Engineered Systems - June 2008 - (Page 68)

What Can IPD Do For You? Programs and Medical Systems Architectural and Building Systems Civil and Structural Systems MEP Sy stems Interiors / Modular Systems Cost Mo del Reconciliation Decision Point # 1: Confirm decision process, communications, protocols, meetings Decision Point # 2: Confirm all current conditions, project budget elements, project schedule, and quality expectations Decision Point # 3: Confirm process maps, room diagrams, equipment lists, floor plates, building exterior, and cost model Decision Point # 4: Reconcile and confirm space program, architectural finish, massing and floor plates, and parking scheme Decision Point # 5: Conduct and confirm “building level gaming,” location of all major building systems, all departments, exiting an d reconfirm cost model Decision Point # 6: Conduct and confirm “departmental gaming,” layouts for all departments, and reconfirm cost model Finalize Preliminary Design Design Documentat ion Construction FIGURE 1. A chart depicting the first 90 days of the decision management process in a project. more efficient but now “the plan looks like our old department, just bigger.” • Elements of the project were either forgotten or not included for one reason or another. • The cost of the project seems to continuously change and rise without control or adequate management. • Decisions seem to be revisited. These symptoms often contribute to the following fundamental problems. Initiating design before fully understanding the scope or problem. Design teams are often under pressure to show results without fully understanding context, complexity, or a target cost/budget model. Design teams are pushed to draw, and while the drawings prepared may contain ideas, the concepts shown may not be solving the right problem and may not be affordable. “Silo-based” planning and design. The lead firm (usually the architect) develops a design concept and provides each consultant with background drawings, then firms work independently on their components of the 68 En gi neer ed S y stem s project. Often the “over the wall” scenario will occur where drawings are thrown over the wall for someone else to work on. This typically results in adjustments and changes to accommodate systems and constructability. This rework results in additional time, cost, and often a departure from the owner’s original needs and concepts. The loss in time is unfortunate, but the ultimate loss is the contribution team members may have made to better concepts and a better project. Design, document, and estimates. Drawings are used to document intent and estimates are based on the completion of various levels of drawings. Prior to final completion of construction documents, assumptions are often made regarding cost. Cost under this system is only known after documentation, and as such, correcting cost problems requires another round of documentation. More rounds equals more time and more cost. Reliance on analog tools for communications and decisions. Analog tools such as drawings convey a multitude of ideas and concepts. While they are useful for depicting a coordination of elements and the complete project, they are often confusing and attempts to get one simple decision are often compromised by the distraction of other elements. Deferring detail and quantification. The focus on the “big idea” and a design often neglects the work necessary to develop an understanding of detail in terms of function, equipment, and building components to bring about the “big concept.” The lack of detail results in cost and constructability surprises, compromises, and changes as the project moves ahead. Can we do better? Can we eliminate some of this waste? Here are five steps we can take to correct some of these problems. 1) IMPLEMENT INTEGRATED PLANNING AND DESIGN (EARLY INTEGRATION) Integrate all design disciplines, owners groups, and cost planners from the outset of the project. This information involvement is critically different because all groups meet at the beginning of the project rather than being added along the way or as needed as the project develops. They participate in the development June 2008

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Engineered Systems - June 2008

Engineered Systems - June 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Letters To The Editor Back2Basics HVAC Challenge Case In Point Commissioning Efficiency Incentives HydroTech Building Automation Energy Wiz HVACR Designer Tips Notre Dame Tackles the Heat State Of The Arts Time For A Transplant? Project Delivery: What Can IPD Do For You? Issues & Events Computers & Software Products Application Checklist Glossary Classifieds Advertiser Index Tomorrow’s Engineer

Engineered Systems - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.