decision€support€toolkit€(dst)€–€a€step€towards€an … · 81...
TRANSCRIPT
81
Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – a step towards anIntegrated Platform for Performance Based Building
(PBB)
Janne Porkka, Pekka HuovilaVTT BUILDING AND TRANSPORT
Business and Process ManagementP.O. Box 1800, FIN02044 VTT
Emails: [email protected] , [email protected]
Abstract
The additional Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Thematic Network task on decision supporttoolkit (DST) has reached its final stage. PeBBu aims at combining fragmented knowledge in thearea of Performance Based Building in order to build a systematic approach towards innovationof the building industry and applying user requirements throughout the building process. Endusers, policy makers, building industry and regulatory communities are closely involved in thisdevelopment 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 toolkitand to test the most promising ones in selected PeBBu Domains. This paper represents the DSTcontent, sums up the testing results from and summarises key findings from passionatediscussions amongst different performance based building experts.
The task included successful test sessions in October at Delft and in November at Portofacilitated by VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.). Theyoutlined future PBB development needs in the industry and in different customer segments. Theproblems of the construction and real estate cluster have been pointed out to be insufficientcustomer orientation and on this matter PBB offers extremely promising foundation.
The most challenging part of the task, outlining the future development directions for PeBBu, isfinally introduced as a PBB Framework describing present stage, next steps and futurechallenges.
Keywords: Decision support tools, decision support toolkit, performance based building, postoccupancy evaluation, check lists, requirements management, quality function deployment, multicriteria decision making, design structure matrix, iBUILD, interoperability, PBB framework
82
1. Introduction
1.1 Performance Based Building
Performance Based Building (PBB) is defined as ‘the practice of thinking and working in terms ofends rather than means’, as applied to building and construction [1]. Concept provides a flexibleand technically nonprescriptive framework for building design and construction. Its applicationconsists of translating human needs (functionality, comfort, etc) first into functional and then intotechnical performance requirements, implementing them within a regulatory framework throughcodes/ standards/ specifications and enable the construction of buildings that provide longtermsatisfactory performances. Application of the performance concept is gaining worldwide interestand acceptance. It is becoming increasingly recognised as a possible basis for globalisation andsynchronisation 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 regulationcontrol. The application will provide substantial benefits to both the enduser and to theparticipants 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 tobuild a systematic approach towards innovation of the building industry and applying userrequirements throughout the building process. From this, white spots and a coherent futureresearch agenda can be derived. Endusers, policy makers, building industry and regulatorycommunities are closely involved in this development in order to facilitate dissemination andimplementation of research results. The Network especially stimulates investments in researchthat may be expected to produce practical recommendations for the adoption and application PBBthroughout 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) hasreached its final stage. The objective was to collect promising decision support tools into a toolkitand to test the most promising ones in selected PeBBu Domains. This paper represents theselected tool, sums up the testing results from and summarises key findings from passionatediscussions amongst different performance based building experts.
83
The task included successful test sessions in October at Delft and in November at Portofacilitated by VTT Building and Transport (Finland) and University of Reading (U.K.). Theyoutlined future PBB development needs in the industry and in different customer segments. Theproblems of the construction and real estate cluster have been pointed out to be insufficientcustomer orientation (The European Construction Technology Platform, ECTP, Vision 2030Report [3]) and on this matter PBB offers extremely promising foundation. The most challengingpart of the DST task, outlining the future development directions for PeBBu, is finally introducedas a PBB Framework describing present stage, next steps and future challenges. Task producedtwo final reports [4].
2. DST Selected Tools
Seven promising decision support tools supporting owners’ and clients’ decision making arestructured under value management, value engineering and process management. Selection basedon applicability and interoperability covering building life cycle phases. Toolkit contains PostOccupancy Evaluation (POE), Check Lists (CL), Requirements Management (RM), QualityFunction Deployment (QFD), Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Design StructureMatrix (DSM) and iBUILD tool (Figure 1). Colours and numbers indicate applicabilitypriorities.
Figure 1: Selected PeBBu Decision Support Tools and their primary applicability.
84
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 formaland comprehensive examination and evaluation of a building using methods aiming to study theeffectiveness of designed environments from human user perspective. The results are presentedtraditionally as building strengths and weaknesses and method is often repeatable because ofsystematic and adaptive nature. Nowadays many of the studies in occupied buildings exploitPOE. It’s also clear that the operation phase should have more attention than earlier phases dueto its financial importance. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Complex nature of buildings is understood better through Check Lists. Those have beenexploited in other tools but unfortunately performance based approach is still lacking universalclassification. 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 ofCheck Lists is their twoway connectivity to other tools, especially in setting performanceobjectives and making design decisions.
Requirements management ensures that we know what the customer really wants and alsoverifies that these objectives are met. Purpose is establishing a complete, consistent andunambiguous requirements specification [15]. Performance of the building should be definedcomprehensively before the actual technical solutions get defined [16, 17]. Requirements anddesign are strongly linked; changing nature should be remarked also in tools. EcoProP softwarefor systematic requirements management (see Figure 2) from VTT Building and Transport wasintroduced [14]. Software helps to set systematically performance objectives, to view requirementprofiles, to estimate LCC and LCA impacts and finally to form an appendix to design brief onperformance objectives. A data base tool includes preset requirement levels paving the way forapplying by various users in different building types.
85
Figure 2: EcoProP software for systematic requirements management.
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) helps to represent performance objectives and prioritiesand 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 istargeted to managing large amount of data, includes systematic priorities setting and assessmentagainst benchmarks. VTT’s QFD ProP is lighter combination and therefore exploited also inPeBBu DST Domain testing with integration to EcoProP.
Multi criteria decision making helps to structure discussion on objectives, relations andalternatives and synthesize those to model. Theoretical approach bases on value tree analysis.Widely recognised Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) uses the pairwise comparisons to solvemultiple attribute problems, but when number of variables increases procedure becomes timeconsuming [21, 22]. WebHIPRE comprises different MCDM tools (including AHP) used forprioritisation and analysis [23].
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a compact and clear representation of complex system andcapturing method for the interactions/interdependencies/interfaces between system elements [24,25]. Visual relationship matrix reveals key information flows and sets simultaneously targets toprocess analysis and reengineering. It used for finding the optimal order of tasks and definingproduct architecture (modularity and interfaces) and forming teams in large organisations. In casethe problem exists it helps also to solve inconsistencies. There is many commercial applicationsavailable for DSM.
Last tool, iBUILD from TNO Netherlands enables market driven product development inhousing by modular intelligent parametric designs for houses [26]. It highlights client possibilityto make changes and still exploit lower process of massproduction. Computer applications helpthe nonprofessional client in decisions and visualise consequences. The system streamlines the
86
building process through the generation of drawings, support in selection of building productsfrom 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 withother, as Figure 3 illustrates. Requirements management tool EcoProP and QFDProP exploitinghouse of quality matrices formed the interoperable platform for testing.
The first trial was conducted in Delft for Domain 2 (Indoor environment) led by Mr. MarcelLoomans (TNO) in October 2004 using a single family house that has been built in Kotka inFinland (case: Loiste). It highlighted innovative energy efficient steel frame solutions of highcomfort. The test focused on managing the indoor conditions. The first DST workshop validatedthe test approach with a relatively simple housing case. The second test was arranged in Porto forall scientific PeBBu Domains in November 2004 using an industrial, adaptable and durable officebuilding designed in the Netherlands (case: IDF Building). Slightly different approach wasmaintained in each domain. The leader of Domain 3 (Design), Mr. Dik Spekkink (SpekkinkC&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 indoorconditions, low environmental pressure, optimised running costs and value, representingcorporate brand: serving image and innovative design and technical solutions [27]. It supports
87
multiple layout solution inside the office floors, offering fixed solutions combined to flexibility inothers.
Figure 4: IFD Building.
3.2 Test Results
Performance objectives were captured with EcoProP that was remarked valuable aid inimplementation the performance approach because the users are ‘forced’ to think their objectivesbefore technical solutions. Experiences of implementations revealed that it increased discussion,commitment and teamwork. It also verified that the original needs were documented and ensuredthat essential requirements are not eliminated. Software was exploited in team sessioncharacterized by Domain members challenging each other. VTT ProP® classification was used tocollection of performance requirements, following characteristics were remarked:
• Conformityo Location, spatial systems
• Performanceo Indoor conditions (Indoor climate (FISIAQ), acoustics, illumination, vibration)o Service life and deterioration risk, safetyo Adaptability, comfort, usability, accessibility
• Cost and environmental propertieso Energy consumption (LCC, LCA calculations), water consumption
• Processo Process issues (Briefing, construction, quality assurance)
88
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 ProP® or otherpotential classifications. Certain inconsistencies were remarked but overall structure isperformance based. One should also notice that different spaces need different requirements.Spaces have varied needs and defining their characteristics independently would offer betterusability. It’s vital for implementation to consider also requirement interrelations. This analogyisn’t included at present EcoProP software, because of its complexity.
Decision support tools need also well documented manuals and supporting system. This meansmore reference information and exploitation of expert consultation. Systems shouldn’t base onwebbased information because URL addresses are considered to have their own service life andlimited availability. Predefined lists pave way for rating objectives at a project level. Lists help toimprove quality and simultaneously speed up process. They might also lead to incompletesolutions 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 meetcustomer 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 describingcharacteristics of technical solutions. Results indicated that HVAC system was considered ascritical part. Impact is stronger in offices than one family houses but Finnish building domainuses widely FiSIAQ indoor air quality classification; setting detailed recommendations for targetvalues, design guidance and product requirements. It was clearly noticed that systematicprocedures are needed to project meetings. Somebody has stated it clearly: “Client don’t optimizethe process, they hire a contractor to do that”.
DSM can be used to organise tasks or workers and supported by Last Planner to help invalidating execution possibilities. Potential use of DSM is in process analysis and riskassessment. DS tools enable proving of procurement practices benefits. Integration of tools ispossible 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 toogreatly production driven instead of being customer orientated. Situation in ICT tools wasremarked 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 theimportance of design and construction is clearly understood the emphasis is predicted to shifttowards operation model. The operation model is a starting point for new projects. According toICT tools the change is intended to be stronger, because next generation tools are moving towardsautomation and use of standardized solutions.
89
Conclusion 1: ICT Tool development needs flow from Operation model to Requirementsmodel. Value of facilities for user culminates to quality of requirements model. Therefore isstrong need to develop the interface between operation model and requirements model; supportedby seamless life cycle data management further to design and production.
Conclusion 2: Verification tools for proposed performance entities are needed. There is aneed for verifying materialising of proposed performance entities by validation tools andappropriate applications are needed especially to design assessment.
5. Recommendations for the Future
The recommendations leading to better image amongst the audience and growing markets arestructured to four main categories in Figure 5.
Figure 5: PBB Framework.
5.1 International Framework and universal Performanceclassification
Problem: No common means of true communication on performance properties exist.
PBB needs a common vocabulary and a logical framework where different performance criteriacan be referred to. A millennium version of a new CIB Master list could structure the high levelcriteria like the work was started in the CIB Compendium. The low level characteristics that may
90
be material or technical solution dependent should be left open. A widely accepted genericperformance framework would increase interoperability of tools and accelerate the diffusion ofimplementation.
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 isolatedapplications are unsystematically applied for suboptimising individual solutions.
It is evident that product model technology has developed to a level where it can enable theattachment of data from various phases to it, such as requirements management. This shift isintended to motivate developers towards consumer driven process.
Recommendation 2: a “PeBBu II” should be activated focusing on “ePeBBu Platform” and“PeBBu compatible applications” with panEuropean true experts on board.
5.3 Value models, incentives and constraints
Problem: Despite of the potential considerable benefits of PBB widely shared by researchersover 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 riskassessment is needed. A Roadmap describing the vision (or future scenarios) and needed actionplan with relevant steps would show the way forward. Relevant landing points and indicatorsmeasuring 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 crossdisciplinary study a “PBB Roadmap” objectively assessingvarious future scenarios could provide a discussion basis bridging various professions anddisciplines.
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 formingvalue networks, establishing winwinwin rules and adopting customer oriented life cycleservices. If the business models remain questionable no progress can be achieved.
91
Recommendation 4: Self sustaining profitable business models are needed to breed customeroriented networked life cycle services.
5.5 Information dissemination, regulations and education
Problem: People are lacking information and knowledge – it is a challenge to encourageinnovation and development through regulations.
Accessibility of information must be ensured. Value forming in the process enabling learningmust be supported.
Recommendation 5: The development needs to be encouraged and assured at all levels.
92
References
[1] CIB, publication. CIB 1982. Working with the performance approach in building. Report ofWorking 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. Web sites: http://cic.vtt.fi/projects/pebbu andhttp://www.pebbu.nl/maincomponents/newtasks/toolkitpbb/ .
Porkka, J., Huovila, P., Gray, C. and Al Bizri, S. 2004. Decision Support Tools forPerformance 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 andRecommendations 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. Postoccupancy Evaluation. NY: VanNostrand Reinhold.
[6] Preiser, W.F.E. 1996. Applying the performance concept to postoccupancy evaluation. InProc 3rd CIBASTMISORILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. andPaciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, 7 43.
[7] Zimring C. M. and Reizenstein J. 1980. Postoccupancy Evaluation: An Overview. Journal ofEnvironment and Behavior, Vol. 12 , Iss. 4, pp429450.
[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 NeoCon2003 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. Secondedition. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ISBN 0803127340. 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. Website: http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/ecoprop/english/EcoProp_brochure.pdf . Free trial version of EcoProPtool available; please send your contact details to [email protected] .
93
[15] Haumer, P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Weidenhaupt, K.. 2000. Improving reviews of conceptualmodels by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interacting with computers 13 (2000)p7795.
[16] Leinonen, J., Huovila, P.. 2001. Requirements management tool as a catalyst forcommunication. 2nd Worldwide ECCE Symposium. Information and CommunicationTechnology 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 PerformanceRequirements Management of Built Facilities. Clients Driving Innovation InternationalConference, 2527th October 2004, Queensland, Australia. Conference paper written by VTTFinland and CSIRO Australia.
[18] Akao, Y.. 1969. QualityFeaturing Characteristics of Quality Control. Quality Control,JUSE, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 3741.
[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 BuildingMaterials and Components 8dbmc, Vancouver, Canada, May 30 June 3 1999, NRC ResearchPress, Ottawa, pp. 1874 – 1880.
[20] Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. and Evbuombwan, N. F. O., 1999. Client requirementsprocessing in construction: A new approach using QFD, Journal of Architectural Engineering,Vol 5, No 1, March, pp. 815.
[21] HUT 2002. Value Tree Analysis. Report published by Systems Analysis Laboratory inHelsinki 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. ManagementScience, volume 32, issue 7.
[23] WebHIPRE software is freely downloadable for noncommercial academic use andpreliminary 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) andUniversity of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (UIUC). Web site: http://www.dsmweb.org/ .
[26] iBUILD tool. Web site: http://www.ibuildonline.com/ .
[27] IFDbuilding. Web site: http://www.ifdbuilding.com .