3 Case study

Department of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Reading, England

3.1 Background

The following case study describes the application of the SMART methodology to the design of a research laboratory for an international pharmaceutical company. The new building was to be located on a confined site in close proximity to several existing buildings. The complex was an established research centre with an international reputation. The identities of the client and other parties are suppressed for the purposes of confidentiality. The case study has been simplified in order to emphasise the SMART methodology.

The client was initially attracted to the concept of value management by publicity in the technical press. The client’s project team was especially keen to demonstrate to its head office that the new building represented value for money.

The notion of achieving the required functions at least cost was considered to be particularly attractive. The author was engaged as a value management consultant to chair an initial one-day study during the development of the conceptual design.

This presented an ideal opportunity to test the SMART methodology in practice.

A multi-disciplinary design practice had been commissioned to develop the conceptual design and a firm of quantity surveyors were appointed to act as independent cost consultants. The date of the value management study was fixed several weeks in advance by a process of negotiation involving all parties.

Whilst the designers were somewhat sceptical of the benefits of the study, they were persuaded into cooperating by the client.

During the weeks prior to the value management study the performance of the design team was increasingly causing concern. In particular, the client was critical of the perceived failure of the designers to communicate effectively with each other. There was also concern that the client’s requirements were not being interpreted correctly. The members of the design team were becoming equally frustrated in their efforts to respond to the client’s needs. They were of the view that different members of the client’s team were stating different requirements.

The designers were also finding that the statements given by the client’s project coordinator were alarmingly inconsistent. The relationship between the client and the designers was consequentially deteriorating rapidly. The objectives of the value management study had therefore taken on an additional dimension: to re-establish trust between the client and the design team.

3.2

Value management at conceptual design

The value management team consisted of four members of the design team, five representatives of the client and one quantity surveyor. The agenda for the study was structured around the traditional phases of value management. It is convenient to describe the study in accordance with the stages defined on the agenda.

Stage 1: Information

After the initial introductions, each team member was asked to make a brief presentation on what were perceived to be the key objectives. It soon became apparent that there were many conflicting views. Not only did the designers fail to agree with the client, different representatives of the client’s team disagreed amongst themselves. After a good deal of rigorous discussion the following design objectives were finally agreed:

1. provide a ‘world class’ research facility;

2. provide a new focal point for the entire site;

3. facilitate good communication;

4. offer flexibility and adaptability;

5. provide a sound M & E strategy;

6. cater for extendability;

7. ensure maintainability;

8. provide pleasant working environment;

9. provide a safe and healthy working environment;

10. achieve operational efficiency;

11. ensure financial approval.

98 RESOLVING CONFLICT IN THE FORMULATION OF BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVES

The architect completed the information stage by presenting the three alternative design concepts which had been produced to date. The client’s team had serious reservations about each of these options and a heated debate soon developed.

This was brought to a close by the value management facilitator who insisted that the agenda was followed.

Stage 2: Functional Analysis

A value hierarchy was constructed on the basis of the above list of objectives.

The construction of the value tree involved a considerable amount of iteration before all the team members were satisfied with the outcome. The resultant debate also caused the identification of a number of additional objectives. The issue of capital cost was omitted from the value tree as it was considered to be a constraint rather than an objective. The final value tree is shown in Table 3. It is of note that the architect was no longer sceptical of the value management process and now felt that he was gaining valuable information from the client which had not previously been forthcoming. Of particular importance was the emphasis which was now being given to the need for interaction within the building.

Stage 3: Speculation Table 3. Value tree at conceptual design

One of the criticisms which had been levelled at the design concepts produced by the architect related to site utilisation. There was also a particular concern that the new building would have a very low impact from the main road running through the site. An initial brainstorming session therefore addressed the three issues of building shape, building location and its relationship with the existing buildings. Many interesting ideas were generated, some of which were clearly not feasible. However, the session did produce a number of ideas which were both innovative and practical.

A second brainstorming session addressed the issue of how the building could be designed to promote teamwork amongst the researchers. Once again numerous ideas were produced, some of which were impractical and some of which seemed to have potential for further development.

Stage 4: Evaluation

Each of the ideas produced in the previous stage were evaluated in turn. Those which were obviously nonsensical were deleted from the list and those which were considered worthy of further consideration were highlighted. The process of evaluation generated considerable discussion and there was an increasing feeling that real progress was being made.

The value management study was concluded by listing the design options which were to be developed further. Specific actions were allocated and a timescale was established. It was agreed that the results of the development work would be discussed during the next design team meeting. An anonymous questionnaire was then distributed which asked the participants a number of questions about how useful they had found the exercise. The responses were extremely positive, not only from the client representatives, but also from the designers. Several respondents considered the process of constructing the value tree to have been particularly beneficial in clarifying the design objectives. The study was also perceived to have made a significant contribution to team building and conflict reduction.

The client was so pleased with the outcome that he subsequently commissioned a further study. The value management consultant recommended that this should take place towards the end of the outline design stage when the client would be required to make a decision regarding the choice of outline proposal.

3.3

Value management at outline design

The duration of the second study was once again limited to one day. The date was agreed several weeks in advance. The design team had developed five distinct outline design options and were anxious for the client to make a decision so that the scheme design could proceed. The client, however, did not want to be

100 RESOLVING CONFLICT IN THE FORMULATION OF BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVES

rushed into a decision. Furthermore, he wanted to be able to demonstrate that the outline design had been chosen on the basis of rigorous value-for-money criteria.

The composition of the value management team was the same as it had been previously. A full agenda was circulated in advance; however, on this occasion, the traditional value management stage descriptions were not used. The agenda was structured around the following titles:

Stage 1: Information: Re-formulation of Objectives

The study was commenced by a brief statement from the value management consultant outlining the purpose of the exercise and explaining the procedure which would be adopted. Each member of the value management team was then invited to comment on the extent to which the value tree constructed during the previous study remained valid. It was generally agreed that the value tree was still representative of the design objectives, although it was emphasised by the client that the need to meet the overall budget figure of £13,000,000 was even more paramount.

A summary presentation of each of the five outline design options was then made by the architect. This led to a free-ranging discussion regarding their relative merits. This discussion was allowed to continue for fifteen minutes before being curtailed by the value management facilitator.

Stage 2: Definition of Attributes

The purpose of this stage was to ‘prune’ the value tree in order to produce a manageable list of assessment attributes. Each lower-order objective on the value tree was considered in turn and the question asked ‘should this attribute be used to assess the relative merits of the design options?’. The following lower-order objectives were therefore eliminated from consideration:

Safe and healthy working environment—eliminated on the basis that this was a fundamental requirement for all feasible design options.

Functional image—this was considered to be an issue which was more relevant to detailed design.

Sound M & E strategy—this was seen to be achievable irrespective of the choice of outline design.

Maintainability—the choice of outline design was not considered to have any significant maintenance implications.

Ensure communication—it was considered that this should be combined with ‘encourage interaction’, otherwise the same features would be taken into account twice.

The elimination of the above branches produced the revised value tree shown in Table 4. The lower-order objectives on this simplified value tree were adopted as the assessment attributes for the choice of outline design option.

Stage 3: Assigning Importance Weights

The ratio method was then applied in order to produce the importance weights for each attribute. The relative importance of the following attributes was initially considered:

pleasant working environment;

attract customers;

interaction & communication;

provision for future change;

low running costs.

These were listed in rank order and the least important was assigned an arbitrary weight of 10. The other attributes were then compared against this baseline and an appropriate weighting allocated. The weights were checked for consistency before being normalised. The results are shown in Table 5. The relative importance weights were then applied to the lower-level attributes as shown in Table 6. The final weights were produced by ‘multiplying through the tree’.

Stage 4: Utility Assessment

The five design options were then assessed in accordance with the seven lower-order attributes from the value tree. Each design was given a score for each attribute on a scale of 0–100. The scoring process was entirely subjective for all the attributes, with the exception of running cost, where some quantitative annual costs had been calculated on the basis of energy losses. The scores were entered into an analysis matrix and multiplied by the appropriate importance weights. The weighted scores were then summed in order to produce a utility rating for each design option.

Table 4. Value tree at outline design

102 RESOLVING CONFLICT IN THE FORMULATION OF BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVES

The value management consultant then made a particular point of emphasising that the scores produced in the analysis matrix were only as good as the assumptions upon which they were based. He also asked all the team members individually if they had any reservations regarding the assumptions which had been made.

Stage 5: Sensitivity Analysis

A number of team members stated that some of the weights and utility scores which had been used in the decision model did not really reflect their own opinions. Several separate adjustments were then made, but the resultant utility scores still favoured the same design option. The additional discussion regarding the assumptions which had been questioned also served to ease the doubts which had been raised. A general consensus was therefore obtained that the model did indeed represent the values of the assembled team.

Stage 6: Cost/Value Reconciliation

The one issue which had been omitted from the decision model was that of capital cost. The utility rating for each design option was now compared to the estimated capital costs produced by the quantity surveyor. Unfortunately, the estimated cost of the favoured option was £300,000 higher than the budget figure. However, it was felt that this difference could be reduced by minor design changes without affecting the overall performance.

Stage 7: Search for Areas of Marginal Improvement

A brainstorming session was then held to generate ideas of how the cost of the chosen option could be reduced without effecting the level of performance.

Several interesting possibilities were identified and the designers felt confident Table 5. Case study: elicitation of importance weights

that the projected cost could be reduced by the required £300,000. The client was therefore confident that the design could proceed on the basis of the chosen option, provided that the identified economy measures were introduced.

An anonymous feedback questionnaire was distributed at the end of the study and the participants were once again very positive about the outcome. There was a general feeling of satisfaction that an important decision had been taken which would now allow the design process to continue with confidence. The client representatives felt that the decision had been made on the basis of defined criteria. Furthermore, the decision was accountable in that the value management report recorded the basis upon which it had been made.

Discussion of case study

The above case study has illustrated the application of the SMART methodology to value management during briefing and outline design. It has also been demonstrated that designers and client representatives feel comfortable with the SMART approach. It is of note that minimum use was made of the mathematical formulations and terminology of multi-attribute utility theory. Indeed, for the study at the briefing stage the traditional labels of traditional value management were adhered to in order to satisfy the client’s expectations.

The use of value trees for the determination and structuring of the design objectives proved to be particularly successful. It is clear that the value tree did not represent any sort of underlying truth. Indeed, the very process of Table 6. Value tree at outline design with importance weights

104 RESOLVING CONFLICT IN THE FORMULATION OF BUILDING DESIGN OBJECTIVES

constructing the value tree caused the team members to revise their perception of the design objectives. Had the discussion developed along different lines, the resultant value tree may well have looked very different.

The use of the decision analysis matrix for the assignment of a utility rating to each design option also worked well as a means of structuring discussion. The very process of determining the importance weights and utility scores for each attribute went some way towards satisfying the client’s desire for the decision-making process to be rational and explicit. The real benefit of this approach is that it ensured that the team thought about all the issues which had been identified. The adjustments which were made during the sensitivity analysis ensured that the decision model was requisite. It is important to stress that the SMART methodology does not replace the professional judgement of the team members. Poor judgement and a lack of expertise will inevitably produce poor decisions, irrespective of whether a formal decision model is used or not. The advantage of SMART is that it encourages professional judgement to be applied within the context of rigorous framework.

The validity of the SMART decision model produced in the case study was also dependent upon the composition of the value management team. Had all the major stakeholders within the client’s organisation not been involved then the value tree would clearly not have been representative of the client’s objectives.

Whilst the designers also had a significant influence on the structure of the decision model this should not be interpreted as being detrimental. The traditional process of briefing depends upon an interactive process between client and designers. Indeed, helping the client to articulate his own requirements has always been a recognised function of the architect.

The two reports which were produced following the value management studies were referred to throughout the remainder of the project. It is important that value management reports fully record the design objectives and assessment attributes which were established at the time of the study. Whilst there is no reason to assume that these will remain constant over time, at least the above procedure will record what they are at the briefing and outline design stages. It should be recognised that any subsequent post-occupancy evaluation may well apply different criteria of assessment. However, it is surely beneficial to be able to distinguish between evolving objectives and a failure to design in accordance with the objectives as they were understood at the time.

Whilst six out the seven assessment attributes used in the case study were entirely subjective, this will not necessarily always be the case. It is easy to envisage how, in some projects, ‘objective’ attributes, such as internal rate of return, net present value, net/gross ratio and capital gearing might be used to assess the extent to which financial objectives are achieved.

In the final analysis, there is no sure way of knowing if the development of a formal decision model has led to an improved building design. The only meaningful way to assess the success of the exercise is to determine how useful

it was to the participants. Based on this criterion the method used in the case study was clearly a success.

5 Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated the benefits which can be attained by the formal construction of a SMART decision model during building design development.

However, it is important to emphasise that the use of a decision model is not recommended from a normative point of view. Attempts to ‘optimise design’ or

‘maximise value’ are seen to be entirely unrealistic. The primary objective of the exercise should be interpreted in terms of establishing a shared understanding of the design objectives and the relative benefits of competing designs options.

Different clients are likely to build different decision rules into their model.

Although the SMART multi-attribute decision model provides a suitable basis for general application, in many cases it is possible to develop a requisite decision model which is based on a single criterion. For example, a commercial client may feel that his objectives can be represented by the single-attribute decision rules commonly used in investment appraisal. In this case, a requisite decision model could be based solely on some measure of financial performance (i.e. net present value). However, if the client wishes to take other objectives into

In document Construction Conflict & Resolution (Page 113-124)

3 Case study

Department of Construction Management &amp; Engineering, University of Reading, England

3 Case study

Department of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Reading, England