A review of LCADesign

Objective The review addresses two distinct sets of issues: 1. specific functionality, interface, and calculation problems that presumably can be fixed or improved; and 2. the more fundamental question of whether the system is close to being ready for ‘commercial prime time’ in the North American market. Findings Many of our comments relate to the first set of issues, especially sections B and C. Sections D and E deal with the second set. Overall, we feel that LCADesign represents a very impressive step forward in the ongoing quest to link CAD with LCA tools and, more importantly, to link the world of architectural practice and that of environmental research. From that perspective, it deserves continued financial support as a research project. However, if the decision is whether or not to continue the development program from a purely commercial perspective, we are less bullish. In terms of the North American market, there are no regulatory or other drivers to press design teams to use a tool of this nature. There is certainly interest in this area, but the tools must be very easy to use with little or no training. Understanding the results is as important in this regard as knowing how to apply the tool. Our comments are fairly negative when it comes to that aspect. Our opinion might change to some degree when the ‘fixes’ are made and the functionality improved. However, as discussed in more detail in the following sections, we feel that the multi-step process — CAD to IFC to LCADesign — could pose a serious problem in terms of market acceptance. The CAD to IFC part is impossible for us to judge with the information provided, and we can’t even begin to answer the question about the ease of using the software to import designs, but it appears cumbersome from what we do know. There does appear to be a developing North American market for 3D CAD, with a recent survey indicating that about 50% of the firms use some form of 3D modeling for about 75% of their projects. However, this does not mean that full 3D CAD is always being used. Our information suggests that AutoDesk accounts for about 75 to 80% of the 3D CAD market, and they are very cautious about any links that do not serve a latent demand. Finally, other system that link CAD to energy simulation are using XML data transfer protocols rather than IFC files, and it is our understanding that the market served by AutoDesk tends in that direction right now. This is a subject that is outside our area of expertise, so please take these comments as suggestions for more intensive market research rather than as definitive findings.

Environmental assessment for commercial buildings: Stakeholder requirements and tool characteristics

The Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (CRC CI) is a national research, development and implementation centre focused on the needs of the property, design, construction and facility management sectors. Established in 2001 and headquartered at Queensland University of Technology as an unincorporated joint venture under the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Program, the CRC CI is developing key technologies, tools and management systems to improve the effectiveness of the construction industry. The CRC CI is a seven year project funded by a Commonwealth grant and industry, research and other government support. More than 150 researchers and an alliance of 19 leading partner organisations are involved in and support the activities of the CRC CI

International review of environmental assessment tools and databases

Existing widely known environmental assessment models, primarily those for Life Cycle Assessment of manufactured products and buildings, were reviewed to grasp their characteristics, since the past several years have seen a significant increase in interest and research activity in the development of building environmental assessment methods. Each method or tool was assessed under the headings of description, data requirement, end-use, assessment criteria (scale of assessment and scoring/ weighting system)and present status

Improving ICT integration in today’s AEC industry: recommendations & guidelines

The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation research project 2001-008-C: ‘Project Team Integration: Communication, Coordination and Decision Support’, is supported by a number of Australian industry, government and university based project partners including: Queensland University of Technology (QUT); Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), University of Newcastle; Queensland Department of Public Works (QDPW); and the Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR). Supporting the various research aims and objectives of the 2001-008-C (Part B) QUT / Industry Partner agreements, and as a major deliverable for the project, this report is not intended as a comprehensive statement of Architectural, Engineering and Contractor (AEC) industry best practice recommendations. Rather it should read as a set of research and industry recommended guidelines, based on extensive literature reviews and two years worth of investigative activities examining both public and private industry uptake of innovative information and communication technology (ICT) solutions, whilst highlighting the overall need for culture change.

Industry culture: a need for change

Research indicates, one of the last available ‘mechanisms’ left for organisations to improve their competitive position within the construction industry is by considering its people (culture) along with its technology (Schein E. H. 1997). In other words, if one wants to make construction industry organisations, groups and project teams more efficient and effective, then one must better understand the role that culture plays within them.

Electronic tendering: an industry perspective

The construction industry is categorised as being an information-intensive industry and described as one of the most important industries in any developed country, facing a period of rapid and unparalleled change (Industry Science Resources 1999) (Love P.E.D., Tucker S.N. et al. 1996). Project communications are becoming increasingly complex, with a growing need and fundamental drive to collaborate electronically at project level and beyond (Olesen K. and Myers M.D. 1999; Thorpe T. and Mead S. 2001; CITE 2003). Yet, the industry is also identified as having a considerable lack of knowledge and awareness about innovative information and communication technology (ICT) and web-based communication processes, systems and solutions which may prove beneficial in the procurement, delivery and life cycle of projects (NSW Government 1998; Kajewski S. and Weippert A. 2000). The Internet has debatably revolutionised the way in which information is stored, exchanged and viewed, opening new avenues for business, which only a decade ago were deemed almost inconceivable (DCITA 1998; IIB 2002). In an attempt to put these ‘new avenues of business’ into perspective, this report provides an overall ‘snapshot’ of current public and private construction industry sector opportunities and practices in the implementation and application of web-based ICT tools, systems and processes (e-Uptake). Research found that even with a reserved uptake, the construction industry and its participating organisations are making concerted efforts (fortunately with positive results) in taking up innovative forms of doing business via the internet, including e-Tendering (making it possible to manage the entire tender letting process electronically and online) (Anumba C.J. and Ruikar K. 2002; ITCBP 2003). Furthermore, Government (often a key client within the construction industry),and with its increased tendency to transact its business electronically, undoubtedly has an effect on how various private industry consultants, contractors, suppliers, etc. do business (Murray M. 2003) – by offering a wide range of (current and anticipated) e-facilities / services, including e-Tendering (Ecommerce 2002). Overall, doing business electronically is found to have a profound impact on the way today’s construction businesses operate - streamlining existing processes, with the growth in innovative tools, such as e-Tender, offering the construction industry new responsibilities and opportunities for all parties involved (ITCBP 2003). It is therefore important that these opportunities should be accessible to as many construction industry businesses as possible (The Construction Confederation 2001). Historically, there is a considerable exchange of information between various parties during a tendering process, where accuracy and efficiency of documentation is critical. Traditionally this process is either paper-based (involving large volumes of supporting tender documentation), or via a number of stand-alone, non-compatible computer systems, usually costly to both the client and contractor. As such, having a standard electronic exchange format that allows all parties involved in an electronic tender process to access one system only via the Internet, saves both time and money, eliminates transcription errors and increases speed of bid analysis (The Construction Confederation 2001). Supporting this research project’s aims and objectives, researchers set to determine today’s construction industry ‘current state-of-play’ in relation to e-Tendering opportunities. The report also provides brief introductions to several Australian and International e-Tender systems identified during this investigation. e-Tendering, in its simplest form, is described as the electronic publishing, communicating, accessing, receiving and submitting of all tender related information and documentation via the internet, thereby replacing the traditional paper-based tender processes, and achieving a more efficient and effective business process for all parties involved (NT Governement 2000; NT Government 2000; NSW Department of Commerce 2003; NSW Government 2003). Although most of the e-Tender websites investigated at the time, maintain their tendering processes and capabilities are ‘electronic’, research shows these ‘eTendering’ systems vary from being reasonably advanced to more ‘basic’ electronic tender notification and archiving services for various industry sectors. Research also indicates an e-Tender system should have a number of basic features and capabilities, including: • All tender documentation to be distributed via a secure web-based tender system – thereby avoiding the need for collating paperwork and couriers. • The client/purchaser should be able to upload a notice and/or invitation to tender onto the system. • Notification is sent out electronically (usually via email) for suppliers to download the information and return their responses electronically (online). • During the tender period, updates and queries are exchanged through the same e-Tender system. • The client/purchaser should only be able to access the tenders after the deadline has passed. • All tender related information is held in a central database, which should be easily searchable and fully audited, with all activities recorded. • It is essential that tender documents are not read or submitted by unauthorised parties. • Users of the e-Tender system are to be properly identified and registered via controlled access. In simple terms, security has to be as good as if not better than a manual tender process. Data is to be encrypted and users authenticated by means such as digital signatures, electronic certificates or smartcards. • All parties must be assured that no 'undetected' alterations can be made to any tender. • The tenderer should be able to amend the bid right up to the deadline – whilst the client/purchaser cannot obtain access until the submission deadline has passed. • The e-Tender system may also include features such as a database of service providers with spreadsheet-based pricing schedules, which can make it easier for a potential tenderer to electronically prepare and analyse a tender. Research indicates the efficiency of an e-Tender process is well supported internationally, with a significant number, yet similar, e-Tender benefits identified during this investigation. Both construction industry and Government participants generally agree that the implementation of an automated e-Tendering process or system enhances the overall quality, timeliness and cost-effectiveness of a tender process, and provides a more streamlined method of receiving, managing, and submitting tender documents than the traditional paper-based process. On the other hand, whilst there are undoubtedly many more barriers challenging the successful implementation and adoption of an e-Tendering system or process, researchers have also identified a range of challenges and perceptions that seem to hinder the uptake of this innovative approach to tendering electronically. A central concern seems to be that of security - when industry organisations have to use the Internet for electronic information transfer. As a result, when it comes to e-Tendering, industry participants insist these innovative tendering systems are developed to ensure the utmost security and integrity. Finally, if Australian organisations continue to explore the competitive ‘dynamics’ of the construction industry, without realising the current and future, trends and benefits of adopting innovative processes, such as e-Tendering, it will limit their globalising opportunities to expand into overseas markets and allow the continuation of international firms successfully entering local markets. As such, researchers believe increased knowledge, awareness and successful implementation of innovative systems and processes raises great expectations regarding their contribution towards ‘stimulating’ the globalisation of electronic procurement activities, and improving overall business and project performances throughout the construction industry sectors and overall marketplace (NSW Government 2002; Harty C. 2003; Murray M. 2003; Pietroforte R. 2003). Achieving the successful integration of an innovative e-Tender solution with an existing / traditional process can be a complex, and if not done correctly, could lead to failure (Bourn J. 2002).

Investment decision framework for infrastructure asset management: a probability-based approach

Australia’s civil infrastructure assets of roads, bridges, railways, buildings and other structures are worth billions of dollars. Road assets alone are valued at around A$ 140 billion. As the condition of assets deteriorate over time, close to A$10 billion is spent annually in asset maintenance on Australia's roads, or the equivalent of A$27 million per day. To effectively manage road infrastructures, firstly, road agencies need to optimise the expenditure for asset data collection, but at the same time, not jeopardise the reliability in using the optimised data to predict maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Secondly, road agencies need to accurately predict the deterioration rates of infrastructures to reflect local conditions so that the budget estimates could be accurately estimated. And finally, the prediction of budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation must provide a certain degree of reliability. A procedure for assessing investment decision for road asset management has been developed. The procedure includes: • A methodology for optimising asset data collection; • A methodology for calibrating deterioration prediction models; • A methodology for assessing risk-adjusted estimates for life-cycle cost estimates. • A decision framework in the form of risk map

Nation & internation practices in decision support tools in road asset management

This document provides a review of international and national practices in investment decision support tools in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying analytic frameworks, evaluation methodologies and criteria adopted by current tools. Emphasis was also given to how current approaches support Triple Bottom Line decision-making. Benefit Cost Analysis and Multiple Criteria Analysis are principle methodologies in supporting decision-making in Road Asset Management. The complexity of the applications shows significant differences in international practices. There is continuing discussion amongst practitioners and researchers regarding to which one is more appropriate in supporting decision-making. It is suggested that the two approaches should be regarded as complementary instead of competitive means. Multiple Criteria Analysis may be particularly helpful in early stages of project development, say strategic planning. Benefit Cost Analysis is used most widely for project prioritisation and selecting the final project from amongst a set of alternatives. Benefit Cost Analysis approach is useful tool for investment decision-making from an economic perspective. An extension of the approach, which includes social and environmental externalities, is currently used in supporting Triple Bottom Line decision-making in the road sector. However, efforts should be given to several issues in the applications. First of all, there is a need to reach a degree of commonality on considering social and environmental externalities, which may be achieved by aggregating the best practices. At different decision-making level, the detail of consideration of the externalities should be different. It is intended to develop a generic framework to coordinate the range of existing practices. The standard framework will also be helpful in reducing double counting, which appears in some current practices. Cautions should also be given to the methods of determining the value of social and environmental externalities. A number of methods, such as market price, resource costs and Willingness to Pay, are found in the review. The use of unreasonable monetisation methods in some cases has discredited Benefit Cost Analysis in the eyes of decision makers and the public. Some social externalities, such as employment and regional economic impacts, are generally omitted in current practices. This is due to the lack of information and credible models. It may be appropriate to consider these externalities in qualitative forms in a Multiple Criteria Analysis. Consensus has been reached in considering noise and air pollution in international practices. However, Australia practices generally omitted these externalities. Equity is an important consideration in Road Asset Management. The considerations are either between regions, or social groups, such as income, age, gender, disable, etc. In current practice, there is not a well developed quantitative measure for equity issues. More research is needed to target this issue. Although Multiple Criteria Analysis has been used for decades, there is not a generally accepted framework in the choice of modelling methods and various externalities. The result is that different analysts are unlikely to reach consistent conclusions about a policy measure. In current practices, some favour using methods which are able to prioritise alternatives, such as Goal Programming, Goal Achievement Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process. The others just present various impacts to decision-makers to characterise the projects. Weighting and scoring system are critical in most Multiple Criteria Analysis. However, the processes of assessing weights and scores were criticised as highly arbitrary and subjective. It is essential that the process should be as transparent as possible. Obtaining weights and scores by consulting local communities is a common practice, but is likely to result in bias towards local interests. Interactive approach has the advantage in helping decision-makers elaborating their preferences. However, computation burden may result in lose of interests of decision-makers during the solution process of a large-scale problem, say a large state road network. Current practices tend to use cardinal or ordinal scales in measure in non-monetised externalities. Distorted valuations can occur where variables measured in physical units, are converted to scales. For example, decibels of noise converts to a scale of -4 to +4 with a linear transformation, the difference between 3 and 4 represents a far greater increase in discomfort to people than the increase from 0 to 1. It is suggested to assign different weights to individual score. Due to overlapped goals, the problem of double counting also appears in some of Multiple Criteria Analysis. The situation can be improved by carefully selecting and defining investment goals and criteria. Other issues, such as the treatment of time effect, incorporating risk and uncertainty, have been given scant attention in current practices. This report suggested establishing a common analytic framework to deal with these issues.

Strategy for the development of investment decision-making framework for road asset management for queensland department of main roads

The aim of this project is to develop a systematic investment decision-making framework for infrastructure asset management by incorporation economic justification, social and environmental consideration in the decision-making process. This project assesses the factors that are expected to provide significant impacts on the variability of expenditures. A procedure for assessing risk and reliability for project investment appraisals will be developed. The project investigates public perception, social and environmental impacts on road infrastructure investment. This research will contribute to the debate about how important social and environmental issues should be incorporated into the investment decision-making process for infrastructure asset management.

International practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of an international review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different countries and international organisations. Road assets are powerful drivers of economic development and social equity. They also have significant impacts on the natural and man-made environment. The traditional definition of asset management is “A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory and it provides tools to facilitate a more organised, logical approach to decision-making” (US Dept. of Transportation, 1999). In recent years, the concept has been broadened to cover the complexity of decision making, based on a wider variety of policy considerations as well as social and environmental issues rather than is covered by Benefit-Cost analysis and pure technical considerations. Current international practices are summarised in table 2. It was evident that Engineering-economic analysis methods are well advanced to support decision-making. A range of tools available supports performance predicting of road assets and associated cost/benefit in technical context. The need for considering triple plus one bottom line of social, environmental and economic as well as political factors in decision-making is well understood by road agencies around the world. The techniques used to incorporate these however, are limited. Most countries adopt a scoring method, a goal achievement matrix or information collected from surveys. The greater uncertainty associated with these non-quantitative factors has generally not been taken into consideration. There is a gap between the capacities of the decision-making support systems and the requirements from decision-makers to make more rational and transparent decisions. The challenges faced in developing an integrated decision making framework are both procedural and conceptual. In operational terms, the framework should be easy to be understood and employed. In philosophical terms, the framework should be able to deal with challenging issues, such as uncertainty, time frame, network effects, model changes, while integrating cost and non-cost values into the evaluation. The choice of evaluation techniques depends on the feature of the problem at hand, on the aims of the analysis, and on the underlying information base At different management levels, the complexity in considering social, environmental, economic and political factor in decision-making is different. At higher the strategic planning level, more non-cost factors are involved. The complexity also varies based on the scope of the investment proposals. Road agencies traditionally place less emphasis on evaluation of maintenance works. In some cases, social equity, safety, environmental issues have been used in maintenance project selection. However, there is not a common base for the applications.

Review on Australian and international practices for asset management in building infrastructure

Both in developed and developing economies, major public funding is invested in civil infrastructure assets. Efficiency and comfort level of expected and demanded living standards are largely dependant on the management strategies of these assets. Buildings are one of the major & vital assets, which need to be maintained primarily to ensure its functionality by effective & efficient delivery of services and to optimize economic benefits. Not withstanding, public building infrastructure is not considered in Infrastructure report card published by Australian Infrastructure Report Card Alliance Partners (2001). The reason appears to be not having enough data to rate public building infrastructure. American Infrastructure Report Card (2001) gave “School Buildings” ‘d-’ rating, which is below ‘poor’. For effective asset management of building infrastructure, a need emerged to optimise the budget for managing assets, to cope up with increased user expectations, to response effectively to possible asset failures, to deal with ageing of assets and aging populations and to treat other scenarios including technology advancement and non-asset solutions. John (Asset Management, 2001) suggests that in the area of asset management worldwide, UK, Australia and New Zealand are leading.

National practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of a national review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different sate road authorities. The investment objectives of Australian road authorities are based on triple-bottom line considerations (social, environmental, economic and political). In some cases, comparing with some social considerations, such as regional economic development, equity, and access to pubic service etc., Benefit-Cost Ratio has limited influence on the decision-making. Australian road authorities have developed various decision support tools. Although Multi-Criteria Analysis has been preliminarily used in case by case study, pavement management systems, which are primarily based on Benefit Cost Analysis, are still the main decision support tool. This situation is not compatible with the triple-bottom line objectives. There is need to fill the gap between decision support tools and decision-making itself. Different decision criteria should be adopted based on the contents of the work. Additional decision criteria, which are able to address social, environmental and political impacts, are needed to develop or identify. Environmental issue plays a more and more important role in decision-making. However, the criteria and respective weights in decision-making process are yet to be clearly identified. Social and political impacts resulted from road infrastructure investment can be identified through Community Perceptions Survey. With accumulative data, prediction models, which are similar as pavement performance models, can be established. Using these models, the decision-makers are able to foresee the social and political consequences of investment alternatives.

Investment decision-making under risk (reliability) and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management

Risks and uncertainties are inevitable in engineering projects and infrastructure investments. Decisions about investment in infrastructure such as for maintenance, rehabilitation and construction works can pose risks, and may generate significant impacts on social, cultural, environmental and other related issues. This report presents the results of a literature review of current practice in identifying, quantifying and managing risks and predicting impacts as part of the planning and assessment process for infrastructure investment proposals. In assessing proposals for investment in infrastructure, it is necessary to consider social, cultural and environmental risks and impacts to the overall community, as well as financial risks to the investor. The report defines and explains the concept of risk and uncertainty, and describes the three main methodology approaches to the analysis of risk and uncertainty in investment planning for infrastructure, viz examining a range of scenarios or options, sensitivity analysis, and a statistical probability approach, listed here in order of increasing merit and complexity. Forecasts of costs, benefits and community impacts of infrastructure are recognised as central aspects of developing and assessing investment proposals. Increasingly complex modelling techniques are being used for investment evaluation. The literature review identified forecasting errors as the major cause of risk. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. For risks that cannot be readily quantified, assessment techniques commonly include classification or rating systems for likelihood and consequence. The report outlines the system used by the Australian Defence Organisation and in the Australian Standard on risk management. After each risk is identified and quantified or rated, consideration can be given to reducing the risk, and managing any remaining risk as part of the scope of the project. The literature review identified use of risk mapping techniques by a North American chemical company and by the Australian Defence Organisation. This literature review has enabled a risk assessment strategy to be developed, and will underpin an examination of the feasibility of developing a risk assessment capability using a probability approach.

Evaluation of functional performance in commercial buildings

This report fully summarises a project designed to enhance commercial real estate performance within both operational and investment contexts through the development of a model aimed at supporting improved decision-making. The model is based on a risk adjusted discounted cash flow, providing a valuable toolkit for building managers, owners, and potential investors for evaluating individual building performance in terms of financial, social and environmental criteria over the complete life-cycle of the asset. The ‘triple bottom line’ approach to the evaluation of commercial property has much significance for the administrators of public property portfolios in particular. It also has applications more generally for the wider real estate industry given that the advent of ‘green’ construction requires new methods for evaluating both new and existing building stocks. The research is unique in that it focuses on the accuracy of the input variables required for the model. These key variables were largely determined by market-based research and an extensive literature review, and have been fine-tuned with extensive testing. In essence, the project has considered probability-based risk analysis techniques that required market-based assessment. The projections listed in the partner engineers’ building audit reports of the four case study buildings were fed into the property evaluation model developed by the research team. The results are strongly consistent with previously existing, less robust evaluation techniques. And importantly, this model pioneers an approach for taking full account of the triple bottom line, establishing a benchmark for related research to follow. The project’s industry partners expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the project outcomes at a recent demonstration seminar. The project in its existing form has not been geared towards commercial applications but it is anticipated that QDPW and other industry partners will benefit greatly by using this tool for the performance evaluation of property assets. The project met the objectives of the original proposal as well as all the specified milestones. The project has been completed within budget and on time. This research project has achieved the objective by establishing research foci on the model structure, the key input variable identification, the drivers of the relevant property markets, the determinants of the key variables (Research Engine no.1), the examination of risk measurement, the incorporation of risk simulation exercises (Research Engine no.2), the importance of both environmental and social factors and, finally the impact of the triple bottom line measures on the asset (Research Engine no. 3).

Sustainability and the building code of Australia

This report is the culmination of a two-stage research project to inform the Australian property and construction industry generally, in addition to providing the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) with information to allow it to determine whether or not sustainability requirements are necessary in the Future Building Code of Australia (BCA21). The Australian Building Codes Board is a joint initiative of all levels of government in Australia. The Board’s mission is to provide for efficiency and cost effectiveness in meeting community expectations for health, safety and amenity in the design, construction and use of buildings through the creation of nationally consistent building codes, standards, regulatory requirements and regulatory systems. The Stage 1 (literature review) and Stage 2 (workshops) reports are intended to be read in conjunction with one another. These reports and the Database are provided as appendices. The Conclusions of this, the final report, are the result of the overall program of work.