Decomposition of FR1

The goal of the FR1 is to deliver value-added to the customer. Following the lean manufacturing principle where the customer is not only the final buyer, but also the suppliers are customers at some point of the supply chain, then, in the building design process, the owner is supplier and customer (because is the final buyer) of the design team, who in turn is the supplier of the construction team, therefore, the goal of FR1 is to deliver value to the owner and builders.

FR1 Achieve the desired value added of the design (3 objectives)

FR2 Reduce the waste in producing the design

Functional Requirements

DP1 BIM system for increasing value added of the design project

DP2 System for reducing the cost (waste) of producing the design

38

Continuing the decomposition for the third level of FRs, FR1 was first decomposed using the eleven project value objectives (PVO) proposed by the Construction Industry Institute (O’Connor et al. 2007) shown in table 4-5 which represent the project’s desired benefits or desired outcome for all project participants (owners, designers, contractors and users). These eleven PVO were later reduced to three which focus on deliver value to the owner and builders. A short description of the eleven PVO was proposed based on the CII report and presented in Appendix C.

Table 4-5 CII Eleven PVO – Design effectiveness report (O’Connor et al. 2007)

The AD method demands that all FRs have to be collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive and stated in a minimum form (CEMEmin)5 _{in order to prevent redundancy in}

the design. In other words, the sum of the children must be equal to the parent and they cannot overlap (see Appendix A). The eleven PVO shown in the Table 4-5 clearly don’t meet with the CEMEmin rule, since, for example, the operation and maintenance (O&M) safety objective overlaps with regulatory and standard compliance objective, because the latter includes O&M safety codes, regulations and standards. Another example is the environmental stewardship objective that overlaps with O&M efficiency objective in the sense that both of them address the building resource consumption. Finally, according with the AD theory, cost and time should be considered as constraints rather than real FRs (Thompson 2013b), so that the selected DP must accomplish its corresponding FR within the specified time and cost. For that reason and in order to monitor and supervise in depth the level of fulfillment of each PVO, it was necessary to redefine their scope to avoid overlapping and select, among the 11 PVO, only those that are most important for the industry participants. The results of the project objectives selection process and their definition are presented in the following sections.

The PVO’s selection process was supported by the elaboration and distribution of a survey questionnaire which was sent to all participants of the two BIMForum conferences mentioned in section 3.2 two weeks before the conferences started. At the BIMForum conferences were attended by a variety of people involved in the construction industry,

5 _{CEMEmin is a convenient acronym used for “collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive, minimum list” (Brown}

2006)

1 Security 7 Product / plant / service quality

2 Operation and maintenance safety 8 Design and construction quality

3 Construction safety 9 Schedule reduction

4 Regulatory and standard compliance 10 Enviromental stweardship

5 Capital cost efficiency 11 Flexibility for future use

6 Operation and maintenance efficiency

39

which were classified in the following 6 groups: 1. Architects

2. Engineers 3. Contractors

4. Specialty contractors 5. Owners

6. Others (Software vendors, suppliers, academics, and so on)

In the survey, the respondents were asked to provide information about their professional their background in terms of their position, type of work, size of their firm, etc., as well as to rank the typical importance of the eleven CII PVO on any given project (from 1 being the least important, to 7 being the most important). The surveys are presented in detail in Appendix C. In total 43 responses were obtained from both conferences. The overall results were analyzed in three different approaches. The first approach considered the first five groups, leaving out of consideration the group named “other”; the second approach took all 6 groups into the analysis; and finally the third approach was an analysis of the 6 groups based on percentages.

Table 4-6 Results of the PVO survey

Table 4-6 summarizes the results of each analysis derived from the surveys, highlighting in different colors the top five ranking PVOs for each of the three different approaches in which the results of the survey were analyzed. It clearly shows that “Design and Construction Quality” was selected as the most important objective in all three cases. The criteria for selecting the second and third top ranking PVOs was based on the overall level of importance and its appearance in the three analyses. Figure 4-1 shows the level of importance of the selected PVOs by group of practitioner. Overall, regulatory and

l

40

standard compliance and operation and maintenance efficiency are ranked by the respondents as the second and third most important PVOs.

As a result of the analyses conducted, it was concluded that the following three PVO were the most important for the industry practitioners and to cover all stages of the building life cycle and all customers of the design process, who are the owner (because is the final buyer) and the construction team (because the design team is the supplier of construction). These are:

 Design and Construction Quality, which was renamed as “constructability”, which addresses construction concerns.

 Regulatory and Standard Compliance, which addresses safety and design concerns.

 Operation and Maintenance Efficiency, which addresses owner concerns about the building performance and maintenance.

Each of these three PVOs are defined in scope to meet the CEME rule as discussed in more detail in section 4.5.3 of this document. The design decomposition developed in section 4.6 is based and consistent with the definition developed in section 4.5.3.

Figure 4-1 Importance of the PVOs by group of Practitioner