2019Case1DPSGroup

14 L EAN C ONSTRUCTION I RELAND A NNUAL B OOK OF C ASES 2019 is now requesting a more expensive type 2 cladding with a high gloss finish. In the traditional costing model, this design change would have been added to the drawing and the extra cost would not have been recognised until the price was returned from the contractor. Whereas with the TVD method, the designer immediately advises the client that the client’s decision will negatively affect the TVD fund. The cost increase can be assessed and advised, and the client can promptly adjudicate on the cost versus value benefit of the request. While awaiting the client’s decision, the ?50k increased cost figure is added to the weekly TVD reporting tracker as a ‘potential’ increase and the impact is immediately visible to all on the tracker dashboard. It was important at this point to also assess potential added value offered by the specification and cost increase, and the decision-making could not rest on cost alone. In this instance, the designer advised that the € 50k cost increase was mitigated by a € 25k material and labour- install saving as the type 2 cladding incorporated a built-in weathering trim, resulting in an overall net uplift of € 25k to the TVD figure. This discussion occurred weekly with the design leads to ensure visibility and clarity of the impacts of each request and decision on the TVD fund. By implementing this element of weekly standard work, a culture of ownership for awareness of the cost impact of decisions in design was developed and a realisation that any deviation from the agreed specification and scope would generate a cost impact became embedded within the project team. The responsibility, therefore, was to recognise the impact, either positive or negative, and report this to the client immediately for review of acceptance of the financial impact. The client may respond by stating that the request is a critical value-add element that has been approved at board level and therefore the TVD figure can be increased with no impact to other scope elements. The client may also decide not to increase the TVD figure and insist on a review of the scope, either within this discipline or across disciplines, to achieve savings and align with the TVD figure. This required certain behavioural norms and changes to traditional thinking across design disciplines, as the process piping dept may find themselves looking for savings within their design scope to allow the € 25k uplift for the type 2 cladding. In this instance CSA proposed changing the brick paving footpaths and other landscaping features to more cost-effective alternatives which were acceptable to the client – this balanced the uplift to allow the type 2 cladding be specified. Cultural Change On previous projects the design engineers wouldn’t have had a culture of owning that budget. “We considered this to be the role of the cost department and not of a designer.” noted a design lead, adding “After BOD we would have listened to client feedback and incorporated this into the DD. Costs would have increased but that wouldn’t have been a concern of ours as the quantity surveyors dealt with all cost related issues with the client”. An example from this project related to a client request to add five lifting beams to new locations, in addition to the 10 beams already in the design. Traditionally the designer would have complied with the client’s request and added five beams to the drawing. However, with the new awareness around the concept and culture of working with TVD, the designer advised the client of the cost impact and together both client and designer examined the location and purpose of the original 10 beams to ascertain if all were required, especially with five more being added. This exercise led to a reduction of three beams, and thus a net increase of only two beams and with a qualified value increase to the functionality of the facility. The principles of TVD compelled the assessment of the need for each beam. One was found to be required once every three years, and it was decided to use a mobile lifting solution in that case. The traditional mindset and thinking of ‘put it in just in case it will be required’ is challenged by the principles of TVD and a much deeper consideration of the value versus cost argument is advocated. The culture around a new way of working was critical as some disciplines had to surrender some of their fund to f inance a cl ient request for extra scope in another discipline. A success on the project was the early design and tender of the CSA element, resulting in early visibility of the contractor’s costs for that work. This tender was 10% under budget allowing a portion of this saving to be reallocated to the process kit as this was trending towards 10% over target, thus creating a balance on the overall TVD trend. Value Aspect TVD can also drive up cost; however, if this exposes opportunity for increased lifecycle value to the project then the client may be satisfied to increase the fund. An example of this occurred on this project when the existing roof on the building to be refurbished was found to be fit-for- purpose but would need remediation work within 5 years. This prompted an extensive survey to be carried out, resulting in a finding that investment of € 200k would be required in a piecemeal fashion over the next 20 years to maintain the roof integr i ty. However, i t was al so established that an initial investment as part of this project would get the work completed for € 75k as the roof was clear and access ible wi thout plant , cable trays , or penetrations. The client decided to spend the € 75k upfront to save on the € 200k spend over the 20-year lifecycle cost plan. This emphasised the “Value” element of TVD by considering the lifecycle maintenance investment costs at the DD stage. Tracking TVD Each discipline had its own tab on the TVD tracker and each design occurrence was recorded live as it happened on the cloud-based system. The relevant QS received a notification if the tracker had been updated, which prompted the need to review any cost impact noted by the design engineer. DPS project leadership team reviewed the dashboard with the engineering leads at the weekly governance meeting. An important part of this inter- discipline meeting was the collaborative evaluation of the impact of changes in one department on work and costs in other design departments. Referring again to the extra lifting beam example, other disciplines’ design elements were impacted as lighting, fire protection, and ducting air

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTIzMTIxMw==