Target Value Design | An Assessment of the RCFE Project | lean-lab:
March 2, 2016
Murray Guy
The University of Winnipeg Richardson College for the Environment project got into budget issues when project's Big Dream could not fit in the not so BIG budget. The financial reality was that there was $38.5M and not $50M that was estimated for the initial design concept. The team were then tasked with finding over $10M in our "Broken Buildings Busted Budget" reality. It just so happens that this book helped to convince the U of W to adopt a Lean Project Delivery approach, for this project.
Murray Guy
The University of Winnipeg Richardson College for the Environment project got into budget issues when project's Big Dream could not fit in the not so BIG budget. The financial reality was that there was $38.5M and not $50M that was estimated for the initial design concept. The team were then tasked with finding over $10M in our "Broken Buildings Busted Budget" reality. It just so happens that this book helped to convince the U of W to adopt a Lean Project Delivery approach, for this project.
Our team was successful in delivering this project. To see how we faired , we are going to compare our approach to Target Value Design best practices outlined in an article by Glenn Ballard. Glenn Ballard (2011) Target Value Design: Current Benchmark. Lean Construction Journal 2011 pp 79-84 www.leanconstructionjournal.org
Introduction
The University of California, Berkeley’s Project Production Systems Laboratory periodically publishes a description of the current benchmark in each project management process that is a subject of research.
In the building sector, it has been customary for architects to work with customers to understand what they want, then produce facility designs intended to deliver what’s wanted. The cost of those designs has then been estimated, and too often, found to be greater than the customer is willing or able to bear, requiring designs to be revised, then recosted, and so on. This cycle of design-estimate-rework is wasteful and reduces the value customers get for their money. Cost has been an outcome of design.
The following is an assessment of the process based upon this paper
Some of the project constraints that were non-negotiable were that this needed to be a signature high performance sustainable building, incorporate three science departments and meet the needs of a tight budget with high expectations on value and an aggressive schedule. Ideally the feasibility of the project is determined early in the project, ours was not. We needed to fix a budget with a project on the critical path to a two-year occupancy, with no design to meet budget. This was our challenge!
Once we had all of the key trades on board we rolled up our sleeves, set the target, defined the constraints and prioritized what represented value for the U of W stakeholder group. There needed to be an understanding and commitment to the budget as there was no pot of Gold at the end of the design process to top up any budget gap.
NO MORE MONEY | No Hidden Contingency to Save the Day"
To continue with full assessment
No comments:
Post a Comment