the building (from initiation to demolition).
The example has shown that the principle of the framework functions. However, it is regarded crucial to apply a useful (not too large) division of the Stakeholders and Building Phases. For the
32 Building Object such a feasible subdivision was not established. It will require more effort to develop a general well applicable division that can be used for the framework. The search facilities as available through internet allow a quick scan of the available information.
4. Research agenda
Following the state•of•the•art the next step in the process of PeBBu is the development of a research agenda that lists developments that are regarded required to enhance the performance• based approach with respect to the indoor environment and in particular healthy building. The developed methodology and framework have been applied to set up this research agenda. Figure 3 summarizes the important topics.
Figure 3: Research agenda for the PB approach in relation to the indoor environment. Figure 3 has the developed framework as a base. On the axes the Stakeholder, Building phase and Building object are positioned. In the figure the focus is on the Stakeholder and Building phase. The literature study has indicated a lot of research on individual building objects and components, but it has proven to be difficult to subdivide the building in a sensible listing of building objects
33 and components. Furthermore, developments described in the state•of•the•art at first instance are focused at whole building level or its major components. In the yellow box above the framework major research areas at basic level are shown to come to further definitions for performance indicators as health (and comfort and productivity) and to target values for (physical) attributes that relate to that. Developments are ongoing in this area, but it is noted that especially from a medical point of view a sound basis to a large part still is lacking (e.g., dose•response relations and causality). Psychology and physiology are topics that have had little attention thus far in relation to indoor environment and health. Furthermore, it is obvious that interrelations are present between psychology, physiology and exposure to the indoor environment with respect to the appreciation of that indoor environment. Building science and the knowledge base have formed the major part in developments relating to indoor environment and health. Based on the envisaged developments, the latter two will remain important research items in order to come to healthy buildings.
For the stakeholders and building phases the subdivision in overall terms is in included in the framework. The gray ellipses indicate that in every stage of the building phase all stakeholders in principle are present. However, focus points indicate the important stakeholders in each phase. The dotted (ellipse) arrows between these ellipses indicate the translation between the separate phases. The relation with the performance indicators is acknowledged in each phase, be it informative or through evaluation.
For the different building phases several research items can be identified. Most of these research items relate to the translation of information (higher level subjective to lower level objective and reverse) and to support tools for the evaluation (in the design, construction and user phase). Ongoing research at material and component level are not explicitly mentioned in the figure but can find their way via the framework.
Dissemination, an important aspect in the understanding and appreciation of the PBB approach, should take place at stakeholder level. The three most important topics for dissemination are Information, Education and Good Practise. The manner how this is presented to the respective stakeholders however will have to differ significantly. E.g., the communication to new users of a building to prevent misuse, or displaying the current health status of a building.
Finally, the gray boxes indicate that the research agenda should have the type of building as a reference and of course should adhere to developments that arise outside of the framework scope.
5. Conclusions
The results from the Thematic Network PeBBu indicate that PBB, in the Indoor Environment domain, already is being applied to some degree in the different phases of the building process. Furthermore, attention on this topic has increased significantly in recent years. However, mostly application is restricted to a single building phase or building object and little information is yet
34 available on the translation of qualitative performance requirements to quantitative implications to the building. This hampers the further introduction of PBB in the building process.
The presented state•of•the•art includes more than a summary of existing information. The topic required more preparation as little consensus on the topic was available in literature. The PeBBu network presented a good platform to generate this consensus. Nevertheless, the topic remains complex and very extensive.
For performance requirements on health and comfort several interesting initiatives are ongoing or have recently been completed. The work in HOPE and ISIAQ•CIB TG42 are good and practical examples of that. However, a lot of work still is required before PBB can completely replace the current prescriptive building methods, if possible at all.
Acknowledgements
PeBBu is partly sponsored by the European Union in the GROWTH program. Coordinator is CIB in The Netherlands. Other main contractors are: TNO Environment and Geosciences and EGM Architects (The Netherlands),: WTCB (Belgium), CSTB (France), VTT (Finland), University of Manchester, University of Salford and BRE (United Kingdom).
References
[1] CIB. 1982. Working with the performance approach in building, CIB Report Publication 64, CIB, Rotterdam: Intern. Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction. (http://www.pebbu.nl)
[2] Foliente, G.C., Leicester, R.H. and Pham, L. 1998. Development of the CIB Proactive Program on Performance•based Building Codes and Standards, BCE Doc 98/232, CSORI Building, Construction and Engineering, Highett, Australia.
[3] Huovila, P. and Leinonen J. 2001. Managing performance in the built environment, Paper CLI 18, CIB World Building Congress, Wellington, New Zealand.
[4] Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2004. PeBBu Performance Based Building • 2nd Domain: Indoor Environment; Domain report & Contribution to the first international state•of• the•art report FINAL VERSION 2, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. (http://www.bouw.tno.nl/pebbu)
[5] Mallory•Hill, S. 2004. Supporting Strategic Design of Workplace Environments with Case• Based Reasoning, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
[6] Scholten, N., Walters W. and Nouwen, R. 2001. Writing standards for performance•based regulations: conditions to be fulfilled, Paper BCT 05, CIB World Building Congress, Wellington, New Zealand.
35 [7] FiSIAQ. 2001. Classification of Indoor Climate 2000 – Target values, Design guidance and product requirements, FiSIAQ Publications 5E, Espoo: Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate.
[8] ASTM. 2000. Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability. ASTM Standards. ISBN: 0• 8031•2734•0.
[9] Dijk, D. van. 2001. The European project REVIS, Daylighting products with redirecting visual properties, Proc. Northsun 2001, Leiden: Northsum 2001.
[10] Groot, E.H. de. 1999. Integrated Lighting System Assistant, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
[11] Bluyssen, P.M. et al. 2003. European project HOPE (Health Optimization Protocol for Energy efficient Buildings), Proc. Healthy Buildings 2003, Vol.3, pp76•81, Singapore: Healthy Buildings 2003.
[12] ISIAQ•CIB. 2004. Performance criteria of buildings for health and comfort. CIB no.292. Taskgroup TG42.
36 The relationship between performance•based building and innovation: An evolutionary approach
Martin Sexton Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, UK Peter Barrett Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, UK Angela Lee Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, UK
Abstract
There is growing consensus within research and industry communities that appropriate performance•based building approaches yield better performing buildings than prescriptive approaches. However, there are two schools of thought on the relationship between performance•based building approaches and innovation which are often in debilitating opposition. The ‘content’ school champions that performance•based building is the innovation in itself. In contrast, the ‘contextual’ school advocates that performance•based building provides the enabling environment to stimulate a raft of innovation activity which may include prescriptive, as well as performance•based, elements.
This paper argues that these two schools are not in conflict; indeed, there is significant value in recognizing and integrating them to form an evolutionary approach which promotes continuous development and use. A framework is offered which conceptualizes the performance•based approach as an evolutionary cycle of innovation across industry and project contexts, and between social and technical systems.
Key words: Performance•based building, innovation, evolutionary model
1. Introduction
Performance•based building (PBB) is intertwined with the present interest in, and momentum towards, performance•based building codes and standards (for example, see [6], [10], [12], [13], [17]). The key driver for this trend is the view that traditional prescriptive approaches act as a barrier to innovation. Within this context, discussion within the PeBBu Domain 8 community (http://www.pebbu.nl/maincomponents/scientificdomains/domain8/) has produced two schools of thought regarding the relationship between performance•based building and innovation. The ‘content’ school of thought has advocated that PBB is the innovation in itself, and that PBB approaches replace traditional prescriptive approaches with a new paradigm. In contrast, the ‘context’ school of thought has argued that performance•based building provides the enabling environment to stimulate a raft of innovation activity which may include prescriptive, as well as
37 performance•based, elements. This paper argues that these two schools are not in conflict; indeed, there is significant value in recognizing and integrating them to form an evolutionary approach which promotes continuous development and use. A framework is offered which conceptualizes the performance•based approach as an evolutionary cycle of innovation across industry and project contexts, and between social and technical systems.
2. Key issues from the literature
2.1 The ‘content’ school: PBB as the innovation
The ‘content’ school advocates that PBB is the innovation which progresses “the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends”[14, page 4] through the creation of performance•based codes and regulations which are implemented at a project, technical system level. Averill [2, page 18], for example, emphasises the key challenge of PBB as the “quantification of the level of performance which a building material, assembly, system, component, design factor, or construction method must satisfy.” The ‘content’ school posits PBB as a direct replacement for traditional prescriptive approaches which are viewed as acting as a barrier to innovation in that “improved and/or cheaper products may be developed, yet their use might not be allowed if construction is governed by prescriptive codes and regulations” [11, page 12].
The underpinning assumption is that this body of technical regulations and codes will stimulate a ‘technical system push,’ linear process of innovation, i.e. the development of PBB regulations and codes lead to a flow of new materials, components, systems and processes at a project level. Policy makers and researchers involved in the development of PBB regulations and standards commonly (if implicitly) draw upon this model to champion the need to move away from procedural, rule•centred regulation, which they view as being synonymous with prescriptive regulations which encourage minimum compliance, to a more flexible approach that allows relevant actors to move beyond compliance to sustainable innovation. Bowen and Thomas [5, page 3], for example, stress that PBB codes enable designers and contractors “the freedom to choose one of several possible means to achieve the required performance and therefore provide for flexibility and innovation.”
Commentators, however, are cautioning against the unreflecting displacement of traditional, prescriptive approaches with PBB codes and regulations, and are emphasising the need for the appropriate use of PBB which fit the particular needs of the context in which it is being used (for example, [7], [16]). Baark [3, page 13] notes, for example, the high cost of managing risk intrinsic to novel solutions with the argument that, “considerable obstacles in pushing forward innovations related to construction projects arise from the existence and interpretation of [performance•based] building codes and regulations. When a new technology is proposed for a construction project, getting government approval turns out to be decisive … [and that] … many engineering consultants regard the efforts required to provide justifications for innovative solutions as excessive. The money and time involved in such endeavours can certainly be a discouraging factor for the engineers during their thinking process.” This argument has been paired with the note that “prescriptive codes provide a simple ‘cook•book’ approach and, for the
38 majority of construction projects … they provide the least costly method of ensuring an acceptable level of [performance]” [5, page 3]. The need for a more contingent approach to PBB which appreciates differing contexts and, thus, different requirements, has fuelled the claims of the ‘context’ school of thought detailed in the next section.
2.2 The ‘context’ school: PBB as an enabler of innovation
The ‘context’ school of thought view PBB as a guiding framework which provides a stimulating, supportive environment which encourages innovation, be it traditional, prescriptive or PBB codes and regulations, or a combination of the two, to provide buildings which “meet all the goals established by society and the client [2, page 18]. The ‘context’ school of thought is grounded on two key assumptions. First, it adopts a contingency premise that the PBB approach is not universally applicable to all projects in all circumstances. Rather, a contingent view of PBB is promoted which appreciates projects with different characteristics and circumstances require different mixes of PBB and / or prescriptive elements. This argument is captured in Figure 1 which suggests, on the left hand side of the diagram, that where the client system requirements are known from the start, a ‘product’ view of innovation is appropriate and that this is best supported by a prescriptive approach. Indicative scenarios of this position would be repeat projects with a sophisticated client and / or simple, standard performance requirements. In contrast, where there is a need for a co•evolution of requirements between the client system and the project team, as depicted on the right hand side of the diagram, a ‘process’ view of innovation is appropriate and best sustained through a PBB approach. Indicative scenarios would be a one•off project with an unsophisticated client and / or complex, novel performance requirements.
Indicative Indicative Scenario: Scenario: Em pha si s on Rep eat One•off co•evolution of Degree to which project with project with client system sophisticated unsophisticated requirements requirements are client and/or client and/or between client complex, novel known from simple, standard system and building / building / industry the start performance performance in use in use stakeholders requ irem ents requ irem ents
‘Static’, ‘Dynamic’, product process emphasis emphasis
Figure 1: Product / process innovation continuum Second, the ‘context’ school emphasises a social systems perspective which argues that innovation is determined by the nature and intensity of interactions, interconnectedness and synergies from a wide spectrum of agents which gravitate around a project setting. Inter• organisational networks promote and facilitate the development and exchange of knowledge and resources that are needed to encourage learning and innovation in participating companies (for
39 example, see [4], [8], [15]). Indeed, it has been argued that the greater the number of inter• organisational networks a company is involved in, the greater the likelihood of generating and supporting successful innovation (for example, see [1]). PBB is seen as providing a discourse to shape beliefs and expectations of social system actors, and, in so doing, enable, facilitate and align activities of actors to forge a pluralist technical system made of performance•based and prescriptive elements. Adapting Edquist [9], the ‘context’ view of PBB has social system learning and innovation at its core through the accommodation of various ambiguities and the promotion of the diffusion of different, contingent, conceptualisations of PBB; and, as a consequence, provides a broad framework rather than formal theories of action.
3. A synthesis of the ‘context’ and ‘content’ perspectives of PBB: An evolutionary approach
The ‘context’ view offers the insight that PBB is a driver of innovation by providing a guiding framework which envisions and supports social interaction that stimulates context•specific configurations of prescriptive and / or performance•based elements. In apparent contrast, the ‘content’ perspective presents PBB as the innovation, in that it provides the technical tools and methodologies to implement performance•based approaches, and which replaces prescriptive approaches. These two views are, we argue, not contradictory, but complementary. An evolutionary model is advocated (see Figure 2) which dynamically links, consolidates and further develops the social system (‘context’ school) and technical system (‘content’ school) dimensions of PBB across industry and organisation / project contexts. The model operates as follows. First, it is accepted that PBB does not function independently, but that in order for it to be adopted and used, PBB must be part of a larger configuration of mutually attuned elements such as infrastructure, knowledge, skills, organisation, regulatory standards and cultural norms, through which the PBB approach can be handled productively by a range of actors. PBB, therefore, must be embedded within the industry context at a social system level to a degree where there is sufficientconfidence in PBB as an approach to be considered as one of a portfolio of viable options which can beadopted by organisations in project contexts, and which the industry wide knowledge (in the form of ‘good practice’, codes and regulations) can be developed at a technical system level.
40 Industry context Organisation/project context
… motivate client / … industry•wide project team to adopt confidence of the PBB approach, PBB to … and to …
Adopt Social system Social
Enhance Adapt
Develop … adapt the PBB approach to meet specific client / Deploy project needs, which … … develop industry•wide … if the PBB … deployed in PBB guidance, experience is
Technical system project settings, codes and successful, will which … regulations, further which can be … enhance…
Figure 2: An evolutionary model of performance•based building The network of organisations within a project context, having the confidence andmotivation to adopt the PBB approach within a project context, adapt then it to meet the particular characteristics and needs of the project. The adoption and adaptation process is a sense making and negotiation process between the project participants at a social system level, before the resultant PBB approach is implemented at a technical system level. This process will involve the deployment of appropriate knowledge from the industry context, technical system repository. Finally, if the PBB experience is fruitful at a project level, the confidence and learning will feed back to the industry context social level to furtherenhance the motivation to consider PBB as a viable option in future projects, and to further development the industry context technical system. The cycle above is depicted as a positive one; however, the cycle might be negative, in that if the experience of PBB within a project setting is negative, the feedback to the industry system social context will undermine the motivation to further consolidate and develop PBB as a viable option.
41 4. Conclusions
The focus of this paper is to delineate two schools of thought on the relationship between performance•based building and innovation. The ‘content’ school which champions that performance•based building is the innovation in itself. In contrast, the ‘contextual’ school advocates that performance•based building provides the enabling environment to stimulate a raft of innovation activity which may include prescriptive, as well as performance•based elements.
This paper has argued that these two schools are not in conflict; and there is significant value in recognising and integrating them to form an evolutionary approach which promotes continuous development and use. A framework has been offered which conceptualises the performance• based approach as an evolutionary cycle of innovation across industry and project contexts, and between social and technical systems.
References
[1] Ahuja, G., (2000), “Collaborative networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal case study”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425•455.
[2] Averill, J.D., (1998), “Performance•based codes: Economics, documentation, and design”M.Sc. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA.
[3] Baark, E., (2001), “The dynamics of innovation in engineering consultancy services”, Proceedings of the Future of Innovation Studies conference, Eindhoven, 20th – 23rd September.
[4] Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A., (1998), “Organisational learning and inter•firm partnering in the UK construction industry”Learning Organisation, 5: 86•98.
[5] Bowen, R. & Thomas, R., (1997), “TG11 – Performance•based building codes”CIB Report 211: Coordinators’ Trend Reports: An Anthology of Future Perspectives, CIB: Rotterdam.
[6] CRISP, (2001), Construction Research Priorities 2001: People, Knowledge and Industry Improvement, CRISP: London.
[7] Duncan, J., (2005), “Performance•based building: Lessons from implementation in New Zealand”, Building Research and Information, 33: 2: 120•127.
[8] Ebers, M., (Ed.), (1997),The Formation of Inter•organisational Networks, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
42 [9] Edquist, C., (1997), “Systems of Innovation Approaches – Their Emergence and Characteristics”, in C. Edquist (ed.),Systems of Innovation Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter: London. Pages 1•35.
[10] Fairclough, J., (2002),Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices, Department of Trade and Industry / Department of Transport, Local Government, Regions: London.
[11] Foliente, G.C., (2000), “Developments in performance•based building codes and standards”Forest Products Journal, 50: 7/8: 12 – 21.
[12] Foliente, G., Leister, R. & Pham, L. (Eds.), (1998)Development of the CIB Pro• active Program on Performance Based Building Codes and Standards: CSIRO BCE Doc 98/232, CSIRO: Melbourne.
[13] Foster, B.E., (Ed.). (1972)Performance Concept in Building – Invited Papers: Joint RILEM – ASTM – CIB Symposium: NBS Special Publication 361, US Government Printing Office: Washington.
[14] Gibson, E.J. (1982)Working with the Performance Approach in Building – CIB Report 64, CIB: Netherlands.
[15] Grandori, A. and Soda, G., (1995), “Inter•firm networks: antecedents, mechanism and forms”Organization Studies, 16: 183•214.
[16] Sexton, M. and Barrett, P., (2005), “Performance•based building: Balancing client and industry needs”, Building Research and Information, 33: 2: 142•148.
[17] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (guest editors), (2005),Building Research and Information: Special Issue on Performance•based Building, 33: 2.
43 Performance•based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date
Dik Spekkink EGM architecten / Spekkink C&R (e•mail: [email protected]) Dordrecht / Woudrichem, the Netherlands
Abstract
A performance•based design (PBD) is a building design that is based on a set of dedicated performance requirements and that can be evaluated on the basis of solution independent performance indicators. The performance•based design approach is a means to enhance the professionalism and the client orientation of the building design sector. It is aimed at satisfying the real client needs (‘answering the question behind the question’) and leaves the design process open for creative and innovative solutions. The performance•based approach makes ‘integral design’, with parallel, interrelated contributions from all design disciplines imperative. Although PBD has been put to practice in many countries to some extend, design practitioners appear to be hardly aware of it. Actions need to be undertaken to enhance the awareness of PBD. Performance based building regulations have proven to be a key success factor in the implementation of PBD and governmental clients should take the lead in further implementation.
Keywords: Performance•based design, client orientation, performance requirements, design process, design assessment
1. Performance•based Design
1.1 Backgrounds: scope and objectives
‘Design of Buildings’ is one of the scientific domains (Domain 3) of the Thematic Network Programme ‘Performance•based Building’ (PeBBu), that is funded by the European Union. Since the start of the PeBBu Programme in 2001 some 40 experts from 18 countries participated in the domain work.
The scope that has been chosen for PeBBu Domain 3 is strongly related to the notion that the ‘end user’ of built facilities becomes more and more important in the building process. A strong incentive for performance•based design derives from this ‘emancipation of the end user’. ‘The’ end user demands quality from his own perspective. During the last few years it has become more and more clear that it is an economic necessity for the building industry to act more consumer oriented and to pay more attention to meeting with user requirements. As a result and in the field of performance•based building, a certain shift from a primary focus on performance
44 specifications for building parts to a mix of this ‘hard’ perspective and a more ‘soft’, holistic perspective of performance•based building can be seen. In the latter perspective the focus is e.g. on the management of functional user requirements and user involvement during the design process and beyond. Which is basically a shift from solving an internal problem of the building industry to solving the end users’ problem.
Performance•based Design (PBD) is considered to be of strategic importance for achieving the overall PeBBu objectives, especially because a building design determines to a large extend, intended or unintended, what the performance of the building in use will be. In this respect two aspects are of crucial importance in the design stage:
- making sure that the right users’ performance requirements are considered; - the prediction of the building performance on the basis of (preliminary) design results, in other words the assessment of the design. This leads to the following issues that are addressed in the Domain’s work: - the translation of client and user needs into assessable performance specifications (or: the matching of user requirements and performance specifications of built assets); - classifications and formats for performance requirements and specifications; - the management of client and user involvement in the design process; - assessment methods for design results. The objective of the Domain 3 work is to clearly define these issues, give a comprehensive state•of•the•art overview and, from that, give recommendations for future research in these fields. A second objective is to develop modules for programmes that aim for the education and training of design professionals. These modules will be aimed primarily on enlarging the awareness of Performance•based design.
The essential role of Domain 3 within PeBBu is about the integration of knowledge and systems from other PeBBu domains in the context of real building designs. The building design is where it all comes together. More information can be found in the Third Domain 3 State of the Art report “Bringing Vitruvius up to date”, that is published on the PeBBu website www.pebbu.nl( ) [1].
1.2 Performance•based Design defined
Performance•based building is concerned with orientating activities around the performance in• use of built environment products and services and extending this approach as far back along the supply chain as is appropriate. PBB is about what a building should do for the client, the users and other stakeholders, rather than about how the building should be constructed. Thus, stakeholder requirements, together with legislative building regulations, are very important in the context of Performance Based Design. Performance requirements should express the real
45 user needs behind the question for a built product. Following this principle a Performance•based design can be defined as follows:
- A Performance•based design is a building design that is based on a set of dedicated performance requirements and that can be evaluated on the basis of performance indicators. However, Domain 3 ‘Design of Buildings’ is not only about the result of a design process, but also and primarily with that process itself. A Performance•based design process can be defined as follows:
- A Performance•based design process is a process in which performance requirements are translated and integrated into a building design.
2. State of the art of Performance•based Design
2.1 PBD in general
The Domain 3 inventory of the state of the art shows that PDB is mainly an issue in research and education as yet. Design professionals (architects and engineers) are generally not very aware of PBD. In this respect a distinction should be made between two different approaches to PDB: - designers and engineers have to meet with performance based client briefs and building regulations; - designers define their work in a functional design plus a set of performance criteria, rather than work out the design traditionally in technical drawings and specifications. The first approach can be recognised in most building projects in countries that apply performance based building regulations, mostly countries in the northern part of Europe. Applicants for building permits have to prove that the designs comply with the regulations, so every design professional is involved in PDB to some extend, consciously or unconsciously. Performance based building regulations and codes often include performance requirements for safety (structural safety, fire safety, earth quake resistance and so on), health, serviceability, energy efficiency and environmental impact.
The second approach is closely related to performance based procurement. Up to now, this approach has only been put to practice on a relatively small scale, mainly in the same northern countries. Mostly government building agencies take the lead; they organize pilot projects and/or experiments to set an example for innovation of the building process. The general idea is that the ‘demand side’ of the building process defines a functional design and a set or performance requirements, allowing the supply side to choose the most suitable technical solutions matching these requirements, availability and cost. This second approach to PBD has hardly been put into practice in non governmental projects as yet. One of the barriers is that clients, apart from a few very professional clients, do not trust this kind of procurement, that
46 they experience as rather abstract and intangible and therefore too unsure and risky. They often prefer to be able to control the whole design and building process.
In general engineers and technical designers are more used to working with performance requirements than architects. The main design areas where performance based design and procurement is applied, are service engineering (acoustics, lighting conditions, indoor climate, air quality, and so on), energy consumption and maintenance.
2.2 Translation of client and user needs into assessable performance specifications
Interesting methods for the matching of client and user needs and performance specifications can be found in e.g. the Netherlands and Canada. The Dutch Government Building Agency (GBA) e.g. is developing a computer aided interview technique for (future) users of office buildings. Dependent on the combination of answers that are given to predefined questions (‘question tree’), the computer generates a set of specialist performance requirements. The system is based on fifteen years of experience with the performance based briefing and procurement.
In Canada the International Centre for Facilities (ICF) developed the ‘ST&M•approach’ (‘Serviceability Tools & Methods’) [2]. The method comprises a set of standard tools for measuring in broad terms what is needed and what is provided; it compares what functionality the occupant groups require and how well assets support those needs. Scales are used, giving a range of standard levels, so that stakeholders can choose how much of each topic is needed. For every topic there are two scales. The first is a functionality requirement scale giving levels of functionality from 0 to 9 (demand). The second is a serviceability scale for assets, also ranging from 0 to 9 (supply). Each couple of scales is calibrated. There are scales for some 200 topics. This is probably the most elaborated and easy to use example of how performances specifications can be matched with user requirements (and the other way around).
In many countries client briefs are usually solution oriented. They often contain technical and space solutions, that belong to the domain of the building industry. These are hard for clients and end users to understand, because they are not involved in that domain. Research by VTT in Finland shows that performance based briefs turn out to be easier for the end users to understand, because they appeal more to the end users’ own domains and processes. Moreover, performance based requirements in briefs give designers possibilities to fully exploit their knowledge accomplishing creative and flexible solutions.
2.3 Classifications and formats for performance specifications
A survey of material from only a few countries already shows a wide variety of ‘classifications’ that are used for arranging performance specifications in briefing methods. Even on a national level several different classification methods are encountered. There is a clear need for a generic
47 conceptual framework for performance based design and building and a common set of basic definitions.
2.4 The management of client and user involvement throughout the design process
As this is quite a new topic, there is little information available about the state of the art in this field. The best examples probably come from project developers who open project websites, allowing future users to follow the process online. Several developers offer future users the opportunity to give input and choose from options in the course of the process. These project developers experience that, when they offer these opportunities, the processes have to be very transparent; it has to be very clear for all parties involved until which moments which decisions may be postponed, in order to prevent frustration of the process and extra costs. Several market parties in Western European countries struggle with this. In general we may conclude that the building industry is not a very user oriented industry.
In several countries we see large scale programmes aimed at structural changes in the building industry. Examples are ‘Rethinking Construction’ in the UK and the ‘Process and Systems Innovation Programme for the Building Industry’ (PSIB) in the Netherlands. One of the common goals is to change construction into a more consumer oriented industry. Further development of the performance concept may contribute to that, as this concept is user oriented by nature.
2.5 Assessing design results
Too often the requirements are not met in the final product. There are various reasons for this: cutting costs in some phase of the project, inability to find suitable design solutions to fulfil the requirements, forgetting the original requirements, and so on. To avoid this, an early and continuous verification has to take place in the design process (Ang et. al, 2001 [3], Becker 1999). The user has to be sure that the desired performance targets will be fulfilled. And if this is not possible, the user has to know this on beforehand.
Assessment methods may vary from simple measuring (e.g. the amount of net square meters offered) via standardized calculating (e.g. the strength and stability of building structures or the energy loss) to simulating certain aspects of the behaviour of the building in•use (e.g. daylight penetration in different seasons and under different weather conditions). In some EU member states national building regulations are more and more performance•based. Also European regulations, that have to be implemented in the national building regulations of all EU member states, are as a rule performance•based. Very well known of course is the Construction Products Directive (CPD). Performance•based regulations often refer to national standards, where not only performance levels for building parts and properties, but also the corresponding assessment methods are defined.
48 Assessment methods in European and national standards are mostly aimed at the testing of actual buildings or building products. However, one of the main problems in PBD is how to predict the performance of a building on the basis of a design. For many quality aspects the ‘total building performance’ depends on a complex interaction of many influences. On the one hand there are no validated, standardized assessment methods available to predict the total building performance, but on the other hand this performance will determine the client’s perception of the quality delivered to a great extend. The only way to do it is by simulation of the building behaviour, using integrated data models. All over the world institutes and universities are in the process of developing simulation applications to facilitate this, using modern information and communication technology (ICT).
2.6 Barriers
According to the members of Domain 3 the main barriers for further development and implementation of PBD are the traditional culture of the building process, the suspicion of design and engineering professionals that PBD will further undermine the design profession and the conviction of design professionals that the responsibility for the technical design cannot be separated from the responsibility for the functional and architectural design (which is the case in performance based procurement). Also many architects believe that the most important quality aspects of buildings cannot possibly be translated into performance specifications.
Other drawbacks that have been mentioned are the segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction, the uncertainty about risk and liability, the (lack of) professionalism of clients, lack of experience. Moreover, during the economical boost of the last ten years, there was little incentive to change. Maybe today, while the whole European building industry suffers from an economic crisis, there is more readiness for innovation.
3. Ten reasons for Performance•based Design
PBD is not a goal in itself, it is a means to reach the ‘higher’ goal of creating more added value for the client, the end user and other stakeholders. The performance•based approach requires a different attitude, a different way of thinking about designing buildings than in the traditional design process. Implementing the performance•based approach in the design process requires a change of culture. Experience teaches that cultural changes do not occur overnight; it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time. Design professionals will have to be convinced. Many of them seem to consider PDB as a (further) degradation of their positions and interests in the building process. The Domain 3 members thought of ten reasons that make it worthwhile for design professionals to put effort into the performance•based approach.
1 PBD provides for a more client oriented way of thinking and working in the design process. The performance•based approach is basically a client orientated way of thinking and working, especially in the design process.
49 2 Performance•based thinking helps clients and designers to gain better knowledge about how a building operates or should operate. As performance•based building primarily has to do with what a building should do for the owners and users, it enhances the awareness of how a building•in•use operates or should operate. 3 PBD leads to cost effectiveness, better quality and better client and user satisfaction. Quality, in client oriented way of working, can be defined as the extend to which a product or service meets with the client’s and end users’ needs, wishes and expectations. Performance requirements intend to express clients’ and users’ needs explicitly. A performance•based approach in design offers better conditions for meeting with those needs and – as a result • for better quality and better client and user satisfaction. 4 European and national building regulations are more and more performance•based (as opposed to prescriptive codes). Designers will have to prove that their design solutions meet with the legislative requirements. Therefore it is imperative that design professionals adopt the performance•based way of thinking and working. 5 PBD prevents designers from tumbling into solutions from the very beginning without proper understanding of the real client and user needs. In practice designers often start to develop solutions immediately. Also owner and user requirements in briefs often seem to be recipes for solutions, rather than descriptions of the performance of the building in•use. This may obscure the real needs behind the owner and user requirements. Moreover it may rule out unexpected creative, innovative and/or cost effective solutions on beforehand. PBD stimulates thinking about ‘the question behind the question’ before jumping to conclusions. 6 PBD provides architects with the tools to be the integrator in the design process.Vitruvius already stated ten centuries ago, that architecture is the fusion of functionality, solidity and beauty. With this definition, Vitruvius made a strong plea for integral design. PBD is also all about integral design. Someone has to do the integration of contributions of all parties involved and the architect is best positioned for that. In many countries the architect lost his integrating role in the building process, because he was not able to cope with all the technical systems. The PBD concept provides him with the tools to be the integrator again. It’s like bringing Vitruvius up to date in a modern setting. 7 PBD offers better conditions for creativity and for generating added .valueAs performance• based building codes and requirements allow designers to come up with a variety of solutions, the performance•based approach will enhance creativity and innovation in the design and building process, with more added value for clients and end users as a result. 8 PBD offers the opportunity to make better use of knowledge and expertise of contractors and suppliers, allowing them to come up with innovative, cost effective solutions.Multitudes of building concepts, techniques and products are available for the building industry and more are added every day. It is impossible for designers to have knowledge of all available concepts, techniques, products and new developments. Contractors (and suppliers) often have better knowledge of the market, but also they cannot possibly have mastery of all available concepts and techniques. They have to specialize. But when they are confronted with building designs that are specified in detail, they will often not be able to use their own specializations. When architects and other designers refrain from giving detailed prescriptive specifications
50 for every building part and complete the functional and aesthetic design with a set of performance specifications for building parts instead, allowing contractors to use their own techniques and market knowledge, that might lead to cost effective solutions, better quality and more value for money for the owners and users. 9 PBD helps to fill in the building industry’s responsibility for the environment. Future generations have the right to live in a healthy and sound environment. Legislation in this field is mainly performance•based, leaving the responsibility for how to meet with the legal requirements to the designers to a great extend. 10 PBD is common practice to some extend already. In practice most designers already are involved in PBD to some extend, consciously or unconsciously, e.g. in relation to meeting with energy consumption and other environmental requirements. So to most designers PBD is not a completely new concept. Besides that it’s important to understand that total systems of performance•based building or design do not exist. PBD can be applied in a more or less extensive form, depending on the circumstances of a project. This means that designers do not need to change their ‘normal’ way of working from one day to another in order to implement PBD.
4. Performance approach in the design process
The performance of a building or a building part is always the result of the interaction between different solutions for different subsystems, like the architectural system, the structural system, the climate system and so on. This is depicted in diagram 1.
solution subsystem 1
solution performance subsystem 2
solution subsystem 3 solution subsystem 4
Figure 1: ‘Performance’ as the result of different solutions for different subsystems. Designers have to deal with systematic interrelations between different performance specifications, which often relate to different fields of expertise. Thus, the performance•based approach calls for integral design, with parallel, interrelated contributions from all design disciplines involved. The end user is probably not really interested in the performances of
51 different subsystems; he experiences the performance of a built facility as a whole. The design disciplines will have to co•operate closely to create an integrated facility design. In some aspects also the expertise of the contractor and specialized subcontractors is needed to get optimal performance.
architect
structural engineer
performance building physics Client: requirements engineer
I need aa yes no Integrated service engineer facility facility design performance integral design specifications
contractor
specialized subcontractors
Figure 2: Performance•based Design calls for an integral design approach As the Performance•based approach is the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means, it provides for openness to the infill of the design process. It provides suppliers (both designers and contractors) with the opportunity to come up with creative solutions. Therefore, in principle as many requirements as possible should be performance• based and measurable. Requirements and solutions (prescriptive specifications) should be mixed up as little as possible, as solutions will essentially always be compromises.
However, some essential aspects of design, such as architectural and cultural value, cannot be expressed in ‘hard’ measurable performance requirements. Nevertheless these aspects may be quite an important component in a stakeholder’s general appreciation of a built asset. This means that also in a performance•based design process, these aspects should be fully taken into account. Also a client should be free to choose a specific solution or product, if he really wants that. In other words: in practice it will be unwise to be too fundamental in following a performance•based design approach; a design process will always be hybrid to some extend.
It appears to be a world wide trend that clients and future users demand more involvement and influence in the building process as a whole and in the design process in particular. E.g. modern ICT provides them with the tools, like internet and virtual reality, that enable them to participate actively in the process. Moreover, it becomes more and more clear that it is an illusion to think that the design process can start with a complete and unchangeable client's brief. Also for the clients and users the design process is a voyage of discovery and they expect the designers to
52 facilitate that voyage. The question is how to do that and at the same time improve the efficiency and manageability of the design process.
Already in 1992 the Dutch Building Research Institute (SBR) issued a report about a new system of briefing that allows clients to develop the brief in interaction with the design [4]. This should be done in a controlled process, in which briefing and designing are, though parallel, separate processes. According to this system, after each formally concluded design stage the brief should be updated and further completed with the information that is necessary for decision making in the next design stage. This process is depicted in figure 3 (‘ass.’ means assessment).
phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 phase 4 phase 5 phase 6 phase 7 project feasibility project master plan provisional design detailed design technical design initiation definition (specifications)
brief for brief for brief for provisio• basic ass. provisio• ass. detailed ass. technical ass. nal brief brief nal design design design briefing process briefing
technical feasibility master provisio• detailed design study plan nal design design (specifi• cations) design process agree• agree• agree• contract decision contract decision ment ment ment
Figure 3: overlapping of the briefing process and the design process (source: SBR publication nr. 258, Rotterdam, 1992) The principle is taken over by the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA) and the Dutch Association of consulting Engineers (ONRI), who recently issued a common ‘Standard Task Description’ (STD) for designing buildings in 2004 1. This STD [5] is basically a breakdown of the design process into interrelated tasks per phase for all disciplines involved (commissioning, architecture, building physics, interior design, structural engineering, service engineering, landscape design, project management). In this system, that will be the basis in the Netherlands for contracts between clients on the one side and architects and consulting engineers on the other, each new design phase starts with an evaluation, update and further elaboration of the brief. The STD has also been developed to facilitate integral design. Members of BNA and ONRI sensed that there is a growing demand for this among their clients.
5. Conclusions
Design practitioners are hardly aware of Performance•based Design (PBD) as yet, although many of them are involved in PBD to some extend already. The performance•based design
1 Similar developments can be found in e.g. Norway, Sweden, Germany and New Zealand
53 approach has already been applied in different cases and countries, but not necessarily under that name. PBD is a means to enhance the professionalism and the client orientation of the building design sector. The time seems ripe for it, as there is a growing demand for integral design. In some countries tools for integral design are developed by associations of architects and consulting engineers. PBD calls for integral design.
It seems appropriate that actions should be started to enlarge the awareness of Performance•based design. In this respect the participant in PeBBu Domain 3 came up with the following suggestions: - make existing projects or designs, in which the performance•based approach has already been implemented to some extend, more explicit (‘best practices’); - government leadership in the implementation of PBD can be a powerful stimulus; - incorporate the performance approach in design education; - enhancement of “total building performance” in a life cycle environment (long term performance); - performance based building regulations have proven to be a key success factor in the implementation of a performance•based way of thinking in building design; - mutual recognition of performance assessment methods through standardization.
References
[1] Spekkink, D. et al. (2004): ‘Bringing Vitruvius up to date.’ Third state of the art report PeBBu Domain 3 – Design of Buildings (available online at www.pebbu.nl).
[2] Davis, Gerald & Szigeti, Françoise (2000): ‘ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceavility – nd2 edition, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, PA, USA, ISBN 0•8031•2734•0
[3] Ang, K.I., Wyatt, D.A. & Hermans, M. (2001): ’A systemic approach to define client expectations of total building performance during the predesign stage, CIB World Building Congress, April 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
[4] Spekkink, D. et al. (1996): ‘Programma van Eisen: Instrument voor kwaliteitsbeheersing’ (‘The client’s brief: tool for quality management in the design process’), SBR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands – 2nd edition
[5] Royal Institute of Dutch Architects & Dutch Association of Consulting Engineers (2005): ‘De Nieuwe Regeling – Standaardtaakbeschrijving’ (‘Standard Task Description’), Amsterdam – The Hague, the Netherlands.
54 Section II
Performance Based Building Framework and Tools Facilitating Innovation & Enhancing Trade – The Performance•Based Building Networks in Australia & Asia
Greg Foliente, CSIRO – Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Melbourne ([email protected]) Peter Boxhall, CSIRO – Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Melbourne, Australia Lam Pham, CSIRO – Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
This paper presents background development, an overview of programs, activities and accomplishments to date, and possible opportunities/challenges for further development of the Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Networks in Australia and East Asia. The primary goal in these efforts/activities is to effectively engage the key stakeholders that can help hasten and broaden the adoption of the performance concept in practice.
Keywords: Performance approach, performance based building, innovation, trade, stakeholder engagement
1. Performance Based Building
Performance Based Building is an approach to building•related processes, products and services that is concerned predominantly with the required outcomes (the 'end') and not with how these outcomes are achieved (the 'means'). This is in contrast to the traditional prescriptive approach, which tends to focus on specifying the method or solution for achieving the required outcomes.
Process requirements would include time, cost, profits, health and safety, and other process outcome indicators. The attribute requirements for product – which can be the whole building or any of its individual components – would include safety, health and amenity, maintainability, sustainability, etc. Service requirements involve requirements to support the users or businesses of the built facility during the occupancy stage (i.e. includes all facility management functions).
Performance based building:
· encourages better understanding and communication of client/user requirements, thereby reducing opportunities for disputes and producing delighted customers;
55 · allows the building practitioner considerable flexibility with regard to design solutions – encouraging innovation and providing the opportunity for cost• optimised solutions; · facilitates international trade.
2. The PeBBu Networks
In order to progress the technical developments in, and the practical implementation of, performance based building, the CIB Board and Program Committee initiated the Proactive Program on Performance Based Building in the 1998•2001 triennium (Foliente 2000). Then with funding from the European Union (EU) Fifth Framework Programme, this was followed by the establishment of the Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Thematic Network, running from October 2001 to September 2005 (see www.pebbu.nl).
In 2003, the Australian Performance Based Building (Aus•PeBBu) Network was established to promote the performance approach in Australia (see www.auspebbu.org) and to facilitate linkages and exchange of information with the EU•PeBBu Network.
In 2005, an informal network of agencies or organisations in countries in the Asia•Pacific region formed Asia•Pacific PeBBu.
3. Aus•PeBBu
The network of Australian researchers and industry representatives who constitute Aus•PeBBu are not only participating in the meetings and activities of the European Union•funded (EU) PeBBu network, but also running activities (working groups, industry seminar/workshops and a project web•site) aimed at promoting performance based building in Australia.
The main developmental activity in the Aus•PeBBu network is incorporated into seven technical domains or working groups:
1. Building Materials and Components 2. Indoor Environment 3. Building Design and Engineering 4. Sustainable Built Environment 5. Innovation
56 6. Legal and Procurement Matters 7. Building Regulations and Standards With one exception, these scientific domains match those in EU•PeBBu, to provide one•to•one correspondence of efforts and to maximise opportunity for participants in both networks to discuss similar topics and issues and to cooperate on matters of mutual interest.
The main difference in the program is the inclusion in Aus•PeBBu of a domain “Sustainable Built Environment”. With significant national and international interest, initiatives and investments in sustainable development, this is a timely topic.
With less funding and much smaller scope than the EU programme, Aus•PeBBu has a relatively stronger focus on facilitating the proactive application of the performance approach through best practice project delivery processes, instead of building regulation. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) had adopted the performance concept in the mid•1990’s (see www.abcb.gov.au). Australia’s experience in performance•based code development and implementation is very extensive, and shared with the members of the Inter•jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC); IRCC is an unaffiliated committee of ten of the leading building regulatory agencies from eight countries (seewww.ircc.gov.au/).
4. Asia•Pacific Network
Aus•PeBBu has now extended its informal network to East Asia, with counterparts in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia at this time. The participation of the developing countries in the region is partially funded by the Australian Government under its Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Support Program.
The informal Asia Pacific network has as its primary goal the sharing of information, experience, expertise and efforts to promote the practical and effective implementation of the performance approach in building and construction in the Asia•Pacific region and in individual participating countries. Like Aus•PeBBu, there is strong focus on stakeholder engagement. Unlike Aus•PeBBu, we anticipate a greater focus on applications of the performance concept on building code and regulations and in product assessment, appraisal and evaluation (e.g. for trade purposes).
5. Common Issues & Objectives
The main factors that hinder widespread adoption and implementation of the performance concept can be grouped into technical and non•technical issues. Some of the lessons learned in running the
57 EU•PeBBu and the Aus•PeBBu Networks have been discussed by Bakens et al. (2005). An innovative technology diffusion strategy based on the “tipping point” principle, as applied in the construction industry by Foliente and Boxhall (2002).
Technical challenges have been identified by Becker (1999) and Foliente (2000). In this regard, the two Networks aim to contribute to the following areas of long•term technical development:
· Establishment of a whole•of•life performance framework (including performance indicators and criteria); · Development of a guide on methods of establishing/setting performance; · Expansion and maintenance of the database compendium of performance tools or methods that can be used to achieve targets (e.g. during design), and to assess/verify/evaluate performance in•service; and · Establishment or development of a best•practice compendium of benefits of the performance approach based on actual/real projects (collected from each country). In the Asia•Pacific Network, this will be facilitated by network members coming together for a series of annual seminar/workshops in different member countries over an initial 4•year period. It is anticipated that the network will be self•sustaining after this time.
6. Conclusion
From the CIB international membership and Europe, the performance based building networks continue to expand – first in Australia and now in Asia•Pacific. Mechanisms for a 2•way information flow from one network to another are implicitly in place. If managed properly – e.g. critical information and lessons from one network are passed on to another, people from one network get involved in another, etc – there is a potential for: (a) wider adoption of the performance concept in building regulations, procurement, delivery and management, and (b) greater opportunities for innovation and enhanced trade.
PeBBu has now extended its informal network to East Asia, with counterparts in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia at this time. The participation of the developing countries in the region is partially funded by the Australian Government under its Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Support Program.
58 References
[1] Bakens, W., Foliente, G.C. and Jasuja, M. (2005). Engaging stakeholders in performance• based building: lessons from the PeBBu network. Building Research & Information.
[2] Becker, R. (1999). Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept in building. Automation in Construction 8(4): 525•532.
[3] Foliente, G.C. (2000). Developments in performance•based building codes and standards. Forest Products Journal 50(7/8): 12•21
[4] Foliente. G.C. and Boxhall, P. (2002). Evergen Feasibility Report, CMIT Doc 02/273, CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Highett, Australia.
59 60 A comparison of international classifications for performance requirements and building performance categories used in evaluation methods
Thomas Lützkendorf and Thorsten Speer, Dept. of Economics and Business Engineering, University Karlsruhe (email: [email protected]) Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, International Center for Facilities, (email: fs•gd@icf•cebe.com) Pieter C. le Roux and Akikazu Kato, Dept. of Architecture, Toyohashi University of Technology, (email: kato•[email protected]) Kazuhisa Tsunekawa, Dept. of Architecture, University of Nagoya, (email: [email protected]•u.ac.jp)
Abstract
User requirements, building performance, performance indicators and building performance evaluation (BPE) methods are being discussed, developed and applied in various countries. There seems to be little consensus however, as to which building performance evaluation criteria and methodologies might best apply in which situations. By a comparative analysis of the methodological similarities and differences between the aspects and topics addressed in the “ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability”, the NOPA (New Office Promotion association of Japan) Minimum Standard in Japan, the BPE tools and methods applied in Europe, this paper illustrates the various approaches to user requirements and building performance evaluation, as well as how user requirements are defined, which performance criteria are described, which indicators of capability are included, which measurement tools are used, and how the requirements of the stakeholders and the performance of the facility are compared. The paper concludes with a comment that in a global market, there is a growing need to build on these different approaches to create a more comprehensive standardized and universal methodology to state requirements, describe and choose performance indicators, and compare the two in order to verify that the building product or service performs as required.
Keywords: assessment; building information model: evaluation criteria; functionality; performance approach; performance indicators; quality; serviceability; suitability; sustainability; tools; user requirements
1. Initial positions and objective
The main drivers that are leading to the development of a Performance approach in building have already been often described. Knowledge of the current discussions about the performance concept as applied to building (PBB) will be assumed here ([1],[2],[3],[4]). How the
61 Performance approach applies both to the regulatory and non•regulatory context has been discussed through the contributions of both individual scientists and work groups (including CIB TG 111, W0602 and PeBBu3) ([5],[6],[7],[8],[9]). There is agreement meanwhile that the use of a Performance•based approach in the building industry encourages innovations, allows for more open competition, promotes transparent procurement, and supports cost•effective building. As a result, several countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Spain, The Netherlands, etc.) have decided to integrate Performance•based regulations in their building codes and to modify codes towards a Performance or Objective•based approach.
The Performance approach has originally been primarily concerned with improving the project delivery process for new construction. Early on, the focus was on how requirements of both occupying and non•occupying users in respect to “technical, physiological, psychological and sociological aspects”, as Gibson [10] puts it, could be achieved as might be “discussed and agreed between a client and a design team” based on a functional brief (program). Furthermore, until the early 1980s, performance standards considered primarily parts of buildings, building products, materials and components [10]. As such, until then, only marginal attention within the performance approach was given to requirements beyond the functionality during use of the physical elements of a building, suggesting that the performance approach was focused and applied in a narrow sense with an emphasis on the technical functions of the parts rather than the whole. In 1982, ASTM set up a different kind of sub•committee focused on the performance of whole buildings and facilities4. By 1995, ASTM approved the first set of standards that addressed the functionality and serviceability of whole buildings from the end user perspective.[11][12] This set of standards is based on a method and tools created by a team led by contributing authors Davis and Szigeti. Davis and Szigeti developed a method [13] for describing the functionality requirements of the users (demand), evaluating the serviceability of whole buildings and facilities (supply), and comparing the two using calibrated scales5. These scales include a combination of functional elements on the demand side, and a combination of physical features on the supply side. This method is currently being standardized internationally (ISO TC 59/SC14/WG10) and adapted to the needs of other countries such as France [14].
In continuing and increasingly intense scientific discussions, in part in the context of the EU funded PeBBu project [5], the Inter•jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC), the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) W60 and TG37, and the International Building Performance Evaluation (IBPE) Network [15], it is possible to identify a trend that is moving toward a clearly broader way of looking at building performance over the “Whole Facility Management Cycle” [10]. Other terms heard in discussions such as total building performance, whole life performance, overall performance or integrated building performance demonstrate that an expansion of the contents of the application area is currently taking place, similarly to an understanding that the project delivery phase is only a small part of the whole life cycle of a facility. These types of developments indicate that the concept of building performance is being applied more broadly which is defined by the authors as theperformance approach in a broader sense. In addition to many other scientists and work groups, Luetzkendorf and Speer have also been concerned with the broader application of a performance approach. They build on the work of Davis and Szigeti
62 [13] and Balck [16] and suggest that a performance approach needs to also be used by the supplier / contractor to signal product quality, to consider the perspective and specific realm of interest of other actors (in addition to the end user), as well as in subdividing the contents of overall performance into individual aspects with relative independence [3].
The Performance approach in a broader sense is receiving increased attention. There are on• going discussions – including those involving international standardization – on how the description and evaluation of buildings should take place and how these can be harmonized (such as “Service Life Planning” (ISO TC 59/SC 14) and ”Sustainable Construction” (ISO TC 59/SC 17)). For instance, the approach is also being used as the basis for developing a system to evaluate the contribution of single buildings towards sustainable development. Functional, design, technical, economic, environmental and social aspects need to be considered simultaneously. A number of “multicriteria” decision support tools are currently being proposed, including a sustainability index for the measurement of sustainable performance. [40] The relative weight of different aspects to be considered will depend on the requirements of the client and other stakeholders for each project and the importance of the facility in support of the mission, goals, and purpose of the organization, or in support of the objectives of an individual or family. In addition, the use of a performance approach in determining the average useful life of buildings and building components is being discussed [17]. However, the methodologies developed, or considered by various authors and research groups, vary greatly. This paper discusses the general criteria and system whichcan be used to structure building performance in such a way that performance requirements, criteria and results can be more easily aggregated and dis•aggregated. In addition, the various ways of viewing the concept and developments surrounding the performance approach in North America, Europe and Japan are presented, examined and compared based on selected examples.
2. Suggestion for major performance categories
Expanding the performance approach with regards to its task, its interpretation and its area of application by including additional actors, concerns and supplementary functions requires developing major categories where user requirements are grouped in a coherent fashion.
2.1 Performance Categories
Major Performance Categories Functional Performance Technical Performance Economic Performance Environmental Performance Social Performance Process Performance
Figure 1: Performance categories
63 Figure 1 contains the authors’ suggested performance categories and Table 1 details the categories by way of short descriptions and examples.
Table 1: Description of performance categories
Functional Performance Functional performance of a building describes and assesses how well use•specific activities and processes can be performed in the building. Criteria include suitability of the surface and space program for planned use, accessibility and barrier•free design, adaptability to changing user requirements and uses, etc. Functional performance is closely related to the needs of the building users and others such as visitors, and the public community. Technical Performance Technical performance describes structural, physical and other technical features and characteristics. Criteria included suitability for the planned service life, load capacity, maintenance and revitalization capability, structural resistance to fire, control of noise transmission, heat insulation of building shell, etc. Economic Performance a) Real Estate Performance Real estate performance is the earnings trend and value of a real estate property. It is especially useful for the decision•making processes of investors and property owners. A performance requirement is likely to be increased revenue and value. b) Cost Performance Cost and financial performance describes financial expenditures involved in planning, construction, operation, maintenance, demolition or waste disposal at a particular time or within the life cycle of a facility. The current criteria have moved towards LCC (Life Cycle Costing) methods. Cost performance is used by managers, planers, building users and facility managers to monitor and control costs. Investors and property owners especially consider non• allocatable costs. Environmental Performance Environmental performance describes and assesses the building’s features and characteristics relevant to its impact on the environment. The effects on both the local and global environment are considered. Energy and material flows and resulting effects on the environment are recorded. The use and conversion of areas are also considered in part. Low resource utilization and/or reducing effects on the environment contribute to improving environmental performance. Social Performance The description and assessment of social performance is based on criteria that indicate the health, comfort and safety of users, visitors, residents and neighbors of the building. In addition, the building’s cultural value is also usually assessed. Codes, regulations and standards provide a base for these performance requirements, but clients often choose to demand more. Process Performance in Strategic Planning, Design, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, Management and Use The overall building performance is influenced by the quality of processes involving planning, construction, use and facility management. It is thus suggested that quality of planning, construction on site, management and building related services be described and assessed separately as process performance.
Taken together, the major performance aspects divided into individual categories form an information pool within which individual criteria (i.e. essential features relevant for assessment and decision•making) can be classified. The criteria in turn can be matched and measured with individual performance indicators. Classifying criteria within the system of categories depends on interpretation. Criteria can be meaningfully allocated to more than one category. For instance, the criterium ‘health & comfort’ can be allocated to both functional performance and social and compliance performance. In the authors’ view, it is important that essential criteria are listed as fully and completely as possible. Performance results for individual criteria within each category can be obtained by means of testing, calculations or factoring based on scientifical methods. The performance requirements or results for criteria within one category can be combined into a single index representing the partially aggregated performance of the building. Similarly, the overall performance is deduced by full aggregation of the categories when required by the user or organization, on the basis of some calculation or algorythm. If
64 weighting among individual categories is included, it should always be transparent and explicit. For instance, one category of requirements may be more important to the organization with regard to its mission(s) [18].
2.2 Interests and information requirements of stakeholder groups
The parties involved in the entire building process each have a specific scope of interests with various resulting information requirements. Each of the actors involved view and assess performance differently. For instance, the investor is primarily interested in the economic performance, particularly the property’s earnings trend. The user and facility manager have a distinct interest in operating cost performance. Authorities and regulators are interested in environmental performance because of an interest in protecting the environment, and also in health, safety, security, fire, blast and seismic performance, and compliance with current codes and regulations. The actors seen as relevant are listed in Table 2. The number of actors involved, however, is larger. As a result, the interrelationships among all actors are more complex. The list represents merely a selection of the actors involved. Bakenset. al. [5] provides a more detailed look. Classifying actors to a supply or demand side is not fruitful because many actors can be on either side of the demand•supply dialog. A demand actor for a particular performance can also be a third party supplier further along the value•added chain.
2.3 Life cycle phases and events within the life cycle
A performance approach can be used in every phase of a building’s life cycle. The authors refer here to the 6 phases set forth by Preiser [15] which are directly adopted and carried over in Table 2 (3a). The building delivery cycle begins with strategic planning. Individuals, groups or organizations determine their medium or long•term needs based on the mission of the organization, or individual objectives, and goals and targets for the project, as well as feasibility studies in organizational contexts. For example, which rate of return, which market group, which image and external perception, and which budget and time plan should be achieved, are formulated during this phase. During programming, the goals and targets laid down within strategic planning are discussed between the client and programmer and systematically documented. Within the design phase, the requirements of the programming phase are translated into concrete and feasible technical specifications for construction. During this phase, planners, designers and engineers have the complex task of translating the goals set by investors, clients and/or developers into a more detailed set of performance targets. During construction it is important that the builders and contractors understand the performance requirements and targets and know how to turn them into a set performance requirements and targets for their suppliers. Throughout occupancy, the degree of performance•in•use attained by the project can be determined by building performance evaluations. These evaluations include assessing the level of user satisfaction by way of a number of different methods, including surveys, interviews, walk•throughs, participant observation, etc. Performance testing at the site (e.g. energy performance) can be conducted as part of facilities management, e.g. through monitoring energy use, water use, etc. As part of the building adaptive reuse or recycling, new performance goals are often established that are oriented to new standards and technical innovations and/or
65 changing user demands because of changes in the way of working of the occupants, or because there is a change in tenant or occupant group altogether. The building might not be adaptable to new uses and hence will be deconstructed and recycled. This marks the end point of the cycle and also the beginning point of a subsequent building delivery and use cycle. Within these phases, there is a need for information specific to certain events in the life cycle of single buildings as also indicated in Table 2.
2.4 Functional classification of buildings
Performance demands can either be generally applicable or specific to use in a given situation. Use•specific requirements can be derived from the required or necessary functionalities of use. As a result, it is recommended to have a building classification system based on use or function. Most countries have a national system to classify types of building use or function. After having compared and contrasted three classifications, one from Germany6 one from the United States7 and one from ISO 6241•19848, the authors put forth the following suggestion of classification as listed in Table 2.
2.5 Levels of hierarchy and application
Performance can be required and measured for various levels of decomposition of the building and its system. Extending on [10] levels of hierarchy include property, built environment and environment, and society (see Table 2). Building performance relates not only inwardly but also to the outside world. This could be either considered within the neighbourhood i.e. the built environment, or society at large. In particular, buildings play a significant role in a sustainable development. [40] Discussions include whether buildings are to be accounted for within emissions trading. The performance concept can be applied at different regulatory levels, for example as agreements between states or on international level, included in national building regulations, applied or enforced by public authorities, used and applied by business or privately, all the way to the level of products and materials.
2.6 Work phases of performance approach and types of instruments
The essence of the Performance approach is to make the requirements for the project explicit “demand” so that the suppliers can respond with appropriate solutions “supply”. In each transaction, there is a demand•side and a supply•side.
The work for the Performance approach can be divided into the following sequence:
1. Make the Mission(s) / Objective(s) explicit. Formulate individual, organizational, and/or societal project goals 2. Translate goals into performance requirements, criteria, indicators of performance, targets and levels 3. Plan / realize (for new buildings as well as renovations)
66 4. Test the Performance results or evaluate based on criteria and indicators 5. Match Performance•in•use to requirements, i.e. compare performance requirements (targets and levels) and level of capability to perform of relevant features and characteristics of the property (during programming, design and construction, commissioning and occupancy). Instruments • or tools – are used in several work phases including 2, 4, 5 and 6. Differences need to be made explicit between tools that: (a) support the formulation of performance requirements (including checklists, standards), (b) offer help in describing, calculating or assessing a building’s essential features and characteristics (i.e. during planning: planning and assessment tools; for existing buildings: questionnaires, test methods, use evaluations), (c) compare requirements and features of the design or the building with what is required, or with other buildings, and (d) translate the results of the performance assessment into a form of communication that is suitable for the various actors involved (e.g. a label, an energy pass/certification for buildings). Complex tools are capable of making the cited functions (a•c or a•d) available as a self•contained “tool•kit”. Some tools of b) and c) can also be used the other way around for a supply•oriented approach. In this case (c) would involve investigating which customers or target group would be suitable for an existing building. This concern is also relevant for planning and construction when it is intended that an existing building may serve several sets of users either at the same time or sequentially. The procedure necessitates that in the case of (a) above, several requirement profiles for various target and user groups (e.g. singles, couples, families, seniors, communes, disabled etc.) exist and are available. For instance within housing, a particular user group maintaining an individual lifestyles most probably will have other requirements regarding the living space than the next group. These very particular requirements have to be accounted for. Instruments or tools within (a) need to be developed so that actors on the supply and demand sides can communicate better with one another.
67 2.7 Summary
Table 2: Categories, stakeholders, life cycle stages and milestones, levels of hierarchy and levels of application for Performance Concept considerations
1. Major Performance Categories (authors’ suggestion) 2. Stakeholders (authors’ suggestion expanding on [6], [10]) · Functional Performance · Investor / Owner · Technical Performance · Bank / Insurance Company · Economic Performance (Real Estate and Cost) · Designer / Planner / Engineer · Environmental Performance · Contractor / Builder / Product, Material, Service supplier · Social Performance · User / Occupant / Visitor / Public · Process Performance · Facility Manager / Property Manager · Regulators / Authorities / Society 3a. Life Cycle Phases (quoted from [15]) 3b. Specific events within whole life cycle (authors’ sugg.) · Strategic Planning · Investment · Programming · Financing · Design · Appraisal · Construction · Leasing / Letting · Occupancy · Purchase / Sale · Adaptive reuse / recycling 4. Types of occupancy (authors’ suggestion expanding 6,7,8) 5. Levels of hierarchy (authors’ suggestion expanding on [10]) · Commercial · Society · Cultural · Environment · Education & Research · Built Environment · Governmental & Public · Property · Health · Building · Industrial · Sub•systems (e.g. Interior Spaces and building sections) · Leisure & Entertainment · Elements and Building Components · Religious · Products and Materials · Residential 6. Levels of Application (authors’ suggestion) · Sports & Recreation · International · Technical infrastructure & Transport · National · Other Buildings · Communal / Public · Business · Private Table 2 provides a summary of the different areas of Building Performance under consideration • as briefly discussed in the above section. There are interrelationships between all areas. Such a system of categories can serve as a basis for reviewing existing methods and tools which will be introduced in the following sections.
3. Description of situation and development in selected global areas
3.1 North America – Canada and the USA
3.1.1 Canada a. Canadian National Building Code: Canadian Objective•based Building Codes Canada is one of the countries furthest advanced in adopting a new set of National Building Codes. Since the mid•1990s, Canada proceeded with a major consultation program and analysis of the current National Building Codes. Work is based at the National Research Council Canada – Institute for Research in Construction (NRCC•IRC)9. [19],[20],[21],[22],[23]
68 b. Functionality and Serviceability of Whole Buildings and Facilities: Methodology created to match Requirements and Performance / Serviceability (ST&M)10 This work was started in the late 1980s, at the request of the Federal Government of Canada. The methodology and an application to the “Office Building Type” were published by 199311 [13]. They became ASTM12 standard in 1996 and ANSI standard in 1997. [12] The methodology is currently an ISO Committee Draft, CD 21933•1.
ASTM Technical Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings, formed in 1946, with current membership of approximately 850, has jurisdiction of over 170 standards at this time. One of several technical subcommittees within E06 is subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities, started in 1981 as a Task Group and officially designated as a Subcommittee in 1983, to develop and promote standards for the description, measurement, prediction, improvement and management of the overall performance and serviceability of buildings and building•related facilities. A major part of the work in support of this subcommittee is based in Ottawa, Canada, at the International Centre for Facilities – Centre International d’Etudes de la Gestion des Bâtiments et Installations13. The related standards are under the jurisdiction of ASTM E06.25, and the newly formed ISO TC59 / SC14 / WG10. [24],[25],[26] c. Performance Based Information and Documentation Based at the University of Montreal, Professor Colin H. Davidson has been working on a design•manufacture•build decision process model that traces the Performance•related steps and the information required at each step. His interest in quality and performance started in the early 1970s, and he, and his work, can certainly be noted as pioneering in this subject matter. Work is based at University of Montréal14 – IF Research Group. [27] d. Performance Based Information for the Management and Maintenance of Built Assets The Institute for Research in Construction (IRC) of the National Research Council Canada (NRCC) is Canada's construction technology centre. Established in 1947, IRC provides research, building code development, and materials evaluation services. Working with partners, IRC addresses issues that have a large economic impact, assisting industry to innovate and develop technologies that are safe, durable and cost•effective.
In particular, IRC has created the following:
• An object model for maintenance management of roofing systems as a case study to demonstrate the applicability of a proposed generic framework for integrating the maintenance management of built assets. The framework consists of five sequential management processes: (1) Identify Asset, (2) Identify Performance Requirements, (3) Assess Performance, (4) Plan Maintenance, (5) Manage Maintenance Operations. The model builds upon the Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) (Releases 2.0 and 2X) to define object requirements and relationships for the exchange and sharing of maintenance information between applications. Maintenance Management is one of the defined projects within the Facilities Management (FM) domain committee of the International Alliance for
69 Interoperability (IAI). Several extensions are proposed to the IFCs including the representation of functional requirements, assessed condition of objects, inspection and maintenance tasks, and libraries of non•specific information. Usage scenarios are provided to illustrate the use of the model to carry out selected processes.
• The Building Envelope Life Cycle Asset Management project has identified enabling technologies critical to attaining its objectives of optimizing the service life of building envelope components and systems. The preliminary investigation concentrated on the need for close links between user requirement modelling and those of service life prediction, life cycle economics, maintenance management, and risk analysis. The integrating tool is product modelling. Although there is a rich history in the field of user requirement (performance concept) modelling; however to date, there is no conceptual model and little vocabulary to represent the concepts described in much of this research and related standards. In addition, the language in the applicable ISO standards needs refinement and more structure. Work is based at National Research Council Canada – Institute for Research in Construction (NRCC•IRC)15 [28], [29].
3.1.2 The United State of America
At the time that this paper is being written, the government of the United State of America (USA) includes probably the largest set of organizations that are implementing a comprehensive Performance based approach program from the very top. In 1993, Congress passed a law titled “The Performance and Results Act, 1993”. It requires all government agencies to prepare Strategic Plans that also include a Performance Plan [30]. In 2004, the Executive Branch of the US government issued an Executive Order detailing how government assets will need to be managed, including reporting on key performance indicators on a quarterly basis [31].To implement this Executive Order, US government agencies are assembling the current measures of performance that are used to assess the performance of their constructed assets. A report has just been published by the Federal Facilities Council [32] detailing those Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
In the US government, performance•based contracting is mandatory. The USA Federal Acquisition Regulations [33] state that: "Performance•based contracting means structuring all aspects of an acquisition around the purpose of the work to be performed, with the contract requirements set forth in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes as opposed to either the manner by which the work is to be performed or broad and imprecise statements of work.”
In order to comply with the Act of 1993 and the Executive Order of 2004, agencies of the US Government are starting to apply the same “performance” approach to the logistics that support their operations, including all capital assets. As an example, in a recent paper, Hammond et al report on how “The US Coast Guard is fundamentally changing the way it manages its resources in response to a policy shift with a focus on performance results.” [34]. In order to respond to this shift, the US Coast Guard is applying the ASTM standard methodology described earlier [11] [12] [13] [25] [26] for defining demand, assessing supply, and analysing
70 the gap between requirements and capability to perform to its logistic support functions [35]. This methodology and the new sets of scales created for the US Coast Guard, together with the results from a Facility Condition Index, a Mission Criticality Index, and other sets of criteria, are used to prepare a gap analysis for each asset considered and to set priorities for project funding.
The US General Services Administration (GSA) is moving in a similar direction, and also requesting that, as of 2006•01, the software applications that it will use should be IAI – IFC compliant (International Alliance for Interoperability – Industry Foundation Class). This again will have a major impact on how building information and data will be classified and organized.
3.2 Europe / Germany
At the European level, two directives have been passed that are close in content to the performance approach: the Construction Products Directive (93/68/EEC) and the Energy Performance of buildings directive (2002/91/EC). Currently, it is suggested that the term ’integrated building performance’ be used for an overall system to describe and assess buildings as part of CEN standardization activities. This would include the categories technical performance, environmental performance, cost performance and comfort and health performance. At the national level, some individual countries have already included the performance approach in their building codes, including Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway [1]. Spain has been following these developments for some time and is looking into the possibilities of introducing it. [4]. France was initially very active in the performance approach development and applied it for civil works but rarely for buildings. Up to now it has not been legislated within the country. [4]. Currently, research institutions (CIB, CSTB, VTT, BRE, TNO, etc.), professional institutions (RICS, RIBA, BNA, etc.) and universities in Europe (Karlsruhe, Salford, Delft, etc.) are working with the performance approach and already have developed performance tools and instruments. Selected examples of existing tools and instruments are listed in section 4 and are classified into a proposed typology.
In Germany, the term performance is not widespread. As described in detail in [3], the term quality, as used in Germany, can be applied in the same sense as the performance approach. This is congruent with the principles of ISO 9000. Standards that regulate the tendering of construction services (anchored in VOB/A, Section 9 since 1973) [36] offer the possibility that investors/owners and contractors/builders agree by contract on construction services based on performance•based contracting and tendering. This is an alternative to the present detailed description of construction services to be performed. In Germany, there is an intensive discussion underway on the possibilities of implementing the principles of sustainable development in the building industry. A series of instruments are available such as guidelines, checklists, data processing tools and building passports16 for buildings. There is furthermore an ongoing debate in the field of functionality for housing, residential buildings and surrounding living environments concerning the question of how differentiated lifestyles and living aspirations can be translated into requirement profiles for specific user groups. Instruments in this regard are being developed at the University Karlsruhe.
71 3.3 Japan
In Japan, the New Office Promotion Association of Japan (NOPA) was established in June 1987 as a core organization for the promotion of new offices. In this regard, the most important contribution by NOPA is that of a survey that was undertaken to formulaterecommended minimum standards for the planning and design of new offices in Japan. This set of standards is collectively referred to as the NOPA New Office Minimum Standard, and has as its objectives, to improve and enhance both workplace environmental quality and workplace impact on productivity. It must be emphasized that the focus area of NOPA, together with the NOPA New Office Minimum is specificallyoffice environments and not general building performance as might be suggested by other approaches discussed in this paper.
Since its inception in May 1995, the NOPA New Office Minimum has become the primary means of evaluating and improving office environments in Japan in terms of both workplace environmental quality and impact on productivity. During this time the Standard has been used extensively to evaluate, acknowledge, and reward innovation in office environments by giving awards to new offices that have achieved high standards. The achievements of the NOPA New Office Minimum Standard can be better understood and appreciated when considering the fact that the NOPA New Office Minimum is not legally enforced, but adopted and adhered to voluntarily by organizations based on their commitment to ensure employees’ health, comfort, general well•being, and safety. As such, the NOPA New Office Minimum Standard has become known as an objective indicator of the state of new office environments in Japan [37].
The NOPA New Office Minimum [38] consists of a total of 22 standards in 10 categories. The standards are formulated on a minimum•requirement basis and where possible, expressed numerically. The Standard focuses on the general work area, but where necessary, also includes ancillary spaces, which contribute to the performance and accomplishment of work in the office environment. Topics covered by the NOPA standards range from the general characteristics of the office environment, to recommendations pertaining to the provision, use, and optimization of resources such as office automation (OA) equipment, desks, chairs, and filing, and finally, criteria regarding Facility Management (FM), managerial aspects, considerations regarding environmental awareness and employees’ health, comfort, well•being, and safety [37]. In order to determine the evaluative capability and comprehensiveness of the NOPA Minimum Standard, research by Le Roux et al. [39] subjected the NOPA standards to a comparative analysis with the IBPE tools. Results of the comparative evaluation indicated that both evaluation tools include similar criteria that focus on evaluating the performance of basic environmental aspects such as lighting, acoustics, and indoor temperature. Since the standards included in the NOPA New Office Minimum are formulated according to minimum•requirements as apposed to optimum performance, the ability of the standards to identify specific problem areas and evaluate aspects of good design, is regarded as low. Compared to the IBPE tools, the New Office Minimum includes additional evaluation topics which are related to managerial and operational aspects, quality of office furniture, and employee health, comfort, well•being, and safety. Although topics related to managerial and operational aspects are generally not considered as impacting directly on a facility’s environmental performance achievement level,
72 an assessment of these topics provide an indication of how employees perceive the environmental quality of the office, as well as their level of job satisfaction.
An important difference between the two evaluation tools was the absence of occupant questionnaires from the NOPA New Office Minimum. This necessitated on•site investigative• level surveys by surveyors in order to determine aspects pertaining to the performance of the specific office environment. As illustrated by the performance evaluative approach of the IBPE tools, feedback from occupants provides additional information regarding the specific environment’s performance achievement. As such, the NOPA New Office Minimum focuses specifically on assessing an office environment’s performance (serviceability), rather than actual user•requirements. In this regard, the approach taken by the ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability is exemplary in terms of evaluating both user• requirements (functionality profile as per the ASTM Standards) and facility performance (serviceability profile as per the ASTM Standards). The evaluation methodology of the NOPA New Office Minimum therefore allow for only bottom•line evaluations to be undertaken. Recommendations based on these evaluations subsequently are generic in nature and would suit the majority of organizations and facilities.
73 4. Survey of selected instruments (tools, standards, checklists, set of indicators)
Selected instruments and tools were examined according to areas of application and type (as discussed in section 2.6.) and are depicted in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the instruments can be applied within one or more areas but not in all. The reason is that they often were developed for a specific application at first, with more functions and applications pursued later.
Table 3: Typology of selected performance instruments and tools
Application A: B: C: D: Performance Performance Performance Performance RequirementsA MeasurementB AssessmentC CommunicationD Instruments / Tools New Build. Existing Build. Non•rated Rated a 1 1a. Codes and Regulations Building Decree 2 CPD (93/68/EEC) b 3 1b. Standards ASTM standards 4 NOPA M/S 5 2. Checklists / guide lines Healthy Office 6 SIA 112/1 7 Guideline SusCon. c 8 3. Calculations / algorithms LCA•Tools 9 LCC•Tools 10 SAP 2001 d 11 4. Measurements Accounts e 12 5. Questionnaires CBE (IEQ) 13 DQI f 14 6. Building descript./passport Build. File 15 7. Labels / Certificates ECOHomes g 16 8. Integrated Tools EcoProP 17 LEGEP
Index: fully applicable partly applicable not applicable A Formulation of stakeholders’ requirements a National building codes and regulations (mandatory) B Description, measurement and evaluation of newly planned or existing buildings b International or national standards (non•mandatory) C Matching stakeholders’ requirements with building delivery c e.g. LCA, LCC or energy rating tools etc. D Communication of non•rated or rated results d e.g. reading of meter, energy consumption reports, charts e e.g. expert walkthrough, occupancy and use analysis f e.g. plans, specifications of materials, technical components g e.g. software based complex tools 1 Dutch Building Decree (“Bouwbesluit”); Ministry of Housing (VROM) (NL) 2 Construction Products Directive; Council Directive 93/68/Eec of 22 July 1993; Council of the European Communities; http://europa.eu.int/ 3 ASTM Subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities, within ASTM Committee E•6 on Performance of Buildings (USA) 4 NOPA Minimum Standards (JAP); http://www.nopa.or.jp/index_p6.htm 5 Healthy Office Guide („Gesundes Büro“); Hypovereinsbank (GER); www.hvbgroup.com 6 Nachhaltiges Bauen Hochbau; SIA 112/1 (CH); www.sia.ch 7 Guideline for sustainable construction („Leitfaden Nachhaltiges Bauen“); Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (BMVBW) (GER); http://www.bmvbw.de/ 8 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) tools 9 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) tools 10 Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) for Energy Rating of Dwellings, DTLR (UK); www.bre.co.uk/sap2005/ 11 Accounts of energy costs for space heating, water heating and lighting indicating gas, electricity and water consumption 12 Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey; CBE (US); http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/RESEARCH/survey.htm 13 DQI Design Quality Indicators; (UK); http://www.dqi.org.uk 14 Building File (“Hausakte”); Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (BMVBW) (GER); http://www.bmvbw.de 15 ECOHomes/BREEAM; BRE (UK); http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/ecohomes.html 16 EcoProp ; VTT (FIN) ; http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/ecoprop/english/EcoProp_brochure.pdf 17 LEGEP ; University Karlsruhe (GER) ; http://www.legoe.de
Some of the tools from table 3 were analysed further with respect to the criteria considered in each. Table 4 presents a long and diverse list of criteria. However to differentiate the criteria, they are characterized according to intention and time•point when they most likely will apply.
74 Table 4: Comparison of performance criteria regarded within selected instruments
Performance Criteria
n used to describe requirements (earlier / qualitative) o used to measure and evaluate decisions (later / quantitative /
characteristic measured) (US) Standards ASTM EcoProP (FIN) SIA 112/1 (CH) Guideline Sustainable (GER) Construction NOPA Minimum Standard (JAP) Functional Performance category Other Performance categories n Access control and security (staff, personnel, public) X X X n Accessibility (users incl. disabled, service/maintenance personnel) X X X X X n Acoustics X X X n Aesthetics, image, appearance, spaciousness X X X X n Air quality (freshness, contaminants, smoke, exhausts, ions) X X X X X n Air supply and Air Conditioning (HVAC) X X X X X o Availability of data / information for building service X X n Availability of services and amenities near site X X X Availability, support and potential of technical systems and installations n X X X X (power & water supply, lighting, alarms, IT, HVAC) n Biodiversity X X X X o Cleanliness (site, building, interior spaces, fittings, fixtures) X X n Cultural, historical, recreational value of site X X o Demolition and disposal costs X X n Durability, maintainability, condition of components, finishes & fixtures X X X X n Duration of usability/operation of building services and amenities X X n Energy efficiency X X X X X X o Energy rating compliance X X X n External costs X X o Failure response, efficiency of building service personnel X X n Fire safety X X n Flexibility / Adaptability / Variability X X X X n Floor load capacity X X X n Heat loss and solar gain (windows + external walls) X X X n Impacts on environment (emissions, effluents, hazardous waste) X X X X n Integration of building on site and surroundings X X X X n Interaction and rest spaces X X X n Investment costs X X X n Involvement, participation and identification (building/processes) X X X n Land use intensity X X X n Lighting and glare X X X X X o Maintenance costs X X X X X X o Management of building service X X X n Monitoring of technical systems / installations X X X n Noise protection (internal, external) X X X X X X o Operation costs X X X X X n Precautions for safety in use (accidents and injuries) X X X X X n Privacy X X X n Provisions for natural catastrophes (radiation, earthquake, flood) X X X n Reliability of building systems X X X n Replenish• and availability of resources X X X o Resource consumption (power, water, fuel, materials, space) X X X X n Reuse / Recycle / Deconstructability X X X X X n Service Life (building components and technical systems) X X X X n Signage, way finding and orientation X X X X X n Site (size, location, condition, landscaping) X X X n Site accessibility + safety (transportation) X X X X X n Site amenities (parking, recreational spaces) X X X n Space clarity (separation, demarcation, zoning) X X X X n Space efficiency, capability and capacity (e.g. internal circulation) X X X X X n Space suitability and usability (size, mix, layout, location) X X X X X n Thermal conditions (temperature, movement, humidity) X X X n Thermal protection of envelope (in winter and summer) X X X X X o Unit costs (power, fuel, space, services personnel) X X n Users•controllability of building systems (temperature, air, lighting) X X X X n Vibration X X X n Views to outside, Daylight X X X X X o Waste management X X X X X
75 5. Proposed criteria within a framework
There are two major scientific groups developing and working on approaches for describing and assessing overall building performance. On the one hand are those who have applied the approach to the project delivery process. More recently, there has been a whole new movement focused on overall sustainable development. The latter group recently adopted the concept of environmental performance of buildings. The authors appreciate that the performance concept applies to any set of requirement topics. Therefore they suggest that a possible combination of major categories may have the following structure:
Table 5: Performance Categories and Criteria • Overview
1. Functional Performance · Space suitability and usability (size, mix, layout, location) · Flexibility / Adaptability / Variability · Space clarity (separation, demarcation, zoning) · Site (size, location, condition, landscaping) · Space efficiency, capability and capacity (e.g. internal · Site amenities (parking, recreational spaces, etc.) circulation) · Availability, support and potential of technical systems and · Service life (building components and technical systems) installations for processes (power & water supply, lighting, · Noise protection / Acoustic performance alarms, IT, HVAC) 2. Technical Performance · Load bearing capacity (structure / floors) · Durability · Stability · Reliability · Maintainability, condition of components, finishes + fixtures · Thermal protection of envelope / Heat loss and solar gain 3. Economic Performance a) Cost Performance b) Real Estate Performance · Investment costs · Value · Design & Planning costs · Income stream · Building and Construction costs · Return on investment · Operation and Maintenance costs · Demolition and disposal costs · Unit costs (power, fuel, space, services personnel) · Total cost of ownership · External costs 4. Environmental Performance · Energy performance class (Energy rating) · Biodiversity · Resource consumption (power, water, fuel, materials) · Reuse•/ recycle•/ deconstruct•ability · Impacts on environment (emissions, effluents, hazardous · Replenish• and availability of raw materials Energy intensity waste) for production and construction · Land use intensity · Renewable energy 5. Social Performance Comfort and health Security and safety · Thermal comfort (temperature, movement, humidity) · Accessibility (users incl. disabled) service/maintenance · Air quality (freshness, contaminants, smoke, exhausts) personnel) · Views to outside, Daylight · Access control and security (staff, personnel, public) · Lighting and glare · Fire safety · Acoustics · Precautions for safety in use (slipping, tripping) · Vibration · Provisions for natural catastrophes · Signage, way finding and orientation · Privacy Identity · Cleanliness (site, building, interior spaces, fittings, fixtures) · Integration of building within site and surroundings · Interaction and rest spaces · Cultural, historical, recreational value of site · Controllability of building systems (temperature, air, lighting) · Involvement, participation and identification · Duration of usability/operation of building services and · Aesthetics, spaciousness, image, appearance amenities · Availability of services and amenities near site 6. Process Performance · Effectiveness and efficiency of design, planning and · Availability of data/information for building servicing construction process · Failure response and efficiency of building servicing · Management of building service · Waste management · Monitoring of technical systems / installations
Index: carried over from Table 5 added by authors regarded as inappropriate
76 Table 5 represents how the criteria carried over from Table 4 can be sorted into the major categories from Figure 1. Some criteria can be allocated to more than one category, depending on how they are viewed and interpreted. It remains important, however, that the criteria, as recorded within the system, should be cross•referenced, if they are included in more than one category. The criteria can be used to describe requirements at an early stage within the decision• making process (i.e. during strategic planning and feasibility studies) for new buildings and are then mostly of qualitative nature, as well as at the different phases of the Life Cycle of the facilities. The criteria can also be applied to measure and evaluate the decisions taken through measurements on existing buildings.
6. Conclusions
The authors note that buildings are increasingly traded in an open and global market place e.g. within open•end and closed•end real estate investment funds. When looking from the stock market investors’ perspective, highly aggregated information, which makes a building’s performance in one part of the world comparable to another, would be useful to better assess the worth of an organization and of the real property it uses. In particular, measuring its rental space would be a first step in consistently reporting the value of a real estate portfolio. [41] Such information is also useful for portfolio management by organizations operating in many markets and by organizations with a need to allocate funds to building projects according to priorities that are clear, transparent, traceable and auditable. Next to highly condensed information, there is the need for transparent information. Especially financial institutions, following the guidelines of Basel Capital Accord II17, will scrutinize building performance (termed property rating) carefully and evaluate financial risks connected with the property investment. This development makes building performance evaluation more important than before. There seems a greater need to measure, evaluate and communicate a building’s performance in a standardized manner, requiring collaboration between all involved in the entire building process.
Endnotes 1 Performance•Based Building Codes • International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) 2 Performance Concept in Building • International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) 3 Performance Based Building Network • International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) 4 ASTM Subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities, within ASTM Committee E•6 on Performance of Buildings 5 This work was created by the International Centre for Facilities, Inc., and partially funded by the government of Canada (Public Works and Government Services Canada) 6 Types of Building Use, Building Classification Catalogue BWZK of 02.12.1982 7 http://www.masterplanning.com/ 8 ISO 6241•1984 (Performance standards in building – Principles for their preparation and factors to be considered) 9 http://codes.nrc.ca/ 10 http:/www.icf•cebe.com 11 http:/www.icf•cebe.com 12 http://www/astm.org 13 http://www.icf•cebe.com 14 http://www.umontreal.ca 15 http//www.nrc.ca/irc 16 The building passport – also often described as the building file or building dossier – is a document which describes the essential attributes and characteristics of a building. 17 http://www.bis.org/bcbs/aboutbcbs.htm.
77 References
[1] Prior, J. and F. Szigeti (2003) Why all the fuss about Performance Based Building?. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction • PeBBu Thematic Network. [2] Sexton, M. and P. Barrett (2005) Performance•based building and innovation: balancing client and industry needs. Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005. pp. 142•148. [3] Lützkendorf, T. and T.M.Speer (2004). Alleviating asymmetrical information . Building Reasearch & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005. pp. 182•195. [4] Hattis, D. B. and Becker, R., (2001) Comparison of the Systems Approach and the Nordic Model and their Melded Application in the Development of Performance•Based Building Codes and Standards. Journal of Testing and Evaluation. Vol. 29, No. 4. July. pp. 413–422. [5] Lee, A. and P. Barrett (2003) Performance Based Building: First International State•of•the• Art Report. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) • PeBBu Thematic Network. [6] Bakens, W. and G. Foliente, M.Jasuja (2005) Engaging stakeholders in performance•based building: lessons from the Performance•Based Building (PeBBu) Network. Building Reasearch & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005. pp. 149•158. [7] Szigeti F and Davis G. (2000) Compendium of PBB Statements of Requirements: Applying the Performance Based Building (PPB) Concept to the Procurement and Whole Life Cycle Management of Buildings, Facilities and Other Constructed Capital Assets. Pro•Active Approach Theme 2, PeBBuCo Task#3 Phase 1, Pilot •• . Report International Centre for Facilities, Ottawa, Canada. Available from CIB Task#3 Homepage. www.cibworld.org.nl. April 2002. US Federal Government. Federal Acquisition Regulations [8] Meacham, B., R. Bowen, J. Traw and A. Moore (2005) Performance•based building regulation: current situation and future needs. Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005 pp.91•106 [9] Ang, G., M. Groosman and N. Scholten (2005) Dutch performance•based approach to building regulations and public procurement. Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005. pp. 107•119 [10] Gibson, E. J., Coordinator, CIB Working Commission W060 (1982),Working with the Performance Approach in Building. CIB Report, Publication #64, January 1982. [11] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (2001a). “Appendix A •• Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools For Stating Functional Requirements and For Evaluating Facilities.” In Learning From Our Buildings: A State•of•the•Art Practice Summary of Post•Occupancy Evaluation. FFC (Federal Facilities Council), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
78 [12] American Society for Testing and Materials (2000)ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, 2nd Printing, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. [13] Davis, G. et.al. (1993) Serviceability Tools Manuals Vols. 1 and 2. International Centre for Facilities, Ottawa [14] Catarina, O., Colombart•Prout, M., and Bougrain, F. (2003) Rapport Intermédiaire – Méthode d’Evaluation de la Qualité de Service Attendue et de la Fonctionalité des Bâtiments de Bureaux avec Préoccupations environmentales. Paris, France. CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment). [15] Preiser, Wolfgang and Jacqueline C Vischer, Eds. (2005). Assessing Building Performance. Elsevier Oxon. pp. 15•26 [16] Balck, H. (2002) Facilities Management und Projektentwicklung im Lebenszyklus der Immobilie. Handbuch Immobilien•Projektentwicklung, Rudolf Müller GmbH, Cologne, pp. 345•379. [17] Trinius, W. and C. Sjöström (2005) Service Life Planning and performance requirements. Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April. pp. 173•181 [18] Szigeti, F., Davis, G. and Hammond, D. (2004). ASTM standard methodology and case study. In Preiser, W. F. E. and Vischer, J. C. (eds), Assessing Building Performance: Methods and Case Studies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth• Heinemann, an imprint of Elsevier Ltd. [19] Bergeron, D., Bowen, B., Tubbs, B., Rackliffe, T. (2001) Acceptable Solutions, in Proceedings, CIB World Congress 2001, Performance in Product and Practice, Wellington, NZ. [20] Bergeron, D., Desserud, R. J., J. C. Haysom (2004)The Origin and Development of Canada’s Objective•Based Codes Concept. Proceedings of the CIB Triennal Congress, Toronto, Canada. [21] Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (2001)Objective•Based Codes: A Canadian Approach to Building and Fire Codes for thest 21 Century – What Will the Next Editions of the National Code Documents Look Like ?, Ottawa. [22] Canadian Government.Canadian National model Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes. http://www.ccbfc.org/ccbfc/tgs/obc/index.html [23] Canadian Government.Canadian National model Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes. http://codes.nrc.ca/ [24] Szigeti, F., and Davis, G., (2002) User needs and quality assessment, in Facility Management Journal (FMJ), January•February. [25] Szigeti, F., and Davis, G., (2001 ) Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools for stating functional requirements and for evaluating facilities, in Federal Facilities Council, in Learning From Our Buildings: A State•of•the•Art Practice Summary of Post•Occupancy Evaluation, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
79 [26] Szigeti, F., and Davis, G., (2001) Matching People and their Facilities: Using the ASTM/ANSI Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, in CIB World Building Congress 2001 Proceedings: Performance in Product and Practice, Wellington, NZ. [27] "L'évaluation de la qualité et la performance", (1972) IF, Vol. 3, No. 3. [28] Hassanain, M.A.; Froese, T.M.; Vanier, D.J., (2001) Development of a maintenance management model based on IAI standards, NRCC•45143, Ottawa, Ont. [29] Parsons, A.; Lacasse, M.A.; Vanier, J.J., (1996) Using product models to represent user requirements, NRCC•40290, Ottawa, Ont. [30] US Government. (1993) Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 1993. [31] US Government (2004). Executive Order 13327 “Federal Real Property Asset Management”, February 6, 2004, published by the White House (US President’s Management Agenda). [32] Hart, N. (2005) Key Performance Indicators for Federal Real Property Portfolios. Federal Facilities Council (FFC). Washington, D.C. [33] US Federal Government (2000). Federal Acquisition Regulations 2000. [34] Hammond, D., et al. (2005). Integrating a performance•based approach into practice: a case study. In Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April 2005. pp.128•141. [35] Szigeti, F., Davis, G. and Hammond, D. (2004). ASTM standard methodology and case study (Chapter 10). In Preiser, W. F. E. and Vischer, J. C. (eds), Assessing Building Performance: Methods and Case Studies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth• Heinemann, an imprint of Elsevier Ltd. pp. 104•107 [36] DIN 1960. (1973) Allgemeine Bestimmung für die Vergabe von Bauleistung Teil A. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. 11.1973. Section 9(10•12). [37] Kato, A., Le Roux, P.C., & Tsunekawa, K. (2005). Building Performance Evaluation in Japan (Chapter 14). In: W.F.E. Preiser and J. Vischer (eds), Assessing Building Performance, Butterworth•Heinemann, pp.149•159 [38] NOPA website http://www.nopa.or.jp/publish/minimum/index.htm [39] Le Roux, P.C., Kato, A. & Tsunekawa, K. (2005). A Comparative study on building performance evaluation methodology. In:Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering. 589, pp.41•46. [40] Ding, G.K.C. (2005). Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. In Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (1). January•February 2005. pp.3•16. [41] Lynn, M., and Davis, G. (1998). Building Measurement Standards and Real Estate Securities: The absence of a single standard creates new liabilities for the security industry, – in Real Estate Review, p 63•66, Fall 1998.
80 Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – a step towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB)
Janne Porkka, Pekka Huovila VTT BUILDING AND TRANSPORT Business and Process Management P.O. Box 1800, FIN•02044 VTT Emails: [email protected] , [email protected]
Abstract
The additional Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Thematic Network task on decision support toolkit (DST) has reached its final stage. PeBBu aims at combining fragmented knowledge in the area of Performance Based Building in order to build a systematic approach towards innovation of the building industry and applying user requirements throughout the building process. End• users, policy makers, building industry and regulatory communities are closely involved in this development in order to facilitate dissemination and implementation of research results.
The objective of PeBBu DST task was to collect promising decision support tools into a toolkit and to test the most promising ones in selected PeBBu Domains. This paper represents the DST content, sums up the testing results from and summarises key findings from passionate discussions amongst different performance based building experts.
The task included successful test sessions in October at Delft and in November at Porto facilitated by VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.). They outlined future PBB development needs in the industry and in different customer segments. The problems of the construction and real estate cluster have been pointed out to be insufficient customer orientation and on this matter PBB offers extremely promising foundation.
The most challenging part of the task, outlining the future development directions for PeBBu, is finally introduced as a PBB Framework describing present stage, next steps and future challenges.
Keywords: Decision support tools, decision support toolkit, performance based building, post occupancy evaluation, check lists, requirements management, quality function deployment, multi criteria decision making, design structure matrix, iBUILD, interoperability, PBB framework
81 1. Introduction
1.1 Performance Based Building
Performance Based Building (PBB) is defined as ‘the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means’, as applied to building and construction [1]. Concept provides a flexible and technically non•prescriptive framework for building design and construction. Its application consists of translating human needs (functionality, comfort, etc) first into functional and then into technical performance requirements, implementing them within a regulatory framework through codes/ standards/ specifications and enable the construction of buildings that provide long•term satisfactory performances. Application of the performance concept is gaining worldwide interest and acceptance. It is becoming increasingly recognised as a possible basis for globalisation and synchronisation of the trade of building materials. [2]
The PBB concept applies itself to the constructed asset planning, programming, design, procurement and construction, life cycle management and operation, and to building regulation control. The application will provide substantial benefits to both the end•user and to the participants in the building process. Performance Based Building [2].
1.2 PeBBu Thematic Network
PeBBu thematic network aims at combining fragmented knowledge in the area of PBB in order to build a systematic approach towards innovation of the building industry and applying user requirements throughout the building process. From this, white spots and a coherent future research agenda can be derived. End•users, policy makers, building industry and regulatory communities are closely involved in this development in order to facilitate dissemination and implementation of research results. The Network especially stimulates investments in research that may be expected to produce practical recommendations for the adoption and application PBB throughout the building industry and in all phases of the building process [2].
1.3 DST Objective
The additional Performance Based Building (PeBBu) task on decision support toolkit (DST) has reached its final stage. The objective was to collect promising decision support tools into a toolkit and to test the most promising ones in selected PeBBu Domains. This paper represents the selected tool, sums up the testing results from and summarises key findings from passionate discussions amongst different performance based building experts.
82 The task included successful test sessions in October at Delft and in November at Porto facilitated by VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.). They outlined future PBB development needs in the industry and in different customer segments. The problems of the construction and real estate cluster have been pointed out to be insufficient customer orientation (The European Construction Technology Platform, ECTP, Vision 2030 Report [3]) and on this matter PBB offers extremely promising foundation. The most challenging part of the DST task, outlining the future development directions for PeBBu, is finally introduced as a PBB Framework describing present stage, next steps and future challenges. Task produced two final reports [4].
2. DST • Selected Tools
Seven promising decision support tools supporting owners’ and clients’ decision making are structured under value management, value engineering and process management. Selection based on applicability and interoperability covering building life cycle phases. Toolkit contains Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), Check Lists (CL), Requirements Management (RM), Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Design Structure Matrix (DSM) and iBUILD tool (Figure 1). Colours and numbers indicate applicability priorities.
Figure 1: Selected PeBBu Decision Support Tools and their primary applicability.
83 2.1 Tool Introductions
POE process evaluates buildings in a systematic and precise way after few year of usage. Valuable input to the early project stages can be drawn from use and operation. Method is formal and comprehensive examination and evaluation of a building using methods aiming to study the effectiveness of designed environments from human user perspective. The results are presented traditionally as building strengths and weaknesses and method is often repeatable because of systematic and adaptive nature. Nowadays many of the studies in occupied buildings exploit POE. It’s also clear that the operation phase should have more attention than earlier phases due to its financial importance. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Complex nature of buildings is understood better throughCheck Lists. Those have been exploited in other tools but unfortunately performance based approach is still lacking universal classification. There are various CLs existing such as CIB Master Lists (supports performance) [10], ASTM (functionality and serviceability) [11], GBC (sustainability) [12], LEED (sustainability) [13] and VTT ProP® (conformity and performance) [14]. Main objective of Check Lists is their two•way connectivity to other tools, especially in setting performance objectives and making design decisions.
Requirements management ensures that we know what the customer really wants and also verifies that these objectives are met. Purpose is establishing a complete, consistent and unambiguous requirements specification [15]. Performance of the building should be defined comprehensively before the actual technical solutions get defined [16, 17]. Requirements and design are strongly linked; changing nature should be remarked also in tools. EcoProP software for systematic requirements management (see Figure 2) from VTT Building and Transport was introduced [14]. Software helps to set systematically performance objectives, to view requirement profiles, to estimate LCC and LCA impacts and finally to form an appendix to design brief on performance objectives. A data base tool includes pre•set requirement levels paving the way for applying by various users in different building types.
84 Figure 2: EcoProP software for systematic requirements management.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) helps to represent performance objectives and priorities and then increases transparency on evaluate how and whether these objectives can be met [18, 19, 20]. Both of the contributors, Reading and VTT, introduced own solutions.Reading QFD tool is targeted to managing large amount of data, includes systematic priorities setting and assessment against benchmarks. VTT’s QFD ProP is lighter combination and therefore exploited also in PeBBu DST Domain testing with integration to EcoProP. Multi criteria decision making helps to structure discussion on objectives, relations and alternatives and synthesize those to model. Theoretical approach bases on value tree analysis. Widely recognised Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) uses the pairwise comparisons to solve multiple attribute problems, but when number of variables increases procedure becomes time consuming [21, 22]. Web•HIPRE comprises different MCDM tools (including AHP) used for prioritisation and analysis [23].
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a compact and clear representation of complex system and capturing method for the interactions/interdependencies/interfaces between system elements [24, 25]. Visual relationship matrix reveals key information flows and sets simultaneously targets to process analysis and re•engineering. It used for finding the optimal order of tasks and defining product architecture (modularity and interfaces) and forming teams in large organisations. In case the problem exists it helps also to solve inconsistencies. There is many commercial applications available for DSM.
Last tool, iBUILD from TNO Netherlands enables market driven product development in housing by modular intelligent parametric designs for houses [26]. It highlights client possibility to make changes and still exploit lower process of mass•production. Computer applications help the non•professional client in decisions and visualise consequences. The system streamlines the
85 building process through the generation of drawings, support in selection of building products from suppliers, to derive plans and schedules, to prepare procurement and production orders.
3. DST Test Results
Leading theme in testing was interoperability; work is started with one tool and continued with other, as Figure 3 illustrates. Requirements management tool EcoProP and QFDProP exploiting house of quality matrices formed the interoperable platform for testing.
The first trial was conducted in Delft for Domain 2 (Indoor environment) led by Mr. Marcel Loomans (TNO) in October 2004 using a single family house that has been built in Kotka in Finland (case: Loiste). It highlighted innovative energy efficient steel frame solutions of high comfort. The test focused on managing the indoor conditions. The first DST workshop validated the test approach with a relatively simple housing case. The second test was arranged in Porto for all scientific PeBBu Domains in November 2004 using an industrial, adaptable and durable office building designed in the Netherlands (case: IDF Building). Slightly different approach was maintained in each domain. The leader of Domain 3 (Design), Mr. Dik Spekkink (Spekkink C&R), exploited the opportunity most effectively.
Figure 3: An example of integrated value management tools.
3.1 Case Introduction
Leading ideas of IFD building (Figure 4) development are: High adaptability, good indoor conditions, low environmental pressure, optimised running costs and value, representing corporate brand: serving image and innovative design and technical solutions [27]. It supports
86 multiple layout solution inside the office floors, offering fixed solutions combined to flexibility in others.
Figure 4: IFD Building.
3.2 Test Results
Performance objectives were captured with EcoProP that was remarked valuable aid in implementation the performance approach because the users are ‘forced’ to think their objectives before technical solutions. Experiences of implementations revealed that it increased discussion, commitment and teamwork. It also verified that the original needs were documented and ensured that essential requirements are not eliminated. Software was exploited in team session characterized by Domain members challenging each other. VTT ProP® classification was used to collection of performance requirements, following characteristics were remarked:
· Conformity o Location, spatial systems · Performance o Indoor conditions (Indoor climate (FISIAQ), acoustics, illumination, vibration) o Service life and deterioration risk, safety o Adaptability, comfort, usability, accessibility · Cost and environmental properties o Energy consumption (LCC, LCA calculations), water consumption · Process o Process issues (Briefing, construction, quality assurance)
87 Lack of common performance classifications was remarked as an overall bottleneck for PBB. One possible baseline for this development is to study the content of VTT® or ProP other potential classifications. Certain inconsistencies were remarked but overall structure is performance based. One should also notice that different spaces need different requirements. Spaces have varied needs and defining their characteristics independently would offer better usability. It’s vital for implementation to consider also requirement interrelations. This analogy isn’t included at present EcoProP software, because of its complexity.
Decision support tools need also well documented manuals and supporting system. This means more reference information and exploitation of expert consultation. Systems shouldn’t base on web•based information because URL addresses are considered to have their own service life and limited availability. Predefined lists pave way for rating objectives at a project level. Lists help to improve quality and simultaneously speed up process. They might also lead to incomplete solutions and in certain phases empty cells offer possibility to customisable solutions.
QFD was used to judging how well the original design criteria and technical solutions meet customer needs. Most of the attention was paid to following: indoor climate, material emissions, daylight, service life etc. Requirements were rated against properties (such as building envelope, windows) and these sorted properties were further considered in second phase finally describing characteristics of technical solutions. Results indicated that HVAC system was considered as critical part. Impact is stronger in offices than one family houses but Finnish building domain uses widely FiSIAQ indoor air quality classification; setting detailed recommendations for target values, design guidance and product requirements. It was clearly noticed that systematic procedures are needed to project meetings. Somebody has stated it clearly: “Client don’t optimize the process, they hire a contractor to do that”.
DSM can be used to organise tasks or workers and supported by Last Planner to help in validating execution possibilities. Potential use of DSM is in process analysis and risk assessment. DS tools enable proving of procurement practices benefits. Integration of tools is possible to by product model technology • requirements attached seamlessly to processes.
4. Conclusions
Observation 1: Traditionally the emphasis has been very much on design and construction. Experts from various countries and fields portrayed that yesterday’s situation has been far too greatly production driven instead of being customer orientated. Situation in ICT tools was remarked to slightly better. Observation 2: The emphasis is shifting from construction of facilities to operations. Discussions led to analysis that revealed emphasis is shifting to operation phase. Although the importance of design and construction is clearly understood the emphasis is predicted to shift towards operation model. The operation model is a starting point for new projects. According to ICT tools the change is intended to be stronger, because next generation tools are moving towards automation and use of standardized solutions.
88 Conclusion 1: ICT Tool development needs flow from Operation model to Requirements model. Value of facilities for user culminates to quality of requirements model. Therefore is strong need to develop the interface between operation model and requirements model; supported by seamless life cycle data management further to design and production.
Conclusion 2: Verification tools for proposed performance entities are needed.There is a need for verifying materialising of proposed performance entities by validation tools and appropriate applications are needed especially to design assessment.
5. Recommendations for the Future
The recommendations leading to better image amongst the audience and growing markets are structured to four main categories in Figure 5.
Figure 5: PBB Framework.
5.1 International Framework and universal Performance classification
Problem: No common means of true communication on performance properties exist.
PBB needs a common vocabulary and a logical framework where different performance criteria can be referred to. A millennium version of a new CIB Master list could structure the high level criteria like the work was started in the CIB Compendium. The low level characteristics that may
89 be material or technical solution dependent should be left open. A widely accepted generic performance framework would increase interoperability of tools and accelerate the diffusion of implementation. Recommendation 1: Internationally accepted performance based building classification: a “PBB Master list 2006” (succeeding CIB Master list 1964, 1972, 1983 and 1993 editions).
5.2 Integrated platform with interoperable tools
Problem: The support of performance management is scattered and number of isolated applications are unsystematically applied for sub•optimising individual solutions.
It is evident that product model technology has developed to a level where it can enable the attachment of data from various phases to it, such as requirements management. This shift is intended to motivate developers towards consumer driven process. Recommendation 2: a “PeBBu II” should be activated focusing on “ePeBBu Platform” and “PeBBu compatible applications” with pan•European true experts on board.
5.3 Value models, incentives and constraints
Problem: Despite of the potential considerable benefits of PBB widely shared by researchers over the past decades very little, if any, change can still be observed in everyday practice.
The reasons preventing the change must be identified and a credible path of progress with risk assessment is needed. A Roadmap describing the vision (or future scenarios) and needed action plan with relevant steps would show the way forward. Relevant landing points and indicators measuring the state together with listed incentives and barriers would complete the picture. Success stories (from outside or inside) or good practices could facilitate the implementation. Recommendation 3: A cross•disciplinary study a “PBB Roadmap” objectively assessing various future scenarios could provide a discussion basis bridging various professions and disciplines.
5.4 Value adding whole life services
Problem: It is still a mystery “current supply” could be transformed to meet “future demand”.
The industrial implementation of the PBB Roadmap needs methodological competence of forming value networks, establishing win•win•win rules and adopting customer oriented life cycle services. If the business models remain questionable no progress can be achieved.
90 Recommendation 4: Self sustaining profitable business models are needed to breed customer oriented networked life cycle services.
5.5 Information dissemination, regulations and education
Problem: People are lacking information and knowledge – it is a challenge to encourage innovation and development through regulations.
Accessibility of information must be ensured. Value forming in the process enabling learning must be supported. Recommendation 5: The development needs to be encouraged and assured at all levels.
91 References
[1] CIB, publication. CIB 1982. Working with the performance approach in building. Report of Working Commission W60, CIB Publication 64. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 30 p. [2] PeBBu (Performance Based Building) Thematic Network. Web site: http://www.pebbu.nl/ . [3] European Construction Technology Platform, ECTP, Vision 2030 report at: http://www.ectp.org . [4] PeBBu DST final reports. Webhttp://cic.vtt.fi/projects/pebbu sites: and http://www.pebbu.nl/maincomponents/newtasks/toolkitpbb/ . Porkka, J., Huovila, P., Gray, C. and Al Bizri, S. 2004. Decision Support Tools for Performance Based Building. Collaborative effort of VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.) Porkka, J. and Huovila, P., Gray, C. and Al Bisri, S. 2005. Conclusions and Recommendations on Decision Support Tools for Performance Based Building. Collaborative effort of VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.) [5] Preiser, W., Rabinowitz, H., and White, E. 1988. Post•occupancy Evaluation. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [6] Preiser, W.F.E. 1996. Applying the performance concept to post•occupancy evaluation. In Proc 3rd CIBASTM•ISO•RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, 7• 43. [7] Zimring C. M. and Reizenstein J. 1980. Post•occupancy Evaluation: An Overview. Journal of Environment and Behavior, Vol. 12 , Iss. 4, pp429•450. [8] Zimring C.M. 1987. Evaluation of Designed Environments. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [9] Chambers M.D. 2003. Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Design & Planning Tool. In NeoCon 2003 conference, 18th June 2003. Web site: http://www.merchandisemart.com/neocon/NeoConConfPro/W322.pdf . [10] CIB Master List publications (editions: 1964, 1972, 1983, 1993). Web site: http://www.cibworld.nl/ [11] ASTM 2000. Standards On Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability. Second edition. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ISBN 0• 8031•2734•0. 280 p. Web site: http://www.astm.org . [12] Green Building Challenge (GBC). Web site: http://greenbuilding.ca/ . [13] Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED). Web site:http://usgbc.org/ . [14] VTT ProP® classification and EcoProP tool for systematic requirements management. Web site: http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/ecoprop/english/EcoProp_brochure.pdf . Free trial version of EcoProP tool available; please send your contact details [email protected] .
92 [15] Haumer, P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Weidenhaupt, K.. 2000. Improving reviews of conceptual models by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interacting with computers 13 (2000) p77•95. [16] Leinonen, J., Huovila, P.. 2001. Requirements management tool as a catalyst for communication. 2nd Worldwide ECCE Symposium. Information and Communication Technology in the Practice of Building and Civil Engineering. Espoo, Finland, 6 • 8 June 2001. Association of Finnish Civil Engineers RIL [17] Huovila P., Leinonen J., Paevere P., Porkka J. & Foliente G. 2004.Systematic Performance Requirements Management of Built Facilities. Clients Driving Innovation International Conference, 25•27th October 2004, Queensland, Australia. Conference paper written by VTT Finland and CSIRO Australia.
[18] Akao, Y.. 1969. Quality•Featuring Characteristics of Quality Control. Quality Control, JUSE, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 37•41. [19] Huovila, P., 1999. Managing the Life Cycle requirements of facilities, in: Lacasse, Michael & Vanier, Dana (ed.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components • 8dbmc, Vancouver, Canada, May 30 • June 3 1999, NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp. 1874 – 1880. [20] Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. and Evbuombwan, N. F. O., 1999. Client requirements processing in construction: A new approach using QFD, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol 5, No 1, March, pp. 8•15. [21] HUT 2002. Value Tree Analysis. Report published by Systems Analysis Laboratory in Helsinki University of Technology (30thApril 2002). 74p. In web, verified on 16thJune 2004. http://www.mcda.hut.fi/value_tree/theory/theory.pdf . [22] Saaty T. L. 1986. Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, volume 32, issue 7. [23] Web•HIPRE software is freely downloadable for non•commercial academic use and preliminary testing in commercial use . Web site:http://www.hipre.hut.fi . [24] Steward D.V. 1981. Systems Analysis and Management: Structure, Strategy and Design. Petrocelli Books, Princeton, NJ. 287 p. [25] DSMWEB. DSM research teams in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and University of Illinois at Urbana•Champaign (UIUC). Web site:http://www.dsmweb.org/ . [26] iBUILD tool. Web site: http://www.ibuild•online.com/ . [27] IFD•building. Web site: http://www.ifd•building.com .
93 The PeBBuCo study1: Compendium of Performance Based (PB) Statements of Requirements (SoR)2
Françoise Szigeti International Center for Facilities (ICF) Ottawa, Canada (email: fs•gd@icf•cebe.com)
Abstract
This paper presents the results from a study to develop Compendiuma of Performance based Statements of Requirements (SoR) for Constructed Assets. The Compendium provides a source of information about SoR to those applying the approach to the procurement, delivery and Whole Life Cycle Management of buildings, facilities and other constructed assets. It is posted at the CIB PeBBu website. This website will be a place for gathering Performance Based (PB) Statements of Requirements (SoR). The Compendium is intended to provide examples of implementation of the “Conceptual Framework for Performance Based Building (PBB)”. The Compendium and the PBB Conceptual Framework complement each other. Together, they provide the following: (a) what is the Performance concept and how it applies in the building and construction industry sector, why it is an important concept, how it helps customers and suppliers to better understand each other, and how it helps the suppliers to respond more appropriately to the requirements of their customers, (b) a template for data gathering about projects and sample case studies of building projects that have used a Performance based approach, in at least one major stage of the project cycle, (c) essential terms and definitions from both the “demand” and “supply” side, and (d) key bibliographic references. Successful application of a Performance based approach depends on closely matching user requirements (demand) with the performance of assets (supply). The Compendium is concerned primarily with how to communicate requirements, in the form of Statements of Requirements (SoR), which are prepared by customers, and Functional Statements, which appear in Objectives and Performance based codes. Key to the approach is that the requirements for a project define clearly and explicitly; what the building, the building product, or the related service is required to do, and not prescribe how it is to be constructed, manufactured or provided. The Compendium was developed in the context of a PBB Conceptual Framework for the whole life cycle management of facilities and constructed assets. The Conceptual Framework shows how links and matches can be made between user requirements (demand) and the performance of assets (supply). To illustrate how this works in practice, case studies are included based on real life applications of a Performance based approach in projects developed by RGD (Netherlands), and Defence Estates (U.K.).
Keywords: evaluation; evaluation criteria; client; compare, demand; functionality; match; performance concept; performance•based approach; performance based building; performance
94 indicators; serviceability; statement of requirements; suitability; supplier; supply; tools; user requirements
1. Introduction
The Compendium of Performance Based Statements of Requirements is intended to provide examples, based on case studies, and information that will help those applying the Performance Based Building (PBB) approach to the procurement, delivery and the whole life cycle management of buildings, facilities and other constructed assets [1] [2]. It builds on a previous study3. [3]
The PeBBuCo project has been developing documents in support of the main PeBBu project to confirm what is understood by a “Performance Based (PB)” approach as it applies to Building. The PeBBuCo team has prepared a “consensus based conceptual framework” for this project. This consensus has been significantly accomplished by presentations, papers and other communications with members of PeBBu. [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. Results from the PeBBuCo Study
The Compendium and the PBB Conceptual Framework complement each other. Together, they provide the following: (a) what is the Performance concept and how it applies in the building and construction industry sector, why it is an important concept, how it helps customers and suppliers to better understand each other, and how it helps the suppliers to respond more appropriately to the requirements of their customers, (b) a template for data gathering about projects and sample case studies of building projects that have used a Performance based approach, in at least one major stage of the project cycle, (c) essential terms and definitions from both the “demand” and “supply” side, and (d) key bibliographic references.
3. Compendium of PB Statements of Requirements (SoR)
Successful application of a Performance based approach depends on closely matching user requirements (demand) with the performance of assets (supply). The Compendium is concerned primarily with how to communicate requirements, in the form of Statements of Requirements (SoR), which are prepared by customers, and Functional Statements, which appear in Objectives and Performance based codes. Both the regulatory and the non•regulatory documents and process should include methods for validating, verifying and testing or assessing results. Key to the Performance based approach is that the requirements for a project define clearly and explicitly what the building, building product, or related service is required to do, and not prescribe how it is to be constructed, manufactured or provided.
95 The Compendium has been developed in the context of a PBB Conceptual Framework for the whole life cycle management of facilities and constructed assets. The Conceptual Framework show how links and matches can be made between user requirements (demand) and the performance of assets (supply). To illustrate how this works in practice, case studies are included based on real life applications of a Performance based approach in projects developed by RGD (Netherlands), and Defence Estates (U.K.).
4. What is PBB: A Conceptual Framework
4.1 The Performance Concept is simple
The clearest definition is contained in the CIB report #64. Gibson states that: “The Performance approach is [..] the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building or a building product is required to do, and not with prescribing how it is to be constructed.” Gibson explains further that “In some parts of the building materials industry, performance specifications are known as “end result” specifications, while prescriptive specifications are known as “recipe” specifications. [8]
The prescriptive approach differs in the following way: “It describes means as opposed to ends, and [is] concerned with type and quality of materials, method of construction, workmanship, etc". [8]
4.2 Two Key Characteristics of the Performance Concept
4.2.1 Two languages: WHY&WHAT <•••> HOW
The Performance concept requires two languages. On the one hand, there is a requirement (demand) and, on the other hand, there is a capability to meet that demand and perform as required (supply). The language of the client is needed on the demand side and the language of the provider is needed on the supply side. These are different and it is important to recognize this fundamental difference. (Figure 1)
4.2.2 Match and compare
Clients say, “At the end of the day, we need to be able to verify that what we get, at move in and over the life cycle of the facility, is what we asked for and paid for”. [9] Evaluations and reviews as part of design, construction, commissioning, POEs, and benchmarking, need to refer back to explicit statements of requirements, otherwise they are based on perceptions, intuitions and guesswork. So, whether or not a “pure” performance approach is used, there is a need for making requirements more explicit and linking those requirements to the objectives for the project. Altogether, an evaluative stance is therefore useful throughout the Life Cycle of constructed assets.
96 Conceptual Framework: Two Languages WHY is it REQUIRED? HOW Describe mission and CAN ONE OR MORE purpose. SOLUTIONS meet the Compare requirements? Assess WHAT capability to perform. is REQUIRED? and Define ends and Match SUPPLIER expected results in Supply chain support of business participants OR other mission. understand and respond appropriately. CLIENT Users/customers understand.
© 1993, 2003 International Centre Diagram by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis for Facilities, reproduced with permission
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: WHY + WHAT and HOW – Two languages 4.2.3 It is not one or the other
Using a Performance based approach does not preclude the use of prescriptive specifications when the use of such specifications is more effective, efficient, faster, or less costly. When that is the case, it is useful to remember that prescription, whether in codes, standards, or specifications is implicitly based on past performance, and on prior experience, observation, tests or study. It is not likely that a facility will be planned, procured, delivered, maintained, renovated and used using solely a Performance based approach and documents at each step of the way, down to the procurement of products and materials.
5. Statements of Requirements (SoR)
Over the last decades, there has been a growing recognition of the need to consider buildings and constructed assets in the context of business, from the perspective of end users and as “means of production”, not only as overheads and cost centres. They are a useful support to business ends. Concepts such as Demand, Supply, Production, and Use, help us understand the relationships between building occupants and users (demand) and those who provide, maintain and operate the constructed assets (supply). Statements of Requirements (SoR) are, or should be, dynamic, not static, documents that include further details as projects proceed. They are part of a continuous process of communication between clients (demand) and project teams (supply).
SoRs, as understood in ISO 9000, include not only what the client requires and is prepared to pay for, but also the process and indicators that will provide the means to verify that the product or service delivered meets those stated requirements. They provide the information that anchors a Performance based approach. They are at the core of the whole life cycle management of facilities and provide the main basis for evaluations and other verifications when facilities are in use. They are the reference point for the commissioning process. Similar documents should be part of any procurement, as appropriate for the item being procured and the level of detail needed. SoRs are part of the audit trail. (Figure 2) [10] SoRs provide the documentation for overall projects, the link to the context and between demand and supply. (Table 1)
97 Asking questions to prepare a comprehensive SoR, and to support and document decisions, gives the provider team a clearer understanding of the project at hand. This can be a green field project or a renovation project of an existing asset. Assembling such a document usually leads to a more appropriate match between constructed assets and the needs of clients. Herewith is a sample of questions that the SoR might answer with regard to a building project as a whole.
· What is the building or constructed asset for? Why is it needed, and by whom? · What mission(s) or objective(s) does it respond to and support? What task(s) does it need to facilitate? What kind of financing, ownership, and procurement route are most appropriate? · What levels of performance are appropriate in this situation on specific criteria, and within what budget? What are the possibilities for trade•offs? · What is the expected service life of the whole, and of components, parts, etc.? Are there some critical functions that require special support? · What will it cost to run per year? What is the total cost of ownership? · What are the milestones and deadlines? Are there any penalties for late completion? · Does the client require that the building be designed to return energy to the grid? What level of labeling (e.g. BREEAM, LEED) is the client targeting? · Will the activities housed produce hazardous waste, or other kinds of pollution? If so, what is required to deal with this situation? What impact will this have on the environment? · What about the use of water and other resources, etc. · What kinds of accessibility does this property require? Etc.
98 Table 1: WHY AND WHAT
Evaluation, Compare / Match Performance Test Methods Key Performance Indicators validation, Gap Analysis (PTM), calculations, Customer Satisfaction surveys, verification / measurements, etc. assessments, metrics, etc. auditing
·Infrastructure of Countries, HOW ·Prescriptive & PB Technical ·Acceptable solutions / Deemed to Municipalities, Specifications used on projects satisfy solutions Whole sites ·••••>From project and ·Whole Buildings design analysis to ·Occupants’ manual, O&M ·Specific solutions in given situations and Constructed constituent parts•••>· manuals, Building Systems Assets ·<•••To whole Commissioning documentation, ·Buildings, constructed asset from testing and controls software Building Systems, constituent parts<•••••· applications, etc. and Sub•systems ·Components and Elements ·Products, Services and Materials Szigeti, F. & Davis, G., International Centre for Facilities (ICF) © 2001rev 2005. Based on a sketch by Foliente, G., CSIRO
99 Figure 2 [10] illustrates the Life Cycle Management of Facilities, and other constructed assets. It shows the Life Cycle from the perspective of those who manage, operate, maintain and use them, whether as owner•occupier or landlord. It also shows the key role of SoRs as the documents of reference throughout. User and stakeholder requirements define the objectives for the conditions and assets to be provided for a specific purpose, but independent of what solution might be chosen. They can be expressed in qualitative or quantitative terms. Performance requirements translate user requirements in more precise quantitative and technical terms, usually for a specific purpose. [8]
User and performance requirements need to be stated so that they can be measured and compared. Donna Duerk explains how a performance requirement should be written:
· address the outcome of an objective; · be precise and unambiguous; · be measurable · be operational – be capable of being met; · be positive and not negative; · be capable of being used as a yardstick. [11]
Overall Portfolio and Acquisition Facilities Enterprise Asset of Facilities in Use Management Demand Design and Operational Construct Asset Initiate (Integrated or Management Projects Sequential Mode)
Commission Measure and Statement of Compare Requirements Keep or Dispose Operate and Maintain
Minor Repairs and Alterations
Diagram by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis © 2000, 2003 International Centre for Facilities • Issued 2003•01•26
Figure 2: Statement of Requirements and the Whole Life Management Cycle of Facilities
100 6. Bringing non•regulatory and regulatory models together
The “Performance System Models” diagram [12] maps the flow of decision making from society and business objectives to construction solutions (Figure 3). This diagram brings together Non•Regulatory and Regulatory models. [6]
Non•Regulatory Model Regulation and Codes
Objectives O b je ctiv es
Goals Goals
Functional Statements Statement of Requirements (SOR) Aspect / Topic / Functional Element Performance Requirements & Acceptable Solutions for Relative importance Safety Health Fire Structure Sustainability
Minimum Threshold Levels Q ualita tive Relative Levels of Performance/Risk and risk tolerance
Priorities Pr io r itie s Priorities Priorities for for Users for Facility for Condition and Operators/ Portfolio and Owners Managers & Asset Service Managers Life Criteria Top Down Top
Audit / Verification / Assessment Verification / Assessment Rating Methods and Tools / Test Methods / Test Standards / Test Methods / Test Stand ards / Analytical Tools•Methods / Design Analytical Tools•Methods / Design Guides Guides
Indicators of Serviceability/ Indicators of Prescriptive Solutions Performance Solutions Capability Condition and Acceptable Solutions Service Life Alternative Solutions
Project / Facility Line•by•Line Detailed Analysis Q ua nt ita tive
Prescriptive provisions Bottom Up Bottom O b je ctiv es
This portion of diagram based on ST&M ® approach and ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability This portion of diagram based on a sketch by Jon Traw
Overall diagram by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, in Meacham, et al. (SFPE 2001 )
Figure 3: Total Performance System Models:A Framework for Describing the Totality of Building Performance (Source: Meacham et al. 2002) The right•hand side of Figure 3 shows the requirements mandated by Codes and Regulations with the force of law. These are expressed in Functional Statements, and include for example, all design and construction issues that have a bearing on health and safety. The left•hand side illustrates what the client is willing to pay for. These requirements have no basis in regulation or law. The upper half of the diagram on the left shows client expectations, and the lower half shows the tools, measurement techniques and indicators which can be used to assess how well client expectations are met.
101 At the top of Figure 3 client expectations are expressed at their highest level first, then translated into Statements of Requirement, then sorted into priorities, then considered according to the priorities of the various interest groups. Starting at the bottom of the diagram the quantifiable and measurable performance indicators of the Project, Facility, or Asset, are mapped. The indicators begin with test methods, standards and tools, and move through indicators of serviceability, condition and service life that will be understood, measured and acted upon. Other aspects or attributes of the project can be defined and assessed in a similar manner.
7. Summary of the Case Studies
The case studies assembled to•date and included in the Compendium cover major projects in the UK (the Building Research Establishment • BRE case study) and in the Netherlands (the Rijksgebouwendienst / Dutch Government Buildings Agency • RGD case studies). [13] [14] They were prepared separately, by individuals who are familiar with the evolving conceptual framework for SoR.
The BRE case study concerns two projects undertaken by the Ministry of Defence (UK), as part of their ongoing Prime Contracting Initiative. The first project dealt with is the “Building down Barriers” test project of the concept. The second is the pilot (Scotland) phase of the Regional Prime Contracting project. Prime Contracting is an example of an integrated project, where the design and construction phases of procurement are not rigidly separated, either chronologically or in terms of which party is responsible for each phase – in practice there is an integrated team comprising clients, designers, constructors and facilities managers within an integrated supply chain. Prime Contracting aims to deliver both capital improvements (new and refurbishment projects termed Core Works) and facilities management services (termed Core Services) across the full range of Defence property, including offices, barracks, training grounds, aircraft runways etc. The ultimate aim of the project is to provide an estate suitable to support the delivery of Defence services.
The Rgd case studies concern 4 projects where Rgd were involved on the client side. They range from a museum to a tax department. They are also examples of integrated projects, where both public sector and private sector performance requirements are involved. Three of the four projects are part of two major programs, one to build new Law Courts and the other to build new Tax Department Offices. [15]
As stated above, SoRs are a key link between demand and supply. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship of the Statement of Requirements to each of the transition points during the Design• Build delivery Process
102 initiative definition concept Fin.design realisation Use & evaluation Fac.man
Process phase
Design & Build INPUT
demand match offer
OUTPUT
Demand Realisation Use
Source: Oostinga, D., Compendium of PB Statements of Requirements, CIB 2005
Figure 4: Project & Life cycle TRANSITION points Project 1. Summary: The Rotterdam “Wilhelminahof
The Rotterdam “Wilhelminahof” consists of a complex including: a Palace of Justice, the Regional Headquarters Tax Office, and a commercial office building. The overall goal for the project was to give the urban development within the area a boost for further investment. The urban revitalization was to be initiated by the “Wilhelminahof” building.
Procurement and tendering were based on functional requirements on the desired serviceability of the buildings. A DBFM•O (Design • Build • Finance • Manage – Operate) contract was signed in the transition from definition to design stage in public private contract with the Rgd. The bridge nearby over the river Maas and a subway station were part of a Public Private Partnership initiative. Within the building process, Performance Based Building focused on contracting at an early phase of the project and on performance specifications. The project documentation consists of a spatial statement of requirements, performance requirements, technical descriptions, prescriptive solutions, and functional requirements including organizational descriptions, general requirements and guidelines. The project was a mixture of innovative Performance Based Building and traditional aspects.
Project 2. Summary: Naturalis, National Museum of Natural History, Leiden
Naturalis is the newly build housing for the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden. By refitting the railway station site and by renewing and refurbishing the monumental “Pesthuis” (seventeenth century building, Plague house) a historical part of the city has been revitalized. The development of Naturalis is the result from a Public Private Partnership between the Municipality of Leiden, the Rgd and developer HBG Real Estate (formally known as Mabon). The project was owned by a private party at first and rented by the Rgd. Today the building is owned by the Rgd.
103 Projects 3 and 4. Summary: Central Building for Tax Department, Roosendaal and Heerlen
These two project are based on New build – Integrated contracts (development contract). Performance Based Building focused on contracting at an early phase of the project and integrating design and build capabilities through a development contract. Procurement and tendering were based on demand performance specifications which were the tender documents. Based on performance offer specifications, the projects were awarded to the developer. The basic contract between the Rgd and HEVO consisted entirely of performance specifications as they were formulated by the Rgd and the Tax Department.
8. Similarities and differences
8.1 Similarities between the UK and Netherlands examples
In each of the examples, there are a combination of performance based requirements and input / prescriptive requirements within the Statement of Requirements part of the contract documentation.
· Each includes an expectation that involving a wider representative group in developing the requirements for the project and the design concepts will improve the output / building. · Each project has included some documentation which was standard / existing before the project, and which tends to be based on prescriptive requirements. · Each project includes some element on maintaining / running / financing the project through a relatively long part of the life cycle post occupancy. · Each has focused primarily on the earlier phases of the procurement process, and most emphasis and innovation appears to have been placed on how to communicate an SoR, rather than on checking responses. · Each is expected to lead to efficiency and/or cost savings. · Each is anticipated to support greater innovation. · Each requires the parties to work with a high level of cooperation. · Each challenged the skills on the client side in articulating their requirements in a performance based SoR. · Each involved considerable cultural and process changes from typical procurement routes. · Each involved a high level of collaborative checking of developing requirements and continual monitoring in the early stages of the project (the Cluster technique in the UK, the “pressure cooker” meetings in the Netherlands). · Each involved some element of flexibility on the ultimate price to be paid for delivery of the project.
104 8.2 Differences between the UK and Netherlands examples
The key difference appears to be the role of the Architect – in the UK case study the term does not even appear, whereas it would appear that in the Netherlands the Architect expects to lead delivery of projects and determine key aspects of “good” design. An example would be in the case study on the Tax Department, where the Architect determined that glazing should cover the exterior of the elevator shafts despite the technical objections and consequent ongoing problem with cleaning (Section – Tax Department, item 4 • Lessons Learned).
The objective of capturing the expertise of facilities managers and gaining the cost and user satisfaction benefits associated may be difficult to achieve without a significant re•education process for Architects in the Netherlands. On the other hand, in the UK it is fairly apparent that very similar problems will occur. Future demand is often difficult to foresee. Unforeseen performance requirements for particular uses will be faced as within the Netherlands projects. In the UK Case Study, there seems to be a relatively weak Architectural contribution, which would appear to be the most appropriate skill set to resolve such issues.
From the Case Study reports, there appears to be more formal and developed techniques of risk management, value management and function analysis used with the wide project group in the UK, whereas these appear mainly to fall within the specialist knowledge of the Architect in the Netherlands. On the other hand, with the exception of the Building down Barriers project in the UK, the social and cultural challenges inherent in such procurement changes appear to be better addressed and understood within the Netherlands.
9. Concluding comments
This CIB PeBBuCo project was completed during the spring of 2005. Although the Compendium contains only a few case studies, some comments can be made, based on the findings of the case studies reported above.
Statements of Requirements have to be very carefully stated so that it is easy to verify that a proposed solution can explicitly meet those requirements.
High level statements of requirements need to be paired with indicators of capability so that design solutions can be evaluated before they are built in order to avoid misfits. In particular, the need for change has to be taken into account, since constructed assets have a long life, while uses and activities can change very rapidly.
When checking a design solution against the “explicit and implicit” requirements for a project, it is essential to test different ways that the spaces might be used in order to anticipate changes, otherwise a building, in whole or in part, can become very quickly unfit for the occupants.
105 Endnotes
1 The study was commissioned by CIB (The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction) and completed during spring 2005. It was co•funded by the Rijksgebouwendienst (RGD, Government Building Agency, The Netherlands) and the United States General Services Administration (GSA), with in•kind contributions by the International Centre for Facilities (ICF, Canada) and the Building Research Establishment (BRE, U.K.). Team members were: Kathryn Bourke, Dr. Josephine Prior and Francoise Szigeti.
2 Based on papers, documents and presentations prepared as part of the PeBBuCo study in support of the PeBBu project.
3 This prior study was also commissioned and funded by CIB and co•funded by RGD.
References
[1] Prior, J. and F. Szigeti (2003a) Why all the fuss about Performance Based Building?. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction • PeBBu Thematic Network.
[2] Prior J J and Szigeti F. (2003b) Statements of Requirements – the key to unlocking Performance Based Building? PeBBu News Article. Available from www.pebbu.nl. May.
[3] Szigeti, F and Davis, G. (2002) Compendium of PBB Statements of Requirements: Applying the Performance Based Building (PPB) concept to the procurement and whole life cycle management of buildings, facilities and other constructed capital assets. Pro•Active Approach Theme 2, PeBBuCo Task#3 Phase 1, Pilot. Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl/html/Literature/LitDefault.html April.
[4] PeBBu. (2002) Construction Industry and Performance Based Building. EC th5 Framework, Thematic Network – PeBBu – Performance Based Building. Newsletter Nr. 1.
[5] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., (2005a). What is PBB: In a nutshell. PeBBu News Article.Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl. March.
[6] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., (2005b). What is PBB: Overview. Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl. March.
[7] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., (2005c). What is PBB: Taking stock. Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl. March.
[8] Gibson, E. J. (1982) Working with the Performance Approach in Building. CIB Report, Publication #64.
106 [9] Hammond, D., Dempsey, J.J., Szigeti, F., and Davis, G. (2005). Integrating a Performance• Based approach into practice •• case study of the US Coast Guard Framework for Integrated Decision•Making. In Building Reasearch & Information Vol. 33 (2). March•April.
[10] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., (2001). Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools for stating functional requirements and for evaluating facilities. In Federal Facilities Council, Learning From Our Buildings: A State•of•the•Art Practice Summary of Post•Occupancy Evaluation. National Academy Press, Washington.
[11] Duerk, D., (1993). Architectural Programming. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
[12] Meacham, B., Tubbs, B., Bergeron, D., and Szigeti, F., (2002). Performance System Model – A Framework for Describing the Totality of Building Performance. In Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Performance•Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods (FSDM & SFPE).
[13] Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., (2005d).Compendium of Performance based Statements of Requirements (SoR) for Constructed Assets. Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl. March. [14] Prior, J. J., Szigeti, F. & Oostinga, D. (2003) Compendium of PB Statements of Requirements (SoR): Applying the Performance Based Building approach to acquiring, using and managing property. InProceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2004, Toronto Canada. [15] Oostinga, D. (2005) Three Case Studies in Performance Based Building.Compendium In of Performance based Statements of Requirements (SoR) for Constructed. Assets Available from: http://www.pebbu.nl. March.
107 Performance•Based Framework & Applications for nD Models in Building and Construction
Greg Foliente, CSIRO – Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Melbourne ([email protected]) Selwyn Tucker, CSIRO – Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Melbourne, Australia Pekka Huovila, VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland (email: [email protected])
Abstract
This paper presents a conceptual framework for the systematic application of the performance approach in the planning, delivery and management of built facilities. The full benefits of the performance approach are not always realised because of a lack of facilitating tools and platform that allow data interoperability and ease of practical and comprehensive application of the concept. Thus, this paper also describes the application of multi•dimensional (nD) models for performance modelling and analysis before construction (as virtual design & construction tools) and during the life of the facility.
Keywords: Performance approach, nD models, interoperability, virtual building, performance evaluation
1. Performance Based Building
The proactive and comprehensive application of the performance concept in the whole, or parts of the, process of procurement, delivery and management of built assets leads to: (a) better understanding and communication of client/user requirements; (b) better fit of client/user requirements & supplied facility; and (c) considerable flexibility in design solutions for building practitioners, which encourages innovation and cost•optimised solutions.
The performance approach works when desired outcomes of the process (e.g. time, quality & cost, return on investment, etc), product (e.g. in functional terms such as safety, health, amenity & sustainability) and/or services (e.g. maintenance and other facility management functions) are clearly described (as in a project brief), and achieved in the design, construction and management of the facility. But these benefits are not always realised because of a lack of facilitating tools and platform that allow data interoperability and ease of practical application of the concept [1,2].
This paper presents a conceptual framework for the systematic application of the performance approach in the planning, delivery and management of built facilities. It also describes the place
108 and application of multi•dimensional (nD) models for performance modelling and analysis before construction (as virtual design & construction tools) and during the life of the facility.
2. IT•Based PBB Platform
A monolithic tool for a systematic and comprehensive application of the performance approach is impractical. There already is a preponderance of specialist tools available for aiding decision• making [2], and for performance analysis, design and assessment (some of these have been collected in a web•based compendium: www.auspebbu.org/page.cfm?cid=3).
A more acceptable approach is towards interoperable PBB decision•support tools. Figure 1 shows an IT•based framework for the systematic application of the performance approach in the whole life cycle of built facilities that allows different decision support tools and performance models to interoperate. As discussed in Ref [2], many of these tools have different uses and advantages.
In setting the performance requirements, there could be three sets of tools. The first is a performance requirements management tool (second from top in Fig. 1), such as EcoProp, which is used to set the performance targets for a project (either new or refurbishment) based on client/stakeholder goals and requirements. Ideally, this kind of tool should access a comprehensive database of performance indicators (top in Fig. 1). Depending on the type and nature of the project – identified early in the process – sets of indicators will either be made available or hidden from the performance requirements tool. Then, to set the priority ranking of performance targets for each project, a tool for performance requirements prioritisation (third from top in Fig. 1, e.g. a Quality Function Deployment tool for PBB) would be needed. This is important because finding solutions to meet required/specified performance attributes very often require performance trade•offs; a proper design/product solution to meet one set of attributes usually conflicts with another attribute.
109 Performance indicators & requirements/criteria database
Performance requirements management system
Performance requirements prioritization tools Specifying target/required performance Process/performance models/tools
Ai Bi Ci Zi
Initiation Definition Design Build Occupancy Demolish/Re•use PROCESS
Figure 1: An IT•based framework for the systematic application of the performance approach in the whole life cycle Then, to find solutions (in any stage from design, to construction or occupancy) to meet target requirements, various types of process and performance models are required (Fig.1). When used before construction, these tools are often called ‘virtual building/construction’ tools. Some of these can be integrated – via interoperability standards – into what is often called ‘nD models’.
3. About nD Models
The terminology on n dimensions in describing construction systems seems to have first appeared around 2000 (e.g. [3]). The principle of extending the normal three spatial dimensions (called x, y and z) to the fourth dimension of time (i.e. x, y, z and t) follows the twentieth century physics approach. Suggested further dimensions included management attributes such as cost, schedule, procurement, materials, and accounting to allow project participants to visualize and manage the objects information [3]. Further dimensions such as colour and acoustics had since been added to the list. The concept of nD modelling in building and construction has culminated in an nD modelling roadmap [4].
But just what constitutes an additional dimension does not appear to have been made clear. Mathematical definitions focus on independent dimensions particularly linear independence, where the minimum number of dimensions required is most important in describing a system. In a mathematical sense, cost should not be an independent dimension because it is a function of all other attributes including time, i.e. cost can be calculated from the values of the attributes describing the constructed facility, e.g. size, type of frame, finish, how long it takes to build it and
110 a series of constants representing cost per lineal or square metre. Many of the other suggested dimensions could similarly be derived from a smaller set of attributes, e.g. energy requirements, life cycle costs, acoustics and maintenance.
A proposed definition of nD modelling is that [5]:
‘…nD is the parallel utilisation of building information for different analyses and evaluations … that will enable all stakeholders to experience the building, not just in a visual environment but in an information rich interactive system of all senses including acoustic (for ambient sound etc) and smell (to stimulate polluted environments)’ etc. nD modelling ‘… is a new approach orientated to integrate existing and non•existing modelling approaches into a new way to deal with the different dimensions of a project from a predictive perspective.‘
Such an approach to n•dimensionality focuses more on outcomes rather than the smallest set of independent inputs which enable a model to produce the performance measures required by different participants for each to quantitatively assess a design and understand the implications. In this usage, most “dimensions” cannot be compared to the basic spatial and time dimensions x, y, z, t and it can be misleading to do so. Thus, careful consideration of the characteristics which enable an attribute to be classed a dimension is required.
4. Conclusions
An IT•based framework for the systematic application of the performance approach in the whole life cycle of a built facility has been proposed. The place and use of decision support tools and nD models in such a framework were discussed.
References
[1] Becker, R. (1999). Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept in building. Automation in Construction 8(4): 525•532.
[2] Porkka, J and Huovila P. (2005). Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – a step towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB). Procs Combining Forces – Advancing Facilities Management and Construction through Innovation June 13•16, 2005, Helsinki, Finland.
[3] Chang, Eric H., Griffis, Bud, Christodoulou, S., and Fei, M. (2000) N•Dimensional CONstruction Management Information System (NDCON) – An Approach to Integrating Construction Systems in FIAPP, Proceedings of the 2nd Civil Engineering Conference in the Asian Region, Tokyo, Japan.
111 [4] Lee, A., Wu, S., Marshall•Ponting, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R., Tah, J.H.M., Abbott, C. and Barrett, P.S. (2005) nd modelling roadmap: a vision for nD•enabled construction, University of Salford, UK.
[5] Lee, A., Marshall•Ponting, A. J., Aouad, G., Wu, S., Koh, I., Fu, C., Cooper, R., Betts, M., Kagioglou, M. and Fischer, M. (2003) Developing a Vision of nD•Enabled Construction. Construct IT Report, Salford, UK.
112 Section III
Performance Based Building Standards and Practices Performance Based Building Regulations
David Pilzer Ministry of the Interior, Jerusalem, Israel And other members of the Performance Based Building Network, Domain 7 "Building Regulations"
Abstract
The Building Regulations Domain of the Performance Based Building Network has collected relevant information about progress and difficulties in implementing performance regulations in participating countries. This paper discusses the experiences of the various countries as an amalgam. It then presents the leading research priorities in this field as they emerged from the domain discussions
Keywords: performance based building, construction regulation, code enforcement. .
1. Background
Domain 7 of the Performance Based Building Network has promoted international discussion and exchange of ideas and experience regarding the development, implementation, enforcement and support of performance based regulatory systems.
Building regulations typically seek to ensure the health, safety and well being of people in buildings. Toward this purpose they set minimum design and construction requirements. Building regulations may also promote other objectives, such as energy efficiency, serviceability, quality or value and facilitating the built environment to persons with disabilities.
Historically, building regulations were based on a prescriptive approach which severely limited the available solutions for compliance. Creativity and innovation were stymied or slowed as efforts were undertaken to adapt to or change the prescriptive regulations. These regulations also served to restrict and inhibit international trade.
Performance based regulations are predicated on the intended outcome and seek to encourage a variety of solutions for compliance. This promotes diversity and innovation in an industry that has traditionally been conservative. The performance approach also facilitates international trade. This applies to building products, processes and methodologies in the building design professions.
113 2. Objectives
Domain 7 of the Performance Based Building Network has collected relevant information about progress in implementing performance regulations in the participating countries. While discussion in the various domains tends to provide a favorable picture regarding performance based building, it may be a case of preaching to the convinced. The status reports in Domain 7 reflect an uneven picture of successes and frustrations in attempts to change the regulatory framework in the participating countries. While almost all of the countries are moving in the direction of performance regulations, most do not yet have a complete or fully integrated performance based regulatory system. In the absence of such a system, it is difficult, if not impossible, to implement fully the various aspects of performance based building.
The first objective of the paper is to provide a summary of those experiences. It includes:
1. Description of the regulatory system. 2. Scope of the regulations. 3. Enforcement and compliance. 4. Satisfaction level of the various practitioners. 5. What is perceived to be lacking or in need of enhancement (eg. gaps and barriers).
The second objective of the paper is to present research priorities as they emerged from the Domain discussions. Obviously there is a strong link to the gaps and barriers discussion of the status report surveys. However, in order for a subject to emerge as a research priority it had to result from the experience and needs of at least several countries.
The leading research priorities were as follows:
1. Verification methods to demonstrate that the required performance was achieved. 2. Risk informed regulations. 3. Methods for addressing acceptable or desirable levels of performance in existing buildings. 4. Creating a systems approach to performance requirements with quantifiable levels of performance. 5. Methods for evaluating the economic impact or feasibility. 6. Development of certification models and other means of approving designs and products.
3. Participation
Task members of the building regulation Domain hailed from the following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and United Kingdom.
114 In addition, guests or observers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States participated in one or more of the Domain meetings. The participation and contribution of Australia was particularly significant as Australia operates a parallel network to the European Performance Based Building Network and several members were present at the various domain meetings.
Furthermore representatives from Australia discussed the findings of a productivity commission authorized by the Australian government to examine the contribution that reform of building regulation has made to the construction industry and to economic efficiency in that country. The Australian experience was particularly important as they have been pioneers in performance• based regulation.
Meetings, task members and guest represented a variety of organizations, academia, industry and government. They brought with them a range of professional backgrounds: architecture, code enforcement, engineering, legal, research and public administration.
4. Context
The Performance Based Building Domain is part of a thematic network funded under the European Commission's 5 th Framework – Competitive and Sustainable Growth. The program commenced in October 2001 and runs until September 2005. It involves networking various European and international stake holders to promote performance• based building, research and implementation.
Performance based building regulations need to be viewed within the larger general discussion of performance• based building. The concept put forth by the thematic network is that thinking about building and construction should be oriented to ends rather than means. "The basis of all building activity should be the performance of the building in use rather than the prescription of how the building is to be constructed". The other scientific domains of the network are life performance of construction materials and components, indoor environment, design of buildings, legal and procurement, innovation.
It should also be noted that there have been other international and regional cooperative efforts aimed at promoting performance based regulations. The most prominent of these is the Inter• jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC). Furthermore, CIB has been active in this realm and sponsored a Task Group known as TG 37 which presented several papers at the CIB World Building Congress in Wellington, New Zealand in April 2001. This Task Group issued its final report in December 2004.
115 5. Scope of the Regulations
There are however distinctions between regulations and other aspects of performance based building. Performance based building is an encompassing approach related to the design, operation and maintenance of a building during its entire life cycle; essentially its general performance. The purpose of regulations is far more limited. Regulations seek to establish minimum standards of compliance. The generally stated purpose of most building codes is to ensure public safety, health and welfare insofar as they are affected by building construction. They typically regulate structural strength, adequate means of egress facilities, sanitary equipment, light and ventilation, and fire safety.
Just what else they regulate may vary in different jurisdictions. There is often confusion around consumer driven requirements that may or may not be authorized in the enabling legislation for a building code. In recent years the purview of many building codes has broadened, to include issues such as energy conservation and the needs of special population groups, particularly persons with disabilities. The extent to which, building regulations protect property or limit its potential damage is also a fuzzy issue. Their purpose is first and foremost life safety.
6. Description of the Regulatory Systems
As noted, all of the participating countries have some level of involvement with performance based building regulations. Obviously, there is a level of self selection as participation in the building regulatory domain was voluntary.
Members decided to undertake two surveys of the participating countries, both in order to understand the subtleties and differences between the regulatory systems, and to gauge and compare progress in implementing performance based regulations. The first survey was undertaken early in the network and domain activities, the second approximately four years later towards the conclusion of the project. The first survey had a limited response and the second is yet incomplete. An effort will be made to complete the survey and present its results at the CIB Congress in Helsinki in June and in the final report of the domain.
Nevertheless, various trends, conclusions and insights can be drawn from the incomplete survey results which are supplemented by country reports and discussions at the domain meetings.
6.1 An International Performance Based Building Code
Discussion was undertaken as to the possibility of a common shared international or pan• European performance based building code. The idea was resoundingly rejected for the foreseeable future.
116 Discussants noted the widely variable social, political, economic, administrative and legal contexts among different countries that make a common code impractical. Certainly there are also differences related to climatic conditions, building materials and building traditions. However, the intensity of the negative response may indicate additional underlying, less transparent, factors such as national, regional or even local pride and concerns about a loss of autonomy. All of this is not to say that the domain members did not see a broad basis for international cooperation. In fact there was full consensus on the benefits of cooperation and the opportunity to learn from the experience of other countries.
6.2 Prototypes for Performance Based Building Code Development
The Domain developed three prototypes for performance• based building code development that are described in the flow chart and survey form that follow. They constitute the second survey. Essentially for purposes of simplification and comparison, the pathways for performance based building code development were channeled into three prototypes that were designated cases A, B and C.
A represents those countries with the political will, the economic resources and the technical capacity to develop their own national model code.
B represents those countries at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of very limited resources, internal technical capabilities, and perhaps lesser committment to performance based regulations. These countries are generally prepared to phase in various performance based building requirements into an existing regulatory system at a gradual and graduated pace.
C represents those countries that are prepared to revamp their building regulatory system to one that is performance based but from existing work carried out in other countries that can be adopted with minor adaptations or alterations.
All of the cases A, B and C involve some simplification and generalization and make various assumptions that obviously vary in the extent of their accuracy in the different countries. Probaby the most important assumption is that in all the cases key stakeholders in the building regulatory process have been engaged performance based regulations and are supportive. The point is that changing a building regulatory system requires a broad base of support. It can not be imposed top down as it will encounter resistance in the field. Neither will it evolve bottom up, as the field levels are unlikely to invest the time and resources or enlist the political clout to effecuate the change.
6.3 Country Updates
This section is based on reports at the domain meeting in Porto, Portugal in November 2004. Its content will be supplemented when the results of the second survey become available.
117 Table 1: Performance Based Building • Regulations Domain survey
1. Preliminary Details: 1.1 Country Name: ______1.2 Other reference for building code:______1.3 Last published edition (year): ______1.4 Report submitted by: ______(name and e•mail)______1.5 Job title/Affiliation: ______2. Backround/Contextual Information: 2.1. Brief description of code context in terms of 1.development 2 implementation. (please, attach a separate diagram as per the draft flow chart). 2.2 Brief description of social, political and legal context as related to above diagram (2.1). 2.3 Information regarding relevant administrative framework (who is doing what). 2.4 Information regarding future directions (adoptions, revisions, changes). 3. Key Terms and Definitions (please include only keywords used in this from that need clarification` i.e. this is not for terms in the code itself). 4. Code Structure and Contents 4.1 Structure of the code (diagram and/or tables). 4.2 Contents (outline as in table of contents, but with a short description of the main heading` e.g. 1•3 sentences). 4.3 Other technical notes. 5. Key Lessons/Comments on Development and Implementation of the Code. 6. Contacts and References 6.1 Contacts persons for further information and explanations. 6.2 Web sites for relevant information. 6.3 Other printed information that is available.
The Australian model will be discussed separately based on their extensive experience and a productivity commission study recently completed.
Belgium has a building regulatory system that is partially performance based. Local authorities continue to use prescriptive requirements. Performance based regulations are viewed as a means and not an end. Representatives see a combined system of prescriptive and performance based regulations evolving over time.
Hungary`s building regulatory system is primarily prescriptive. There is an energy survey requirement in place. That is performance based but not widely used. Representatives see a trend toward withdrawal from mandatory requirements.
118 Israel currently has primarily prescriptive requirements. However a government commission appointed after a social hall collapse recommended a substantial overhaul of the regulatory system including a comprehensive performance based code, and a process for evaluating new building technologies. Preparation of the performance based code is well underway. Fire safety requirements will remain mostly prescriptive.
The Netherlands also has a mixed building regulatory system that has been evolving over the past decade.
Poland has mandatory norms and standards, some prescriptive and others performance based that now constitute a building code of approximately 70 pages. Ordinances increase from year to year and the code grows.
Slovakia has a performance based code for the energy performance of building and is focusing regulatory efforts on CPD implementation.
The United Kingdom has an regulatory system based on 15 "approved documents" that are essentially performance based. "Deemed to satisfy" provisions are prescriptive but allow for equivalents. Experience shows private enforcers have resisted and complicated the use of performance based documents.
Figure 1: Possible performance based building code development prototypes for different countries
119 6.4 Reform of Building Regulation in Australia
In 1994 the Australian government established the Australian Building Code Board that vigorously pursued a performance based code. While the Board had no regulatory powers in and of itself, the code was adopted and used by the states and territories. This past year, 2004, the government of Australia undertook an extensive examination of the contribution of building regulation reform to economic efficiency and the construction industry.
The report found that the reform was successful in encouraging skill acquisition, reducing costs and encouraging and enabling innovation. It constitutes a strong endorsement of performance based building requirements.
However the report found that regulatory reform is far from complete. The report recommended: 1. further reducing, jurisdictional variations and reducing the, erosion of the codes uniform application by local planning decisions. 2. better articulation of the performance based requirements. 3. seeking ways to enhance local administration and enforcements. 4. reexamining the approach to property protection from fire. 5. better incorporating environmental requirements in the code.
As described in a PeBBu news article from February 2005 the report further found that: The majority of the performance: requirements contained in the Code do not provide readily measurable outcomes nor specify verification methods. The standards are more accurately described as "principle" based, specifying broad, but not measurable, targets or objectives for building. For instance, for structural provisions, the Code does not specify precisely the loads that must be withstood by any building (such as wide•speed loads or dead loads)–rather it requires that the building must withstand "actions to which it may reasonably be subjected". This means it is not possible to judge whether objectives have been met and gives little guidance to building practitioners.
The report advocated resolving this issue and several other weaknesses in performance aspects of the code as part of the future work program. Overall the examination endorsed the performance based approach as "having the capacity to deliver significant benefits to the building industry and consumers".
7. Enforcement and Compliance
Enforcement and compliance are essential to the efficacy of any building regulatory system be it prescriptive or performance based. Generally, enforcement and compliance are based on the requirement for a building permit for any construction activity. It is the request for a permit, from the
120 authority having jurisdiction, usually the municipality. That sets the system in motion. Plans are submitted usually as part of the permit request. Plans are reviewed and approved before a permit is issued. This is most often where the public and various building practitioners interact with the regulatory officials regarding the code and its requirements.
Once a permit is issued and construction begins there are likely periodic inspections in the course of the work. Once completed the construction is again inspected for full compliance of the work with the code before a certificate of occupancy or completion is issued. If work is not in accord with the code it must be corrected or done again. There are of course numerous possible variations on the process, but these are its essentials for almost all building work. Without a system of enforcement and compliance. The code is of little or no significance. Having said that, there are never the less wide differences in the extent and degree of enforcement in different countries and in some instances in different areas of the same country. In remote, rural and agricultural regions and areas where people tend to build themselves rather than employ an architect, engineer and building contractor, municipalities are less likely to have effective code enforcement and compliance. Even in these areas public buildings, schools, large commercial buildings and factories are more likely to employ building professionals and will try to conform with some level of code compliance even if there is no enforcement system.
Other significant differences in enforcement and compliance revolve around the type or extent of work that is enforced. Wherever there is any enforcement it addresses first and foremost new construction. Here too there is the greatest relevance to the type of code requirements. The building regulation system likely also addresses additions, alterations and repairs to existing buildings. Generally maintenance work is not regulated but any other work involving change to exterior facades structural alterations or change to the electrical, plumbing, mechanical or fire protection systems of the building is likely to be officially regulated. The way in which minor work is defined and the extent to which it is regulated varies widely. Occasionally a functional distinction is whether the work is carried out by the owner/occupant or a building professional. Electricians, plumbers and heating ventilation and air conditioning contractors in places where these occupations are licensed are more likely to comply with permit requirement even though it is the owner occupants who are more in need of the supervision of their work and its code compliance.
Historic buildings are likely to be exempted from compliance with portions of the building code Performance based regulations are more likely to provide the flexibility that will enable compliance.
8. Satisfaction Level of the Various Practitioners
The issue of performance based versus prescriptive regulations pertains primarily to architects and engineers and to a lesser extent to building contractors. It also pertains more to large, unusual and sophisticated buildings than to residential, low rise, standardized building and construction.
121 Manufacturers of building materials and products are also relevant clients of the performance based code.
The satisfaction level of these practitioners with performance based regulations tends to vary. All desire fast building review approvals. The extent to which they themselves and the local regulatory officials are familiar and comfortable with the performance aspects of the codes is a function of time and willingness to learn and innovate.
In general there will be a segment of the building community that is resistant to change and will constantly pose the question:
"What do they really want?" Accordingly it is helpful that a new, performance based requirement be accompanied by deemed to satisfy provisions that are also prescriptive.
9. Gaps and Barriers
Given that the introduction of performance based regulations is often a gradual process, the new regulations may not address what some building professionals regard as the most important issues or those that most interest them, Similarly when they are partial or fragmented they can not comprehensively address all code requirement issues. There may be a need to merge performance requirements with prescriptive ones for various building systems or materials. Performance requirements by their nature often require greater effort by the practitioner to demonstrate compliance, In addition because they are new the performance requirements are less familiar and have not yet stood the tests of time and use by the various building professionals. Most of all it is difficult to verify compliance with performance based regulations, This last issue will be discussed more extensively in another section.
10. Leading Research Priorities
Each of the performance based building network domains was requested to recommend research priorities in their field. For the building regulations domain this proved not to be a difficult task. The experience of the various countries at various stages and with different degrees of success in implementing performance based regulations provided a convenient platform for the discussion of research priorities.
There was wide agreement on the importance and benefits of network and the potential for sharing the results of research in a number of areas. The subjects that emerged as research priorities were agreed upon based on the needs and wants of at least several of the participating countries:
122 These were as follows:
1. Verification methods to demonstrate that the required performance was achieved. 2. Risk•informed regulations. 3. Methods for addressing acceptable or desirable levels of performance in existing buildings. 4. Creating a systems approach to performance requirements with quantifiable levels of performance. 5. Methods for evaluating the economic impact or feasibility. 6. Development of certification models and other means of approving designs and products.
10.1 Verification Methods
The leading research priorities are heavily weighted toward verification. In order to verify compliance we need to be able to measure performance.
In this list of research priorities verification repeats itself with different, emphasis in four of the six priorities. Only risk informed regulations and methods for addressing performance in existing buildings address the objectives part of performance.Verification methods reflect a level of involvement and understanding of the performance approach that go beyond the declaratory stages about the advantages of the performance approach. Performance requirements, as noted, are usually stated as objectives. Objectives are generally qualitative.
However enforcement and compliance obligate verification that is quantitative. Herein perhaps lies the Achilles heel of performance based regulations; i.e. the difficulty in evaluating and ascertaining compliance. Qualitative matters, by their nature involve a large degree of subjectivity. Requirements as stated in building regulations can not tolerate fuzziness or lack of clarity. Ultimately the code official or building inspector needs to be able to make compliance determinations that are cleat cut, consistent and defensible under administrative review and legal challenge.
Quantitative requirement can be matched to qualitative objectives of performance based building regulation but it is difficult if the advantages of the performance approach are not to be lost in the process. Key performance indicators are a promising approach that may be able to bridge the gap. They need to provide simple yet coherent criteria that set the acceptable level or range of performance in ways that can be verified by tools at the disposal of the regulatory community. Generally key performance indicators involve benchmarking a given situation so that targeted performance can be assessed and compliance determined.
While technical performance criteria and verification methods have been proposed in a number performance based regulatory areas, particularly energy conservation, domain members
123 demonstrated their keen interest in the expansion of verification methods as research priorities, the results of which can be shared internationally.
This is a significant challenge that will impact the future success of the approach.
11. Conclusions
Performance Based building regulations have broad support in the international arena. Different countries are proceeding according to separate prototypes and at varying paces in incorporating performance based regulations into their building codes. Most are not doctrinaire in their approach and are prepared to mix performance based regulations with prescriptive ones according to their understanding and experience as to which will best serve them.
While the idea of an international performance based building code was resoundingly rejected, there was full agreement regarding the advantages of international cooperation and shared research. The strongest future research priorities revolved around verification methods that provide quantitative indicators for qualitative objectives. International cooperation should continue and these and other research priorities should be aggressively pursued.
Acknowledgements
This paper was developed from discussions of the building regulations domain of the performance based building network and is based on the cumulative experience of the participants.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Greg Foliente, CSIRO, Australia who suggested and formatted the survey, Dr. Aleksander Panek, Warsaw University, Poland who co•chaired with me the Porto Portugal meeting and Mr. John Carson, CSIRO, Australia who presented the Reform of Building Regulation report by the Productivity Commission of the Australian Government at that meeting.
124 Performance•based procurement in Denmark
Kim Haugbølle SBi – Danish Building Research Institute (email:[email protected]) Hørsholm, Denmark
Abstract
Although researchers, practitioners and authorities have for decades discussed the performance approach as a means of improving productivity, quality and innovation in building, the expectations have not been fully met. First, this paper will scrutinise the Danish model for performance•based building. This paper will stress that the Danish building legislation is by and large performance•based. Second, the paper will identify new trends and challenges to traditional procurement. It will be pointed out that especially integrated teams are challenging traditional procurement. Third, the paper will point out that strong elements of the prescriptive approach are present in professional practice. The paper will suggest that the relationship between prescriptive building and performance•based building is not a dichotomy but rather a continuum.
Keywords: Building Regulations, clients, legislation, procurement methods, contracting
1. Introduction
The issue of performance based building is not new in Denmark or internationally. Encouraged by the directors of the four Nordic building research institutes, the CIB Working Commission W60 was established in 1970. W60 defined the performance approach as follows [1]:
“The performance approach is, first and foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building or building product is required to do, and not with prescribing how it is to be constructed.” (p. 4). In the following years, a number of articles on the performance concept was published. In 1974, the Danish Building Research Institute issued SBI Directions 94 on the why’s and how’s of the performance concept including the first performance•based specifications of requirements for non load•bearing internal walls and windows [2]. Under the leadership of E. J. Gibson, W60 published a number of reports on the performance concept and its terminology see e.g. [3, 4]. It was expected that prescriptive specifications would largely be replaced by performance•based specifications when the necessary fund of scientific knowledge was available. In reality, the picture has become rather blurry.
125 2. Setting the context
The Danish building and housing cluster is generally characterised by many small firms and a few large companies, but the industrial structure has been changing considerably in recent years [5]. Despite the current changes taking place, the building process is still dominated by the professionals, notably the architects and consulting engineers. Thus, the Danish building process has more in common with the British building process with its emphasis on consultants and cost• control than the French building process with its emphasis on contractors and cost•reduction. To echo Winch & Campagnac [6] and Winch [7], the Danish building and housing cluster can be characterised more as a professional system than as an industrialised system.
A number of policy studies have analysed the challenges facing the Danish building/housing cluster, see e.g. [8]. Most of these studies have been shaped more or less directly by the pioneering work of Michael E. Porter on the competitive advantage of nations and regions, see e.g. [9]. Although Porter’s original diamond model of determinants of competitive advantage has been partly abandoned, the focus on clusters has prevailed. Instead, the Danish analyses of the building/housing cluster has turned towards more actor•oriented analyses focusing on the value chain. Figure 1 synthesises the framework deployed in a number of Danish studies of the building/housing cluster.
Manufacturers and wholesalers (Products and raw materials) B2B B2B DIY
3 3 B ri
Building industry Asset manager End•user (Consultants and (Clients and (Owners and contractors) 2 facility managers) 1 tenants)
Figure 1: Markets and actors in the Danish building/housing cluster The framework provides us with an overview of thecontext in which the actors of the building process have to operate. Framed by governmental regulation and the knowledge system, the building/housing cluster can be divided into four subcategories of actors linked through three separate markets. The four groups of actors are:
· The end•users consisting of e.g. owners of single•family houses, tenants, and employees. · The asset managers of private, public and semi•public organisations running existing facilities and acting as clients of new buildings and refurbishment. · The building industry consisting of planners, engineers, architects, contractors etc. · The manufacturers including wholesalers of construction products and raw materials.
126 Each of the subcategories of actors is in principle linked through three separate markets of services and products. The three markets are:
· 1. A property market between end•users and asset managers. · 2. A building market between asset managers and the building industry. · 3. A product market between manufacturers and the building industry, asset managers and end•users. On each of the three markets, different actors will procure and produce various products and services. A proper interpretation and translation of one set of performance requirements (e.g. from users to clients) to another set of requirements (e.g. from clients to the building industry) is crucial for creating best value.
3. The regulatory framework
The cornerstone in the Danish regulatory framework of building is a performance•based building legislation divided into three levels. The first level is a fully performance•based Building Act [10]. It should be noted that several other types of legislation are relevant when building in Denmark e.g. the Planning Act, the Act on the Preservation of Ancient Buildings, and the Working Environment Act. The Building Act covers new buildings, extensions to buildings, conversion of buildings and other alterations, any changes in the use of buildings that are significant, and demolition. The purpose of the Building Act is to:
· Ensure that a building is built and furnished in such a way that it provides sufficient security with respect to fire, safety and health. · Ensure that buildings and surroundings are given a reasonable quality with respect to the intended use and proper maintenance. · Promote actions to increase productivity. · Promote actions to avoid unnecessary resource consumption in buildings. · Promote actions to prevent unnecessary use of raw materials in buildings. The Building Act defines when a building permit, a notification or no action is needed in order to commence and take a building into use. The Building Act describes the obligations of a client, delegates responsibilities to the local authority, describes sanctions in case of violations etc.
The second level of the regulatory framework is the Building Regulations, which are divided into BR•S 98 [11] for small buildings or dwellings and BR 95 [12] for all other types of buildings. In general, the Building Regulations are performance•based. Each chapter in the Building Regulations will begin by stating the targets to be met, for example [12]:
“4.1.(1) Buildings shall be designed and arranged so that, having regard to their use, satisfactory conditions are achieved for everyone with respect to safety, health, accessibility and use, and for cleaning and maintenance.” (p. 41).
127 In many cases, the commentary will point to various sources of information for recommendations of approved ways to comply with the building regulation. The commentary will for example refer to the SBi Directions, standards issued by Danish Standard or circulars and Orders from ministries and agencies, especially the Ministry of Labour.
In general, the Building Regulations do not stipulate solutions. However, you can find a few examples of provisions that directly stipulate specific solutions. One example is a provision that directly stipulates the use of lifts in multi•storey buildings. In the Building Regulations, you may also find a few examples of solutions not to be used. For example no pipes are allowed through the floor in the wet part of wet rooms due to poor performance of known practices.
The third level of the performance concept in Denmark is the SBi Directions issued by the Danish Building Research Institute. The SBi Directions describe various ways to comply with the Building Regulations. They are not mandatory, but usually clients, consultants, contractors etc. will follow the directions. The SBi Directions can be grouped in three main groupings:
· The first group of SBi Directions describes specifications and solutions that are recognised to comply with the requirements stipulated in the Building Regulations. · The second group of SBi Directions describes methods and instruments for verifying if buildings satisfy the requirements stipulated in the Building Regulations. · The third group of SBi Directions includes handbooks or guidelines to be used for planning and executing building works or investigating and assessing specific problems for example related to the indoor climate.
4. Procurement
Procurement can take place along different paths and include different forms of contractual and functional relations (for more details see e.g. [13]):
· Traditional/separate trades contracting. · Main/general contracting. · Design•build contracting. Although practice differs, tendering will normally include five types of documents. The documents will be held together by a general document referring to all the relevant documents. The documents will be referred to in prioritised order in case documents are in conflict:
· General conditions describing the legal conditions for the work. Usually the general conditions will refer to the agreed documents described below. · Special conditions describe various exemptions from the agreed documents, but may also hold certain special technical specifications. · Technical descriptions and specifications of the end result and work to be done. · Drawings.
128 · Appendices like time plans etc. In Denmark, contracts and agreements are generally drafted according to general conditions described in ABR 89 for consulting services [14], AB 92 for provision of works and supplies [15], and ABT 93 for turnkey contracting [16]. ABR 89, AB 92 and ABT 93 are agreed documents acceded to by the government, local authorities, counties and all relevant parties of the building process. As opposed to private clients, public clients are obliged to follow the agreed documents and may only diverge from the agreed documents in extraordinary circumstances.
The agreed documents define the liabilities of consultants and contractors with respect to delays and defects. If the consultant is exceeding time limits without a justifiable claim for extension of the time limit, the contract can stipulate a penalty that the consultant shall pay to the client [14].
The liability of the consultant ceases 5 years after handing•over of the building or the works in which the error or the negligence occurs. Unless otherwise stated in the contract, the liability of the consultant is limited to DKK 2.5 million. The consultant is liable for damage when such damage is the result of not showing due skill and care. Thus, the consultant is not liable for damage arising from conditions which cannot be considered generally known in professional circles, for accidental damages or for errors committed by the client or by others engaged by the client. The exact interpretation of the provisions on liabilities is left to arbitration tribunals and the law courts [14].
The contractor's liability in case of delays are stated in AB 92 [15]:
"§ 25. Delays which do not entitle the contractor to an extension of time limits shall be considered the liability of the contractor. Subs. 2. Where provisions have been made for liquidated damages or other special penalties, no additional claims arising out of delays can be made in excess thereof. Subs. 3. Where no provisions have been made for liquidated damages or other special penalties, the loss suffered by the employer shall be assessed in accordance with the general provisions of Danish legislation on compensation." (p. 7). Cessation of the liability for defects takes place 5 years after the handing•over of building works and attendant engineering works. The contractor is liable for defects if the work has not been performed in accordance with the contract, with due professional care and skill or in accordance with any instructions given by the employer. The same shall apply whenever the contractor has failed to provide other services agreed on in relation to the work [15].
The provisions on turnkey contracts or design•build contracts set out in ABT 93 [16] largely follows the general conditions for the provision of works and supplies within building and engineering (AB 92), but differences do exist for example regarding securities.
129 5. Trends and challenges: Integrated teams
Looking at the building process in a longer time perspective may illuminate some of the changes that have occurred in the past decades and the challenges facing the procurement of buildings. The building process has undergone changes along four lines:
· Process: The conventional picture of the building process as a sequence of distinct phases (brief, design and construction) is being challenged. Increasingly, a value chain perspective is being followed thereby introducing new ways of organising building projects. · Actors: New actors like facilities managers and users have entered the building process. Others have had their roles redefined for example contractors or manufacturers who often carry out part of the detailed design. · Issues: A number of new issues like accessibility and sustainability have emerged or are emerging as new requirements. · Products: Manufacturers have constantly introduced a long range of new products. Furthermore the Construction Products Directive is likely to stimulate a more open European internal market for building products. Since the beginning of the 1990s, a number of development initiatives have aimed at improving productivity and quality in building through process development. The shortcomings of the conventional methods for procurement had highlighted the need for an integrated approach towards design and construction of buildings. In the past 10 years, a number of different partnering schemes have appeared along the conventional methods of procurement. Although the term partnering did not enter the vocabulary until the late 1990s, it was especially the public development programme Process and Product Development in Building (PPB) running in 1994• 2002 that spurred on an increased focus on process development and functional integration of design and construction. The programme along with other experiments during the 1990s included a wide range of new production concepts and forms of co•operation like lean construction, partnering, value management and workshop design. Despite their differences in scope, the experiments shared an ambition of integrating the value chain across professional boundaries including closer and more substantial collaboration with the client.
These experiments and initiatives marked the start of a hybrid practice of design and build contracting. However, a number of architects and engineers e.g. from the PPB consortia complained that the vertical/horizontal integration is just design•build contracting in disguise and favours the large contractors. Thus, the Danish one•liner ”partnering eller partering” (translates into something like “partnering or cannibalism”) became a widespread slogan for the early discussions on integrated teams. Despite the obvious clashes of interest, the trade associations of consulting engineers, architects, small contractors, large contractors and clients managed to issue a common guideline on partnering in 2001 [17].
On January 1 2004, the guideline was followed by a new amendment making it mandatory for governmental building agencies to systematically assess if partnering is an appropriate way to procure a building project [18]. The amendment was followed by a guideline differentiating
130 between two forms of partnering: “early partnering” or “late partnering” [19]. In early partnering, contractors will be involved before the client and his consultants have drafted a proposal. In late partnering, the client and his consultants have drafted a preliminary project. It is worth noting that in both cases the conventional methods of procurement are used, but contracts following the agreed documents on general conditions ABR 89, AB 92 and ABT 93 may need some adjustments. Thus, partnering is not a new procurement method but rather a new way of co• operating in a building project based on existing procurement methods.
6. An example from practice: Axel Heides Gård
As the Øresund Bridge between Copenhagen in Denmark and Malmö in Sweden was opened, an important precondition for an increased integration of the Øresund Region was put in place. On behalf of the Danish and Swedish governments two parallel and similar building projects in Copenhagen and Malmö were studied by a joint Danish/Swedish research team in order to identify differences and similarities of building in the two countries. Here only the Danish case Axel Heides Gård in the planning and design phases will be treated (for more details see [20]).
Axel Heides Gård has a unique location in Havnestaden in the heart of Copenhagen and with immediate proximity to both the harbour and the conservation area of Amager Fælled – a huge recreational area. Havnestaden used to be a heavy industrial facility, but the facility closed down and Havnestaden is now under complete restructuring and rebuilding as a new uptown area of mixed use for light services and dwellings.
The building project Axel Heides Gård was developed by Kuben, which is one of the largest and most experienced private developers in Denmark. Kuben employs around 160 people and its services include development of building projects, client services and facility management. The company has more than 30 years of experience of building homes for people. Kuben is a non• profit organisation owned by two non•profit foundations, but it is not a social housing association.
The ambitions of Kuben for Axel Heides Gård was to develop dwellings for young newly established families and senior citizens at an affordable rent. The dwellings are publicly supported tenants•owned dwellings meaning that there is a fixed maximum price for the dwellings. The project includes 84 dwellings with an average size of 98 m2 distributed on 16 different types of dwellings of varying size. Axel Heides Gård is a genuine and undemonstrative residential area. In this respect Axel Heides Gård is a clear representative of good Danish building practice.
After Kuben acquired the site, a team of consultants was assembled. Kuben employed a small architectural practice and a medium•sized consulting engineering company to develop a project proposal. Both companies including the specific employees involved had been working together with Kuben time and again. Thus, mutual trust had been built up over time and an informal
131 partnership had been formed. Consequently, the consultants had developed a rather good sense of the usual requirements of the developer and good working relations with Kuben.
The contract with the consultants followed the agreed document on consulting services ABR 89 with two notable differences. First, the building project was going to be tendered as a design• build contract but the winning contractor was obliged to take over the consultants hired by Kuben without opportunity to change the contract with the consultants unless sanctioned by Kuben. This way Kuben could avoid the typical problem of design•build contracting where the consultants are squeezed and the project “massaged” by the contractor to cut costs but on the expense of the quality of the project. Thus, Kuben as client could maintain its right – and if necessary exercise that right – to decide in every detail the concrete solutions in order to ensure best value and at the same time include the experience of the contractor on buildability. Second, the contract sum was lower than usual as a consequence, because part of the typical services of the consulting engineer was to be delivered by the contractor.
During a three•months period, Kuben and the consultants developed the project proposal. As is common practice, the project proposal was rather detailed. Geotechnical surveys had been carried out, the overall design of the residential area was in place, floor plans were ready, facades including choice of materials and glazing were decided on etc. Since the proposal called for exemptions from the urban planning, negotiations with the municipality had to be undertaken and a hearing among the neighbours carried out. Eventually, Kuben could send in the so•called Scheme A – an application for public financial support for the project.
When the application was granted, Kuben started to market the dwellings. In order to start building this type of project, at least 75 % of the dwellings needs to be sold and a tenants•owners association has to be established. Due to the inherent lack of affordable accommodation in the metropolitan area, the dwellings were quickly sold out. When the tenants•owners association was established, the association took over the role as client and thus the risk of the project. Bringing the future tenants•owners into the building process also brings in new requirements to be dealt with. Since Danish customers are very demanding regarding their homes, a number of options for individual choices in the dwellings have to be available. Thus, in accordance with usual practice (at least outside the social housing sector) the design•build contractor offered a fixed and prescriptive catalogue of possible individual choices on kitchen interior, bathroom equipment, surfaces, floors etc.
Meanwhile, Kuben tendered the project and commenced the detailed design of the project together with the design•build contractor. In another six•months period, the detailed design was carried out in close collaboration between the developer, the consultants and the contractor. During this period, a number of detailed requirements were fixed regarding for example windows so that the contractor could order these windows from the manufacturer. Bringing in the expertise of the contractor on constructability, other more complicated issues like the exact design of the terraces of the penthouse dwellings being part of the roof of the building were resolved as well. In this problem•solving activity, more or less explicitly formulated performance requirements were
132 debated against perceived problems and specific solutions in a continuous search•and•learn process.
As a paradigmatic example of the professional practice within Danish building, Axel Heides Gård illustrates two notable observations. First, although Danish building projects are procured within a largely performance•based legislation, there are strong elements of the prescriptive approach present in Danish building projects too. This is due to the wish of clients to exercise control of the end product, the administrative practices of municipalities, the dominant position of consultants in the Danish building process, and the elaborate involvement of the end•users.
Second, in many Danish building projects the consultant will set out relatively detailed descriptions of the end product, while the contractor will often be responsible for some of the detailed design, construction methods, choice of products etc. But even a largely performance• based design will have to be turned into a prescriptive design at some point in the project. If not before, then at least when the building worker has to decide what materials, colours etc. he is going to use to produce a kitchen, bathroom etc. Thus, the issue of prescriptive versus performance•based building is not an either•or issue, but rather a continuum stretching from performance•based to prescriptive building. Within this continuum, a negotiation space exists which can be exploited by the actors of the building process to be more or less performance• based. As the project proceeds more and more options will eventually be cut off by a prescriptive decision (see Figure 2).
Fully Fully performance prescriptive based
Brief
Design
Construction
Operation
Demolition
Figure 2: Negotiation space
133 7. Conclusion
First, this paper has scrutinised the Danish model for performance•based building. The cornerstone in the Danish regulatory framework of building is a largely performance•based building legislation divided into three levels:
· The Building Act. · Building Regulations (BR 95) and Building Regulations for Small Dwellings (BR•S 98). · SBi Directions describing various ways of complying with these regulation. Although the Danish building legislation is largely performance•based, a few examples of direct prescriptions of solutions as well as examples of non•solutions can be found in the Building Regulations.
Second, this paper has identified a number of new trends and challenges to traditional procurement. A value chain perspective is challenging conventional pictures of the building process, the role of the actors is being redefined, new issues are emerging, and still more new products are being introduced. In the past 10 years, traditional procurement has come under pressure from especially partnering or integrated teams.
Third, this paper has examined the professional practice in Danish building. Although Danish building projects are procured within a largely performance•based legislation, strong elements of the prescriptive approach are present in Danish building projects too. This is due to the wish of clients to exercise control of the end product, the administrative practices of municipalities, the dominant position of consultants in the Danish building process, and the elaborate involvement of the end•users. Furthermore, the issue of prescriptive versus performance•based building is not an either•or issue, but rather a continuum stretching from performance•based to prescriptive building. Within this continuum, a negotiation space exists which can be exploited by the actors of the building process to be more or less performance•based. In conclusion: You can keep the performance•based door open for as long as you like, but you can’t keep it open forever!
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank the participants and especially the coordinators Peter Fenn, Edward Davies and Timothy Morse of the PeBBu Domain 6 on legal and procurement practices for their valuable contributions.
References
[1] Gibson, E. J. (ed. 1982).Working with the Performance Approach in Building. Rotterdam: CIB. CIB Report. Publication 64.
[2] Blach, K. & Christensen, G. (1974). Ydeevne – hvorfor, hvordan? (The performance concept – why and how? København: Teknisk Forlag. SBI•anvisning 94 (in Danish).
134 [3] CIB (1975). The performance concept and its terminology. In:Building Research & Practice, 3 (1), 18•23.
[4] CIB (1976). The performance concept: Guidelines for the preparation of performance statements for building components. In: Building Research & Practice, 4 (3), 150•167.
[5] Bonke, S. & Kristiansen, K. (2001). Byggeriet på vej ud af den fastlåste situation. Og hvad så? (The building sector on its way out of the lock•in situation. And so what?). Hørsholm: BUR – Danish Building Development Council (in Danish).
[6] Winch, G. M. & Campagnac, E. (1995). The organization of building projects: an Anglo/French comparison. In: Construction Management and Economics, 13, 3•14.
[7] Winch, G. M. (2000). Institutional reform in British construction: partnering and private finance. In: Building Research and Information, 28 (1), 141•155.
[8] Erhvervsfremme Styrelsen (2000). Bygge/Bolig – en erhvervsanalyse (Building/Hou•sing – a business analysis). Copenhagen: National Agency of Entreprise (in Danish).
[9] Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
[10] Lov nr. 228 af 31. marts 2001. Lov om ændring af byggeloven. (Act on changes of the Building Act). Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Urban Affairs and Housing (in Danish).
[11] Danish Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (1998).Building regulations for small dwellings. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Urban Affairs and Housing.
[12] Danish Housing and Building Agency (1995). Building Regulations. Copenhagen: Danish Housing and Building Agency.
[13] Levring, P. & Bonke, S. (1996).Building in a Market Economy – reviewing the Danish Model. Copenhagen: BUR – The Danish Building Development Council.
[14] National Building Agency & Danish Association of Consulting Engineers (1989).General Conditions for Consulting Services. Copenhagen: Danish Association of Consulting Engineers.
[15] Danish Ministry of Housing (1992). AB 92. General Conditions for the provision of works and supplies within building and engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Housing.
[16] Danish Ministry of Housing (1993). ABT 93. General Conditions for turnkey contracts. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Housing.
135 [17] BYG, BiD, Danske Entreprenører, F.R.I & PAR (2001). Partnering i praksis. Vejledning i partnering. (Partnering in practice. A guideline on partnering). Copenhagen: BYG, BiD, Danske Entreprenører, F.R.I & PAR (in Danish).
[18] Bekendtgørelse nr. 1135 af 15. december 2003. Bekendtgørelse om anvendelse af offentlig•privat partnerskab (OPP), partnering og nøgletal. (Order on public•private partnerships, partnering, and key performance indicators). Copenhagen: Erhvervs• og Boligstyrelsen (in Danish).
[19] Erhvervs• og Boligstyrelsen (2004). Vejledning i partnering (Guideline on partnering). Copenhagen: Erhvervs• og Boligstyrelsen (in Danish).
[20] Haugbølle, K. (ed.), Söderberg, J., Andersson, N., Bonke, S. & K. F. Pedersen (2004). Integration af bygge/boligområdet i Øresundsregionen. (Integration of the building/housing cluster in the Øresund Region). Copenhagen: Erhvervs• og Boligstyrelsen (in Danish).
136 Performance•based building from a Mediterranean perspective
Giuseppina Varone ITC – CNR Construction Technologies Institute ([email protected]) Paolo Cardillo ITC – CNR Construction Technologies Institute ([email protected])
Abstract
One of the strongest points of PeBBu is having identified within the network four platforms for discussions which correspond to four similar geographic areas (North, South, Centre, East) to support the studies carried out in the framework of the project’s scientific domains.
As regards the Mediterranean Platform (including Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Israel and Slovenia) the two workshops held in Milan, Italy, in September 2003 and September 2004, highlighted some common regional factors that affect the concept of performance as perceived in this Region more than elsewhere as well as the barriers to the full implementation of this concept, which can also be found to different extents in other Countries.
Very briefly, some of the factors that most affect the performance concept, are:
• the influence of hot climate on materials and components behaviour and on design itself; • living habits related to climate, as a factor affecting urban and architectural design; • seismic risks; • the need to establish a greater consistency between the most recent regulations based on the performance philosophy and more restrictive regulations concerning the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage. As to barriers, in many South•European Countries the adoption of performance•based regulations is being seriously delayed and it is evident that the concept itself does not have the same meaning everywhere.
There also exist barriers of an economic nature and barriers linked to the specific culture of customers who are not able to clearly express their needs and, last, there is the problem of responsibility. In fact, whenever the designer is the sole responsible, it is evident that, whenever he can choose, the prescriptive approach proves to be safer than the performance•based one.
Keywords: construction, performance, materials, design, regulation
137 1. Overview
The Performance•Based Building (PeBBu) Network is funded through a Network subsidy within the Growth Programme that is part of the 5th Framework Research Programme of the Commission of the European Communities.
The main objective of the PeBBu Network is the “Stimulation and pro•active facilitation of international dissemination and implementation of Performance•Based Building in building and construction practice”, and in that context to maximisation of the contribution to this by the international R&D community.
The main components of this program infrastructure are, first of all, the international programming and coordination of research projects in nine scientific domains:
Domain 1: Building Materials and Components Domain 2: Indoor Environment (former Building Physics) Domain 3: Building Design Domain 4: Built Environment Domain 5: Organisation and Management Domain 6: Legal and Procurement Matters Domain 7: Building Regulations Domain 8: Innovation Domain 9: Information and Documentation Late in 2003, the domains were brought down to six. In fact, it was decided to terminate three out of these nine domains (Domain 4, 5 and 9) due to various reasons such as an overlap of information in other domains, insufficient past or ongoing international research on the interface between domain themes and PBB.
• Involvement of target groups/stakeholders from the start of the programme through three User Platforms; • Mapping of national and international research as far as related to – aspects of – Performance•Based Building; • Four Regional Platforms in Europe to act as the bridge to and the initiator of aligned national activities; • Network Management, including the establishment of a Network Steering Committee, a Technical Committee and a Network Secretariat.
138 2. Four Regional Platforms in Europe
In order to stimulate and facilitate national activities, to facilitate the input of typical national and regional characteristics into the international programming of projects and to prepare for the necessary future national implementation activities, four Regional PeBBu Platforms were established in the participating EU and EU Associate countries:
Region 1 (North Europe): Sweden, Finland and Denmark Additional countries to attract: Norway, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia Region 2 (West/Central Europe): UK, Ireland, Netherlands/Belgium, France, Germany Additional countries to attract: Switzerland and Austria Region 3 (East Europe): Hungary Additional countries to attract: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia Region 4 (Mediterranean Europe): Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Israel Additional countries to attract: Cyprus and Croatia. After applying to become a member in PeBBu Task 16, Slovenia has now definitely been relocated into the Mediterranean Platform. The reasons behind this relocation are the issues and topics dealt with in the Platform that are very close to the Slovenian reality.
At the end of the second year of the project, nearly all the objectives established in advance for the four Platforms were attained in the mid•term.
In particular, as regards the Mediterranean Platform, the most interesting results came out from the two Platform Workshop meetings, held in Milan in September 2003 and in September 2004.
The meetings focused on the discussion about the first State•of•the•art report as produced by the national partners of the Platform, centred around the topics dealt with by the nine scientific domains.
By comparing the different national scenarios, it is possible to outline common needs which are presented as specific recommendations in a Mediterranean perspective, in order to integrate the already accomplished scientific studies.
3. The Mediterranean Platform: the context of PBB
The state•of•the•art of performance•based building in the Mediterranean Platform, which includes Italy, Spain, Israel, Portugal and Greece outlines a very interesting and diversified scenario.
Historically, the performance•based approach originates everywhere at the beginning of the 70s, through different studies and researches and thanks the first voluntary standards. Over the following years, due to political and social issues, in some countries this process went through a
139 setback, while in some other countries the performance concept has slowly but constantly got a footing.
In particular, starting from the great energy crisis which occurred in the late seventies, and over the next decade, nearly all Mediterranean countries provided themselves with laws dealing with energy•saving aspects.
In most cases, these laws were of a restrictive and prescriptive nature, due to the actual urgency of the situation and the culture of the time.
On the contrary, in Portugal, thanks to the favourable climatic conditions demanding for lower energy consumptions with respect to other countries, RCCTE (Regulations on the Characteristics of the Thermal Behaviour of Buildings) was at the same time focused on energy saving and thermal comfort of buildings.
Over the following years, environmental and sanitary emergencies and the strong cultural thrust of the CPD allowed to integrate the concept of mere energy saving with the specific needs of environmental sustainability and efficiency. Therefore, today the greatest efforts are concentrated on the revision of old legislations and the implementation of European Directives, among which Directive 2002/91/EC.
Over the time, in Spain many measures have been taken to optimise energy costs, to preserve the environment and to ensure the security and healthiness of living and working places.
The Plan for Public Housing (1998 – 2001) envisaged pilot schemes to promote sustainable homes where economical objectives met the need to preserve the environment. This policy was meant to develop suitable technologies in order to reduce the use of those materials whose production implied a risk to the environment, to reduce energy and water consumptions and to draw attention towards the specific bio•climatic conditions of the design site.
Also the development of photo•voltaic energy in the residential sector has been regulated with specific laws.
In Portugal, the E4 Programme contains a sub•programme for the building sector, the “National Energy Efficiency in Buildings Programme”.
One of the activities within this programme consists in reviewing the “Regulation on the Characteristics of the Thermal Behaviour of Buildings”(RCCTE) of 1990 and the “Regulation on the Energy Systems for Air Conditioning of Buildings” (RSECE) of 1998. Other activities include the promotion of energy efficiency measures in public buildings and the promotion of the use of renewable energies in buildings.
Portugal is also considering introducing building energy certification.
140 In Israel, the amount of energy consumption in buildings is on the rise, due to a steady improvement in the standard of living and to the influx of immigrants in recent years.
To face this situation, the Ministries in charge are currently promoting a series of research projects with the aim of providing appropriate guidelines on the subject.
One of the topics that are being developed concerns the optimization of the use of sunlight in order to provide maximum comfort with a low energy consumption.
Another topic is about energy design tuned to particular hot•moist climatic conditions: the Israeli experience might be very useful to many other countries sharing the same conditions.
As far as Greece is concerned, the main framework of reference for energy•efficiency measures in buildings is the action plan called “Energy 2001”; a key action of this plan was the elaboration of a new national building energy code, aimed at replacing the existing thermal insulation regulation. According to other actions of "Energy 2001", including the reorganisation of energy management procedures in the public building sector, all public buildings needed to have an energy officer specifically appointed to deal with the energy management. This Plan has been supported by legislative initiatives, a draft Presidential Decree was prepared to establish financial incentives for energy•saving measures in buildings.
Ministerial Decision 21475/4707/98 was passed to improve energy efficiency in buildings in order to limit their contribution to CO2 emissions. It introduced a variety of new measures in the building sector, including energy certification and energy audits of buildings, energy billing based on actual consumption, regular inspection of boilers, and third•party financing of energy conservation and renewable projects in public buildings. As of 2000, new public buildings – and as of 2004, all public buildings, including existing ones – are required to have an energy certificate, i.e. an energy identity card, stating the energy performance of the building based on an energy audit. Several measures have been introduced also outside the “Energy 2001” framework.
As far as energy•related topics are concerned, the Slovenian experience was quite different from the other countries.
First as part of former Yugoslavia, then as a country involved in the big conflict which broke out in the early nineties, Slovenia gained its “energy identity” in 1999 with the adoption of the new law known as “Energetski zakon”
Through appropriate measures, the Slovenian energy policy is giving priority to the use of renewable types of energy and energy resources that contribute to a lesser extent to environmental pollution.
The energy policy shall be focused on eliminating the consequences and replacing environmentally unfavourable technologies of using energy resources, whose combustion products accelerate the greenhouse effect (CO2) and emit nitric oxide (NO) to the atmosphere.
141 This policy shall encourage the use of alternative resources at national level, and the use of smaller units at local level.
4. Main results from the Platform
The most interesting information emerged from the critical interpretation, from a Mediterranean perspective, of some of the results produced within the former nine scientific domains of PeBBu.
4.1 Materials and Components
The climatic difference between Mediterranean European countries and Northern European countries deserves to be further developed with a focus on the way it may possibly affect the behaviour and durability of materials and components.
Traditionally, laboratory tests are focused on the assessment of materials based on the influence of cold climates, while, for example, the effect of high temperatures on durability is not sufficiently investigated.
This aspect is particularly important also in the light of the climatic changes that are taking place at present that, according to meteorology experts, are accountable for the progressive tropicalization of large areas of the Mediterranean region.
4.2 Indoor Environment
Culturally and technologically advanced countries are nowadays paying a big attention to the healthiness of the indoor environment.
Over the last years the scientific production witnessed a great boost, first of all centred on the solution of the issues related to what the Americans called the “sick building”. Today, the culture of “biology” is directing studies towards the realization of a bio•building, that is to say, a building conceived and realized with technologies, materials and performances, that are not harmful to man and the environment over the time.
These last•generation studies are based on a performance approach.
The main difficulty today is represented by the overcoming of the prototype extent in order to turn the results of research into means and tools to be made available to designers and contractors.
Safety and healthiness requirements, such as fire•safety, acoustics, lighting, energy, hygro• thermal/moisture, should be reconsidered in the light of the specific aspects characterizing the Mediterranean area. Climate, traditions, culture are all factors affecting human habits and behaviour.
142 4.3 Building Design • Design of Buildings
There are at least two subjects that are quite relevant from a Mediterranean perspective.
First, the aspect related to safety during the construction phase. The building sector in Mediterranean countries is characterized by the presence of many small enterprises which are, in most cases, not well fitted out. There are in fact few barriers to penetrate this market segment, due to the extent and obsolescence of the building heritage that often calls for small maintenance and renovation interventions. To be more competitive, in many cases contractors make use of shadow and unskilled manpower and every year, for example in Italy, the price paid in terms of human lives is definitely too high.
In this connection, the recommendation is for the domain to include the Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile constructions sites.
Another very important aspect is related to the seismic risk that, for the Mediterranean area is classified as extremely high. Israel is located in an area which is extremely subject to earthquake events and nearly all the Italian territory is characterized by such a phenomenon with different risk levels.
Another particularly interesting aspect regards accessibility. Since many years, in Italy attention has been increasingly drawn to frail users (the elderly and the disabled) to the point that the Italian legislation on the subject is deemed to be one of the most comprehensive and advanced today. The most recent provisions are also a good example of application of the performance philosophy to Italian laws.
4.4 Built Environment
A typically Mediterranean aspect is related to acoustic pollution. Southern Europe cities are traditionally more chaotic and noisy than Northern Europe ones. This is due to many factors (town•planning, density of population, traffic, etc.), among which the most relevant is climate. Where low temperatures force people inside, a more favourable climate encourages social relations and outdoor entertainment that imply a higher polluting load on the environment, especially from the acoustic point of view. In the light of these reflections, insulation products, systems and components, such as, for instance, façade elements, would deserve a differentiation by homogeneous climatic areas.
4.5 Organization and Management
The building process is, by its own nature, a melting pot of different competences and professionals. The main problem has always been the communication between all the actors involved in it.
143 No considerable differences exist, on this subject, among the Mediterranean countries according to their geographical position. This subject contains many pending issues that clearly nobody is still able to respond to in an effective way.
The Project Manager role has been more or less recently introduced in many countries and it represents a good opportunity to better manage the building process but it must be remarked that, at least in Italy, the training of such a professional role is still at dawn.
Two types of tools are proposed to assist owners, designers, contractors and supervisors, irrespective of regional boundaries :
• A list of requirements for each type of building, to identify the aspects to be taken into account; • A software to support the management and to guarantee the performance of buildings. 4.6 Legal and Procurement
A contract with a performance value must describe what customers wish to obtain and then, at the end of the works, it must check whether the objectives have been achieved.
The domain report describes a universally valid model to support the achievement of final objectives.
The only objection to this point concerns the definition of satisfaction parameters that might vary from country to country and, in this connection, it would be interesting to identify the most suitable model to encompass the needs of Mediterranean countries.
4.7 Regulation
To complete the survey carried out among various European countries, it would be interesting to gather information about regulations in Mediterranean countries as well as in Turkey, Egypt, Cyprus, Malta and East•European Countries in general and to establish National Platforms to take into account national traditions, economies, climatic conditions and special factors which influence the Regulatory systems.
Thanks to the CPD, the first harmonized standards on products (the harmonised European Standards, and European Technical Approval Guidelines) are now spreading throughout Europe. These standards concern the performance of construction products. On the contrary, the European regulation still doesn’t guarantee the performance•based approach for what concerns the installation of products in the building, because the CPD does not cover all the performance aspects.
144 The performance•based approach remains limited to the regulation sector but still clashes with a scant culture outside the standardization sector; there should be a wide action to increase the awareness of users and stakeholders about the effectiveness of the performance•based approach.
The future review of the CPD may be an excellent occasion to draw more attention to the installation of products in the building (in other words, the recommendation is that the CPD should be more focused on the installation, which is already envisaged in the Directive).
A good question is whether the time is ripe to adopt a merely performance•based method in construction. Some projects are better carried out without a PBB approach.
As far as the Mediterranean Region is concerned, the PB•concept culture is slowly changing and it may be backed up by a good dissemination of results about cases proving the validity of such an approach.
4.8 Innovation
There is no great difference for what concerns the relation between innovation and construction industry in the different countries represented in the Performance•Based Building project.
Some aspects on this subject would deserve further investigations as to the performance concept applied to innovation.
A first remark concerns the fact that those who produce innovation can not take into account the performance of the building system or component where the innovative product is to be integrated. Safety aspects will therefore be tested by third bodies through the tools available today: the Agrément/Avis Technique, ETA (European Technical Approval). From this point of view, it is extremely important that within the domain, attention be drawn also to assessment systems, taking into account that the high costs involved are an obstacle to innovation for SMEs.
The importance of developing technologies that are more relevant to the construction process in Mediterranean countries should be more stressed for further elaboration within the Platform.
4.9 Information and Documentation
The scope of this domain was focused on the information infrastructure needed to support the adoption of performance•based building, with a particular care to the required development and introduction of user•friendly methods for gathering, making available and processing both general and project•specific information. To properly address this matter it is very important to know the information flow process, therefore a conceptual model of the flow was prepared.
145 5. Major barriers towards a more comprehensive adoption
The main barriers for strict adoption of solely performance•based regulations were precisely identified by the Israeli partners in the Platform.
The main barrier is the reluctance of designers and builders to accept responsibility for explicitly defined consequences. In general, many of them prefer regulations that define accepted solutions (Descriptive Approach), as compliance can easily be proven by the presentation of detailed drawings and construction brief. To prove compliance with performance•based regulations, calculations and/or laboratory certificates must be added, which usually imposes a larger workload on the engineers of the design team. In addition to that, checking compliance requires more skilled personnel. The shift from solely descriptive regulations to the adoption of mandatory Performance Requirements Standards thus encounters some difficulties at the design stage (mainly due to a lack of knowledge amongst professionals in some areas of building physics), as well as at the enforcement stage (mainly due to a lack of skilled personnel at local municipalities).
6. Conclusions
• There is a need to pay a greater attention to the specific issues of the Mediterranean areas, both at Community level and in terms of research and standardization; • the seismic risk is very high in nearly all South•European countries and new provisions and rules are faced with a number of difficulties when they are to be enforced, even if they are inspired by a performance•based approach; • a crucial aspect is represented by the climatic factor and the need to address such a topic in a more specific way, both at design and town•planning level, and for what concerns legislative and standardisation aspects, including laboratory testing; • there is a need to define in a more precise way the concept of “performance•based approach” which still does not have the same meaning in all countries.
146 The Status of PBB in the NAS countries
PhD. Gábor Tiderenczl, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Károly Matolcsy, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building, Budapest, Hungary Dr.Ing. Peter Matiasovsky (SAS, SK) Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Abstract
This paper addresses the actual situation, background and the strategies of future implementation of PBB – Performance Based Building in the respective NAS (newly associated/associating states of Europe) countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland. The NAS countries are those belonging to the former Soviet block.
The objective of this paper is to describe why the situation of the NAS countries is so unique related to other platforms of the PeBBu thematic network. It will highlight the main barriers of PBB application in the NAS countries. This paper aims to enlighten, why the NAS countries show plenty of common features even if they are belonging to different regions, different language families, they have different historical backgrounds, different sizes and economical situations.
On the bases of the State of the art analysis, the paper describes the opportunities and potential strategies of spreading the PBB concept in the NAS countries. On this aspect, the accession to the European Union gives also a special situation and opportunities for these countries.
This paper is based on the NAS State•of•the•Art Report of the PeBBu network. The report was prepared by the task leaders and assisted by all members of the task and debated at the related PeBBu workshops.
Keywords: Performance based building (PBB; PeBBu); Newly associated states (NAS)
Introduction
The scope of the paper is to give an analysis of all aspects of future implementation and actual application of PBB – Performance Based Building in the respective NAS (newly associated states of Europe) countries on the bases of the PeBBu NAS State•of•the•Art Report. Task
147 members are representatives from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland.
The objective of the paper is to present the background and the Status of PBB in the NAS countries with special focus on the ongoing PeBBu scientific domains and other PeBBu domain areas. Further aim is to provide a future vision and strategies for the implementation of PBB in the NAS countries in general and in the PeBBu domain areas.
At first this paper describes the background, why the situation of these countries is so unique related to other PeBBu platforms. It will describe the historical background of these countries that determined the possibilities of PBB and still influence the development of the construction sector.
The common features of the construction sector in the NAS countries will be pointed out. The paper will highlight themain barriers of PBB application in the NAS countries and on the bases of the background and the barriers it will discussopportunities the and potential strategies of spreading the PBB concept in these countries. On this aspect, the accession to the European Union gives also a special situation and opportunities for these countries.
This paper will investigate the situation and the potential strategies of PBB in the NAS countries in the following ongoing PeBBu scientific domain areas:
Domain 1: Life performance of construction materials and components Domain 2: Indoor environment Domain 3: Design of buildings Domain 6: Legal and procurement practices Domain 7: Regulations Domain 8: Innovation
The situation and the potential strategies will be analyzed also in the followingother domain areas:
Built Environment Organization & Management Information and documentation Fire safety & engineering Accessibility Facilities management Energy & water management Environmental sustainability Education & training Intelligent buildings Structural design & engineering Construction products directive (CPD)
148 As regards the methodology, the paper was prepared on the bases of the lessons learned from: PeBBu workshop; special PeBBu NAS workshops; PeBBu documents; contribution of the PeBBu NAS members; relevant literature and the scientific background of the task leaders.
1. Historical background, the construction sector and the status of PBB in the NAS countries
After the WW II all of the NAS countries were occupied by the Soviet army, and within some years became soviet satellite states with a very similar structure. An artificial socio•economical system was developed that determined the development of he construction sector and the possibilities of implementing the concept of PBB. There were special barriers of PBB due to this artificial system. In 1989/1990, the soviet systems collapsed, and new, democratic states were established. A transition period started from a planned economy to a market oriented economy in the 1990s with consequences and changes in every sphere of life. New barriers raised and the PBB thinking became even weaker than it was before the changes. In 1995 the NAS countries applied for EU membership and in the 1st of May 2004 ten of these European nations became member states of the EU. This situation gives new challenges and also new opportunities for these countries. These challenges and opportunities determine the development of the construction sector and the possibilities and strategies of further implementation of the PBB concept
The former socialist system determined the development of theconstruction sector with the dominant role of the state and the practice of industrialization and mass production, that resulted a significant construction boom but with low quality buildings. Opportunities of getting proper building materials were very low, the lack was the most general feature and generally the performance criteria was adjusted to the only available solution. The low wages of architects and professionals and the ad hoc improvisation character and low quality of execution, all worked against the Performance Based approach. The standardization process was based on the opportunities of East•European cooperation, user requirements were not considered.The strong barriers of the artificial social, political and economical system before 1990 had a consequence of overall poorness comparing to the western countries.
The changes in the sector during the transition period occurred as a consequence of the former building practice. The strong role of the public sector stopped and privatisation the of the domestic building industry started.International big companies became new owners and realized large investments. These International companies basically make their research and development at the home countries, and rarely invest in research in the new countries. SMEs became dominant in the design and engineering practice. Ministries responsible for the building sector were ceased and the responsibility for the sector spread to several other ministries with the consequence of inefficient problem solving. With thestate withdrawal from the building market, housing subsidies were dramatically cut, state investments became rare and low budgeted and inflation became dramatically high (over 30 %). As a consequence,building industry has been declined. The market type building demand became dominant and the investor began to be a dominant partner that often resulted in the lack of acceptable architectural
149 quality. The segregation and fragmentation in building construction industry and the traditional approach to build as cheap as possible makes a rather greatincrease in building failures, basically in the residential sector, where the builders are mostly not professionals. Housing promotion is very low in all countries, the majority of the new dwellings are still built via ado it yourself practice or by black workmanship.Black market is very high in the building products field as well, partly due to the relatively high VAT. The transition period had also its difficulties as low skilled workers, low workmanship, low onsite safety, lack of quality inspection, instable financial background and high corruption rate. Also the problem of housing affordability emerged. On the other hand all up•to date products are available and also there are several prominent investments in the NAS countries.
Figure 1: Prominent investments in Budapest a.) Siemens offices (architect: Lázár & Reimholcz) b.) Police station (architect: Finta)
The special situation of the construction sector results also aspecial status of PBB in the NAS countries. Building activities in the NAS countries are the least performance•based among the PeBBu regions. Although CPD is entirely implemented in the NAS countries, the standardisation process is still rather weak and perspective in character. In the NAS countries in the construction practice the successful PBB usually depends explicitly on the responsibility and possibilities of all decisive partners and on their quality, but mainly on architect • client cooperation. The construction participants ordinary do not work in interdisciplinary teams and do not approach the construction in a wider context. The most important field, where the performance concept has been introduced is the technical approval of innovative products and related testing work. The most important fields, where further actions are needed are the design, procurement, budding and the control of the execution work in the platform’s countries.
Entering the EU in 2004 May, theharmonization processes in the NAS countries become more and more intensive.CPD determines the codes and decrees in all countries. The base would be the nominated Institutes of the countries for notification, which can act as a bridgehead of PBB. As a result of the NAS countries’ accession to the EU, it is expected that also the introduction of the performance concept will accelerate. There is a general agreement among professionals of its wider introduction.
150 2. Main barriers and opportunities of PBB in the NAS countries
A more general application of PBB would have severaladvantages and opportunities in the NAS countries, like the stimulation of new materials, techniques and competition, better performance of buildings, reduction of cost and risk and failures, more freedom and less barrier in design, more correlation with users’ requirements, etc. However,strong barriers are still against PBB.
Barriers and opportunities of PBB can be classified according to different historic periods of their origin in the NAS countries, namely before the political changes, in the transition period and after the EU extension.
In the time of socialism, special barriers obstructed the implementation of PBB in the artificially isolated NAS countries, as the mass production, the COCOM list, the PLAN driven economy, etc. Most of these features are already over but some of them are still living or have influence.
As regards the implementation of PBB, after the political changes in thetransition period new barriers and opportunities raised. There are still remnants of socialist mentality and short•term thinking. Lack of holistic approach, lack of cooperation, lack of finance, the weak credit systems and the low level of responsibility are all strong barriers. It is hard to achieve a breakthrough in habits joint to prescriptive regulations. There is a significant need for education and training and it takes a lot of time to become familiar with the performance•based approach. Other barriers are the lack of relevant indicators and testing methods, the lack of holistic life• cycle approach, the interest of producers, the segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction or the attachment to traditionalism and routine.The conservatism of the construction sector doesn’t promote innovation and change. Best Practice examples are not directly related to performance, and as investment in building is risky, lot of investors want to rely rather on proved and safe solutions. There is a low demand for the construction work in the domestic market. Smaller enterprises have no financial reserves and neither bank credits are available for them, which causes a high risk in surviving. The consequence is the decrease in the competitiveness in the construction market. Another special barrier is that older generation suffers from lacking speaking ability in foreign languages. English is very rarely spoken by the generation older than 40 years. That makes a strong barrier in implementing PBB materials, which are not in domestic language. On the other side the transition period resulted also innew opportunities, as the CPD implementation, the availability of new products and high quality buildings.
The EU extension can strongly influence many fields and so the construction sector in the NAS countries, most of them already member of the EU. New opportunities and support of PBB can be related to the free transfer of goods, services, information and people, more possibilities for innovations, more competitiveness, duty free prizes, more open society, European standardization, education and research support, decrease of regional and social differences, etc.
151 On the other hand, also some new barriers can emerge with the EU extension, like market deformations (temporary), the influence of strong interest groups, cartel agreements among producers, State budget deficit restriction, new tax policies, etc.Obligations are another aspect that comes with the EU extension and these should be considered rather as opportunities.
3. Status and strategies of PBB in the NAS countries in the ongoing PeBBu scientific areas and in other domain areas
The 6 ongoing PeBBu domainsare the followings: Life performance of construction materials and components; Indoor environment; Design of buildings; Legal and procurement practices; Regulations; Innovation. On the bases of the current situation this paper will draft some strategies that can serve the future implementation of PBB in the discussed domain areas.
In Domain 1 “Life performance of construction materials and components” we can see a development of quality and plenty of new up•to•date products, a product evaluation system and developing standards on one hand, however still plenty of low quality items on the market on the other hand. There are several researches related to durability issues, however few reference service life data are available and the factor method is not used in the NAS countries. Improving durability of constructions, developing new materials and techniques and increasing the use of local materials are priority aims. Well defined performance criteria, indicators, measurement and simulation tools are needed for further development. The works in ISO will impact and will direct the national efforts towards life performance of construction materials and components.
Issues related to Domain 2 „Indoor Environment” has not been really considered in the design process in the region, in spite of the increasing problems of indoor air quality due to more airtight buildings, open•burning heating equipments, moulds due to cold bridges, increasing level of indoor pollutants and emissions together with the lack of proper ventilation. Conditions for indoor environment in almost all countries are determined by legal and technical regulations but it is not controlled and buildings are typically designed for minimum permissible level. In practical design generally only aspects of comfort are considered, a more holistic approach to indoor climate and healthy building is seldom realized and this would be needed. Strategies should also address simulation, modelling and testing tools in order to predict complex indoor environment performances and also training special designers for indoor climate. A best practice example for careful indoor environment design on PBB bases in new construction is a commercial office building, the“Tulipan House” in Warsaw. Light, space, care for the natural environment, flexibility and comfort are the main features of the building. Special features will be sustainability and energy efficiency. The goal is to achieve 30% energy saving compared to a standard building and to use renewable energy sources to 50% of the total energy•use for indoor climate.
152 Figure 2: Best practice example for PBB: the “Tulipan House” in Warsaw, Poland As regards Domain 3 “Design of buildings”, the former large state building design companies operated in the NAS countries have beendivided into small design offices and the new situation caused new problems as well. Use of CAD systems became widespread, however the lack of control, the application of routine solutions, precipitation, the need of low construction cost are against performance•based design. In practice the successful PBD usually depends explicitly on the responsibility and possibilities of all decisive partners and their quality, but mainly on architect • client cooperation. Unfortunately, architects generally have a narrow orientation. Often “Ideal catalogue construction solutions” are applied and no explicit criteria and methodologies of the whole building performance monitoring and testing are used. Although several prominent buildings have been realized in the latest years, the former practice of do•it• yourselves still determine attitudes and austere buildings are constructed simply in possession of building permit without specification and implementation plans. A main barrier of PBD is that particular design participants do not consider the construction and its results as a complex system. Explicit performance criteria, less empirical approaches, a stronger control of technical and environmental performance, more complex tools & databases, whole life education & training are needed as a strategy. It is up to the architects and engineers to educate their clients in terms of PBB. It is important to increase the level of cooperation, communication and tenant/user participation in decision•making during the whole design and construction process on performance bases. Further aims are to develop and apply efficient Decision Support Systems, to improve the transparency of tendering and to apply Post•Occupancy Evaluations.
Figure 3: Examples of new construction activities in Bratislava, Slovakia a) Roman Catholic centre b) furniture department store Atrium c) housing complex in Kramare.
153 Concerning Domain 6 “Legal and Procurement practices”, building affairs belong to the public administrational proceedings in the NAS countries. As former Ministries responsible for construction were ceased, responsibility for sector was distributed among 3•8 ministries. An inefficient operation was the consequence and especially housing policy became critical. The development of the institutional background, a construction policy and strategies are strongly needed. Regarding the procurement process, the building manager is responsible for it. The level of the application of performance criteria depends in particular cases on the building manager • his cooperation with architect, designer, contractor and his communication with the client. External influence will become important as a result of the implementation of new EU Directives and international obligations and this may require perhaps radical changes in the legislation documents. Consequently, it will be necessary to find a common framework for these provisions. In strategies it is important to develop construction process coordination and optimization, facility management and the tendering process. Also more information and databases are needed.It is important to work out efficient and more responsible construction and housing policies, to increase the quantity and quality of residential buildings and to develop complex programs for building renovation and urban renewal.
According to the main points inDomain 7 “Regulations”, the regulatory framework in NAS is composed of the Act on Construction and the Act on Construction products; National Technical Standards, European Standards (EN) and International Standards (ISO). Most of the EN and ISO are implemented in the region. The competent governmental institutions develop laws and decrees, while the Standards Institutions develop standards. The local authorities issue building permissions. Standards (mandatory / advisory) are related to special issues of the building regulations. CPD is the base document in all NAS countries and its implementation is almost completed. Although performance based concept has been integrated in the NAS Building Regulation in many areas, the national standardization process is still rather weak. Harmonization process with EU standards goes fast. The main strategies are to develop the institutional background of regulating the construction process and to develop performance based regulations and national standards on the bases of complex performance criteria and whole life cycle approach.
As regards Domain 9 “Innovation”, after 1989 a s large construction companies and central programs, also large research institutes were ceased and financial funds radically decreased. Mainly the Academic Research Workshops, Higher Educational Institutions, Innovation Parks, and Institutions for quality control exercise research activities today. Although there were several research programs related to PBB during decades, the application of innovation has several barriers as the common attitude of builders, the lack of R&D capacities of construction companies and the strong financial barriers. Great part of the innovative products comes out of the international research but there are excellent results also in the NAS countries. Several strategies could be defined, but first of all it is necessary to identify long•term values and make a balance between values and interests. Governments should promote innovation, education and training.
154 Further on this section a summary of the situation and the potential strategies in the following other PeBBu domain areaswill be described: Built Environment; Organization & Management; Information and documentation; Fire safety & engineering; Accessibility; Facilities management; Energy & water management; Environmental sustainability; Education & training; Intelligent buildings; Structural design & engineering; Construction products directive (CPD).
As regards the domain ofbuilt environment more than 50% of the European population is living in cities, where two adverse processes can be observed. The symptom of sub•urbanization and deterioration of inner city areas are on one side and the increasing demand for good quality urban living is on the other side. The majority of the housing stock in the NAS countries cannot meet today’s needs, especially the run down and functionally obsolete inner•city blocks, the old mud houses and the large panel housing estates. Regulation of the development of the built environment and also regional planning has plenty of problems to solve. The process of sub• urbanization and urbanization should be balanced. New development plans are needed. There is a strong need for renewing, maintaining and operating existing buildings and for conducting complex urban renewal programs and large•scale panel reconstruction. Information channels should be also developed in order to inform all partners of the construction process and in authorities about problems and complex solutions concerning the built environment and its sustainability.
Figure 4: Best practice example of urban renewal program in Ferencváros, Budapest, Hungary. Considering the issues oforganization and management, the enterprises in the NAS countries have consistently began to build and should further develop the quality management systems and environmental management system, as next competitive advantage. There is lack of another certificate in safety systems that should be also created.
Documentation is related to the procurement process. In NAS the trends of traditional procurement model are dominant. Developing performance•oriented model is an issue of strategy and several barriers should be surmounted. As information regards , several
155 professional journals and periodicals are issued and information materials available related to building and construction. Complex information on a performance bases should be created to stakeholders.
As regards the domain offire safety, this issue gains a high recognition in the NAS countries. Testing laboratories are issuing certificates and approvals of materials and building elements from fire safety point of view. To develop fire regulations on performance bases and to provide more complex information on the subject would be necessary.
Regarding the domain ofaccessibility, the criteria are specified in the Building Regulations in most NAS countries, however only for public buildings are mandatory items to keep. More information and awareness and also proposals of accessibility in residential buildings are needed.
The group of the owners of the buildings applies facilities management. Since 1990 the tenure structure changed considerably in he NAS countries where the strong process of privatization has had serious consequences in maintenance and facilities management. Associations of the flat owners, special companies or housing corporations were established for facilities management. New acts are regulating their operation and organization, that should be further developed and the role of facilities management should be continuously increasing in the NAS countries.
As regards the domain ofenergy and water management, in the NAS countries the majority of houses are poorly insulated and strong energy conservation measures are needed. Reconstruction activities should be combined with additional thermal insulation. Also the practice of EU countries should be studied and the assessment tools developed. It is important to improve the energy•efficiency of buildings, to implement Energy Performance Directive, BEM and Building Energy Pass.
In the issue of environmental sustainability, all NAS countries are engaged for development, but in real term the national programs generally are rather week. Financial and political barriers are characteristic. To raise the public’s awareness, to identify indicators for evaluation and to make proper practical measures for increasing environmental sustainability are strong challenges.
As regards education and training, in the transition period the opportunities of the universities changed in the NAS countries. Neither education nor research got the necessary support. On the other hand international programs became open to NAS countries. PBB concept should be integrated in education, the general level of which is also necessary to improve.
Concerning the domain of intelligent buildings, mainly the owners of new administrative and industrial buildings in the NAS countries apply the concept. As a realization of the user’s expectations, intelligent buildings could be one of the platform to adapt the performance base approach. However, it is currently more a technologically oriented issue. It is needed to raise the
156 awareness of the advantages of intelligent building systems regarding safety, security, indoor comfort and also to apply them in case of residential buildings.
As regards structural design and engineering, safety of construction is a performance based essential requirement in every NAS country. The performance of load bearing structures of buildings is addressed very strictly in the NAS countries. Internationally recognized researches should be continued in this field.
CPD was known from the time of itsorigin in the NAS countries and some principle like Essential Requirements came in law in the middle of the 90's. However, there is a lack of information of the control. CPD is an obligation and a good possibility in breakthrough in the NAS countries related to PBB. CPD should be also assessment based and clients’ needs should have priority.
4. General strategies and the future of PBB in the NAS countries
The main vision to the future concerning the implementation of PBB is that after 10 years the differences between the NAS countries and the former EU countries will be decreased to a minimum level and most of the barriers will be ceased. Regional cooperation will be increased.
Several strategies are needed to realize this vision. Authorities should have an increasing role in developing construction policies, housing policies and strategies and in realizing these strategies. The institutional background of the construction sector should be developed in the NAS countries. The development of the national standardization processes is a key issue of strategy in implementing the PBB concept. It is important to raise the awareness of the professionals of the importance in thinking in performance terms. In order to spread the PBB concept in practice, clear performance criteria should be defined. In order to measure the performance in practice, indicators, measurement, testing and simulation tools should be developed. In order to increase the level and quality of regional and international cooperation, learning foreign languages should be promoted. These needs suppose the systematic institutional stimulation of research and the development of educational and construction activities at regional/national levels.
Concerning the envisaged future implementation of PBB in the NAS countries, in general only some participants of the construction design process are aware of PBB importance in practice. The construction companies formulate the need of PBB as the need of the complex quality of construction, which should be provided by the quality management. The barriers of wider PBB application in practice are seen in the cases when the particular construction participants do not consider the construction and its results as one complex system. The liability and responsibility is supposed to be a dominant factor enhancing the PBB. The increase of the education and knowledge level and the level of a systemic approach in the construction process are also fundamental conditions. The role and the quality of an architect is fundamental in the environment where the main criteria of a client’s decision•making has economical character.
157 The necessity toimprove legislative framework in the construction arise an excellent opportunity to implement the PBB approach. This opportunity could be very well detected in the widespread implementation and success of CPD in these countries. Experts believe that the increasing competition in the market will lead to a better understanding of performance based approach for the building industry.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, relatively small number of best practice examples of PBB can be seen in the region and still plenty of barriers are against PBB. The complex solution how to support the PBB in NAS must issue from the promotion and propagation of cooperative approach of all partners to the construction based on complex building performance knowledge. The possibility of equal opportunities and the minimum threshold degree of economical freedom and stability are the fundamental conditions for this.
The accession to the European Union provides new opportunities, partly as obligations for implementing PBB in the NAS countries.Dissemination of the PBB concept and raising the awareness of it is important in all countries. National PeBBu Platforms would be important to develop in order to raise the awareness of PBB and overcome the barriers of languages in the participating countries.
If the key strategies will be conducted, the vision to the future related to PBB in eliminating the differences between the NAS countries and the former EU countries has good chances to be realized.
158 Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive
Eric Winnepenninckx BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute (e•mail: [email protected]) Luk Vandaele BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute (e•mail: [email protected]) Piet Vitse BBRI • Belgian Building Research Institute (e•mail: [email protected])
Abstract
The aim of this activity in the Thematic Network (PeBBu) Performance Based Building is to provide basic information on the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC) to the PeBBu domains and members and to receive and incorporate feedback in a final report that aims at linking PeBBU with the CPD. In additions, although the CPD starts from the 6 essential requirements for works, it leads to product conformity attestation only. It does not provide the link between the performance based approach used in product specifications and a performance based approach for works. Together with the members of the PeBBu domains, this relationship has been examined.
1. Introduction
The objectives of the PeBBu Network are stimulation and pro•active facilitation of international dissemination and implementation of Performance Based Building in building and construction practice.
It has been acknowledged that the Construction Products Directive (CPD, 89/106/EEC) should be a basic element in PeBBu work and therefore, the introduction of the CPD is considered to be a horizontal task in PeBBu.
The Steering Committee of the PeBBu Thematic Network decided on 4th August 2003 to develop a new cross•cutting activity on the integration of the knowledge of the Construction Products Directive into the work of the various domains and tasks of PeBBu.
2. The Construction Products Directive
The Construction Products Directive (CPD • 89/106/CEE) defines six essential requirements for construction works, which are detailed in interpretative documents. Starting from those essential
159 requirements for works, the European Commission, after consultation of the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA), specifies the regulated characteristics for construction products and kits in mandates to the European Standardisation Committee (CEN) and the European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA) to develop harmonised technical product specifications, i.e. harmonised European standards or European Technical Approvals, for the performance assessment of the building products.
The EC New Approach directives in general and the CPD specifically introduce a mandatory system of conformity attestation throughout the construction products sector. For some parts of the industry, CE Marking is not really new, due to other existing EU Directives, but the CPD has important particularities compared with other New Approach Directives.
Thanks to the CPD, the way technical product specifications are being written has changed. It is expected that the CPD technical specifications will be a driving tool towards performance based works specifications and regulations in a very large part of Europe.
3. Objectives and accomplishments of this task within PeBBu
3.1 Objective I
The first objective of this activity is to provide basic information on the CPD to the PeBBu domains and tasks and to receive and incorporate feedback in a final report that aims at linking PeBBU with the CPD.
3.2 Accomplishments (objective I)
At the start of 2004, an extensive “CPD supporting document” has been made available to all PeBBu members, meeting the main part of objective I.
The document presents the legal framework, the new and global approach, within which the CPD has been established. However, the Construction Products Directive can be considered as a special Directive under the New Approach, because it diverts with regard to some of its fundamental aspects, such as
• the essential requirements, are not related to the products, but to the works into which they are to be incorporated; • manufacturers are obliged to comply with harmonised technical specifications, i.e. harmonised European standards or European Technical Approvals; • the conformity assessment modules, applicable for all other new approach Directives; the CPD has its own “attestation of conformity (AoC) systems”; • putting into service is not considered in the CPD; only placing on the market is addressed;
160 • The CE Marking is accompanied by all the harmonised product performances; • The Directive becomes applicable for products at the start of the co•existence period for the relevant harmonised product specification and becomes mandatory at the end of that period. The CPD supporting document also presents detail to the Directive itself, explaining its scope and the essential requirements, which required “Interpretative Documents”. These were published by the European Commission, before CEN, the European Standardisation Committee, and EOTA, the European Organisation for Technical Approvals, could be requested to start developing the harmonised technical specifications.
The European Commission (EC) issues Guidance papers to support Member States, specification writers, Notified Bodies and manufacturers in performing their tasks under the CPD. These documents contain much of the EC’s interpretation of the CPD, which is under permanent development. This will be reflected in the CPD supporting document as it is being revised during the PeBBu project.
Since 2001, when the first harmonised standard was cited in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU), CEN has published close to 300 harmonised standards, about 150 of those having been cited in the OJEU, while EOTA issued 19 ETA•Guidelines and, more importantly, close to 200 European Technical Approvals. The CPD supporting document presents the CEN and EOTA organisations and procedures, which also develop over time.
One of the main changes that the CPD has brought to the Construction Sector is that all manufacturers will have to establish and maintain a factory production control system that meets the requirements described in the harmonised technical specifications. In some cases, independent third parties, Notified Bodies, will verify whether manufacturers (continue to) meet those requirements.
3.3 Objective II
Although the CPD starts from the 6 essential requirements for works, it leads to product conformity attestation only. It does not provide the link between the performance based approach used in product specifications and a performance based approach for works. Therefore, in Objective II, this project will examine how such a link is being or could be established.
3.4 Accomplishments (objective II)
Based on the extensive explanation about the Directive itself, the CPD supporting document also provides information on how the CPD has initiated or supported the development of tools to use the CPD deliverables beyond the legal framework.
Voluntary initiatives to increase users’ confidence in construction products, such as technical approvals and third party conformity assessment, which existed long before the CPD, have and
161 continue to be developed and transformed to cover issues that are not covered by the CPD and because the CPD is performance based, these voluntary initiatives develop in the same direction.
Works’ specifications will also benefit from recent activities of the European Commission, CEN and EOTA. The development of the Eurocodes as European Standards and the EC’s recommendation on their use throughout the European Union is fundamental in the harmonisation of structural calculations and a link with harmonised product specifications ensures a future uniform approach. Similarly, though less publicized, activities are being prepared in the field of fire (fire safety engineering) and acoustics. For public procurement, the CEN and EOTA technical specifications are mandatory, if available, linking the CPD technical specifications to the works once more.
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive leads to a new increased activity in CEN and EOTA in preparing performance based solutions to determine the energy performance of whole buildings, linking to the CPD deliverables.
The CPD supporting document has been presented to the PeBBu Members during the PeBBu Work Shops in January 2004 (Manchester) and November 2004 and was made available electronically.
4. Relation with PeBBu domains
4.1 General
An enquiry among the existing PeBBu domains took place, linking the CPD with the area of performance based building that the domains cover. This enquiry aimed at facilitating interaction with the PeBBu domains.
4.2 Domain 1 "Building materials and components"
The CPD foresees the development of technical specifications on a performance based approach and therefore, input from this domain was likely to be important. The domain concentrates on durability assessment and the parameters that influence durability. EC Guidance paper F covers durability under the CPD and the most important aspects have been presented in the CPD report.
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has published some parts and is working on a whole set of the Buildings and Constructed Assets • Service Life Planning standards (subparts of ISO 15686) guiding the life design of buildings. The concept of the factor•based evaluation of the service life has been introduced in the International Standard for service life planning of buildings, ISO 15686 Part 1. The method allows an estimate of the service life to be made for a particular component or assembly in specific conditions.
162 It is obvious that the majority of the factors necessary to determine the service life are not envisaged in the framework of the CPD and that the CPD’s contribution is limited to providing supporting information regarding the products as they are being placed on the market.
The construction products can only be CE Marked when they are fit for use and influences of the (internal or external) environment on products are addressed in harmonised specifications, as well as maintenance. Design and workmanship are however not covered under the CPD.
Under the CPD, all products are assessed for general intended uses (e.g. fire protective coating or thermal insulation for buildings) and the durability assessment is not linked to specific intended end uses. The end result of the assessment is a manufacturer’s product specific durability claim when placing it on the market. Moreover, the CPD is particularly aimed at manufacturers, i.e. they take responsibility for CE Marking, but cannot intervene in design, use and maintenance of their products.
The usefulness of the service life planning methodology being widely accepted, but the practical implementation in product standards not consolidated, CEN examines how the concept can be introduced in European product standards, as a voluntary provision.
4.3 Domain 2 "Indoor environment"
When considering air quality, ventilation, thermal, sound and visual comfort, the CPD does not directly lead to ready•for•use deliverables. It provides product performances such as release of regulated substances, water vapour diffusion coefficient, thermal conductivity/resistance, airborne and impact sound insulation and sound absorption.
The CPD's third essential requirement "Hygiene, health and environment" will lead to technical product specifications that deliver the means for a performance based approach for the indoor environment and release to soil, surface and ground water, as far as these are influenced by the construction products.
Regulated dangerous substances requirements are not harmonised at present. National regulations continue to apply, but a new CEN Technical Committee will develop horizontal assessment standards for future generations of harmonised standards.
In the framework of the European Commission's Integrated Product Policy, another CEN Technical Committee will examine how existing draft international standards can be used as a basis for environmental product declarations over time. In the meantime, CEN Technical Committees developing product specifications are using an "environmental checklist" to introduce environmental provisions in their standards.
163 4.4 Domain 3 "Design of buildings"
In the framework of the CPD, the 6 essential requirements relate to the works, not the products. Therefore, although the CPD leads to product specifications, there is a direct relationship to the design of the works and many of the CPD deliverables, or related specifications, allow activities related to the overall design of the works.
Having produced product standards, some CEN Technical Committees are now developing installation standards. Since all CEN Member Bodies are obliged to publish CEN standards nationally, these new installation standards will lead to a de facto harmonisation of installation practices, since standards are the "state•of•the•art" and because these standards may be referred to from national legislation.
European Technical Approvals (ETA) always contain provisions regarding the installation of construction products and therefore, the link between the product specification and the works is very clear in these cases.
4.5 Domain 6 "Legal and procurement practices"
The existing European Procurement Directives, respectively addressing products, services and works, lay a direct link to the (mandatory) use of European standards and European Technical Approvals.
By contrast, the new, coordinated, Pubic Procurement Directive, specifies that technical specifications drawn up by public purchasers need to allow public procurement to be opened up to competition and therefore, it must be possible to submit tenders which reflect the diversity of technical solutions. Works' technical specifications should therefore be drawn up in terms of functional performance and requirements, and, where reference is made to European standards or European Technical Approvals, tenders based on equivalent arrangements must also be considered by contracting authorities. Tenderers are permitted to use any form of evidence to demonstrate equivalence.
4.6 Domain 7: "Regulations"
The CPD, due to its national implementation in all EEA Member States, sets a legal framework for placing construction products on the market.
Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that construction products, covered by a harmonized technical specification, may be placed on the market only if they are fit for the intended use, i.e. that they comply with the harmonized standard or ETA, that the applicable conformity assessment procedures are being performed and that the products have been duly CE Marked. This implies an obligation for Member States to organize and carry out market surveillance, in a way that is effective and sufficiently extensive to discover non• compliant products.
164 The Council Resolution of 10 November 2003 requests the Commission to examine the possibilities of better cooperation between the Member States.
The enforcement of the Directive (market surveillance) has however received little attention so far. It is not certain whether Member States use a reactive or proactive enforcement regime, but most seem to opt for a reactive system.
CEN considers whether harmonised product standards are suitable for market surveillance purposes, i.e. do they permit Member State to verify compliance of products placed on the market.
4.7 Domain 8: "Innovation"
As far as innovation is concerned, at first sight, the CPD does not provide the means to encourage innovation. CEN standards usually cover products for which experience exists and even EOTA does not have all the answers for the integration of innovative products in the system, although the Common Understanding of Assessment Procedure (CUAP) was intended in particular for innovative products.
The manufacturers’ desire to demonstrate that innovative products meet the requirements for CE Marking can be easily understood. If conformity with the essential requirements of the CPD cannot be determined in the early stage of development, it will be difficult to convince users to purchase the product, and illegal to sell it. Before CE Marking is possible, manufacturers have to perform ITT and need to have an operational FPC system for the product in place. Both might take a long time to perform and establish.
Without economical solutions for CE Marking of innovative solutions, innovation in the construction sector might decrease, which is obviously not the intention of the CPD. On the other hand, solutions may not compromise health and safety.
5. Recent developments
The Construction Products Directive has been around for more than 15 years and is producing its first results. Nevertheless, interpretation continues to be necessary, as stakeholders are faced with new practical challenges when CE Marking their products.
5.1 Different production methods
During the development of the recently adopted EC Guidance paper M on initial type testing (ITT) and factory production control (FPC), the European Commission acknowledged the different production methods in the construction sector and requested CEN and EOTA to adapt
165 their technical specifications, allowing manufacturers, using any production method, to continue placing products on the market.
Figure 1: CPD Provisions regarding production methods EC Guidance paper M distinguishes:
• Conventional series production: CE Marking obligation applies, conformity assessment in accordance with relevant EC Decisions • Series production of products with varying properties (e.g. windows with an identical design, but different dimensions): CE Marking obligation applies, conformity assessment in accordance with relevant EC Decisions • Individual (and non•series) production is divided into: • individually designed and manufactured products (e.g. restoration of cultural heritage); in this case, Statement N° 2 for entry in the minutes of the Council meeting that adopted the Directive in 1988 applies. Even if the product does not meet the (essential requirements of the) CPD, it can be placed on the EEA market, but without CE Marking, if Member States agree. • Individual (and non•series) production where the above does not apply, or in cases where the above does apply, but where Member States do not authorise the use thereof, the following options apply: • The products have no significant implications for health and safety: In this case, CPD article 13(5) is used, meaning that ITT and FPC are to be performed by the manufacturer, i.e. AoC system 4 applies, which may be contrary to the relevant EC Decision. • The products have significant implications for health and safety: In this case the EC Decision on AoC applies.
166 This differentiation, together with the European Commission's demand to CEN and EOTA to adopt proportionate conformity assessment requirements, should permit manufacturers of all sizes, using any of the above production methods to continue placing products on the market.
Although requirements need to be proportionate, they should also ensure that only safe products are placed on the market and requirements need to be equivalent, preventing market distortion, favouring one manufacturer over another. Performance based requirements, based on a statistical confidence levels are most likely important tools in this new development.
5.2 Placing on the market of products
Where there is a single manufacturer producing a construction product using an established standard manufacturing process from basic raw materials to placing the product on the market, then the responsibilities of the manufacturer and the Notified Body, if involved, are straight forward. However, in the construction sector, there are a significant number of situations where the supply chain includes other ‘actors’, e.g. sub•contractors of components and complete products, importers, distributors, merchants, where the responsibilities of the ‘actors’ and of the Notified Bodies are not clear and are not addressed in harmonised standards.
The CPD itself only considers the role of the manufacturer and his authorised representative. The ‘Blue Book’, which considers all New Approach Directives, and the EC Directive 2001/95/EC, the General Product Safety Directive, define the manufacturer's and distributor's roles.
In the framework of the New Approach, the manufacturer is:
• The manufacturer of the product, when he is established in the Community, and any other person presenting himself as the manufacturer by affixing to the product his name, trade mark or other distinctive mark, or the person who reconditions the product; • The manufacturer's representative, when the manufacturer is not established in the Community or, if there is no representative established in the Community, the importer of the product; • Other professionals in the supply chain, insofar as their activities may affect the safety properties of a product; By contrast, a distributor is any professional in the supply chain whose activity does not affect the safety properties of a product, while a supplier is an entity that supplies materials or products without placing them on the market, i.e. an entity that supplies goods to the manufacturer, responsible for designing and manufacturing a product with a view to placing it on the EU market
An authorised representative is an EU established entity, appointed by the manufacturer to act on his behalf and recognised as such. The manufacturer remains responsible for the actions of the authorized representative under the CPD.
167 An importer (who places a product on the market) is adistributor who takes a product from a third country and places it on the EU market.
These definitions clarify the responsibilities as far as CE marking construction products is concerned.
Distributing a CE marked product, but notaffecting the essential characteristics.A distributor buys in a packaged product, e.g. on a pallet, in a box, etc, and sells it to others without affecting its essential characteristics. The CE Marking is that of the manufacturer. The distributor is responsible for taking care that the packaging is not damaged and that the storage conditions defined by the manufacturer are respected (temperature, humidity, ...), i.e. the responsibility of the ‘distributor’ is limited to maintaining the integrity of the product and producing associated documentation as necessary for local use.
Repackaging and CE marking without affecting the essential characteristics.When a CE Marked product is repackaged, without its essential characteristics being modified (e.g. by transferring from a vat of 200 litres to 1 litre bottles, or by affixing a new label with his own brand name to the product and not referencing the original manufacturer who CE•marked the product), the entity responsible for repackaging is a manufacturer under the CPD. If the manufacturer does not want to refer to the original CE Marking, he has to apply a new CE Marking to his products making use of the original manufacturer’s declared values, and to use a Notified Body, if required. In this case, the key element for CE marking is traceability. The Notified Body should consider that the product complies with the CPD, based on the original manufacturer’s CE Marking, and check primarily that the repackaging manufacturer has taken all necessary measures and procedures to ensure that the properties of the product were not altered by repackaging. The repackaging manufacturer must always be able to prove the product he repackaged was CE Marked by the original manufacturer by showing a correspondence between the branded product he places on the EU market with his CE Marking and the CE Marked batches from the original manufacturer. The traceability has to be fully guaranteed.
Changing the properties of a CE marked product.If a manufacturer buys in a product and changes its properties before selling the product, he becomes a manufacturer under the CPD and must CE Mark the product as he places the product on the market.
5.3 CPD Performance based specifications
Chapter II, Article 7(2) of the CPD says "The resulting standards shall be expressed as far as practicable in product performance terms, having regard to the interpretative documents". Consequently, all EC Mandates to CEN and EOTA foresee that provisions in technical specifications should be expressed, as far as practicable, in product performance terms.
However, manufacturers being confronted with the legal requirement of CE marking all construction products find that testing may be expensive and CEN and EOTA are continuously being requested to simplify requirements. In addition, the technical state•of•the•art may not (yet)
168 permit replacing existing design knowledge by test methods (e.g. durability requirements), preventing CEN and EOTA to introduce performance based requirements. Calculation, which may replace expensive testing, may also be burdensome and/or expensive.
Therefore, the European Commission concluded alternative solutions are necessary to remove some of the burden on manufacturers. The first solution used was the publication of deemed•to• satisfy provisions in the case of reaction to fire class A1 products in an EC Decision, permitting manufacturers to claim class A1, without testing. This principle is now also being used for other reaction to fire classes, through classified without the need for further testing (CWFT) in the case of (other) reaction to fire classes. These CWFT cases are also published in EC Decisions.
The solutions above are published in EC Decisions, since reaction to fire classes are regulatory classes. For non•regulatory classes, CEN and EOTA can introduce technical solutions in specifications, preventing testing and/or calculation through conventionally accepted performances (e.g. tabulated values, « typical » solutions).
However, specifications should always permit manufacturers to claim superior performances than those specified in deemed•to•satisfy provisions, CWFT•cases and conventionally accepted performances through testing (or calculation), encouraging innovation and preventing new barriers to trade.
Therefore, recent CPD technical specifications incorporate the principles of the performance approach by specifying:
• Requirements (objectives to be achieved) • Verification methods, i.e. testing or calculation, which can be used to demonstrate whether or not products meet the requirements • Performance expression methods (threshold performances, characteristic value, classes, levels, … ) And in addition, they specify products, materials, design and construction methods considered to meet threshold performances, levels or classes, without the need for testing.
Most CPD technical specifications will include both prescriptive and performance elements, but should in all cases be primarily performance based. The EC seems to adopt the idea that the performance approach is a means to develop technical specifications, promoting innovation and preventing barriers to trade, but not an end in itself.
169 References
[1] Support on the CPD – Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive (Draft version 2004•11); E. Winnepenninckx, L. Vandaele, P. Vitse;
[2] Council Directive of 21December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (89/106/EEC);
[3] Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety;
[4] Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings;
[5] Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;
[6] Communication of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, Integration of environmental aspects in the European standardisation (COM(2004)130 final);
[7] EC Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach (Blue Book)
170 Section IV
Performance Based Building Experiences outside the PeBBu Network Energetic•environmental certification of the urban lighting installations
Prof. Ing. Pierluigi De Berardinis, Department of Architecture and urban planning•Faculty of Engineering•University of L’Aquila, Italy (email: [email protected]) Ing. Lisa Di Bartolomeo, Department of Architecture and urban planning•Faculty of Engineering•University of L’Aquila, Italy (email: [email protected])
Abstract
Today the urban lighting at last performs a significant role in the field of the issues concerning the regeneration, the organisation and the urban promotion. During the years the progressive awareness about the necessity to determine a specific luminous night landscape has led to a definition of new objectives of intervention. In past times, the role of the urban lighting had a merely functional nature; just afterwards it acquired a figurative value, connected to the rereading and promotion of the urban landscape during night•time. However, in both cases the planning process was basically connected to the definition of a prevalent level of priority, responsible for the clear separation – visible for years – between the functional lighting and the architectural one. The will to define a night landscape for the urban environment entailed an increase of the level of complexity of the lighting processes, due to the increase in variables involved. In fact, the result – product of a holistic vision – is obtained only through the synergetic action of different levels of objectives. The urban lighting changes into a control of the relationship between the plant and the urban environment during the whole life•cycle, so considered in the totality of its functions:
• as an instrument of fruition and upgrading of the built environment. Function of the different destinations of use, of the specific spatial typologies, of the urban structure and morphology; • as a service of public utility. Function of the efficiency, efficacy, economic character of construction and of consumption, of the easiness of maintenance and management; • as an instrument for the sustainable development. Function of the reduction of the environmental loads and of the applicability of specific eco•compatible solutions. The insertion of this latter function within the levels of objectives of an installation of urban lighting is definitely one of the most innovative aspects within the process of planning. The most suitable technical normative instrument to use is the need•performance based approach which emerges as an open system which can also be updated. Acting on the specifications of performance within the energetic field, the technological•innovative field, the field of quality of urban environment and of environmental and economic impact, it is possible to define procedures
171 for the achievement of different levels of quality within the intervention of urban lighting. The final goal is to classify the whole light installation according to its own performance and ascribing to the installation a score equal to the level reached by the same performance. This objective is operatively reached trough a separation into homogeneous parts of the problem organised in working phases. The operating model is developed through the phases of: analysis, definition of the objectives, individuation of the solutions, verification and assessment of the performance level. The conformity of the work performance to the requirements which have managed the planning, the construction and the management of it, sets its level of quality. This means to assert that the process of analysis•verification•assessment makes use of the comparison with benchmarks, properly located (identified), through which it will be possible to give an assessment of the light installation for areas of evaluation. The concept of ‘area of evaluation’ turns out to be a methodological instrument able to consider the different levels of requirement and the connected levels of objective (coming from the assignation of a weight, in terms of importance, to the hierarchy given to the different requirements to satisfy). In this perspective it is also possible to insert the lighting in the process for the sustainable urban development, as a component for the reaching of the parameters established by Kyoto’s protocol. This methodology involves in its own realisation all the actors of the process: from the utilities to the contractors, from the local authorities to the designers bound by a unique synergetic aim for the reaching of specific energetic and environmental performance.
Keywords: score rating system, need•performance based approach, requirement classes, levels of performance, areas of evaluation.
1. The process of environmental urban – lighting system
The urban renewal and the sustainable development of the landscape are themes of great interest, at the centre of the present debate about the reassessment of the town and of the urban policy. In particular, the urban renewal – apart from considering all the aspects connected to the identification of the values to preserve in historical•architectonic and landscape terms – can’t leave out of consideration the identification of strategies suited to the energetic•environmental management, able to improve the use of the areas, without causing disturbance to the present ecosystems. In this specific case, the reduction of the field of investigation to the system of empties constituting the connective of the urban fabric, and the restriction of the field of investigation to the process of urban lighting, define the environmental urban – lighting system. It is aimed to the satisfaction of the following requirements: improvement of the life quality, upgrading of the urban image, efficiency and energy conservation, sustainable development. It’s obvious that these requirements put the process of urban lighting in the field of the issues concerning the urban renewal, organisation and promotion, because it is able to produce economic, social, cultural and tourist implications. Moreover, the delineation of a complexity of contents, like this, implies the involvement of intervention politics characterised by more and more complex solutions, able to have important repercussions on the night landscape, on the activities carried out in it and, at the same time, on the sustainable development (through
172 solutions of control of energy consummations and use, coming from renewable resources). Anyway, the promotion of the improvement of the quality of urban lighting has to consider the local conditions and the fact that the system consumption, management and maintenance is today a considerable charge for the local government; moreover, it has to consider the opportunities caused from the definition of an identity of the luminous night landscape in the process of renewal of the urban image. The progressive awareness of the role of the urban night landscapes has brought during the years to the definition of new aims of intervention. So, the aim to preserve and upgrade the identity of the places merges with the transformation processes; these latter are generated by the changed social requirements and by the need of development centred in the perspective of efficiency, efficacy, sustainability and low costs. The aim to pursue the improvement of the quality of the urban landscape – lighting system implies the setting•up of multidisciplinary and specialist tools to manage the complexity for the identification of qualitative, quantitative and procedural solutions. Practically it performs through a whole of actions – promoted by the local government – able to start a path of careful revision of the normative tools of guide and control of the whole process. As a consequence, the local government becomes the main actor of the possible transformation of the process of urban lighting and of the promotion of a new development model which respects the historical• architectonic heritage, the environmental values, the social requirements and the technical• economic practicability.
2. Aims
The task to guarantee specific qualitative levels of the luminous installations becomes the main purpose in the improvement process of the quality of the urban environment – lighting system. The qualitative levels are measurable in terms of performance (night and day urban environment performance, energetic•environmental performance, technological performance, economic performance and procedural performance). So this approach implies the definition and the classification of different reading levels about different and correlated disciplinary fields. The achievement of the result – product of a holistic perspective – can be reached through the synergetic action of several levels of combinable aims, organised and pursued through rules which define a technical normative of performance inside the process. This normative is aimed to the achievement of performance levels of intervention corresponding to the satisfaction of the purposes coming from the analysis of a basic requirement framework. The achievement of the aims requires:
• a strategy of intervention; • a practical methodology.
3. The strategy
In this field, the satisfaction of the requirements revealed can be articulated through two different levels of action:
173 • the definition and the examination of a complex framework of requirements, which takes shape as an open system that can be updated. It is structured through the need performance based approach thanks to: the levels of aims, the classes of requisites, the compulsory and voluntary requirements and the performance specifications (indicators) for the achievement of the expected qualitative levels; • the indication of procedures for the co•ordination of the activities which make up the phases in which the process is disassembled. So, the promotion of a new development model of urban lighting implies the definition of an intervention tool which, acting on the performance specifications in a technological, energetic, economic field and in a quality range of urban environment, can define some procedures through which it can take into consideration the different levels of performance. They are practicable in the strategies of project, construction, management and the divestment system, or during the various phases of the process.
Figure 1: Need•performance based approach flow
4. The methodological approach
The innovation of the approach consists in the definition of a development model of the urban lighting process based on the fulfilment of a framework of requirements a priori defined. The translation of the requirement classes to satisfy in levels of objectives to pursue (health, security, satisfaction of social expectations, environment safeguard, rational use of energy, upgrading of the day and night urban environment, adaptation to the current regulations, etc.) is the methodological assumption of the process and enables the development of managementa system for the quality of urban lighting.
This system is a way to conceive and represent a non•repetitive process, which can be greatly differentiated for aims and environmental context. Practically it is applicable through a division
174 structured in components organised in levels and through supporting procedures to the macro• phases: productive out work, decision•making and productive in work.
It’s organised by means of an inner technical normative instrument which has the task to guide and check the process (as a support of rational behaviour). It is capable to order in hierarchy the goals of each phase making up the process (planning, designing, execution, management and divestment). It is also able to connect them finding the relationships between the fact•finding areas in which the system is divided (usable spaces system, technological system, figurative system and procedural system). The development of a management system for quality provides for the definition of a practical methodology based on the structured division of the process in systemic connected components and on the classification of different sectors in which they can be articulated. This tool, using the individuation of goals and acting on the performance specifications, rather than on established solutions, is adaptable to each local reality. So, it is possible to do a first division in:
• urban lighting product•service system; • urban lighting process system. The system concerning the urban lighting product•service is a tool able to define and check the minimum levels of acceptability. These is the minimum requirements acceptable, which the system in its globally has to satisfy. The content of the system regarding the urban lighting product•service is functional to the need to structure the urban•lighting environment system in the following parts:
• spatial and environmental condition system; • technological system. It’s useful to classify the following subsystems:
USABLE SPACES SYSTEM
• functional•dimensional system: concerning the use destination, it deals with the geometrical, dimensional, distributive, space•relationship aspects to the different levels of complexity, with specific reference to the requirements of wellbeing, usability, safety, integrability, aspect and management; its object is the spatial category, the settling complex. • physical•environmental system: concerning the artificial microclimate, it deals with the aspects defining the environmental conditions of the spaces, with specific reference to the requirements of wellbeing, usability, safety and sustainability; its object is the environmental unity, the spatial category, the setting complex. TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEM ascribed to the requirements of the usable technology, it defines and checks the behaviour of the technological parts that make up the spaces in connection with the above•mentioned requirements; its object is the technological unity, the technical elements, the equipment and the material.
175 The system concerning the urban lighting process is developed during the temporal phases of the planning, realisation, management, maintenance and divestment. It requires the realisation of operational models and suitable actions to check the development of a management system for quality. So, it becomes the tool to use and to structure the procedures to manage and check the phases of the process. It’s made of a range of phases (sub•processes) interacting in parallel or in sequence, in which the management system for quality becomes a strategic factor to identify the aims to pursue, to programme the activities, to plan the test and the controls to carry out.
PROCEDURAL SYSTEM regarding the activities which characterise the process. It concerns the programmatic, organisational and managerial aspects connected to the execution of this activity. It also concurs the roles of the operators involved in the process.
Figure 2: W ork breakdown structure of operational phase This merely methodological approach is used to reread and systematise the characters which structure the luminous process of the historic centre. In other terms, it is necessary to apply different levels of reading of the disciplinary fields, interacting in a system of connections between the urban landscape and the technological system. The classification of the relationship spaces in spatial typologies and categories, with the following definition of the characteristics to upgrade or to ignore (through a value judgement), will intervene as a basic fact•finding structure. Then, it will be a support – as above•mentioned – of the procedural structure for the development of the temporal phases of the process: planning, design, execution, management and maintenance, divestment, in addition to the checking phase. This latter acts at the end of each previous phase. A division of the process according the need performance based approach and the following
176 reassembling of the parts, assure the chance to define a guide•check tool of the urban luminous process able to allow, at the same time, a plurality of solutions.
5. Operational tools
The operational methodology based on a framework of requirements and on a procedural system uses a series of supporting tools through which the management system for the quality of the urban lighting process is practically accepted. In the following scheme it is possible to pick out:
• the urban lighting masterplan, guide and planning tool for the interventions, is calibrated for the middle•long term and identifies all the interventions to realise. Even if it doesn’t have its own economic resources it has the task to define guide lines to choose the technologies and the techniques to use. • The urban lighting programme, calibrated for the short•term, only includes those actions on which the agreement between the public and private parts took shape. It has the financial resources to carry out these actions. • The energetic•environmental certification of the phases of the urban lighting process, instrument used to check and measure the reached performance levels.
Figure 3: Work breakdown structure of operational phase methodology The need to define an urban lighting masterplan comes from the will to give an organic development to the interventions of the municipal area. It intervenes as a planning tool and it has as purpose the definition of: the criteria of intervention for a luminous night landscape, the
177 priorities of intervention and the technological, energetic•environmental and technical• administrative principles. It allows to define an operational methodology and supporting tools (abacus of conformed solutions and solution models) aimed to the pursuit of specific qualitative levels. Consequently, it is an instrument which can define the contents of the energetic• environmental certification process of each intervention (requirements of the evaluation’s areas and assignation of weights in the score matrix, indicators and criteria of score assignation, chart of synergetic awards, assignation chart of certification levels, correspondence of awards).
The other two instruments intervene during the following phases of the process and require a deep revision of the relationships between public and private subjects. In fact, they are suitable to operate in the complexity delineated in the energetic sector, in which the urban lighting systems take their place. Exactly, the foreseen model goes toward a negotiated planning of the development of the urban lighting. It is necessary to pursue the realisation of objectives of economic development, connected to actions of social, environmental, formal and technological upgrading. The liberalisation of energetic markets, the acknowledgement of the European directives about the energy conservation and about the development of the renewable sources, the resolutions of the AEEG, the white certificates or titles of energetic efficiency, the role taken from the different actors involved (distributing societies, selling societies, ESCO, etc.), all that require a complex structure of procedures. Therefore, the programmes – projects require the definition of concrete interventions to follow, coming from the different technical•economic alternatives. In this perspective the quality component becomes a strategic factor for a correct management of the processes of urban upgrading and of sustainable development of the area. Moreover, the instrument energetic•environmental certification answers to the principles which structure the conception of a new model of development and upgrading of urban lighting:
• the objectives satisfaction principle • the compensation principle
Figure 4: The principles
178 6. The principles
6.1 The objectives satisfaction principle
The development of the management system for quality is aimed to guarantee the fulfilment of the foreseen objectives. In this field the check phase has a determinant role. In fact, the use of :
• the need performance based approach: with the definition of the requirements to satisfy to reach the performance levels; • the processes approach: with the definition of the procedures and of the check lists, implies the necessity to have an evaluation system of the requirements fulfilment degree and of the efficacy of the system. This can be obtained through a “measurement process”, thanks to the following consideration: without measuring it’s not possible to compare, therefore to estimate the trend of any activity. Consequently, to be able to measure it is necessary to define some indicators. So it is possible to check the intermediate steps of the activity progress in each phase, as well as to measure, check and validate the phases of the process.
Therefore the definition of a specific checking and evaluation tool of the reached performance levels is, at the same time, the check of the fulfilment level of the foreseen objectives. It is expressed clearly with the process of energetic•environmental certification of the lighting systems, put at the end of each phase as indicated: certification of the planning phase, certification of the realisation phase, certification of the management and maintenance phase and certification of the divestment phase.
6.2 The compensation principle
The measure of the fulfilment level of the objectives is the basis of the compensation principle. It is the performance level of the urban lighting system. The nature and the aim of this principle can be understood after considering: the role of lighting in the process of urban upgrading and the role of lighting in the energetic sector. Moreover it is useful to reassert that, as above•mentioned, the programme of urban lighting concerns short•term actions, arranged between the public•private parts. This is expressed by the chance to leave to the private subject the total or partial realisation of the urban lighting system. These considerations also express the possible situations that could occur in the urban field.
1. Inside the upgrading programmes of the fabric of the city, the system of empties, or rather of the public space, can become an intervention object of the private. This activity can be applied compensating for the expense through the award tool. This principle requires two instruments. One of guide, typical of the planning phase, and made explicit by the lighting programme. The other, of check, is carried out at the end of the process phases involved in the operation. This system is necessary to guarantee the fulfilment of
179 the public objectives, formerly defined. At the same time, the concept of award implies a measuring of the fulfilment level of the objectives. On this point the energetic• environmental certification, assuming the estimation of the performance fulfilment level from A to G, can be a useful instrument to measure the award. The bigger the certification class, the bigger the advantages for the local government, in terms of quality of lighting system and, consequently, the bigger the advantages for the private subject involved. During the planning phase the local government has to define the certification criteria, as well as the awards ones. 2. Inside the upgrading programmes of the lighting systems, carried out thanks to loans from third party (FTT), the same practical procedure above•mentioned can be applied. Actually, even if the aims of the public part remain the same in both cases, the private ones significantly change. In fact, the private engaged in a urban upgrading process, after the decision to intervene on the public space, finds the chance to reach a system of reductions to keep on the real estate. Moreover, it has a pay back return of investment even in terms of general image of the urban environment which, therefore, will give more value to the operation. The private engaged to finance the total or partial upgrading and/or realisation of the urban lighting systems, finds profitability in the investment, if characterised by a very moderate risk and by a substantially constant cash flow originated by the energetic saving achieved. This allows this subject to be rewarded against the costs of the system planning, installation and management met in a reasonable time. It’s clear that this latter subject considers the energy conservation the fundamental requisite of the intervention. The tools above stressed become assumption for arrangement between the parts.
6.3 Certification systems of the energetic•environmental quality of the lighting systems in the phases
The check method of the performance level fulfilment has been found in a score rating system. In this system to each satisfied requirement a score is given which contributes to fix a general score, exemplifying the reached performance level. The system is structured on a list of requirements, grouped in areas of evaluation, and to each of them an evaluation judgement in numerical scale (score) is assigned, related to the conformity degree to the benchmark. In fact, the assignation of the score to each requisite occurs through the definition of the corresponding performance indicators and, consequently, of the criteria necessary to the check of the fulfilment level of these performances. The evaluation scale is structured through a corresponding chart between a value scale that goes from –2 to +5 and the criteria of score assignation, where the zero is the value or the benchmark concerning what can be considered as the current realising practice, with observance of the current laws and regulations. The score rating system adopted also considers synergetic awards if the requisites regarding a specific family, are satisfied all or, in significant percentage. The synergy award is a clear signal that shows that the best results are not given by the addition of single actions, but by a global and organic strategy. Moreover, the single requisites had importance in the belonging evaluation areas, according to a preventive assignation of the importance that each has. It emerges a sort of energetic•environmental report card and,
180 through a pondered summation of the reached score for each considered requisite, it’s possible to obtain an exemplifying global score of the performance level of the installation in exam. This evaluation is carried out for each phase of the process (planning, execution, management and divestment) and it defines a series of single or summable certificates, making a sort of quality label. The total score contributes to give a certification level according to the classes: A,B,C,D,E,F,G.
Figure 5: The matrix of scores The energetic•environmental certification of the lighting system is given during the planning phase if the score total is included between the following limits:
181 Figure 6 • 7: Classes of certification and the certification matrix in the phases of the process
7. Conclusions
The bottom strategy top down uses a operational model represented according to a reiterated process, which requires phases of closer examination alternate to check cycles to the different scales and phases of intervention. It requires a division in activities for each phase: analysis, definition of the objectives (requisites, performance specification), individuation of the solutions, check and evaluation of the performance level. The definition of given procedures, able to systematise the activities and the criteria of acceptance of each phase is a support able to assure a correct application of the same. These latter become application of the criteria fixed by the light masterplan (planning instrument of the interventions and of the certification criteria, that is of the minimum acceptable performance levels and of the possible ones). Finally they become as assumption for the evaluation and check of the application performance levels.
References
[1] De Berardinis, Di Bartolomeo, “Sustainable building: Hammarby Sjostad Stockholm’s bioclimatic neighbourhood” of XXXII IAHS World Congress: Sustainability of the Housing Projects, 21•25 september 2004, Trento, Italy, p.50
182 Sustainable Procurement: Is Partnering the key?
Kate Carter, School of the Built Environment, Heriot•Watt University,[email protected], Edinburgh, Chris Fortune, School of the Built Environment, Heriot•Watt University,[email protected],
Abstract
Partnering has been cited as a means to deliver sustainability through the procurement system. This idea builds on the notion that sustainability and partnering have the same ethos of long term goals and mutual benefit. Sustainability is often seen as intangible and difficult to deliver at project level. There is often agreement at policy level as to the meaning of sustainability. However there is a common concern that sustainability is difficult to identify and therefore deliver through a construction project. By adopting a more appropriate procurement route sustainable development may become more achievable.
Research had been conducted in the context of the UK social housing sector, with its requirement for a move towards partnered procurement. The research sought to establish how frequently partnered procurement is taking place and how appropriate it is considered for the delivery of sustainability. The research focuses on the procurement selection and how this impacts on the sustainability of a project. Significant features of a partnering framework are identified to create a profile of partnering at project level.
A national survey of social housing providers investigates the attitudes towards partnered procurement. The results of these surveys are analysed to demonstrate the approach to procurement selection and the attitudes that are most commonly linked to the choice of partnering as a procurement route. This research provides a comprehensive snapshot of procurement selection practice and the relationship this has with the delivery of sustainable housing projects. There is a general consensus that partnering can deliver sustainability and that partnering is a more suitable form of procurement to achieve this rather than more traditional procurement routes. This research suggests that further longitudinal studies are undertaken to measure the long term performance of projects that are undertaken using partnered procurement.
Keywords: Sustainability, Procurement, Partnering
183 1. Sustainable Procurement
1.1 Overview
The research presented in this paper is part of a larger piece of research involved in the concept of sustainability and procurement of social housing. The social housing sector in the UK is obliged to consider sustainability when procuring new housing project. Partnering is often suggested as the most appropriate procurement approach to achieve improvement through the construction of building projects. This research considers the procurement of social housing and reports on research conducted with development managers of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). Attitudes towards various procurement approaches was established to explore the link between partnering and the delivery of sustainability.
1.2 The Context of Partnering
A recurrent theme from the Rethinking Construction agenda is partnering and integrated teams. According to the Construction Best Practice Programme (CBPP), the two principles that embody best practice in construction are the abandonment of lowest capital cost as the value comparator and involving specialist contractors and suppliers in design from the outset. Partnering lies at the heart of the 'Rethinking Construction' agenda. Partnering is being advocated by the Housing Forum and the UK housing agencies as a means to deliver improvement through the procurement of social housing. Partnering is heralded as a means to achieve this supply chain integration.
The interpretation of partnering takes two forms. One, of a philosophical position or framework, and another a form of contracting. There is a difficulty in finding absolute agreement at a detailed level as to what partnering is and hence it may be applied to various forms of alliancing (Liu and Fellows 2001). Masterman (2002) defines partnering as a “discretionary system” of procurement. It is described as:
a means of administering and establishing an environment within which a project is implemented using any of the available procurement systems to carry out the funding, design, construction etc. of the project, although some systems work better with partnering than others.
(Masterman 2002:135)
This implies that it is not a form of procurement but a framework within which procurement takes place. This view is supported by the numerous definitions of partnering found throughout the literature. The CIB (1998) definition refers to a management approach. The CII (1991) talks about long term commitment. Culture change is a common theme, having significant importance
184 to organisations planning to embark on a partnered approach to procurement. This change is necessary to move away from the entrenched exploitive and adversarial ways found throughout the construction sector to a more collaborative way of operating (Fisher and Stuart 2001).
There are two types of partnering. Project partnering where the relationship is put in place for one specific project and strategic partnering where there is a long term/ multi project arrangement. It tends to be stated that there is more benefit to be gained from strategic partnering although an acceptance that project partnering is most likely to be embarked upon by those new to the concept. There is consensus in the literature on the attributes of successful partnering. They include trust, mutual objectives, collaboration, equality, continuous improvement and agreed problem resolution. It is interesting to note that in a survey of construction professionals “failure to build a trusting relationship” was muted by a third of respondents as a barrier to partnering (Murray et al. 1999).
There is much less agreement on the processes of partnering. Partnering emerged in the UK construction industry at the beginning of the 1990s, and because of the relatively young nature of the concept there is not a large body of empirical research. A survey of contracting practices carried out on behalf of the RICS in 1998 revealed that only 1.7% of projects was carried out under partnering agreements. Partnering and collaborative working are not sufficiently evolved and researched to be able to draw lessons from past experience. Much of the evidence presented in research papers is anecdotal or based on a small sample.
Partnering in the social housing sector (ECI 2000) presents a prescriptive approach to partnering that can be used as a checklist of actions. The key objectives of partnering in the social housing sector are identified ascutting out waste, increased predictability, secure life•cycle cost benefits and increase innovation.There is little mention of culture change and philosophical position. Culture is identified as the main barrier to implementing partnering. There is recognition in most of the literature that both philosophical and process definitions are relevant and constitute an important aspect of partnering.
Partnering has been said to be capable of delivering up to 30 % cost savings (Bennett and Jayes 1995) over traditional sequential procurement. This figure relates to a programme of strategic partnering and is somewhat ambitious having not been supported by sufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions. There is a growing body of anecdotal case study material that presents positive feedback from a partnered procurement route.
The CIB (1997) state that the benefits are significantly greater if partnering is applied throughout the supply chain. Integrated teams and supply chains although often written about separately are in fact a manifestation of partnering and one could argue partnering applied in the most comprehensive way possible. If clients really intend to unlock the potential of the supply side they will have to start projects entirely differently. This means assembling alliances of consultants,
185 specialists and key manufacturers into integrated teams. Martin Davis of the Integrated Team Working Group states that if this is achieved“The supply side should be expected to drive and deliver on challenging performance targets”. He also emphasised the importance of research and development. "The supply side should welcome researchers working within integrated teams to help it monitor and improve its performance. Those universities and institutions supporting continuous improvement in the industry's key success areas should be given priority financially."
The Rethinking Construction report,Accelerating Change (Strategic Forum for Construction 2002) proposes that 20% of all construction projects have an integrated team and supply chain by 2004. It is not known if this figure has been achieved. It further statesevery that link of the supply chain has a critical contribution to make towards sustainable construction and development.
1.3 Sustainable Development
The construction industry has been identified as one of the most important areas for implementing sustainable development. The built environment is seen to have a significant impact on sustainability issues. In 1999, 50% of the UK’s CO2 emissions were produced by energy use in buildings (M4I 2000). Building a Better Quality of Life (DETR 2000) places construction at the heart of the UK government sustainable development agenda. It claims that the construction industry has a huge impact on the quality of life in the UK and that considerable economic, social and environmental benefits can be drawn from a more sustainable construction industry.
The CBPP states that the client has a key role to play in the delivery of sustainable construction owing to their position within the construction supply chain (CBPP 2002). They are able to influence decision•making on how the construction process impacts the broad themes of environmental, social and economic sustainability. The client can demand forms of and encourage actions towards sustainable development with a clear value statement that guides all procurement activity. Quality, whole life costing, best value and people issues all make their contribution to the overall sustainability of a development.
Scottish Homes Sustainable Development Policy (2000) focuses on four key actions:
· Improving the thermal performance of housing · Reducing the need for physical resources · Influencing the location and mix of housing · Raising and improving consumers awareness
Improving the thermal performance of housing has three chief benefits: To reduce CO2 emissions, condensation and fuel poverty. Housing that is designed and constructed to minimise energy use in occupation has the ability to improve the occupant’s health and well being and reduce the
186 devastating effects of fuel poverty. Housing Associations may consider the benefits accrued in terms of lower maintenance attributed to condensation and higher levels of tenant satisfaction.
The clients influence on the procurement process has the potential to address many of the failings of the construction in relation to long term sustainability. It is estimated that 30% of construction is re•work and only 40•60% of labour time is used efficiently. This incorporates substantial waste into the construction process. Eliminating this waste will have impacts not only in terms of environmental sustainability but also in terms of direct cost and time reduction and increased motivation and satisfaction across the team. Collaborative working is seen as an essential means to addressing this problem.
Brownfield site regeneration and redevelopment of existing buildings are both seen as sustainable options. The choice of site is one of the first steps in the procurement process and has far reaching implications in terms of community sustainability. At a micro level adaptability and mix of tenure in a housing development have a significant impact. Strategic planning and development, a product of collaborative working will have a significant role to play.
2. Linking Partnering and Sustainability
The Housing Forum sought to encourage partnering through the procurement process. Partnering is now central to the housing agencies’ strategies for improving procurement of social housing. It has been suggested that the attributes of partnering are essential pre•conditions of achieving sustainable construction (Addis and Talbot 2001). HAs and their consultants and contractors will have to reach a mutual consensus on the definition of sustainability at project level if it is to be achieved within the overall procurement process. There is a need to link the policy, regulation and guidance to respond to the individual project circumstance.
In theory the difficulty in meeting the holistic goals of sustainable development policies is evident at project level. The ability of short term project objectives to address the long term altruistic goals of sustainability is limited. In practice evidence of creating buildings with one sustainable feature demonstrates a myopic rather than holistic approach to sustainability. Social housing projects have a requirement to demonstrate sustainability, yet the people involved in their procurement have a varied understanding of the term.
2.1 Methodology
A study of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) was carried out to establish an understanding of sustainability and partnering within the social housing sector. The research tool selected was the questionnaire. This was chosen due to the size of the survey population. There are over 2300 housing associations within the United Kingdom. One of the main aims of the survey was to establish trends across the whole social housing sector.
187 The survey was conducted amongst the UK population of RSLs. 990 housing associations involved in development of social housing were selected for inclusion in the survey. Those that owned less than 20 properties were immediately eliminated from the survey population. This left a sample of 1090. One third of these organisations was contacted and invited to complete the survey. The questionnaire was supported by a letter addressed to the ‘Development Manager’. A low response rate of 25% was achieved which was considered inadequate. A second round of questionnaire was sent out which raised the response rate to 37%.
The raw data were compiled within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then imported into Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) to conduct the analysis. The questionnaire was concerned with the collection of perception in the subjective areas of sustainability and partnering. Attitudinal measuring scales were used to provide a number of options for the respondent to select. Composite measurement of an issue or ranges of issues is suggested (Wilson 1996). This involves asking more than one question on a similar area in order to develop a theoretical construct. It is used to gauge the link between sustainability and approaches to procurement. Two questions are strongly correlated and the responses can be used to construct a more accurate view on the issue.
2.2 Results
The results of the questionnaire provide a snapshot of the partnering activity that is taking place in the social housing sector. It also provides the general perception of the way in which procurement approaches are related to the concept of sustainability. The results provide the contextual background against which procurement decisions are being made.
It was found that a higher proportion of RSLs were engaged in partnering than not. The most common form of partnering was ‘Project’ partnering with consultants and contractors. Almost forty percent of RSLs were in partnerships with other RSLs (housing associations). The least common partnering was with sub•contractors or suppliers.
Strategic partnering was less common than project partnering. The only incidence of strategic partnering exceeding project partnering was the Large RSLs partnering with other RSLs.
Table 1: Incidence of Partnering in Social Housing Procurement (% of respondents)
Split into small med Strategic Project large Partnering Partnering Consultants Small HAs 2 6 Medium HAs 19 20 Large HAs 22 36
188 Total 43 62 Contractors Small HAs 2 4 Medium HAs 13 24 Large HAs 24 42 Total 39 70 Subcontractors Small HAs 2 2 Medium HAs 9 12 Large HAs 11 13 Total 22 27 Suppliers Small HAs 2 2 Medium HAs 9 11 Large HAs 15 19 Total 26 32 Other RSLs Small HAs 4 6 Medium HAs 15 20 Large HAs 24 21 Total 43 47
Traditional contracting, Design and build and Partnering were presented to the respondents as three procurement approaches. The respondents were asked to judge the strength of agreement with the statement in terms of the link held with sustainable development. The question was designed to gauge if the concept of sustainable development was perceived to relate more closely to any of the proposed procurement approaches. This allowed the respondent to provide a response based on ‘gut•feeling’ rather than in relation to specific experience. The data was collected with the use of a five•fold Likert . scaleThe scale ranged fromstrongly agree to strongly disagree. A central or neutral position was described as uncertain. Although this allowed the question to remain in effect unanswered it allowed a respondent to demonstrate lack of knowledge or experience in this area.
189 Table 2: Correlation of partnering experience and perception of procurement approaches
Partnering Design and Build Traditional
Consultant .368 .002 .242 .083 .231 .103 Project Contractor .369 .001 .254 .054 .281 .030 Partnering – Sub•contractor .611 .000 .306 .079 .288 .092 Link with Sustainability Suppliers .420 .002 .296 .058 .323 .188 Other RSLs .362 .009 308 .024 .235 .124 Consultant .405 .002 .311 .015 .317 .022 Project Contractor .415 .001 .328 .008 .325 .000 Partnering – Sub•contractor .556 .000 .385 .021 .373 .027 Ability to deliver Sustainability Suppliers .422 .004 .354 .021 .306 .074 Other RSLs .419 .004 .374 .006 .299 .043 Consultant .404 .001 .270 .065 .188 .249 Strategic Contractor .429 .001 .257 .077 .179 .264 Partnering – Sub•contractor .633 .000 .373 .030 .239 .195 Link with sustainability Suppliers .574 .000 .356 .023 .273 .106 Other RSLs .404 .002 .294 .043 .221 .162 Consultant .448 .001 .369 .010 .343 .018 Strategic Contractor .465 .000 .311 .025 .330 .021 Partnering – Sub•contractor .584 .000 .530 .000 .397 .019 Ability to deliver sustainability Suppliers .619 .000 .514 .000 .412 .007 Other RSLs .436 .001 .323 .027 .295 .049 Note: shaded cells indicate no statistical significance
It was assumed that partnering practice would have an influence on the perception of the approaches to procurement and their link to sustainability and whether they are able to deliver sustainability. Each form of procurement was correlated with the types of partnering that had been undertaken by a respondent RSL. Strong correlation coefficients indicate that experience of partnering practice has provided a more positive view of a procurement approach and its link or ability to deliver sustainability. The coefficients and statistical significance are presented in table 2.
Without exception, all those that had experience of partnering agreed that partnering had a link to sustainability and it could deliver sustainability. Although this result is an expected result, it does confirm that the perceptions of partnering are borne out in practice. The strongest correlations were found in respondents that had partnering experience with sub•contractors and suppliers.
The correlation between traditional contracting and partnering experience generated the highest number of correlations that were not statistically significant. Those with either project or strategic partnering experience generally rejected the link between traditional contracting and partnering.
190 There was a moderate increase in respondents agreeing the link between design and build and partnering, although most of the agreement came from respondents with strategic partnering experience.
Experience of partnering appears to provide greater confidence in its ability to deliver sustainability as opposed to design and build or traditional contracting. The greatest confidence correlations were evident in RSLs that had partnered with sub•contractors or suppliers. This seems to support the view that the supply chain is critical to the delivery of sustainability conceptualised.
3. Conclusions
This study is part of a larger piece of research investigating the way in which sustainability is understood at policy and practice level in the social housing sector. Selection of procurement approach is a fundamental decision within the construction of a social housing sector. The requirement to deliver projects that demonstrate sustainability has changed the focus of decision making. The ultimate choice depends on a great number of factors including past experience. The RSLs with experience of partnering have far greater confidence in a partnered approach to procurement than a design and build or traditional route. This leads to the conclusion that where sustainability is a strong factor, there is going to be a greater liklehood of partnering being selected. This research is not able to confirm this view, but suggests that further research is required to establish the effect sustainability has on the ultimate choice of procurement approach.
References
Addis, B. and Talbot, R. (2001) Sustainable Construction Procurement: A guide to delivering environmentally responsible projects, CIRIA, London
Bennett, J. & Jayes, S. (1995) Trusting the Team: The Best Practice Guide to Partnering in Construction, Reading Construction Forum, Reading
CIB (1997), Partnering in the Team, Thomas Telford
DETR (2000) Building a Better Quality of Life: A strategy for more Sustainable Construction, DETR, London
ECI (2000) Partnering in the Social Housing Sector: A handbook, Thomas Telford Ltd, London
Goodchild, B & Beatty, C. (2000) Assessing the Procurement Practices of Housing Associations: A case study of new build in Scotland, Journal of Construction Procurement 6(2) pp 20•32
Liu, A. & Fellows, R. (2001) An Eastern perspective on partnering, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 8(1) pp 9•19
191 Masterman, J. (2002) Introduction to Building Procurement Systems 2nd Ed. Spon Press, London
Scottish Homes (2000) Scottish Homes: Sustainable Development Policy. Edinburgh, Scottish Homes
192 Factors affecting the effectiveness of performance based standards in Singapore
Evelyn Ai Lin Teo, Department of Building, National University of Singapore (email:[email protected]) Kelvin Yu Ngee Ng, Department of Building, National University of Singapore (email:[email protected])
Abstract
The objectives of this research are: (1) To identify the factors limiting the effectiveness of performance based (PB) standards; (2) To compare the views’ of the industry and the Building Construction Authority (BCA) on performance based standards; and (3) To recommend the most significant factors for consideration in understanding and assessing the factors’ effectiveness on performance based standards. The research methodology employed in the study consisted of a questionnaire survey. Data were collected from developers, contractors, consultants and suppliers. Results showed that the awareness level of the construction industry was poor and seven factors have been identified which are significant in limiting the effectiveness of at least one type of benefit accrued to PB standards. Findings from this study will enable the regulatory body to focus on the impact of these seven limiting factors in formulating implementation polices for performance based standards in the construction industry. Furthermore, this study will help to create greater awareness among the key parties in the construction value chain on the issues of performance based standards. Effectively, knowledge acquired by the industry will then maximize the potential of the performance approach.
Keywords: Performance based standards, effectiveness, awareness, regulatory body
1. Introduction
The performance based approach is a radical departure from the conventional procurement system in Singapore. The government’s push for a performance based concept is exemplified by repealing the previous prescriptive regulatory system with a performance based regulatory system in January 2004. Although, it has been established extensively in studies by overseas researchers that there are more advantages to be derived from adopting a performance based approach than a prescriptive approach, researchers also found that there are factors that would limit its effectiveness.
193 One of the key reasons for the growing importance of the performance based approach is its ability to transcend barriers to trade within the international construction market. The performance concept has been implemented in developed countries like the United Kingdom in 1987, New Zealand in 1992 and Australia in 1994 but with varying levels of success [1]. The limited success of the performance based regulatory system can be attributed to the fact that the overall system has not been addressed and deficiencies in key areas like education and infrastructural support [2]. Therefore, it is imperative that knowledge of such issues is shared with the local industry so as to maximize the potential of the performance approach. Hence, it is the intention of this study to explore and determine the factors limiting the effect of performance based standards. In addition, the findings and generated models of this study will provide the parties involved in making strategic standardization decisions to make better decisions with respect to their requirements.
The objectives of this research are: (1) To identify the factors limiting the effectiveness of performance based standards; (2) To compare the views’ of the industry and the Building Construction Authority (BCA) on performance based standards; and (3) To recommend the most significant factors for consideration in understanding and assessing the factors’ effectiveness on performance based standards.
2. Research Method
A sample survey was used to gather the necessary information required for this study. In order to obtain an overall view of the effect of performance based standards on construction industry, four groups of target respondents were selected for the study. They included the developers, contractors, consultants and suppliers.
The source of contacts for contractors and suppliers were from the Building Construction Authority (BCA), Directory of Registered Contractors, 2004 edition. In the case of developers and consultants, they were selected from the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore (REDAS) website and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV) website respectively.
A total of 250 electronic copies of the questionnaire were sent out to the various participants to gather the required data for analysis. These comprised 30 developer firms, 120 contractor firms, 30 consultant firms and 50 suppliers. The distribution pattern of the sample ensured that equal attention was paid to both the contractors and non•contractors. Questionnaires were emailed to the firms, and returned via the same routes. The survey was conducted from October 2004 to December 2004, and respondents were given three month to complete the questionnaires.
The questionnaire design consisted of four sections to facilitate data collection. Section A asked general questions to determine the characteristics of the respondents. Section B asked respondents about the factors affecting the implementation of performance based standards. On a scale of 1 (which represents strongly disagree) to 5 (which represents strongly agree), the respondents were requested to indicate the impact level of the factors during implementation in
194 Singapore. Section C, provided a list of benefits of using the performance based standards which the respondents have to rate on a scale of 1 (which represents strongly disagree) to 5 (which represents strongly agree). Lastly in Section D, the respondents had to rate a list of recommended measures implemented in construction industry to encourage the use of performance based standards on a 5•point scale where 1= strongly ineffective and 5= very effective.
3. Data Sample Characteristics
230 survey questionnaires were emailed to the various participants in the construction industry. A total of 30 forms were returned, giving an overall response rate of 12%. Among these, 15 responses were not usable as respondents were not aware of the performance based regulatory system that was already in placed. The profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. Construction firms formed the majority of respondents.
The respondents’ profiles indicated that they were suitable and qualified to participate in this study. Furthermore, the wide spectra of designation of respondents which range from directors to student interns, is a good indicator of the level of awareness of the Performance Based Regulatory System (PBRS) within the industry.
Table 1: Characteristics of respondents Respondents’ characteristics Total Total Unusable Usable surveys surveys surveys surveys sent received Nature of firm (predominant) Developers 30 3 • 3 Construction firms 120 14 9 5 Consultants 30 8 3 5 Suppliers 50 5 3 2 Total 230 30 15 15
4. Results and Discussion
The one•sample t test was first used to test the three areas in concerned: whether the limiting factors, benefits of performance based standards and measures to encourage usage of performance based standards are significant. Multiple linear regression (stepwise) is then used to generate six models – one of each benefit of performance based standards.
4.1 Factors Limiting the Effectiveness of Performance Based (PB) Standards
The one•sample t test is first conducted on the factors limiting the effectiveness of performance based standards (Table 2). All the factors except for the F8.10 (greater competition from foreign
195 companies) have p > 0.05 and therefore it is concluded that these ten factors have an impact on the effectiveness of PB standards based on Į = 0.05.
The survey questionnaire was also emailed to the Building Construction Authority (BCA). A ranking on the level of agreement on the factors that limits the effectiveness of PB standards was carried out to compare the differences between BCA and the industry’s views. It was found that both parties (BCA and the respondents) generally agreed that F8.1 (lack of performance indicators), F8.6 (lack of research and development in the field of PBRS) and F8.7 (liability issues of using PB standards) have an impact on the effectiveness of PB standards. These results were not uncommon and had been well established by past studies [3, 4, 5]. Hence, it is pertinent that Singapore should attempt to address such issues on an international basis, thereby tapping onto the expertise of other countries which are more advance in the use of PB standards which requires more technical knowledge to develop and apply than prescriptive standards.
However, there were differences in views for the regulatory body (BCA) and the respondents from the industry for F8.2, F8.4, F8.5, F8.9 and F8.11. This could stem from the fact that companies in the industry are ill informed of the developments of PB standards. There should be more promotion and seminars for the newly enacted regulations especially to the smaller firms in the industry which makes up the bulk of the industry. In 2000, BCA conducted a survey to gather the industry’s feedback on the proposed change from a prescriptive environment to a PB environment and the survey results indicated a positive response from the industry. However, the survey results obtained in this study (as highlighted by the views of respondents for F8.4 and F8.9) seemed to suggest otherwise. In addition to a re•evaluation of the perception of the industry on PB standards, this survey also attempts to determine the possible factors limiting the effectiveness of PB standards (see Table 2). The findings of this study would enable BCA to be more aware of the impact of these factors during the formulation of implementation policies for the industry.
Table 2: Summary of One Sample t•Test results to identify significant factors Test Value = 3 Ranking (Mean) Label Factor Sig t* Industry BCA (1•tailed) F8.1 Lack of performance indicators 0.000 4.525 3 (3.93) 10 (1.00) F8.2 Uncertainty involved in the use of PB 0.001 4.090 3 (3.93) 5 (2.00) standards F8.3 Lack of knowledge to use 0.000 PB 6.959 1 (4.07) 1 (4.00) standards F8.4 Lack of support from parties within the 0.001 4.026 5 (3.87) 5 (2.00) construction chain F8.5 Higher cost implications in using PB 0.006 2.870 6 (3.67) 10 (1.00) standards F8.6 Lack of research and development in 0.002 3.568 6 (3.67) 1 (4.00) the field of PBRS F8.7 Liability issues of using PB standards 0.000 5.292 6 (3.67) 1 (4.00) F8.8 Lack of incentives to be innovative 0.041 1.871 11 (3.27) 4 (3.00) F8.9 Hard to change the mindset of clients 0.000 4.583 2 (4.00) 5 (2.00) and other parties in the construction
196 industry F8.10 Greater competition from foreign0.119 1.234 9 (3.33) 5 (2.00) companies F8.11 Inability of PB tests to relate to actual 0.002 3.568 10 (3.53) 5 (2.00) performance * The one sample t•Test excludes the survey results from BCA.
4.2 Benefits of Using of Performance Based Standards
Respondents were requested to rate the benefits of using performance based standards (see Table 3). All the benefits except for the B9.2, B9.3 and B9.4 havep > 0.05, therefore it is concluded that these three benefits (B9.1, B9.5 and B9.6) that are accrued from the use of PB standards are significant based on Į = 0.05.
A comparison of views between BCA and the respondents was conducted and the results are largely similar except for B9.3 and B9.4. The main reason for this difference could be due to the nature of the local industry. The Construction 21 report has identified the intense competitive bidding environment of the industry as a potential obstacle to the progress of the industry. Clients’ preference for the lowest bid has resulted in an unhealthy focus on price and inevitably, quality of works decreased which would result in greater number of defects.
Table 3: Summary of One Sample t•Test results to identify significant benefits Test Value = 3 Ranking (Mean) Label Factor Sig t* Industry BCA (1•tailed) B9.1 Higher quality of workmanship. 0.034 1.974 3 (3.47) 2 (4.00) B9.2 Reduce cost of construction. 0.151 1.075 6 (3.27) 6 (3.00) B9.3 Greater client satisfaction. 0.056 1.702 4 (3.40) 1 (5.00) B9.4 Reduce defects problems of 0.068 1.581 5 (3.33) 2 (4.00) buildings. B9.5 Greater flexibility to promote 0.000 6.089 1 (3.93) 2 (4.00) innovation. B9.6 Increasing the global competitiveness 0.002 3.568 2 (3.67) 2 (4.00) of the company. * The one sample t•Test excludes the survey results from BCA.
4.3 Measures to Encourage Usage of Performance Based Standards
Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the measures to encourage the use of performance based standards in construction industry (Table 4). All the measures except for the M10.3 have significant levels that are less than 0.05 and therefore it is concluded that these measures are significant. It is not surprising that M10.3 is not significant as most companies are expected to be unwilling to pay an additional levy on projects when the industry outlook is bleak and profit margins of companies in the industry are already very low.
A comparison of views between BCA and the respondents was conducted and it was found that both parties have differing views for M10.2. BCA is neutral on the idea of establishing a
197 government sponsored body to lead and co•ordinate the construction industry’s R&D efforts in PB standards. The possible rationale for this could be that BCA recognize the need for research and development into performance standards but the industry should reduce its reliance on the government and be allowed to mature to start its own initiatives. This view was shared by Dulaimi and Tan [6] who felt that local companies were over dependent on the government to lead the development of the industry.
Table 4: Summary of One Sample t•Test results to identify significant measures Test Value = 3 Ranking (Mean) Label Factor Sig df* Industry BCA (1•tailed) M10.1 Major players in the industry should 0.000 14 1 (3.93) 1 (5.00) take the lead in using PB standards to encourage other firms to use it. M10.2 Establish a government sponsored 0.000 14 1 (3.93) 3 (3.00) body (Central Standardization Agency, CSA) to lead and co• ordinate the construction industry’s R&D efforts in PB standards. M10.3 Introduce a levy on all construction 0.151 14 5 (2.73) 4 (2.00) projects to fund the Central Standardization Agency. M10.4 Subsidies to be given for 0.001 14 3 (3.73) 4 (2.00) companies to attend PB standards seminars. M10.5 Greater clarity in enforcement 0.000 14 3 (3.73) 2 (4.00) issues in a PBRS framework. * The one sample t•Test excludes the survey results from BCA.
4.4 Multiple Linear Regression to Determine Industry’s Perception on the Factors’ Effect on Performance Based (PB) Standards
Using SPSS, stepwise multiple linear regression technique is used to construct six models to determine the extent of respondents’ agreement on each benefit accrued due to performance based standards, based on the 11 limiting factors. The Stepwise method will remove insignificant variables and thus only consider the factors that are of significant.
Of the six models generated, the most robust model is for B9.3; it has an adjusted2 Rvalue of 0.73. In general, the lack of robustness of the other models to determine the extent of agreement for B9.1, B9.2, B9.4, B9.5 and B9.6 could be due to the limited sample size of the survey (see Table 5). Therefore, results in this survey may not be conclusive. Despite this limitation, the survey results nevertheless gave an important insight of the awareness and knowledge of performance based standards amongst the respondents. This would enable the relevant authority like BCA to better understand the current situation in the industry and formulate policies to avoid the pitfalls of implementing the PBRS in the industry.
198 Table 5: Six Models Generated by Multiple Linear Regression Technique No Regression Models Adjusted R2 1 B9.1 = •1.462 + 0.867(F8.11) + 0.514(F8.8) 0.457 2 B9.2 = 1.218 + 0.559(F8.5) 0.218 3 B9.3 = •3.339 + 0.828(F8.8) + 0.965(F8.3) 0.730 4 B9.4 = 1.082 + 0.582(F8.4) 0.304 5 B9.5 = 2.159 + 0.451(F8.2) 0.409 6 B9.6 = 7.700 – 1.100(F8.7) 0.515
4.5 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.1
Higher quality of workmanship (B9.1) is expected from PB buildings as meeting performance requirements are a critical aspect of the PB approach. The PB approach allows for innovative means through the use of new technologies and techniques to increase the level of workmanship. But there are insufficient incentives (F8.8) for companies to go beyond compliance despite adopting a PB approach [7]. The more essential factor in affecting the quality of workmanship is the inability of PB tests to relate to actual performance (F8.11); due to its higher coefficient in the regression model. In addition, Cary et al. [7] indicated that PB standards can be imprecise and difficult to measure when they are qualitatively based. Currently, most performance indexes are lab based or results are simulated, they do not reflect actual building performance. One of the ways to overcome this is to have the major players like the Housing Development Board (HDB), Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) or Land Transport Authority (LTA) which have a large pool of buildings, to conduct a research. That is to look into the past records of materials used, testing methods and try to link it to building performance. Furthermore, there should be greater monitoring of such test and results for on going projects; this will facilitate the development of test indexes for actual building performance.
4.6 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.2
The benefit of reducing cost of construction (B9.2) due to usage of PB approach is ranked the lowest by the respondents in this study. The main reason could be that majority of the companies in the industry are small to medium sized companies which are driven by profits for the short run. Based on the survey conducted by BCA in 1999, 70% of the companies have a paid up capital of less than $0.25 million and annual turnover of less than $0.50 million [8]. Therefore, the initial increased in time and cost of adopting the PB approach (F8.5) is more than a deterrent for them despite the fact that a PB approach will result in more functional buildings at lower construction costs [9]. Hence, other than creating greater awareness of the PB approach, the local companies should consider formulating business strategies that ensures the survival of the company in the long run.
199 4.7 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.3
In the PB approach, the clients have the option to choose the balance of performance and cost they are willing to pay. Greater client satisfaction (B9.3) could stem from higher quality and greater value for money in the long run because meeting the performance requirements is paramount in the PB approach [10]. However, the lack of knowledge (F8.3) and lack of incentives to be innovative (F8.8) for using PB standards is impeding progress into this area. Therefore, the requisite infrastructure for the PBRS to thrive must be in place. In particular, for F8.3 which is ranked the highest by the respondents as well as having the higher coefficient in the regression model. Hence, the authority should focus heavily on establishing a local knowledge base for issues relating to PB approach.
4.8 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.4
A PB standard focuses much more attention on defining success and developing measures of success than on identifying failure modes [11], as a result it is capable of reduce defects of buildings (B9.4). However, the benefit of reducing defects is rankednd lowest 2 by the respondents (see Table 3). This could be attributed to the excess capacity of the industry which results in serious price undercutting that would lead to a subsequent loss of quality as contractors are forced to cut corners [8]. As a result, defects would be more likely to surface and disputes between parties would arise. In addition, symptoms of the ‘suicidal’ tender bidding of contractors have also resulted in delays in numerous construction projects as well as collapse of some established construction firms. Thus, the conflicts ensuing from the intense price competition has further segmented the industry, and resulted in a lack of support from parties within the value chain itself (F8.4). Therefore, it is suggested that the major players in the industry like the LTA and HDB take the lead in adopting the PB approach so as to influence the parties down the construction value chain.
4.9 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.5
One of the main reasons the performance based regulatory system was adopted in Singapore was because of the fact that it allows greater flexibility to promote innovation (B9.5). However, Lee and Barret [4] cautioned that it also increases the possibility of generating new or even greater risks compared to using prescriptive standards due to the uncertainty associated with it (F8.2). This uncertainty is mainly due to the nature of the PB approach as well as a lack of infrastructure to support the PB approach [3]. In addition, Theodore [5] pointed out that building clients, contractors and government regulatory bodies lack the basic competence required for expressing, interpreting and monitoring requirements in terms of performance. Hence, in order to encourage mass adoption of the PB approach, the authority must overcome the uncertainties through conducting of seminars to increase the knowledge base on the PB approach and developing adequate infrastructure for the PBRS to thrive.
200 4.10 Discussion for Regression Model for B9.6
The industry is made up of mainly small to medium sized companies, and as such few of these companies have the neither the capacity nor expertise to export their services [8]. Hence, although the change of regulatory system to a PBRS may increase the global competitiveness of a firm (B9.6), it is unlikely to have any impact on the operations of these small local based companies. In addition, such companies tend to be profit driven, and as the PBRS does not clearly spell out the obligations of parties (F8.7), it would further deter these companies from adopting the PB approach.
5. Overview of Results
Inter•jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC) and CIB Task Group 37 members found out that a PBRS framework that works in one country may not work in another because of the differences in government, politics and culture. Hence, lessons can be learned from other countries but must be adapted to meet the individual countries needs. In retrospect, Ofori [12] noted that the government actions alone are insufficient to achieve the effectiveness of the implementations made to address the problems of the industry. It is clear that there are many measures to be adopted to remedy the issues but the problem is how to implement them successfully. Therefore, this study has determined the impact of the different factors on the six types of benefits accrued to PB standards. Knowledge gained from this study would then be beneficial to the regulating bodies during the formulation of polices to implement the PBRS.
In addition, the findings of this study also revealed that 50% of the respondents are not aware of the new PB regulatory system that is in placed. The industry is made up of mainly small firms therefore efforts must be made to reach out to these firms in order for the new PB regulations to have any positive effect. This new approach requires a radical new mindset of working as it involves greater professional judgment and responsibility from personnel at all different levels. Hence, the relevant authority should step up their efforts in generating greater awareness and creating a knowledge base for the PB approach.
As for the key parties in the industry, this study serves to generate greater awareness of PB standards among the companies within the industry. With a greater understanding of the issue, key players in the industry could then collaborate with the authority to formulate win•win strategies for all parties. Most of the benefits will only occur if the industry is used to working with the performance based concept and benefits will be maximized if the PB approach is applied throughout the building process [13]. Therefore, companies within the industry should be well informed of the developments in the performance approach as it would have an impact on their operations. The local market is shrinking and competition is intensifying hence the PB approach would increase the global competitiveness of the company.
201 6. Summary
Extensive research has been conducted on the advantages and disadvantages PB standards. In general, a successful implementation of the performance approach will increase companies’ global competitiveness as well as raised clients’ satisfaction through higher quality of buildings. However, there is a dearth of local research being done on the factors that limits the effectiveness of PB standards in spite of its growing importance. In view of this, this study was conducted to examine the factors’ that contribute to the effectiveness of PB standards in the local industry. To fulfil this, the following issues were investigated.
Firstly, a review of past literature was conducted to provide the background framework of the PBRS that is implemented in Singapore and also to establish and identify pertinent factors having an impact on the effectiveness of the PBRS. Consequently, 11 factors were adopted for use in this study as potential limiting factors. The list of limiting factors and the benefits accrued to PBRS provided the foundation for a retrospective questionnaire.
Secondly, surveys were emailed to key parties in the construction value chain which include developers, contractors, consultants and suppliers. The companies were randomly selected from the REDAS website, SISV website and the BCA, Directory of Registered Contractors, 2004 edition.
Thirdly, the effects of the 11 factors on the effectiveness of PB standards were studied. The one• sample t test was conducted to determine the significant factors. A comparative ranking analysis was also conducted to determine any major differences in opinions between the regulating body (BCA) and firms in the industry based on the same questionnaire.
The findings of the one•sample t test indicate that all the factors except for F8.10 (Greater competition from foreign companies) are significant based on Į = 0.05 on a 1 tailed test. The result allows us to concentrate on the significant factors for this study. Similarly, the one sample t•test identified three significant benefits that can be derived from the use of PB standards. The use of Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression technique enables the automatic removal of insignificant variables therefore, despite the results obtained from the one sample t•tests; all the variables are included in the regression analysis.
Lastly, six models were generated using the stepwise regression method; one for each benefit accrued to the use of PB standards. This is to identify the factors having the most significant bearing on the effectiveness of PB standards. Attention can be given to the most important factors as identified by the model in order to maximize the effectiveness of PB standards. The stepwise procedure identified seven significant factors (F8.2, F8.3, F8.4, F8.5, F8.7, F8.8 and F8.11; refer to Table 2) that were associated with at least one of the six benefits of using performance based standards.
202 7. Conclusion
This study is useful in two main aspects. Firstly, it establishes those seven factors that are significant in limiting the effectiveness of PB standards in Singapore. In addition, it attempts to clarify the differences in viewpoints between the regulatory authority (BCA) and the parties in the industries. This serves to provide a greater appreciation of the limiting factors of the PB approach and its associated benefits. Secondly, it established a framework for determining the extent of respondents’ agreement on the benefits accrued due to PB standards, based on the 11 limiting factors.
The findings of this study have provided the regulating authority with a greater understanding of the potential obstacles of the performance approach and the likely benefits that can be reaped. It can be said that there is no one model that fits all systems; therefore, careful planning must be carried out in the implementation of policies. More essentially, the authority should obtain feedback from the industry in order to create a win•win situation for all parties.
The importance on PB approach is best exemplified by the increasing attention that has been placed on sustainability and efficiency in the 21st century; the PB approach offers an alternative solution to attaining these two goals. The PB approach also enables the vertical and horizontal integration of the industry which allows for greater communication and integration of the industry. There will be a radical change in the method of procurement and consequently, the PB approach will enable the industry to mature and improves the current level of productivity which is one of the Construction 21 objectives.
References
[1] Parliamentary Debates, Singapore, Official Report (2003). Volume 76. No 21.
[2] Meacham, B.; Tubbs, B.; Bergeron, D.; Szigeti, F. (2002). Performance System Model • A Framework for Describing the Totality of Building Performance, in Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Performance•Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods (FSDM & SFPE).
[3] The Inter•jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC) (1999). Guidelines for the Introduction of Performance Based Building Regulations (Discussion Paper).
[4] Lee, A. and Barrett, P. (2003). Performance Based Buildings: First International State•of• the•Art Report. Domain 7, Regulations.
[5] Theodore, C.H. (2001). The performance approach to construction worker safety and health. Unpublished Phd.Phil thesis. Graduate School of the University of Florida.
[6] Dulaimi, M and Tan F.H. (2001). Developing world class construction companies in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics. Volume 19. Page 591•599.
203 [7] Cary, C. Nash, J. and Olmstead, T. (2002). “Performance•Based Regulation: Prospects and Limitations in Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection,” Regulatory Policy Program Report No. RPP•03 (2002).
[8] Economic Review Committee (ERC), Sub Committee on Domestic Enterprise. Construction Working Group Report. (2003).
[9] Bergeron, D, Bowen, B. and Tubbs, B. (2001). Acceptable solutions. CIB World Building Congress: Performance in Product and Practice. Volume 3. Page 85•91.
[10] Foliente, G.C. (2000). Developments in Performance•Based Building Codes and Standards. Forest Products Journal. Volume. 50. No. 7/8.
[11] Prasad, N. K. (2002). Performance•Based Standards: Questions and Answers. Nuclear Standards News. Volume 33. No 4.
[12] Ofori, G. and Lim, M. M. (2003). Collective Championing of Construction Industry Development in Singapore. Knowledge construction, proceedings of the Joint International Symposiums of CIB Working Commissions. Volume 2. Page 735•746.
[13] Tempelmans, H.P. and Marleen, H. (2001). Economic Benefits of the Application of the Performance Concept in Building.
204 Performance Based Building
Prescriptive building practice is still predominant in many countries. There is evidence that such practice inhibits innovation during the development and the use of built environments. By contrast, Performance Based Building (PBB) fosters innovation through the setting of performance requirements. At their best, these requirements provide challenging fitness for purpose parameters for the whole life span of built environments. Thus, the focus of PBB is on potential ends rather than definite means.
The European Commission funded Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Thematic Network has been a four year programme. It has been a multi•national venture involving many research scientists and industry practitioners. The PeBBu network has aimed at international dissemination and implementation of PBB throughout the development and use of built environments. The main results of this ground•breaking pan•European endeavour are presented in this book.
This book is part of a series of scholarly books on Combining Forces –Advancing Facilities Management & Construction through Innovation.
Other books in this series include: •Understanding the Construction Business and Companies in the New Millennium •Global Perspectives on Management and Economics in the AEC Sector •Systemic Innovation in the Management of Construction Projects and Processes •Facilities Business and its Management •ICT in Construction and Facilities Management •Learning from Experience –New Challenges, Theories, and Practices in Construction
ISBN 952•5004•66•X