pbb user platform building owners, users & managers · performance based building thematic...

P E R F O R M A N C E B A S E D B U I L D I N G T H E M A T I C N E T W O R K 2 0 0 1P E R F O R M A N C E B A S E D B U I L D I N G T H E M A T I C N E T W O R K 2 0 0 1 -- 2 0 0 52 0 0 5

www.pebbu.nl E C 5 t h F r a m e w o r kE C 5 t h F r a m e w o r k

PBB USER PLATFORM BUILDING OWNERS,

USERS & MANAGERS

PeBBu User Platform 1 Final Report

Performance Based Building Thematic Network Funded by EU 5th Framework Research Programme

Managed by CIBdf

PBB USER PLATFORM – BUILDING OWNERS, USERS & MANAGERS

PeBBu User Platform 1

FINAL USER PLATFORM REPORT

authors Dr. Tim Yates and Dr Josephine Prior

BRE, UK

Report layout/ cover design, editing Ms. Mansi Jasuja CIBdf, The Netherlands

October 2005

This work was performed as part of the tasks for the EU-funded Performance Based Building Network. Performance Based Building Network (PeBBu) is a thematic network funded under the European Commission’s (EU) 5th framework – Competitive and Sustainable Growth and has been operational from October 2001 till September 2005. This project has been managed by CIBdf, The Netherlands. The PeBBu Network has been facilitating in enhancing the existing performance based building research and activities by networking with the main European stakeholders and other international stakeholders. The network has also been producing synergistic results for dissemination and adaptation of performance based building and construction. More than 70 organisations worldwide have been participating in the PeBBu Network.

PeBBu Coordinator: Wim BAKENS [email protected]

PeBBu Programme Manager: Mansi JASUJA

CIB (PeBBu) General Secretariat Postal Address: Postbox 1837, 3000 BV Visitors Address: Kruisplein 25-G, 3014 DB Rotterdam The Netherlands Email: [email protected] Tel: +31.10.4110240 Fax: +31.10.4334372

w w w . p e b b u . n l This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational and non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made. CIBdf would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this material as a source. No use of this publication may be made for the resale or for any other commercial purposes whatsoever without the prior permission in writing of CIBdf.

FOREWORD

The purpose of the User Platform was to establish a group of senior clients, owners and users of buildings and other constructed assets, who had particular interest, and expertise in the delivery and operation of buildings and infrastructure from a Performance point of view. The group was to assess and guide work underway in defined research areas within the nine PeBBu Domains. The User Platforms are different from the other Domains in that they do not have actual members to support the Task Leader and so it is not possible to comment on the ‘dedication to the tasks’ of individual partners. However, the inclusion of the national contact and others domain leaders in the development and circulation of the questionnaire greatly improve the outcome of the Task. In practice the setting up of the Platform was a difficult task – which can be taken as a reflection of the current understanding of Performance Based Building by owners, users, and managers. As a result it was necessary to review the proposed work plan and to evolve the programme to meet the needs and commitment of this client group. The outcome of this process of evolution has resulted in the development of ‘road map’ for future research that will continue the education of the owners, users, and managers taking them from their current position towards a full understanding of the implications and benefits of performance based building at all stages of the construction process. The use of national contacts to provide local support in a wide range of locations has been successful and is certainly a useful method for any future work. We would like to acknowledge the support of colleagues at BRE, particularly Kathryn Bourke, the other Domain leaders and the National Contact Persons.

Tim Yates BRE, UK Task Leader of User Platform 1 [email protected]

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the User Platform was to establish a group of senior clients, owners and users of buildings and other constructed assets, who had particular interest, and expertise in the delivery and operation of buildings and infrastructure from a Performance point of view. The group was to assess and guide work underway in defined research areas within the nine PeBBu Domains. The specific objectives for each of the three User Platforms were:

• To engage high level representatives of actual PBB stakeholders in decision making on the programme as to be performed by the PeBBu Network and in the evaluation of the results of this programme

• To stimulate and facilitate input of the PBB actual stakeholders opinions into the programming and execution of international PBB related research and dissemination projects during all stages of the PeBBu Network programme.

• To prepare for the respective stakeholders support to future implementation activities. The responses showed that the respondents believed that the design brief and design stage were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. This finding is in many ways reinforced by a later question that found that the materials and components and the whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on. This User Platform allows an assessment to be made of interest in performance based building to be made at two levels. The first is within those associated with the project where there was a lot of support and enthusiasm, but this is in stark contrast to the initial support from owners, users and managers. The questionnaire received better support but there is clearly a considerable gulf between the enthusiasm of the academic world for PBB and the actual uptake of those responsible for buildings.

Perf ormanc e Based B u i ld i ng T hemat ic Ne twork 2001- 2005 O w n e r s U s e r P l a t f o r m F i n a l R e p o r t

6

2001- 2005 P e r fo rma nce Based Bu i ld i ng Thema t ic N e twork O w n e r s U s e r P l a t f o r m F i n a l R e p o r t

7

CONTENTS

Foreword 3 Executive Summary 5

Contents 7

1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................11 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING......................................................15

2.1 WHY DO WE BUILD THINGS? .....................................................................................................................................15 2.2 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................15 2.3 THE CONTRACTOR / BUILDER IS USUALLY EXCLUDED FROM DECISION-MAKING ...................................................16 2.4 DEVELOPING THE RIGHT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENTS AND SUPPLIERS ........................................................16 2.5 WHAT IS PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING? ...........................................................................................................17

2.5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................17 2.5.2 How can the Performance Based Building approach help? ..........................................................................17 2.5.3 How can we make Performance Based Building more achievable? .............................................................18 2.5.4 The Performance System Model.......................................................................................................................18 2.5.5 Other developments that can help....................................................................................................................19

3 USER PLATFORM 1 – DEVELOPMENT AND ACTIVITIES............................................................................23 3.1 ORIGINAL PROGRAMME OF WORK ...........................................................................................................................23 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................................23

4 USER PLATFORM 1 – ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE REPLIES ...................................................27 4.1 ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES........................................................................................................................................27

4.1.1 Question 1 (concept of PBB) ............................................................................................................................27 4.1.2 Question 2 (PB Codes and regulations) ..........................................................................................................27 4.1.3 Question 3 (existing legal regulations / codes)...............................................................................................27 4.1.4 Question 4 (PB procurement) ..........................................................................................................................27 4.1.5 Question 5 (essential stages for PBB) .............................................................................................................27 4.1.6 Question 6 (influential stage for PBB) ............................................................................................................28 4.1.7 Question 7 (PBB & innovation) .......................................................................................................................29 4.1.8 Question 8 (PBB impacts) ................................................................................................................................29 4.1.9 Question 9 (PB Statement of Requirements) ...................................................................................................29 4.1.10 Question 10 (PBB and liabilities) ..................................................................................................................29 4.1.11 Question 11 (lessons learnt with PBB)..........................................................................................................29 4.1.12 Question 12 (the future of PBB in Europe) ...................................................................................................30

4.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................................30 4.3 TOWARDS A ROAD MAP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING RESEARCH – THE OWNERS AND USERS PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................................................................................30

5 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................................35 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................39 ANNEXES ..............................................................................................................................................................................43

ANNEX 1. THE USER PLATFORM QUESTIONNAIRE – OWNERS, USERS, AND MANAGERS...............................................43


8


9

Introduction

CHAPTER 1CHAPTER 1


10


11

11 II N T R O D U C T I O N N T R O D U C T I O N

From the earliest stages of the development of the PeBBu Network it was recognised that a link was needed between the research-based domains and the potential users of Performance Based Building (PBB) in the commercial world in order to provide a review mechanism and ‘reality check’. It was decided that this link could best be provided by establishing three User Platforms covering – pre-standardisation, the constructors, and the owners, users, and managers. The specific objectives for each of the three User Platforms were:

• To engage high level representatives of actual PBB stakeholders in decision making on the programme as to be performed by the PeBBu Network and in the evaluation of the results of this programme

• To stimulate and facilitate input of the PBB actual stakeholders opinions into the programming and execution of international PBB related research and dissemination projects during all stages of the PeBBu Network programme.

• To prepare for the respective stakeholders support to future implementation activities. The User Platform was also available to make incidental responses at the request of the Network Secretariat to selected strategic network documents, for which the inclusion of the respective stakeholders opinions wa important, including in particular:

• Strategic programming documents per PeBBu Domain • Definition of the needs for research as to be included in the structure for the PeBBu Mapping

activity Within the work plan of the User Platforms, two workshops were envisaged during duration of the PeBBu Project. The first of these workshops was planned for the 2nd of October, 2003 in Brussels, Belgium. However, this was postponed (see below). As a result of this cancellation it was decided to develop a questionnaire as an alternative approach and so the second workshop planned to take place in the first half of 2005 was cancelled and a presentation on the questionnaire made at the CIB Conference in Helsinki.


12


13

Background Information Performance Based Building

CHAPTER 2


14


15

22 BB AC KG R O U N D AC KG R O U N D II N F O R M AT I O N N F O R M AT I O N PP E R F OE R F O R M A N C E R M A N C E BB A S E D A S E D BB U I L D I N GU I L D I N G

2 . 12 . 1 W h y d o w e b u i l d t h i n g s ?W h y d o w e b u i l d t h i n g s ?

The sole purpose of any constructed asset, or built facility (as for all products and services) is to fulfil a need1. This need can be of a business or personal nature. The success of a built facility depends on how well it meets a client’s needs and interests, now and in the future. A successful facility is not only an answer to the client’s basic requirements but it enhances and facilitates the activities which it accommodates. Unfortunately, this state is rarely achieved at the moment. The reason is that for decades the building and construction industry throughout the industrialised world has been highly fragmented and mainly supply driven2. Poor customer focus among building and construction industry professions has led to a perception among owners, users and managers that buildings and constructed assets inevitably offer poor fitness for purpose and low value for money; especially when compared with many other consumer and investment goods. 1,2. We all need buildings and constructed assets to work effectively for us. We all need Performance Based Building. All members of society are stakeholders of buildings and constructed assets, and there are many ways in which we experience our stakeholder status 1.. For instance, as:

• residents in our homes, • employees in offices, factories, hospitals, hotels, cinemas, theatres, broadcasting studios or

shops; • travellers on the roads, railways, waterways and in the air; • users, such as shoppers, patients, students, prisoners, hotel guests, theatre audiences; • bystanders and visitors affected by activities around us; • investors with financial interests in the built environment; • providers of products and services who are constrained by traditions and codes.

2 . 22 . 2 T r a d i t i o n aT r a d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s t o b u i l d i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o nl a p p r o a c h e s t o b u i l d i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n

Most countries in the developed world rely on a set of national and international building specifications and codes, to regulate the development of facilities which businesses, administrations and private citizens need2. Traditional building codes are based on technical specifications for systems, components and materials and they may fail to provide either “good value for money” or “fitness for purpose”. Prescriptive and deemed-to-satisfy codes focus on the technical solution to a “problem” or need which may never have been properly defined or understood. They have the advantage of simplicity, which makes them easy for architects, contractors and others to use them. But they also create serious barriers to:

• innovation; • optimising costs, and • trade.

Because the industry is fragmented, each project team is assembled as though each building and construction project were a single prototype. Project teams are also unlikely to reassemble on another project. This inhibits the transfer of knowledge gained from :

• planning and programming; • design, construction and commissioning; • the technologies to be applied; • the roles and relationships between all the participants in the project supply chain.


16

The need to refocus on customer oriented requirements, and away from traditional, prescriptive input, is one of the most difficult challenges facing the building and construction industry. Prescriptive formulae are easy to generate, understand, carry out and monitor. But, they stifle innovation and lead to poor value for money. Because things have nearly always been done this way, it is hard to achieve change. Even where regulations have been developed to emphasise the importance of overall performance targets, as is the case with the United Kingdom Building Regulations3, they are still applied using deemed-to-satisfy solutions. While these are intended to be examples only, the reality of building control and monitoring is such that innovative alternatives to the published deemed-to-satisfy solutions are often rejected.

2 . 32 . 3 T h e c o n t r a c t o r / b u i l d e r i s u s u a l l y e x c l u d e d f r o m T h e c o n t r a c t o r / b u i l d e r i s u s u a l l y e x c l u d e d f r o m d e c i s i o nd e c i s i o n -- m a k i n gm a k i n g

In some countries, the traditional approach excludes the Contractor / Builder from taking any active part in the design of buildings and constructed assets. Due to their usual lack of experience in the process of construction, designers inevitably make assumptions and decisions that hamper the work of the contractors who have to do as they are told, without any freedom to innovate during implementation and on site. But in countries like France, the general contractor is often responsible for the implementation of a project at an earlier stage, on the basis of a “sketch or concept design”. Here, the general contractor has much greater freedom to implement the intent of the designer than when the contract is based on construction drawings. The Royal Institute of British Architects publishes an Outline Plan of Work4 which describes the UK traditional approach to the project delivery process in twelve well defined steps, labelled A to M. The process begins at the project Inception (A), where a general outline of requirements and a plan of action are produced by an architect and the commissioning client, and it ends at Feedback (M) following the completion and hand over of the building to the client. At each stage, the following are all defined:

• purpose of the work, and decisions to be reached; • tasks to be done; • people directly involved.

The two most significant points to note about this process are that:

• The building contractor is only mentioned tentatively for the first time at the Detailed Design stage (step E). This follows a recommendation that the Brief should not be modified at this point or beyond.

• The contractor is only mentioned as an essential member of the “people who should

be directly involved” at the Tender Action stage (step H) long after the warning before step F that any further change in location, size, shape, or cost after this step will result in abortive work.

2 . 42 . 4 D e v e l o p i n g t h e rD e v e l o p i n g t h e r i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n C l i e n t s a n d i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n C l i e n t s a n d S u p p l i e r sS u p p l i e r s

Historically, the business interests of clients and suppliers have been different. Traditionally, neither the suppliers, nor the clients have perceived buildings or constructed assets as significant contributors to the core business of the client. The client’s interest lies in adding value to its core business. The suppliers’ interest lies in maximising their own profit through providing products or services related to the building


17

or constructed asset. This lack of shared interest can lead to a poor match between the asset provided and the business needs of the client. The essential basis of a healthy working demand and supply relationship is shared understanding of what is needed and what can be delivered4. Naomi Garnett6 has identified sources of waste arising from the design and construction of a retail store. Strategic waste occurs at the interface between client and the project team. It can most easily be avoided by fully understanding and articulating the user requirements of a building before the decision is taken to build it. The business needs of the client, such as the ability to make last minute layout changes, or the use of certain design standards to achieve market branding must be recognised and taken into account from the outset of the project. If not, waste may arise in the design and construction process, because of belated change orders, or the need for re-design, and so on. A way of managing the impact of such waste in terms of cost and time then needs to be negotiated between the client and the project team. Evidence is growing that providing well-serviced, adaptable, flexible constructed assets and more lasting quality is profitable for investors, owners and developers. Any unwillingness to address user needs now disadvantages tenant organisations, building owners, and in turn designers and managers because the market has become more flexible and dynamic. Companies and individual users have discretion over the property they choose to occupy5.

2 . 52 . 5 W h a t i s P e r f o r m a n c e B a s e d B u i l d i n g ?W h a t i s P e r f o r m a n c e B a s e d B u i l d i n g ?

2.5.1 Introduction

Performance Based Building: prompts the building supply chain to answer important questions objectively including:

• What is the built facility for? • What tasks does it need to facilitate? • How does it need to behave? • How long does it need to last? • How much money will it cost to run? • What impact will it have on the environment?

In addition it: • defines a building, or building product’s fitness for purpose by its performance

requirements,; • focuses on the target performance needed for your business processes; • describes buildings and building products in terms of their: • target performance and • fault prevention • does not impose solutions and technical specifications.

Performance Based Building should lead to a better match between built facilities and the needs of Owners, Managers and Users, and better value for money.

2.5.2 How can the Performance Based Building approach help?

Buildings and other constructed assets should all enable the flow of business processes, by taking part in them. Buildings and other constructed assets are among the resources used in support of the mission of the business, but too often, we fail to regard them in this way. Performance Based Building means focusing on the target performance required for the business processes. It is about using performance requirements to define a building, or a building product’s fitness


18

for purpose, right from the outset. What is the building or constructed assets for? What tasks does it need to facilitate? How does it need to behave? How long does it need to last? How much money will it cost to run? What impact will it have on the environment? If we ask the right questions, we should start to achieve more of the right answers. This will lead to a better match between constructed assets and the needs of clients, and it will lead to better value for money.

2.5.3 How can we make Performance Based Building more achievable?

The Performance Based Building PBB concept is simple1: Required performance in use should drive construction activities, instead of prescriptions for how to make buildings. There are suggestions that if the Performance Based Building approach were used to address fundamental aspects of building and construction, this could lead to significant savings1. Among others, the following would benefit:

• building design; • development of materials and components; • building physiology; • innovation; • regulation; • the wider built environment; • procedures and documentation.

In addition, the people involved in generating new construction should also adopt a performance orientated stance, including:

• owners, managers and users; • regulators; • the research and development community; • contractors; components and product manufacturers, and materials suppliers.

2.5.4 The Performance System Model

A “Performance System Model” has been created 5 to map the flow of decision making from business objectives to construction solutions (Figure 1). The diagram splits the Client expectations into left (Non-Regulatory) and right (Regulatory) issues. The right-hand side of the diagram shows the requirements mandated by Codes and Regulations with the force of law. They 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 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 by the constructed asset. At the top of the diagram 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 or Facility are mapped. The indicators begin with test methods, standards and tools, moving through to indicators of serviceability, condition and service life that will be understood, measured and acted upon by the different user interest groups.


19

Figure 1 – The Performance System Model showing both Non-Regulatory and Regulatory Requirements

2.5.5 Other developments that can help

It is difficult to develop reliable performance based information. New materials and components are being developed all the time and establishing projected lifetime performance information for them can be very challenging. The Standards ISO 15686 on Buildings and constructed assets – Service Life Planning and ISO 9000 Fitness for Purpose go a long way towards addressing these issues. Another exiting piece of work is currently underway in support of PeBBu. At the request of the CIB, and in collaboration with the Dutch Government Building Agency and the US General Services Administration, the International Centre for Facilities (ICF) and the Building Research Establishment (BRE) have started

Performance System Models

Qu

alita

t ive

Qu

anti

t at i

ve

Top

Do

wn

Statement of Requirements (SOR)Aspect / Topic / Functional Element

Minimum Threshold Levelsand risk tolerance

Prioritiesfor

Portfolio& Asset

Managers

Prioritiesfor

Conditionand

ServiceLife

Prioritiesfor Users

andOwners

Prioritiesfor FacilityOperators/Managers

Performance SolutionsPrescriptive SolutionsAcceptable SolutionsAlternative Solutions

This portion of diagram based on ST&M® approach andASTM Standards on Whole BuildingFunctionality and Serviceability

Relative importance

Indicators ofCondition andService Life

Verification / AssessmentTest Methods / Test Standards / Analytical Tools-Methods / Design

Guides

Audit / Verification / AssessmentRating Methods and Tools / Test Methods / Test Standards /

Analytical Tools-Methods / Design Guides

Relative Levels of Performance/Risk

Criteria

Prescriptive provisions

ObjectivesB

ot t

om

Up

Line-by-Line Detailed Analysis

Indicators of Serviceability/Capability

Project / Facility

Regulation and Codes

Objectives

Goals

Functional Statements

Performance Requirements &Acceptable Solutions for

Safety Health Fire Structure Sustainability

Non-Regulatory Model

Objectives

Goals

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)


20

work to develop a Compendium of Performance Based Building Statements of Requirements7,8. In its first phase, the study laid the foundations for the development of Performance Based Statements of Requirements, including references to a method for gathering information about user requirements and about the capability of facilities to meet those requirements. A key conclusion from the early work was that there was confusion in terminology (See Figure 1) between:

• Statements of Requirements: • demand from owner, tenant or user; • non-regulatory issues;

and, • Functional Statements: • of performance objectives and goals; • statements included in some performance codes, and; • regulatory side.


21

User Platform 1 – Development and Activities

CHAPTER 3


22


23

33 UU S E R S E R PP L AT F O R M L AT F O R M 1 1 –– D D E V E L O P M E N T A N D E V E L O P M E N T A N D AA C T I V I T I E SC T I V I T I E S

3 . 13 . 1 O r i g i n a l P r o g r a m m e o f W o r kO r i g i n a l P r o g r a m m e o f W o r k

The establishment of the User Platforms, including User Platform 1 has proved to be a very difficult process. The initial plan was that the Platform would be established soon by the time the first report that synthesised the findings of the nine Domains was complete and that the User Platforms would then discuss this document and provide a ‘steer’ for the later Domain meetings. As such, the User Platforms were a key part to play in the overall programme and as they provided a feedback mechanism for the researchers in the Domains. The first user platform meeting was scheduled for October 2nd 2003 in Brussels but it was postponed for a number of reasons. These reasons included: not being able to attract enough high-level organisations since PeBBu was still in a more theoretical stage of research and development and it was premature to expect such high-level representatives in a meeting without any funding. In addition, there were a number of unexpected cancellations amongst those expected to attend due to illnesses and holidays. As a result of the problems with the first workshop it was decided that alternative approaches to facilitate the required input into the PeBBu network of the interest of actual stakeholder representatives should be examined. One of the proposed new approaches, which seem feasible and practical at that time, was to approach the respective stakeholders in all user platforms individually. Another suggested approach was to conduct a survey amongst building owners, municipalities, construction firms, etc. to judge their interest and knowledge and then approach them to join this user platform. The aim was to obtain 10-15 key and interesting stakeholders in the platforms. The agree alternative approach was a combination of the two alternatives - to identify stake holders through the domain members and national contacts and to ask them to complete a short questionnaire developed specifically for the User Platform and made available via the BRE website.

3 . 23 . 2 D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r eD e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

The questionnaire was developed from longer document which was being considered from use in the User Platform 2 for the construction industry. This was developed by Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) and Technion (Israel) and was aimed at integrating the professional practitioners’ views and experiences with implementing performance based building concepts. It also aimed at being a vehicle for better understanding the real research needs that still exist in order to improve the implementation of PBB in practice. The authors believed that there was little merit in theoretical concepts if these were not translated to and applied in practice – and this applies as strongly if not more so to owners and users of buildings. The Building and Construction Industry questionnaire was envisaged as consisting of four parts:

Part 1: Overall, General and Integrated Aspects of Performance Based Building Part 2: Building Technology, Innovations and product evaluation and assessment Part 3: Specific Disciplines and Domains of PBB Activities

3.1 Energy Conservation 3.2 Hygro-Thermal Behaviour 3.3 Indoor Air Quality


24

3.4 Sustainable Construction 3.5 Acoustics 3.6 Fire Safety 3.7 Structural Aspects

Part 4: Hierarchical Domains Tree and Research Areas It was felt that this would be too long for owners and users and so a shortened version was drafted whilst still keeping the close alignment with the work areas of the active domains. The final version contained 13 questions and was envisaged as taking around 15 minutes to complete but it could be longer if the respondent had time to give fuller answers, a ‘Word’ version of the questionnaire can be found in Annex 1. The full web version can be found at http://www.bre.co.uk/pebbu_questionnaire/. This is password controlled, for contact the first author. The findings have been used to develop a ‘road map’ for future research in the area of performance based building (see below). The questionnaire was completed and made available in May 2005 and the first results presented during the PeBBu Session at the CIB Conference in Helsinki, June 2005.


25

User Platform 1 – Analysis of the Questionnaire Replies

CHAPTER 4


26


27

44 UU S E R S E R PP L AT F O R M L AT F O R M 1 1 –– A A N A LY S I S O F T H E N A LY S I S O F T H E QQ U E S T I O N N A I R E U E S T I O N N A I R E

RR E P L I E S E P L I E S

4 . 14 . 1 A n a l y s i s o f t h e R e p l i e sA n a l y s i s o f t h e R e p l i e s

By the end of the PeBBu project 14 questionnaires had been completed on-line. The main findings are described below followed by some general conclusions.

4.1.1 Question 1 (concept of PBB)

Are you familiar with the concept of performance based building?

More than 70% of the respondents were familiar with PBB and all of these thought that the approach was helpful or very helpful.

4.1.2 Question 2 (PB Codes and regulations)

Are you familiar with performance-based codes and regulations/standards that (or are intended to) replace prescriptive ones? Half of the respondents were familiar with performance-based codes. They highlighted fire regulations as well as general building codes as being important. There was a general feeling that PBB codes should ‘lift barriers’ but people also fore sore difficulties in their application.

4.1.3 Question 3 (existing legal regulations / codes)

In your opinion, do national and international legal requirements, directives (eg EU Construction Products Directive), codes, regulations, or standards encourage or inhibit the application of a performance based approach for the building and construction industry sector? There was an equal split between those who thought current regulations inhibited the application of a performance based approach and those who thought they encouraged this approach. Those who thought that they inhibited attributed this to a traditional reliance on prescriptive standards which stifled innovation.

4.1.4 Question 4 (PB procurement)

Are you the owner, user or manager of a built facility (or facilities) procured and constructed using a performance based brief and / or performance-based procurement approaches to building systems, components, products or materials? The respondents were responsible for a number of PBB projects but, in general, they found that it was difficult to bring in a performance based approach at all stage of construction and use.

4.1.5 Question 5 (essential stages for PBB)

In your opinion at which stage (or stages) is ‘performance-based building’ most influential?


28

The respondents were asked to identify one or more stage of the following stages:

Construction/use stage

Number of replies

Strategic Planning and Feasibility Studies

3

Brief / Program 9

Design 10

Procurement 3

Construction 2

Use/occupation 2

Refurbishment / repair / maintenance

4

Change of use 4

Deconstruction / demolition 2

Other (please specify if possible)

0

The responses showed that the respondents believed that the brief and design stages were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. There is a renewal of interest at the ‘change of use’ stage - which is another point where design is involved. This finding is in many ways reinforced by a later question that found that the materials and components and the whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on.

4.1.6 Question 6 (influential stage for PBB)

In your opinion, for which of the following is a ‘performance-based approach’ most influential? The respondents were asked to identify one or more stage of the following list:

Construction/use stage Number of replies

Products and materials 10

Services 5

Indoor environments 5

Whole built facility 7

Legal, compliance, insurance, and other related matters

7


29

Management 2

Other (please specify if possible) 0

The replies show an emphasis on the materials and the building – rather than the use, environment or the management of the building in use. It is interesting to note the number of responses to the legal aspects of construction.

4.1.7 Question 7 (PBB & innovation)

In your opinion, does a performance based approach stimulate or inhibit innovation to the built asset as a whole?

The respondents believed that a performance based approach should stimulate in innovation with only two people believing it would inhibit it. The main positive advantages highlighted were the ability to consult more widely in order to meet the client’s requirements. The main area of concern highlighted was the commercial pressure associated with speculative development where costs were seen to dominate at all stages.

4.1.8 Question 8 (PBB impacts)

Do you own, or have owned, both facilities that have been acquired traditionally or using a performance based approach. If Yes, in your opinion, does a ‘performance based approach’ to building facilities provide a more appropriate working/living environment than a traditionally specified built facility? More than 90% of those expressing an opinion believed that performance based building provided a more appropriate working/living environment compared to those acquired through a more traditional route. The main comment in favour was the ability to procure a more functional building.

4.1.9 Question 9 (PB Statement of Requirements)

Would you willingly participate in a building project that uses a performance-based statement of requirements? Nearly 80% of the respondents said they would willingly participate in a building project using a performance based statement of requirements – but most expressed some concerns over how the project would go!

4.1.10 Question 10 (PBB and l iabil i ties)

In your opinion, do you think your liabilities change when a performance-based approach is used in the brief, or to procure any system, component, product, service, or material? The majority of respondents believed that their liabilities would change and that their insurance would be affected. Interestingly, there was a feeling that there would be financial benefits – despite the risks.

4.1.11 Question 11 (lessons learnt with PBB)

What lessons have you learned in using a performance based approach on your own project(s)? The general feeling from the replies was that the greater freedom in design would allow a wider range of solutions – but the ‘downside’ was that writing the specification was more difficult.


30

4.1.12 Question 12 (the future of PBB in Europe)

Are clients in Europe ready to be part of the implementation of a performance-based approach in the building market? Is there minimal size of a building project for such an approach to be considered?

The respondents believed that there was no limit in the size of project but there was a feeling that it may be more suited to large commercial projects. A number of the replies again indicated a willingness to be involved tempered by a lack of experience.

4 . 24 . 2 G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e Q u e s t iG e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r eo n n a i r e

The main conclusions from the questionnaire responses are that:

• Many owners and users have heard of performance based building and see it as a helpful approach.

• Although they their experience is limited they would be willing to be involved in PBB projects

but there is a concern about the drafting of specifications in the performance base format. • They see PBB as stimulating innovation and allowing a wider range of solutions which can

provide a more functional building.

• Currently it is perceived that PBB is most appropriate at the design stage – both for new build and for refurbishment/change of use. PBB appears to be making less of an impact at other stages – particularly during the actual use and occupation of the building.

• There is a greater emphasis on the materials and the building envelope than on what takes

place within the building.

4 . 34 . 3 T o w a r d s a R o a d M a p f o r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f T o w a r d s a R o a d M a p f o r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f P e r f o r m a n c e B a s e d B u i l d i n g R e s e a r c h P e r f o r m a n c e B a s e d B u i l d i n g R e s e a r c h –– t h e O w n e r s a n d t h e O w n e r s a n d U s e r s P e r s p e c t i v e U s e r s P e r s p e c t i v e

The questionnaire also asked the respondents to identify topics and areas which they believed needed to be addressed in order to increase the uptake of PBB. The main ones identified were:

• Innovation – presumably examining the ways in which PBB can stimulate innovation. • Fire engineering – particularly smoke control and people’s behaviour.

• Measurement – some metric is required to assess to benefits of PBB – something that goes

beyond cost.

• Legal responsibility for defects – who is responsible if something does go wrong or where the new approach makes traditional responsibilities unclear.

• Internal environments – this seems to be an area where owners and users have seen very

limited impact from PBB.


31

• Exemplar buildings/projects – well documented examples of successful project are required to support future projects.


32


33

Conclusions

CHAPTER 5CHAPTER 5


34


35

55 CC O N C L U S I O N S O N C L U S I O N S

The responses to the questionnaire showed that the respondents believed that the design brief and design stage were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. There is a belief that the whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on. The questionnaire also asked the respondents to identify topics and areas which they believed needed to be addressed in order to increase the uptake of PBB. The main ones identified were:

• Innovation – presumably examining the ways in which PBB can stimulate innovation. • Fire engineering – particularly smoke control and people’s behaviour.

• Measurement – some metric is required to assess to benefits of PBB – something that goes

beyond cost.

• Legal responsibility for defects – who is responsible if something does go wrong or where the new approach makes traditional responsibilities unclear.

• Internal environments – this seems to be an area where owners and users have seen very

limited impact from PBB.

• Exemplar buildings/projects – well documented examples of successful project are required to support future projects.

This User Platform allows an assessment to be made of interest in performance based building to be made at two levels. The first is within those associated with the project where there was a lot of support and enthusiasm, but this is in stark contrast to the initial support from owners, users and managers. The questionnaire received better support but there is clearly a considerable gulf between the enthusiasm of the academic world for PBB and the actual uptake of those responsible for buildings.


36


37

References


38


39

RR E F E R E N C E SE F E R E N C E S

1 Prior J J and Rizzi F. Getting it right: a clients’ guide to functionality in construction. Building Research Establishment Report BR452. CRC, Watford, U.K. (in publication). 2 PeBBu. Construction Industry and Performance Based Building. EC 5th Framework, Thematic Network – PeBBu – Performance Based Building. Newsletter Nr. 1 / 02. 3 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (United Kingdom Government). Building Regulations – Approved Documents. Available from www.safety.dtir.gov.uk/bregs/brads.htm. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (United Kingdom Government). The Building Act and its regulations. Available from www.safety.dtir.gov.uk/bregs/brads.htm. 4 Royal Institute of British Architects. RIBA Outline Plan of Work. Architect’s Handbook of Practice Management. RIBA Publications, London. 1991. Available from www.ribanw.org.uk. 5 Meacham, B., Tubbs, B., Bergeron, D., and Szigeti, F . Performance System Model – A Framework for Describing the Totality of Building Performance. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods (FSDM & SFPE), 2002. 6 Garnett N A. Changing Construction Performance Using Lean Construction: An Action Research Approach. PhD Thesis. University of Reading. 2002. 7 Szigeti F and Davis G. 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. 8 Prior J J and Szigeti F. Statements of Requirements – the key to unlocking Performance Based Building? PeBBu News Article. Available from www.pebbu.nl. May 2003.


40


41

Annexes


42


43

AA N N E X E SN N E X E S

A n n e x 1 . T h e U s e r P l a t f o r m Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A n n e x 1 . T h e U s e r P l a t f o r m Q u e s t i o n n a i r e –– O w n e r s , O w n e r s , U s e r s , a n d M a n a g e r sU s e r s , a n d M a n a g e r s

Performance Based Building European Network (PeBBu)

Building Owners,

Users & Managers

Questionnaire

March 2005 Building Research Establishment Ltd


44

What is Performance Based Building and why is it important for your success?

Why do we build things? The sole purpose of all built facilities is to fulfil a need. This basic principle applies to all products and services. The need can be business or aspirational. A successful facility is not only an answer to basic clients’ requirements but it enhances and facilitates the activities which it accommodates. As a company or an individual user, you have power of choice over the property you occupy. What is Performance Based Building? Performance Based Building:

• prompts the building supply chain to answer important questions objectively including: o What is the built facility for? o What tasks does it need to facilitate? o How does it need to behave? o How long does it need to last? o How much money will it cost to run? o What impact will it have on the environment?

• defines a building, or building product’s fitness for purpose by its performance requirements,; • focuses on the target performance needed for your business processes; • describes buildings and building products in terms of their:

o target performance and o fault prevention

• does not impose solutions and technical specifications.

Performance Based Building will lead to • a better match between built facilities and the needs of Owners, Managers and Users, and • better value for money.

(Return to Question 1)


45

What is PeBBu? PeBBu is a European Thematic Network project devoted to furthering knowledge, dissemination and application of Performance Based Building (PBB) worldwide. See www.pebbu.nl for details. Performance Based Building (PBB) aims at using performance requirements to define a building's or building product’s fitness for purpose as the basis for all communication between practitioners and their clients, amongst practitioners, as well as within the regulatory framework. One of the key parts of the network are three Platforms where the views of those responsible for the development of standards and codes, those who construction buildings, and those who own, use and look after buildings can put forward their views and comments. This questionnaire is a key part of this process. The questionnaire will take around 15 minutes to complete but it could be longer if you have time to give fuller answers. The findings will be used to develop a ‘road map’ for future research in the area of performance based building. We will be very happy to send a copy of the findings to you. Note that the text boxes will increase in size as you add your answers – so don’t feel limited by the space available! Please email completed forms to: Tim Yates, BRE ([email protected]). Details of Contact: Company Name: ……………………………………………………………… Address: ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Field of activity: Building Owner / Users / Manager (please specify) ……………………………………………………………… Contact Person: ……………………………………………………………… E-Mail: ………………………… Telephone: ………………………………….. I’d like a copy of the summary of the findings – Yes No


46

What do you think of Performance Based Building?

1. Are you familiar with the concept of performance based building?

(Background information can be found in the introduction (click here to go to it) or at http://www.pebbu.nl/newsarticles/archives/- ‘Why all the fuss about performance based building?’)

2. (a) Are you familiar with performance-based codes and regulations/standards that (or are intended to) replace prescriptive ones (in your country, in other European countries, outside Europe)? If No go on to Q3.

2. (b) If Yes, please list here the more important ones and indicate if, in your experience, their application causes any difficulties or provides a solution, or solutions to previous problems.

3. In your opinion, do national and international legal requirements, directives (eg EU Construction

Products Directive), codes, regulations, or standards encourage or inhibit the application of a performance based approach for the building and construction industry sector?

4. Are you the owner, user or manager of a built facility (or facilities) procured and constructed using a performance based brief and / or performance-based procurement approaches to building systems, components, products or materials? Please give details:

5. In your opinion at which stage (or stages) is ‘performance-based building’ most influential?

Yes/No Do you think it is a helpful approach? Very helpful Helpful Unhelpful Very unhelpful Don’t know Comments:


47

(Please highlight one or more stages and add any comments you wish to make in the box below)

(a) Strategic Planning and Feasibility Studies (b) Brief / Program (c) Design (d) Procurement (e) Construction (f) Use/occupation (g) Refurbishment / repair / maintenance (h) Change of use (i) Deconstruction / demolition (j) Other (please specify if possible)

6. In your opinion, for which of the following is a ‘performance-based approach’ most influential?

(Please highlight one or more stages and add any comments you wish to make in the box below)

(a) Products and materials (b) Services (c) Indoor environments (d) Whole built facility (e) Legal, compliance, insurance, and other related matters (f) Management (g) Other (please specify if possible)

7. In your opinion, does a performance based approach stimulate or inhibit innovation to the built asset as a whole? If so can you give an example?

Comments:

Comments:

Stimulate Yes / No Example: Inhibit Yes / No Example: Don’t know


48

8. Do you own, or have owned, both facilities that have been acquired traditionally or using a performance based approach. If Yes, in your opinion, does a ‘performance based approach’ to building facilities provide a more appropriate working/living environment than a traditionally specified built facility?

9. Would you willingly participate in a building project that uses a performance-based statement of requirements? If no, why? If yes, do you foresee any difficulties?

10. In your opinion, do you think your liabilities change when a performance-based approach is used in the brief, or to procure any system, component, product, service, or material?

Yes / No

Does it affect your insurance?

Yes / No

Can you quantify any benefits? (Financial, environmental, professional, personal, etc.)

More appropriate Equally Appropriate Less Appropriate Comments:

Comments:

Financial: Environmental: Professional: Personal: Other: Comments:


49

11. What lessons have you learned in using a performance based approach on your own project(s)?

12. Are clients in Europe ready to be part of the implementation of a performance-based approach in the building market? Is there minimal size of a building project for such an approach to be considered?

13. Please list any topics that, in your opinion, need further research and elaboration before a Performance-based approach can be generally implemented in the building and construction industry sector in Europe.

Any additional comments/observations:

Comments:

Yes / No Reasons:

1. 2. etc

© 2005 CIBdf – International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction - Development Foundation CIB General Secretariat Postal Address: Postbox 1837, 3000 BV ♦ Visitors Address: Kruisplein 25-G, 3014 DB ♦ Rotterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31.10.4110240 ♦ Fax: +31.10.4334372 ♦ www.cibworld.nl