At the Richardson College for the Environment project we turned the design process on its head as we needed to try and meet the expectations of project stakeholders that were initially told to “Dream Big” on a not so BIG budget. The financial reality was there were only funds for a much smaller dream of $38.5M and not the $50M that was the price tag for the initial design.
Our team was tasked with finding over $10M in savings, as there was no money to be found to build the dream. We were living the "Broken Buildings Busted Budget" reality which was the book that was used to convince the U of W that we needed to adopt the Lean Project Delivery approach.
As a framework for assessing how well the process worked for the design phase, I have adapted an article that was written by Glen Ballard one of the founders of the Lean Construction Institute. My reason for doing this is that our team delivered an exceptional project and I was interested in knowing how close we came to implementing what would be considered best practices for Target Value Design (TVD).
Project Summary
Our team exceeded the LEED Silver requirements, Got Gold and through Innovation and Imagination in Laboratory design deliver one of North Americas most energy efficient laboratory projects at 58% less energy that MNECB.
For the full article Lean Lab Blog
For a workshop on Target Value Design
Lean-Lab | Target Value Design | An Assessment of the RCFE Project: "Target Value Design | An Assessment of the RCFE Project
March 2, 2016
Upon review of the TVD process, our team did pretty darn good!
'via Blog this'
For the full article Lean Lab Blog
For a workshop on Target Value Design
Lean-Lab | Target Value Design | An Assessment of the RCFE Project: "Target Value Design | An Assessment of the RCFE Project
March 2, 2016
Upon review of the TVD process, our team did pretty darn good!
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment