Exposing the myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating initial cost, maintenance and staffing costs of office buildings

In an attempt to focus clients' minds on the importance of considering the construction and maintenance costs of a commercial office building (both as a factor in staff productivity and as a fraction of lifetime staff costs) there is an often-quoted ratio of costs of 1:5:200, where for every one pound spent on construction cost, five are spent on maintenance and building operating costs and 200 on staffing and business operating costs. This seems to stem from a paper published by the Royal Academy of Engineering, in which no data is given and no derivation or defence of the ratio appears. The accompanying belief that higher quality design and construction increases staff productivity, and simultaneously reduces maintenance costs, how ever laudable, appears unsupported by research, and carries all the hallmarks of an "urban myth". In tracking down data about real buildings, a more realistic ratio appears to depend on a huge variety of variables, as well as the definition of the number of "lifetime" years. The ill-defined origins of the original ratio (1:5:200) describing these variables have made replication impossible. However, by using published sources of data, we have found that for three office buildings, a more realistic ratio is 1:0.4:12. As there is nothing in the public domain about what comprised the original research that gave rise to 1:5:200, it is not possible to make a true comparison between these new calculations and the originals. Clients and construction professionals stand to be misled because the popularity and widespread use of the wrong ratio appears to be mis-informing important investment and policy decisions.

Techno-economic modelling and cost functions of CO2 capture processes

The paper presents the techno-economic modelling of CO2 capture process in coal-fired power plants. An overall model is being developed to compare carbon capture and sequestration options at locations within the UK, and for studies of the sensitivity of the cost of disposal to changes in the major parameters of the most promising solutions identified. Technological options of CO2 capture have been studied and cost estimation relationships (CERs) for the chosen options calculated. Created models are related to the capital, operation and maintenance cost. A total annualised cost of plant electricity output and amount of CO2 avoided have been developed. The influence of interest rates and plant life has been analysed as well. The CERs are included as an integral part of the overall model.

Warranty cost analysis for products with a dormant state

Most building services products are installed while a building is constructed, but they are not operated until the building is commissioned. The warranty of the products may cover the time starting from their installation to the end of the warranty period. Prior to the commissioning of the building, the products are at a dormant mode (i.e., not operated) but protected by the warranty. For such products, both the usage intensity and the failure patterns are different from those with continuous usage intensity and failure patterns. This paper develops warranty cost models for repairable products with a dormant mode from both the manufacturer's and buyer's perspectives. Relationships between the failure patterns at the dormant mode and at the operational mode are also discussed. Numerical examples and sensitivity analysis are used to demonstrate the applicability of the methodology derived in the paper.

Cost-benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65-74 years of age

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in people aged 65-74 years in the absence of co-morbidity. DESIGN: Primary research: randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People without risk factors for influenza or contraindications to vaccination were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999 and invited to participate in the study. There were 5875/9727 (60.4%) people aged 65-74 years identified as potentially eligible and, of these, 729 (12%) were randomised. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1), with all individuals receiving pneumococcal vaccine unless administered in the previous 10 years. Of the 729 people randomised, 552 received vaccine and 177 received placebo; 726 individuals were administered pneumococcal vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION: GP attendance with influenza-like illness (ILI) or pneumonia (primary outcome measure); or any respiratory symptoms; hospitalisation with a respiratory illness; death; participant self-reported ILI; quality of life (QoL) measures at 2, 4 and 6 months post-study vaccination; adverse reactions 3 days after vaccination. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to identify the incremental cost associated with the avoidance of episodes of influenza in the vaccination population and an impact model was used to extrapolate the cost-effectiveness results obtained from the trial to assess their generalisability throughout the NHS. RESULTS: In England and Wales, weekly consultations for influenza and ILI remained at baseline levels (less than 50 per 100,000 population) until week 50/1999 and then increased rapidly, peaking during week 2/2000 with a rate of 231/100,000. This rate fell within the range of 'higher than expected seasonal activity' of 200-400/100,000. Rates then quickly declined, returning to baseline levels by week 5/2000. The predominant circulating strain during this period was influenza A (H3N2). Five (0.9%) people in the vaccine group were diagnosed by their GP with an ILI compared to two (1.1%) in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 4.1]. No participants were diagnosed with pneumonia by their GP and there were no hospitalisations for respiratory illness in either group. Significantly fewer vaccinated individuals self-reported a single ILI (4.6% vs 8.9%, RR, 0.51; 95% CI for RR, 0.28 to 0.96). There was no significant difference in any of the QoL measurements over time between the two groups. Reported systemic side-effects showed no significant differences between groups. Local side-effects occurred with a significantly increased incidence in the vaccine group (11.3% vs 5.1%, p = 0.02). Each GP consultation avoided by vaccination was estimated from trial data to generate a net NHS cost of 174 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome measure, although the trial was underpowered to demonstrate a true difference. Vaccination had no significant effect on any of the QoL measures used, although vaccinated individuals were less likely to self-report ILI. The analysis did not suggest that influenza vaccination in healthy people aged 65-74 years would lead to lower NHS costs. Future research should look at ways to maximise vaccine uptake in people at greatest risk from influenza and also the level of vaccine protection afforded to people from different age and socio-economic populations.

Is influenza vaccination cost effective for healthy people between ages 65 and 74 years? A randomised controlled trial

The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination for healthy people aged 65-74 years living in the UK. People without risk factors for influenza (chronic heart, lung or renal disease, diabetic, immuno-suppressed or those living in an institution) were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999. 729/5875 (12.4%) eligible individuals were recruited and randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3: 1)! with all participants receiving 23-valent-pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine unless already administered. The primary analysis was the frequency of influenza as recorded by a GP diagnosis of pneumonia or influenza like illness. In 2000, the UK vaccination policy was changed with influenza vaccine becoming available. for all people aged 65 years and over irrespective of risk. As a consequence of this policy change. the study had to be fundamentally restructured and only results obtained over a one rather than the originally planned two-year randomised controlled trial framework were used. Results from 1999/2000 demonstrated no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (relative risk 0.8, 95%, CI 0.16-4.1). In addition. there were no deaths or hospitalisations for influenza associated respiratory illness in either group. The subsequent analysis. using both national and local sources of evidence, estimated the following cost effectiveness indicators: (1) incremental NHS cost per GP consultation avoided = pound2000; (2) incremental NHS cost per hospital admission avoided = pound61,000: (3) incremental NHS cost per death avoided = pound1.900.000 and (4) incremental NHS cost per QALY gained = pound304,000. The analysis suggested that influenza vaccination in this Population would not be cost effective. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.