pebbu final report annexes 1 - 14 - irbnet.de · construction sector network included a pbb...

2001 - 2005 Pe r fo rma nc e Ba sed Bu i ld ing Themat ic N etwo rk P e B B u F i n a l R e p o r t

125

PeBBu Final Report

Annexes 1 - 14

Perf ormanc e Based B u i ld i ng T hemat ic Ne twork 2001- 2005 P e B B u F i n a l R e p o r t

126


127

AA N N E X E SN N E X E S

AA N N E X N N E X 1 : P1 : P EE B BB B U U TT A S K A S K RR E P O R T SE P O R T S

A n n e x 1 . 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 1 : L i f e P e r f o r m a n c e o f A n n e x 1 . 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 1 : L i f e P e r f o r m a n c e o f C o n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s a n d CC o n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s a n d C o m p o n e n t so m p o n e n t s

Reporting period: 01 October 2001 till 30 September 2005

Life Performance of Construction

Materials & Components: Task Report

1. Executive summary

PeBBu Domain 1 on Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components succeeded to establish a well-functioning platform to develop and discuss topics related to the thematic domain. A core success factor was that D1 operated very centrally within ongoing international standardization work, and with pre- and co-normative research projects. With the main objectives being to work for the establishment and the anchoring of an agreed international research and development agenda in its thematic domain, to relate to the work namely of ISO/TC59/SC14 and to develop the there-specified methodologies and to bring these to the attention and application of actors in the building and construction sector. In brief, D1 has managed to

• contribute to international standardization and to international research projects and networks, • discussed the application of service life information in the context of product declarations intensely

mainly involving the perspectives of provision and application of provided information • developed education and training material • contributed to the international research community with numerous contributions on

international conferences and workshops, as well as through publications in scientific journals. D1 has strived to position itself at the gap between research and application of innovation, which has led to the conduction of interesting workshops with participants from “both sides”. Where the dialogue at

T-01

Task name: T-01: Life performance of Construction Materials and Components

Task leader(s):

Prof. Christer Sjöström, KTH, Sweden, [email protected] Dr. JL Chevalier, CSTB, France, [email protected]

Dr. Wolfram Trinius, KTH, Sweden, [email protected]


128

times has been difficult, the discussions have been fruitful and efficient in the meaning to generate understanding for the thematic field of life performance of materials and components. Due to these discussions and the success in establishing a dialogue, it is assumed that PeBBu D1 managed to play a significant role on the route to bring performance based building, and especially the consideration of service life aspects in the planning process, into practice. This process is however, by no means completed with the end of the project, but the contacts for a continued development and a continued dialogue are in place, which is a precondition for future exploitation of the D1 results as well as for the thematic field as such.

2. Objectives of the task

Specific objectives for all PeBBu domains are: • to programme and coordinate international R&D that falls within the domain's scope in order to

ensure internationally accepted prioritizing of such R&D, maximal stimulus of international collaboration and maximal compatibility of results of such R&D

• to establish relationships with other international expert’s or stakeholders' networks that have overlapping scope and objectives

Additional to the common PeBBu objectives, domain 1 on life performance of construction materials and components is to foster the further development of the performance concept in the domain, for a better concern and assessment of the performance over time, and to anchor this development with sector stakeholders, which are more and more demanding information, tools and data for service life prediction. This will focus in particular on:

• The further development of the Factorial approach as regards (i) theoretical and engineering approaches, (ii) basic knowledge base of different factors, (iii) development of pedagogic application examples and (iv) test-training of practitioners.

• The exploration and description of the conditions and prerequisites for reference life (performance) data for classes of building materials and components with account of sub-sectorial industry structure

Domain 1 thus provides guidelines of pre-standardisation support type on (life) performance of materials and products.

3. Scientific and Technical assessment

Performance Based Building in relation to life performance of construction materials and components is interpreted as the methodological intersection between concepts of performance requirements, service life and durability and sustainability aspects related to buildings as well as to their functional components and as transferred to materials and components. Due to the character of design processes, both related to product design and to building design, the application of the performance concept involves many actors. Consequently, information related to life performance must be communicated widely throughout the sector. Further, it must be enabled that rather generic product information can be adapted to current and highly specific building design conditions. PeBBu Domain 1 specifically relates to the ISO 15686 standards. Domain 1 intends to exemplify these standards with the goal to enable wider provision of information needed for the process of service life planning, as well as enabling a wider application of service life information in project planning and building design. While focussing building materials and components, the context of functional application of materials and components deserves consideration. Consequently, D1 also addresses systems. The topic of sustainable construction provides the contextual frame and the philosophical reason for acting on the topic of service life. This involves the development of methodologies to identify reference service lives and estimated service lives, also in terms of service life declarations. These methodologies provide important


129

input especially to environmental product declarations of building materials and components and equally evident, to the assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Both items are addressed in ISO/TC59/SC17 and in CEN/TC 350. The communication of service life information within the construction sector sets high requirements concerning transparency of the information. A declaration of service life can only reflect one or a few scenarios for product application. Therefore, designers for instance, may need to perform or initiate a process of modification of declared information, all in order to obtain information that is relevant to the situation in a specific building context. The primary source of information will still be the manufacturers, while recognizing that information provided by them only can be based on reference scenarios. Such scenarios must be available for scrutiny by those applying the provided information. Core means and the process applied to reach the objectives are: • Interaction with CIB and RILEM technical committees, coordinated R&D activities in the Domain work

area o The upcoming work programme of CIB W80 / RILEM TC 175 – TSL is focussing the dominating

issue of D1 • Interaction with ISO TC59/SC14 "Design Life" in the development and implementation of the standard

series ISO 15686. Especially so the standards 15686-1 (describing the Factor Method), 15686-2 (Service Life Prediction Procedures) and 15686-8 (Reference Service Lives).

• Interaction with ISO TC59/SC14/WG9 and the CEN Task Force on Durability in establishing principle methods for Durability Assessment and Declarations in Product Standards. ISO TC59/SC14 are to produce a standard on the issue, and CEN two Guiding Documents (short and long term, respectively) for standard committees working on European harmonised product standards.

• Survey selected building materials and components producers within PeBBu member countries on their present ways of testing and declaring life performance of products and their apprehension of the emerging standard concepts

• Conduction of Domain workshops • Contribution to non-PeBBu conferences, workshops and symposia with the intention to involve a

larger audience in the discussion, to present and to receive external points of view • Academic publications and doctoral dissertations. • Preparation of user guidance on the application of PBB related international standards • Involvement in the discussion between academia / standardisation bodies and industry on the topics

related to performance and service life declaration in the context of environmental declarations and compliance to the European Construction Products Directive (CPD)

Overview of the technical progress made during the report ing period

Due to its nature of being a thematic network, much of the technical progress is mainly visible in the activities of individuals and organisations participating in the network, in the cooperation of linked organisations in their research and in the general development of the thematic field. Domain 1 members play a significant role in the development of international standards, where they relate to or incorporate service life and life performance aspects of construction materials and components. Domain members are involved in the development of ISO and CEN standards, as well as in project groups that perform pre- and co-normative research. Since the PeBBu network is in place, additional to research and standardisation activities, the efforts to establish cooperation with relevant stakeholders of the construction sector have been intensified. Ascribing the theoretical and practical progress to the PeBBu domain activities alone would be misguiding, However, PeBBu participants are:


130

• Significantly involved in ISO/TC59/SC14 “Design Life”, ISO/TC59/SC17 “Sustainability in Building Construction”, CEN/TC350 “Integrated Environmental Performance of Buildings”, and in CEN TF Durability.

• Involved in other thematic research networks, life for instance LIFETIME, ENDOHOUSING, LIFECON and C-TIDE

• Organisers or participants of international conferences, workshops and symposia like ILCDES, Kuopio; 9DBMC, Brisbane; 10DBMC, Lyon; CIB world congress, Toronto; ISO TC59 and SC14 and SC17 meetings (Brisbane, Toronto, Lyon); CIB combining forces, Helsinki.

• Actively publishing academic and scientific articles in their thematic field • Involved in education and training effort directed towards students as well as professionals

All the above have given PeBBu a wide forum to intensify the discourse on life performance aspects. Best current overview of the development of the thematic field can be gained from the documentation of 9DBMC, 10DBMC, ILCDES, the CIB world congress and the CIB combining forces event. The international Journal on Building Research and Information has published a special issue on performance based Building, where numerous participants from the PeBBu network (not only D1) contributed with their work. Due to the rising perception of performance based building as significant, also the CEN Construction Sector Network included a PBB presentation in their strategic discussion. A key success was that the evolving international standards in the field of environmental declaration as well as sustainability in building construction address the full life cycle of buildings, and hence of construction materials and components. These standards apply and integrate standards of the ISO 15686 series, by which they create awareness for these standards as much as they cause the application and the “setting into practice” of these standards. This demand for application has caused an intensified discussion with stakeholders, which in turn spurs the development of the standards. The performance concept is often regarded as a key element on the route to sustainable construction.

Main Results with support ing ev idence h ighlighting the innovat ions

PeBBu Domain 1 has established a platform to perform and disseminate work in the thematic field of life performance of construction materials and components. Workshops organised by the domain have been used to get a common understanding of the state of the art, as well as to discuss recent advancements and to agree on an outlook for the future work. The workshops are documented. In parallel to this “internal” establishment of agreement, D1 has utilized its strong links into international standardization and international R&D networks in order to coordinate activities and to align the perception of the thematic field as well as the work plan with these groups. These activities are documented mainly in terms of contributions to international conferences, as indicated throughout this document. Additionally, in order to obtain a valid perception of the current situation on in the building and construction sector, D1 has conducted itself and participated in others, seminars on the thematic field, where market actors and stakeholders have been participating. This gave the necessary overview of the practitioners perspective, deeply relevant for the establishment of an R&D Agenda and as well important for the establishment of training and education material. The final preparation of the R&D Agenda was foregone by an in-depth discussion of key success factors, the positioning in the RDIM-cycle (Research, Development, Innovation, Market introduction) and was coordinated with the demands of ongoing standardization in ISO/TC59/SC14 as well as with the CIB W80 RILEM 175 working group on Service Life Methodologies. The preparation of the R&D Agenda reflected the recent trends and developments advancing in relation to Industrial Foundation Classes (IFC as developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability IAI).


131

The R&D Agenda has finally been established, also with the intention to manifest the application view, not only the research view. Main result of D1 is However, still the ongoing dialogue rather than certain specific documents. The inter-linkage with the international community has been very large, thus the goal to maintain the network for the future appears easily reachable. Documents and results mentioned in this section are described further at other places throughout this document.

Comparison of Planned act iv it ies and actual work accomplished

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Contribution to 1st international PBB SotA Performed 1st Domain Workshop Performed 1st Domain Report(s) Performed (the Report is regularly up-dated) Survey amongst industry on Factor Method/Reference Service Life

Performed

Development of pedagogic application examples Performed Test training of practitioners Prepared / Conduction planned for Autumn '05 Academic courses on D1 subject Ongoing; not included specifically in original Workplan Initiate/co-ordinate international R&D Performed/ongoing Interaction with/co-ordination of international R&D projects

Performed and ongoing

Initiation of R&D projects Performed and ongoing Academic merits (Licentiate/Doctor exams) Performed and ongoing (not included in original

Workplan Interaction with other organisations in the subject area Performed and ongoing. D1 has well established

contacts and co-operation with ISO, CEN, EOTA, national standards institutes, CIB, RILEM, fib, and business organisations e.g. CEPMC and national

State of the Art Review

Since 1993, international standardisation in the field of service life planning is undertaken. The main purpose of standardisation efforts in ISO/TC59/SC14 “Design Life” is to identify routines that support the design of buildings that meet identified performance requirements, throughout their design life. By directing the work to this thematic field, also demands originating e.g. from the European Construction Products Directive (CPD) [1] are addressed. The methodology obviously is equally worthy for other regions. For Europe meanwhile, the CPD can be identified as a very significant driver for standardization and harmonization, as products fulfilling the six essential requirements of the CPD are eligible for CE marking. One of the routes to CE marking is based on an assessment of the product, including an evaluation of its durability in order to obtain a reasonable working life, as required in the CPD. Especially for the evaluation of new and innovative products, where no experience-based information is available, the European Organisation of Technical Approvals (EOTA) has developed general guidance based on the service life prediction concepts [2], as expressed in ISO 15686-2 [3]. The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) began work on the subject of building performance in the 1970s. The “performance approach” was described as “first and foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building is required to do, and not with prescribing how is it to be constructed” [4]. Over the years, CIB has started a number of working groups addressing performance based building, with the EU funded thematic network PeBBu, addressing performance based building in 6 scientific domains, 4 regional platforms and 3 user platforms, being a prime present activity.


132

PeBBu Domain 1 on life performance of construction materials, components and systems specifically relates to the ISO 15686 standards. The link between the ISO standards and Performance Based Building has long-since been understood as evident, and has been elaborated and discussed at hand of the CPD in e.g. [5]. Domain 1 intends to exemplify these standards with the goal to enable wider provision of information needed for the process of service life planning, as well as enabling a wider application of service life information in project planning and building design. While focussing building materials and components, the context of functional application of materials and components deserves consideration. Consequently, D1 also addresses systems. The topic of sustainable construction provides the contextual frame and the philosophical reason for acting on the topic of service life. This involves the development of methodologies to identify reference service lives and estimated service lives, also in terms of service life declarations. These methodologies provide important input especially to environmental product declarations of building materials and components (see for instance [6]) and equally evident, to the assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Both items are addressed in ISO/TC59/SC17 and in CEN/TC 350. The current development of internationally harmonised standards follows to large extent a modular approach that allows the inclusion of use phase (and thereby service life) scenarios that can be adapted to better reflect the situation in which a material, component or system is to be applied. The ISO 15686 standards on service life planning can be applied in order to generate information for such adaptable modules and scenarios. With the relative ease to adapt scenarios and modules as a positive aspect, also the negative potential to include information based on scenarios that are not in line with each other, or service life information that is based on performance requirements that do not sufficiently well reflect the situation at hand, is rising. For the process of identification and adaptation of service life information to the planning situation at hand, ISO 15686 identifies two core concepts, one being the establishment of a reference service life and the other being the identification of an estimated service life. Where the earlier must be based on testing, exposure or experience, the latter is a modification of a given reference service life that shall allow the planner to establish a reasonable estimate for a material, component or system as part of a specific building design. One route towards such adaptation is application of the “factor method”. As both, the reference service life and the process of adaptation in order to establish an estimated service life are forming the basis for the generation of information, PeBBu Domain 1 sets its focus onto these aspects of service life planning methodology. With this in specific focus, PeBBu D1 addresses demands in co-normative research and development, where the target is to provide information that is needed in everyday application of the standards. PeBBu strives to identify current practice in the building sector, both to identify the potential for improvement and to provide feedback of experience and practical information into the process of formulating standards. Based on the requirements posed by the standards and the experience and practice in the building sector, thematic fields for future attention and research can be identified. The derivation and communication of performance requirements and performance information are to be named expressly. Developing standards in the field of EPD (environmental product declaration) and sustainable construction show modular structures, where scenarios for service life and life performance have significant influence on the declared information [6]. Innovation in the building sector may be described as either supply-driven or demand-driven. In the first case, the provider of innovative solutions will seek to convince key market actors to recognise and apply the innovative products. In the latter case, the suppliers of products are to develop solutions that meet the requirements originating from the innovation demand. In both cases, the communication of life performance or service life aspects is an essential element of information. For innovative solutions, information on long-term performance and service life will not be available. Such information hence must be estimated, e.g. in accordance to the EOTA guidelines and the ISO 15686 standards.


133

Where service life information is communicated between various stakeholders of the building sector, it has to be assured, that a common understanding, also of the underlying scenarios, for which information has been provided, as well is communicated and understood by all parties participating in the communication. A harmonised approach to service life declaration may be very helpful. PeBBu D1 investigated to what extent actors in building construction already today are informed about the ISO standards, to what extend they make use of service life information and apply the performance based building concept. A general conclusion is that the concepts appear to be well known, but there still is a significant lack of experience and feedback from examples, where the concepts have been applied systematically and successfully. The question whether performance based building in practice leads to innovative solutions, and concerning which performance aspects these innovative solutions are beneficial and in that case to whom they are beneficial, remains to be investigated and documented. Such documentation, as part of the developed training material and presented as successful examples, is supposed to take the role as a key driver to motivate for the application of the performance concept. Motivation of actors to enable and apply performance information is regarded as the main obstacle to more frequent application of the performance concept in building construction. However, the availability of information and the number of examples of application is rising, all while the development of tools for the application of service life planning has taken up momentum. From this, in combination with the general awareness of the usefulness of the concepts of performance based building and service life planning, it can be assumed that the development of tools, and the integration into standards relating to building sustainability, will spur the application of the concepts. The communication of service life information within the construction sector sets high requirements concerning transparency of the information. A declaration of service life can only reflect one or a few scenarios for product application. Therefore, designers for instance, may need to perform or initiate a process of modification of declared information, all in order to obtain information that is relevant to the situation in a specific building context. The primary source of information will still be the manufacturers, while recognising that information provided by them only can be based on reference scenarios. Such scenarios must be available for scrutiny by those applying the provided information.

4. Deliverables

All PeBBu domains were requested to perform the following Basic PeBBu project deliverables: Contribution to first State-of-the-Art Report Two Domain Workshops including Documentation Two Domain Reports Input to PeBBu Website Assessment of Project Proposals Contribution to Final PeBBu Report Documented Domain Workshops Stockholm Budapest Manchester Porto Additional to the project deliverables, D1 has been contributing to the development of the thematic field of performance based building and life performance by the following deliveries:


134

Other D1 strategic presentations and participation in workshops: CEN Construction Sector Network Conference, Prague 2005 meeting with CEPMC, Paris Nordic meeting London 05 Workshop London November 06 Significant contribution to international thematic conferences: ILCDES, Kuopio 2005 9DBMC, Brisbane 2002 10DBMC, Lyon 2005 CIB world congress, Toronto 2004 ISO TC59 and SC14 and SC17 meetings (Brisbane, Toronto, Lyon) CIB combining forces, Helsinki 2005 UK/SE initiative on sustainable construction 2005 6th International Congress, Global Construction, Dundee 2005 Contribution to international standardization and international research networks:

ISO TC59/SC14 Design Life ISO TC59/SC17 Sustainability in Building Construction CEN TC 350 Integrated Environmental Performance of Buildings CEN TG Durability Task Group on Durability CEN CSN workshop Presentation on Performance Based Building and Sustainability CIB W80/ RILEM TC175 Service Life Methodologies CIB W106 Geographical Information Systems IAI International Alliance for Interoperability LIFETIME Lifetime Engineering of Buildings and Civil Infrastructures LIFECON Life Cycle Management of Concrete Infrastructures for

Improved Sustainability ENDOHOUSING Endo-thermic Technology for Energy Efficient Housing C-TIDE

Preparation of teaching and education material

Jernberg, P.: "Service Life Planning of Constructed Works - Users Guide to ISO 15686-1", in print; to be published 2005, English translation of: Jernberg, P., "Livslängdsplanering av byggnader och byggnadsverk - Användarhandledning för SS-ISO15686-1: Livslängsplanering av byggnader och byggnadsverk - Del 1: Allmänna principer", (in Swedish), SIS Förlag, ISBN 91-7162-636-0

Academic publications published by the domain leaders during the project period:

Chevalier, J. L. et al: “10dbmc”, Documentation of the 10th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Lyon 2005

Huovila, P. (Ed): “Performance Based Building”, VTT and RIL, Helsinki 2005

Lair, J., Chevalier J.L. (2002). “Service life assessment of building products with data fusion”, Revue Française de Génie Civil « Fiabilité des ouvrages de Génie Civil – Conception et maintenance ». Volume 6, n°3/2002. pp 421-431. Paris : Hermès Science Publications, 2002.

Marteinsson, B.: "Service Life Estimation in the Design of Buildings - A Development of the Factor Method", Doctoral thesis, ISBN 91-7178-026-2, KTH Research School, Centre for Built Environment, University of Gävle, Sweden, 2005

Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (Eds.): “Performance-based Building”, Special Issue of the International Journal on Building Research & Information (March - April 2005) 33(2)


135

Talon, A., Chevalier, J.L., Hans, J.: “State of the Art Report on Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis Research for and Application to the Building Domain”, Draft CSTB Report to CIB W80 and RILEM 175 on Service Life Methodologies, Grenoble 2005

Trinius, W.: “Performance-based Building and Sustainable Construction”, CEN Construction Sector Network Conference, Prague, 25 - 26 April 2005, http://www.cenorm.be

5. Plans for Use and Dissemination

Deliverable Intention Target Audience Dissemination Contribution to 1st state of the art report

Form part of state of the art report

See state of the art report

See state of the art report

Four domain workshops including documentation

Workshops held for internal discussion at the same time as for involvement of stakeholders and intended to enlarge awareness of PeBBu as well as of developments in the thematic domain Workshops synthesise the work area and describe the state-of-the-art. Workshops constitute a basis for R&D programming and prioritisation by identifying R&D worthy tasks

PeBBu members, D1 members and observers such as sector stakeholders, researchers, regulators, standard writers, multipliers

Dissemination through invitation and participation to workshops, as well as through documentation of the workshops. Documentation has been in general not published, but distributed informally to participants of workshops as well as to interested individuals.

Two domain reports

To elaborate on the current state of the art and on the approach on research and development as well as the obtained / expected results of the domain

PeBBu members Printed documentation available

Input to PeBBu website

General information about the network, the domains and the ongoing R&D

All stakeholders and interested parties related to performance based Building

Project website www.PeBBu.nl

Assessment and generation of project proposals

To ensure that future R&D projects enable an appropriate consideration of the experience gained, as well as to enable future cooperation of members of the PeBBu network in this thematic field.

Research and development community

Creation of project proposals and discussion with proposers.

Contribution to final report

To elaborate on the current state of the art and on the approach on research and development as well as the outcome of the work of the domain

R&D community, stakeholders and interested parties of performance based building

publication

Contributions to international

To participate in the academic dialogue related

Research and Development

Contributions in terms of academic publications are included in the respective


136

thematic conferences

to research and development in the thematic field

Community conference’s documentation. Further, PeBBu D1 members have been active in the preparation of conferences, and thus had a significant influence on the networking possibilities and on information exchange also on informal routes, through workshops and discussion prior to and during these events.

Contribution to and interaction with international standardization

To apply the experience gained in ongoing standardization, to influence future standardization work, to offer the PeBBu network for thematic discussion, to share and exchange experience. D1 work programme focuses key R&D needs of ISO TC59/SC14 and CEN Task Force on Durability Dissemination of R&D results to standardisation bodies

Standard developers, standardization strategy developers, standard users, research and development community

Besides the immediate dissemination through published standards, the contribution to standardisation involves numerous meetings and workshops utilizing a manifold of channels in order to establish an internationally harmonised approach to the topic under standardization. As many standardization committees liaise with each other, the result of committee work has multiple effects on related standardization tasks. The D1 results are directly used in the work by ISO TC59/SC14 and CEN Task Group on Durability

Contribution to international research networks

To enlargen the platform and the network, to exchange concepts and experiences.

Research and development community

The parallel participation in several research and development projects cross fertilises these projects, benefit from experiences gained and impulses created by one project are communicated to and discussed with other networks.

CEPMC meeting To gain mutual understanding for the potentials and constraints related to communication of service life information

Standard developers and building material industry stakeholders

Minutes, influence on further future meetings, intended to be basis for CEPMC positing in questions related to service life durability and sustainability

CEN Construction Sector Network Conference

To identify routes for future standardization in the building and construction sector

National Standardisation bodies, CEN standardization Management, nominated experts

CEN documentation, CEN website, completely publicly available on www.cenorm.be

UK/SE initiative on sustainable construction

Intra-governmental discussion and exchange of experiences, identification of common concerns and approaches

Government representatives and experts from the UK and Sweden

Coordination with CIB and RILEM

International R&D prioritisation and stimulation

R&D community D1 is directly interacting with CIB W080/RILEM 175 SLM, which is reflected in the new W080 work programme

Test training and application examples

To train professionals, to communicate the benefits of service life planning

Various actors in the construction sector

Published guidebook on service life planning

Research and Development Agenda

To align and coordinate future research, to reflect the results of D1 and to communicate the background reasoning

R&D community Published and directly communicated within relevant networks


137

foregoing the agenda’s establishment

Assessment of European In terest

The process to shape European harmonised product standards for building and construction is since long highly prioritised. This work has in recent years been intensified and a focus has come to be placed on the durability and life performance of materials, products and components. According to the Construction Products Directive, CPD, "The products must be suitable for construction works which (as a whole and in their separate parts) are fit for their intended use, account being taken of economy, and in this connection satisfy the following essential requirements where the works are subject to regulations containing such requirements. Such requirements must, subject to normal maintenance, be satisfied for an economically reasonable working life". Furthermore, the Interpretative Documents, ID’s, provide that product standards and Guidelines for European Technical Approval (ETAGs) "should include indications concerning the working life of the products in relation to the intended uses and the methods for its assessment". The development of a common concept for the establishment of service life and life performance information is a key success factor, when intending to communicate service life information to the market as well as between industries. A top priority topic on international, European, and national level is the assessment/declaration of Service Life Data of building products and services, and the use of such data in Service Life Planning of Constructed Assets. In Europe this is reflected in and directed by the Construction Products Directive (CPD). Despite the fact that the main objective of the CPD is to harmonise the trade with building products and construction services, striving for a more sustainable development of the built environment is one important driving force. The implementation drives radical changes in national organisation, legislation, regulations, and not the least standards. D1 is operating in this field, on defined sub-topics, and in close co-operation with international, European and national standards bodies. PeBBu Domain 1 “Life Performance of construction materials and components“ has operated in this thematic field, with close interaction with standardisation projects both within ISO and CEN, as well as with other ongoing R&D projects on international level.

Expected Impacts (European or worldwide)

PeBBu Domain 1 operated, and the network still operates, centrally positioned within the international standardization community. By that, the input to, as well as the feedback from, international standardization and pre- and co-normative research has been large. In general, PeBBu D1 has had good success with the creation of the network and thus offered a good platform and forum for discussion relevant to the international standardization process. In the meantime, communication with industrial stakeholders as well as with other interested parties has established a dialogue in the thematic field that has not been established to that extent before. It is generally expected that the network and through this also the international communication and discussion of topics related to service life of construction materials and components will prevail, and that hence the experience and the concepts can be further developed and be taken to practical application to an extent that would not be the case without the existence of the network. Due to the organisation of the PeBBu project, such forums for discussion as well as networks are established on international, European, regional and national scales. From this situation it is expected that


138

the most suitable forum for certain discussions can easily be found, in response to the topic and the character of the interested parties involved in it. While recognizing already today a rapid development in R&D projects, as illustrated by the content of the above-mentioned scientific conferences and publications, the future impact of the work may be even more outstanding. This is due to the emerging recognition of the performance based building concept as a promising route towards sustainable construction.

6. Management and co-ordination aspects

In general the Domain Consortium has been smoothly operating. Performed Workshops have had an encouraging attendance and the resonance received on international events and in discussions with standardisation groups and industrial stakeholders has been positive and inspiring for the work. Participation in and presentations on a manifold of such events, and the feedback received, has been motivating for the network. In general, the subject area receives a high interest, which can also be seen in the fact that many of the participants are involved in many other international activities in the thematic field. Some difficulties receiving input to the Domain deliverables were experienced, but not to an extent that were unexpected. Consequently, also some of the Domain deliverables have been initially delayed. The task leaders maintain to function as contact persons also in the future, for possible follow-ups of the project.

7. Results & Conclusions

The core result of PeBBu Domain 1 on construction materials and components is the establishment of an international research and development agenda. The agenda has been drafted on the basis of a D1 workshop, and is included to its completeness in this section. Due to the specific objectives of D1, namely the contribution to international standardisation and the linkage to other international project groups, the R&D agenda first needs to clarify the positioning of D1 in this international context. PeBBu Domain 1 on life performance of construction materials, components and systems specifically relates to the ISO 15686 standards. The link between the ISO standards and Performance Based Building has long-since been understood as evident, and has been elaborated and discussed at hand of the CPD. Domain 1 intended to exemplify these standards with the goal to enable wider provision of information needed for the process of service life planning, as well as enabling a wider application of service life information in project planning and building design. While focussing building materials and components, the context of functional application of materials and components deserves consideration. Consequently, D1 also addresses systems. The topic of sustainable construction provides the contextual frame and the philosophical reason for acting on the topic of service life. This involves the development of methodologies to identify reference service lives and estimated service lives, also in terms of service life declarations. These methodologies provide important input especially to environmental product declarations of building materials and components and equally evident, to the assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Both items are addressed in ISO/TC59/SC17 "Sustainability in Building Construction" and in CEN/TC 350 "Integrated Environmental Performance of Buildings". For the process of identification and adaptation of service life information to the planning situation at hand, ISO 15686 identifies two core concepts, one being the establishment of a reference service life and the other being the identification of an estimated service life. Where the earlier must be based on testing, exposure or experience, the latter is a modification of a given reference service life that shall allow the planner to establish a reasonable estimate for a material, component or system as part of a specific building


139

design. As both, the reference service life and the process of adaptation in order to establish an estimated service life are forming the basis for the generation of information, PeBBu Domain 1 sets its focus onto these aspects of service life planning methodology. With this in specific focus, PeBBu D1 addresses demands in co-normative research and development, where the target is to provide information that is needed in everyday application of the standards. Where service life information is communicated between various stakeholders of the building sector, it has to be assured, that a common understanding, also of the underlying scenarios for which information has been provided, as well is communicated and understood by all parties participating in the communication. A harmonised approach to service life declaration may be very helpful. The communication of service life information within the construction sector sets high requirements concerning transparency of the information. A declaration of service life can only reflect one or a few scenarios for product application. Therefore, designers for instance, may need to perform or initiate a process of modification of declared information, all in order to obtain information that is relevant to the situation in a specific building context. The primary source of information will still be the manufacturers, while recognizing that information provided by them only can be based on reference scenarios. Such scenarios must be available for scrutiny by those applying the provided information. Prior to establishing the R&D agenda, key success factors to achieve the objectives, namely to enable communication and application of information related to service life and life performance, have been identified. These key success factors, as well as the R&D agenda, have been discussed with related international groups, as the thematic field relates to work carried out by other international organisations, such as CIB W80, ISO, CEN and the IAI. Life Performance and Innovation must reflect that:

• Long-term performance and service life are essential elements of information • No experience is available for innovative (new) solutions / products • Product performance is not the key item of concern, but an integrated part of system

performance • Performance requirements and life performance of products are decisive influential factors for

the service life • Established performance requirements are a promising route to represent "user demands"

Due to the character of "life cycle approaches“, service life plays a central role in sustainable construction, as illustrated by the obvious links to:

• Building Performance Assessment • Environmental Life Cycle Assessment • Environmental Declaration • Life Cycle Costing • Facilities Management • Technical Approvals • IFC IFD IFG

Preconditions for success are:

• Routines to establish performance requirements from various relevant sources • Routines to establish life performance declarations • Transparency standards • Routines for relating and communicating performance information n building, design &

management processes


140

International standards in the thematic field are developed by: • ISO/TC59/SC14 Design Life • ISO/TC59/SC17 Sustainability in Building Construction • ISO 16739 Industrial Foundation Classes • CEN TC 350 Integrated Environmental Performance of Buildings • CEN TG Durability

PeBBu D1 is carried out in direct thematic interrelation with the following groups:

• ISO TC59 SC14 • ISO TC59 SC17 • CEN TG Durability • CEN TC 350 (initializing Oct 05)

o WG2 Building Life Cycle • CIB

o W60 Performance Concept o W80 Service Life Methodologies o W106 GIS

The draft R&D Agenda considers the business plans and research agendas of the above-mentioned groups and projects. R&D and Information Topics

• Dissemination and implementation through demonstration and pilot projects • The innovation context as: Research – Development – Innovation – Marketing • Policy statements that drive market; include research information into decision and design

processes • Putting concepts into practice (sustainable development & sustainable construction) • The “guidebook dilemma", where striving after "Sustainable Construction" often leads to

prescriptive thinking, where buildings/solutions in guide books are described as "sustainable" as a certain material of solution is being favored. The actual performance (over time) is often not concerned and not put into relation to the current planning situation and actual performance requirements, further the complete life cycle and the performance in the context of the building are often not considered. Thus, guidebooks may provide general indications, but may also mislead in specific situations, where the promoted solution is not necessarily "sustainable".

• Address topics from the application side, not the research perspective From the above considerations and the background described, them R&D agenda developed for D1 is established as following: No Topic Priority General R&D Items for PeBBu 1 Handbooks, Demo projects, Case studies, Application &

Experience, Evaluation tools for entire building LC 2 Adaptation of information to user demands (simplification)

Precondition for topic no 3

3 Dissemination (coordination of D), market creation 1 4 Verification tools 1 5 Communication between actors / Stakeholders / users

Services in the construction sector 1

6 Transfer performance requirements, knowledge, verification between different users of information

1

Additional R&D Items specific for D1


141

7 Modelling of Performance Demand & Supply (building, functional subsystems, materials)

1

8 Reference Service Life – generic information and guidance for modification

1

9 Standards and Standard Application in Innovation 2

8. Acknowledgements

The PeBBu Domain 1 gratefully acknowledges all the valuable contributions from the PeBBu member and observer organisations. Special thanks go to all the R&D, standardisation and market organisations and networks with which the Domain interacted during the project period. Your support and input significantly moved the area forward and helped anchoring the work.


142

A n n e x 1 . 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 2 : I n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n tA n n e x 1 . 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 2 : I n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n t


Indoor Environment:

Task Report


The work performed in Domain 2, as part of the PeBBu project, has been well in line with the general and domain specific objectives stated in the workplan. Though the work performed is based on existing literature on the topic, the gathering and combination of this literature gave new insights. The workshops, reports and website allowed for the interaction and dissemination of the results to the PeBBu Network and from there to the wider audience at (inter-)national level. The interest on the indoor environmental topic is also shown from the list of members, guests and observers that were linked to the Domain during the project. One of the main outcomes is the consensus on the detailed description of Performance Based Building in relation to the indoor environment. The developed conceptual framework contributed to this. The Domain report in that respect hopefully will serve as a good reference for further developments in this direction. It also provides a lot of (also practical) information and references on how to deal with the performance based approach in relation to healthy building. The Research Agenda, that has been issued separately, indicates several developments that are foreseen and wished for to support this further. This Agenda at least should present a reference for the (national research) developments in this area. The work in PeBBu has presented its usefulness in several ways. Members of the Network (specifically from the NAS countries) have indicated that they are using the results from PeBBu (reports, workshop presentations, etc.) in their lectures to introduce/further explain the performance based approach in relation to the indoor environment. This is an important result as the PB approach is disseminated through education to the future professionals. The line of thinking that has evolved within the PeBBu project now is also used more often in proposals for new research, internationally as well as nationally. It is noticed that the clear view on the topic as developed within PeBBu allows for a better explanation to third parties (stakeholders). The advantages are obvious, especially to owners and end-users. Contractors and suppliers, i.e. the progressive ones, see the

T-02

Task name: T-02: Indoor Environment

Task leader(s): Dr.ir. M.G.L .C. Loomans, [email protected]

Dr.ir. P.M. Bluyssen, Philo.Blui [email protected]


143

(marketing) possibilities the approach can provide for. Nevertheless, there still are significant practical hurdles that restrict its full and direct application. The PeBBu network presented a good platform to generate consensus on the application of the PBB-approach in relation to Healthy Building. Nevertheless, the topic remains complex and very extensive. Therefore, the main intention of the work was to further clarify the performance based approach in relation to the indoor environment and healthy building in particular. Optimally, together with the Domain 2 Research Agenda, the Domain report can serve as a reference for further developments in this area.


Besides the overall objective for the PeBBu Network, i.e. to stimulate and facilitate the international dissemination and implementation of Performance Based Building, and the specific objectives for the (originally) nine PeBBu Domains, in Domain 2 special emphasis was put on:

- performance criteria for healthy building and on methods, guidelines, protocols and tools to evaluate / measure the health status of buildings or designs of buildings.

- required international standardisation as concerns - the measurement of – performance criteria for healthy buildings.


The objectives as described in Paragraph 2 have been met through literature study and workshops and through communication with persons and entities, related to the topic, that were not (yet) part of the PeBBu Network. The main results of this approach are summarised in the Final Domain 2 Report and in the Research Agenda for Domain 2 that has been issued separately. In total four workshops have been held instead of the two that were envisaged at the start of the PeBBu project. These workshops were regarded the most important activities in the project. All developments within the Domain, mainly in the form of documents, were presented to the Domain members for a critical review. Each workshop provided an informative and interactive part for that. Interaction was provided for either through discussion groups or through (country specific) presentations by the Domain Members. More detailed input followed from a well responded questionnaire (14 out of 18 European countries) that provided a closer insight in the national developments in relation to PBB in general and PBB and the Indoor Environment in particular. The interaction with the other Domains, as was specifically facilitated in the last two Workshops, enlarged the context of the work performed. The final Domain report contains a vast amount of information and references that gives a good overview of the current status of the Performance Based approach in relation to healthy building. To adhere to the specific objectives of the task, it contains a listing of performance criteria and target values for healthy building and references a large number methods, guidelines, protocols and tools to evaluate / measure the health status of buildings or designs of buildings that already can be found. Furthermore, an overview of the current developments in the field of standardisation is given. In Europe, these developments are fed by two directives (EPBD and CPD) that have a close connection to the Performance Based approach and the Indoor Environment. Besides, in the Domain 2 report attention has been put on the definition of Performance Based Building, also in relation to the Indoor Environment. Alongside, a conceptual framework was developed to structure the available information. These two activities were very important to place the developments in the course of the project. The conceptual framework was also taken as the point-of-departure to set up the Research Agenda. Figure 4 presents the central picture for the Research Agenda.


144

Figure 10. Conceptual Framework as applied for the Research Agenda.

For dissemination purposes and to facilitate the communication with the Domain 2 and other members of the PeBBu Network, a website was developed at the end of 2002. This website provided an introduction to PeBBu and the PB approach and Domain 2. Furthermore, all reports, minutes, presentations, etc. that have become available over the runtime of the project, have been included as downloadable pdf-files. The website therefore has become an important information source on the topic. A special contribution to the website is an interactive test-version of the application of the developed framework on the contents of the ISIAQ-CIB TG42 report. Furthermore, a (partly filled) searchable literature database is presented. The results from the work done within Domain 2 have been published and presented on several occasions. Within PeBBu furthermore contribution has been given to the ‘Task #3 Compendium of State of Requirements’ project and Generic Task 1 ‘CPD’ and 2 ‘Decision Support Toolkit’. This has been done through e-mail discussion and a meeting with the project leaders of these tasks. For Generic Task 2 a special workshop was organised, open to the Domain 2 members, in which the work from this task was presented and discussed. Finally, Performance Based Building was one of the important topics included in the EU FW6 Integrated Project proposal ECOSPACE: “Healthy, comfortable, safe, smart and sustainable spaces for the people of Europe”. This followed amongst other from the results gathered within the PeBBu project. A close link with the Domain 2 work and the PeBBu Thematic Network was envisaged in this proposal. The Performance concept has become a visible issue in several other national and international proposals that have been prepared. This indicates the importance and the usefulness of the results from PeBBu and therefore adheres completely to the overall objective of the PeBBu Network.



145

The three workshops (+ NAS workshop) that were held over the runtime of the project had a logical structure. The first workshop (Garston, Watford (BRE), UK - September 02, 2002) defined the problem, proposed the definition and provided for the conceptual framework. It furthermore looked back and presented the state-of-the-art thus far. Besides, an introduction was given to activities that had a close relation with the work in PeBBu. The NAS Workshop (Budapest (EMI), Hungary - March 25, 2003) had a similar lay-out. The second workshop (Manchester (Manchester Conference Centre), UK - January 12, 2004) looked at the current activities to bring PBB and the indoor environment further. The focus of that workshop was on some interesting ongoing projects and proposals in relation to PBB and healthy building. These workshops were set up along the line of providing information on recent developments and discussing these developments in the context of PBB. The third workshop (Porto (FEUP), Portugal - November 17, 2004) complemented the previous two workshops as it allowed to discuss the next logical step, the future of PBB and indoor environment, i.e. the Research Agenda. Here input was asked for by the Domain members to present latest national activities and research intentions that could be included in the Research Agenda. With an average and active participation of 25 persons the workshops were well attended. As a preparation, for nearly each workshop an update of the Domain report was provided for. Furthermore, a preparation report and extended minutes of the workshop meetings allowed for a good documentation of the developments. The questionnaire that was provided for after the first workshop gained more detailed insight into the country specific developments. This actually realised layout of the PeBBu work provided for a good basis from which better understanding was possible and a clear insight is gained on PBB and its characteristics. The workshops and the information provided have served as a reference for further clarification of the topic in the respective countries. It is noticed that especially the NAS countries were eager to gain more insight.


An important result from the work done in the Domain is found in the (indoor environment specific) definition of PBB and the set-up of the Framework for the structuring of the information. In line with the original idea, the framework also has been applied to structure the Research Agenda that has been developed in the final year. Furthermore, the information that has been gathered has been used in several ways to publish on the PBB concept and the importance of the relation with the indoor environment. Amongst others, the developed framework was introduced in the 5th FW project HOPE. The work within PeBBu has been used as one of the basis for the definition of the ECOSPACE concept. In the mean time the performance concept has become an important point-of-departure for new proposals and work to be performed. Insight is gained that this approach is the way forward.


Planned Activities during the entire project6 Actual work Accomplished Year 1 Contribution to 1st International PBB SotA information provided for 1st Domain Workshop (incl. preparation report and workshop minutes)

workshop held September 02, 2002 (preparation report and workshop minutes made available)

1st Domain Report draft report made available before 1st Workshop (July 2002), Final version made available September 26, 2002.

Year 2 Survey of National contributions of participants PeBBu Domain 2

1st version November 01, 2003. Updated afterwards.

6 Information indicated as bold is part of the specifically mentioned activities in the project. Other activities are not explicitly mentioned in the proposal, but are referred to.


146

Website Domain 2 Fall 2002 NAS workshop Domain 2 workshop held March 25, 2003 (preparation report and

workshop minutes made available) Contribution to the Task #3 Compendium of State of Requirements project (additional)

over the runtime of the PeBBu project

Integrated Project Proposal ECOSPACE Spring 2004 Update State-of-the-Art report November 01, 2003 Dissemination of PeBBu (Domain 2) through publications see publication references Year 3 2nd Domain Workshop (incl. preparation report and workshop minutes)

workshop held January 12, 2004 (preparation report and workshop minutes made available)

2nd Domain Report final version made available July 30 2004 (i.e. a further elaboration and update of the 1st Domain Report)

Dissemination of PeBBu (Domain 2) through publications see publication references Year 4 Contribution to Final PeBBu Report information provided for through synthesis report Research Agenda May 09, 2005 Final Domain Report August 26, 2005 Contribution to the Generic Task 2 DST (additional) Workshop, Delft – NL, organised October 18-19, 2004 Dissemination of PeBBu (Domain 2) through publications see publication references All planned workplan items have been accomplished. Other activities, mostly started at the beginning of the project, have been continued over the runtime of the project. The website presents the results of this continuation and elaboration of the work started in Year 1. The interrelation with the other PeBBu Domains has been established through the Synthesis Reports. Co-operation with Domain 3 has been established through participation in the Workshop and correspondence with the Domain leader on the overlap between the two Domains. The PeBBu Meetings in Manchester and Porto proved to be efficient for the interrelation with other PeBBu Domains and PeBBu Tasks. Developments within Domain 2 towards a conceptual framework and definition of the PBB-methodology, as described in the Domain Report have resulted in a close cooperation with the Task Compendium 2 work. There is no difference in the general understanding of what PBB is. Given its importance to the topic, Domain 2 has also provided extra input into the Generic Task 2 on Decision Support Tools The issues that are presented as specific for the Domain have found their place in the Final Domain Report. As the work in PeBBu was limited to literature study and information gathering, i.e. no research, this mainly has been limited to presenting the most important references. With respect to standardisation, developments already are ongoing in that direction. The EPBD provides the context for the European dimension. Nationally, developments are visible but have to be taken up by the national representatives. The PeBBu work can act as a reference to that. Several of the members of the Network have a close connection with standardisation bodies in their respective countries.


The Final Domain report for Domain 2 presents the end result of a 4-year period in which a lot of information has come across. The size of the report gives an indication of the information that is already available. It nevertheless is also an indication of the ‘struggle’ that was experienced to clearly indicate what Performance Based Building is in relation to the indoor environment and how it can be applied throughout the building process. The intention of the report is to provide background information to the PB approach and present up-to-date information with respect to PBB and healthy building. A listing of the members, observers and guests of Domain 2 is provided for so that contact can be maintained afterwards.


147

4. List of deliverables7

Internal publications (available to third parties) Reports Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2002. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - State-of-the-Art Report – 1st version, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. [Draft version of the report made available in July 2002, in line with milestone] Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2003. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Summary of national attitude towards PBB and PBB and Indoor Environment specifically, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2003. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - State-of-the-Art Report – Update 1st version, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2004. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - State-of-the-Art Report – 2nd version, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. [Draft version of the report made available in July 2004, in line with milestone] Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2005. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - State-of-the-Art Report – Final version, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Research agenda Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2005. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Research Agenda, TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Delft, The Netherlands. Workshops Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2002. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Building Physics - Workshop preparation report Meeting Garston (UK), TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2002. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Minutes Workshop 1 – September 2 2002, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2003. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - Workshop preparation report NAS Meeting Budapest (HU), TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2003. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Minutes NAS Workshop – March 25 2003, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2004. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - Workshop preparation report (update January 8th 2004) Meeting Manchester (UK), TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2004. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Minutes Workshop 2 – January 12 2004, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2004. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment - Workshop preparation report Meeting Porto (P), TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands.

7 Information indicated as bold constitutes a contractual deliverable.


148

Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2004. PeBBu performance based Building - 2nd Domain Indoor Environment – Minutes Workshop 3 – November 17 2004, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, The Netherlands. Website http://www.PeBBu.nl/ (link to Domain 2: http://www.bouw.tno.nl/PeBBu) External (partly refereed) publications Bluyssen, P.M. en Loomans. M.G.L.C. 2002. Two European projects on performance criteria for healthy buildings, Air Information Review (AIR), IEA Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre, vol.24, No.1 December 2002 Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, P.M. 2003. Performance Based Building -A state-of-the-art with respect to healthy buildings, Proceedings Healthy Building 2003, Vol.3, p.17-22, Singapore. Bluyssen, P.M. en Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2003. A framework for performance criteria of healthy and energy-efficient buildings, Proceedings Healthy Building 2003, Vol.3, p.446-452, Singapore. Loomans, M. and Bluyssen, Ph. 2004. PBB and Indoor Environment: an update from Domain 2. PeBBu News Article, January 2004, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Loomans, M. and Bluyssen, Ph. 2004. The Performance Approach and the Indoor Environment, Air Information Review (AIR), IEA Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre, vol. 25, No. 2 March 2004. Bluyssen, P.M., Cox, C. en Loomans, M.G.L.C. 2004. Prestatiecriteria voor Gezonde en Energie-efficiënte Gebouwen: HOPE en PeBBu, twee Europese projecten. TVVL Magazine, July/August. (in Dutch: Performance criteria for healthy and energy efficient buildings: HOPE and PeBBu, two European projects.) Loomans, M. and Bluyssen, Ph. 2005. PBB and Indoor Environment: an update from Domain 2. PeBBu News Article, April 2005, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Loomans, M. and Bluyssen, Ph. 2005. Performance Based Building and its application to Healthy Buildings. CIB 2005 Helsinki Joint Symposium, June 2005, Helsinki, Finland.


The dissemination topic has been described in the Domain report, but also in the Research Agenda. Though dissemination in itself is not an actual research topic, it is obvious that work is required in order to allow a successful dissemination. Given its importance in the realisation of PBB, the development of a Dissemination Agenda in close cooperation with the Research Agenda appears to be a sensible combination. Naturally, dissemination is directed towards the stakeholders in the building process. Three major dissemination items have been mentioned in the PeBBu workshops: Information, Education and Good Practise. Where information is a subject that concerns all, education and good practise have a focus on individual stakeholders. These three dissemination methods should result in a positive attitude towards PBB in all countries worldwide. It should start from the understanding that PBB is a good ‘thing’ for the client and that this presents the driving force (pull instead of push) to adopt the PBB approach. The positive attitude is regarded critical for the success and further development of the PBB approach. Internet is regarded as a low-threshold option to disseminate and exchange information. See as an example the Domain 2 website. Normally, this is especially of interest for research groups. For educational


149

purposes there is also a need to find other ways of dissemination. Multimedia programs, including manuals, handbooks and reference tools are alternatives for the internet. For Domain 2 it However, is planned to come with a prototype website with an educational point-of-departure. Besides the general dissemination approach, dissemination towards the separate stakeholders is foreseen as follows: - End-users (especially individuals and small companies): a service or bureau providing technical solutions

and strategies, and demonstrating case studies underlining its economical and quality-of-life benefits. It should be followed by easy to understand documentation.

- Designers: training and education in standards, codes, technology, providing advisory services client-oriented with collaboration of the EU, chambers and institutions.

- Decision makers: permanent cooperation with and participation in legislation committees and boards, dissemination of the results of and derivations from international workgroups.

The above stakeholder related dissemination also should address PBB in general. Therefore a central development is required. E.g. Domain 3, Design of Buildings, may have an important contribution to this as PBB addresses the current design process significantly. The indoor environment topic will find a logical place in this, as on this topic the performance based approach already has a good base. With respect to Domain 2, within CIB in March 2005 a CIB Working Commission W109-Ecospace has been established. This is the successor of the former TG28 on “Dissemination of Indoor Air Sciences”, but has an extended and broader scope. The main objectives of this commission are: - to exchange ongoing research focused on healthy, comfortable and safe spaces; - to promote interaction between different sectors, disciplines, stakeholders and organisations, focused on communication and understanding between the different stakeholders; and - to develop visions and roadmaps for realisation of healthy, comfortable and safe spaces. I.e. the performance based approach is the point-of-departure for this commission. The first broad introduction of PBB, taking the CIB 1982 publication as a reference, took place some 20 years ago. Since then developments have continued, slowly but steadily. The final stage by far has not been reached yet. Therefore, a continuous attention on the subject remains required. A (small) contribution to that will be made by the members of the PeBBu Network by taking the PB-approach as a reference point in their work and publications. Though actual application of the approach in many situations most probably will not be feasible at this point, it will increase the awareness on the topic to a wider audience and will show the possibilities and difficulties of the PB approach in practise. As an example, in the Domain report a summary of an actual project is given in which the performance approach was the point-of-departure with respect to the air quality attribute. The project focussed on operating theatres and the risk of air-borne infections. The title of an article and presentation of this project was “The ventilation in an operating theatre therefore requires a performance!”

Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination

Domain Report Information and reference PeBBu community, National Contacts Website, publication

Publications Information and reference Research community conference papers, journal articles.

Research Agenda Input for research initiatives

Research community, PeBBu community

Website, publication

Website (incl. database, inventory, etc.)

Information and reference End –users (includes Education bodies / Design professionals)

Website



150

For the European context, the well-being of people is largely affected by health, comfort and safety during the main activities living, working and transportation in enclosed spaces. They spend more than 90% of their time in enclosed spaces. In more than 40% of the enclosed spaces people suffer health, comfort and safety related complaints and illnesses.8 Future developments indicate: 1. End-users becoming increasingly important. This implies more focus on topics as indoor environment and comfort, health and safety, location, appearance, flexibility, risks, domotica, etc. Related issues are:

• Public awareness • Liability • End user profiling (e.g. elderly) • Productivity • Costs versus yield of good Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)

2. Policy change in rules and regulations. The sectors are characterised by a complexity of rules and regulations imposed by the government and/or fixed in convenants, such as the Building Decree (including Energy Performance and Fire Safety), occupational health and safety issues (both related to the end-product and the development process), nuisance during the development process, involvement of interest groups. Related issues are:

• Performance demands versus technical specifications • Decision support • New contract forms • Knowledge management

3. Integral sustainability approach. More and more the building sector sees the benefits (direct or as a selling argument to obtain new prospects) of the incorporation of integral sustainability into the building process. Related issues are:

• Technological innovations • Flexible buildings • Large scale renovation / reuse / retrofitting • Energy

These notions all have an impact on the way IEQ will be addressed by building parties, government and society in general. The growing awareness of the impact of the indoor environment on human life has increased the demand for technological solutions to provide a healthy, comfortable and productive environment. Besides that the government also has realised its responsibility to provide a framework that doesn’t only focus on the minimisation of the use of energy but also on the requirements for a good IEQ. European Legislature covers part of these notions. Directive 89/106/EWG calls for ‘Construction work must be designed and built in such a way that it will not be a threat to the hygiene or health of the occupants or neighbours”9. WHO define health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’10. Given the above, Performance Based Building and Indoor Environment therefore are two very important topics when focussing on future developments and EU policy. They require an integrated approach for their separate development. The work within Domain 2 has tried to streamline this integrated approach. It wanted

8 Dorgan Associates, 1993, Productivity and Indoor Environmental quality study, Alexandria, Va, National management institute. 9 European Communities, 1989, Council Directive 89/106/EWG on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction purposes, Off. H. EC. L40/12, 11 February 1989 10 WHO, 1999, WHO Basic documents, 42nd edition, Geneva.


151

to present the state-of-the-art on this topic in order to inform the people of Europe and furthermore to indicate the status from which further work may start.


The impact of a healthy, comfortable and safe indoor environment is enormous in economic terms (productivity, sick leave,..) as well as in societal terms (quality of life, environment, sustainability,..). Unhealthy indoor environments are related to loss of production capacity (an economic loss), and to an increase of costs of care. Extrapolation of US data11 results in a total possible gain of 50 to 290 billion Euro/year for the European Union (375 million inhabitants):

• to 6 billion Euro through a reduction of allergy or asthma and their symptoms; • 15 to 45 billion Euro through reduction in Sick Building Syndrome; • 30 to 240 billion Euro through increased productivity of employees.


With the introduction of the Domain 2 website, communication with the partners in Domain 2 has been performed through the website. Here all information (reports, minutes, presentations, etc.) is gathered and freely available to everyone. The Domain 2 Task members, observers and persons that have replaced the Task members in the workshop were informed on any important updates of this website. The internet has shown to be the best medium to communicate and the Domain 2 website has become the central location for all the information gathered thus far. Taking the limited resources for the Domain Members (i.e. only travel expenses) into account, generally the members (observers and guests) present at the workshops were very motivated and dedicated. Requests for input was generally well responded to and participation in workshop was active. The Domain report lists the input provided for in the workshops (in the form of presentations) and following the questionnaire (i.e. the full response from each country has been included in the Annex of the report). Nevertheless, the role of the Task leader in this type of networks is pivotal in every way. General project management and communication in all situations was very well provided for. The organisation of the general PeBBu-Meetings in UK and Portugal was a very positive change from/interpretation of the original workplan. Contact information at an individual base concerning the follow-up of the project has not been listed separately. Generally, it is assumed that most participants will be interested in any follow-up. A listing of the Domain Members, Observers and Guests and affiliation has been included in the Domain report.


The topic Indoor Environment and the subtopic Health, on which focus was put, has shown to be a very important topic in the building sector in general. The connection between Indoor Environment and PBB is very clear and has been applied to some extend for some time already. However, the integral approach, that is foreseen with PBB, still remains a topic that will require further developments and research. As well on the indoor environment topic as on other building related issues (e.g. legal aspects). The PeBBu network presented a good platform to generate consensus on the application of the PBB-approach in relation to Healthy Building. Nevertheless, the topic remains complex and very extensive. Therefore, the intention of the work within Domain 2 and presented in the reports was to further clarify the performance based approach in relation to the indoor environment and healthy building in particular. 11 Fisk, W.J., 2000, Review of health and productivity gains from better IEQ, Healthy Buildings 2000, Helsinki, Finland, August, vol.4, pp.22-34.


152

Optimally, together with the Domain 2 Research Agenda, the Domain report and the established network can serve as a reference for further developments in this area.

8. Acknowledgements

The work within Domain 2 could not have been developed without the input from the members of the Domain. Their input and comments throughout the run-time of the project has been appreciated very much. Certainly given the fact that their time devoted to the project was not paid for. Furthermore, CIB is kindly acknowledged for their decisive role in setting up and managing the PeBBu Thematic Network. Without their input the PeBBu Network would not have grown to the current size and the results would not have been so quit well received. Finally, the contribution by the European Union has indicated the weight it gives to this specific topic in relation to future worldwide developments.


153

A n n e x 1 . 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 3 : D e s i g n o f B u i l d i n g sA n n e x 1 . 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 3 : D e s i g n o f B u i l d i n g s


Design of Buildings

Task Report


The main objective of Domain 3 “Design of Buildings” is to investigate and clarify the concept of performance based Design (PBD) for both the European R&D community and design professionals. The main drivers for PBD are user requirements (users demand better performance of buildings-in-use) and legislation that is becoming more and more performance based (solution independent). A major part of the research in the Domain is focused on the ‘translation’ and management of user and stakeholder requirements into performance requirements and the ‘prediction’ of the building’s performance in use on the basis of a design. This results in an overview of the State of the Art of PBD, descriptions of best practices, and recommendations for the implementation of the available knowledge in education, an international RTD agenda and education and training modules for design professionals. All over Europe design professionals seems hardly aware of the concept of PBD and also for the R&D community it is a rather new and unexplored field of work. Nevertheless, PBD is already being put to practice to some extend in most countries, consciously or unconsciously. Therefore it seemed appropriate to aim the Domain 3 results at making researchers and design professionals aware of PBD. The State of the Art of PBD is described in the Domain 3 Final Report, that is mainly meant for the institutes and researchers participating in the PeBBu project. The Domain Members contributed to the inventory of the State of the Art. This contributed strongly to the wareness of the concept op PBD within the Domain. The State of the Art is also an important input for the international R&D agenda. The Final Report, that is distributed by means of the PeBBu website, also contains the recommendations for the implementation of the available knowledge in education. One of the main problems in PBD appears to be how to ‘predict’ the performance of a building in use on the basis of a design. Therefore the Domain 3 Research Agenda is aimed at solving that problem. On the basis of a classification of performance aspects or requirements, an inventory has been made of related assessment tools. The results of this inventory are presented in a framework. This framework consists of a matrix, with a list of subjects for which performance requirements can be formulated (‘performance

T-03

Task name: T-03: Design of Buildings

Task leader(s):

Ir. D. Spekkink, EGM architecten/Spekkink C&R, Netherlands, email: [email protected]


154

issues’) on the vertical axis and the most common design stages on the horizontal axis. ‘White spots’ in the matrix mark the performance aspects for which new design assessment tools need to be developed. These are mostly simulation tools, using sophisticated IT applications. The result serves two goals: • it gives students, teachers and design professionals an overview of tools that are already available. This

is an important and practical issue for knowledge dissemination to design practice; • after further completion, it shows for which performance subjects decision support tools and/or

assessment tools will have to be developed. The education and training modules for design professionals have taken the form of: • a report “Performance-based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date”, explaining and defining PBD,

showing where and how the concept is already being put to practice and giving best practice examples. This report will be distributed through the PeBBu website and by the Domain Members in their respective countries;

• news articles, distributed through the PeBBu website; • a slideshow about performance based Design, that can be used by Domain Members for the education

and training of students and design professionals in their countries; • a pilot module for an electronic education system (cd-rom), disclosing relevant results for design

professionals from essentially all PeBBu Domains and Tasks.


The end users of buildings and other stakeholders become more and more important. It is an economic necessity for the building industry to pay more attention to meeting with stakeholder requirements. It is to be expected that this will be an important incentive for performance based design (PDB). A major part of the research in the Domain is focused on the ‘translation’ and management of user and stakeholder requirements into performance requirements and the ‘prediction’ of the building’s performance in use on the basis of a design. This results in an overview of the State of the Art of PBD, descriptions of best practices, recommendations for the implementation of the available knowledge in education, a framework for further development and education and training modules for design professionals. In short the scope and objectives of Domain 3 ‘Design of Buildings’ are: • management of user requirements – as defined in terms of performance requirements – throughout all

phases of the design process; • implementation of knowledge and tools as concerns PBB and Design in education and training of

professionals.



As a result of growing insight the Domain’s scope and objectives have been slightly altered or rather: elaborated into issues that are addressed in the Domain’s work. performance based building is concerned with orientating activities around the performance in-use of built environment products and services and extending this approach as far back along the supply chain as is appropriate. Performance based building primarily has to do with what a building should do for the owners and users. Following this approach, performance based design (PBD) is defined as: • a building design that is based on a set of dedicated performance requirements and that can be evaluated on

the basis of performance indicators. However, Domain 3 is not only about the result of a design process, but also and primarily with that process itself. In that context a performance based design process is defined as follows:


155

• a process in which performance requirements are translated and integrated into a building design. PBD is of strategic importance for achieving the PeBBu objectives, especially because a building design stage determines to a large extend, intended or unintended, what the performance of the building in use will be. In this respect two aspects are of crucial importance in the design stage: • making sure that the right users’ performance requirements are considered; • the prediction of the building performance on the basis of (preliminary) design results, in other words

the assessment of the design. This notion leads to the following leading issues that are addressed in the Domain’s work: • the translation of client and user needs into assessable performance requirements (or the matching of

user requirements and performance specifications of built assets); • classifications and formats for performance requirements and specifications; • the management of client and user involvement in the design process; • assessment methods of design results. The aim is to clearly define these issues, give a comprehensive state-of-the-art overview and, from that, give recommendations for future research in these fields. Considering the state of the art of PBD (PBD is hardly put into practice as yet and practitioners seem to be hardly aware of the subject), it is decided that the ‘implementation of knowledge and tools’ should be aimed primarily on enlarging the awareness of performance based design.


The main results are: • the concept of performance based Design (PBD) has been clearly defined and there is a common

understanding of this concept among the Domain Members; • insight in the consequences of the application of PBD for the organisation and management of the

design process; • a general framework for both practical knowledge dissemination to education and design professionals

and for an RTD agenda. This essential role of Domain 3 is about the integration of knowledge and systems from other PeBBu domains in the context of real building designs. The building design is where it all comes together. Designers have to deal with systematic interrelations between different performance specifications, which often relate to different fields of expertise. Thus, the performance based approach calls for integral design, with parallel, interrelated contributions from all design disciplines involved. The performance of a building or a building part is always the result of the interaction between different solutions for different subsystems, like the architectural system, the structural system, the climate system and so on. This is depicted in diagram 1. The end user is not really interested in the performances of different subsystems; he experiences the performance of a built facility as a whole. The design disciplines will have to co-operate closely to create an integrated facility design. Maybe in some aspects even the expertise of the contractor and specialized subcontractors is needed to get optimal performance. This is illustrated in diagram 2


156

Diagram 1: ‘performance’ as the result of different solutions for different subsystems

Diagram 2: PBD calls for integral design One of the main problems in PBD appears to be how to ‘predict’ the performance of a building in use on the basis of a design. Therefore, the Domain 3 Research Agenda is aimed at solving that problem. On the basis of a classification of performance aspects or requirements, an inventory has been made of related assessment tools. The results of this inventory are presented in a framework. This framework consists of a matrix, with a list of subjects for which performance requirements can be formulated (‘performance issues’) on the vertical axis and the most common design stages on the horizontal axis. The design stages that are distinguished are: • Masterplan; • Predesign • Final design • Technical design ‘White spots’ in the matrix mark the performance aspects for which new design assessment tools need to be developed. These are mostly simulation tools, using sophisticated IT applications. The principle of the matrix is shown in diagram 3. The result of this exercise serves two goals: • it gives students, teachers and design professionals an overview of tools that are already available. This

is an important and practical issue for knowledge dissemination to design practice;

Client: Client:

I need aI need a

facilityfacility

Client: Client:

I need aI need a

facilityfacility

IntegratedIntegratedfacilityfacilitydesigndesign

IntegratedIntegratedfacilityfacilitydesigndesign

performancespecifications

architect

structural engineer

building physics

engineer

service engineer

contractor

specialized

subcontractors

integral design

performancerequirements

noyes noyes

performanceperformance

solutionsolution

subsystem 1subsystem 1solutionsolution

subsystem 1subsystem 1

solutionsolution



solutionsolution



solutionsolution




157

• after further completion, it shows for which performance subjects decision support tools and/or assessment tools will have to be developed. This is an important part of the Domain 3 Research Agenda.

Diagram 3: Principle for the development of a RTD Agenda for Domain 3 Design of Buildings


Planned Activities during the entire

project Actual work Accomplished

1st Domain Workshop, including workshop preparation report and elaborated workshop minutes

Accomplished (July 2002). However, the workshop minutes are incorporated / have taken the form of the 1st Domain Report (the 1st Domain Report serves as workshop minutes).

1st Domain Report Accomplished Contribution to the 1st International PBB State- of-the Art Report

Accomplished

NAS Catch-up Workshop (March 2003), including preparation papers and elaboration of the workshop results in the 1st Domain Report.

2nd Domain Workshop, including workshop preparation report and elaborated workshop minutes

Accomplished (Manchester, January 2004)

2nd Domain Report Accomplished Provision and elaboration of a pilot project (flexible office

building), as an input for Generic Task 2 “Decision Support Toolkit” (as presented by the Generic Task 2 leaders in the 3rd


158

Planned Activities during the entire project

Actual work Accomplished

Domain Workshop, Porto, November 2004). 3rd Domain Report as an update of the 2nd Domain Report and as

a preparation for an extra, 3rd Domain Workshop in Porto, November 2004.

3rd Domain Workshop (Porto, November 2004), including elaborated workshop minutes

Preparation and presentation of a paper “Performance-based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date” in the CIB conference “Combining Forces” (Helsinki, June 2005)

Preparation an presentation of a keynote speech about performance based Building in general in the CIB conference “Combining Forces” (Helsinki, June 2005)

News articles News article “Performance-based Design explained” (December 2004) News article “Ten reasons for performance based Design” (September 2005)

Development of practical guidelines for design professionals concerning the management of user requirements – as defined in terms of performance requirements – throughout the design process

Accomplished, the emphasis of the guidelines is aimed at explaining the concept and the importance of performance based Design to design professionals, as the international state of the art review shows that these professionals are hardly aware of PBD as yet

Development of modules for programmes that aim for the education and training of design professionals

Pilot module for an electronic education system (cd-rom), disclosing relevant results for design professionals from essentially all PeBBu Domains and Tasks

Domain Research Agenda Accomplished / in progress Contribution to the Final PeBBu Report Accomplished Participation in the PeBBu Technical Committee Accomplished +

Participation in the PeBBu Steering Committee Active participation in the development of the “PeBBu

Conceptual Framework” Supply of input into the PeBBu website Accomplished Assessment of proposals for international research and dissemination projects

No assessments have been made, as no proposals within the Domain’s scope were submitted

Provision of domain related input for the workshops of the PeBBu User Platforms and Regional Platforms and acting upon domain related recommendations from those workshops

Input provided by making available the Domain Reports. Participation in a User Platform Meeting (Industry) and a Western European Regional Platform Meeting (Brussels, 2003)


The Domain 3 inventory of the state of the art shows that PDB is mainly an issue in research and education as yet. Design professionals (architects and engineers) are generally not very aware of PBD. In this respect a distinction should be made between two different approaches to PDB:

• designers and engineers have to meet with performance based client briefs and building regulations;

• designers define their work in a functional design plus a set of performance criteria, rather than work out the design traditionally in technical drawings and specifications.

The first approach can be recognised in most building projects in countries that apply performance based building regulations, mostly countries in the northern part of Europe. Applicants for building permits have to prove that the designs comply with the regulations, so every design professional is involved in PDB to some extend, consciously or unconsciously. Performance based building regulations and codes often


159

include performance requirements for safety (structural safety, fire safety, earth quake resistance and so on), health, serviceability, energy efficiency and environmental impact. The second approach is closely related to performance based procurement. Up to now, this approach has only been put to practice on a relatively small scale, mainly in the same northern countries. Mostly government building agencies take the lead; they organise pilot projects and/or experiments to set an example for innovation of the building process. The general idea is that the ‘demand side’ of the building process defines a functional design and a set or performance requirements, allowing the supply side to choose the most suitable technical solutions matching these requirements, availability and cost. This second approach to PBD has hardly been put into practice in non governmental projects as yet. One of the barriers is that many clients do not trust this kind of procurement, that they experience as rather abstract and intangible and therefore too unsure and risky. In general engineers and technical designers are more used to working with performance requirements than architects. The main design areas where performance based design and procurement is applied, are service engineering (acoustics, lighting conditions, indoor climate, air quality, and so on), energy consumption and maintenance. Too often stakeholder requirements are not met in the final product. There are various reasons for this: cutting costs in some phase of the project, inability to find suitable design solutions to fulfil the requirements, forgetting the original requirements, and so on. To avoid this, an early and continuous verification has to take place in the design process (Ang et. al, 2001). Assessment methods may vary from simple measuring (e.g. the amount of net square meters offered) via standardized calculating (e.g. the strength and stability of building structures or the energy loss) to simulating certain aspects of the behaviour of the building in-use (e.g. daylight penetration in different seasons and under different weather conditions). In some EU member states national building regulations are more and more performance-based. Also European regulations, that have to be implemented in the national building regulations of all EU member states, are as a rule performance-based. performance based regulations often refer to national standards, where not only performance levels for building parts and properties, but also the corresponding assessment methods are defined. Assessment methods in European and national standards are mostly aimed at the testing of actual buildings or building products. However, one of the main problems in PBD is how to predict the performance of a building on the basis of a design. For many quality aspects the ‘total building performance’ depends on a complex interaction of many influences. On the one hand there are no validated, standardized assessment methods available to predict the total building performance, but on the other hand this performance will determine the client’s perception of the quality delivered to a great extend. The only way to do it is by simulation of the building behaviour, using integrated data models. All over the world institutes and universities are in the process of developing simulation applications to facilitate this, using modern information and communication technology (ICT).

4. List of deliverables

Planned Accomplished Assessment reports on project proposals that fall within the Domain’s scope

No such proposals were submitted

1st Domain Report (year 1) Accomplished NAS Workshop Minutes (2003) 2nd Domain Report (year 3) Accomplished 3rd Domain Report “Performance-based Design: bringing

Vitruvius up to date” (November 2004) Practical guidelines for design professionals concerning Incorporated in the Domain Reports and News Articles (year 1


160

the management of user requirements – as defined in terms of performance requirements – throughout the design process (year 4)

to year 4)

Modules for programmes that aim for the education and training of design professionals

Pilot module for an electronic education system (cd-rom), disclosing relevant results for design professionals from essentially all PeBBu Domains and Tasks (September 2005) Report ‘Performance-based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date” (September 2005)

News Articles (year 3) News article “Performance-based Design explained” (December 2004) News article “Ten reasons for performance based Design” (September 2005)

Paper “Performance-based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date” in “Performance-based Building” (proceedings of the PeBBu closing seminar during the CIB conference “Combining Forces”, Helsinki, June 2005)

Slideshow presentation “Performances-based Building” Final Domain Report (including Domain 3 RTD Agenda)


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Final Domain Report Explanation of the concept

of PBD International State of the Art of PBD Best Practice Examples Domain 3 RTD Agenda

Participants in the PeBBu Project, European Commission, international R&D community in the building industry

PeBBu website

Report “Performance-based Building: bringing Vitruvius up to date”

Information of design professionals

Design professionals, trainers of design professionals

PeBBu website, dissemination through Domain 3 Members

Pilot module for an electronic education system (cd-rom)

Showing how an electronic education system for PeBBu can be set up and function

CIBdf, PeBBu community, European Commission

Through CIBdf

News articles Explaining the concept of performance based Design in short

International R&D community PeBBu website

Paper “Performance-based Design: bringing Vitruvius up to date”

Explaining the concept of performance based Design in more depth

International R&D community / education

Symposium proceedings

Slideshow presentation “Performances-based Building”

Education, information Education (teachers and students), industry

Make the slideshow available to all PeBBu Members for presentations in their own countries and institutes


European (and national) building regulations become more and more performance based (as opposed to prescriptive codes). Designers will have to prove that their design solutions meet with the legislative requirements. Therefore it is imperative that design professionals adopt the performance based way of thinking and working. The Domain 3 work contributes to that. PBD helps to fill in the building industry’s responsibility for the environment. Future generations have the right to live in a healthy and sound environment. Legislation in this field is mainly performance-based, leaving the responsibility for how to meet with the legal requirements to the designers to a great extend.


161

As performance based building codes and requirements allow designers to come up with a variety of solutions, the performance based approach will enhance creativity and innovation in the design and building process, with more added value for clients and end users as a result. PBD offers the opportunity to make better use of knowledge and expertise of contractors and suppliers, allowing them to come up with innovative, cost effective solutions. Through this, the performance based Design approach may enhance the competitiveness of the European building industry in all its sections.


PBD is not a goal in itself, it is a means to reach the ‘higher’ goal of creating more added value for the client, the end user and other stakeholders. The performance based approach requires a different attitude, a different way of thinking about designing buildings than in the traditional design process. Implementing the performance based approach in the design process requires a change of culture. Experience teaches that cultural changes do not occur overnight; it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time. Design professionals will have to be convinced. Many of them seem to consider PDB as a (further) degradation of their positions and interests in the building process. The Domain 3 Members thought of several reasons that make it worthwhile for design professionals to put effort into the performance based approach: • PBD provides for a more client oriented way of thinking and working in the design process; • Performance-based thinking helps clients and designers to gain better knowledge about how a building

operates or should operate; • PBD leads to cost effectiveness, better quality and better client and user satisfaction; • PBD provides architects with the tools to be the integrator in the design process. Vitruvius already

stated ten centuries ago, that architecture is the fusion of functionality, solidity and beauty. With this definition, Vitruvius made a strong plea for integral design. PBD is also all about integral design. Someone has to do the integration of contributions of all parties involved and the architect is best positioned for that. In many countries the architect lost his integrating role in the building process, because he was not able to cope with all the technical systems. The PBD concept provides him with the tools to be the integrator again. It’s like bringing Vitruvius up to date in a modern setting.

PBD is common practice to some extend already. In practice most designers already are involved in PBD to some extend, consciously or unconsciously, e.g. in relation to meeting with energy consumption and other environmental requirements. So, to most designers PBD is not a completely new concept. Besides that, it’s important to understand that total systems of performance based building or design do not exist. PBD can be applied in a more or less extensive form, depending on the circumstances of a project. This means that designers do not need to change their ‘normal’ way of working from one day to another in order to implement PBD.


The ‘Domain consortium’ consists of the Domain leader and Domain members. Only the Domain leader’s work is funded; the members only received travelling expenses for participating in Domain workshops. The Domain leader’s work and progress highly depend on the input from members. However, it turned out to be very hard to get information from people with busy jobs and who don’t get any funding for delivering input in PeBBu. Some of the initial members never even answered to any of the e-mails the Domain leader sent. As a result a lot more effort than initially anticipated went into getting sufficient and useful information for the Domain’s work. Most of the members’ input was delivered in and directly after the Domain workshops and only by members who actually participated in those workshops. The representatives of the NAS countries have been very active in the Domain’s work. The following Domain Members may be contacted concerning a follow-up of the project: • Dik Spekkink (Domain Leader), EGM architecten/Spekkink C&R, Netherlands, [email protected]


162

• Philip Murray, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland, [email protected] • Peter Matiasovsky (and through him: the other Domain Members from Slovakia), Institute of Construction

and Architecture, Slovakia, [email protected]; • Nils Lykke Sørensen, Danish Building Research Institute, Denmark, [email protected] • Luk Vandaele, Belgian Building Research Institute, Belgium, [email protected] • Gabor Tiderenczl, EMI, Hungary, [email protected] • Monica Paciuk, Technion, Isreal, [email protected] • Piotr Bartkiewicz, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland, [email protected]


Design practitioners are hardly aware of performance based Design (PBD) as yet, although many of them are involved in PBD to some extend already. The performance based design approach has already been applied in different cases and countries, but not necessarily under that name. PBD is a means to enhance the professionalism and the client orientation of the building design sector. The time seems ripe for it, as there is a growing demand for integral design. In some countries tools for integral design are developed by associations of architects and consulting engineers. PBD calls for integral design. It seems appropriate that actions should be started to enlarge the awareness of performance based design. In this respect the participant in PeBBu Domain 3 came up with the following suggestions: • make existing projects or designs, in which the performance based approach has already been

implemented to some extend, more explicit (‘best practices’); • government leadership in the implementation of PBD can be a powerful stimulus; • incorporate the performance approach in design education; • enhancement of “total building performance” in a life cycle environment (long term performance); • performance based building regulations have proven to be a key success factor in the implementation

of a performance based way of thinking in building design; • mutual recognition of performance assessment methods through standardization.


163

A n n e x 1 . 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 4 : B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n tA n n e x 1 . 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 4 : B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t


Built Environment:

Task Report

1. Executive Summary

From the outset, this topic within the PeBBu programme was very challenging. The Built Environment as a whole is an enormous subject that in many ways defies definition. There are so many variables that have to be considered. Eventually the scope was reduced and refined in to two aspects. The first was the effect of the building on the built environment and the second was the effect of the built environment on the building. Buildings sit within a context and there must be empathy with the context such that the building contributes to the improved performance of its local environment. Equally the building itself must respond to and respect its surroundings and the impact that it will have. In some cases the impact needs to be strident, an icon celebrating change whilst in other locations it needs to fit and not be obtrusive. Other environmental pressures need to be considered which are applicable in any circumstance such as, energy usage and sustainability. The task was therefore defined as one of enabling clients and specifiers to be able to access all of the relevant subjects, inform themselves and then to decide which were relevant and prioritise choices when setting performance criteria. Following an initial review it was concluded that the majority of new construction would be urban and in cities. The literature on cities is merging into three categories and these were used to provide the context within which the broader information could be accessed. There was a discussion as to the place of development in villages and rural situations, but this could be dealt with by selecting suitable instances from the total data base of information. By using the World Wide Web searches were made of experience within and beyond the EU to determine relevant experience. In practice this is very limited and there were no instances of performance specifications that could be used directly. The literature on cities and the Web search was used to structure a data base of relevant information and links to sites that could be explored if the user required a deeper explanation of the subject. Because each topic is so large it was practical to only link to key texts and instances to indicate the starting points for a

T-04

Task name: T-04: Buil t Environment

Task leader(s):

Prof. Colin Gray, Universi ty of Reading, UK, [email protected]


164

user to explore the subject. The anticipation is that they could then start to formulate their own performance specification given this structured approach to the topic and subjects within it. Even with the website it was realised that the user still had little guidance as to how to structure the information nor how to make decisions or how to generate a performance based specification in this area. This is not an uncommon problem in construction so a modified and developed form of a briefing tool developed by the Reading Production Engineering Group was created to help users set a Built Environment Performance Specification. The briefing tool enables a user to set a performance specification, a level of priority to each requirement and be able to assess whether their objectives are in conflict with each other.

2. Scope and Objectives

The object of the Domain 4 is to define those issues that a building project must embrace to enhance the many aspects of the built environment in which it is located in order to add benefits, value, space and life to achieve urban sustainability. The importance of this task is that it sets the project into its context and ensures that it reflects the growing need to contribute to the sustainability of the urban built environment.

3. Scientific & Technical Assessment


A variant of a briefing tool was developed during the first half of the project. It was populated with data and new additions were made to deal with the specific problems of this Domain. General ‘wish lists’ in the published guides were turned into performance statements. These formed the basis of the data base of performance requirements. Consequently, this is the only collection of performance requirements that is available. Where possible the definitions of performance were tested by a questionnaire.


The main result is a proof of concept tool for the development of performance specification in the built environment. The tool is highly innovative in that it uses the World Wide Web as its source of guidance to users when considering decisions in the many relevant topic areas.


The planned work was terminated at the 50% stage when it was clear that there were no existing performance based definitions in the public domain. The Domain had generated its own in order to develop the concept but these were specific to this work. As this was beyond the scope of the Domain it was agreed to terminate the Domains work. In practice some work has continued to finalise the tool in order to have a clear demonstration of the potential and to work with the GT-02: Decision Support Toolkit for PBB group.

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Definition of the Domain Completed 100% Questionnaire survey of collaborators Completed 100% Identification of Performance Specification in the Built Environment

50% complete

State of the art report Completed 100% (based on available data)


165


The state of the art showed that this area within the topic had not been considered previously. In order to assist future work a survey of potential subjects was undertaken. This showed that within the topic a very large number of variables needed to be considered. Integrated IT based tools will be required to access this information and enable users to make decisions. A prototype tool was developed to show how this could be achieved. Domain 4 started by asking one significant and initial question; ‘in what type of urban situation is the performance based built environment going to be designed to perform? This question was addressed because it sets the framework for the whole of the subsequent specification. So far three concepts have been identified: the compact city (Jenks et al, 2000), the creative city (Landry, 2000) and the high-density city (DETR, 1999). The compact city debate questions the cost of urban sprawl versus the social and psychological issues of high-density living. The argument is one of conservation, reduced transportation and a general increase in well being through a reduction in the dependency on cars. The creative city case is one of releasing the potential within the citizen by providing the right leadership and facilities within the various ‘rings’ (hub, inner urban ring and suburbs) or areas of a city. These concepts have been used to provide an initial sort of the desirable features that a specifier may need to consider. The three city concepts have been used to structure the review of the literature and surveys of the World Wide Web. A dedicated PeBBu website has been developed and is maintained at http://www.rdg.ac.uk/PeBBu/. This contains the current state of the collection and analysis of the relevant published literature and website surveys. The difficulty with the available information is that the desirable urban features and regeneration actions are implicit within the description of the urban problem. The continuing task is to review the literature and to determine action-oriented statements that can be construed as performance requirements. In order to establish the state of the art as required in the overall PeBBu project a questionnaire was developed based on the findings of the extensive literature search described above. The development of the questionnaire was done on schedule. The questionnaire required that for each area the definition was confirmed or that suggestions were made as to amendments so that an agreed definition of the topic could be achieved. The respondents were also asked to give information on their local activity in each of the topic areas so that the draft state of the art could be obtained. By necessity the questionnaire was complex and few returns were made because the built environment had not been described in performance terms before so respondents had great difficulty in replying to the specific questions that were asked. The primary goal of the questionnaire was to establish the scope of the domain and to obtain an agreed definition of each sub-topic. Whilst input to the PeBBu website was a goal of the project this has been developed in this Domain to be the primary method to access the knowledge that is available about the built environment. An extensive website has been created that is in excess of the original intended scope. Because little in the built environment has been configured in performance terms the response to the questionnaire has been limited. Much of the content of the website so far has been developed by the domain leader and research team. Switching to a format based on the World Wide Web enables a potential user to access not only current practice, but also future practice if the respective web sites are maintained. The request to the contributors therefore switched to include relevant web sites. The website describes the project, the domain objectives and for each sub-topic the definition that has been used and a brief description of the scope of the topic. Twenty-one sub areas have been developed so far. Some are further developed with long lists of actions and areas that have to be considered. Few are developed as performance specifications, although all have an implicit expectation that by adopting new practices in each area then the overall performance objective will be achieved. Work has commenced to


166

review the information in each area and to produce a performance oriented text that links the many websites and information sources. To review every site and every piece of information and to evaluate it as state of the art or not is an impossible task. This realization has led to the development of the domain as a support system to users who themselves would have to develop an intimate knowledge of those topics and areas that are relevant to their particular project. Therefore, a user or client needs assistance to identify the relevant topics and also a means of accessing and stating the basis of the performance requirement once they have understood the issues. That understanding can be supported by the international research that is now accessible via the domain website.

4. List of Deliverables:

The Final Report (75p) describes the State of The Art and the decision support tool that would enable further development of the Domain area.

5. Plans for Use & Dissemination

The tools that have been developed in prototype form need to be developed and made more widely available. They are already part of the University of Reading’s courses in Design Management and are introduced to other audiences where appropriate. Deliverables Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Definition Benchmarking

Information exchange Research community, PeBBu network

PeBBu network, Website

State of the Art report Benchmarking Information exchange

Research community, PeBBu network, new users

PeBBu network, Website, Conferences, New projects

Decision support tool Performance Based Briefing Research community, PeBBu network, Users

PeBBu network, Website, Conferences, New projects

Recommendations Directing Future activities Practitioners, Researchers, Policy Makers, Educators

PeBBu network,


A wide PeBBu Network has validated the work through the tool testing. Information dissemination is equally assured through the network.


Customers Improved life time performance of the built environment Increased customer satisfaction better image, PBB brand Growing investments on buildings. Industry New business opportunities for innovative actors Increased productivity Mass customized products Growing market.


167

6. Management & Coordination Aspects

Because the task was set at the leading edge of current practice the contribution of the Domain membership was constrained by their experience. This was the limiting factor in this Domain and caused the realisation that it was probably too advanced, given current knowledge. All of the Domain contributed to this debate and where possible aided the development of the definition and scope of the Domain. The main workshop in Budapest and the joint workshop in Manchester were used to test the limits of the knowledge. Further information can be obtained from the Domain co-ordinator.


The work in this Domain has shown that even when the information that is available is not set out in a readily accessible performance based form a specification can be produced. Techniques for developing specifications used in other industries can be used in the field of construction. The development of decision making techniques appropriate to the construction industry are essential as the context within which projects are built increase in complexity. The number of issues that have to be considered, weighted and then traded off against each other are considerable. The range of issues within each subject is growing. Building projects have to consider them all. Clients have to be aware of the issues and their decision making transparent. The work in this Domain has shown that by using the WWW the state of the art, as it is emerging and changing, can be made available to clients in any situation. Connecting this to decision making tools enable them to respond effectively to the changing environment. The decision making can become transparent and there is an audit trail of the process. The work in the Domain has developed a pilot demonstrator of this approach. The lack of readily available performance based specification material in this subject area hindered the development of a complete and fully functioning specification system. Consequently the work was terminated at an earlier point than originally scheduled. However, the tool that was developed demonstrates the potential and it is recommended that it is further enhanced and developed.

8. Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Ms Salam Al Bizri and the Reading Production Engineering Group for their dedication to developing the understanding of the scope of the Domain and for the development of the decision support tools.


168

A n n e x 1 . 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 5 : O r g a n i s a t i o n & A n n e x 1 . 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 5 : O r g a n i s a t i o n & M a n a g e m e n tM a n a g e m e n t


Organisation & Management:

Task Report


PeBBu Domain 5: Organisation and Management defined its objective as successful management by all stakeholders of the built environment and its processes on the basis of performance (rather than prescription). The PBB State of the Art was structured under the following main categories

5) Methodologies, tools and concepts 6) Systematic requirements management 7) People having tools to support decision-making 8) Procurement independent processes.

Recommendations were drawn to achieve the desired impacts a) in the sector

• higher profit from better performance • satisfied clients, better image and growing market • increased productivity in the sector • re-engineered processes, new procurement modes

b) at a European dimension • built environment as an interesting investment asset • new business opportunities for innovative actors • decreasing whole life costs and environmental impacts • higher quality of life and well-being in the society.

The mission statement guided the work

• to enable consistent / comprehensive management of the definition and measurement of the performance required / achieved during all phases of the building process (from initial project idea to deconstruction) independently of procurement modes

• by making available internationally consensus based PBB management support methodologies, tools and concepts

T-05

Task name: T-05: Organisation & Management

Task leader(s):

Mr. Pekka Huovila, VTT, Finland, email pekka.huovila@vtt .f i


169

• through research programming, management and execution and definition. The framework developed at D5 for Organisation & Management of PBB can be used to implement and exploit the results in practice.


The objectives of D5 Organisation & Management were to 1. Describe the state of the art in different participating countries 2. Report the implementation experiences 3. Draw recommendations based on state of the art and implementation experiences 4. Provide background information for developing national guidelines, building regulation, education

programs and national policies.



The framework developed at D5 turned out to be very useful in structuring the findings and planning the future activities.


Good practices were collected from several participating countries.


All planned activities were not accomplished due to termination of the Domain by Mid term.

Objectives

Vision Systematic Management of Performance Based Life Cycle Process of the Built Environment

Deliverables

Tasks

Workshops

• PBB Framework

• Vocational education and training

• Regulatory reform

• PBB Research Agenda

State-of-the Art

• Industrial Problems

• Economic benefits

• Impacts

• Guidelines for PBB

National

impacts

Built environment

as an interesting

investment asset

Decreasing

whole life costs and

environmental impacts

New business

opportunities for

innovative actors

Higher quality of life

and well being in the

society

Branch

impacts

Higher profit

from better

performance

Re-engineered

processes, new

procurement modes

Satisfied clients,

better image and

growing market

Increased

productivity

in the sector

mission

statement

to enable consistent / comprehensive management of the definition and

measurement of the performance required / achieved during all phases of the

building process (from initial project idea to deconstruction) independently of

procurement modes

by making available internationally consensus based PBB management support

methodologies, tools and concepts

through research programming, management and execution and dissemination

Procurement

Independent

Processes

People having Tools

to Support

Decision Making

Methodologies,

Tools and

Concepts

tactics

successful management by all stakeholders

of the built environment and its processes

on the basis of performance (rather than prescription)

Systematic

Requirements

Management


170

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished

State of the Art 100 % Implementation Experiences 90 % Recommendations 40 % Background information 10 %


The state of the art showed that the progress and level of activities varies quite a lot between different countries.


The 1st Domain report 31th July 2002 summarises the main deliverables. It was delivered within the original time schedule (end Year 1). The Final report updates and completes those deliverables. It was delivered in 24th September 2005 meeting the revised time schedule (end year 4).


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination State of the Art Benchmarking, Information

exchange Research community, PeBBu Network

Conferences, Website, PeBBu Network

Implementation Experiences

Benchmarking, Information exchange

Research community, PeBBu Network

Conferences, Website, PeBBu Network

Recommendations Directing future activities Practitioners, Researchers, Policy makers, Educators, Researchers, PeBBu Network

PeBBu Network, Publications

Background information

Planning future action plan Policy makers, Educators, Regulators, PeBBu Network

PeBBu Network


The Final report updates and completes those deliverables. It was delivered in 24th September 2005 meeting the revised time schedule (end year 4).


Branch impacts • Built environment as an interesting investment asset • New business opportunities for innovative actors • Decreasing whole life costs and environmental impacts • Higher quality of life and well being in the society National impacts • Built environment as an interesting investment asset • New business opportunities for innovative actors • Decreasing whole life costs and environmental impacts • Higher quality of life and well being in the society


171


The following countries took part in the D5 work • Finland (task leader) • Canada • Croatia • Denmark • France • Ireland • Israel • the Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Sweden • United Kingdom. When the work was started all members did not necessarily have ongoing activities in this domain and it took some time to get such starting. The task leader may be contacted concerning a possible follow-up of the project.


The results are presented in the D5 Final report including the state of the art and recommendations for future research. Organisation and management of performance based building supports transforming user needs into performance requirements and managing design, construction, operation and maintenance processes to achieving the desired performance over the life span. To succeed on that we need • a unified classification of building properties (identifying and documenting the performance objectives) • verification methods for assessing the desired performance of given building properties (checking that the

desired objectives are met) • implementation (national testing within participating organisations) • validation of data (analysis of results in domain workshops) • dissemination (international internet distribution together with national reporting). It was difficult to focus the work only to organisation and management aspects. Therefore, the contribution from D5 was seen to overlap with some other PeBBu Domains.


172

A n n e x 1 . 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 6 : L e g a l & P r o c u r e m e n t A n n e x 1 . 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 6 : L e g a l & P r o c u r e m e n t P r a c t i c e sP r a c t i c e s


Legal and Procurement Pract ices TASK REPORT

1. Executive Summary

The received wisdoms about construction around the world are that the construction industries perform poorly when compared with other industries and sectors. These received wisdoms are most frequently expressed as: Construction produces products which:

Are expensive; Take longer than anticipated; Are not to the required technical standard.

Much of construction procurement theory and practice attempts to reconcile these 3 conflicting forces: cost; time and quality. Where any change to one variable inevitably affects the others e.g. simplistically a high quality building costs more and takes longer. The definition of quality in terms of performance criteria raises problems for construction procurement, and legal issues. The establishment of pragmatic performance criteria is fraught with problems; and the legal framework may lay down liabilities in differing ways depending on whether the building is prescribed by result or by performance. In the UK for example the duty on a designer may vary between a duty of care (design only) and a duty of result to provide a building fit for the purpose intended (design and construct). State of the Art There is no current state of the art which could be applied across the European Union; rather a collection of national practices in the domain. The work in this domain was to review these practices and procedures to collect best practice, future work might produce guidelines. Barriers

T-06

Task name:

T-06: Legal and Procurement Practices

Task leader(s): Dr P. Fenn, MACE, Universi ty of Manchester, UK


173

The main barriers for the further development of PBB are perceived to be the limitations placed on innovation and initiatives towards value. These require further continuing investigation.

2. Objectives of the Task

A special emphasis in this domain was on: legal issues as related to the definition of quality of buildings in performance criteria and the

definitions of possible related liabilities depending national and international legal framework review of related legal practices and procedures in support of collecting best practices and

producing legal guidelines.

3. Scientific and Technical Assessment


The methodology and process of Domain 6 has included 4 main activities: Four Domain workshops in Manchester (UK) July 2002, Sofia (Bulgaria) Manchester (UK) January

2004 and Porto (Portugal) November 2004. A systematic and rigorous literature review was one of the first tasks of this domain and the

results were published in the first domain report. Five national case studies carried out by the members from UK, Israel, Belgium, Denmark and

Ireland. A Delphi survey.


The main results are an analytical framework and conclusions on the lack of analytical data. Figure 1 synthesizes the analytical framework deployed in Domain 6 illustrating the actors and markets of the building/housing cluster. Figure 1. Overview of the context. Note: B2B = Business-to-Business (professional). DIY = Do-It-Yourself (non-professional).

Building industry (Consultants and

contractors)

Asset manager (Clients and facility

managers)

End-user (Owners and

tenants) 1 2

Manufacturers and wholesalers

(Products and raw materials)

B2B B2B DIY

3 3 3

B2B B2B DIY

Investors and insurers

(Banks, mortgage-credit institutes and insurance companies)

4 4 4


174

The framework provides us with an overview of the context in which the actors of the building process have to operate. Framed by governmental regulation and the knowledge system, the building/housing cluster can be divided into five subcategories of actors linked through four separate markets. The five groups of actors are the end-users, the asset managers, the building industry, the manufacturers, and the investors and insurers. The four markets are the property market (1), the building market (2), the product market (3), and the capital and insurance market (4). Focus in Domain 6 has been on the relationships between the building industry and the asset managers on the building market. Domain 6 has been frustrated by the dearth [total lack] of empirical data. The benefits, incentives and triggers for PBB are well documented but in a journalistic manner. Thus, PBB need greater clarity and rigour. It is clear that PBB poses many challenges for legal and procurement practices in building and construction but because of the unstructured nature of the field [discipline] it is not clear how these can be approached [overcome]. The CIB PeBBu Thematic Network has been an invaluable first step in approaching the challenges.




Years 1 & 2 documentation of limitations placed on innovation in by: i) professional indemnity insurers, ii) tendering rules and requirements and iii) professional practice

All completed see Domain Website http://www2.umist.ac.uk/construction/research/management/PeBBu/home.htm

investigation of how initiatives towards value and tendering restriction affect PBB – Performance Based Building


investigation of how national and legal jurisdictions affect PBB


Year 4 production of a review of national practices and procedures in the context of a worldwide status/best practice report

See Final Report


The initial PeBBu outline for this Domain stated that there is no current state of the art which could be applied across the EU; rather a collection of national practices. The work of the domain is to review these practices and procedures with a view to collecting best practice and producing guidelines. This position is restated here. The definition of quality in terms of performance criteria raises problems for construction procurement and legal issues. The establishment of pragmatic performance criteria is fraught with problems; and the legal framework may lay down liabilities in differing ways depending on whether the building is prescribed by result or by performance. The term state-of-the-art produces special problems in this domain, since it is also used as a legal term in some jurisdictions. In the UK for example the duty on a designer may vary between a duty of care (design only) and a duty to provide a building fit for the purpose intended (design and construct). Simply put under a duty of care a defence may be available that the designer used the knowledge that was available at the time i.e. the state of the art. Under a duty of result no such state of the art defence is available. Professional Indemnity insurance cover (at least in the UK) is often restricted to claims arising from


175

negligence on the part of the insured i.e. non-negligent errors are excluded. This point is often used by designers in seeking to restrict their liability for design errors to those involving negligence. They seek the ability to use a "state of the art" defence if they have one. Factors may be driving shifts in procurement towards PBB might be considered under three headings: International competition, government policies and European policies. Influence from international competition has arisen from experiences of multi-national companies around the world and a desire to replicate best practice in other countries. Significantly better results were experienced in design and build procurement leading to an increase in the use of this procurement, see e.g. Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyors (2001) for a UK analysis. Similar results are reported elsewhere e.g. the USA (Haviland, 1998). Since the early 1980’s government influences have been founded on two things. That governments are responsible for the large part of construction output described above; and that governments need to maintain or increase output, particularly on infra-structure whilst at the same time reducing public sector expenditure. In order to reconcile these two opposing forces governments have increasingly turned to methods that involve private finance in projects. These methods include Design and Build (D&B); Design Build Fund Operate (DBFO); Build Operate Transfer (BOT); Build Operate Own Transfer (BOOT); Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs); and Public Private Partnership (PPP). Currently it is reported that in excess of 100 countries are procuring construction and engineering works under the generic heading of PFI (Merna & Smith, 1999). Private activity in infrastructure grew dramatically between 1990 and 1997, from about US$16 billion to US$120 billion (Roger, 1999). In future years the Commission of the European Communities, as part of its role as promoter of legislative and operational initiatives, may consider defining the general lines of policy across the EU. The collection of best practice and producing guidelines will allow the views expressed to contribute to that definition of general lines of policy. Analogies could be made with other EU initiatives; specifically with the current Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law (European Commission, 2002). Both international competition and government policies have resulted in moves towards PBB since performance specification lies at the heart of both D&B and PFI philosophy. Haviland, D. (1998). Procurement Strategy. In: C. H. Davidson (ed.). Procurement the Way Forward. Rotterdam, Netherlands: CIB. CIB Publication 21. Merna & Smith, (1999). Privately financed infrastructure in the 21st century. In: Proc. Instn Civ. Eng, 132, 166-173. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2001). Survey of Contracts in Use. London, UK: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors London. Roger, N. (1999). Recent Trends in Private Participation in Infrastructure. In: Public Policy Journal, Note No. 196, The World Bank Group. http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PublicPolicyJournal/196roger.pdf


Year 2 report on i) legal and related limitations placed on innovation, ii) affect on PBB from initiatives

towards value and tendering restriction and iii) affect on PBB from national and legal jurisdictions Year 4

review of national and international practices and procedures in the context of a worldwide status/best practice report


176


It was planned that the Monograph along with the Domain Website would be the primary means of dissemination of the work of the Domain. Enough responses garnered to the Monograph means that this document will provide a useful tool for those wanting to know more about the use of Performance Based Building and related approaches in the member countries.

Deliverable Intended Use

Target Audience

Dissemination

Year 2 Reports

Best Practice All Actors and Stakeholders

Via domain website

legal and related limitations placed on innovation Best Practice All Actors and Stakeholders

Via domain website

affect on PBB from initiatives towards value and tendering restriction


Via domain website

affect on PBB from national and legal jurisdictions Best Practice All Actors and Stakeholders

Via domain website

Year 4 review of national and international practices and procedures in the context of a worldwide status/best practice report


Via domain website


The issue of European interest in PBB implies that PBB is per se a more appropriate approach than the prescriptive approach. The work of Domain 6 has not primarily been driven by a concern of implementation but rather of a concern to understand the characteristics of performance base procurement. The incentives and triggers for PBB are well documented but need greater clarity and dissemination. For example the claim in PeBBu Newsletter Nr 1 ./ 02 that PBB is a strong stimulus for product and process innovation and enhances consumer-orientation, cost optimisation and trade possibilities in construction requires detailed back-up and analysis. The claims that PBB is therefore expected to reduce total construction costs by as much as 25% must similarly be defended and justified. It is apparent that clients and in particular government clients who are such an important part of construction demand are receptive to change There are barriers to PBB Implementation; besides the well-known barriers to any kind of innovation and change in the building and construction industry like the low level of R&D investments and the segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction, the delphi study and the national case studies have hinted at some of the more specific barriers related to procurement. These barriers include:

The uncertainty about risk and liability, not least the issue of duty of care versus a duty of result; The suspicion of designers and other advisors that the application of PBB will further undermine

professional status; The wish of clients to exercise extensive control of the end product; The dominant position of consultants in the building process in some countries like UK and

Denmark; The administrative practices of municipalities requiring very detailed project description before

granting various approvals in some countries; The elaborate involvement of the end-users requiring specific solutions.


177

4.2 Expected Impacts (European or worldwide)

The issue of expected impacts inherently requires a normative stance of favouring PBB as the solution. However, Domain 6 has not been fully convinced of the superiority of the performance approach in all cases and under all conditions. Rather, it has exactly been the attempt of the domain to explore the conditions under which the performance approach may be appropriate. Thus, the issue of dissemination and implementation should instead be viewed as a matter of how the domain has contributed to a continuous debate on the performance approach. Viewed in this light, the dissemination and implementation activities of Domain 6 has included:

Setting up a website at UMIST and contributing to the website of PeBBu; Participation in the regional platforms; Production of various publications including the domain reports and conference papers e.g. for the

conference Combining Forces; Participation in national and international events such as conferences, workshops etc. like

Combining Forces.


Communicat ion Between Partners

In the task report for the period October 2002 through to March 2003, it was reported that due to the unusual structure of PeBBu, problems in communication has been encountered. At that time it was proposed that in an effort to improve this situation the Domain Website would be used to communicate with the Domain Members. This approach was adopted with limited success. The overarching problem of the Domain has been, as reported in previous task reports, a lack of active Domain Members. There are only three fully active Domain Members, the members for Denmark, Belgium and Eire. This has had a debilitating influence on the effectiveness of the Domain and its work. In an effort to counter this, particularly with respect to the Domain Monograph attempts have been made by the Domain leadership to seek input from outside of the Domain.

PeBBu NAS Extension

Despite starting with four members from NAS, Domain 6 has only one partially active member remaining, the member from Bulgaria. This has again hampered the impact of the inclusion of the Newly Associated States on the Domain.

7. Conclusions

Domain 6 has managed to meet all the set objectives and deliverables as well as objectives and deliverables that were not part of the original work plan. The Domain Monograph is a document that will prove useful in the disseminating of the work of the Domain. However, the lack of active and participating members has resulted in less progress being made than would have been otherwise possible.

8. Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are due to the members of Domain 6; the Researcher Timothy Morse and Dr Kim Haugbølle. The contribution of Michael O’Shea, Edward Davies and Katherine Sneddon at Masons [latterly PinsentMasons] was invaluable.


178

A n n e x 1 . 7 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a iA n n e x 1 . 7 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 7 : B u i l d i n g R e g u l a t i o n sn 7 : B u i l d i n g R e g u l a t i o n s


Building Regulations:

Task Report


Domain 7 of the Performance Based Building Network has promoted international discussion regarding performance based regulations. Building regulations typically seek to ensure the health, safety and well being of people in buildings. Toward this purpose, they set minimum design and construction requirements. Building regulations may also promote other objectives, such as energy efficiency, serviceability, quality or value and facilitating the built environment to persons with disabilities. Historically, building regulations were based on a prescriptive approach, which severely limited the available solutions for compliance. Creativity and innovation were stymied or slowed as efforts were undertaken to adapt to or change the prescriptive regulations. These regulations also served to restrict and inhibit international trade. Domain 7 examined how the building regulatory systems are working in countries with performance regulations and in countries with more traditional or conservative prescriptive regulations. Performance based regulations are predicated on the intended outcome and seek to encourage a variety of solutions for compliance. This promotes diversity and innovation in an industry that has traditionally been conservative. The performance approach also facilitates international trade. This applies to building products, processes and methodologies in the building design professions Performance Based building regulations have broad support in the international arena. Different countries are proceeding according to separate prototypes and at varying paces in incorporating performance based regulations into their building codes. Most are not doctrinaire in their approach and are prepared to mix performance based regulations with prescriptive ones according to their understanding and experience as to which will best serve them.

T-07

Task name: T-07: Building Regulations

Task leader(s):

David Pi lzer, Israel , [email protected] l


179

While the idea of an international performance based building code was resoundingly rejected, there was full agreement regarding the advantages of international cooperation and shared research. The strongest future research priorities revolved around verification methods that provide quantitative indicators for qualitative objectives. International cooperation should continue and these and other research priorities should be aggressively pursued. An important conclusion of the domain is that building regulations are only one piece of a larger framework that includes elements such as enforcement, product and process standards, performance indicators, functionality, suitability, durability, serviceability and consumer or client driven demands. The makers of regulations need to act in concert with manufactures, design professionals such as architects and engineers, the trades that construct the building and the local officials who enforce the code. Simply converting regulations to a performance format will not by itself provide for a system that encourages innovation and ultimately fosters the concept of performance based building.


The first objective of the domain was to document and describe the state of the art. This included: 1. Description of the regulatory system. 2. Scope of the regulations. 3. Enforcement and compliance. 4. Satisfaction level of the various practitioners. 5. What is perceived to be lacking or in need of enhancement (eg. gaps and barriers). The second objective of the domain was to present research priorities as they emerged from the needs of the participating countries There are significant distinctions between regulations and other aspects of performance based building. Performance based building is an encompassing approach related to the design, operation and maintenance of a building during its entire life cycle; essentially its general performance. The purpose of regulations is far more limited. Regulations seek to establish minimum standards of compliance. The generally stated purpose of most building codes is to ensure public safety, health and welfare insofar as they are affected by building construction. They typically regulate structural strength, adequate means of egress facilities, sanitary equipment, light and ventilation, and fire safety. Just what else they regulate in fact varies in different jurisdictions. There is often confusion around consumer driven requirements that may or may not be authorized in the enabling legislation for a building code. In recent years the purview of many building codes has broadened, to include issues such as energy conservation and the needs of special population groups, particularly persons with disabilities. The extent to which, building regulations protect property or limit its potential damage is also a fuzzy issue. Their purpose is first and foremost life safety.



The most significant deliverables of the domain were the country surveys and the prioritized list and discussion of research needs. All of the participating countries have some level of involvement with performance based building regulations. Obviously, there is a level of self selection as participation in the building regulatory domain was voluntary.


180

Members decided to undertake two surveys of the participating countries, both in order to understand the subtleties and differences between the regulatory systems, and to gauge and compare progress in implementing performance based regulations. The first survey was undertaken early in the network and domain activities, the second approximately four years later towards the conclusion of the project. Both surveys had a limited response but they never the less, identify various trends, conclusions and insights, which were supplemented by country reports and discussions at the domain meetings. The domain developed three prototypes for performance- based building code development that are described in the flow chart and survey form that follow. They constitute the second survey. Essentially for purposes of simplification and comparison, the pathways for performance based building code development were channelled into three prototypes that were designated cases A, B and C. A represents those countries with the political will, the economic resources and the technical capacity

to develop their own national model code. B represents those countries at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of very limited resources,

internal technical capabilities, and perhaps lesser commitment to performance based regulations. These countries are generally prepared to phase in various performance based building requirements into an existing regulatory system at a gradual and graduated pace.

C represents those countries that are prepared to revamp their building regulatory system to one that is performance based but from existing work carried out in other countries that can be adopted with minor adaptations or alterations.

All of the cases A, B and C involve some simplification and generalization and make various assumptions that obviously vary in the extent of their accuracy in the different countries. Probably, the most important assumption is that in all the cases key stakeholders in the building regulatory process have been engaged performance based regulations and are supportive. The point is that changing a building regulatory system requires a broad base of support. It cannot be imposed top down, as it will encounter resistance in the field. Neither will it evolve bottom up, as the field levels are unlikely to invest the time and resources or enlist the political clout to effectuate the change. Survey Performance Based Building - Regulations 1. Preliminary Details: 1.1 Country Name: _____________________________ 1.2 Other reference for building code:______________________ 1.3 Last published edition (year): _________________________ 1.4 Report submitted by: _____________ (name and e-mail)____________ 1.5 Job title/Affiliation: _________________________________________ 2. Background/Contextual Information: 2.1 Brief description of code context in terms of 1. development 2 implementation. (please attach a separate diagram as per the draft flow chart). 2.2 Brief description of social, political and legal context as related to above diagram (2.1). 2.3. Information regarding relevant administrative framework (who is doing what). 2.4 Information regarding future directions (adoptions, revisions, changes). ________________________________________________________ 3. Key Terms and Definitions (please include only keywords used in this from that need clarification` i.e. this is not for terms in the code itself). ____________________________________________________ 4. Code Structure and Contents 4.1. Structure of the code (diagram and/or tables).


181

4.2. Contents (outline as in table of contents, but with a short description of the main heading` e.g. 1-3 sentences). 4.3. Other technical notes. _______________________________________________________ 5. Key Lessons/Comments on Development and Implementation of the Code. ______________________________________________________ 6. Contacts and References 6.1. Contacts persons for further information and explanations. 6.2. Web sites for relevant information. 6.3. Other printed information that is available.


The work conducted by the domain was in line with the stated objectives. Unfortunately, participation was insufficient. The tasks of this domain would have been better served by broader participation. Furthermore, the task leader is of the opinion that greater representation from the building regulatory community, rather than academia and research organisations would have enhanced the domains contribution in the regulatory realm. On the other hand, the representatives of academia most likely better enabled the domain to formulate and articulate research priorities. The experience of the various countries at various stages and with different degrees of success in implementing performance based regulations provided a convenient platform for the discussion of research priorities. There was wide agreement on the importance and benefits of network and the potential for sharing the results of research in a number of areas. The subjects that emerged as research priorities were agreed upon based on the needs and wants of at least several of the participating countries: These were as follows: 1. Verification methods to demonstrate that the required performance was achieved. 2. Risk-informed regulations. 3. Methods for addressing acceptable or desirable levels of performance in existing buildings. 4. Creating a systems approach to performance requirements with quantifiable levels of performance. 5. Methods for evaluating the economic impact or feasibility. 6. Development of certification models and other means of approving designs and products. The leading research priorities are heavily weighted toward verification. In order to verify compliance we need to be able to measure performance. In this list of research priorities verification repeats itself with different, emphasis in four of the six priorities. Only risk informed regulations and methods for addressing performance in existing buildings address the objectives part of performance. Verification methods reflect a level of involvement and understanding of the performance approach that go beyond the declaratory stages about the advantages of the performance approach. Performance requirements, as noted, are usually stated as objectives. Objectives are generally qualitative. However, enforcement and compliance obligate verification that is quantitative. Herein perhaps lies the Achilles heel of performance based regulations; i.e. the difficulty in evaluating and ascertaining compliance. Qualitative matters, by their nature involve a large degree of subjectivity. Requirements as stated in building regulations cannot tolerate fuzziness or lack of clarity. Ultimately the code official or building inspector needs to be able to make compliance determinations that are cleat cut, consistent and defensible under administrative review and legal challenge.


182

Quantitative requirement can be matched to qualitative objectives of performance based building regulation but it is difficult if the advantages of the performance approach are not to be lost in the process. Key performance indicators are a promising approach that may be able to bridge the gap. They need to provide simple yet coherent criteria that set the acceptable level or range of performance in ways that can be verified by tools at the disposal of the regulatory community. Generally, key performance indicators involve benchmarking a given situation so that targeted performance can be assessed and compliance determined. While technical performance criteria and verification methods have been proposed in a number performance based regulatory areas, particularly energy conservation, domain members demonstrated their keen interest in the expansion of verification methods as research priorities, the results of which can be shared internationally. This is a significant challenge that will impact the future success of the approach.


There were no major deviations from the planned work schedule but responses to the two surveys were disappointing and did not enable substantive comparisons or the drawing of broad conclusions.

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished

State of the art report Discussed and supplemented at the Manchester meeting

Four Domain Workshops Brussels, May 2002; Budapest, March 2003; Manchester, January 2004 &Porto , November 2004.

Analysis of PeBBu regulatory systems internationally Surveys from participating countries and analysis

Dissemination Changes in task leadership caused delays &late dissemination of materials

Presentation of Findings CIB Symposium, Helsinki, June 2005

Domain Reports – updates and final Delivered as planned

Domain news articles supplied


This review is based on survey responses, where they were received and reports at the Porto meeting in November 2004. The Australian model will be discussed separately based on their extensive experience and a productivity commission study recently completed. Belgium has a building regulatory system that is partially performance based. Local authorities continue to use prescriptive requirements. Performance based regulations are viewed as a means and not an end. Representatives see a combined system of prescriptive and performance based regulations evolving over time. Greece has not yet been successful in implementing performance based building requirements. Most of the building sector is unfamiliar with the performance based approach in general. However, discussion is underway between authorities, academics and construction companies regarding a new global and more sophisticated approach. Fire codes are most likely to be the first area in which performance based requirements are adopted. The increasing need for flexibility in building design is likely to create user demands for performance based fire regulations.


183

Hungary’s building regulatory system is primarily prescriptive. There is an energy survey requirement in place that is performance based but not widely used. Representatives see a short term trend toward withdrawal from mandatory requirements. Hungary remains committed to performance based building requirements over the long term. Israel currently has primarily prescriptive requirements. However, a government commission appointed after a social hall collapse recommended a substantial overhaul of the regulatory system including a comprehensive performance based code, and a process for evaluating new building technologies. Preparation of the performance based code is well underway. Fire safety requirements will remain mostly prescriptive. Government regulators viewed the fire safety area as too problematic and lacking sufficient fire safety engineers in order to successfully implement performance based fire safety requirements. Lithuania is seeking to develop an entire performance based code. They will use models and provisions developed and refined in other countries. Selection and revision of the various models to the Lithuanian national context may take as many as seven years to complete. The Netherlands also has a mixed building regulatory system that has been evolving over the past two decades. The structure of the code is arranged according to the following performance categories: safety, health, usability, energy saving and sustainability. Private standards are referred to determine the performance of a work. Building industry personnel as well as local government building licensing officials often have difficulty properly understanding and interpreting the performance based code, which is also judicially formulated. Poland has mandatory norms and standards, some prescriptive and others performance based that now constitute a building code of approximately 70 pages. Ordinances increase from year to year and the code grows. Warsaw University of Technology has proposed a new structure for the ordinances that will set technical criteria to be met by buildings. The research community has the desire to develop performance based code requirements but for the time being there is insufficient support from decision makers. Slovakia has a performance based code for the energy performance of building and is focusing regulatory efforts on CPD implementation. Information is lacking regarding other areas building regulation. The United Kingdom has a regulatory system based on 15 "approved documents" that are essentially performance based. "Deemed to satisfy" provisions are prescriptive but allow for equivalents. Experience shows private enforcers have resisted and complicated the use of performance based documents. In 1994, the Australian government established the Australian Building Code Board that vigorously pursued a performance based code. While the Board had no regulatory powers in and of itself, the code was adopted and used by the states and territories. This past year, 2004, the government of Australia undertook an extensive examination of the contribution of building regulation reform to economic efficiency and the construction industry. The report found that the reform was successful in encouraging skill acquisition, reducing costs and encouraging and enabling innovation. It constitutes a strong endorsement of performance based building requirements. However, the report found that regulatory reform is far from complete. The report recommended: 1. further reducing, jurisdictional variations and reducing the erosion of the codes uniform application by local planning decisions. 2. better articulation of the performance based requirements. 3. seeking ways to enhance local administration and enforcements. 4. re-examining the approach to property protection from fire. 5. better incorporating environmental requirements in the code.


184


Specific Deliverables Specific deliverables produced by Domain 7 were; two survey questionnaires, one at the beginning of the project and the other towards its conclusion; a flowchart for performance based code development prototypes (which most of the survey respondents also used); a list of leading research priorities need to further promote facilitate and enhance the use of performance based building regulations. None of these tasks constituted specific contractual deliverables. Meetings Four domain workshops: Brussels, May, 2002; Budapest, March, 2003; Manchester, January, 2004 and Porto November 2004. Technical Committee meetings in the course of the project; Beth Tubbs, Wayne Bretherton and David Pilzer represented the domain at different meetings. Performance Based Thematic Network presentation at the CIB International Symposium' "Combining Forces" in Helsinki, June, 2005. David Pilzer represented the domain and presented its leading findings. Gaps and Barriers Given that the introduction of performance based regulations is often a gradual process, the new regulations may not address what some building professionals regard as the most important issues or those that most interest them, Similarly when they are partial or fragmented they can not comprehensively address all code requirement issues. There may be a need to merge performance requirements with prescriptive ones for various building systems or materials. Performance requirements by their nature often require greater effort by the practitioner to demonstrate compliance, In addition because they are new the performance requirements are less familiar and have not yet stood the tests of time and use by the various building professionals. Most of all it is difficult to verify compliance with performance based regulations. Satisfaction Level of the Various Practitioners The issue of performance based versus prescriptive regulations pertains primarily to architects and engineers and to a lesser extent to building contractors. It also pertains more to large, unusual and sophisticated buildings than to residential, low rise, standardized building and construction. Manufacturers of building materials and products are also relevant clients of the performance based code. The satisfaction level of these practitioners with performance based regulations tends to vary. All desire fast building review approvals. The extent to which they themselves and the local regulatory officials are familiar and comfortable with the performance aspects of the codes is a function of time and willingness to learn and innovate. In general there will be a segment of the building community that is resistant to change and will constantly pose the question: "What do they really want?" Accordingly it is helpful that a new, performance based requirement be accompanied by deemed to satisfy provisions that are also prescriptive.


185

An International Performance Based Building Code Discussion was undertaken as to the possibility of a common shared international or pan- European performance based building code. The idea was resoundingly rejected for the foreseeable future. Discussants noted the widely variable social, political, economic, administrative and legal contexts among different countries that make a common code impractical. Certainly there are also differences related to climatic conditions, building materials and building traditions. However, the intensity of the negative response may indicate additional underlying, less transparent, factors such as national, regional or even local pride and concerns about a loss of autonomy. All of this is not to say that the domain members did not see a broad basis for international cooperation. In fact there was full consensus on the benefits of cooperation and the opportunity to learn from the experience of other countries.


Survey Results and Prototype Flowchart Their target audience is countries considering adopting or in the early stages of adopting performance regulations. The intended use is to assist these countries with the shared experiences of of other countries and enable them to better anticipate the stages, predicaments and issues they face. Dissemination should be undertaken on the Network website and on other related professional sites as well as in publications undertaken as part of the project. Research Priorities The target audience is researchers, primarily at academic institutions and research organisations, but also building codes and standards groups and councils. Their intended use is to direct and channel technical research and code and standards drafting activities. Dissemination, in addition to the above noted methods, should also be directly to universities, research institutes and code and standard organisations.


Domain 7 experienced several changes in the task leadership. This unfortunately created problems of continuity and had detrimental impact on most of the task activities. In the last stage an arrangement of shared leadership was attempted but failed. All of the writing and summations fell on one individual who had not sought the task. There was insufficient dedication to the task as demonstrated by the lack of survey responses and the difficulty and delays with most of those that did finally arrive. It is the opinion of this writer that specifically for Domain 7, more participants from different countries and more building regulatory practitioners rather than researchers would have better served the task. All of the domain members may be contacted concerning follow-up of the project. The domain leader who can be contacted is: Mr David Pilzer: [email protected] (Israel)


186


Performance Based building regulations have broad support in the international arena. Different countries are proceeding according to separate prototypes and at varying paces in incorporating performance based regulations into their building codes. Most are not doctrinaire in their approach and are prepared to mix performance based regulations with prescriptive ones according to their understanding and experience as to which will best serve them. There is wide disparity among the countries as to what areas of construction regulation are best served by the performance approach or where to start. Energy conservation and thermal comfort had broad but not universal support for the performance approach. Fire protection on the other hand faced very different points of view. Some countries think that since the largest portion of building requirements are fire safety driven; performance requirements should start in this area. Other countries think that because of the potential risk to life and limb, fire safety should be the very last area to adopt performance requirements. While the idea of an international performance based building code was resoundingly rejected, there was full agreement regarding the advantages of international cooperation and shared research. The strongest future research priorities revolved around verification methods that provide quantitative indicators for qualitative objectives. International cooperation should continue and these and other research priorities should be aggressively pursued.

8. Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to Dr. Greg Foliente, CSIRO, Australia who suggested and formatted the second survey, Dr. Aleksander Panek, Warsaw University, Poland who co-chaired with me the Porto Portugal meeting and Mr. John Carson, CSIRO, Australia who presented the Reform of Building Regulation report by the Productivity Commission of the Australian Government at that meeting. Dr. Francoise Szigeti, ICF, Canada offered important comments that were sincerely appreciated, to the "Performance Based Building Regulations" paper that I prepared for the CIB Symposium in Helsinki in June 2005. Finally, Ms. Beth Tubbs, P.E. and Mr. Wayne Bretherton, as the two previous task leaders of Domain 7, laid the ground work for all that was accomplished in this domain.


187

A n n e x 1 . 8 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 8 : B u i l d i n g I n n o v a t i o nA n n e x 1 . 8 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 8 : B u i l d i n g I n n o v a t i o n


Building Innovation:

Task Report


Domain 8 is focussed on innovation within the overall context of performance based building (PBB). The domain’s scope and objectives are more specifically divided into two phases. Phase 1 concentrates on the performance objectives and measures for PBB-driven innovation, and Phase 2 builds upon these results and investigates the impact of PBB-driven innovation on construction.


Domain 8 is focussed on the dynamic of innovation that is required for, and is triggered by, successful performance based building (PBB). The domain’s scope and objectives are more specifically divided into two phases: phase 1 focuses on performance objectives and measures for PBB-driven innovation; phase 2 builds upon these results by investigating the impact of PBB-driven innovation on construction (see Figure 1), both in terms of PBB as the innovation and PBB as a driver for innovation. The focus relays on the interaction between performance based building and innovation and clusters around the following issues:

Identification of innovation objectives and measures and their impact on building and construction practice as related to PBB, taking into account the various changing roles of the respective stakeholders.

Establishment of how connections can be created and sustained between performance objectives and innovative activities throughout the various phases of the building process and the lifetime of the building.

T-08

Task name: T-08: Innovation

Task leader(s):

Prof. Peter Barrett, Universi ty of Salford, UK, [email protected] Dr. Martin Sexton, Universi ty of Salford, UK, [email protected]

Dr. Angela Lee, Universi ty of Salford, UK, [email protected]


188

Figure 1: Focuses of Domain 8, Phases 1 and 2



The Programme of Work for Domain 8 is given in full at: http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/cibPeBBudomain8/programme%20of%20work.htm. There are links to milestones/ deliverables from this web-site, a summary is given below. Task Delivered Start of Project October 2001 Develop Stimulus Paper 1 October 2001 International State-of-the-Art Report April 2002 Team to respond to the Stimulus Paper 1 June 2002 Workshop 1 Preparation Report June 2002 1st Workshop 24-25 July 2002 1st Domain Report to CIBdf August 2002 International State-of-the-Art Report update to CIBdf August 2002 Develop Topic Papers August 2002 Feedback on Topic Papers (Revised Stimulus Paper) December 2002 2nd Workshop (part of the PeBBu NAS Week) 27-28 March 2003 Phase 1 Industry Report to CIBdf (Synthesis Report) August 2003 Delphi Study amongst International Experts April 2003 Mid-Term Report to CIBdf 30 August 2003 Develop Stimulus Paper 2 October 2003 3rd Workshop (Manchester, UK) 12-14 January 2004 Domain 8 News Article to CIBdf February 2004 Delphi Study News Article to CIBdf February 2004 Progress Report to CIBdf August 2004 Develop Stimulus Paper 3 November 2004 4th Workshop (Lisbon, Portugal) November 2004 Phase 2 Industry Reports March 2005 UK dissemination workshop April 2005 RTD Agenda May 2005 2nd Domain Report July 2005

Domain 8

focus

Performance-

based building

Performance

objectives &

measures for

PBB-based

innovation

Innovation

Impact of

PBB-based

innovation

on construction

Phase 1Phase 2

Domain 8

focus

Performance-

based building

Performance

objectives &

measures for

PBB-based

innovation

Innovation

Impact of

PBB-based

innovation

on construction

Domain 8

focus

Performance-

based building

Performance

objectives &

measures for

PBB-based

innovation

Innovation

Impact of

PBB-based

innovation

on construction

Phase 1Phase 2


189


Domain 8 had led to the clear identification of a current PBB emphasis on product, but at the same time a crucial need to extend consideration to softer factors such as owner and user satisfaction. Innovation in this context is highly important for both a strengthening and widening of the scope of PBB and the effective take up and use by the industry of this approach. The Delphi study has been very successful and has given focus to the whole PeBBu Project in terms of how PBB is defined and measured. Key findings of the domain include:

• The working definition of performance based building (from a Domain 8 perspective) is as follows: successful performance based building guides and encourages the generation and implementation of appropriate new ideas by relevant stakeholders throughout the building life cycle, which enhance overall building and stakeholders’ business performance.

• Innovation is not always appropriate. Innovation has to enhance the overall performance of the building in use

• It cannot be assumed that performance based building is always appropriate. performance based building has to enhance the overall performance of the building in use

• Appropriate innovation is required to close the gap between existing construction and property industry performance and the performance needed to understand and satisfy client systems’ increasingly demanding needs. The implication is that the enhanced performance of buildings in use requires an appropriate balance and leverage of ‘industry-push’ innovation and ‘client-pull’ innovation – neither client systems or industry can bring about successful performance based building in isolation from each other

• PBB is an agent for innovation, which can contribute to the creation of an appropriate built environment that in turn enhances quality of life and competitiveness

• Successful PBB-based innovation will impact on the following construction activities: process (construction) innovation, process (building in use) innovation, product innovation, and capability innovation

• PBB innovations will vary depending on the degree in which the client’s system requirements are known from the start, the novelty and complexity of the project, and the stability of the project process

• Two schools of thought are offered to address the relationship between PBB and innovation. The content school of thought advocates that PBB is the innovation in itself, and the context school of thought argues that PBB provides the enabling environment to stimulate a raft of innovation activity which may include prescriptive as well as performance based elements. These two schools of thought are not contradictory, but complementary in that they form the link of PBB across industry and organisation/ project contexts


All the planned tasks of the Domain were undertaken. Additional work also completed includes: • 3rd Stimulus Paper • 4th Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal • UK dissemination workshop • Development of the 1st State of the Art Report on PBB • Conference papers • Journal papers


190


Innovation is recognised as far from being a linear, simple process: rather, it is iterative and complex. A range of ideas is progressively sifted until the most likely to succeed are implemented, of which some succeed and others fail. In practice, it is a disjointed, opportunistic activity that builds on past experience, assumptions and constraints in fits-and-starts, and changes direction as the perceptions and actualities of circumstances change. It is the pragmatic activity of changing the status quo to achieve desired ends through whatever means are available. In this way, it is very suited to a goal orientated PBB approach, although it is likely that performance requirements will emerge from, as well as provide focus to, innovative activities. Successful innovation is defined as ‘the effective generation and implementation of a new idea, which enhances overall organisational performance.’ Innovation and performance requirements in relation to construction need to be broadly conceived. Construction is the principal change agent/ source of innovation, and so performance metrics need to address both actual and desired characteristics of the built environment as well as simply the construction process itself. Similarly, the rationale for the built environment depends on the needs of society, both in terms of quality of life and competitiveness. So, construction innovation must be seen as a means to a means to an end and not as an end in itself. As such, performance metrics at all three levels are needed so that connections can be made between society’s needs, built environment implications and construction drivers. To make PBB a reality, clarity on the needs that are being addressed is required. That is, the performance criteria of the various stakeholders on the project need to be made explicit. This must include a heavy emphasis on clients/ customers needs if the construction industry is to succeed, but also the interactive needs of the industry players so that synergistic approaches can be derived. Innovation performance objectives and measures need to focus on what is important (hard and soft factors) to all of the various stakeholders, and within a global framework they need to be particularised to the construction industry and within that to more specific sectors, clients, companies, or even projects to reflect the actions needed in these local circumstances and demands. The findings from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 have produced two schools of thought regarding the relationship between performance based

building and innovation: content and context. The ‘content’ school of thought has advocated that PBB is the innovation in itself, and that PBB approaches replace traditional prescriptive approaches with a new paradigm. In contrast, the ‘context’ school of thought has argued that performance based building provides the enabling environment to stimulate a raft of innovation activity which may include prescriptive, as well as performance-based, elements. The two schools are not in conflict; indeed, there is significant value in recognising and integrating them to form an evolutionary , which promotes continuous development and use. A framework is offered (see Figure 2) which conceptualises the performance based approach as an evolutionary cycle of innovation across industry and project contexts, and between social and technical systems. Figure 2: An evolutionary model of performance based building

Industry context Organisation /project context

So

cia

l syste

mT

ech

nic

al syste

m

Ad

ap

t

Deploy

Adopt

De

ve

lop E

nhance

…industry -wide

confidence of

PBB to …

…motivate client /

project team to adopt

the PBB approach,

and to …

…adapt the

PBB approach

to meet

specific client /

project needs,

which ……develop

industry -wide

PBB guidance,

codes and

regulations,

which can be …

…deployed in

project settings,

which …

…if the PBB

experience is

successful, will

further

enhance…


191


Deliverable Delivered Stimulus Paper 1 October 2001 International State-of-the-Art Report April 2002 1st Domain Report August 2002 Phase 1 Industry Report to CIBdf (Synthesis Report) August 2003 Delphi Study Report April 2003 Stimulus Paper 2 October 2003 Domain 8 News Article February 2004 Delphi Study News Article February 2004 Stimulus Paper 3 November 2004 4th Workshop (Lisbon, Portugal) November 2004 Phase 2 Industry Reports March 2005 RTD Agenda May 2005 2nd Domain Report July 2005


Stakeholder

Result Goal

PeBBu Community

A website was set up at the beginning of the project and the Task Leader & Project Manager communicates with members through this site by using the Domain 8 ‘Programme of Work’ as a route to all reports, papers, Workshop information etc. Dissemination has been improved by using this site to hold all information on the project.

Stimulation and sharing of PBB related research and practice conducted by Domain 8 across the international community

International Consortia

Reports can be used as a basis for EU policy proposals and regulation reviews. The PeBBu research findings is going to be a catalyst for further international research network bids to both progress and leverage the knowledge accumulated to date.


National interests

Reports can be used as a basis for national Government and professional institution policy proposals and regulation reviews. The PeBBu network and research findings will be used to support individual country research initiatives to progress and appropriately interpret performance based building to meet their specific characteristics and needs.


Individual members

Databases and inventories can be further populated and maintained for private and/or public use. Synthesized scientific reports can be used by members in the education and training sector for knowledge base. Industry members implementing the PeBBu results in practice.



Interest in innovation, either in terms of product or process, across Europe is universal. This is evidenced by the growing number of conferences and trade fairs dedicated to new tools and techniques, and has been heightened by a global construction market.


192


Increased trade globally has led to the introduction of a plethora of new products and processes. These have also helped to drive down cost (although time and quality have also been factors, although perhaps secondary). Organisations are finding themselves in an era of inherent competition to stay ahead of the game, and thus are turning towards new innovative practices. Thus, innovation is high on the global construction agenda. The two schools of thought proposed by Domain 8, will go towards helping to assess the impact of PBB innovation from a holistic perspective – a new product or process may improve a particular situation but may cause snags latter down the supply chain for instance. It is important to recognise this at the outset so that an informed decision can be made of whether to introduce the innovation to the project.


A series of 3 stimulus papers and 4 workshops were used to form the body of research from October 2001 through till September 2005. The stimulus papers provided indicative scenarios to which the Domain members were invited to respond to by providing illustrations/ case study examples that either supported or refuted the scenarios. These were presented and further discussed at the subsequent workshop. The findings were summarised, and which in turn directed the next stage of the research. Regular email discussion between the Domain members ensued high-level network engagement throughout the course of the project. Members have contributed to all the requests for information and also been in attendance at the Workshops. We have a number of members who do not attend meetings but contribute in other ways by replying to requests for information and giving constructive feedback on Domain 8 Reports. The Domain 8 Task Group has produced significant mono-discipline insights into the innovation aspects of performance based building. The Domain 8 Task Leader, However, has recognised that successful innovation through performance based building requires multi-disciplinary inputs from all of the Domains within the PeBBu project. This fertile integrated focus has been provided by the Domain 8 led Delphi Study whose international panel was made up of members from all nine PeBBu domains as well as other international research networks investigating diverse aspects of PBB. The results from the Delphi Study thus accommodate and reflect diverse stakeholder and issue perspectives to provide a more holistic and systemic picture. Contact Domain Leader for further information: Professor Peter Barrett, University of Salford. E: [email protected] or T: +44 (0)161 295 3176


The Domain 8 work has produced a robust concept model, which identifies and integrates the key elements needed to bring about successful innovation through performance based building. This concept model has been given a strong focus through national perspectives and examples of good practice, and the outputs of the Domain 8 led Delphi Study which has provided a consensus definition of performance based building along with associated key stakeholders and measures to drive, monitor and improve performance based building.


193

8. Acknowledgements

Due thanks should be made to all the Domain members whom responded to the papers and attended the workshops, without which this work could not have been undertaken. Special mention must also be made of Anna Higson, and to Ali Beckman, whom co-ordinated the members and helped to compile the project documentation.


194

A n n e x 1 . 9 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 9 : I n f o r m a t i o n & A n n e x 1 . 9 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r D o m a i n 9 : I n f o r m a t i o n & D o c u m e n t a t i o nD o c u m e n t a t i o n


Information & Documentation:

Task Report

1. Overview

Domain Leader: Prof. Colin H. Davidson, Univ. of Montreal, Canada. Domain Members: Davidson C., Univ. of Montreal, Canada; Jasuja M., CIBdf, Netherlands;

Kelly A., ABCB, Australia; Parthoens J., BBRI, Belgium; Stoykova E., SEC, Bulgaria; Netopilová M., VSB, Czech Republic; Stang B., DBRI, Denmark; Morand P., CSTB, France; Gunnigan L., DIT, Ireland; Wassermen R., TECHNION, Israel; Kaklauskas A., Un. VGTU, Lithuania; Trinkunas V., Un. VGTU, Lithuania; Bramwell J., CIBdf, Netherlands; Hartjes A., SBR, Netherlands; Woestenenk K., STABU, Netherlands; van der Klauw R., TNO, Netherlands; Batorowicz B., ASM, Poland; Rutkowska V., ASM, Poland; Weglarz A., KAPE, Poland; Bartkiewicz P., WUT, Poland; Matiasovsky P., ICA, Slovakia; Sedlak P., TUZ, Slovakia; Sternova Z., VVUPS, Slovakia; Olofsdotter B., FORMAS, Sweden; Dimitrijevic B., Univ. of Strathclyde, UK; Beller D, NFPA, United States

Domain Website: www.grif.umontreal.ca click on "réseau" (or on "English" and then on "Network") and then on the CIB W102 icon.

http://www.PeBBu.nl/maincomponents/scientificdomains/terminateddomains/domain9/

2. Scope and Objectives:

The original proposal envisaged establishing a task-oriented international network of researchers and subsequently of practitioners concerned by and involved with performance based building (PBB). It is our belief that adoption of the performance approach to the design of buildings (PBB) and the subsequent specification of materials and products imposes novel requirements on the flow of information within and into the building process. While the adoption of the performance approach is not the only change that is impacting on the information requirements of the building process (the adoption of

T-09

Task name: T-09: Information & Documentation

Task leader(s):

Prof. Colin Davidson, Universi ty of Montreak, Canada


195

electronic communications and e-business, for example, are changing the way information can, and probably should, be made available to decision-makers), it has significant consequences.

Hypotheses: Problem areas concern, for example: The information required in order to proceed from the functional programming step to establishing

appropriate performance criteria. The information required in order to evaluate the performance characteristics of a design in the

course of its being developed. The information required in order to specify materials and products in performance terms. They are problem areas in the sense that not only are new kinds of information required (and they are often hard to come by) but also because the professional decision-makers will be working in novel ways and will be expecting that the information be presented to them in new forms and in new sequences. Bearing in mind the contextual changes occurring at the same time (the adoption of electronic communications and e-business, for example), it can readily be understood that there is a double challenge to be taken up. Research that is required to ‘flesh out’ the domain (and consequently provide the basis for the proposed network) by, for example, addressing the following points: The problem areas. The information acquisition habits. The need for information integration.

3. Conceptual Framework:

We have stated our understanding of the main problem areas in adopting the performance approach - in the form of the above hypotheses. On the strength of them, we have some feeling for the key information requirements that this approach implies, even if we know that much of this information is hard to come by and hard to use. We are therefore interested in exploring ways so that such information as there is can be accessed. In other words, we plan to develop models of the interfaces between the designer, the specifier and the manufacturer in order to see what kinds of ‘keys’ are most appropriate to gain access to the information that is required at a given stage in the building design and construction process. To do this adequately, we need to know more about: The problem areas. Do our hypotheses correspond to reality as perceived by those who are working

on the performance approach? Is there a more detailed understanding of these problem areas and how they are broken down?

The information acquisition habits. Do the decision-makers change the ways they access information when they are working with the performance approach?

The need for information integration. While it is well known that to write a performance specification for a brick is easy but that it is not very useful per se, what work is being done to develop ‘integrated’ performance information (about performance criteria or performance characteristics)? Where is it being done? How can the much needed guidance be disseminated to those who prepare integrated performance information or to those who use it?

4. Methodology and Process:

Two workshops were organised and held in Belgrade (June, 2002) and Glasgow (June 2003).


196

Delegates made presentations. These described initiatives bearing primarily on PBB as such and not on the scope and objectives of Domain 9, namely the information problems engendered by (or related to) PBB. In order to clarify the matter, the Domain Leader prepared a conceptual model of the information requirements associated with the various steps of the building design and production process; the model emphasise d the likely kinds of information that would be required at each step, showing how it shifted from humanities-related to technical-commercial as a project advances. The model was accompanied by variants corresponding to differing procurement strategies. Papers were solicited and received from interested delegates; with a few exceptions, they were characterized by same broad focus (PBB as such, mentioned above) and failed to address the specific problem of concern. In other words, it was becoming clear that PBB-related information was not a well-understood subject. A two-pronged Internet survey was then conducted: a) a search on the sites of all CIB full members and b) a general web survey. Both surveys used keywords aimed at identifying work related to the theme of Domain 9. Surprisingly, the two surveys yielded no new useful or pertinent indications about work related to what we have called PBB-related information.

5. State of the Art:

We were forced to the conclusion that there is no "state-of-the-art" to be reported on. There appear to be virtually no protagonists who could usefully be coordinated through a network as originally envisaged. It was therefore decided at the Glasgow meeting to recommend the closure of Domain 9 and to develop an alternative plan of action. This is described in the section "Proposed Research Agenda" below.

Inter-relations with other Domains/Tasks:

Only informal exchanges took place with members of other PeBBu domains or their leaders, other than by participating in PeBBu meetings held in Amsterdam and in Budapest.

Proposed Research Agenda:

Because of our findings that virtually no work is being done into what we now can "the problem of information about information" in the construction sector, and bearing in mind CIB's proactive initiatives under the broad heading of "Agenda 21 … ", a proposal was prepared regarding an international initiative that seemed appropriate and necessary. The document bears the title: Agenda 21 Information and Documentation and bears the date October 2004. The executive summary of this document reads as follows:

The building industry is seen to be recalcitrant in terms of improving its efficiency and adopting innovative ways of working; there are explanations for this, placing responsibility on the structure of the industry and on its use of information for decision-making. Re-engineering, systematic procurement and performance based building (PBB) are recent initiatives that impact on the use of information, i.e. on the 'information problem'.

Little work has been done on this 'information problem' – or more exactly, on the problem of information about information in the building sector. This suggests that research into this problem and its consequences is urgently needed, since information – in its two forms: general and project-specific – is an essential ingredient of all decision-making and of all knowledge enrichment.


197

The building industry is highly fragmented and its participants work in contexts that are unfavorable to good communication and, above all, unfriendly to the systematic acquisition of information, even if it is recognised as necessary to support the many decisions that must be made.

A conceptual model of the nature of information flows in the building process show what kinds of information are required at various phases of that process, within the context set by the chosen procurement strategies. However, it is necessary to understand the other changes that are afoot and recognise that they have repercussions on the nature and use of information, in order to see (a) in what ways they affect what information is needed and how it can be handled and, conversely, (b) whether the availability and use of well-adapted information might not in fact facilitate these changes.

Research into information should therefore be linked to the three complementary areas (re-engineering, procurement and PBB) in the form of a coordinated program of research projects, starting with (but not limited to) the two-way impact of information on PBB and vice versa. This program of work should build on the scarce (but valuable) work that is being done in various centres or groups scattered worldwide.

A number of research questions are proposed, together with possible research hypotheses. Research proposals have to be solicited and should be coordinated internationally to optimize the use of research resources which are rare in this domain.

This research program excludes studies of performance based building as such and it is not about information technology per se.

Funding for the program is not discussed, but obviously has to be a matter of concern if the best resources are to be mobilized and effectively coordinated.

This document has been widely circulated a) within CIB; over 150 copies were distributed to participants at the recent CIB gathering in Helsinki and b) within the Collaborative Network for Building Research – CNBR. Presently, about 20 researchers from many countries are responding positively to a proposal to form a group of persons interested in a) setting up a network of contacts and b) preparing a joint research proposal for submission to an international funding body. CIB declares its moral support for the Agenda proposal. This proposal is the subject of on-going work.

Incentives for PBB implementation:

Since the proposal described above is outside of PeBBu, this section does not apply. It should be stressed that PBB is only one of several features of the contemporary economic and technical environment that should be stimulating an interest in the information problem that concerns us here.

6. Dissemination and Implementation:

Though the Agenda 21 initiative just described falls outside the European-Union sponsored PeBBu project, it is no doubt interesting to report that considerable interest is building up around the proposal. A plan for implementing the proposal has been outlined in a form that is suitable for a truly international initiative aimed at a) networking researchers involved with the problem of information about information, and b) developing a coordinated set of activities on this subject.


198

7. Conclusions:

The Domain 9 project was terminated early, because it was found that there is an almost total lack of work specifically focused on information and documentation related to performance based building. Instead, it seemed pertinent to address the more fundamental and truly international problem of information about information outside the constraints of the European-Union funded PeBBu project. This is now gathering momentum.


199

A n n e x 1 . 1 0 : T a sA n n e x 1 . 1 0 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 1 : O w n e r s / k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 1 : O w n e r s / U s e r s / M a n a g e r s U s e r P l a t f o r mU s e r s / M a n a g e r s U s e r P l a t f o r m


User Platform 1: Bui lding Owners,

Users, & Managers: Task Report


The purpose of the User Platform was to establish a group of senior clients, owners and users of buildings and other constructed assets, who had particular interest, and expertise in the delivery and operation of buildings and infrastructure from a Performance point of view. The group was to assess and guide work underway in defined research areas within the nine PeBBu Domains. The specific objectives for each of the three User Platforms were:

• To engage high level representatives of actual PBB stakeholders in decision making on the programme as to be performed by the PeBBu Network and in the evaluation of the results of this programme

• To stimulate and facilitate input of the PBB actual stakeholders opinions into the programming and execution of international PBB related research and dissemination projects during all stages of the PeBBu Network programme.

• To prepare for the respective stakeholders support to future implementation activities. The responses showed that the respondents believed that the design brief and design stage were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. This finding is in many ways reinforced by a later question that found that the materials and components and the whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on. This User Platform allows an assessment to be made of interest in performance based building to be made at two levels. The first is within those associated with the project where there was a lot of support and enthusiasm, but this is in stark contrast to the initial support from owners, users and managers. The

T-10

Task name: T-10: User Platform 1 representing: Building Owners, Users, and Managers

Task leader(s):

Dr. Tim Yates, BRE, United Kingdom, email [email protected] Dr. Josephine Prior, BRE, United Kingdom, email [email protected]


200

questionnaire received better support but there is clearly a considerable gulf between the enthusiasm of the academic world for PBB and the actual uptake of those responsible for buildings.


The specific objectives for each of the three User Platforms were: • To engage high level representatives of actual PBB stakeholders in decision making on the

programme as to be performed by the PeBBu Network and in the evaluation of the results of this programme

• To stimulate and facilitate input of the PBB actual stakeholders opinions into the programming and execution of international PBB related research and dissemination projects during all stages of the PeBBu Network programme.

• To prepare for the respective stakeholders support to future implementation activities. The User Platform was also available to make incidental responses at the request of the Network Secretariat to selected strategic network documents, for which the inclusion of the respective stakeholders opinions wa important, including in particular:

• Strategic programming documents per PeBBu Domain • Definition of the needs for research as to be included in the structure for the PeBBu Mapping

activity Within the work plan of the User Platforms, two workshops were envisaged during duration of the PeBBu Project. The first of these workshops was planned for the 2nd of October, 2003 in Brussels, Belgium. However, this was postponed (see below). As a result of this cancellation it was decided to develop a questionnaire as an alternative approach and so the second workshop planned to take place in the first half of 2005 was cancelled and a presentation on the questionnaire made at the CIB Conference in Helsinki.



The establishment of the User Platforms, including User Platform 1 has proved to be a very difficult process. The initial plan was that the Platform would be established soon by the time the first report that synthesised the findings of the nine Domains was complete and that the User Platforms would then discuss this document and provide a ‘steer’ for the later Domain meetings. As such, the User Platforms were a key part to play in the overall programme and as they provided a feedback mechanism for the researchers in the Domains. The first user platform meeting was scheduled for October 2nd 2003 in Brussels but it was postponed for a number of reasons. These reasons included: not being able to attract enough high-level organisations since PeBBu was still in a more theoretical stage of research and development and it was premature to expect such high-level representatives in a meeting without any funding. In addition, there were a number of unexpected cancellations amongst those expected to attend due to illnesses and holidays. As a result of the problems with the first workshop it was decided that alternative approaches to facilitate the required input into the PeBBu network of the interest of actual stakeholder representatives should be examined. One of the proposed new approaches, which seem feasible and practical at that time, was to approach the respective stakeholders in all user platforms individually. Another suggested approach was to conduct a survey amongst building owners, municipalities, construction firms, etc. to judge their interest and knowledge and then approach them to join this user platform. The aim was to obtain 10-15 key and interesting stakeholders in the platforms.


201

The agree alternative approach was a combination of the two alternatives - to identify stake holders through the domain members and national contacts and to ask them to complete a short questionnaire developed specifically for the User Platform and made available via the BRE website (http://www.bre.co.uk/PeBBu_questionnaire/). The questionnaire was completed and made available in May 2005 and the first results presented during the PeBBu Session at the CIB Conference in Helsinki, June 2005.


The main conclusions from the questionnaire responses are that:

• Many owners and users have heard of performance based building and see it as a helpful approach.

• Although they their experience is limited they would be willing to be involved in PBB projects

but there is a concern about the drafting of specifications in the performance base format. • They see PBB as stimulating innovation and allowing a wider range of solutions which can

provide a more functional building.

• Currently it is perceived that PBB is most appropriate at the design stage – both for new build and for refurbishment/change of use. PBB appears to be making less of an impact at other stages – particularly during the actual use and occupation of the building.

• There is a greater emphasis on the materials and the building envelope than on what takes

place within the building. The questionnaire also asked the respondents to identify topics and areas which they believed needed to be addressed in order to increase the uptake of PBB. The main ones identified were:

• Innovation – presumably examining the ways in which PBB can stimulate innovation. • Fire engineering – particularly smoke control and people’s behaviour. • Measurement – some metric is required to assess to benefits of PBB – something that goes

beyond cost. • Legal responsibility for defects – who is responsible if something does go wrong or where the

new approach makes traditional responsibilities unclear. • Internal environments – this seems to be an area where owners and users have seen very

limited impact from PBB. • Exemplar buildings/projects – well documented examples of successful project are required to

support future projects.


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished 1st Workshop – October 2003 Planned but cancelled due to lack of support 2nd Workshop – Spring 2005 Held as part of the CIB Conference June 2005 Helsinki Circulation of Questionnaire – May to August 2005 Circulated as scheduled. Final Report of User Platform 1 Delivered as planned

3.4 State of the Art Review


202

The User Platforms are different from the other Domains in that they were not required to produce a state of the art document since their main objective was to act as a focal point for the collection of the views and ideas of stakeholders.


Planned external deliverables - for all three User Platforms

Year 2: 1st Workshop Report including: i) assessment of ongoing and planned PeBBu activities - in particular the Domain related ones - against

the perceived needs for R&D as defined by the represented PBB stakeholders ; ii) updated stakeholders. advice as concerns future PBB related research and implementation activities

and an indication of how to organise such implementation activities in general and how to include the represented organisations in particular.

Year 4: 2nd Workshop Report Milestones and Criteria Milestones for the three PeBBu User Platforms was defined as: the production of the 1st and 2nd Workshop Report respectively by 1st August 2003 and 1st August 2005. In the light of the reluctance of building owners, users, and managers to be involved with the first workshop it was necessary to revise the deliverables/milestones and to concentrate on the final report which places the findings from the questionnaire in context and provides a benchmark of the current uptake of PBB by senior stakeholders responsible for the operation of buildings.


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Workshop Report 1 (Not complete due to cancellation of the Workshop)

To inform the R&D agenda for the Domains

Internal to PeBBu Domains This would have been circulated internally via PeBBu via Website

Report on Questionnaire Findings and Final Task Report

To establish a benchmark for PBB in amongst Owners, Users and Managers

Building Owners, Users and Managers EU Project Leader

Circulation to all respondents and PeBBu Domains and EU


This User Platform allows an assessment to be made of interest in performance based building to be made at two levels. The first is within those associated with the project where there was a lot of support and enthusiasm, but this is in stark contrast to the initial support from owners, users and managers. The questionnaire received better support but there is clearly a considerable gulf between the enthusiasm of the academic world for PBB and the actual uptake of those responsible for buildings.


This Task is not expected to have any great impact in Europe or worldwide but it has been important in clarifying the gap between the latest research thinking and the uptake by high level stakeholders.


203


The User Platform workshop organised for October 2003 required many efforts for attracting high-level representatives from the user, industry and standardisation fields. However, this approach proved futile in most cases due to the non-interest of the people as the PeBBu programme was perceived as being mainly ‘academic and theoretical’. As is stated in the Scientific and Technical Assessment, other approaches were then considered and these have proved more effective. The User Platforms are different from the other Domains in that they do not have actual members to support the Task Leader and so it is not possible to comment on the ‘dedication to the tasks’ of individual partners. However, the inclusion of the national contact and others domain leaders in the development and circulation of the questionnaire greatly improved the outcome of the Task. The use of national contacts to provide local support in a wide range of locations has been successful and is certainly a useful method for any future work. Contact detail for follow up: Dr Tim Yates , BRE, email [email protected]


The responses to the questionnaire showed that the respondents believed that the design brief and design stage were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. The whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on. The questionnaire also asked the respondents to identify topics and areas which they believed needed to be addressed in order to increase the uptake of PBB. The main ones identified were:

• Innovation – presumably examining the ways in which PBB can stimulate innovation. • Fire engineering – particularly smoke control and people’s behaviour. • Measurement – some metric is required to assess to benefits of PBB – something that goes

beyond cost. • Legal responsibility for defects – who is responsible if something does go wrong or where the

new approach makes traditional responsibilities unclear. • Internal environments – this seems to be an area where owners and users have seen very

limited impact from PBB. • Exemplar buildings/projects – well documented examples of successful project are required to

support future projects. This User Platform allows an assessment to be made of interest in performance based building to be made at two levels. The first is within those associated with the project where there was a lot of support and enthusiasm, but this is in stark contrast to the initial support from owners, users and managers. The questionnaire received better support but there is clearly a considerable gulf between the enthusiasm of the academic world for PBB and the actual uptake of those responsible for buildings.

8. Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of the other Domain leaders and the National Contact Persons.


204

A n n e x 1 . 1 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 2 : B u i l d i n g A n n e x 1 . 1 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 2 : B u i l d i n g & C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y & C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y


User Platform 2 Building & Construction

Industry: Task Report


In order to obtain the views of the relevant industry sector on the Performance Based Building approach, a User Platform was set up with high level representatives of European stakeholder organisations of the building and construction industry. This concept received too little response and therefore the work plan had to be altered. Representatives of the building and construction industry were approached through a questionnaire developed for this purpose. The results are compiled in a final report and a research agenda.


The User Platform is one of the communication means with the major stakeholders in the field, in this case, User Platform 2, the building and construction industry: construction companies, contractors, design and engineering offices, manufacturers of construction products and building components, assessors of innovation, project managers acting on behalf of the client. The overall objectives are: ⋅ to engage high level representatives of actual PBB stakeholders in decision making and in the evaluation

of the results of this programme ⋅ to stimulate and facilitate the input of PBB actual stakeholders’ opinions into the programming and

execution of international PBB related research and dissemination projects ⋅ to prepare for the respective stakeholders support to future implementation activities

T-11

Task name: T-11: User Platform Building & Construction Industry

Task leader

Luk Vandaele, BBRI, Belgium, [email protected]


205



A first workshop with representative stakeholders was scheduled to be hold in Brussels, Belgium, at the BBRI head office, on 2nd October 2003, following a series of other PeBBu meetings (regional platform, technical committee). Representatives from the major European stakeholders in the construction community were invited. However, for a number of reasons, too few people were able or interested to attend. Therefore, the meeting was cancelled. After the Mid Term Assessment, it was decided to alter the working method for this task. It was deemed more efficient to approach the stakeholders in a different way through a questionnaire. This questionnaire has been developed by the task leader in collaboration with Prof. Rachel Becker of Technion University, Israel. First try-out of the questionnaire was done with 2 major Belgian building contractors and a consulting engineer. It proved to be too specific for the respondents. Therefore, it was decided at the Porto meeting to reshape/tailor it to the specific respondents. A request to national contacts to distribute it on a national level was not successful. Since the questionnaire form was a bit too heavy for handling and for attracting people to commit themselves to complete it, it was tried to ease the handling by introducing an electronic interactive form, made in Designer and distributed as a pdf file. Even then it was not very successful and only few people took the effort to complete it. In a last attempt, after suggestions at the regional platform meeting in Delft, 25th August 2005, the questionnaire was transformed into an internet based format, linked to a database to collect the responses. The questionnaire was available via a hyperlink on the PeBBu domain. However, interaction with the national contacts was still very poor and only few replies were received.


The questionnaires were sent out to all (27 addresses) national contacts with the request to contact at least five representative professionals from the building and construction industry in the own country: manufacturers of building products or systems, building contractors, performance assessors, architects, consulting engineers, project managers, … Only few national contacts tried to do so: Belgium (to 15 professionals), the Netherlands (11 addressees), Greece (to 40 contacts, no reply at all), Portugal, …Several tried to complete the questionnaire but found it very complete but too heavy to handle. Responses on the questionnaire came from a limited number of companies from Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal. Although the overall response was very poor, the limited number of responses gave quite interesting results. A number of suggestions were done for further research. These are compiled in the research agenda of the task.


206


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Organisation of workshops with European industry representatives

Cancelled due to limited response

Enquiry via national contacts Distribution of questionnaire Distribute questionnaires Done by Belgium and The Netherlands Compile results from questionnaires Very limited response Research agenda available Final report available


The final report reflects the views and their level of acquaintance with the PBB concept. A research agenda has been formulated based on the responses.


Questionnaire, both in interactive pdf format and as an internet based electronic form. Research agenda Final report


Results of the enquiry will be presented to the participants and to the representative stakeholders at European level.


The task was confronted with a difficult challenge to attract high level representatives from the European building and construction industry. The first attempt to organise a meeting with invitees from European stakeholder organisations was a failure and it had to be cancelled due to the too limited response. Apparently these people were not ready to invest their time in a discussion of a too academic concept compared to the daily needs and problems of their companies. At the Mid-term meeting an alteration of the work plan was proposed and accepted. This new work plan was further developed and discussed at the Technical Committee meeting in Porto, 19th November 2004. The final approach was to develop the questionnaire and to seek interaction with representatives from the building and construction industry through a series of tailored questions. The interaction with and support from the national contacts of the PeBBu consortium was However, very poor and the timing of the action was rather unfortunate. This resulted in poor response.


The final result of the user platform Building and Construction Industry is a questionnaire of which the results are compiled in the final report and a research agenda.


207

A n n e x A n n e x 1 . 1 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 3 : I n t e r n a t i o n a l 1 . 1 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r U s e r P l a t f o r m 3 : I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d i s a t i o n & C o n f o r m i t yS t a n d a r d i s a t i o n & C o n f o r m i t y


User Platform 3: International

Standardisation & Conformity: Task Report


The purpose of the International Pre-Standardization Platform was: To stimulate and facilitate the transfer of Performance Based Buildings research results and pre-normative knowledge into (pre-) standardization processes. To stimulate and facilitate the transfer of actual knowledge about the characteristics of Performance Based Buildings standardization issues into their respective research projects. To facilitate co-ordination between International, European/regional and National Standards Bodies in the area of into (pre-) standardization processes associated with Performance Based Building The specific objectives for the Platform were:

3. The organisation and provision of two international workshops towards the beginning and the end of the Thematic Network programme.

4. The provision of a detailed report which will include: International status concerning the inclusion of the principals of Performance Based Building in

National, European/Regional and International Standards An assessment of results available from research on Performance Based Building as concerns

possibilities for inclusion in Standards together with an indication of further research required in support of future standardization.

Recommendations to standards organisations. It was considered that the International move towards Performance Based Buildings and the development of Performance Based regulations and codes indicated that International interest in the PeBBu project will be strong.

T-12

Task name: T-12: User Platform International Standardisat ion and Conformity

Task leader

Nigel Smithies, BRE, UK, [email protected]


208

In order for ongoing work in the development of performance based buildings and performance based concepts to be implemented or applied it was considered necessary for the requirements to be embodied in Standards, Code and Regulations. The main Standardisation bodies were regarded as including ISO, CEN, CENELEC, ANSI, ASTM etc. However, it quickly became apparent that collective communication with the main Standardisation bodies was not practical or beneficial to the project as the development of standards takes place within the Technical Committees and Sub-Committees. Some Technical Committees and Sub-Committees were identified – in particular within ISO and CEN and although the brief for the Standards bodies is to produce performance based standards where ever possible, it became apparent that many of the standards under development were equipment/product standards and a large conceptual leap and a considerable period of gestation/development would be required to establish any meaningful understanding of the PeBBu concept within the product standard community. The definition of standardisation bodies and pre-standardisation bodies was then widened considerably to include Regulators, Code Developers, Technical Approvals Bodies, Building Code Officials etc and a meeting was convened in Brussels. It was quickly recognised that the development objectives within PeBBu would interact with aspects of the Essential Requirements as covered by the EU Construction Products Directive (CPD) therefore a new Task was established – Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive (CPD) under the leadership of Eric Winnepennincks, Luck Vandaele and Piet Vitse of the Belgium Building Research Institute. Therefore the bulk of the initial interest in pre-standardisation had now moved significantly into the area of standards, codes, approval bodies and European Directives, this making the interested parties even more product standardisation focused and prescriptively biased. Presentations were given to several Technical Committees within ISO including TC21 and TC 92 – the two main fire safety committees.


The specific objectives for the Platform were:

1. The organisation and provision of two international workshops towards the beginning and the end of the Thematic Network programme.

2. The provision of a detailed report which will include: International status concerning the inclusion of the principals of Performance Based Building in

National, European/Regional and International Standards An assessment of results available from research on Performance Based Building as concerns

possibilities for inclusion in Standards together with an indication of further research required in support of future standardization.

Recommendations to standards organisations. The Platform was also there to generally promote the concept of performance based objectives or criteria within the standardisation arena and help promote the general movement away from the traditional area of highly prescriptive codes and standards.




209

The establishment of the User Platforms, including User Platform 3 proved to be a very difficult process. The initial plan was that the Platform would be established soon by the time the first report that synthesised the findings of the nine Domains was complete and that the User Platforms would then discuss this document and provide a ‘steer’ for the later Domain meetings. As such, the User Platforms were a key part to play in the overall programme and as they provided a feedback mechanism for the researchers in the Domains. The main standardisation/pre-standardisation platform meeting was held in Brussels on 24 June 2003. The main attendees were from European organisations including CEN Secretariat, EOTA and the European Commission. It became apparent during the course of a series of presentations that the development objectives within PeBBu would interact with aspects of the Essential Requirements as covered by the EU Construction Products Directive (CPD) and subsequently, following a second meeting in Belgium on 1 October 2003, a new Task was established – Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive (CPD) under the leadership of Eric Winnepennincks, Luck Vandaele and Piet Vitse of the Belgium Building Research Institute. A planned final meeting of Platform 3 was not held, However, Presentations were given to several Technical Committees within ISO including TC21 and TC 92 – the two main fire safety committees.


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished 1st Workshop – Early 2003 Held 23 June 2003 2nd Workshop – Late 2004/ Early 2005 Not held due to change in emphasis and direction

regarding EU Construction Products Directive (CPD) 3. Final Report Not delivered due to change in work scope and

objectives 4. Task Report to the EU Delivered


The User Platforms are different from the other Domains in that they were not required to produce a state of the art document since their main objective was to act as a focal point for the collection of the views and ideas of stakeholders.


Planned external deliverables - for all three User Platforms Year 2 1st Workshop Report including: iii) assessment of ongoing and planned PeBBu activities - in particular the Domain related ones -

against the perceived needs for R&D as defined by the represented PBB stakeholders ;

iv) updated stakeholders. advice as concerns future PBB related research and implementation activities and an indication of how to organise such implementation activities in general and how to include the represented organisations in particular.

Year 4 2nd Workshop Report

Milestones and Criteria


210

Milestones for the three PeBBu User Platforms were defined as: the production of the 1st and 2nd Workshop Report respectively by 1st August 2003 and 1st August 2005.



This Platform aroused considerable European interest largely because it was perceived as a new initiative which might interfere with other developments within the European Arena – in particular the EU Directives and the Essential l requirements of the Construction Products Directive. The initiative did further raise the profile of moves towards performance based codes and standards. However, it is a relatively slow transition from prescriptive codes and standards to performance based ones and there is a significant amount of resistance to the move as manufacturers and enforcers find that performance based quantitative objective criteria are both difficult to set and measure.


This Task is not expected to have any great impact in Europe or worldwide but it has been important in clarifying the gap between the latest research thinking and the uptake by high level stakeholders.


The User Platforms are different from the other Domains in that they do not have actual members to support the Task Leader and so it is not possible to comment on the ‘dedication to the tasks’ of individual partners etc. Contact detail for follow up: Nigel Smithies, BRE, email [email protected]


Initially the main Pre Standardisation and Standardisation bodies were regarded as including CIB, ISO, CEN, CENELEC, ANSI, ASTM etc. However, collective communication with the main Standardisation bodies was not practical or beneficial to the project as the development of standards takes place within the Technical Committees and Sub-Committees. Some Technical Committees and Sub-Committees were identified – in particular within ISO and CEN and although the brief for the Standards bodies is to produce performance based standards where ever possible, it became apparent that many of the standards under development were equipment/product standards and a large conceptual leap and a considerable period of gestation/development would be required to establish any meaningful understanding of the PeBBu concept within the product standard community. The main result/benefit of this Platform has been the general publicity and communication with the Standardisation bodies, Regulators and Enforcers which has continued the general awakening of individuals regarding the concept and meaning of Performance based Codes and Standards.

8. Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of the other Domain leaders and the National Contact Persons and the PeBBu Secretariat.


211

A n n e x 1 . 1 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 1 : N o r t h A n n e x 1 . 1 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 1 : N o r t h E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r mE u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m


Regional Platform North Europe:

Task Report


The objectives for the North European Platform is to stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the PeBBu activities and national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the Nordic countries and the Baltic states. Specific objective to this regional platform at the project outset was to engage additional member-/observers from the region and in special from those countries not originally participating. New members/observers are attracted from • Norway • Iceland • Estonia • Lithuania; the member has not been active • Sweden (industrial and standard institute observers) The Platform has performed the three Workshops scheduled in the project programme, and a number of additional Nordic and national workshops and seminars. The Platform network has aligned with other projects, e.g. on Lifetime Engineering and LCC, and standardisation networks with the purpose to support efficient stimulation and facilitation of PBB. National PBB Platforms have been established in Sweden and Norway. A number of project programmes and applications for funding have been launched on basis of the PeBBu networking and project results. A North European PBB State-of-the-Art and the regional perception of R&D needs is summarised in this report.

T-13

Task name: T-13: Regional Platform North Europe

Task leader

Prof. Christer Sjöström, KTH, Sweden, chri ster [email protected]


212


The objectives for each of the four Regional Platforms are to stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the international PeBBu activities and national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the countries that participate in PeBBu, through:

• stimulation and facilitation of the programming of such national activities • facilitation of the input of typical national and regional characteristics into the international

programming of the international PeBBu activities • preparation for future national PBB implementation activities, including the national dissemination of

PeBBu results, and in support of achieving those objectives:

• to initiate and facilitate the establishment of National or Transnational PeBBu Platforms in the region, which includes:

• support to defining the scope and objectives of such platforms • support to the establishment of required financial support structures for such platforms in

collaboration with the PeBBu Secretariat and aiming for international financial support from the EU and other international sources

• support to regional, transnational and national PeBBu related events. Specific Scope and Objectives of the North European Platform are:

• To involve additional Members/Observers in the PeBBu Network from the following already represented countries: Sweden. Finland and Denmark

• To attract new PeBBu Members/Observers from the following, not yet represented countries: Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia


Workshops The PeBBu North European Platform has in accordance with the Work Programme held three Workshops with different themes. Workshop 1, Stockholm, 4 September 2003, focussed a review of each of the PeBBu Scientific Domains work programme and the so far reported state-of-the-art for each Domain. The scrutiny was based on specific North European perception and priorities. The Workshop gathered 13 delegates from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Estonia, and in addition UK (PeBBu central SotA reporting) and the Netherlands (PeBBu officers). The delegates mainly represented North European PeBBu membership but also commercial construction sector organisations and building materials producers. Workshop 2, Stockholm, 29 October 2004, took the form of a thematic seminar/workshop with the chosen theme “Performance Based Procurement (PBP) – a way to meet end-user requirements”, as PBP is a highly focussed and prioritised issue in the region. The Workshop had the ambition to mirror all aspects of Performance Based Building from the perspective of the design and procurement process. In addition the Workshop aligned with and included presentations on other ongoing PBB relevant projects and activities with clear anchoring in the region, e.g. a Nordic study on “LCC in building and construction”, the Nordic perception of the implementation and further development of the CPD, the Nordic input and work with Lifetime Engineering Methods. The Workshop, co-arranged together with BIC (the Swedish Construction Sector Innovation Centre), gathered 22 delegates from 7 countries. The workshop concluded with a listing of Observations, expressed as Challenges and Opportunities. Workshop 3, Helsinki, 10 June 2005, focussed specifically on establishing an agreed input to the PeBBu R&D Agenda. The 8 present delegates representing the northern region PeBBu members established the basis


213

for an R&D Agenda that also included identified challenges and opportunities for innovation and market implementation issues. In addition to the above programme-scheduled workshops a number of national and Nordic meetings, seminars, and workshops have been held. Some main events are reported below: • Information Meeting on PeBBu in general and Domain 1 in specific to Swedish market actors and

stakeholders, 19 June 2002, Stockholm, Sweden 23 national Swedish participants • Workshop on “Performance Based Building – the road to satisfied customers?”, 2 April 2003,

Stockholm, arranged by BIC (the Construction Sector Innovation Centre), Formas (the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning), SIS (Swedish Standards Institute) and PeBBu (Domain 1 and the North European Regional Platform). About 30 participants from Swedish industry and authorities

• Nordic Workshop arranged by the Nordic project on “LCC in building and construction”, financed by the Nordic Industrial Fund, 10 November 2003, Stockholm. The workshop focussed environmental assessment, life cycle costing, the setting of performance requirements and key values, and gave important input to the PeBBu work

• Nordic Workshop arranged by the project on “LCC in building and construction”, 10 – 11 May 2004, Reykjavik, Iceland. The workshop was targeted on Service Lives and Service Life Planning. The PeBBu D1 work was contributed

• Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian/Icelandic meeting in Stockholm on standards for life cycle aspects in building, life performance and service life planning, and LCC, 31 August 2004, arranged by SIS and University of Gävle. About 25 delegates from building research entities and standardisation bodies in the above countries, the ministries of environment in Sweden and Finland, companies and authorities.


Membership New Members/Observers were, during the project period, received from: • Norway • Iceland • Estonia • Lithuania; the member has not been active • Sweden (industrial and standard institute observers) Members/Observers from Latvia have not been attracted. National Platforms Two national platforms have been organised. • The Swedish National Platform is established via BIC (the Construction Sector Innovation Centre).

The BIC network comprises some 30 Swedish member organisations, predominantly industrial but also R&D and authorities

• A Norwegian National Platform was organised during 2004. It is operated by the Norwegian Building Research Institute and the membership includes market actors, authorities and standardisation bodies

In Finland and Norway the PeBBu project has received input, and results have been disseminated via seminars and meetings arranged primarily on standardisation issues. Danish and Icelandic active participation in both PeBBu and other connecting projects, e.g. the Nordic Industrial Fund financed project


214

“LCC in building and construction” and the EU-funded LIFETIME network, has meant effective cross linking. Education and training In Sweden, PBB is highlighted in academic courses at KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) and University of Gävle, predominantly at courses focussing materials and building technologies. Training courses targeting professionals (design engineers, builders, real estate managers, e t c) are being arranged by SIS (Swedish Standards Institute) during the autumn 2005. The training courses focus the performance based standards ISO 15686 on Service Life Planning and are primarily an outcome of the work by PeBBu D1 Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components. A guidebook on the service life planning process and the use of the ISO standards has been published in Swedish. An English version is being printed as a co-operation between SIS and the PeBBu project and will be published by the SIS publishing house.


The following highlights are, in condensed format, the main observations of the three Workshops scheduled in the Work Programme, and disclose a Nordic perception of the subjects treated. PBB State-of-the-Art and Nordic perception (Workshop 1) The PBB concept is largely meeting an increasing interest in the north European region, but a coherent picture of the state of art and interest is not easy to perceive. A conclusion may be that the sector industry is in general showing active interest in realising possible benefits and opportunities by performance based building on an over-all perspective, but performance based concepts has generally not penetrated into daily business. In the Nordic countries the regulatory and juridical framework is largely adapted to performance based approaches. However, differences appear between the countries as well as between sub-sectors of building and construction within countries. The public sector, with road and railway management as examples, is a forerunner. Within the house building sector PBB has generally not been adopted. There is as well and generally a lack of understanding among market actors that a strive for “green solutions” or sustainable construction requires performance based approaches. With the wide scope of the PBB subject there exists neither a common apprehension of what a PBB path involves in terms of barriers, challenges, and opportunities, nor a common view on priorities in terms of actions needed nor R&D needs. The participants at the 1st North European Workshop, as a result of the performed scrutiny of the PeBBu project, expressed concern about the so far low participation by standardisation, regulatory and juridical bodies in the project. It would be premature, with reference to the state of the national SotA’s, to affirmatively conclude on national characteristics or differences in the north European region. However, some observations are: • the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, are in general at the same stage of

development, in spite of the fact that regulatory instruments and codes differ between the countries • Iceland has ratified the Construction Products Directive but has not reached as far in regulatory

adaptation as the rest of the Nordic countries. • The picture of the state of art in the Baltic countries is largely missing, but input at the 1st Platform

Workshop indicates that Performance Based Building is in a “cradle stage”, even if being met with interest. However, in the area of load bearing structures the former eastern countries very early adopted structural codes based on a performance concept.

The PeBBu project and the issues addressed are being met with interest, even if there are difficulties to initiate true concerted actions within the national markets.


215

Performance Based Procurement (Workshop 2) The Workshop concluded with the following Observations identified as Challenges and Opportunities, to Performance Based Procurement and Performance Based Building: • The legal level is not seen as a main problem or barrier, rather the market issues and how to promote

market implementation - provide good examples of Performance Based Building, establish well-documented demonstrators - show economic benefits of Performance Based Procurement and Performance Based Building

• Utilize the momentum on the market, which on a European level, is there partly due to the CPD (Construction Products Directive) and the EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, 2002/91/EC). The CPD implementation is vital, but - progress of instruments to support full implementation of the CPD on the market is too slow - resources are scarce for pro-active development of standards supporting the implementation of CPD and for marketing of existing standard approaches - pre- and co-normative R&D is not enough in focus, seemingly not at all by national funds and too scarce by the EU funding programs

• The role of clients; the competent and demanding client is a goal - focussed education and training programmes - educational material, handbooks, e t c - education and training is in general a vital issue and should be directed to all stakeholders in the building process - PBB should be given a strengthened role in relevant academic education

• Tools supporting approaches for Service Life Planning are needed • Maintenance and operation issues are not specifically addressed at the moment, but need to be more

pronounced in focus • Present concepts for dealing with intellectual property rights hamper innovation in construction and

hampers initiatives North European view on R&D –priorities (Workshop 3) The North European Platform, in its analysis and prioritisation of R&D, chose not to focus solely on R&D, but sought in addition to identify apparent Innovation and Market issues, as is also shown by the concluding Challenges and Opportunities from Workshop 2. The following is a summary of the R&D Agenda and accounts also for the outcome of Workshop 3. The summary is basically structured following the PeBBu project organisation in scientific domains, which implies certain overlaps and repetitions of R&D needs, priorities and goals. On a General Level there is a need for - handbooks on PBB, well-documented demo projects and case studies accounting for application and

experiences - evaluation tools for the entire building life cycle - adaptation of information (simplification) to meet user demands - dissemination and co-ordination of dissemination of information on PBB as part of a market creation - verification tools - improved communication between actors/stakeholders and users on the construction market - mechanism and methods for the transfer of performance requirements and knowledge including

verification tools between different users of information On the area Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components there is a need for - modelling of performance demand and supply, relating the building level with functional subsystems and

the materials/products level


216

- further development of and focus on the Reference Service Life concept. This should include information and training measures and campaigns, work on data base issues (formats, compliance with IFC standards, e t c), R&D-support to generate data and data quality, and guidance for modification of Reference Service Lives in a service life planning process. The necessary standards and other regulatory instruments are primarily at hand, but the implementation and data generation needs support.

- focus on standards and application of standards in the innovation process On the area Indoor Environment the needs focus - guidelines and tools for handling requirements, attributes, and solutions in the building process

including threshold values for demand of replacement - design tools - quality assurance measures to secure a healthy building outcome through the building process - evaluation tools for the whole building life On the area Design of Buildings the needs focus - application of IFC (Industrial Foundation Classes) standard approaches in the design process. - agreed approaches for management of performance information, which should include defining

performance requirements, comparing achieved design with requirements, accounting of service lives used in the service life planning process (to constitute e.g. the basis for maintenance plans and to handle a life cycle perspective)

- demonstration of benefits including demonstration of achievements, cost efficiency of PBB approach, traceability and verification

On the area Legal and Procurement Practices the needs and priorities are summarised as conclusions of Workshop 2 where the North European Platform also concluded that the Legal and Regulation issues are not considered to be a main problem or barrier, rather the market implementation of PBB. On the area Innovation the North European Platform concluded with an identification of a number of problems and questions not per se expressed as R&D issues or goals. - There seem to be a common understanding that Performance Based Building approaches stimulate

Innovation. Can this statement be proven, and if so, what is the stimulation mechanism? An ability to show a number of well-documented cases and/or general proofs may serve as good promotion of PBB.

- Part of the construction sector industry, e.g. the contractors, invest close to nothing in R&D, which creates well known problems. Innovation, on the other hand, may be solely market driven and not always an outcome of R&D, but does normally when occurring have effects on R&D. May market driven innovation initiated by PBB approaches act also as a stimulus to increased R&D investments?


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Contribution to international SotA Done Three Regional Workshops and Reports Done Formulation of national Platforms Achieved for Sweden and Norway Attracting new PeBBu observers and members from the region

Achieved for Norway, Iceland, Estonia and Lithuania

Publications See listing below Publications Skarendahl, Å., Sjöström, Ch., A Swedish National Platform on Performance Based Building, PeBBu News Article, April 2004


217

Sjöström, Ch., Lair, J., Performance Based Building – Some implications on Construction Materials and Components, proc. of the 2nd Int. Symposium on Integrated Lifetime Engineering of Buildings and Civil Infrastructures, ILCDES 2003, Kuopio, Finland, December 2003 (This article focuses primarily the Domain 1 work, but also introduces the complete PeBBu project) Sjöström, Ch., Caluwaerts, P., Jernberg, P., Haagenrud, S., Ilomäki, A., Davis, H., Product Declarations with respect to Durability – A progress report, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of building Materials and Components, Lyon 2005 Sjöström, Ch., EU-nätverk för funktionsbaserad byggprocess, (in Swedish), FORMAS magazine Miljöforskning, no 3, June 2002 Trinius, W., Sjöström, Ch., Chevalier, J.-L., Hans, J., Life Performance and innovation on construction materials and components, CIB symposium Combining Forces, Helsinki 2005 Trinius, W., Sjöström, Ch., Service Life Planning and Performance Requirements, Building Research and Information (March-April 2005) 33(2), 173-181 Trinius, W., Modules of Environmental Assessment related to durability and service life, 10DBMC International Conference on Durability of building Materials and Components, Lyon 2005


Please refer to the summarising conclusions from Workshop 2 and the R&D Agenda (Workshop 3)


Additional to the objectives that were identified for the establishment of regional platforms, no specific deliverables were required. The objectives to align the PeBBu activities with national research and dissemination activities through

• stimulation and facilitation of the programming of such national activities • facilitation of the input of typical national and regional characteristics into the international

programming of the international PeBBu activities • preparation for future national PBB implementation activities, including the national dissemination of

PeBBu results, and in support of achieving those objectives to to initiate and facilitate the establishment of regional PeBBu Platforms in the region, which includes:

• support to defining the scope and objectives of such platforms • support to the establishment of required financial support structures for such platforms in


• support to regional, and national PeBBu related events. Besides these common objectives for all regional platforms, the North European Platform more specifically should:

• involve additional Members/Observers in the PeBBu Network from the already represented countries Denmark, Finland and Sweden

• attract new PeBBu Members/Observers from the not yet represented countries Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Norway

All the above objectives have been reached, with the exception of the identification and involvement of a participant from Latvia.


218


From the North European Platform, workshops and seminars have been organised, partly directly as a PeBBu activity, partly in terms of thematic contributions to other seminars and workshops. A very prominent link to European and International standardisation activities in the field of Service Life/Life Performance and Sustainability in Building Construction has been established and strengthened. Based on the network, numerous project proposals have been initiated, both on EU, trans-national and national level. With the established network in place, and the increasing contacts due to new project ideas in the thematic field, the momentum existing in the Nordic Region is intended to be used for increased cooperation on topics related to performance based building.


The PeBBu regional platforms have, among their objectives, had the role to seek to capture the perception and state of the art of PBB in their respective regions. The north European region reflections on these aspects are mirrored in this report. Performance based building approaches in building and construction are considered to be a prerequisite for market development including the necessary harmonisation of codes, regulations, and standards, an improved or true innovation climate and process in building, and to reach sustainable construction goals. It is, however, noted that the market penetration of PBB is slow. It is a common opinion of the PeBBu North European Platform network that the PeBBu project, and its regional focus platforms, has provided a useful mechanism to highlight the challenges and opportunities of PBB. The European interest in PBB approaches and development is pretty well and consistently documented in EU and national regulation and R&D priorities. It is important that the process of stimulating and focussing the performance based route in building and construction does not conclude with the ending the PeBBu project. The examples of national platforms set up in the north region will have a responsibility to stimulate further work, but coherent European programmes focussing the area are recommended. The focus should be on shaping the stimulus mechanisms for real market penetration.

Expected Impacts (European or world -wide)

The expected European impacts are sketched in the text above, and it is not perceived that the world-wide impacts would markedly differ. It is, However, important to take in to picture the experiences with PBB codes that are appearing in other parts of the world, e.g. New Zealand.


The North European Platform has successfully achieved the project objectives. Key persons to contact for project follow-ups are Christer Sjöström Centre for Built Environment, [email protected] University of Gävle, Sweden Åke Skarendahl Construction Sector Innovation [email protected] Centre, BIC, Sweden Erik Brandt Danish Building Research [email protected] Institute, SBI Christer Finne Building Information Foundation, [email protected] RTS


219

Svein Haagenrud Norwegian Building Research [email protected] Institute, NBI Björn Marteinsson Icelandic Building Research Institute [email protected] Roode Liias Tallinn University of Technology, [email protected], [email protected] Estonia


Please refer to the summarising conclusions of the Workshops and the input to the R&D Agenda presented above.

8. Acknowledgements

The North European Platform gratefully acknowledges the active work from the PeBBu member and observer organisations, and all the contributions by companies, standards organisations, and authorities in the networking. Warm thanks goes to the Construction Sector Innovation Centre (BIC), Sweden, and the Nordic project “LCC in building and construction” for co-arrangement of several successful events.


220

A n n e x 1 . 1 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 2 : A n n e x 1 . 1 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 2 : W e s t / C e n t r a l E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r mW e s t / C e n t r a l E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m


Regional Platform West & Central Europe:

Task Report


The Regional Platform West and Central Europe consists of the PeBBu national contacts from Belgium, the Netherlands, France Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland. National reports have been drafted for each of these participating countries and discussed at two platform meetings. These reports describe the state of the art regarding performance based building for the various domains of the building and construction activities. An attempt to set up national PBB platforms was not very successful. The final report of the task describes the alignment and discrepancies between the approaches in the different countries and presents a research agenda for further work.


The specific objectives for the Regional Platform are: To stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the international PeBBu activities and

national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the countries that participate in PeBBu, through:

o Stimulation and facilitation of the programming of such national activities o Facilitation of the input of typical national and regional characteristics into the international

programming of the international PeBBu activities o Preparation for future national PBB implementation activities, including the national

dissemination of PeBBu results, and in support of achieving those objectives. To initiate and facilitate the establishment of National or Transnational PeBBu Platforms in the

region, which includes: o Support to defining the scope and objectives of such platforms o Support to the establishment of required financial support structures for such platforms in


T-14

Task name: T-14: Regional Platform West & Central Europe

Task leader

Luk Vandaele, BBRI, Belgium, [email protected]


221

o Support to regional, transnational and national PeBBu related events. To attract new PeBBu Members/Observers from already participating countries in the region: UK,

Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. To attract new PeBBu Members/Observers from the following, not yet represented countries:

Switzerland and Austria. To provide input into the PeBBu website, in terms of data/information/news articles concerning

national/transnational/regional PBB related activities and events.



For each participating country a national report has been drafted. After a first series of reports in free format, a template has been developed and all national contacts have been requested to updatetheir national reports in the common format. Such national reports are available for:

• Belgium • The Netherlands • The United Kingdom • France • Germany • Ireland

There was very limited success in setting up national PBB platforms in the platform member countries. In Belgium a proposal for funding was proposed to the Flemish scientific and technological research agency (IWT) to set up a project of ‘Thematic Innovation Stimulation partnership’ including the main stakeholders in the residential construction sector: architects, consulting engineers, contractors, social housing companies, etc. The main focus was on the application of the performance based specifications for social housing as issued by the Flemish social housing agency and developed by BBRI. The proposal however, was rejected and therefore the partnership could not be set up. This partnership was deemed to be the core of a national PBB platform. Other countries had similar problems. Therefore, the idea of a workshop on exchange of national experiences with setting up of PBB platforms was postponed. At the technical committee meeting in Porto, 19th November 2004, it was agreed to use the same questionnaire as developed in the User Platform Building and Construction Industry for the regional platform. This questionnaire was developed by BBRI and Technion. It has been distributed through the national contacts of the regional platform. These national contacts were requested to find 5 stakeholders of different categories within their country and to gather the results of these enquiries. These were then transmitted to the task leader of the regional platform for inclusion in the summary report.


National state of the art reports are available. The national platforms were no success; A research agenda is available.



222

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Set up of national platforms Failed Draft national SotA report Done First regional platform meeting Brussels 29th September 2003 Update of national SotA reports in agreed format Available Workshop on exchange of national experiences with setting up of PBB platforms

Cancelled

Enquiry via national contacts Distribution of questionnaire Distribute questionnaires Done by Belgium and The Netherlands Compile results from questionnaires Very limited response Regional Platform meeting Meeting Delft 25th August 2005 Research agenda available Final report available


Two meetings of the regional platform were organised to present and discuss the state of the art in the member countries. This has led to the final report of the regional platform and to a research agenda.


1. Meeting reports: First meeting Brussels 29th September 2003 Final meeting Delft 25th August 2005

2. National state of the art reports:

Belgium The Netherlands The United Kingdom France Germany Ireland

3. Questionnaire 4. Research agenda 5. Final report


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Meeting reports Internal Platform members None National state of the art reports

Internal Platform members None

Questionnaire

Working document National stakeholders Wide

Research agenda

Recommendations Research community Final report

Results of the platform will be presented to the PeBBu members and to the representative stakeholders at European level.


223


The members of the regional platform are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 List of members of the Regional Platform and participants at meetings

Contacts Task: 14 Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe

Country Last name First name Task Organisation

Belgium Vandaele Luk Task Leader Belgian Building Research Institute

Netherlands Jasuja Mansi Network Secretariat CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation

Netherlands Bramwell Jack Ex Network Secretariat CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation

Belgium Henderieckx Frans Ex Task Leader Belgian Building Research Institute

Belgium Parthoens Johan Guest at Meeting Belgian Building Research Institute

Belgium Buyl Chantal Guest at Meeting VHM Belgium Lak Vivienne Guest at Meeting Vlaanderen Bouwt

Canada Szigeti Françoise Guest at Meeting ICF - International Centre for Facilities

France Chevalier Jean-Luc Task Member CSTB France Laret Louis EX Task Member CSTB

Germany Mayer Erhard Task Member Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics

Ireland Murray Philip Task Member Dublin Institute of Technology

Netherlands Spekkink Dik Guest at Meeting EGM Architects - Research Department

Netherlands Loomans Marcel Task Member TNO Environment and Geosciences

Netherlands Scholten Nico Ex task co-leader Guest at Meeting

TNO Environment and Geosciences

United Kingdom Prior Josephine

Replacement for a Task Member

BRE - Building Research Establishment

United Kingdom Barrett Peter Task Member University of Salford United Kingdom Lee Angela

Replacement for a Task Member University of Salford

The original task leadership was shared between BBRI, Belgium (Mr Frans Henderieckx) and TNO Bouw, The Netherlands (Mr Nico Scholten). However, the Dutch co-task leader TNO decided to withdraw from this task and requested BBRI to take over the full responsibility. Therefore, from mid 2003 on, the task leadership was assumed by Mr Frans Henderieckx, assisted by Luk Vandaele. After the decease of Frans Henderieckx, Luk Vandaele assumed the task leadership. Participation to the task was rather fluctuating. Besides the change in task leadership and in the PeBBu co-ordination, there was also a replacement of the national contacts for the UK, for France, for the Netherlands, for Germany. A new workplan was discussed at the Technical Committee meeting in Porto, 19th November 2004 and accepted. Instead of an additional meeting of the national contacts, it was deemed more cost effective to use the national contacts’ available resources for contacting national stakeholders using the new questionnaire.


224

Afterwards the PeBBu co-ordination deemed this plan not in line with the contractual obligations. Therefore, an additional meeting of the regional platform was organised in Delft on 25th August 2005.


The final result of the regional platform is a series of national reports on the state of the art of Performance Based Building in the six participating countries. A research agenda was discussed and drafted for the platform.


225

A n n e x 1 . 1 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 3 : E a s t A n n e x 1 . 1 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 3 : E a s t E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r mE u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m


Regional Platform East Europe

Task Report


The PeBBu Regional Platforms have been established in the participating EU and EU Associated countries to stimulate and facilitate the national PeBBu activities, to make an input of typical national and regional characteristics into the international programming of projects and to prepare for the necessary future national implementation activities. The countries represented in the PeBBu Regional Platform from East Europe (EEP) are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. East Europe is a very special region of Europe due of its unique historical, political, educational, and economical conditions. In most of the East European countries, the concept of PBB is quite new and mainly present in regulation/legislation and/or research. A wider implementation in practice is a major challenge in the region. The major task of the Platform was the preparation of the EEP Status Report while another Report was made for the NAS (Newly Associating States of Europe). The preparation of the Report was based on the contribution of the task members, the National Status Reports and 4 special EEP workshops organised on the project duration. Comparing the East European Regional Platform’s Status Report of PeBBu with the NAS Status Report, the EEP Status Report focuses on regional aspects, describing status in each country and based more on national reports and status in the countries. The NAS Status Report provides many further PBB related information for these countries and focuses on status and the common features as a consequence of the common historical background and analyses the situation related to historical periods as the time of socialism; the transition period and the present time after the EU accession. Vision to the future and overall strategies of PBB implementation is also described in the NAS Status Report. Thus, the two reports complement each other and a complete overview of the

T-15

Task name: T-15: Regional Platform East Europe

Task leader(s):

Dr. Tamás Bánky, ÉMI npc, Hungary, [email protected] Dr. Károly Matolcsy, ÉMI npc, Hungary, [email protected]

PhD. Gábor Tiderenczl, ÉMI npc, [email protected]


226

status and future of PBB of the EEP/NAS countries is provided by the EEP Status Report and the NAS Status Report together. The EEP Report also gives a detailed description of the status of PBB of the EEP countries considering the PeBBu scientific domains & other domain areas and the new PeBBu tasks (CPD, CRISP, Decision Support Toolkit). On the annexes PeBBu RTD Agenda of the EEP countries and also the Status of PBB in several EEP priority themes is described as: housing, durability, energy, recycling and maintenance. The importance of the Regional Platforms was clearly showed on the various PeBBu workshops and events. The national situation of the EEP countries show similar characteristics and problems of the countries in the region partly originated from regional, climatic factors and partly from the similar historical backgrounds. Relatively small number of best practice examples of PBB can be seen in the region and still plenty of barriers are against PBB. The EU extension has a significant positive effect on PBB in the region. Obligations are an important aspect that comes with the EU extension. Dissemination of the PBB concept and raising the awareness of it is important in all countries of the region. National PeBBu Platforms would be important to develop in order to raise the awareness of PBB and overcome the barriers of languages in the participating countries. National Platforms would be important also in disseminating the result of the PeBBu project. PeBBu results will be disseminated in the regions also in education and training activities, conferences and workshops and various publications.


Connected to the overall objectives for the PeBBu Network, the specific objectives of the East European Regional Platform (EEP) were:

• to stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the international PeBBu activities and national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the countries,

• to initiate and facilitate the establishment of National or Transnational PeBBu Platforms in the region,

• to attract new PeBBu members / observers from Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia

The main work objectives of the relevant period:

• to organise special EEP workshops • to develop the State of the Art Report in 3 phases • to attract new members or observers



The East European Regional Platform of the PeBBu network held its 1st Workshop in Budapest, 28th March 2003. On this workshop the participants started to analyse the situation of the construction sector in their countries and the status of Performance Based Building (PBB). Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia made its detailed National State of the Arts report about PBB implementation in their countries. That gives contribution for the International State of the Art Report, but meanwhile gives possibility for a better trans-national analysis as well. Besides phone conversation, e-mail and personal meeting has served to a better understanding of the common feature of PBB. The first version of the EEP State of the Art Report was prepared by the task leader with the contribution and comments of all partners.


227

The Platform members had a discussion of the Platform’s work on the International PeBBu workshop in Manchester on the 13th of January 2004. The Platform held its 2nd Workshop also in Budapest, 8th July 2004. On this workshop the national situations were presented and discussed focusing on the domains and on best practices of PBB. After this, specific domain related questions and SotA of the new Tasks (CPD, CRISP, Decision Support Tools) in the platform’s countries were discussed, PeBBu opportunities after the EU extension were outlined, research mapping in the region and national platforms were discussed and an example of the Hungarian CRISP platform presented. Suggestions for further development of 1’st Regional Platform Status Report were also collected. On the meeting Romania was represented as observer invited by the task leader. After the 2nd workshop the 2nd version of the EEP State of the Art was prepared by the task leader with the contribution and comments of all partners. The 3rd EEP workshop was organised in the 12th of April 2005 in Bratislava. On this workshop special priority themes were defined and tasks related to tem were discussed (housing; durability; energy; indoor comfort, recycling and renovation). Discussion was made about envisaged future implementation of PBB in the region, ideas, solutions, visions and actions were presented and discussed. Best practice examples of PBB were also presented. Dissemination strategies and the role of universities in dissemination were discussed and main action points were agreed. The 4th and last EEP workshop was organised in the 21st and 22nd of July 2005 in Sofia. On this workshop the task members presented the worked out priority themes defined on the Bratislava workshop. Further best-practice examples were presented as well. The differences in content and approach of the NAS Report and the EEP Report were discussed, final PeBBu tasks and necessary contributions were discussed and approved. After preparing the “final draft” of the EEP Status Report, it was sent for commenting to all partners and also to the PeBBu Domain leaders. After integrating all received comments, the final version of the EEP Status Report was prepared during August 2005.


The countries belonging to the East-European Regional Platform of PeBBu has had similar historical background after the 2nd World War which have a strong influence to the application and barriers of application of Performance Based Building (further on: PBB) concept. The Platforms’ members defined several common barriers of the countries, each belonged to the former soviet block. Some of these barriers were related with that time, some of them are related to the transition period. There are barriers, which has national feature, and one can find barriers, which are certainly general in most of the countries and have rather a regional character. Barriers related the time before 1990 were in one hand economical - that means low GDP, backlog from WWII heavy causalities, the contribution payment to the Sovietunion, the rather closed and unbalanced market, the unrealistic prize-setting, the COCOM rule prohibiting importing high technology from developed countries, etc. - all that means overall poorness comparing to the western countries. In the other hand, some barriers come from the systems as well, like the standardization that was based on East-European cooperation, and based mainly on the opportunities, and not on the real user requirements. The present status shows us that this region has to overcome barriers arising from the transition situation as well in order to achieve the goals of PBB application. Such barriers are:

• Design culture has changed, SMEs are the main actors • International strong clients insist their culture and prefer their own R&D centres and not in

the Region • Low housing promotion, low retrofitting activities in residential sector • Weak credit systems, delayed payments, extremely high black works and corruption


228

• Segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction • Industry and state withdrawal from Universities declined the R+D works • The state withdrawal from standardization, the majority of prescriptive rules in building

permission field, the lack of one Ministry or public body in construction sector not really helps to PBB approach

As regarding the opportunities and stimulations, some of them are the follows:

• International manufacturers and construction companies acting as knowledge holders in the region

• CPD are almost entirely implemented in the Region • International big industrial and commercial clients acting in the Region insist in using theirs

proved culture in contracting and servicing • People wishing a better and sustainable life in this Region as well, and try to open for new

trends • University students has much greater mobility as it used to be

The EU extension can strongly influence many fields and so the construction sector in the countries of the EEP, most of them already member of the EU and also the other countries (Bulgaria and Romania) are waiting for association. The following items can provide new opportunities and support PBB and the PeBBu infrastructure:

• The EU extension made possible the free transfer of goods, services, information and people on a free market area.

• More possibilities for innovations – SME’s have dominant role (more national enterprises in SME’s) – small, but aboriginal and original innovations are welcomed

• More competitiveness – opportunities for each partner on the market • Duty free prizes • Open society: accessibility of information (long-term aspect) • Education systems influenced by the EU • European standardization • Education and research support (European Research Area) • Minimisation of regional and social differences • Regional development and growth • Promotion of new ideas (technologies) • Obligations are another aspect that comes with the EU extension (e.g. Energy Performance

Directive) On the other hand, also some new barriers can emerge with the EU extension. Some of the are the followings:Market deformations (temporary effects)

• Influence of strong interest groups on international level • Cartel agreements among producers • State budget deficit restriction • New tax policies • Still governmental preference of specific sectors




Contribution to International SotA National SotA Report for member countries is completed. To organise the kick-off meeting of EEP The kick-off meeting (1st workshop) of EEP was held in Budapest 28th

March 2003. EEP 1st Workshop Minutes was prepared after the workshop Formulation of National Platforms National Platforms in Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are being organised. Attracting new PeBBu observers and members

New members - Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia were attracted to the task group.


229

All member countries are involved with several representatives Production of National Status Reports All member countries prepared the National Status Reports. To develop further the1st State of the Art Report

1st State of the Art Report Update

To organise the Hungarian National Platform Kick of Meeting

Kick of Meeting of Hungarian National Platform was made in Dec. 2003

To make Regional Platform Meeting in the beginning of the year

Regional Platform Meeting – 13th of January 2004 Manchester

To organise a 2nd Workshop for EEP 2nd Workshop of EEP was held on 8th July 2004, Budapest. EEP 2nd Workshop Minutes was prepared after the workshop

To attract new members / observers Observers from Romania were involved in the 2nd Workshop of EEP To develop further the State of the Art Report

Draft of 2nd State of the Art Report was prepared

To organise a 3rd Workshop for EEP 3rd EEP workshop was organised in the 12th April 2005 in Bratislava. EEP 3rd Meeting Minutes was prepared after the workshop

To collect best-practice examples of PBB in each participating countries

Task members presented best-practice examples of PBB on the workshops and it was used for the EEP and NAS Reports

To work out defined priority themes of the platform

Each task member worked out a selected priority theme of EEP and it was attached as an annex to the EEP Report

To organise the 4th Workshop for EEP 4th EEP workshop was organised in the 21st –22nd July 2005 in Sofia To work out the final draft of the EEP Report

The task leader prepared the final draft of the EEP Report and sent to the partners and domain leaders for commenting

To prepare the final EEP Status Report After integrating all comments the task leader prepared the final version of the EEP Status Report

Contribution to International SotA The contribution to International Status Report was prepared by the task leader


The similar historical background after the 2nd World War of the countries that are members of the East-European Regional Platform of PeBBu determined the opportunities and the barriers of spreading the PBB concept in the region. All of the EEP countries belonged to the former soviet block and after the systems’ changing went to a transition period with new kind of difficulties. Several common barriers were defined in the EEP countries partly related to the time of socialism and others related to the transition period. Some of the barriers has national feature but most of them has rather a regional character. The EU extension provides new opportunities also for PBB in these countries, but some new barriers can emerge as well. The strong barriers of the artificial social, political and economical system before 1990 had a consequence of overall poorness comparing to the western countries. As regards the practice of construction, mass production of high rise concrete block houses, the low wages of architects and professionals, the ad hoc improvisation character and low quality of execution, the domestic feature and low quality of the building material industry all worked against the Performance Based approach. Lack of row materials and building products were general. The standardization process was based on opportunities of East-European cooperation, user requirements were not considered. After the collapse of the soviet systems in the transition period privatisation of the domestic building industry was rather fast and international big companies became new owners and realized large investments. These International companies basically make their research and development at the home country, and rarely invest in research in the new countries. SMEs became dominant in the design and engineering practice. The state withdraw from the building market, housing subsidies was dramatically cut, state investments became rare and low budgeted, inflation was dramatically high (over 30 %). As a consequence, building industry has been declined. Ministries responsible for the building sector were ceased and the responsibility for the sector spread to several other ministries with the


230

consequence of inefficient problem solving. There is a great backlog in building maintenance and retrofitting. The segregation and fragmentation in building construction industry and the traditional approach to build as cheap as possible makes a rather great increase in building failures, basically in the residential sector, where the builders are mostly not professionals. Housing promotion is very low in all countries, the majority of the new dwellings are still built in do it yourself practice or by black workmanship. Black market is very high in the building products field as well, partly due to the relatively high VAT. The conservatism of the construction sector doesn’t promote innovation and change. Best Practice examples are not directly related to performance, and as investment in building is risky, lot of inventor want to rely rather on proved and safe solutions. There is a low demand for the construction work in the domestic market. Smaller enterprises have no financial reserves and neither bank credits are available for them, which causes a high risk in surviving. The consequence is the decrease in the competitiveness in the construction market. Another special barrier is that older generation suffers from lacking speaking ability in foreign languages, English is very rarely spoken by the generation older than 40 years. That makes a strong barrier in implementing PBB materials not in domestic language. As regards the general status of PBB in the EEP countries, building activities are the least performance based among the PeBBu regions but after the EU extension it is expected that also the introduction of the performance concept will accelerate. In Bulgaria the concept of PBB is quite new and mainly present in regulation/legislation and research. Most of the building codes and regulations are performance based and in the first stage of the building process stakeholders work with performance based tools. However, later in the process the strictly prescriptive detailed design allows only few possibilities for the contractor. In Hungary the performance concept is known from 1971 and several research projects have been directed to PBB. In Poland the idea of the performance concept has appeared in scientific consideration on the break of the 1980’s/90’s. Although the philosophy of the performance concept was carried from the Directive CPD 89/196/EEC to the Polish Building Code, practical implementation of performance demands remained away from the concept. In Slovakia since 1992 in the Building Code the requirements have been issued from the EEC Council Directive of 21/12/1988. The current research activities concerning the PBB are separated in particular fields of interest. The attempt to a more complex approach is reflected in the development and application of the methodologies of the energetic and environmental audits. In the countries of the EEP in the construction practice the successful PBB usually depends explicitly on the responsibility and possibilities of all decisive partners and on their quality, but mainly on architect - client cooperation. The construction participants ordinary do not work in interdisciplinary teams and do not approach the construction in a wider context. The most important field, where the performance concept has been introduced is the technical approval of innovative products and related testing work. The most important fields, where further actions are needed are the design, procurement, budding and the control of the execution work in the platform’s countries. Entering the EU in 2004 May, the harmonization processes in the region’s countries become more and more intensive. CPD determines the codes and decrees in all countries. The base would be the nominated Institutes of the countries for notification, which can act as a bridgehead of PBB. A more general application of PBB would have several advantages and opportunities in the countries of the EEP, like the stimulation of new materials, techniques and competition, better performance of buildings, reduction of cost and risk and failures, more freedom and less barrier in design, more correlation with users’ requirements, etc. However, strong barriers are still against PBB. It is hard to achieve a breakthrough in habits joint to prescriptive regulations. There is a significant need for education and training and it takes a lot of time to become familiar with the performance based approach. Other barriers are the lack of relevant indicators and testing methods, the lack of holistic life-cycle


231

approach, the interest of producers, the financial barriers, the weak credit systems, the segregation and fragmentation of design, engineering and construction or the attachment to traditionalism and routine. The EU extension can strongly influence many fields and so the construction sector in the countries of the EEP, most of them already member of the EU. New opportunities and support of PBB can be related to the free transfer of goods, services, information and people, more possibilities for innovations, more competitiveness, duty free prizes, more open society, European standardization, education and research support, minimisation of regional and social differences, etc. On the other hand, also some new barriers can emerge with the EU extension, like market deformations (temporary), the influence of strong interest groups, cartel agreements among producers, State budget deficit restriction, new tax policies, etc. Obligations are another aspect that comes with the EU extension and these should be considered rather as opportunities. The necessity to improve legislative framework in the construction arise an excellent opportunity to implement the PBB approach. This opportunity could be very well detected in the widespread implementation and success of CPD in these countries. It is a strong believe of experts, that the increasing competition in the market will lead to a better understanding of performance based approach for the building industry. As regards the EEP status of PBB in the PeBBu Domains, in Domain 1 Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components, today every type of the new and most up-to-date products are available on the Region's building market, However, in the practice of construction still a lot of low quality items are applied because of their low prizes. For assuring the quality of building materials and products, a product evaluation system has been developed gradually in the Region. The product evaluation system is realized in a technical specification system and in a certification of conformity system. The issue of durability is addressed in every country on a different way, However, a comprehensive approach to the creation of Reference Service Life data has not been developed so far in the Region. The factor method is not yet applied in the Region. The works in ISO will impact and will direct the national efforts towards life performance of construction materials and components. Issues related to Domain 2 indoor Environment has not been really considered in the design process in the region, in spite of the increasing problems of indoor air quality due to more airtight buildings, open-burning heating equipments, moulds due to cold bridges, increasing level of indoor pollutants and emissions together with the lack of proper ventilation. Conditions for indoor environment in almost all countries are determined by legal and technical regulations but it is not controlled and buildings are typically designed for minimum permissible level. There are great differences in the Region in considering the problems of indoor environment, but we can say, that generally thermal comfort has priority. Concerning Domain 3 Design of Building, the years of the 1990’s the former large state project designer companies divided into small design offices with few persons in the Region. Use of CAD systems became widespread, However, the lack of control, the application of routine solutions, precipitation, the need of low construction cost are against performance based design. Although several prominent buildings have been realized in the latest years, the former practice of do-it-yourselves still determine attitudes and austere buildings are constructed simply in possession of building permit without specification and implementation plans. Altogether, a stronger control of technical and environmental performance and that of architectural quality should be necessary. It is up to the architects and engineers to educate their clients in terms of PBB. As regards Domain 6 “Legal & Procurement Practices” it has been an acute problem in the construction sector, that after 1989 the former Ministries of Construction and Urban Development was ceased in all countries in the Region and the responsibility for the sector was distributed among 3-8 ministries. Housing policy has been especially inefficient almost in every country due to the low level of


232

responsibility and the state withdrawal from housing subsidization became very relevant. The traditional steps are involved in and create the structure of the model contracts on the building design and realization. Ideally, one person responsible for its success – a building manager, having the mandate of a client, manages the procurement process. The application of performance criteria depends in particular cases on the building manager, which is individual from case to case. External influence will become important as a result of the implementation of new EU Directives and international obligations and this may require perhaps radical changes in the legislation documents. Consequently, it will be necessary to find a common framework for these provisions.

Concerning Domain 7 “Regulations”, the regulatory framework in the countries of the region is composed of the Act on Construction and the Act on Construction products; National Technical Standards, European Standards (EN) and International Standards (ISO). Most of the EN and ISO are implemented in the region. The local authorities issue building permissions. Standards (mandatory / advisory) are related to special issues of the building regulations. CPD is the base document in all countries, its implementation is almost completed. Although the performance concept has been integrated in the Building Regulation in many areas in the region, the national standardization process is still rather weak. Harmonization process with EU standards goes fast in the Region. As regards Domain 9 “Innovation”, after 1989 as large construction companies and central programs, also large research institutes were ceased and financial funds radically decreased. Although several research programs has been conducted related to PBB during decades, the application of innovation has several barriers like the common attitude of builders, the lack of R&D capacities of construction companies and the lack of governmental support and other financial resources. Great part of the innovative products comes out of the international research but there are excellent innovations also in the region. In practice the implementation of innovative technologies in construction sector meets many obstacles. As regards research and development, there is a strong financial barrier for R&D throughout the whole region. Among the many research priorities related to PBB are the development of indicators and measurement/testing methods, economic impact analysis of PBB, building diagnostics, LCA and issues of durability, adaptability and maintenance, ecological & healthy buildings, demonstrating models for better cooperation, etc. As regards the other domains, the development of the built environment is strongly influenced by the contradictory process of sub-urbanization and urbanization. New development plans, large scale panel reconstruction and urban renewal programs are needed. Regarding organisation and management, construction enterprises have consistently begun to build the quality management systems and environmental management systems in the region. In the issue of information and documentation, although the number and availability of information materials are rapidly increasing, complex information on a performance bases is still not available in the region. The traditional procurement model is still dominant. Concerning the domain of fire-safety engineering, this topic has a high recognition in the region where also up-to-date fire testing laboratories are operating. Also the issue of accessibility gains increasing recognition in the region, regulations already contain mandatory items of accessibility to keep for public buildings. Facility management is a domain where lot of development is needed, the major problem area is the privatized and declining building stock of the former local authorities’ housing. As regards the domain of energy and water management, the thermal modernization of the poorly insulated existing buildings is the main challenge currently. The concept of sustainable construction and environmentally friendly design is relatively new in the region and awareness of it should be increased. To assess the environmental performance of buildings performance rating and labelling systems and uniform definition of performance parameters and indicators are needed. Concerning the domain of education and training the lack of finance has been a strong barrier after the political changes. On the other side the participation in international programs provided new opportunities. As regards the intelligent building concept, is mainly applied in the latest, most up-to-date buildings in the region and


233

as a realisation of the user’s expectations could be one of the platform to adapt the performance base approach. However, it is currently more a technologically oriented issue. In the domain of structural design & engineering, safety of construction is defined in all countries in the Building Code as the first essential – performance–based - requirement. The performance of load bearing structures of buildings is addressed very strictly in the regulations in the region As regards the new PeBBu tasks, CPD was known from the time of origin in the region and some principle like Essential Requirements came in law in the middle of the 90's. However, there is no control of implementation. CPD should be performance based and assessment based. CPD is an obligation and a good possibility in breakthrough in these countries related to PBB. The EU funded thematic network CRISP, Construction and City Related Sustainability Indicators has several outcomes that can be strongly related to PeBBu. To develop and use relevant indicators and indicator systems has special importance in order to measure the performance of buildings or elements of buildings. The Hungarian member of PeBBu, ÉMI npc was participating also in the CRISP network and established a national platform, the success of which can be a good example and inspiration for establishing PeBBu national platforms. Decision Support Toolkit would be an important tool to be presented to the fragmented stakeholders and this can provide also better information and understanding. There is a need for more information about this system. Concerning the envisaged future implementation of PBB in the Region, in general only some participants of the construction design process are aware of PBB importance in practice. The construction companies formulate the need of PBB as the need of the complex quality of construction, which should be provided by the quality management. The barriers of wider PBB application in practice are seen in the cases when the particular construction participants do not consider the construction and its results as one complex system. The liability and responsibility is supposed to be a dominant factor enhancing the PBB. The increase of the education and knowledge level and the level of a systemic approach in the construction process are also fundamental conditions. The role and the quality of an architect is fundamental in the environment where the main criteria of a client’s decision-making has economical character. Strategies for a wider PBB implementation in EEP countries can be developed on the bases of the State of the Art analysis. Related to the issues of building materials and techniques, improving durability of constructions, developing new materials and techniques and increasing the use of local materials are priority aims. In the energy domain it is important to improve the energy-efficiency of buildings, to implement Energy Performance Directive, BEM and Building Energy Pass. The domain of indoor environment should have high priority. Regarding building design and the construction process, it is important to increase the level of cooperation, communication and tenant/user participation in decision-making during the whole construction process on performance bases. Further aims are to increase environmental sustainability, to develop and apply quality management and environmental management systems, to develop and apply efficient Decision Support Systems, to improve the transparency of tendering and to apply Post-Occupancy Evaluations. As regards legal & procurement practices and regulations main strategies are to develop national standardization processes and building regulations on performance bases, to work out efficient and more responsible construction and housing policies, to increase the quantity and quality of residential buildings and to develop complex programs for building renovation and urban renewal. Concerning innovation and R&D, governments should increasingly promote this domain. Priority issues are to develop performance indicators, measurement, testing, monitoring and simulation tools and efficient control systems of technical and environmental performance and architectural quality. Some strategies related to social and economic aspects are to implement efficient housing subsidy systems, to decrease financial barriers of construction, to increase the availability of bank credits and to develop the methods of building insurance. Other priority issues are to spread the concept of intelligent buildings, to improve the visual/architectural quality of buildings and the built environment, to integrate PBB thinking in education and training and to take benefit from the dynamic building industry.


234


• 1st Regional Workshop (28 March 2003, Budapest) • Workshop minutes • SotA reports of Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia Poland, and Czech Republic • 1st EEP Status report (based on National Sota Reports) • 1st Task Report • Kick of Meeting of Hungarian National Platform, (Dec. 2004, Budapest) • Regional Platform Meeting (13th of January 2004, Manchester) • 2nd Workshop of EEP (8th July 2004, Budapest) • EEP 2nd Meeting Minutes • 2nd State of the Art Report • 2nd Task Report • 3rd EEP Workshop (12th April 2005, Bratislava) • EEP 3rd Meeting Minutes • Reports about vision and strategies of PBB implementation in the member countries • Best-practice examples of PBB in the member countries • Priority themes of EEP as an annex to the EEP Report • 4th EEP Workshop (21st –22nd July 2005, Sofia) • Final EEP Status Report • Contribution to International Status Report • Final Task Report


For using the result of PeBBu the following action points can be highlighted in the EEP countries: Effort on regulation, legislation & control should be increased More national support of regulation and legislation Environmental performance and healthy building should be a priority topic There is a high demand to take benefit from the dynamic building industry More incentives for change should be encouraged Client driven solutions should be developed, it is important to make the client interested and

better informed Building classes and building certification should have larger emphases.

The National Contacts has a major role in the dissemination activities. If possible, PeBBu National Platforms should be created in order to raise awareness in the different countries and provide more information on dissemination. National Platforms are not funded by the EU, thus financial problems should be solved. National Platform is developing in Poland and in Hungary. Language barriers should be solved Targeted audience/recipients for disseminated/transferred information:

• All members of national platforms and other related persons and corporations • Organs of the public administration: chief authorities, ministries, etc. • Associations of construction industry • Civil associations • Local government officers • University teachers, designers • House builders, international big industrial and commercial clients, • Local authorities' technical staff • General contractors and subcontractors • Young researchers


235

• Chief executives of relating organisations Exploitation and dissemination strategy for each individual partner:

• Regional and national conferences for all interested parties • Web display – national and regional databases – for general information about international and home

achievements and events • Publications at all kind of media • Training courses specialised according to the different professions and branches of construction

industry and stakeholders of the society


The task leader managed and coordinated the activities of the Platform. The task leader organised the first two workshops, the task member from Slovakia organised the 3rd workshop and the task member from Bulgaria organised the 4th workshop of EEP. The task leader prepared the common documents and reports of the Platform. Representatives of the National Contacts took part in workshops and contributed to all tasks. The PeBBu week in March 2003 was a necessary and fruitful impulse for the members of that region in formulation of their further tasks in that stage of the project. EE Members were highly interested in colloquy with experienced PeBBu participants who were responsive to share their experiences and expertise. The scheduled progress was achieved under considerable pressure of time. After the successful 1st Regional Workshop in March 2003, the task members prepared the National SotA Reports. This job was not easy since it was the 1st that kind of report made by the member countries. Reports were rather diverse so they had to be revised for the alignment with requirements of the project. With the partners contribution the task leader prepared the 1st EEP Status Report. The task leader organised a Kick of Meeting for the Hungarian National Platform in December 2003. Special event of the Platform was a meeting organised during the time of the Manchester Workshop in January 2004. The 2nd PeBBu Workshop of EEP in July 2004 was the main event of the Platform, where an intensive work and debate resulted a significant impulse for the further work and Status Report. Romania became involved into the Platform activity. The task leader prepared the Minutes of the 2nd Workshop with the contribution of the participants. The task leader prepared the draft of 2nd State of the Art Report also. Members gave contribution to it through e-mail connection and after commenting the 2nd version of the Report was made. The 3rd EEP workshop was organised in the 11th -12th of April 2005 in Bratislava and result of this workshop was a discussion and approval of all final tasks needed for he preparation of the final version of the EEP Report. The 4th and last EEP workshop was organised in the 21st - 22nd of July 2005 in Sofia where the final contributions for the Status Report were presented and discussed.


236

After the final meeting the final tasks and contribution from the task members were collected and integrated to the EEP Report. After commenting the “final draft”, the final version of the EEP Status Report was prepared during August 2005. Contact persons concerning the follow-up of the project:

• Dr. Károly Matolcsy, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building, Budapest , Hungary [[email protected]]

• Mrs. Evelina Stoykova, Sofia Energy Centre, Bulgaria [[email protected]] • Ing. Milos Kalousek MSc., Brno University of Technology - Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Czech

Republic [[email protected]] • Dr. Ing. Peter Matiasovsky, Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of

Sciences, Slovakia [[email protected]] • Mr. Piotr Bartkiewicz Warsaw, University of Technology - Institute of Heating and Ventilation,

Poland [[email protected]]


Regarding the lessons drawn in the organised meetings and the prepared documents, the following main conclusions can be stressed: The importance of the Regional Platforms was clearly showed on the various PeBBu workshops and events. As regards the contribution of the East European Regional Platform to the PeBBu work, in conclusion, the following main points can be highlighted. The national situation of the EEP countries show similar characteristics and problems of the countries in the region partly originated from regional, climatic factors and partly from the similar historical backgrounds (many NAS countries in the Platform). For example a dominant state sector and mass production of housing before the political changes; a growing market with new techniques & materials, foreign investors and variety of stakeholders after the changes are common features. Some national characteristics can be also seen. Relatively small number of best practice examples of PBB can be seen in the region. Project Time from conception to implementation is very short and this is a barrier of PBB in the region. Standards and the implementation of them should be also improved. As regards the high priority PeBBu domains, more attention is needed on durability, service-life method and thinking in life cycle terms. As regards the domain of indoor climate, mainly thermal comfort has had priority till now in most of the region’s countries. Ventilation and indoor air quality are main problem areas. To improve them has a value on the market. There is a special importance to deal more with aspects of healthy buildings and environmentally conscious construction. Research activities are generally under-financed in the region, in spite of strong research traditions in several countries (e.g. Hungary, Czech Republic). The EU extension provides also new opportunities for research funding. The EU extension has a significant positive effect on PBB in the region (free transfer of goods, services, information and people, more possibilities for innovations, more competitiveness, more open society, research support, etc.) On the other side, some barriers can be also raised (due to tax policies, cartel agreements, etc.). Obligations are an important aspect that comes with the EU extension. Training has special importance in order to live with the opportunities. Dissemination of the PBB concept and raising the awareness of is important in all countries of the region.


237

New PeBBu tasks mean also new opportunities in the region. More information is needed about CPD, CRISP and Decision Support Toolkits. CPD is implemented in the EEP countries. CPD is strongly related to PBB and has an obvious positive effect. Appropriate testing methods to prove the conformity with the requirements should be developed. As regards the relationships with CRISP, to develop and use relevant indicators and indicator systems has special importance in order to measure the performance of buildings or elements of buildings. The main question of Decision Support Toolkit is whether it exists or is it a demand in the region. National PeBBu Platforms would be important to be developed in order to raise the awareness of PBB and overcome the barriers of languages in the participating countries. The Hungarian National Platform of CRISP can be a good example of such kind of work.

8. Acknowledgements

The task leaders wish to thank the participants of the EEP Platform, especially Mrs. Evelina Stoykova (BG), Mr. Peter Matiasovsy (SK), Mr. Milos Kalousek (CZ) and Mr. Piotr Bartkiewicz (PL) for their valuable inputs and discussions during the whole project period. Special thanks are due Mrs. Mansi Jasuja PeBBu Programme Manager (NL) who assisted all workshops and the work of the EEP.


238

A n n e x 1 . 1 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i oA n n e x 1 . 1 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m 4 : n a l P l a t f o r m 4 : M e d i t e r r a n e a n E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r mM e d i t e r r a n e a n E u r o p e a n R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m


Regional Platform 4: Mediterranean Europe:

Task Report


During the project life, the scheduled activities have been realised and nearly all the results have been obtained. In particular: contribution to the international State-of-the-art report has been submitted by all the countries of the

Mediterranean Platform and updated yearly; the Regional synthesis of the five countries was completed by the Task Leader; the first and second Platform Workshops, organised and held in Milan, allowed to compare the situation

of each country related to the nine scientific domains of the project, thanks to a lively and fruitful debate among the Platform partners. The results of this debate are included in the Workshop minutes. The third Workshop was held in Rome and produced, thanks to the efforts of all participants and the active coordination of the PeBBu Programme Manager, an RTD Agenda in which, in addition to the general needs for RTD in the field of PBB, the specific needs for the South European Area are underlined;

all the above mentioned documents and news articles are available on the PeBBu website and represent an important contribution to the database for the achievement of final objectives;

a great attention was focused on the possibility of establishing National Platforms, with the involvement of universities, professionals associations and stakeholders. In Slovenia and Israel, National Platforms are already established and operational while in Italy the implementation is being delayed by many difficulties;

many attempts have been made to attract two NAS countries, Cyprus and Croatia: no reply from these countries. Slovenia applied for being relocated to the Mediterranean Platform and it has become a full member of the Platform since 2004.


The specific objectives of the Regional Platforms are: • to stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the international PeBBu activities and

national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the represented countries;

• to initiate and facilitate the establishment of National or Transnational PeBBu Platforms in the Region;

T-16

Task name: T-16: Regional Platform 4: Mediterranean Europe

Task leader(s):

Paolo Cardil lo, ITC-CNR, I taly - email: Paolo.Cardil [email protected] t Giuseppina Varone, ITC-CNR, I taly – email: [email protected] .i t


239

• to involve additional Members/Observers in the PeBBu Network; • to attract new PeBBu members. In particular for the Mediterranean Platform: Croatia, Cyprus


Summary of the South European Platform activities: Workshops: · The 1st Platform Workshop was held on 19 September 2003 in Milan, Italy. Minutes of the Workshop

were drafted and are now available on the PeBBu website. 11 participants representing Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Israel, UK, and the Netherlands (PeBBu officers) attended.

· The 2nd Platform Workshop was held on 17 September 2004 in Milan, Italy. Minutes of the Workshop were drafted and are now available on the PeBBu website. 6 participants representing Italy, Greece, Portugal, Israel, Slovenia and the Netherlands (PeBBu officer) attended.

· The 3rd Platform Workshop was held on 8 July 2005 in Rome, Italy. A Regional RTD Agenda, based on the Israeli contribution to the Workshop, was drafted and subsequently circulated to all PeBBu Domain Leaders and supports. 8 participants representing Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Israel, and the Netherlands (PeBBu officer) attended.

Membership: Italy

Portugal Spain

Greece Israel

Croatia not attracted Cyprus not attracted Slovenia applied for relocation to the Mediterranean Platform and has been an active partner since 2004.

Regional Status Report: Three Regional State-of-the-Art Reports were produced and are now available on the PeBBu website Articles: 2005 Giuseppina Varone , Paolo Cardillo “Mediterranean Platform - State of the Art” Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes “Performance Indicators for Sustainable Urban Planning” 2004 Paolo Cardillo, Giuseppina Varone, Italo Meroni: “Performance-Based Energy Design: The Mediterranean Area Status” Monica Paciuk, Rachel Becker “Mediterranean Regional Platform - Example of Israeli Best Practice on PBB at a national level” Vlatko Bosiljkov, Matei Fischinger “Earthquake Related Performance Based Engineering” (the articles are available on the PeBBu website)


With reference to the PeBBu Scientific Domains and to the three new tasks:


240

- identification of the main features the Mediterranean countries characterizing the Platform, leading to the identification of future RTD needs to be further investigated with reference to the topics covered by the project Domains.


Planned Activities during the entire

project


Contribution to International SotA

The contribution was organised around the scientific domains and tasks of the project and further themes, deemed to be strategically important for the application of the performance concept.

Three Regional Workshops and Reports

The first Regional Platform Workshop was held in Milan on 19/09/2003. The second, also held in Milan, on 17 September 2004 and the third in Rome on 8 July 2005. Each Workshop minutes were used for input into the International SotAs. These focussed on the specific regional context of the Mediterranean region and the future and current status of PBB with respect to this Region.

Initiation and Alignment of and Funding for National PeBBu Activities

Where lacking, some contacts have been established

Contribution to Final PeBBu Report

Each country contributed to the final Report. Italy, as Task Leader, is preparing the final draft

Establishment of National Platforms

At present, Israel and Slovenia have implemented a national Platform. In Italy it is currently under consideration

Attracting new PeBBu Members/Observers

No replies from Croatia, Cyprus and Malta selected contacts. Slovenia, at first belonging to the East European Platform, was relocated to the South European Platform


Within the Mediterranean Platform, there is no common approach to the performance concept. In some countries some aspects are more concerned than others by this concept and this reflects the specific political, social, economical or physical conditions of each country. Historically, the performance based approach originates everywhere at the beginning of the 70s, through different studies and researches and the first voluntary standards. Over the following years, due to political and social problems, in some countries this process went through a setback, while in some other countries the performance concept has slowly but constantly got a footing. Today, the main obstacle to the achievement of the performance approach is represented by a lack of effective parameters. Designers and contractors are used to thinking in prescriptive terms. That’s why they deem that an approach based on objectives to be achieved, as known today, is in many cases too generic and implies too many responsibilities. However, during the three meetings the discussion about the national state-of-the-art of the six countries represented in the Platform underlined some essential aspects of the performance approach that can be associated with the Mediterranean context, namely: - influence of diversity factors with the other European Platforms; - major scientific areas to be carefully dealt with within the Mediterranean countries. It is quite evident that the main diversity factors with respect to other European countries are, generally speaking, of a climatic, geographic and socio-cultural nature. Starting from the above evidence, during the last


241

workshop the conclusion of the previous works was finalized to draw up an Agenda containing the main RTD needs with a particular emphasis on Mediterranean needs.


• three National state of the art reports • three Platform Workshops with Minutes • three Regional State-of the-art reports • Israeli and Slovenian National Platform established, Italian under consideration • additional members to be attracted • final task report in progress


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination National SotAs To highlight the status of PBB

in the national context Public Administration bodies Associations of construction industry Civil associations Local government officers University teachers Young researchers

Meetings, workshops Publications through all kinds of media Web display Training courses specialised according to the different professions and branches of the construction industry

Regional Report To highlight the status of PBB in the national context and to offer the possibility of making comparisons with other countries with similar cultural/geographical/climatic aspects

Public Administration bodies Associations of construction industry Civil associations Local government officers University teachers Young researchers

Meetings, workshops Publications through all kinds of media Web display Training courses specialised according to the different professions and branches of the construction industry

National Platforms To create conditions for bringing together the various actors of the building process

Associations of Engineers and Architects, Builders and constructors Authorities in building administration Academic organisations Stakeholders

Direct contacts

Website/database To enhance the knowledge and avoid the risk of duplicating research efforts

All actors involved in the building process

Promotion through journals, reviews, websites, etc. of the sector

RTD Agenda To address future research on the specific topic of PBB taking into account also those aspects mainly related to the Mediterranean area

Decision makers on the future of research needs

PeBBu website


In general terms, the Performance Based Approach is addressed to finding more effective and innovating solutions, and it may be a helpful tool to encourage the quality-based competition in the construction market. It may rise the interest of owners, facility managers, contractors, designers, decision makers and stakeholders in the public sector as well.


242


• Enhancement of knowledge on the scientific and technical aspects related to the PeBBu domains

• Focus on factors which need a special attention • Emphasis on special needs related to the four European areas defined by the project


The Platform’s activities have progressed according to the Project Workplan and the Platform itself is well integrated with the rest of the project. An important aspect related to the coordination work among the various tasks of the Project concerned the preparation of an RTD Agenda bringing together the different Regional research needs and specific requirements. This RTD Agenda, drawn up by all Platforms on the basis of National RTD Agendas, was eventually sent to the Domain Leaders and will make part of the Project final results.


With regard to the Mediterranean Platform, the work carried out throughout the whole Project led to the drawing up of a Mediterranean RTD Agenda which was discussed in detail and finalised during the last Platform Workshop meeting held in Rome in July 2005. On the basis of the specific differences of the Mediterranean Region with reference to the other European Regions (climate-geography, people-culture, technology-knowledge), the Regional RTD Agenda defines a list of research needs related to each Domain, deemed to be a priority for the South-European Region.

8. Acknowledgements

All partners involved in the Mediterranean Platform actively contributed to the activities envisaged in the PeBBu Work Plan and their commitment allowed to achieve the expected results. A special thank goes to the Israeli partners (Monica Paciuk and Rachel Becker from Technion) for providing an exhaustive base for the drafting of the Mediterranean RTD Agenda. Pursuing the work performed by the previous PeBBu Programme Managers, Brad Sims and Jack Bramwell, Mansi Jasuja highly contributed in the coordination of the Platform activities and workshops through practical `ssistance and by providing ideas and working suggestions.


243

A n n e x 1 . 1 7 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A n n e x 1 . 1 7 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h M a p p i n gM a p p i n g


International Research Mapping:

Task Report


One of the defined tasks in the PeBBu project is the development of a database with information on research and development that is of special relevance to Performance Based Building. The aim of such a Mapping is to contribute to future policy making as concerns Performance Based Building. The final objective has been to develop this into the world's foremost portal to information on Performance Based Building. To a large extent, this has been successful. As an important portal containing information on PBB, this database is of strategic importance to various organisations working with PBB principles. It should be kept in mind that this is an ongoing task and would not end with the ending of the PeBBu project. This PeBBu Mapping database contains information on ongoing Research Projects, Publications, (recently published scientific) Papers, Organisations and Contacts (with their expertise) as of special importance to the further development, implementation and application of PBB. The result contains an information system on different levels of detail for the research and for the organisations involved, including: databases in searchable formats, with adequate links to information sources and with several degrees of accessibility. The appointed PeBBu Designated Contact in each organisation is responsible in his / her organisation for incorporating as many as possible relevant Projects, Publications and Papers and stimulating other PeBBu members in the organisation to add the papers. Designated contacts can also add more contacts in this database that can further add papers. This database can be accessed from: http://www.PeBBu.nl/maincomponents/mapping/


The scope and objectives of the Mapping activity are: to inventory the PBB related research competency, research activities and selected recent research

results in the countries that participate in the PeBBu Network

T-17

Task name: T-17: International Research Mapping

Task leader(s):

Ms. Mansi JASUJA, CIBdf, The Netherlands, [email protected]


244

to include respective data - with hyperlinks to the respective data sources - in a searchable database

Work Programme Year 1:

To develop the data structure and the technical infrastructure within the PeBBu website for the PBB mapping database, in communication with the person(s) who is responsible for developing the infrastructure for the mapping of all such data concerning construction in the context of the ECORE Network.

To develop the contact network for the collection and assessment of the respective data, in the context of which the PeBBu National Contact will serve as the starting point for the data collection and the PeBBu Domain Leaders as the starting point for the data assessment

Years 2 and 3:

Inventory and assessment of data and processing of data into the database in the PeBBu website



During Year 1, discussions took place with representatives of the Thematic Network E-CORE, aiming for an alignment of the PeBBu and E-CORE Research Mapping database infrastructures, such that the outcomes are optimally compatible. For PeBBu, this resulted in a delay of the work that was initially envisaged to take place early in the PeBBu project. However, later this cooperation fell through and PeBBu project had to start working on developing it’s own database for the mapping. In the second half of Year 2 the infrastructure was developed, tested and finalised for the mapping of PBB research projects, expertise, publications and published scientific papers (in journals or in conference proceedings in a relational database. First examples were included and all members have been invited to start populating the database via remote on-line data entries. The functionality of the system has been specified by the Secretariat after examination of various available models including CERIF. Contractors were engaged by CIBdf to establish an inter-relational database on the Internet. It is capable of remote entry of research capacity, projects and results by the actual researchers. In this way, the information can be kept up-to-date and of greater value to users. It was envisaged that in the middle of Year 3 the PeBBu Research Mapping database would be launched outside the PeBBu network. However, in year 3, work started on redesigning the PeBBu website to make it more user-friendly and also to include information on all the new tasks which were introduced by the mid-term intervention. Then it was decided to also redesign the mapping database to increase it’s user-friendliness and navigation ease. This took longer than initially thought. However, it was ready for public-use in year 4 and launched again. Various PeBBu members and contacts have made many entries following this launch. This database can be accessed from: http://www.PeBBu.nl/maincomponents/mapping/


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Develop the data structure and the technical infrastructure within the PeBBu website

Developed

Develop the contact network for the collection and assessment of the respective data

Developed


245

Inventory and assessment of data and processing of data into the database

In its new role as database moderator, CIBdf did not assess data but encouraged the contributors to properly classify and update entries.

Establishment of technical and contact infrastructures Done First inventory report on PBB related research competence, research activities and recent research results

Delayed but delivered later in the project

Final inventory report

Delivered


External deliverables Year 1: establishment of technical and contact infrastructures for the PeBBu Mapping database Year 2: first inventory report on PBB related research competence, research activities and recent research results Year 3: final inventory report Milestones and Criteria Finalisation of the data and related contact infrastructure for PBB Mapping by 1st August 2002, production of the first integral inventory report by 1st August 2003 and positive assessment of their quality and usefulness by the PeBBu Technical Committee (task 19) and by the respective task leader for the overall Construction Mapping task as included in the ECORE Network. Interrelation with other PeBBu Tasks

The National PeBBu Contacts in communication with the four Regional PeBBu Platforms will supply data on the national PBB related research competence, activities and results.

On the international level the PeBBu Domains will be involved both for the collection and the assessment of collected data.


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Strategy

Mapping database on PeBBu Website

A database containing relevant papers, projects, publications related to the work on PBB.

Researchers, building and construction practitioners, universities etc.

Website


Due to the non-success of the collaboration with E-CORE, the PeBBu Network Secretariat had taken on the challenge of establishing and maintaining the Mapping Database, resulting in more work than envisaged in the beginning. However, the PeBBu database is compatible with the E-CORE database for future collaboration possibilities. The PeBBu workplan referred to “assessment of data”. In its new role as database moderator, CIBdf did not assess data but encouraged the contributors to properly classify and update entries.


246

This task needed support from various persons including the IT support of CIBdf, secretariat staff of CIBdf, authors of papers or publications who assented to the use of their work in the mapping database, conference organisers who supplied us the papers to be included in the mapping database and finally the members who worked hard in populating the mapping database to make it into a very useful and important database containing information for PBB. Despite delays in establishment of the mapping database in the PeBBu website and later improvement of this database to be more user-friendly, the mapping users worked hard in the limited time to include several papers, publications and projects related to PBB. The contact person for any follow-up of this activity is Dr. Wim Bakens, CIBdf, The Netherlands.


The final objective of the task International Research Mapping, has been to develop into the world's foremost portal to information on Performance Based Building and to a large extent, this has been successful. As a important portal containing information on PBB, this database is of strategic importance to various organisations working with PBB principles. It should be kept in mind that this is an ongoing task and would not end with the ending of the PeBBu project

8. Acknowledgements

In this task, a lot of effort has been made by the IT support of CIBdf, Mr. Nordin Assbai from MASS, The Netherlands. We would like to thank him for his efforts in establishing the technical parts of the Mapping database. A special thanks goes to Ms. Francoise Szigeti, ICF, Canada for supplying an extensive list of keywords for use in the mapping database. We also thank from the CIBdf Secretariat, Ms. Mea Pinas for patiently inserting many papers from various conference proceedings into the mapping database and Ms. Peggy van Asch for assisting with setting up the database.


247

A n n e x 1 . 1 8 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r S t e e r i n g & T e c h n i c a l A n n e x 1 . 1 8 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r S t e e r i n g & T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e ’ sC o m m i t t e e ’ s


PeBBu Steering & Technical Committees:

Task Report


Steering Committee The PeBBu Steering Committee consists of representatives of the nine PeBBu Principal Contractors and representatives of the Network Secretariat. The objectives of the Network Steering Committee are:

To give overall scientific and managerial guidance on both the strategic and operational level to all activities in the Network Programme.

To be responsible for the PeBBu Mid Term Assessment Report and for the PeBBu Final Report. Workplan During the four year period A Steering Committee meeting each of the four years to be facilitated by the Network Secretariat, for which preparatory input to be provided that is to include:

Recent and complete information on all ongoing and planned Network activities Most recent version of the forthcoming annual technical and financial reports, within the 2nd year

meeting such information on the forthcoming Mid Term Assessment Report and in the 4th year meeting such information on the Final PeBBu Report

The Network Secretariat will function as liaison between the Steering Committee and the leaders of all defined PeBBu tasks

Technical Committee The PeBBu Technical Committee consists of the leaders of all defined PeBBu Tasks - including the nine Domain leaders, the leaders of the three User Platforms and the leaders of the four Regional Platforms - and the representatives of the PeBBu Network Secretariat. In the middle of the project, the leaders of the

T-18 T-19

Task name: T-18 & T-19: PeBBu Steering & Technical Committees

Task leader(s):

Dr. Wim BAKENS, CIBdf , The Netherlands, [email protected] Ms. Mansi JASUJA, CIBdf, The Netherlands, [email protected]


248

Compendium tasks and the 3 newly introduced generic tasks were also invited to participate in the Technical Committee. Objective of the PeBBu Technical Committee:

To achieve a maximal alignment between the activities as included in the work of the PeBBu Domains, User Platforms and Regional Platforms (and possibly at a later stage also the PeBBu Compendia)

Workplan

During the four year period: Communication and information transfer between the PeBBu task leaders on activities that may require alignment, on an incidental basis and facilitated by the Network Secretariat

Year 1: 1st meeting of the Technical Committee that will be facilitated by the Network Secretariat, for which preparatory input will be provided that is to include: recent and complete information on all ongoing and planned Network activities

Year 3: 2nd meeting of the Technical Committee Interrelation with other PeBBu Tasks The PeBBu Steering and Technical Committees to be facilitated by the PeBBu Network Secretariat


Steering Committee As planned in the work plan the Network Steering Committee had 4 annual meetings. The average attendance rate was 75%. Halfway the project the Steering Committee reviewed all tasks, objectives and actual accomplishments and decided to recommend a substantial intervention, that amongst others included:

- Closing off of three of the nine scientific domains - Initiating three major new activities - Aligned interventions on the budget allocations

Especially the preparations for the implementation of the recommended budget re-allocations, required a substantial extra time investment by the Network Secretariat, which resulted in a support by all influenced member organisations, including those that were recommended to accept a decrease of their budgets. In the rest of the project duration, the Steering Committee met regularly (once a year) and regulated the smooth operation of the project. At the last SC meeting held in Helsinki, June 2005, some new tasks were introduced by the Steering Committee, which would add on greatly to the work done by the PeBBu thematic network. These included a RTD agenda synthesis document and a PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website for Educational Purposes. Technical Committee The Technical Committee, in which all appointed Task Leaders are members, was planned to have only two bi-annual meetings over the four-year period. It has However, been concluded that this committee needs to be more active, in order to both facilitate an optimal alignment and cooperation between the various defined tasks and to enable the definition of a consensus based conceptual framework and key terminology, which proved to be necessary in support of achieving compatibility between the envisioned outcomes from the various tasks.


249

In support, such more active role the committee had an extra meeting in year 2 and its members became involved in the aligned project on such framework and terminology. Two of the recommended Steering / Technical Committee intervention decisions are in support of achieving a better cooperation between the scientific domains and between these domains and the user and regional platforms:

To aim for series of domain and user platform meetings as opposed to stand-alone meetings as envisaged in the work plan (the financial implications from this are that the planned meeting costs as incorporated in the domain and user platform leaders’ budgets, are to be transferred to the Secretariat’s budget. For this provisions are incorporated in the recommended budget intervention.

To initiate certain new activities that require a coordinated cooperation by and input from the various domains and platforms.

Task Leaders of main aligned activities, the planned outcomes of which are crucial to achieving the PeBBu objectives, have been incorporated as member in the Technical Committee. This includes the leaders of:

Compendium with PBB models: CSIRO, Australia Preparatory studies for the Compendium of PBB Statements-of-Requirements: ICF, Canada and

BRE, UK (these studies include the development of the PBB Conceptual Framework and Key-Terminology)

Aus-PeBBu: CSIRO, Australia Leaders of the 3 new Generic Tasks included during the mid-term intervention

These additional committee members do not require financial contributions for their participation from the PeBBu budget.


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Hold meetings every 2 years Meetings held every year Preparatory reports for the meetings Developed Minutes of meetings Developed and circulated


Steering Committee

Year 2: PeBBu Mid Term Assessment Report (delivered) Year 4: PeBBu Final Report

Milestones and Criter ia

Production of the PeBBu Mid Term Assessment Report by October 2003 and of the PeBBu Final Report by October 2005 and a positive assessment of those reports by the respective EU Scientific Officer.


Internal Deliverables


Covered in the Scientific and Technical Assessment


250

The contact person for any follow-up of this activity is Dr. Wim Bakens, CIBdf, The Netherlands.


In Conclusion, both the Steering Committee and the Technical Committee have performed their tasks well. The Steering Committee ‘steered’ the entire PeBBu Programme and made some useful interventions at appropriate times. The Technical Committee also consisted of very active members, which were enthusiastic and supportive about the success of the PeBBu Network.


251

A n n e x 1 . 1 9 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r N e t w o r k S e c r e t a r i a t / A n n e x 1 . 1 9 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r N e t w o r k S e c r e t a r i a t / N e t w o r k M a n a g e m e n tN e t w o r k M a n a g e m e n t


PeBBu Network Secretariat:

Task Report


The overall objectives for the PeBBu Network are: to stimulate and pro-actively facilitate the international dissemination and implementation of PBB - Performance Based Building in building and construction practice, and in this context: to maximise the contribution to this by the international R&D community. The PeBBu Network Secretariat is responsible for: • Production of the PBB international state-of-the-art report • Production of the four annual PeBBu technical and financial reports and a mid yearly

management report in all these 4 years. • Website, which is to include among other information:

- General Network information - Updated information on Network members, activities, events and results - Network newsletters with electronic newsgroups - Publications from Network projects

• Technical support unit, which includes: - Supporting the elaboration of PBB projects as initiated by CIB Commissions into proposals and

to support finding financing for such projects - In that context: to facilitate the assessment of such proposals by the PeBBu Domain leaders

• Support to the Network Domains, User Platforms and Regional Platforms • Management of the Network membership, in the context of which an objective is:

- To achieve a membership growth through attracting so-called Network Observers, aiming for at least 20 Observer organisations to be attracted during the first two years of the Network, of which at least 5 are to be from East and Central Europe, at least 5 are to represent the Industry and at least five are to be from outside Europe

• A success criteria for the Network Secretariat concerns the level of appreciation for its work by the Network Task Leaders in general and as expressed at the meetings of those task leaders in particular.

T-20

Task name: T-20: PeBBu Network Secretariat

Task leader(s):

Ms. Mansi JASUJA, CIBdf, The Netherlands, [email protected]


252

• A special success criteria will be the launch of the fully populated PeBBu website and a subsequent success criteria relates to the number of visits to this site.

• Effort on the Research Mapping Database. Workplan During the four year period

To produce the four annual PeBBu technical and financial reports To support the elaboration of and the finding of financing for PBB projects as initiated by CIB

Commissions To facilitate the Network Steering Committee and Technical Committee To provide support to the leaders of the Network Domains, User Platforms and Regional

Platforms and to participate at the main workshops of those To stimulate and facilitate communication and information exchange between all PeBBu tasks

Year 1 Production of the first PBB international state-of-the-art report Development of the infrastructure for the PeBBu website and first inclusion of: i) general Network

information, ii) information on Network members, activities, events and results, iii) news articles and iv) results from the Mapping activity

To attract new Network participants (Observers) from East and Central Europe, outside of Europe and industry

Year 2 Maintenance of the PeBBu website To attract new Network participants (Observers) form East and central Europe, outside of Europe

and industry To produce the PeBBu Mid Term Assessment Report

Year 3 Maintenance of the PeBBu website Inclusion in the website of results from the Mapping activity

Year 4 Maintenance of the PeBBu website To produce the PeBBu Final Report To produce an updated PBB international state-of-the-art report

Interrelation with other PeBBu Tasks The Network Secretariat interrelates with all other tasks


The composition of the PeBBu Secretariat, as provided by CIBdf, is as follows: Wim Bakens: Coordinator, strategic supervision Mansi Jasuja: Programme management including management of the PeBBu Website and

Newsletters, coordination between all tasks and management of external relations Tom Heyblom: Financial and contract management Peggy van Asch: Membership administration and database management

Additional secretarial support is provided through CIBdf staff, without these requiring financial contributions from the PeBBu budget. During years 1 and 2, three replacements took place for the fulfilment of the position of Programme Manager. The situation stabilised in year 3 and 4. In general, the role of the network Secretariat has been much more pro-active and time consuming than


253

envisioned in the work plan. This encompassed: A more active role on both financial management and on the management of external cooperation Two incidental activities: the NAS extension and (the preparations for and the provisional

implementation of) the Steering Committee MTA intervention in the PeBBu Workplan and budget The decision to organise series of domain meetings instead of stand alone meetings, with the

secretariat facilitating it, has also put much extra work on the secretariat. An extra series of domain meetings, not initially envisaged in the workplan was also organised by

the network secretariat in Porto, Portugal in November 2004. The final PeBBu results were presented in a big conference in Helsinki held in June 2005. Planning

and organisation of the ‘PeBBu day’ fell on the network secretariat, again a task not present in the initial workplan.

Other’s included participation in several non-PeBBu events to present the network results, publishing articles in journals, producing several publications.


During the four year period Annual technical and financial Network reports PBB project proposals and related assessment reports PeBBu Website, including general information, permanently updated data, news articles and

mapping data Year 1

First PBB international state-of-the-art report Year 4

Second PBB international state-of-the-art report


Original Description of

Work

Work Achieved

PeBBu Technical & Financial Reports

All technical and financial progress / management reports have been prepared and submitted on time.

Website Development & maintenance

PeBBu website was already up and running in the first year. In the 3rd year it was redeveloped to include several new features, more user-friendly and easily navigational. It is a source of varied information including general information on PeBBu, updated information about all Tasks, links to domain websites, domain reports and domain synthesis, regional platform synthesis reports and all workshop reports, International State of the Art Report, newsletters, Mapping database, PeBBu network contacts, aligned projects such as the compendia projects, information on becoming a member of PeBBu etc.

Aligned Activities such as Aus-PeBBu, Compendia

PeBBu Secretariat has been involved in supporting several aligned activities in addition to the work plan, which are important for achieving the PeBBu objectives. These activities are not budgeted from the PeBBu-budget. These activities include the Aus-PeBBu, PeBBu Compendia, 3 Generic, cross-cutting Tasks etc.

International State of the Art Reports on PBB

The 1st International SotA on performance based building was compiled which highlights the benefits of PBB, and evaluated its positioning and uptake in, primarily, the PeBBu Thematic Network member countries within a number of key domains. The report was updated in the 4th year by an international addendum that reviewed the progress and uptake of PBB and its subsequent value proposition across a greater number of countries.

International Research Mapping

The secretariat launched the International PBB Research Mapping Database and invited the PeBBu members to input their own data in this.

Newsletters PeBBu has posted several newsletters to its members (also present on the PeBBu website). These range from news articles about new research or development in the field of performance based building, news about domain work, upcoming meetings, new appointments / observers in the PeBBu network., information on aligned activities. Several news articles were prepared on


254

the main conclusions from domain work and regional platform, launching of the Aus-PeBBu and National Platforms, etc.

Support to the Network Domains, UP and RP

PeBBu Network Secretariat has provided good support to all activities of the network domains, Regional Platforms and in planning and organisation of the 2 series of domain meetings held in Manchester in January 2004 and in November 2004 in Porto.

Facilitate Network Steering and Technical Committee Meetings.

Successful facilitation of all steering and technical committee meetings during the 4 years. All necessary pre and post information was distributed to the members of the Technical and Steering Committees.

Establishment of Strategic Relationships

Many strategic relationships have been established which would result in a better propagation of PBB principles.


Network Secretariat Tasks and Deliverables from Years 1-4

Target Groups Use and Dissemination

Strategy

Need for Additional Resources?

Overall Final PeBBu Report PeBBu Members, Observers, Design and Construction, Professionals, Research Community, Education Bodies

To be submitted to the EU and disseminated widely amongst and beyond the PeBBu community. Via publications of summary, website, news articles, presentation of main results in conferences / seminars.

No

International State-of-the-art Reports

Construction Policy Makers, PeBBu Members, Observers, Design Professionals, Research Community, Education Bodies, International Standardisation bodies

The complete version is electronically downloadable from www.PeBBu.nl.

For a larger-scale publication & dissemination of the International SotA summary, extra resources to be tapped.

Framework and Infrastructure Development of website Website No

Inventory / Validation PeBBu community, international building research organisations and individuals, design professionals etc.

Website, reference lists, publication in journals, news-articles

No

Mapping EU Research Activities

Inventory Report PeBBu community, international building research organisations and individuals, design professionals etc.

Website, reference lists, publication in journals, news-articles

No

Annual Technical and Financial Reports Internal Deliverable Not for dissemination No

General PeBBu Information

All stakeholders in building and construction sector, design and construction / structural engineering students,

PeBBu Website, search-engines (google, yahoo etc.) news articles, presentations in conferences and seminars, articles in journals, word-of-mouth promotion.

No

Relational Database

PeBBu Network, Website No

All stakeholders in building Website, emails No


255

PeBBu Newsletters and construction sector, design and construction / structural engineering students,

Project Management Adding / attracting new Members

All stakeholders in building / construction sector– users , architects, designers, engineers, regulatory bodies, research community etc.

News articles, website, email / personal contact, participation in seminars / conferences / writing papers in journals

Np


Covered in the Scientific and Technical Assessment The contact person for any follow-up of this activity is Dr. Wim Bakens, CIBdf, The Netherlands.


In conclusion, the Network Secretariat has performed very well and been able to cope with the increase in the workload. Apart from supporting the PeBBu tasks as defined in the work plan, the network secretariat has also facilitated several additional activities such as the PeBBu Compendia, Aus-PeBBu, 3 generic tasks, organisation of series of domain meetings etc.


256

A n n e x 1 . 2 0 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r F i n a n c i a l M a n a g e m e n tA n n e x 1 . 2 0 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r F i n a n c i a l M a n a g e m e n t


PeBBu Financial Management:

Task Report


BBRI, Belgium is responsible for arranging the necessary financial transactions between the EU and the PeBBu Principal Contractors. Workplan During the four year period: Annually arranging the necessary financial transactions between the EU and the PeBBu Principal Contractors in communication with the Network Secretariat Interrelation with other PeBBu Tasks The PeBBu Network Secretariat interacted with BBRI by supplying the data required for making the annual payments to the PeBBu Principal Contractors.


The PeBBu contract states that BBRI, Belgium is the Financial Coordinator for the PeBBu Network, but that the respective work to be carried out by the Network Secretariat that is provided by the Technical Coordinator CIBdf. After some communication hick-ups during Year 1, BBRI and CIBdf developed an operational and positive cooperation related to the financial management of the network. As concerns financial management and especially the dealing with the annual cost statements, the PeBBu Secretariat developed an approach that is substantially more pro-active (and time consuming) than average in most EU Networks. This more pro-active approach entailed the following.

All members first provided draft costs statement the PeBBu Secretariat These were assessed in detail on i) whether the EU rules and the financial rules as incorporated in

the work plan were properly applied and ii) whether requested payments were in line with both what is in the work plan and with the realised accomplishments. This assessment resulted in

T-21

Task name: T-20: PeBBu Financial Management

Task leader(s):

Mr. B. Michiel s, BBRI, Belgium


257

request/recommendations to the respective member to – if necessary – adjust the draft cost statements. Often in practice, this involved detailed explanations, convincing people on the justification of such recommendations and in some case defining compromises.

In almost all cases, the final cost statements were in line with the Secretariat’s recommendations and could subsequently be supplied to the EU. If not, the Secretariat provided an advise to the EU on how best to deal with the respective cost statements.

The cost table with the EU format with the data aligned with the detailed cost statements of each partner is presented as an Annex. It must be concluded that some members, especially some appointed domain members, have been less active than was envisaged in the work plan, in particular that they did not attend domain workshops for which travel money has been allocated for them. During the Mid-Term evaluation, the Steering Committee recommended that in such cases, allocated budgets for such members to be decreased. Communications by the network Secretariat with all such members have resulted in such budget decreases being supported by them. Given decreases of costs of flights within Europe during the last years, especially the cost of flights from West, Central and some South European countries, it now can be concluded that the allocations in the PeBBu budget for travel costs for members in these countries are relatively high compared to actual expenditure. It was subsequently assumed that the EU rules included enough flexibility in such cases to allow for a remainder of budget allocations for such travel costs to be available to cover possible extra personnel costs made by respective members.


It is to be concluded that BBRI as the financial coordinator of PeBBu and CIBdf as the Technical coordinator established a positive and communicative relationship during the duration of the PeBBu programme.


258

A n n e x 1 . 2 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r N A S S o t AA n n e x 1 . 2 1 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r N A S S o t A


NAS SotA Report

Task Report


In the course of 2001, when it became obvious that the EU would be expanded to include the EU-NAS – Newly Associate States, the response of the PeBBu Network was to manage a PeBBu NAS expansion that formalised through a PeBBu contract amendment in the beginning of 2003. This ensures a complete European perspective for the stimulation and establishment of Performance Based Building practices. One of the main tasks under the PeBBu NAS programme was to produce a State of the Art Report on PBB in the NAS countries. The PeBBu NAS State-of-the-Art Report addresses the background, the present situation and the vision and strategies of future implementation of PBB – Performance Based Building in the respective NAS (newly associated states of Europe) countries. Task members are 13 organisations from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland. The NAS SotA Report aims to enlighten, why the NAS countries show plenty of common features even if they are belonging to different regions, different language families, they have different historical background, different size and economical situation. A main feature of this report is to investigate the situation, the barriers and the opportunities of PBB related to the historical background of the NAS countries that strongly determined the possibilities of PBB and still influence the development of the construction sector. First of all this is due to the artificial socio-economical system that developed in these countries after the 2nd World War during the time of socialism. Comparing with the East European Regional Platform’s (EEP) Status Report of PeBBu, the NAS Status Report thus focuses on status and the common features as a consequence of the common historical background and analyses the situation related to the following historical periods: the time of socialism; the transition period and the present time after the EU accession. In contrast, the EEP Status

T-22

Task name: T-22: NAS SotA Report

Task leaders:

Dr. Károly Matolcsy, ÉMI npc, Hungary, [email protected] PhD. Gábor Tiderenczl, ÉMI npc, [email protected]

Dr. Peter Matiasovsky, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia, [email protected]


259

Report focuses on regional aspects, describing status in each country and is based more on national reports and status in the countries. The NAS members discussed also the status of PBB in general in the NAS countries considering the PeBBu scientific domains & other domain areas. Vision to the future and overall strategies of PBB implementation in the NAS countries were also determined by the partners. A table of barriers, strategies & actions related to historical periods were worked out and several best-practice examples of PBB in the participating countries were presented. The NAS Status Report also reflects these achievements. As regards the methodology of the work, the NAS Platform organised special PeBBu NAS workshops; collected PeBBu documents and all PeBBu NAS members contributed to the work. The NAS Status Report also utilized relevant literature and the scientific background of the task leaders. PeBBu results will be disseminated in the NAS countries through National Platforms that should be developed and also in education and training activities, conferences and workshops and various publications.


Connected to the overall objectives for the PeBBu Network, the specific objectives of the NAS extension was:

• to stimulate and facilitate a maximal alignment between the international PeBBu activities and national research and dissemination activities concerning the development and implementation of PBB in the countries,

• to initiate and facilitate the establishment of National or Transnational PeBBu Platforms in the NAS countries,

• to attract new PeBBu members / observers from the NAS countries The main work objectives of the relevant period:

• to organise special NAS workshops • to develop the NAS State of the Art Report in 3 phases • to attract new members or observers



The PeBBu NAS Status Report was prepared on the bases of the lessons learned from:

- PeBBu workshops - Special PeBBu NAS workshops - PeBBu documents - Contribution of the PeBBu NAS members - Relevant literature - Scientific background of the task leaders

For assisting the preparation of the report two special NAS workshops were organised by the task leader, both in Budapest, Hungary and there was also an informal NAS workshop held on the Manchester meeting. The first meeting was joined to the first series of PeBBu workshops on the 27th of March 2003. After this workshop a first version of the NAS report was prepared. A first draft for commenting was prepared by the task leader and sent to all NAS members. After further work conducted by the task leaders, Dr Angela Lee and Professor Peter Barrett (University of Salford, UK)


260

assisted the preparation of this first version. For developing the NAS Status Report, a second workshop was organised in Budapest, Non-profit Company for Quality Control and Innovation in Building (ÉMI npc) in the 9th of July 2004. The minutes of the meeting was prepared by Dr. Gábor Tiderenczl (ÉMI npc) and sent out for commenting among all NAS members. On the bases of the lessons and documents connected to this workshop and the advanced PeBBu work during this period, the first version of the NAS Report was changed in many aspects and developed further by the task leaders. This 2nd version of the NAS Report was also sent out to the NAS member and to Mansi Jasuja, the Programme Manager of PeBBu. The report was finalized on the bases of the comments from the members and from the PeBBu Secretariat. The final version of the NAS Report was developed in the last year of the PeBBu work. The NAS members had two workshops during this time. The first workshop was organised in the 11th of April 2005 in Bratislava. On this workshop the PeBBu NAS State of the Art Report was presented. Presentations and discussions were made on barriers and opportunities of PBB in the NAS countries, best practice options, visions, strategies and actions of implementing PBB in the NAS countries. Also the next tasks were discussed and approved on this workshop. The last workshop was organised in the 21st of July 2005 in Sofia. On this workshop further best-practice examples were presented, the differences in content and approach of the NAS Report and the EEP Report were discussed, final PeBBu tasks and necessary contributions were discussed and approved. After preparing the “final draft” of the NAS Status Report, it was sent for commenting to all partners and also to the PeBBu Domain leaders. After integrating all received comments, the NAS Status Report was finalized during August 2005.


The main result of the PeBBu NAS work is the NAS Status Report. This report reflects the special characters and status of PBB of the NAS countries due to a special historical background concerning the last 50 years. All partners contributed to work out an innovative approach for defining barriers, strategies, actions and visions of PBB implementation in the NAS countries related to the special historical periods. (i.e. before the political changes of 1989-90; in the transition period and after the EU accession). All this is described in detail and summarized on a table in the annexes of the NAS Status Report. The NAS Platform contributed to the international PeBBu work with this innovative approach of discussing PBB related issues. Also the best-practice examples collected in the NAS countries can provide a unique colour in the whole PeBBu projects that are not comparable with the best-practice examples of other countries participating in the PeBBu network. The NAS Report concluded that the realisation of the basic conditions of a wider PBB implementation in future will depend on the involvement of the potential PBB holders - relevant construction process partners: clients, architects, contractors, producers, facility managers into the performance based concept in practice. The specified conditions for optimum realisation of PBB for each of construction process partners must be accompanied with the adequate complete information necessary for their fulfilment. In the Status Report there is a description of the basic conditions for PBB implementation needed by the various construction process partners.




To organise the kick-off meeting of NAS

The kick-off meeting (1st workshop) of NAS was held in Budapest 27 March 2003. NAS 1st Workshop Minutes was prepared after the workshop

To make NAS Meeting in the beginning of 2004

NAS Meeting – 13th of January 2004 Manchester


261

To organise a 2nd Workshop for NAS 2nd Workshop of NAS was held on 9th July 2004, Budapest. NAS 2nd Workshop Minutes was prepared after the workshop

To attract new members / observers Observers from Romania were involved in the 2nd Workshop of NAS To develop further the NAS Status Report

Draft of 2nd NAS Status Report was prepared

To work out strategies and vision for PBB implementation in the NAS countries

Each NAS member worked out strategies and vision for PBB implementation in own countries, presented in next workshop and this was integrated in the NAS Status Report

To organise a 3rd Workshop for NAS 3rd NASworkshop was organised in the 12th of April 2005 in Bratislava. NAS 3rd Meeting Minutes was prepared after the workshop

To collect best-practice examples of PBB in each participating countries

Task members presented best-practice examples of PBB on the workshops and it was used for the EEP and NAS Reports

To work out best practice examples Each task member worked out best practice examples of PBB in own countries and it was attached as an annex to the NAS Report

To organise the 4th Workshop for NAS 4th NAS workshop was organised in the 21st July 2005 in Sofia To work out the final draft of the NAS Report

The task leader prepared the final draft of the NAS Report and sent to the partners and domain leaders for commenting

To prepare the final NAS Status Report After integrating all comments the task leader prepared the final version of the NAS Status Report

To prepare the NAS Task Report The task leader prepared the NAS Task Report


The State of Art of NAS is reviewed on the special PeBBu NAS State-of-the-Art Report. The scope of the PeBBu NAS Report is to give an analysis of all aspects of potential relevance to the envisaged future implementation and actual application of PBB – Performance Based Building in the respective NAS (newly associated states of Europe) countries. Task members are representatives from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland. The objective of the Report is to present the background and the Status of PBB in the NAS countries with special focus on the ongoing PeBBu scientific domains and other PeBBu domain areas. Further aim is to provide a future vision and strategies for the implementation of PBB in the NAS countries in general and in the PeBBu domain areas. The 1st chapter describes the historical background of the NAS countries, summarizing the main common characteristics of history that determined the possibilities of PBB and still influence the development of the construction sector. After the WW II all of the NAS countries were occupied by the Soviet army, and within some years became soviet satellite states with a very similar structure. An artificial socio-economical system was developed that determined the development of he construction sector and the possibilities of implementing the concept of PBB. There were special barriers of PBB due to this artificial system. In 1989/1990, the soviet systems collapsed, and new, democratic states were established. A transition period started from a planned economy to a market oriented economy in 1990s with consequences and changes in every sphere of life. New barriers raised and the PBB thinking became even weaker than it was before the changes. In 1995 the NAS countries applied for EU membership and in the 1st of May 2004 ten of these European nations became member states of the EU. This situation gives new challenges and also new opportunities for these countries. These challenges and opportunities determine the development of the construction sector and the possibilities and strategies of further implementation of the PBB concept The 2nd chapter of the report analyses how the construction sector has been developed in the NAS countries, that determines also the barriers and opportunities of PBB. The former socialist system determined the development of the sector with the dominant role of the state and the practice of industrialization and mass production, that resulted a significant construction boom but with low quality buildings. Opportunities of getting proper building materials were very low, the lack was the most general


262

feature and generally the performance criteria was adjusted to the only available solution. The changes in the sector during the transition period occurred as a consequence of the former building practice. The strong role of the public sector stopped and there was a high decline in the production. The market type building demand became dominant and the investor began to be a dominant partner that often resulted in the lack of acceptable architectural quality. International companies have had a continuously increasing role. The transition period had also its difficulties as low skilled workers, low workmanship, low onsite safety, lack of quality inspection, instable financial background, high corruption rate and extremely high black market. Also the problem of housing affordability emerged. On the other hand all up-to date products are available and there are several prominent investments in the NAS. The special situation of the construction sector results also a special status of PBB in the NAS countries. The 3rd chapter describes the status of PBB in the NAS countries. Building activities in the NAS countries are the least performance based among the PeBBu regions. Although CPD is entirely implemented in the NAS countries, the standardisation process is still rather weak and perspective in character. As a result of the NAS countries’ accession to the EU, it is expected that also the introduction of the performance concept will accelerate. There is a general agreement among professionals of its wider introduction. The 4th chapter aims to point out the general barriers and opportunities of PBB according to different historic periods in the NAS countries, namely before the political changes, in the transition period and after the EU extension. In the time of socialism, special barriers obstructed the implementation of PBB in the artificially isolated NAS countries, as the mass production, the COCOM list, the PLAN driven economy, etc. Most of these features are already over but some of them are still living or have influence. As regards the implementation of PBB, after the political changes new barriers and opportunities raised. There are still remnants of socialist mentality and short term thinking. Lack of holistic approach, lack of cooperation, lack of finance, the weak credit systems and the low level of responsibility are all strong barriers. On the other side the transition period resulted also new opportunities, as the CPD implementation, the availability of new products and high quality buildings. The EU extension gives again new barriers and opportunities for PBB implementation in the NAS countries. Opportunities are partly related to obligations. New barriers can be some deformations of the market, influence of some interest groups, cartel agreements, tax policies or governmental decisions. On the other hand the free market environment and the support for several sectors provide new opportunities for PBB in general and in the various domain areas. The 5th chapter addresses the status of PBB in the 6 ongoing PeBBu domains: Life performance of construction materials and components; Indoor environment; Design of buildings; Legal and procurement practices; Regulations; Innovation. On the bases of the current situation some strategies are listed that can serve the future implementation of PBB in the discussed scientific area. In Domain1 “Life time of building materials and components” we can see a development of quality and plenty of new up-to-date products, a product evaluation system and developing standards on one hand, However, still plenty of low quality items on the market on the other hand. There are several researches related to durability issues, However, few reference service life data are available and the factor method is not used in the NAS countries. Well defined performance criteria, indicators, measurement and simulation tools are needed for further development. Regarding Domain 2 “Indoor climate”, there are legal regulations containing requirements on the maximum concentration of certain pollutants. There are many problems of moulds. In practical design generally only aspects of comfort are considered, a more holistic approach to indoor climate and healthy building is seldom realised and this would be needed. Strategies should also address simulation, modelling and testing tools in order to predict complex indoor environment performances and also training special designers for indoor climate.


263

As regards Domain 3 “Design of Buildings”, the former large state building design companies operated in the NAS countries divided into small design offices and the new situation caused new problems as well. In practice the successful PBD usually depends explicitly on the responsibility and possibilities of all decisive partners and their quality, but mainly on architect - client cooperation. Unfortunately, architects generally have a narrow orientation. Often “Ideal catalogue construction solutions” are applied and no explicit criteria and methodologies of the whole building performance monitoring and testing is used. A main barrier of PBD is that particular design participants do not consider the construction and its results as one complex system. Explicit performance criteria, less empirical approaches, more complex tools & databases, whole life education & training are needed as a strategy. Concerning Domain 6 “Legal and Procurement practices”, building affairs belong to the public administrational proceedings in the NAS countries. As former former Ministries responsible for construction were ceased, responsibility for sector was distributed among 3-8 ministries. Inefficient operation was the consequence and especially housing policy became critical. The development of the institutional background, a construction policy and strategies are strongly needed. Regarding the procurement process, the building manager is responsible for it. The level of the application of performance criteria depends in particular cases on the building manager - his cooperation with architect, designer, contractor and his communication with the client. In strategies it is important to develop construction process coordination and optimisation, facility management and the tendering process. Also more information and databases are needed. According to the main points in Domain 7 “Building Regulations”, the regulatory framework in NAS is composed of the Act on Construction and the Act on Construction products; National Technical Standards, European Standards (EN) and International Standards (ISO). The competent governmental institutions develop laws and decrees, while the Standards Institutions develop standards. Regulations are partly performance based. Although performance based concept has been integrated in the NAS Building Regulation in many areas, the national standardization process is still rather weak. Thus, main strategies are to develop the institutional background of regulating the construction process and to develop performance based regulations and national standards on the bases of complex performance criteria and whole life cycle approach. As regards Domain 9 “Innovation”, after 1989 as large construction companies and central programs, also large research institutes were ceased and financial funds radically decreased. Mainly the Academic Research Workshops, Higher Educational Institutions, Innovation Parks, and Institutions for quality control exercise research activities today. Although there were several research programs related to PBB during decades, the application of innovation has several barriers as the common attitude of builders, the lack of R&D capacities of construction companies and the strong financial barriers. Great part of the innovative products comes out of the international research but there are excellent results also in the NAS countries. Several strategies could be defined, but first of all it is necessary to identify long-term values and make a balance between values and interests. Governments should promote innovation, education and training. The 6th chapter gives a summary of the situation and the potential strategies in the following other PeBBu domain areas: Built Environment; Organisation & Management; Information and documentation; Fire safety & engineering; Accessibility; Facilities management; Energy & water management; Environmental sustainability; Education & training; Intelligent buildings; Structural design & engineering; Construction products directive (CPD). The 7th chapter of the report discusses the vision to the future and some overall strategies to realize that vision. In general it can be said that only a stable political, legislative, economical and social environment in NAS will provide the optimum conditions enabling the creation of the infrastructure necessary for a wider PBB implementation. The main vision to the future concerning the implementation of PBB is that after 10 years the differences between the NAS countries


264

and the former EU countries will be decreased to a minimum level and most of the barriers will be ceased. Regional cooperation will be increased. Several strategies are needed to realize this vision.


• 1st NAS Workshop (27 March 2003, Budapest) • 1st Workshop minutes • 1st NAS Status report • NAS Meeting (13th of January 2004, Manchester) • 2nd NAS Workshop (9th July 2004, Budapest) • 2nd Workshop Minutes • 2nd NAS State of the Art Report • 3rd NAS Workshop (11th April 2005, Bratislava) • 2nd Workshop Minutes • National Reports about vision and strategies of PBB implementation in the NAS countries • Best-practice examples of PBB in the NAS countries • 4th NAS Workshop (21st July 2005, Sofia) • Final NAS Status Report • NAS Task Report


For using the result of PeBBu the following action points can be highlighted in the NAS countries:

- Effort on regulation, legislation & control should be increased - More national support of regulation and legislation - Environmental performance and healthy building should be a priority topic - There is a high demand to take benefit from the dynamic building industry - More incentives for change should be encouraged - Client driven solutions should be developed, it is important to make the client interested and

better informed - Building classes and building certification should have larger emphases.

Targeted audience/recipients for disseminated/transferred information:

• All members of national platforms and other related persons and corporations • Organs of the public administration: chief authorities, ministries, etc. • Associations of construction industry • Civil associations • Local government officers • University teachers, designers • House builders, international big industrial and commercial clients, • Local authorities' technical staff • General contractors and subcontractors • Young researchers • Chief executives of relating organisations

Exploitation and dissemination strategy for each individual partner:

• Regional and national conferences for all interested parties


265

• Web display – national and regional databases – for general information about international and home achievements and events

• Publications at all kind of media • Training courses specialised according to the different professions and branches of construction

industry and stakeholders of the society


The task leaders managed and coordinated the activities of the NAS. ÉMI npc organised the first two workshops, the other task leader from Slovakia organised the 3rd workshop and the task member from Bulgaria organised the 4th workshop of NAS. NAS documents and reports of the Platform were prepared in cooperation by the Slovakian and Hungarian task leaders and with the contribution of all partners. After the 1st NAS Workshop in March 2003, with the partners contribution the task leaders prepared the 1st NAS Status Report. A short meeting of NAS was done during the time of the Manchester Workshop in January 2004. The 2nd PeBBu NAS Workshop was organised in July 2004, the outcome of which was the 2nd Status Report, including a table of barriers and strategies of PBB in the relevant historical periods in the NAS countries, which was a main issue of discussion during the workshop. Romania was also represented on this meeting in an observer status. The 3rd EEP workshop was organised in the 11th of April 2005 in Bratislava, where vision to the future, strategies and actions were presented and discussed. The task members also presented best practice examples of PBB in the own countries. Final tasks were also approved here for the preparation of the final version of the NAS Report. The 4th NAS workshop was organised in the 21st of July 2005 in Sofia where the final contributions for the Status Report were presented and discussed. After integrating the final contributions and comments of the partners, the Hungarian task leaders prepared the final version of the NAS Status Report in August 2005. Contact persons concerning the follow-up of the project:

• Dr. Károly Matolcsy, Npc for Quality Control and Innovation in Building, Budapest , Hungary [[email protected]]

• Dr. Ing. Peter Matiasovsky, Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia [[email protected]]

• Mrs. Evelina Stoykova, Sofia Energy Centre, Bulgaria [[email protected]] • Ing. Milos Kalousek MSc., Brno University of Technology - Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Czech

Republic [[email protected]] • Dr. Ing. Peter Matiasovsky, Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of

Sciences, Slovakia [[email protected]] • Mr. Piotr Bartkiewicz Warsaw, University of Technology - Institute of Heating and Ventilation,

Poland [[email protected]]


The realisation of the basic conditions necessary for the application of performance based building principles in future will depend on the involvement of the potential PBB holders - relevant construction process partners: clients, architects, contractors, producers, facility managers into the


266

performance based concept in practice. Taking into consideration the present status, the barriers and opportunities of realizing the basic conditions, it could be expected that in the coming 20 years the PeBBu approach will be widely implemented in the NAS legislation. The producers will offer higher quality building materials according to PB requirements. The implementation of PB design depends on the legislative framework, the educational system and the attitude of the architects and engineers. In the coming 20 years PB design should be implemented at the design of big public and office buildings, as well as at the design of some more luxurious single-family houses. In the coming 20 years the building companies would prefer to execute construction works with traditional technologies and materials, even if requirements are given in performance terms. New materials and technologies would be applied only if the client or the designers require it. Following a large awareness raising campaign among the whole society, in the coming 20 years PeBBu could be implemented in NAS in big public, office and dwelling buildings, as well as in some single-family houses owned by people that are concerned with the problems of the environment, the energy saving and that require higher quality and longer life span for their dwelling. The complex solution how to support the PBB in NAS must issue form the promotion and propagation of cooperative approach of all partners to the construction based on complex building performance knowledge. The possibility of equal opportunities and the minimum threshold degree of economical freedom and stability are the fundamental conditions for this. The accession to the European Union provides new opportunities, partly as obligations for implementing PBB in the NAS countries. If the key strategies will be conducted, the vision to the future related to PBB in eliminating the differences between the NAS countries and the former EU countries has real and good chances.

8. Acknowledgements

The task leaders wish to thank the participants of the NAS Platform, especially Mrs. Evelina Stoykova (BG), Mr. Milos Kalousek (CZ) and Mr. Piotr Bartkiewicz (PL) for their valuable contributions and discussions in the PeBBu NAS project. Special thanks are due Mrs. Mansi Jasuja PeBBu Programme Manager (NL) who assisted all workshops and the work of the NAS.


267

A n n e x 1 . 2 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 1 : C P DA n n e x 1 . 2 2 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 1 : C P D

Annex 1.1: Task 1 - CPD Reporting period: 01 October 2003 till 30 September 2005

Supporting regarding the CPD:

Task Report :


During the period 1998-2000, CIB, the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction - initiated and commissioned various international programmes and R&D projects related to Performance Based Building. Based on the achievements of those projects CIB proposed in 2000 the establishment of the Thematic Network PeBBu Performance Based Building. This Network is to elaborate on the activities carried out by CIB, its commissions and its members since it adopted Performance Based Building as a Priority Theme in the CIB Pro-Active Approach in 1998. The European Commission decided to fund the PeBBu Network through a Network subsidy within the Growth Programme that is part of the 5th Framework Research Programme, with a start date of 1 October, 2001 and run for 4-years until 30 September 2005. The objectives of the PeBBu Network are stimulation and pro-active facilitation of international dissemination and implementation of Performance Based Building in building and construction practice. It has been acknowledged that the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC – CPD) should be a basic element in PeBBu work and therefore, the introduction of the CPD was considered to be a horizontal task in PeBBu. The Steering Committee of the PeBBu Thematic Network decided on 4th August 2003 to develop a new cross-cutting activity on the integration of the knowledge of the Construction Products Directive into the work of the various domains and tasks of PeBBu. Two main objectives were formulated:

To inform PeBBu domains about the CPD. To examine the relationship between product conformity attestation (the CPD) and works having

been installed using a performance based approach. Both objectives were met and documented in the CPD supporting document.

GT-01

Task name: Support regarding the CPD

Task leader(s):

Eric Winnepenninckx, BBRI, Belgium, [email protected] Luk Vandaele, BBRI, [email protected]

Piet Vitse, BBRI, piet.vi [email protected]


268


Objective I The first objective of this activity was to provide basic info on the CPD to the PeBBu domains and tasks and to receive and incorporate feedback in a final report that aims at linking PeBBu with the CPD. More broadly, part A of this document can be used to widely inform people about the CPD. The Construction Products Directive (CPD - 89/106/CEE) defines six essential requirements for construction works, which are detailed in interpretative documents. Starting from those essential requirements for works, the European Commission, after consultation of the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA), specifies the regulated characteristics for construction products and kits in mandates to the European Standardisation Committee (CEN) and the European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA) to develop harmonised technical product specifications, i.e. harmonised European standards or European Technical Approvals, for the performance assessment of the building products. The EC New Approach directives in general and the CPD specifically introduce a mandatory system of conformity attestation throughout the construction products sector. For some parts of the industry, CE Marking is not really new, due to other existing EU Directives, but the CPD has important particularities. Thanks to the CPD, the way technical product specifications are being written has changed. It is expected that the CPD technical specifications should be a driving tool towards performance based works specifications and regulations in a very large part of geographical Europe. Objective I: To inform PeBBu domains about the CPD. This objective has been achieved through Part A of the "CPD supporting document".

Objective II Although the CPD starts from the 6 essential requirements for works, it leads to product conformity attestation only. It does not provide the link between the performance based approach used in product specifications and a performance based approach for works. Therefore, in Objective II, this project examined how such a link is being or could be established. Attention has been given to the European voluntary product assessment systems, which exist for many years in most European countries, and are expected to remain in place, although their scope might be very different, as far as they are not in conflict with the CPD and if there is a market driven demand. At the moment, the CPD is at the end of its first phase, with the first generation of harmonised technical specifications becoming available and being used in the construction sector. The activity explored domains that the CPD does not cover for the time being and where supporting standardisation activities are on-going (e.g. dangerous substances, durability, life cycle analysis, environmental declarations, …). Objective II: To examine the relationship between product conformity attestation (the CPD) and works having been installed using a performance based approach.


269



The "CPD supporting document" was developed and distributed to PeBBu members, asking for feedback on each occasion. During the reporting period, interpretation of the CPD changed. Feedback presented and new interpretation was introduced.


The CPD supporting document is mainly intended to be informative, rather than innovative. Nevertheless, Part B of the document highlights issues that should be further examined in the framework of the Directive, and beyond.


Deliverable Milestone Type Actual work accomplished

1. Draft report on CPD for discussion

1 Jan 2004 Report Accomplished

2. First revised report on CPD 1 March 2004 Report Accomplished

3. Circulation enquiry questionnaire 1 March 2004 Question-naire Accomplished

4. CPD Document 1 Dec 2004 Report Accomplished

5. Final Report 1 Jun 2005 Report Accomplished (1 Sep 2005)


Up until August 2005, developments within the framework of the CPD have been considered in the final report, the CPD supporting document. Whenever Domain leaders or members requested further or other information than that provided, the report has been adapted accordingly. The CPD supporting document contains hyperlinks to websites, ensuring readers can retrieve actual information.


1. CPD Supporting document.


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination PeBBu members PeBBu network CPD supporting

document

Information on the Construction Products

Directive All other PeBBu network


The Construction Products Directive is a complex directive. In many cases, background information, which is presented in the "CPD supporting document" is required for complete implementation. Especially small


270

and medium sized enterprises may find the document interesting since it brings together information which is available, but from many different sources.


The European level is described above. The document already generated interest from AusPeBBu members attending PeBBu workshops. It is possible that it will create interest in other parts of the world as well.


This horizontal task was performed by the authors of the CPD supporting document, Mr. Vandaele, Mr. Vitse and Mr. Winnepenninckx, all employed by the Belgian Building Research Institute (Lozenberg 7, B-1932 Sint-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium). Distribution of the draft documents was performed through the PeBBu secretariat.


The CPD supporting document was developed and finalised within the foreseen timescale, introducing PeBBu Members' feedback and new developments. Progress was presented during PeBBu workshops in Manchester, Porto and Helsinki. The document is complete, but will be outdated over time, since development and interpretation of the Directive will continue. To cater for this inevitable fact, the CPD supporting document refers to a number of websites which are expected to continue being updated.


271

A n n e x 1 . 2 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 2A n n e x 1 . 2 3 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 2 : C R I S P: C R I S P

Reporting period: 04 August 2003 till 30 September 2005

CRISP Indicator Analysis for PBB:

Generic Task Report


This Generic Task studied how construction and city related sustainability indicators as collected and validated in the CRISP network may be used in performance based building. An improved internet browser was developed to view and search relevant performance indicators. Finally, recommendations were drawn for future work.


The objectives of this new activity was to

Study the relevance of CRISP indicators for PBB • the indicator classification • the indicator systems and their content.

Develop an Internet based browser prototype • including simple view and search functions for relevant performance indicators.

Propose how the work should continue • a suggestion for streamlining the performance indicators and their values.



The indicator work was started quite late in PeBBu even though the CRISP results have been accessible for some time. The lack of a universal framework for performance based building hindered further progress in this task.

GT-02

Task name: GT-03: CRISP Indicator Analysis for PBB

Task leader(s):

Mr. Pekka Huovila, VTT, Finland, email pekka.huovila@vtt .f i Jean-Luc and Jacques Chevalier, CSTB, France, email j l [email protected]


272


Even though the CRISP indicators are believed to add value for sustainable construction, they were not found sufficient as such to encourage innovations in performance based building. The internet tool was improved and many useful indicators were found. The innovations, however, are expected to be achieved in future work starting from the PBB needs and exploiting the results of earlier work, e.g. this PeBBu study.


Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished CRISP Study 100 % Internet browser 100 % Recommendations 100 %


The study on CRISP indicators (Construction and City Related Sustainability Indicators) showed the following • the indicator framework as developed in CRISP based on different classifications relevant to sustainable

construction (as suggested by international bodies, such as UN, EEA, OECD, WBSCD, ISO or CIB) needs to be simplified and re-engineered to meet the needs of performance based building

• a clear definition is needed for performance indicators • individual indicators may contain different units or measurement methods, thus making it difficult for a

same single indicator to belong into several indicator systems, or to have a possibility of defining new representative indicators systems by selecting relevant individual indicators tfrom the database

• absolute target values for performance indications is not recommended to be given, since they often relate with local content

• an efficient indicator browser should give the opportunity of using different hierarchical levels in order to show the indicator systems in a representative manner

• as a conclusion the use of CRISP work as it is now still requires considerable improvements to add value for performance based building.


The Final report describes the results of the CRISP study and the future recommendations. The PeBBu browser is accessible at http://ce.vtt.fi/pebbubrowser/index0.jsp. The database consists of seven building indicator systems, three building process indicator systems, two urban and infrastructure systems and one process indicatior system. These thirteen indicator systems containing 99 individual indicators was judged to be a sufficiently representative sample for this exercise, especially with respect to the applicability of the CRISP indicators for performance based building at present.


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination CRISP Study Benchmarking, Information


PeBBu Network, Website

Internet browser Information exchange, Demonstration

Research community, PeBBu Network

Website, PeBBu Network, New projects

Recommendations Directing future activities Practitioners, Researchers, Policy makers, Educators, Researchers, PeBBu Network

PeBBu Network, New projects


273


The CRISP indicators were collected and validated through a wide European network bringing together 24 organisations from 16 countries. These results are now shared with the PeBBu network.


The indicator work will continue without doubt. These results serve in future projects aiming at improve the performance of the built environment.


The approach in this generic task has been presented in different PeBBu events. The start of the work was postponed due to the plan of being carried out jointly with a sister project in Australia by CSIRO. Unfortunately that project didn’t kick off in time. The task leaders may be contacted concerning possible follow up.


The performance of the built environment needs to be monitored and verified in all phases over the life span of buildings. Simple and reliable indicators serve for that purpose. Indicators can be also powerful means to show trends e.g. related with policies, regulations or incentives. At present, universal classification of building performance is lacking and there’s no agreed format for presenting the content or measuring the value of individual indicators (they differ in different countries in many cases). Indicators are useful when they form a system indicating different dimensions of building performance. The study showed that the approach in CRISP focusing on sustainability indicators does not match very well with the approach selected in PeBBu emphasising performance based building. Therefore considerable additional work is still required to achieve good European indicator systems that could be widely used to support and encourage the successful use of the performance approach in building. The future work needs to be linked with simple interoperable tools that will be early brought into practice.


274

A n n e x 1 . 2 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 3 : D S TA n n e x 1 . 2 4 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r G e n e r i c T a s k 3 : D S T

Reporting period: 04 August 2003 till 30 September 2005

Decision Support Toolkit for PBB:

Generic Task Report


This Generic Task gave an overview on decision support tools for performance based building. The most promising ones were presented in detail and their applicability was tested in selected PeBBu Domains using simple software prototype applications. Recommendations for further development were drawn and integration of feasible tools was proposed. Seven value management, value engineering and process management tools were selected so that they can be used in different phases (briefing, design, delivery, operation) of performance based building as follows • Check Lists • Requirements Management (EcoProP) • Quality Function Deployment (QFD) • Multi Criteria Decision Making (Hipre) • Design Structure Matrix (DSM) • iBuild • Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). These tools were tested in two occasions together with the PeBBu community in its Scientific Domains. Experiences from those tool tests were described and recommendations drawn based on them. An extensive list of references was collected into the main report. The main conclusions as recommendations for the future work are summarised below • a common international framework and universal performance classification • an integrated platform with interoperable applications • a performance based building roadmap • value adding whole life services • information dissemination, regulations and education.

GT-03

Task name: GT-03: Decision Suppot Toolkit for PBB

Task leader(s):

Mr. Pekka Huovila, VTT, Finland, email pekka.huovila@vtt .f i Prof. Colin Gray, Universi ty of Reading, UK, email [email protected]


275


The objectives of this new activity on Decision Support Toolkit for Performance Based Building was to Produce an inventory report

• an overview of most potential decision support tools for performance based building • University of Reading to describe QFD and VTT five others.

Test software application prototypes • prominent decision support tool testing in selected PeBBu Domains.

Recommendations • recommendation of relevant tools for specific PeBBu Domains and requested additional work in

tool development and toolkit integration.



Interesting feedback and exchange of information was achieved during the testing period. Some tools were improved through test cases (additional information obtained) and the interoperability tested (EcoProp / VTT QFD).


The tool tests were promising, but new real cases would be needed to demonstrate the full potential. For a breakthrough important research and tool development is still required.


The planned objectives were met, results were achieved and documented and disseminated.

Planned Activities during the entire project Actual work Accomplished Inventory Report 100 % Tool prototype testing 100 % Recommendations 100 %


The state of the art showed that a number of tools to support decision making in performance based building exist already, even though they are often not interoperable and not extensively used at present.


The Final report (84 p.) describes the state of the art, tool testing and recommendations for future work.


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Inventory Report Benchmarking, Information


PeBBu Network, Website

Tool prototype testing Benchmarking, Information exchange

Research community, PeBBu Network, New users

Conferences, Website, PeBBu Network, PeBBu News Article, New projects

Recommendations Directing future activities Practitioners, Researchers, Policy PeBBu Network,


276

makers, Educators, Researchers, PeBBu Network

Publications


A wide PeBBu Network has validated the work through the tool testing. Information dissemination is equally assured through the network.


Customers • Improved life time performance of the built environment • Increased customer satisfaction • better image, PBB brand • Growing investments on buildings. Industry • New business opportunities for innovative actors • Increased productivity • Mass customized products • Growing market.


The PeBBu Scientific Domain coordinators may be contacted for supplementary information on the tool tests. The DST testing in the first trial (October Delft) was conducted as follows

Domain 2: “Indoor Environment” + Domain 3: “Design of Buildings” + client experts - DSToolkit presentation - Reading QFD demonstration - EcoProP testing - Pilot case (Loiste) trial. The DST testing in the second set of trials was as follows

Domain 1: “Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components” - DSToolkit presentation (Requirements Management, QFD) - CRISP presentation

Domain 2: “Indoor Environment” - DSToolkit presentation (Check Lists) - EcoProP demonstration - Reading QFD demonstration - Pilot case (IFD) presentation

Domain 3: “Design of Buildings” - DSToolkit presentation (Requirements Management, QFD, iBUILD) - EcoProP and VTT QFD testing - Pilot case (IFD) presentation and design

Domain 6: “Legal and Procurement Practices” - DSToolkit presentation (iBUILD, DSM) - DSM demonstration

Domain 7: “Regulations” - DSToolkit presentation


277

- Reading QFD demonstration

Domain 8: “Innovation” - Pilot case (IFD) presentation - DSToolkit presentation - HIPRE and DSM discussion. The task leaders may be contacted concerning possible follow-up.


The key recommendations as presented in detail in the final report were

1 International framework and universal performance classification “a PBB Master list 2006”

2 Integrated platform with interoperable applications “PeBBu platform and PeBBu compatible tools” (PeBBu II)

3 Value models, incentives and constraints “PBB Roadmap”

4 Value adding whole life services “Self sustaining PBB business models”

5 Information dissemination, regulations and education.

8. Acknowledgements

Special thanks for the Marcel Loomans, TNO for hosting the first tool test case in Delft. Thanks to all experts for taking part in the tool testing and giving valuable feedback to the work.


278

A n n e x 1 . 2 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r C oA n n e x 1 . 2 5 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r C o m p e n d i u m 1 : B u i l d i n g m p e n d i u m 1 : B u i l d i n g P e r f o r m a n c e M o d e l sP e r f o r m a n c e M o d e l s

Compendium of Bui lding Performance Models:

Task Report

1. Overview

The Compendium of Building Performance Models is an on-line library of software tools (descriptions and links), currently presented on the Aus-PeBBu web-site and specifically compiled to facilitate the implementation of Performance Based Building. The setting up of the Compendium commenced as a CIB task in 2000, under the leadership of Dr Greg Foliente of CSIRO, Australia. In 2003, the further development of the Compendium was taken over as one of the activities of Aus-PeBBu, and the Compendium was installed in the “Performance Models” section of the Aus-PeBBu web-site, www.ausPeBBu.org. Since 2003, the Compendium has been expanded and updated to include a total of 37 performance models entries. In addition, a separate Guide to Environmental Design and Assessment Tools (incorporating 27 Australian and international environmental rating tools) has been incorporated.

2. Building Performance Models

The term "building performance models" refers to computational procedures and/or computer programs that can be used in:

developing quantified performance criteria for building codes and standards; designing a building or part of a building to a target performance; or evaluating the whole building or any of its part as built at commissioning or at any time during

building occupancy, e.g., as part of a performance review or audit. The availability of such models is at the heart of the implementation of performance based building. The Compendium is intended as a "one-stop shop" for the building, construction and property industry worldwide, so that building professionals, product manufacturers, building officials and researchers can find in one place all of the building performance tools that are needed to support, implement and further develop performance based building.

AT-01

Task name: Compendium of Building Performance Models

Task leader(s):

Dr. Greg Foliente, CSIRO, Australia


279

Since the performance models are intended to be used in supporting, implementing and developing performance based standards, emphasis is given to models based on "first principles" and which target "in-service performance".

3. Structure of the Compendium

The following outline is being used as the basic framework for the Compendium. Based on VTT-Prop, developed in VTT Finland, it is structured to include most models that can be used to apply the performance approach in both building procurement/production and building regulation. A Building Performance A 1 Safety A 1.1 Structural Safety A 1.2 Fire Safety A 1.3 Safety in Use A 2 Comfort A 2.1 Acoustical Comfort A 2.2 Visual Comfort A 2.3 Hygrothermal Comfort A 2.4 Structural Serviceability A 3 Health & Hygiene A 3.1 Air Quality A 3.2 Water Supply and Other Services A 3.3 Waste Disposal A 4 Service Life A 4.1 Structure A 4.2 External Enclosure A 4.3 Internal Enclosure A 4.4 Built-in Furnishings and Equipment A 4.5 Services B Cost and Environmental Performance B 1 Life Cycle Costs B 1.1 Investment Costs B 1.2 Service Costs B 1.3 Maintenance Costs B 1.4 Disposal and Value B 2 Environmental Impact from Land Use B 3 Environmental Impact from Building B 3.1 Embodied Environmental Impact B 3.2 Recycling B 3.3 Environmental Impact from Use of Building B 3.4 Environmental Impact because of users C Construction Process


280

C 1 Design C 2 Site Operations D Operation D 1 Useability D 2 Maintainability The long-term expectation is that some sections of the Compendium will be populated with many models, while others may be empty. Sections without any entry will not be excluded; they are an important part of the Compendium in that they identify gaps in knowledge or tools. Where there are many known models under a given heading/sub-heading or section/sub-section, further sub-divisions will be introduced.

4. Compendium Entries

There are two types of Compendium entries. One type provides all of the information requested in the on-line submission form. The other type is a model summary, combined with a web-site link for additional model information. Contributions are reviewed and edited, so that entries provide factual and objective technical information, and not just marketing material. Each entry in the Compendium includes: Name of model, relevant Compendium section(s) and keywords A brief description of what the model does and the nature of the input and output data. The following additional information is available by means of a link to either further details provided as part of the model contributor’s submission or to an appropriate web-site: Classification/Status (i.e. one of the classifications described below) The scope of applications (what the model is intended for and what it is not for), scientific basis (i.e. a short overview or outline of physical/mathematical concepts, with publication references, limitations/assumptions) and extent of experimental validation. Developer/Publisher/Supplier (with contact information) Availability (i.e. if software: commercial, shareware, freeware with or without source code) System requirements (hardware and software) An example of a project where the model has been used before.

5. Classification of Models

The models are classified as follows: Model based on 'first principles' – one that is used to improve our fundamental understanding of

building performance, either as a research tool or a diagnostic tool. Based on "first principles", this is, if too complicated for practical application, the ideal model from which a simplified model for performance based codes and standards can be derived.


281

Model implementing a standard – one that wholly implements a computational procedure for evaluating performance that is recognised in regional/national or international performance based codes or standards.

Model with part(s) implementing a standard – one that implements, in at least one part or aspect of the model (typically a computer program), a computational procedure for evaluating performance that is recognised in regional/national or international performance based codes and standards. In this case, the portion of the program’s function that implements a recognised standard should be identified in the model description, together with a reference to that standard.

Widely used in practice – one that does not have the status of a formal standard but is used widely in the industry or in an industry sector and is generally accepted by professionals in this area (like a "de facto" standard).

Under development – one that is currently under development. This may be upgraded to any of the above classifications in the future.

Other – if the model cannot be classified into any of the above; a proposed classification should be supplied.

6. Contributing to the Compendium

Software developers, building professionals and researchers are encouraged to submit performance models relevant to the aims of the Compendium. Their contributions will benefit the worldwide building industry, and are also expected to bring benefits to individual contributors as follows: Software developers would have worldwide exposure for their software products and the opportunity

to provide factual and objective technical information about the capabilities of their software. Building professionals, in sharing the building performance analysis tools that they use, would give

others a chance to know about these tools. The Compendium, in turn, would give building professionals an idea about the range of tools available to enable them to work more effectively and efficiently. The use of generally accepted tools/models in building projects has the potential to hasten the acceptance of selected design by building officials. The use of appropriate models in design has the potential to improve the quality of construction, and thus reduce the occurrence of expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Researchers could gain worldwide exposure for new performance prediction or evaluation tools that they have developed. This can give others a chance to try a particular model and provide feedback to the researcher, and/or provide an opportunity for the researcher to commercialise his/her work (in part or in whole).

7. Guide to Environmental Design and Assessment Tools

The Guide to Environmental Design and Assessment Tools is a supplement to the main Compendium, and is provided to give building design professionals and other industry stakeholders a consistent framework and basis for comparing the applicability and basic technical contents of common environmental performance rating tools. Australian tools are covered more extensively, but the guide also includes ones developed in other countries. The guide has been produced by CSIRO members of Aus-PeBBu Domains 4 and 6, Drs Greg Foliente, Seongwon Seo and Selwyn Tucker. An early version of the guide has been published in the BDP Environment Design Guide of the Australian Council of Building Design Professions (Feb 2004). The guide comprises the following parts: Outline of the Guide, including the objectives, scope and limitations of the information provided. Table 1, which presents a summary list of the environmental rating, design and assessment tools

considered in the guide, along with related website or contact information.


282

Table 2, which shows applicability of the tools based on building types and the primary object of assessment, which may be product level, part of a building (e.g. whole façade), whole building, or a portfolio of buildings or a whole development.

Table 3, which identifies applicability of the tools according to the stage/phase in the life cycle of the building. For simplicity, only four stages are considered: planning, design, operation and maintenance, and end of life.

Table 4, which identifies the primary attributes considered by each tool in assessing the environmental performance of buildings and their constituent parts or components.


283

A n n e x 1 . 2 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r C o m p e n d i u m 2 : S t a t e m e n t o f A n n e x 1 . 2 6 : T a s k R e p o r t f o r C o m p e n d i u m 2 : S t a t e m e n t o f R e q u i r e m e n t sR e q u i r e m e n t s


Compendium 2

PBB Statements of Requirements: Task Report


The Compendium 2 project was set up as an aligned Task by the CIB to confirm what is understood by a Performance Based approach as it applies to Building (PBB). The Compendium 2 team was mandated to prepare a “consensus based conceptual framework” for the PeBBu project overall. This consensus has been significantly accomplished by presentations, papers and other communications with members of PeBBu throughout the project. The two primary objectives for this project were to (1) help the PeBBu Domains and Tasks to prepare their own conceptual frameworks within an overall understanding, so that they would be congruent, and (2) present case studies of PBB projects to trace how the Statements of Requirements were created and used throughout the projects. In order to accomplish these objectives, the team for the Compendium 2 project prepared the following deliverables: PBB Conceptual Framework (presentations, supporting papers and articles). The PBB Conceptual

Framework synthesizes the overall concept of the Performance Based Building approach. Compendium of PBB Statements of Requirements (SoR), including Case Studies. The Compendium 2

reports on case studies of PBB projects, the Statements of Requirements that were prepared for those projects and the lessons learned from the projects. It includes a template and an interview guide to be used by others to prepare similar project studies.

Related Bibliography, Terminology, List of Key Words for Research Mapping, and Glossary of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms.

The Compendium 2 and related documents are expected to be published as a printed version and also to be posted in electronic form at the CIB Website. The case studies are expected to serve as examples so that others can use the template to prepare similar case studies and upload them to the CIB Website. In

AT-02

Task name: AT-2: Aligned Task 2 - Compendium PBB Statements of Requirements

Task leader(s):

Françoise Szigeti, International Centre for Facil i t ies, Canada, icf@icf -cebe.com Kathryn Bourke, Faithful & Gould, UK, [email protected]

Dr. Joséphine Prior, BRE, UK, [email protected]


284

time, this active Web Page is expected to become a repository of information and lessons learned so that stakeholders starting a PBB project will be able to set up such a project with more confidence and avoid some of the difficulties that have been encountered on projects in the case studies. It is recommended that the Research Agenda include funding for such case studies as one of the research proposals.


The two primary objectives for this task were: To provide support to all the Domains and Tasks members in the PeBBu project in order to come to

a common understanding and consensus about “What is PBB”, so that the work of the Domains and Tasks would complement each other and be congruent.

To present Case Studies of projects procured within a PBB approach, so as to start creating a body of examples that others could use to start other PBB projects and to study completed projects.


For this project, the Compendium team prepared a template to gather the information from the Case Studies. This template was pilot tested and adjusted so that it could serve to record information about projects of different size and complexity, while providing a standard structure for the information thus collected. In this manner, it will be easier to analyse future Case Studies in relation to those already reported on, and to build on those reports as they are completed. As part of the Case Study work, an interview guide was also created and tested. It is intended to make it easier for others to ask questions from the people involved in such projects without having to start from scratch.


From our experience and knowledge of the field, this is the first set of such Case Studies of completed projects procured within a PBB approach. These Case Studies have already been used in the following ways: As part of the Master Thesis of the main investigator of the three RGD (Dutch Government Building

Agency) Studies; As part of the in-house evaluation of the Case Study projects by RGD. As such, the lessons learned

have been used to inform other RGD projects.


This Compendium 2 project is not a research project. It was conceived as a tool for stakeholders starting PBB projects, and as a way to help others organise information about PBB projects. In this way, lessons can be learned to make it easier to procure such projects, set up project teams and create an understanding of the benefits of a PBB approach as well as the potential difficulties to be avoided.




Present definitions and a conceptual overview of PBB at each meeting of the PeBBu Network

The leaders of this activity presented at all such meetings

Present at the two last CIB Congress

Papers and presentations were prepared for both the 2001 and 2004 CIB Congress

Prepare papers and articles about “Why is PBB important, “What is PBB”, etc.

Papers and News articles were prepared and published at the CIB Website


285

Prepare a structure to capture PB Statements of Requirements and Case Studies of PB projects

A Template was created, pilot tested and used to report on several Case Studies. An interview guide was prepared to help others to use the template and study PBB projects in the future in a consistent way

Case Studies and related documentation A report has been assembled with the Case Study Reports and related documents about Functional Statements

Related Terminology Assembled Related Bibliography Assembled Access to information Glossary of related Abbreviations, Acronyms and

Initialisms, with entries from many countries., and List of Key Words for research mapping


This Compendium project is the first of its kind in that it presents studies of completed building projects that were procured using a PBB approach. It is therefore in and of itself a “State-of-the-Art” report. This Compendium and the other documents prepared for this task provide access to references, terminology and definitions that will give researchers an up to date view of the consensus about PBB reached in the course of the PeBBu project. It should also be noted that Statements of Requirements are a key element in the ISO 9000 series of standards. To be able to measure quality, provide quality assurance and quality management systems, it is essential to explicitly state the requirements of the customer, and to include a process that ensure that the quality of the end product, expressed by a level of performance for a given cost, be measurable and verifiable. Thus, this task makes explicit how PBB links to ISO 9000.


This project was contracted for by the CIB with the International Centre for Facilities (ICF) and with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) as a complement and support to the main PeBBu project. It is not part of the EU contract. The work for the Compendium 2 aligned task, its report, its appendices and all other deliverables, have been made possible thanks to joint funding from the Dutch Government Building Agency (GBA/Rgd) and the CIB, and thanks to in-kind and financial support from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the International Centre for Facilities (ICF).


Deliverable Intended Use Target Audience Dissemination Presentation at CIB 2001

Awareness of Compendium 2 project

CIB members Slide presentation circulated as needed within the PeBBu project

Presentation at all PeBBu meetings

Building of consensus for definitions and for “PBB Conceptual Framework

Members of PeBBu project Slide presentations circulated as needed within the PeBBu project

Paper titled: The Key to unlocking PBB

Explain what the Compendium2 project is about in order to ensure understanding of the role of Statements of Requirements (SoRs)

Members of PeBBu project and CIB members

Posted at the CIB PeBBu Website


286

Paper titled: Why all the fuss about Performance Based Building?

Summarize the arguments about why PBB is here to stay and serve as an overall foundation paper

Members of PeBBu project, CIB members, and other visitors to the CIB Website. Broad audience

Posted at the CIB PeBBu Website May be included with other documents when published as one CID or paper copy

Paper at CIB 2004 CIB Congress Proceedings CIB members Publication available in CD-ROM to CIB members, libraries and others

CIB News Article: What is PBB: In a Nutshell

Short explanation of PBB and the overall conceptual framework

Public audience ... those who do not know anything about PBB, those who need to hear about PBB, those who need to understand PBB

Posted at the CIB PeBBu Web site. Used by CIB Secretariat and other CIB members as “hand-out” or “leave behind” at meetings conferences organised by the CIB or outside the CIB alliance network

Compendium 2 report

In its electronic form, it is intended for use by others who are starting PBB projects or who want to evaluate the results from a PBB project.

All stakeholders in the Life Cycle Management of constructed assets, including clients, occupants and users of those assets

CIB PeBBu website and published in paper

PBB Conceptual Framework Report

Summarises the consensus based concepts that were discussed at all the PeBBu meetings, and the articles, papers, and presentations, that were prepared in support of PeBBu.

Public audience ... those who do not know anything about PBB, those who need to hear about PBB, those who need to understand PBB

Published in paper, Posted at PeBBu website


Client organisations who want to implement a PBB approach need examples of how to do, what works and what does not, tips and lessons about the process, the negotiations with the team for the project, regardless of procurement approach. Government departments that are implementing a PBB directive, or ISO 9000 or compliance with a PBB building code have an interest in finding examples of projects that have been down the same road.


As the Compendium 2 grows and includes more reports on completed projects, it will help create a body of knowledge about PBB in the real world. It links to Compendium 1, which is maintained at CSIRO, Australia, and is complementary to it.


This aligned Task was managed by Françoise Szigeti, International Centre for Facilities (ICF). Kathryn Bourke, formerly of the British Research Establishment (BRE) and Dr. Joséphine Prior of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) were member of this team.


287

A major contribution to the Compendium comes from Daan Oostinga. During his internship at the Dutch GBA, he studied and reported on three selected projects that were part of substantial construction programs of the GBA, within a performance based contracting approach.


This Compendium 2 aligned Task was completed during the spring of 2005. Although the Compendium contains only a few case studies, some comments can be made, based on the findings of the case studies. Statements of Requirements have to be very carefully stated so that it is easy to verify that a proposed solution can explicitly meet those requirements. High level statements of requirements need to be paired with indicators of capability so that design solutions can be evaluated before they are built in order to avoid misfits. In particular, the need for change has to be taken into account, since constructed assets have a long life, while uses and activities can change very rapidly.

When checking a design solution against the “explicit and implicit” requirements for a project, it is essential to test different ways that the spaces might be used in order to anticipate changes, otherwise a building, in whole or in part, can become very quickly unfit for the occupants.

8. Acknowledgements

This Compendium and the studies it contains have been made possible thanks to joint funding from the Dutch Government Building Agency (GBA/Rgd), the US General Services Administration (GSA) and the CIB, and thanks to in-kind and financial support from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the International Centre for Facilities (ICF). The authors want to acknowledge here the permission given by the UK Defence Estates to analyse and record one of their recent key programs of construction. A major contribution to the Compendium comes from Daan Oostinga. During his internship at the Dutch GBA, he studied and reported on three selected projects that where part of substantial construction programs of the GBA. His hard work, insights and keen ability to listen allowed him to write three Case Studies that will be an excellent source of lessons learned with respect to the use of the Performance Based contracting. This work, in our view, is a milestone for PBB because it provides the kind of field research that is still too rare. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the PeBBuCo team at BRE and at ICF: Dr. Josephine Prior, Gerald Davis, Michael Clift, Lynne Blair, and Joan Wilson participated in this effort in different ways, but without their contribution and participation, this work would not have been possible.


288

AA N N E X N N E X 2 : M2 : M I DI D -- TT E R M E R M II N T E R V E N T I O N SN T E R V E N T I O N S

A n n e x 2 . 1 S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e I n t e r v e n t i o n sA n n e x 2 . 1 S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e I n t e r v e n t i o n s

IMPACTS IN TERMS OF BUDGET REVISIONS FROM THE PeBBu STEERING COMMITTEE MTA PROGRAMME INTERVENTIONS At its meeting on August 4, 2003 in Schiphol, The Netherlands the PeBBu SC – Steering Committee – decided on the following interventions in the PeBBu Work Programme, as to be implemented at MTA – Mid term Assessment:

1. Termination of the PeBBu Domains 4, 5 and 9, including: Finalisation by the appointed domain task leader(s) of their Domain Report and Production by the appointed domain task leader(s) of an international RTD Agenda Budget consequences: - domain 4, 5 and 9 members and domain 4 and 5 task leaders: - Euro 1.000 travel cost due to cancellation 2nd domain workshop - domain 4 and 5 task leaders: - Euro 2.500 meeting costs due to cancellation 2nd domain workshop and – Euro 37.500 personnel costs

2. Replacement of the planned second domain workshops of remaining 6 domains by a central series of workshops, to be organised by the PeBBu Secretariat Budget consequences: - domain 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 task leaders: - Euro 2.500 meeting cost due to not having to organise 2nd domain workshop - new budget for central meeting organisation for domain meeting to PeBBu Secretariat: + Euro 15.000

3. Resourcing of Mrs. Branka Dimitrijevic as second leader of Domain 9 and to be co-responsible for the production of the Domain 8 international RTD Agenda Budget consequences: - new budget for 2nd domain 9 task leader: + Euro 10.000

4. Replacement of the planned 2 x 3 user platform workshops as planned to be organised by the user platform task leaders, by two central series of workshops, to be organised by the PeBBu Secretariat Budget consequences: - user platform 1, 2 and 3 task leaders: - Euro 5.000 meeting cost due to not having to organise 2 user platform workshops - PeBBu Secretariat: + Euro 15.000 meeting costs

5. Handing over the remainder of the budget allocation for Nico Scholten, TNO, The Netherlands as joint task leader of Regional Platform 2 (West/Central Europe) to the other task leader for this platform: BBRI, Belgium Budget consequences: - handing over Euro 2.500 meeting costs from TNO to BBRI - handing over Euro 22.000 personnel costs from TNO to BBRI

6. At the request of the two respective organisations: handing over part of the budget allocations for personnel costs from one of the joint task leaders for Domain 1 to the other joint task leader Budget consequences: - handing over Euro 10.000 from CSTB to KTH

In addition it was decided at an earlier stage that


289

7. Initial budget allocations for Travel and Subsistence Costs related to the participation as member of a Scientific Domain, will be withdrawn in case of a registered non-attendance at either the first domain workshop in PeBBu Year 1 or at the special domain workshop that took place in March 2003 in Budapest in the context of the PeBBu NAS Kick-off week. Belgium Budget consequences: - handing over by various members in total Euro 67.250 Travel & Subsistence costs for re-allocation

The above program and budget interventions will result if the total amount of Euro 210.500 that will become available for a re-allocation to new PeBBu tasks. Under the assumption that the not yet spend parts of the budgets allocations for above terminated tasks, become available for new activities, the PeBBu SC decided – if accepted by the EU PeBBu Scientific officer - to initiate the following new activities at MTA.

1. A first new project to align PeBBu with the EU CPD – budget allocation: Euro 50.000 – to be appointed task leader: BBRI, Belgium

2. A second new project to follow up to the outcome from the CRISP project in a PBB context - budget allocation: Euro 25.000 – to be appointed task leader: VTT, Finland

3. A third new project aimed at developing a PeBBu Decision Making Toolkit – budget allocation: Euro 55.000 - to be appointed task leader: VTT, Finland

4. Publication by the PeBBu Secretariat (task leader: CIBdf, The Netherlands) of an annual PeBBu news letter and of the final PeBBu report in paper formats - budget allocation: Euro 15.000

5. Preparation for and involvement in the 2005 PeBBu Conference in Helsinki, Finland by the Network Secretariat - budget allocation: Euro 15.000

6. 13.To be resources from the remainder of the new available budget allocations in the magnitude of Euro 50.500: - additional projects, the scope and objectives of which are still to be defined and to be appointed task leader for which is still to be selected. This may include: international state-of-the-art analyses concerning PBB applications in different areas that are not covered by the PeBBu Domains or by the proposed new projects, including for example: fire engineering and safety in buildings, infra-structural works, accessibility of buildings and structural engineering - resourcing of organisations that are to be upgraded from observer to member status

In the hereafter following budget tables the detailed budget implications of above proposed interventions are given per member organisation.


290

A n n e x 2 . 2 : B u d g e t I m p l i c a t i o n s p e r m e m b e r f r o m t h e S C i n t e r v e n t i o n d e c i s i o n sA n n e x 2 . 2 : B u d g e t I m p l i c a t i o n s p e r m e m b e r f r o m t h e S C i n t e r v e n t i o n d e c i s i o n s

This table presents the overall budget proposal and budget interventions. Due to the length of this table, it has been split up over the next few pages. The main menu with the interventions (on the left) remains the same on all the split up tables. On the right hand side, the different partners and their budgets are shown in the first 3 pages. The table on the 3rd page includes an overview / totals of the budget for all current PeBBu Members. The subsequent Annex 3.1.2 provides the same information for the new NAS members.


291

BUDGET REVISIONS (in Euro) PER MEMBER AND PER TASK

PeBBu Members per Country (in EU and EU Associated Countries)

SC MTA PeBBu Task Interventions B DK FIN F D EL HU IRL IL I

BBRI SBI HUT RTS VTT CSTB ULR FH-IBP UN.ARIST.EMI DIT TECHN ICITE

Termination Domains 1. Construction Materials and Components Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

4, 5 and 9 at MTA Personnel costs task leader -10.000

plus 2. Indoor Environment Meetings costs 2nd workshop

Centralization 2nd 3. Design of Buildings Meetings costs 2nd workshop

Domain Workshops 4. Built Environment Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.250

Meetings costs 2nd workshop

Personnel costs task leader

5. Organisation and Management Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.250

Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

Personnel costs task leader -37.500

6. Legal and Procurement Practises Meetings costs 2nd workshop

7. Regulation Meetings costs 2nd workshop

8. Innovation Meetings costs 2nd workshop

9. Information and Documentation Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.250

Personnel costs new 2nd task leader

Domain support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs

Centralized meeting costs

Non-attendance at First Domain workshops -2.000 -7.000 -1.250 -2.000

Centraliztion User Building owners, users and managers Meetings costs 2 workshops

Platform Workshop Building and construction Industry Meetings costs 2 workshops -5.000

Standardization & Conformity Meetings costs 2 workshops

User Platform support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs

Centralized meeting costs

Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Meetings costs workshops 2.500

Personnel costs task leader 23.958

New activities after New project 1: PeBBu and CPD 50.000

MTA New project 2:PeBBu and CRISP 25.000

New project 3: PBB Decision Makign Toolkit 30.000

Additional new project and/or new member resourcing

PeBBu Conference 2005

Paper publications final report and annual news letter (in addition ot electronic)

Total Revision Budget Allocation per Member 66.458 -3.000 0 0 14.000 -22.500 0 0 -1.000 0 -3.000 -5.000 -2.000

Total Initial Budget Allocation per Member 106.518 22.000 2.000 4.000 112.500 79.750 4.000 6.000 14.000 77.000 18.000 27.000 81.000

Total Revised Budget Allocation per Member 172.976 19.000 2.000 4.000 126.500 57.250 4.000 6.000 13.000 77.000 15.000 22.000 79.000


292

SC MTA PeBBu Task Interventions NL P E S

CIBdf EGM HBG RGD SBR STABU TNO TUE FEUP IST CSIC UPC FORMAS

Termination Domains 1. Construction Materials and Components Meetings costs 2nd workshop

4, 5 and 9 at MTA Personnel costs task leader

plus 2. Indoor Environment Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

Centralization 2nd 3. Design of Buildings Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

Domain Workshops 4. Built Environment Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000



5. Organisation and Management Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000



6. Legal and Procurement Practises Meetings costs 2nd workshop

7. Regulation Meetings costs 2nd workshop

8. Innovation Meetings costs 2nd workshop

9. Information and Documentation Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 1.000

Personnel costs new 2nd task leader

Domain support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -8.000

Centralized meeting costs 15.000

Non-attendance at First Domain workshops -5.000 -1.000 -7.000 -1.000 -2.000 -3.000 -2.000

Centraliztion User Building owners, users and managers Meetings costs 2 workshops

Platform Workshop Building and construction Industry Meetings costs 2 workshops

Standardization & Conformity Meetings costs 2 workshops

User Platform support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -4.000

Centralized meeting costs 15.000

Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Meetings costs workshops -2.500


New activities after New project 1: PeBBu and CPD

MTA New project 2:PeBBu and CRISP

New project 3: PBB Decision Makign Toolkit

Additional new project and/or new member resourcing 50.500

PeBBu Conference 2005 15.000

Paper publications final report and annual news letter (in addition ot electronic) 15.000

Total Revision Budget Allocation per Member 98.500 -2.500 -7.000 -4.000 -1.000 -38.958 -2.000 -1.000 -3.000 -3.000 -1.000 -3.000

Total Initial Budget Allocation per Member 633.192 111.432 6.000 14.000 10.000 2.000 166.000 4.000 4.000 10.000 12.000 4.000 16.000

Total Revised Budget Allocation per Member 731.692 108.932 6.000 7.000 6.000 1.000 127.042 2.000 3.000 7.000 9.000 3.000 13.000


293

To be Total

added new Budget

member Total added Allocation Summary

SC MTA PeBBu Task Interventions UK UK NAS Revision Budget

KTH BRE UMIST UN.R UN.S. GLAS Members per tasks Revision

Termination Domains 1. Construction Materials and Components Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500 Domains

4, 5 and 9 at MTA Personnel costs task leader 10.000 0

plus 2. Indoor Environment Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

Centralization 2nd 3. Design of Buildings Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500

Domain Workshops 4. Built Environment Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -10.000 -25.250

Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500 -2.500

Personnel costs task leader -37.500 -37.500

5. Organisation and Management Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -5.000 -24.250

Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500


6. Legal and Procurement Practises Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500 -2.500

7. Regulation Meetings costs 2nd workshop 0

8. Innovation Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2.500 -2.500

9. Information and Documentation Travel costs members and task leader -1.000 -9.000 -17.250

Personnel costs new 2nd task leader 10.000 10.000

Domain support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -8.000

Centralized meeting costs 15.000 -142.250

Non-attendance at First Domain workshops -2.000 -1.000 -28.000 -64.250 -64.250

Centraliztion User Building owners, users and managers Meetings costs 2 workshops -5.000 -5.000 User

Platform Workshop Building and construction Industry Meetings costs 2 workshops -5.000 Platforms

Standardization & Conformity Meetings costs 2 workshops -5.000 -5.000

User Platform support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -4.000

Centralized meeting costs 15.000 -4.000

Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Meetings costs workshops 0 Reg. Plats.

Personnel costs task leader 0 0

New activities after New project 1: PeBBu and CPD 50.000 New

MTA New project 2:PeBBu and CRISP 25.000 Acitivites

New project 3: PBB Decision Makign Toolkit 25.000 55.000

Additional new project and/or new member resourcing 50.500

PeBBu Conference 2005 15.000

Paper publications final report and annual news letter (in addition ot electronic) 15.000 210.500

Total Revision Budget Allocation per Member 6.000 -13.000 -3.500 -17.000 -5.500 10.000 -52.000 0

Total Initial Budget Allocation per Member 132.750 103.000 86.860 112.500 118.498 0 300.000 2.400.000

Total Revised Budget Allocation per Member 138.750 90.000 83.360 95.500 112.998 10.000 248.000 2.400.000


294

To be General Total

added new budget Budget

member allocation for Total added Allocation Summary

SC MTA PeBBu Task Interventions UK to be selected NAS Revision Budget

GLAS member(s) Members per tasks Revision

Termination Domains 1. Construction Materials and Components Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500 Domains

4, 5 and 9 at MTA 2. Indoor Environment Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

plus 3. Design of Buildings Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

Centralization 2nd 4. Built Environment Travel costs members and task leader -10,000 -25,250

Domain Workshops Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

Personnel costs task leader -37,500

5. Organisation and Management Travel costs members and task leader -5,000 -24,250

Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

Personnel costs task leader -37,500

6. Legal and Procurement Practises Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

7. Regulation Meetings costs 2nd workshop 0

8. Innovation Meetings costs 2nd workshop -2,500

9. Information and Documentation Travel costs members and task leader -9,000 -17,250

Personnel costs new 2nd task leader 10,000 10,000

Domain support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -8,000

Centralized meeting costs 15,000 -142,250

Non-attendance at First Domain workshops -28,000 -64,250 -64,250

Centraliztion User Building owners, users and managers Meetings costs 2 workshops -5,000 User

Platform Workshop Building and construction Industry Meetings costs 2 workshops -5,000 Platforms

Standardization & Conformity Meetings costs 2 workshops -5,000

User Platform support PeBBu Secretariat Travel costs -4,000

Centralized meeting costs 15,000 -4,000

Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Meetings costs workshops 0 Reg. Plats.

Personnel costs task leader 0 0

New activities after PeBBu and CPD 50,000 New

MTA PeBBu and CRISP 25,000 Acitivites

To be decided third new PeBBu project 56,250 120,500

Paper publications final report and annual news letter (in addition ot electronic) 15,000 210,500

Total Revision Budget Allocation per Member 10,000 56,250 -52,000 0

Total Initial Budget Allocation per Member 0 0 300,000 2,400,000

Total Revised Budget Allocation per Member 10,000 56,250 248,000 2,400,000


295

2.2.1 - PeBBu NAS

This annex gives the budget implications from the Steering Committee intervention decisions for the new NAS members.

PROPOSED NEW PEBBU MEMBERS FROM NAS COUNTRIES Existing PeBBu Members

Lithuania Bulgaria Poland Czech Republic Slovakia Slovenia Hungary Belgium CIBdf Total per

SC MTA PeBBu Tasks Interventions VGTU SEC KAPE ASM WUT BUT TUO TUK SAS SUT TUZ VVPS ZAG EMI BBRI Task

To be terminated 4. Built Environment -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -10,000

Domains at MTA 5. Organization and Management -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -5,000

9. Information and Documentation -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -9,000

Non-attendance at First Domain workshops -1,000 -3,000 -7,000 -2,000 -3,000 -1,000 -6,000 -3,000 -2,000 -28,000

Total budget revision per organization -3,000 -5,000 -10,000 -3,000 -1,000 -3,000 -4,000 -2,000 -2,000 -3,000 -9,000 -5,000 -2,000 0 0 0 - 5 2 , 0 0 0

Initial total budget per organization 19,000 21,000 20,000 14,000 19,000 15,000 14,000 12,000 39,000 14,000 18,000 10,000 19,000 15,000 2,000 49,000 300 ,000

Revised total Budget 16,000 16,000 10,000 11,000 18,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 37,000 11,000 9,000 5,000 17,000 15,000 2,000 49,000 248 ,000

296

AA N N E X N N E X 3 : C I B C3 : C I B C O M M I S S I O N O M M I S S I O N PP R O J E C T SR O J E C T S

An inventory of projects initiated by CIB Task Groups and Working Commissions which are expected to contribute to the programme Performance Based Building. Task Group TG25 - Façade Systems and Technologies

• Project: Performance Definition for Façade Systems Task Group TG36 - Quality Assurance

• Project: Development of Quality Management Systems in Construction based on the Performance Approach

Task Group TG37 - Performance Based Building Regulatory Systems

• Project: Analysis of Case Studies on Quantitative versus Qualitative Aspects of Performance Based Regulation

• Project: Analysis of Case Studies on Multiple Levels of Performance in Buildings and Structures • Project: Analysis of Case Studies on Acceptable Solutions • Project: Analysis of Case Studies on Standards used in Performance Based Regulatory Systems • Project: Review and Compendium of the Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects of Performance

Based Regulations Task Group TG42 - Performance Criteria of Buildings for Health and Comfort (Joint CIB - ISIAQ Task Group)

• Project: Establishment of Performance Criteria for health and comfort in buildings plus guidelines for design and for quality control in the construction process

Task Group TG44 - Performance Evaluation of Buildings with Response Control Devices Task Group TG45 - Performance Indicators for Urban Development Working Commission W014 - Fire

• Project: Guidance on Rational Fire Safety Engineering Approach to Fire Resistance in Buildings • Project: Building and Occupant Characterisation in Fire Safety Engineering Guides • Project: Compendium of Statements of Objectives and Functional Requirements Related to Fire

Safety • Project: Compilation of Frequency, Probability and Reliability Data to support Risk informed

Performance Based Fire Safety Engineering • Project: Compendium of Reference Cases for Validating the Performance of Zone and Field

Models for Fire Safety Engineering • Project: Compendium of Reference Cases for the Evaluation of Methods for Calculating

Temperature in Fire Exposed Structures • Project: Guidance on Rational Fire Safety Engineering Approach to Fire Safety in Historic Buildings

Working Commission W040 - Heat and Moisture Transfer

• Project: Material Characterisation and Hygrothermal Benchmarking Working Commission W060 - Performance Concept in Building

• Project: International State of the Art Report on the development and application of Performance Based Building

• Project: Compendium of Validated Models for Evaluating and Grading Performances (see also the description of commissioned projects under Programme Implementation and Coordination)

2001- 2005 Pe r fo rma nc e Ba sed Bu i ld ing Themat ic N etwo rk P e B B u F i n a l R e p o r t

297

• Project: Analyses of Economic Benefits from applying the Performance Concept in Building and Construction with Benchmarking and Evaluation Methods that allow for Quantifying Benefits (see also the description of commissioned projects under Programme Implementation and Coordination)

• Project: Collation of Statements and Functional Requirements in Terms of the Performance Concept (see also the description of commissioned projects under Programme Implementation and Coordination)

• Project: Investigation of the Value of Real Estate for Building Owners, in terms of business and economic value, rentability and serviceability

• Project: Performance Based Procurement (to be executed as a joint W060-W092 Project) Working Commission W077 - Indoor Climate

• Project: Collection of Recent Research on Indoor Air and Performance Based Building • Working Commission W080 - Prediction of Service Life of Building Materials and Components • Project: Development of Performance Based Methods of Service Life Design based on models of

degradation and environmental action Working Commission W082 - Future Studies in Construction

• Project: Development of Performance Indicators for a Sustainable Built Environment • Working Commission W086 - Building Pathology • Project: Analysis of how Building Pathology can contribute to Performance Based Building

Working Commission W087 - Post-Construction Liability and Insurance

• Project: Collation of Experiences concerning the Relations between Performance Based Building and Post-Construction Liability and Insurance

Working Commission W092 - Procurement Systems

• Project: Performance Based Procurement (to be executed as a joint W060-W092 Project) • Collection of Performance Based Building Models related to Procurement issues

Working Commission W099 - Safety and Health on Construction Sites

• Project: Study on Comparability of Safety Performance Related Data Working Commission W102 - Information and Knowledge Management in Building

• Project: Development of Information Models for Performance Based Procurement and Design Working Commission W103 - Construction Conflict: Avoidance and Resolution Working Commission W104 - Open Building Implementation

• Project: Open Building and Performance Based Construction Working Commission W105 - Life Time Engineering in Construction


298

AA N N E X N N E X 4 : L4 : L I S T O F N E W M E M B E R S FI S T O F N E W M E M B E R S F R O M R O M N A S EN A S E X T E N S I O NX T E N S I O N

No Name Organisation Country Category 1 Ms. V. Groseva Sofia Energy Centre Bulgaria Industry

2 Ing. M. Kalousek MSc. Brno University of Technology - Faculty of Civil Engineering Czech Republic University

3 Assoc. Prof. Dr. M. Netopilová

VSB - Technical University of Ostrava - Faculty of Safety Engineering Czech Republic University

4 Dr. T. Bánky

EMI - Non-profit Company for Quality Control and Innovation in Building (EMI was already incorporated as initial member) Hungary Research

5 Prof. E.K. Zavadskas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University - Faculty of Civil Engineering Lithuania University

6 Dr.Habil. R. Ginevicius Vilnius Gediminas Technical University - Faculty of Civil Engineering Lithuania University

7 Ms. M. Goreczna ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Poland Industry

8 Ms. K. Loth The Polish National Energy Conservation Agency Poland Research

9 Dr. A. Panek Warsaw University of Technology - Institute of Heating and Ventilation Poland University

10 Dr.Ing. P. Matiasovsky Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of Sciences Slovakia Research

11 Ing. B. Hermanska

Slovak University of Technology - Faculty of Civil Engineering - Department of Building Structures Slovakia University

12 Ass. Prof. P. Durica Technical University - Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovakia University

13 Assoc.Prof. Phd. J. Stefko Technical University in Zvolen Slovakia University

14 Ms. Z. Sternova VVUPS - Research and Development Institute for Building Construction Slovakia Research

15 Dr. V. Bosiljkov ZAG - Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute Slovenia Research


299

AA N N E X N N E X 5 : I5 : I N F O R M AT I O N O N N F O R M AT I O N O N 3 N3 N A T I O N A L A T I O N A L PP L AT F O R M S L AT F O R M S

A n n e x 5 . 1 : S w e d e nA n n e x 5 . 1 : S w e d e n

Task Leaders: Åke Skarendahl, Director, BIC - Swedish Construction Sector Innovation Centre, Stockholm; Christer Sjöström, Professor, University of Gävle

Task Website: http://www.bic.nu

1. Everybody is supportive – few can make it happen!

The performance concept is crystal clear in its basic idea and it is no problems of getting a strong acceptance for its rationale in vide circles within the construction sector. The performance concept has received positive attention in Sweden since the end of the 1950s. Swedish researchers have been quite active in various national and international projects aimed at developing and promoting performance thinking in building. Authorities and standardisation bodies have taken initiatives, some positive results have been delivered, test applications have shown significant profits and the actors in the sector have been supportive. So far so good! Application of the performance concept is common practice in most industrial sectors. However, in construction we are still far from routine adoption and good examples of breakthrough applications are still scarce. Why? The problem is likely to partly depend on the complexity of the process within which the concept is to be realized. Performance is closely connected to end customer values. Obvious difficulties lie in understanding as well as in describing user values and in the determination of conformity of the delivered products with these values. Here the construction sector has similar challenges as other sectors and as is the case in other sectors they should be solvable. A more difficult and critical obstacle is the very organisation of the construction process. The value chain is extremely fragmented with several deliveries within the chain. The procurement process is still by large relying on detailed technical specifications with the lowest price as the only decisive requirement. In the beginning of chain the performance of the delivered products have little relevance for the end user values. When a product finally meets the user there are limited possibilities for dialogue and influence. There is an obvious need for a change!

2. Who has the key?

The fragmented and sequential value chain characterising the construction sector is likely to in itself, constitute a severe hindrance for a successful application of the performance concept. What is needed is a holistic view of the entire process in development of a product, or in realisation of a project and in maintaining an asset as is often the case in construction. Who has the key to do this? This is likely to require either a strong client or a strong contractor being in charge of the whole process. However, virtually anyone can volunteer to take the initiative to play this role. It is not a matter of which actors are producing what but who has the full responsibility of what is to be delivered to the end customer. This can be compared with other sectors, e.g. the car industry. There are a large number of independent companies involved in producing components of a car, normally the majority of the value added. There is However, only one having the full responsibility of design, quality, performance etc. of the product to be


300

delivered to the end customer. In such a case the interface between the end user and the product responsibility is clear and natural.

3. Performance approach instrumental for innovation cl imate

The construction sector is often, rightfully, accused of having severe problems in low – if any - productivity increase, in lack of ability of avoiding problems like the sick building syndrome, in difficulties in achieving zero-fault in delivered products, in limited success in improving energy efficiency, in a vague response to end user needs and in constantly increasing costs. The innovation climate in the sector is unfavourable, yet creativity and innovation are likely to be some of the most important vehicles for a change. The conclusion that the introduction of a performance approach in the construction sector is strongly hampered by the fragmented and sequential nature of the sector is equally valid when it comes to innovation. The launching of new products and new services that survive on a competitive market has to be based on a close compliance with user performance requirements. Innovation, in the same way as performance approach, requires a holistic view incorporating the whole process. In addition, a holistic approach also encourages concurrent action in the development making reduced lead-times possible. The relay has to be replaced by integration and concurrent mode of work. Performance concept is essential for innovation!

4. BIC - Swedish Construction Sector Innovation Centre

In order to improve the innovation climate in the sector as well as to stimulate increased efforts in developing innovations, BIC - the Swedish Construction Sector Innovation Centre (www.bic.nu) has been established. Innovation requires end user focus, activities covering research, development, demonstration implementation etc. as well a sector-wide engagement. To be able to cope with this holistic approach, BIC has members representing authorities, sector actors (asset owners, designers, contractors, suppliers) as well as the research society. BIC is an innovation broker being a sector partner to the state research funding organisation in support of innovation projects consisting of research as well as implementation tasks. In addition to structuring financial and organisation of innovation projects other brokerage activities cover knowledge, expertise, networks as well as mapping of needs/possibilities.

5. A Swedish National Platform

The performance approach is closely linked to the development of innovation systems as well as in improving the innovation climate. The obvious interlinking between performance approach and innovation system development leads to the conclusion that a combined approach is relevant. This is done in a national effort in Sweden with BIC as the platform. The objective of the platform is to encourage development of the Swedish construction sector through increased use of performance based legal frameworks, standards and specifications, development of evaluation tools, indicators and criteria. The strive towards the use of performance based procurement practice is equally important. The platform is working through creating interaction, normally through meetings between users, clients, code writers, standardisation bodies, designers, contractors, suppliers, and knowledge providers targeting the use of performance approach in innovation processes. It also supports the use of performance approach in mainstream routine construction activities.


301

6. International dimension

Legal frameworks as well as standards are increasingly turning international in character. This sharpens competitiveness and increases trans-national trade of products and services for the benefit of the end users. International cooperation in the work of promoting development within performance as well as in innovation is thus an evident objective. BIC as well as other partners of the Swedish platform are taking part in the PeBBu network. The Swedish platform for performance based building and innovation is a national activity but a strong international linking, preferably through the PeBBu network, is within the objectives and will be further developed. The forthcoming meeting of the PeBBu North European Platform will be arranged by its Swedish partner. For more information on the PeBBu Swedish Platform, please contact: Mr. Christer Sjöström, at: [email protected]


302

A n n e x 5 . 2 : A u s t r a l i a A n n e x 5 . 2 : A u s t r a l i a –– A u s A u s -- P e B B u P r o g r a m m eP e B B u P r o g r a m m e

Report by Greg Foliente, September 2005

1. List ing of Aus-PeBBu Task Members.

Program Director: Dr Greg Foliente, CSIRO Deputy Program Director: Dr Phillip Paevere, CSIRO Program Coordinator: Peter Boxhall, CSIRO Brian Ashe, Australian Building Codes Board Dr Steve Brown, CSIRO John Carson, Australian Building Codes Board Dr Ivan Cole, CSIRO Dr Peter Newton, CSIRO Dr Lam Pham, Australian Building Codes Board Peter Scuderi, CRC for Construction Innovation Dr Selwyn Tucker, CSIRO

2. Overview

The Australian Performance Based Building Network (Aus-PeBBu) is a group of researchers and building industry representatives who are participating in the activities of the European Union PeBBu program. Aus-PeBBu is also running activities (working groups, industry seminar/workshops and a web-site) aimed at promoting performance based building in Australia. CSIRO’s Division of Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology has received industry and CSIRO support and a three-year funding grant (from July 2003) from the Australian Government's International Science Linkages programme to operate Aus-PeBBu.

3. Network Structure and Technical Domains

The structure of the Aus-PeBBu network is shown in Figure 1. The Secretariat, based at CSIRO Manufacturing & Infrastructure Technology, Highett, Victoria, comprises: Program Director - Dr Greg Foliente Deputy Program Director - Dr Phillip Paevere Coordinator - Peter Boxhall


303

Figure 1 Aus-PeBBu Network Structure

The network incorporates seven technical domains, each of which has a coordinator and a working group of three to five members. This framework is similar (but not identical) to that of the European PeBBu network. The coordinators of the domains are: Domain 1: Building Materials and Components – Dr Ivan Cole, CSIRO Domain 2: Indoor Environment – Drs Steve Brown and Philip Paevere, CSIRO Domain 3: Building Design and Engineering – Dr Lam Pham, Australian Building Codes Board Domain 4: Environmentally Sustainable Built Environment – Drs Greg Foliente and Peter Newton,

CSIRO Domain 5: Innovation - Peter Scuderi, CRC for Construction Innovation Domain 6: Legal and Procurement Matters – Dr Selwyn Tucker, CSIRO Domain 7: Building Regulations and Standards – Brian Ashe and John Carson, Australian Building

Codes Board

Program Director

Advisory Committee

Coordinator

1 Building materials & components

2 Indoor environment

3 Building design and engineering

6 Legal & procurement

7 Building regulations and standards

4 Environmentally sustainable built environment

5 Innovation

Deputy Program Director


304

Aus-PeBBu’s domains are predominantly concerned with advancement in the following three key areas: the description of appropriate building performance requirements methods for delivering the required performance (reliable methods and tools for design and analysis) methods for verifying that the required performance has been achieved.

4. Industry Participation

Key Participants Participation in any technical domain is open to any company, association or individuals in the building and construction industry. Key participating organisations include: CSIRO Australian Building Codes Board Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation Australian Procurement and Construction Council International Alliance for Interoperability - Australasian Chapter Project Advisory Committee Aus-PeBBu’s program director is provided with ongoing independent advice by a four person external Advisory Committee, which consists of prominent representatives of key stakeholder groups in Australia’s building and construction industry – see Table 1.

Table 1 Project Advisory Committee

Name

Position/Background State

Judith Carr

Executive Director – Building Management, Department for Administrative and Information Services, South Australia

SA

Andrew Clowes

Associate Director - Information and Strategic Technology, Jones Lang LaSalle, Brisbane

QLD

John Macdonald Director, Design Inc, Melbourne

VIC

Dr George Walker Research Director, Aon Re, Sydney

NSW

The Advisory Committee members have been meeting (face-to-face or teleconference) with the Aus-PeBBu Secretariat about twice a year, as well as having occasional e-mail communication and participating in project seminar/workshops. The main purpose of the Advisory Committee has been to provide the Aus-PeBBu management group with broad advice across all building domains as well as advice relating to effective dissemination of PeBBu outputs to the Australian building and construction industry.


305

5. Participation in EU PeBBu Domain Meetings

Aus-PeBBu has been represented at all of the EU PeBBu domain meetings held since the commencement of Aus-PeBBu in July 2003. The Manchester meetings (12 to 14 January 2004) were attended by: Selwyn Tucker (PeBBu Domains 1 and 6) Greg Foliente (PeBBu Domains 2 and 8 meetings and the Technical Committee meeting) Lam Pham (PeBBu Domain 3) John Carson (PeBBu Domain 7). The participants at the Porto domain meetings (17-19 November 2004) were: Selwyn Tucker (PeBBu Domains 1 and 6) Steve Brown & Phillip Paevere (PeBBu Domain 2) Lam Pham (PeBBu Domain 3) John Carson (PeBBu Domain 7) Peter Scuderi (PeBBu Domain 8) Greg Foliente (various domain meetings and the Technical Committee meeting). Brief reports on, as well as the Australian presentations to, these domain meetings are available on the “Program & Domains” page of the Aus-PeBBu web-site (see below). Five Aus-PeBBu representatives also attended the final EU PeBBu meetings and conference sessions held in conjunction with the CIB Symposium in Helsinki, 13-17 June 2005 – Greg Foliente, Phillip Paevere, Peter Scuderi, Selwyn Tucker and John Macdonald (from Aus-PeBBu’s Advisory Committee).

6. Aus-PeBBu Web-si te and Communication with Australian Industry

An Aus-PeBBu web-site, www.ausPeBBu.org, is being used, in combination with e-mail, as the main means of communication with building industry stakeholders and as the main vehicle for providing Aus-PeBBu Domain coordinators and Working Groups with access to EU PeBBu reports and network information. The web-site also incorporates a compendium of building performance models, including a new guide to environmental design and assessment tools. Information on both EU PeBBu developments and Aus-PeBBu activities has also been communicated to Australian building industry stakeholders by means of news articles in selected building industry publications, notably the newsletters of the CRC for Construction Innovation (e-mail distribution to 1700 building industry stakeholders). In addition a major article by Aus-PeBBu’s program director was published in the 30 April 05 edition of the Australian Building Codes Board’s “Australian Building Regulation Bulletin” (readership 18,000 plus).

7. Aus-PeBBu Seminars

The other major means of communication with industry has been seminars, of which there have so far been four, with a final one scheduled for March 2006. Aus-PeBBu National Launch Aus-PeBBu was officially launched in Melbourne on 8 October 2003 by Dr Sherif Barakat and Dr Wim Bakens, the President and Secretary General, respectively, of CIB. (The Aus-PeBBu launch was arranged to coincide with a week of CIB Board meetings being held in Melbourne.) The launch took the form of a morning seminar and panel discussion and was attended by 25 Australian building industry stakeholders (from industry, government and research organisations) in addition to 5 international CIB Board members.


306

Industry Seminar 24 June 2004 Around 40 building industry stakeholders attended Aus-PeBBu’s second industry seminar, “Innovation and Trade through performance based Building and Construction”, which was held in Melbourne on 24 June 2004. In addition to speakers from Aus-PeBBu covering the latest developments from EU PeBBu, keynote speakers from Japan and Singapore were invited to outline the current state-of-play in their countries, where the introduction of performance based building is well advanced. Assoc Prof Siew Eang Lee, Director of the Centre for Total Building Performance at the National University of Singapore, presented best practice case studies of performance based buildings in Singapore. Mr Wataru Gojo, Head of the Standards and Accreditation System Division of the Building Department, NILIM in Japan, presented features of Japanese building regulations and the Japanese performance indication system for houses. Other speakers were Aus-PeBBu network members, Drs Greg Foliente and Lam Pham from CSIRO and Advisory Committee member, Dr George Walker from Aon Re (Insurance) Australia. The seminar concluded with a facilitated session aimed at obtaining industry feedback on how best to advance performance based building practice in Australia. All of the seminar presentations are available on the Resources page of www.ausPeBBu.org. “Clients Driving Innovation” International Conference, 25 to 27 Oct 2004 The third Aus-PeBBu seminar was held in conjunction with the International Conference “Clients Driving Innovation” on Queensland’s Gold Coast, from 25 to 27 Oct 2004, hosted by the CRC for Construction Innovation. This provided the opportunity to disseminate information to a much wider industry audience than would otherwise have been achievable (there were 210 attendees). A session of presentations by five of the Aus-PeBBu domain coordinators was preceded by a key-note conference presentation by Greg Foliente (Co-author: Prof John Kelly from Glasgow Caledonian University) – “Client-Driven Innovation through the Performance Approach and Value Management”. The topics covered in the Aus-PeBBu session were performance criteria for indoor environments, the European Construction Products Directive, service life performance and planning, environmental labelling of manufactured products and stakeholder engagement in the performance approach. These and the key-note presentation are available on the Resources page of www.ausPeBBu.org. Australian Building Codes Board Conference, 11 to 16 September 2005 The most recent Aus-PeBBu seminar was run jointly with the APEC Informal Network on Performance Based Building (see Section 8 below). This was held in conjunction with the Australian Building Codes Board Conference and IRCC Global Policy Summit in Surfers Paradise, Queensland, from 11 to 16 September 2005. The seminar, entitled “Assessing Building Performance – An Integrated Model”, was presented by Danny Shiem-shin Then, Associate Professor in Facility Management and Asset Maintenance at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. (Danny Then is also the current Joint Coordinator of Working Commission CIB W70 on Facilities Management and Maintenance, and Director of Research of the Hong Kong Institute of Facility Management.) The presentation considered performance measurement of building assets as operating facilities, with a prime focus on the relationship between building assets and their contributions to business outcomes.


307

CRC for Construction Innovation, 2nd International Conference, March 2006 Aus-PeBBu is to be a Gold Sponsor for the CRC for Construction Innovation's 2nd International Conference, "Clients Driving Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice", to be held in Queensland from 12 to 14 March 2006. This arrangement will give Aus-PeBBu a keynote (international speaker) session, linked to presentations by Aus-PeBBu network members in other sessions of the conference. This forum will be used to communicate to industry the final outcomes from the European and Australian PeBBu networks.

8. Asia Pacific Network

Aus-PeBBu has recently extended its informal network to East Asia, with counterparts in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, The Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. The first seminar-meeting of the APEC Informal Network on Performance Based Building (APEC-PeBBu) was held in conjunction with the Australian Building Codes Board Conference and IRCC Global Policy Summit in Surfers Paradise, Queensland, from 11 to 16 September 2005. The main focus of the first meeting was familiarization with the current building regulatory systems in each of the participating countries, based on submissions and brief presentations by each of the delegates.

9. Key Reports and Publications

Other notable outputs from Aus-PeBBu include the following key reports and publications: Pham, L. 2005. “The EU Construction Products Directive – An Introduction”, CMIT Doc, Highett,

Victoria, Australia, January 2005. (Note: This is an introduction to the EU Construction Products Directive, written for Australian Industry stakeholders.)

Bakens, W., Foliente, G.C. and Jasuja, M. 2005. “Engaging the stakeholders in performance based building: Lessons from the PeBBu network”, Building Research & Information 33(2):149-158..

Foliente, G.C., Bakens, W. and Jasuja, M. 2005. “Stakeholder engagement in the performance approach – The Australian and European Performance Based Building Networks” Chapter in K Hampson et al. (eds.), Clients Driving Construction Innovation: Mapping the Terrain, Pearson Publishers, Australia, in press.

Foliente, G.C., Tucker, S. and Huovila, P. 2005. “Performance-based framework and applications for nD Models in building and construction”, in P Huovila (ed.) Performance Based Building, RIL,Helsinki, Finland.

Foliente, G.C., Boxhall, P. and Pham, L. 2005. “Facilitating Innovation & Enhancing Trade – The performance based Building Networks in Australia & Asia”, in P Huovila (ed.) Performance Based Building, RIL,Helsinki, Finland.

Foliente, G., Seo, S., and Tucker, S. 2004. “A guide to environmental design and assessment tools”. BDP Environmental Design Guide. (GEN 57, 8 pp.) , Building Design Professionals of Australia, Melbourne.

Huovila, P., Leinonen, J., Paevere, P., Porkka, J. and Foliente, G. 2004. “Systematic performance requirements management of built facilities.” Procs. International Conference on Clients Driving Innovation, CRC Construction Innovation, Gold Coast, Australia.


308

A n n e x 5 . 3 : I s r a e l A n n e x 5 . 3 : I s r a e l –– I S R I S R -- P e B B uP e B B u

Task Leaders: Becker, R. (Task), Paciuk, M. (Website) Task Members: Becker, R. (Technion), Paciuk, M. (NBRI), Pilzer, D. (Ministry of Interiors), Baum, H.

(NBRI), Shohet, I. (Ben-Gurion Univ.), Wasserman, R. (NBRI), Binun, E. (Inst. Of Stand.), Bar-Asher, N. (Ministry of Interiors), Rosenfeld, Y. (Technion)

Task Website: www.technion.ac.il/~isrPeBBu

1. Scope and Objectives:

One of the leading objectives of the PeBBu Network aims at facilitating and stimulating implementation and dissemination of the principles of PBB at national level. To achieve such an objective, it is essential that existing knowledge, documentation and deliberations related to PBB, which has evolved throughout the years, becomes available to all stakeholders involved in local building and construction practices. Although a wealth of documentation has already been made available at the EU PeBBu website, Israeli practitioners and builders do not generally master the English language to the extent that allows for an easy and fluent understanding of the available texts. It was therefore considered of utmost priority to develop a Hebrew-based website with two initial purposes: 1) coalesce in one site existing resources in Hebrew, which have direct relevance to the PBB concepts, thus making them easily available to the Israeli building sector at large, and 2) establish a PBB-related communication and discussion platform for the target stakeholders at national level (designers, builders, manufacturers, suppliers, entrepreneurs, code writers, standardization body, innovators).

2. Deliverables

The website is structured to be bilingual (English and Hebrew), though at this stage – given the above considerations – efforts are geared toward elaborating its Hebrew contents. The site is comprised of the following domains:

Home – Statement of the PeBBu Thematic Network's objectives and links to EU-PeBBu and to the National Building Research Institute at the Technion, coordinator of ISR-PeBBu.

Contents – Documents providing an overview of the performance concept in building and its applications at national level.

The presently available documents illustrate the state of the art in various areas, such as implementation of PBB in the local building activity, the discipline of Building Performance from an academic point of view, the development of a national research agenda in Physical Performance of Buildings, the application of the performance approach in standards, and its implementation in the rewriting of building regulations.

In a future stage, PBB-related documents in English and main conclusions of the PeBBu Thematic Network will be translated into Hebrew and added.

Resources – Lists of available PBB-related bibliographical resources, both in Hebrew and in English.

Listed resources in Hebrew include general PBB references, Israeli Standards featuring performance based requirements and performance-related reports and handbooks written and published by the National Building Research Institute and which may be ordered through the site.

Listed resources in English include CIB originated reports and proceedings in PBB areas, as well as performance-related papers published by Israeli researchers in international journals and proceedings.


309

Whenever possible, electronic versions of the above listed resources are made available.

In following development stages, the most relevant published PeBBu Network updates and reports (in English) will be translated into Hebrew and made available at the site.

News and Events - List of ongoing and future PeBBu related activities at national and international level.

Present national news and events include an update on the ongoing effort - led by the Ministry of Interiors - to prepare an entirely new set of performance based regulations, the recent launch on CD of Thermo-Kar - a computerised system that enables checking compliance of building envelope elements with thermal insulation and energy conservation requirements stipulated in the Israeli Standard SI 1045, and the up-coming national conference on building and infrastructures – organised by the Israeli Engineering Organisation – where a number of presentations on building performance related subjects will be given.

Links – List of PeBBu related websites and additional sites in the general area of Performance Based Building.

The provided links feature academic institutions, research centres and professional organisations, both at national and international locations.

About the network – Basic information about the structure of the international PeBBu Network and of the national ISR - PeBBu Network.

The objectives and main components of the international network are overviewed.

As for the national network, the names and tasks of its Steering Committee members are presented and basic information for membership application and for enquiries is provided. Potential additional members as well as visitors to the site are asked to input pertinent information with the purpose of creating a database of Israeli stakeholders in the area of Performance Based Building.

In the near future, a forum for discussion among network members will be activated.


310

AA N N E X N N E X 6 : S6 : S U M M A RY O F U M M A RY O F SS Y N T H E S I S O F Y N T H E S I S O F P B B R & D AP B B R & D A G E N DG E N D AA

A summary diagram of the PBB R&D roadmap is shown in below Figure. The current state of the art and state of practice is the starting block, and achieving the PBB vision is the ultimate objective. Three planning horizons link these two. The first horizon is what we aim to achieve in 2010 (i.e., Horizon 2010). Some of the key elements (or R&D needs) at Horizon 2010 are related to each other, and they feed into the elements of Horizon 2020. Likewise, some of the elements at Horizon 2020 are related to each other, and they feed into Horizon 2030, which in turn directly contribute to achieving the PBB vision. The basic idea is that PBB is ubiquitous in the industry by 2030, no longer seen as a special concept or method but part of normal industry activities – a natural basis for how things are done in the industry.

Vision

R&D

Horizon 3

(by 2030)

R&D

Horizon 2

(by 2020)

R&D

Horizon 1

(by 2010)

Performance concept is used routinely and applied comprehensivel y within a construction

and property industry that: (1) delivers value to present and future stakeholders;

(2) delivers sustainable outcomes; and

(3) is knowledge -based and services -oriented, characterised

by sustained innovation & excellence

Comprehensive

database of

indicators, models or

tools, test methods &

‘acceptable’ solutions

[H1-A]

Next generation

design &

evaluation tools

w/

interoperability

[H1-C]

Client

requirements

capture

methods/tools

& management

[H1-B]

Value &

benefits

assessment

& TBL

reporting

[H1-D]

Human

response

studies &

‘Living Labs’

[H1-F]

PB model

codes,

standards

and testing

systems

[H1-G]

Procurement -

independent

processes

[H1-E]

‘Open’ ICT -based

PBB platform &

nD models/tools

from briefing to

FM

[H2-A]

Real -time

performance &

health monitoring

technologies

[H2-B]

Value

prediction &

quantification

tools &

methods

[H2-D]

Forecasting

future needs

&

technologies

[H2-C]

Techno -

social

studies &

analysis

[H2-F]

Textbook

and

practice

guidelines

[H2-G]

PB codes w/

more

quantified

criteria

[H2-E]

Integrated nD model & value tool

set, with augmented reality, for

whole -of-life delivery &

management of built assets

(building to city scale)

[H3-A]

‘Thin’ &

transparent

PB regulatory

systems )

[H3-B]

Knowledge - &

services -based

industry with high

expertise & continuous

learning [H3 -C]

State of the art and state of practice

(e.g., Becker 2005, Szigeti & Davis (eds.) 2005, Huovila (ed.) 2005, Preiser and Vischer 2005, Tubbs (ed.) 2004, Foliente 2000,

Foliente et al. 1998, IRCC 1998, etc.)

Summary diagram of R&D roadmap in three planning horizons to achieve the PBB vision

The basic meaning of R&D is generally understood, but it should be noted that above Figure includes some aspects of demonstration/delivery (right side) and, thus, could be more appropriately called a ‘RD&D’ (research, development & demonstration/delivery) roadmap.

Each element of the R&D roadmap is elaborated in detail in a separate publication from PeBBu.


311

AA N N E XN N E X 7: S7: S U M M A RY O F U M M A RY O F PP EE B BB B U U PP R O T OT Y P E R O T OT Y P E II N T E R AC T I V E N T E R AC T I V E WW E B S I T E E B S I T E

TT A S K A S K

PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website – a guide to PBB TASK LEADERS: Marcel Loomans – TNO

Dik Spekkink – EGM Mansi Jasuja – CIBdf

1. Introduction

This is the report of an additional task that has been performed within the PeBBu Thematic Network Project. This report presents the framework for the PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website that has been the basis for the included content for the website. The content is provided for by the final reports from the separate Domains and Tasks. As the website is a prototype, it has a relatively simple lay-out and working procedure. The intention of the (prototype) PeBBu interactive website is to open up (part of) the extensive PeBBu information to the interested parties in the building process. Furthermore, the website should be relatively straightforward and give good guidance to the most interesting information for the visitor. This means that the visitor can find the information that is of interest to him/her within a few steps. It was not the intention that all available information is gathered in this website. Instead, it should present an easy to use starting point that refers, through hyperlinks, to available stakeholder-specific information. This information, to a large extent is obtained from the PeBBu project.

2. Framework

The best way to guide a visitor through the website is by identifying the main interest of that visitor in relation to the Performance Based topic. For that a more dimensional matrix normally would be required. To simplify this a 2-D matrix is applied with the stakeholder (e.g. the visitors profession) on one axis and building related (in the form of PeBBu Domain and Task ) topics on the other. The latter has been chosen as it can be related directly to the PeBBu project and with that to the content that has become available. Figure 1 gives an impression of a part of the matrix. Prof. Client User Owner Design team … Materials and components >> >> >> >> Indoor Environment >> >> >> >> Design of Buildings >> >> … … Built Environment >> .. … … …

Figure 1. 2-D Matrix as applied for PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website. The ultimate idea is to complete for each combination of stakeholder and topic a separate web page with information and links to other sites that support this content. For some combinations there will be no or a very limited amount of information, other combinations may have an overlap in the information (i.e. reference to the same [type of] information). As the Task has a limited budget, only a section of the matrix contains links to separate information pages. Nevertheless, the structure is such that the open spaces can be filled along the way and there is no limitation to the content for a specific combination.


312

3. Result

Below an impression is given of the result of the Task. As indicated above, within the Task it was not the intention to complete all possible combinations that follow from the developed framework. Figure 2 presents the introduction page for the pilot website. This page presents a short introduction to PeBBu and Performance Based Building (PBB) in general. Amongst others a reference is made to the mapping database which already contains a vast amount of information. Also, e.g., a listing of acronyms is given as in the building process acronyms are heavily used but not always (widely) well understood by the stakeholders. A link to a general presentation on PBB should help the visitor to gain a better idea of the main principle of PBB.

Figure 2. Introduction page – PeBBu Interactive. After this (relative) general introduction the next step is towards the interested stakeholders. By identifying the stakeholder, the available information can be customised to that specific stakeholder. Figure 3 shows how this step is made. Here a selection should be made with respect to the general type of stakeholder that represents the background or interest of the visitor.

Figure 3. (general) Stakeholder identification.

To optimise the content for the

user of the website, a further subdivision is provided for (see Figure 4). First, the general type of stakeholder is subdivided further. Besides, also a subdivision is provided with respect to the building and building process. As indicated, this subdivision is closely related to the subdivision of the PeBBu project (amongst others Domains and Tasks).


313

Figure 4. Specification of stakeholder and building topic. With the third step (i.e. the third activated link), the visitor opens the web page that provides the information on Performance Based Building that is tuned to the interest of the visitor (see Figure 5). Given the short route, and the overview provided by the tables as shown in Figure 4, it is hoped for that the visitor will also make side-steps to view information from other points-of-departure. The latter is regarded important as the application of the performance approach is supported by a better understanding of the interest and capabilities of the other stakeholders. This more or less is the first step towards an integral approach, which is required to fully take advantage of PBB.

Figure 5a. Stakeholder and building topic specific content.


314

Figure 5b. Stakeholder and building topic specific content.

The content in the web pages, as visualised in the screen dumps shown in Figure 5, has been taken from the text that is available in, for example, the Domain reports. It was not the intention to rerun the project, it was the intention to better open up the information that has become available. Short textual information and links to further information (external websites or PeBBu related websites) therefore has been the procedure for developing this prototype website.

4. Conclusion

The Interactive website will be accessible through the main PeBBu website (www.PeBBu .nl). The prototype as developed within this Task will be available at the end of the project. In this prototype the table as shown in Figure 1 will be filled (horizontally) for the building topic “Indoor Environment” and “Design of Buildings”. Furthermore, (vertically) this will be done for the “Designers team” (stakeholder). It is hoped for that the website can be completed in due course, as this will increase the value of this website significantly.


315

AA N N E X N N E X 8 : L8 : L I S T O F A L L I S T O F A L L PP EE B BB B U U FF I N A L I N A L PP U B L I C AT I O N SU B L I C AT I O N S

Note: Electronic implies electronic publication available for download from the PeBBu website PeBBu Publication implies a paper publication by PeBBu / CIBdf Secretariat

Publications Format Number Author(s) 6+3 Domain Reports

Electronic

9

Domain Leaders

6+3 RTD Agenda Synthesis

Electronic + PeBBu Publication

1

Ang, G.; Foliente, G.; Bakens, W. Spekkink, D; Huovila, P.

4 Regional Platform Reports

Electronic

4

Regional Platform Leaders

2 User Platforms survey reports

Electronic

2

User Platform Leaders

2nd International SotA Report


1

Becker, R.

Final East European SotA Report

Electronic (may be published by regional leaders)

1

Matolcsy, K.; Matiasovsky, P.; Tiderenczl, G.

3 Generic Tasks Reports

Electronic

3

Task Leaders

Conceptual Framework (3 levels report)


1

Szigeti, F.

Compendium 2

Electronic

1

Szigeti, F.

Final PeBBu Report submitted to the EU

Electronic

1

CIBdf Secretariat

PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website for Educational Purposes (available with a short printed publication)

Electronic

1

Loomans, M. ; Spekkink, D.

Total 25

Other Deliverables: publishable PowerPoint Presentations (task presentations presented in Helsinki)

Electronic and/or included in the CD-ROM

Various task leaders

1st International SotA report Electronic + CIB publication 1 Author: PS Barrett, A. Lee Domain Synthesis Report Electronic 1 Task leaders, edited: Jasuja, M. Regional Platforms Synthesis Report Electronic 1 Regional Platform Leaders,

edited: Jasuja, M. National SotAs Electronic (annexed to the 2nd

International SotA Report) Various national contacts

Domain 1 User Guide publication Electronic + paper Domain 1 task leader DST Toolkit Database (Ecoprop Tool) Demo available from task

leader until September 2005 DST Task leader

Domain 6 Monograph Electronic Domain 6 leader


316

AA N N E X N N E X 9 : L9 : L I SI S T O F T O F CC U R R E N T U R R E N T TT A S K A S K LL E A D E R S E A D E R S & & S U P P O R T T O TA S K S U P P O R T T O TA S K

L E A DL E A D E R SE R S

Task Task Name Organisation Task Leader Support TL e-mail address

T01-D1 Domain 1: Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components

KTH, Sweden CSTB, France KTH, Germany

Christer Sjöström JL Chevalier

Wolfram Trinius

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

T02-D2 Domain 2: Indoor Environment

TNO, Netherlands Philomena Bluyssen Marcel Loomans

[email protected] [email protected]

T03-D3 Domain 3: Design of Buildings

EGM, Netherlands Dik Spekkink [email protected]

T04-D4 Domain 4: Built Environment Univ. of Reading, UK Colin Gray [email protected]

T05-D5 Domain 5: Organisation and Management

VTT. Finland Pekka Huovila [email protected]

T06-D6 Domain 6: Legal and procurement Practices

Univ. of Manchester, UK DBRI, Denmark

Peter Fenn Kim Haugbølle


T07-D7 Domain 7: Regulations TECHNION, Israel David Pilzer [email protected]

T08-D8 Domain 8: Innovation Univ. of Salford, UK Peter S. Barrett Martin Sexton Angela Lee


T09-D9 Domain 9: Information and Documentation

Univ. of Montreal, Canada Colin Davidson [email protected]

T10-UP1

Task 10: User Platform: Building Owners, Users and Managers

BRE, UK Tim Yates [email protected]

T11-UP2

Task 11: User Platform 2: Building & Construction Industry

BBRI, Belgium Luk Vandaele [email protected]

T12-UP3

Task 12: User Platform 3: International Standardisation & Conformity Community

BRE, UK Nigel Smithies [email protected]

T13-RP1

Task 13: Regional Platform 1 North Europe

KTH, Sweden KTH, Sweden

Christer Sjöström Wolfram Trinius


T14-RP2

Task 14: Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe

BBRI, Belgium

Luk Vandaele Johan Parthoens


T15-RP3

Task 15: Regional Platform 3 East Europe

ÉMI, Hungary

Károly Matolcsy Gábor Tiderenczl


T16-RP4

Task 16: Regional Platform 4 Mediterranean Europe

NRC, Italy

Paolo Cardillo Giuseppina Varone


T17-Map

Task 17: International Mapping PBB Research

CIBdf, Netherlands Mansi Jasuja [email protected]

T18-NM1

Task 18: Network Management – Steering Committee

CIBdf, Netherlands

Wim Bakens Mansi Jasuja


T19-NM2

Task 19: Network Management – Technical Committee

CIBdf, Netherlands

Wim Bakens Mansi Jasuja


T20-NM3

Task 20: Network Management – Network Secretariat

CIBdf, Netherlands Mansi Jasuja [email protected]

T21-NM4

Task 21: Network Management – Financial Coordination

BBRI, Belgium Bart Michiels [email protected]

T23-NAS

Task 23: NAS SotA EMI, Hungary ICASA, Slovakia EMI, Hungary

Károly Matolcsy Peter Matiasovsky

Gábor Tiderenczl


T24-GT1

Generic Task 1: PBB & Construction Products Directive

BBRI, Belgium Eric Winnepenninckx

[email protected]

T25-GT2

Generic Task 2: CRISP Indicators

VTT, Finland CSTB, France CSIRO, Australia

Pekka Huovila JL Chevallier Greg Foliente



317

T26-GT3

Generic Task 3: Decision Support Toolkit for PBB

VTT, Finland Pekka Huovila Janne Porkka


T27-C1 Compendium 1: PBB Models CSIRO, Australia Greg Foliente [email protected]

T28-C2 Compendium 2: Statement of Requirements & PBB Conceptual Framework

ICF, Canada BRE, UK

Françoise Szigeti

Jo Prior Kathryn Bourke Tim Yates


T-29-RTD

RTD Agenda Synthesis CIBdf, Netherlands CSIRO, Australia VTT, Finland EGM, Netherlands MinistryVROM, NL

Wim Bakens Greg Foliente

Pekka Huovila Dik Spekkink George Ang

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

T-30-Pilot website

PeBBu Prototype Interactive Website for Educational Purposes

TNO, Netherlands EGM, Netherlands

Marcel Loomans Dik Spekkink



318

AA N N E X N N E X 10 : L10 : L I S T O F A L L I S T O F A L L PP EE B BB B U U CC O N TAC T SO N TAC T S

ALL PEBBU CONTACTS ( including replacements, observers and not including guests to meetings) Country Last name First

name Affiliation e-mail Address phone

1. Australia Carson John ABCB [email protected] Canberra Office GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA ACT 2601

2. Australia Kelly Anne-Maree

ABCB [email protected] GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA ACT 2601

+61 2 62137763

3. Australia Scuderi Peter CRC [email protected]

Level 9, L Block, QUT Gardens Point 2 George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

+61 7 38641412

4. Australia Brown Steve CSIRO [email protected] P.O. Box 56 HIGHETT 3190 Victoria

+61 3 92526027

5. Australia Foliente Greg CSIRO [email protected] P.O. Box 56 HIGHETT 3190 Victoria

+61 3 92526038

6. Australia Paevere Philip CSIRO [email protected] P.O. Box 56 HIGHETT 3190 Victoria

+61 3 92526220

7. Australia Pham Lam CSIRO [email protected] P.O. Box 56 HIGHETT 3190 Victoria

+61 3 92526134

8. Australia Tucker Selwyn CSIRO [email protected] P.O. Box 56 HIGHETT 3190 Victoria

+61 3 92526184

9. Belgium Michiels Bart BBRI [email protected] Lozenberg nr. 7 B 1932 SINT-STEVENS-WOLUWE

+32 2 7164374

10. Belgium Parthoens Johan BBRI [email protected] Lozenberg nr. 7 B-1932 SINT-STEVENS-WOLUWE

+32 2 7164422

11. Belgium Vandaele Luk BBRI [email protected] Lozenberg nr. 7 B 1932 SINT-STEVENS-WOLUWE

+32 2 7164410

12. Belgium Winnepenninckx Eric BBRI [email protected] Lozenberg nr. 7 B-1932 SINT-STEVENS-WOLUWE

+32 2 7164408

13. Belgium Wouters Peter BBRI [email protected] Av. P, Holoffe 21 B-1342 LIMELETTE

+32 2 6557711

14. Bulgaria Donchev Vesselin Sofia Energy Centre Ltd.

[email protected] 37, Galitchitsa Str. 1164 SOFIA

+359 2 9628443

15. Bulgaria Groseva Violetta Sofia Energy Centre Ltd.


+359 2 9628443

16. Bulgaria Nazarski Dimitar Sofia Energy Centre Ltd.


+359 2 9628443

17. Bulgaria Stoykova Evelina Sofia Energy Centre Ltd.

[email protected] 37, Galitchitsa Str. Entr. 2, 2nd Floor 1164 SOFIA

+359 2 9628443

18. Bulgaria Tzvetkov Georgi Sofia Energy Centre Ltd.


+359 2 9628443


319

19. Canada Szigeti Françoise ICF [email protected] 440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200 OTTAWA K1R 7X6 Ontario

+1 613 7271788

20. Canada Stylianou Meli NRCan [email protected] NRCan - CETC VARENNES

+1 450 6525534

21. Canada Stylianou Meli NRC/CETC [email protected] NRCan - CETC VARENNES

+1 450 6525534

22. Canada Kumaran Mavinkal NRCC - IRC [email protected] M-24 OTTAWA, ON K1A 0R6

+1 613 9939611

23. Canada Mallory-Hill Shauna University of Manitoba

[email protected] Faculty of Architecture University of Manitoba WINNIPEG, MANITOBA R3T 2N2

+1 204 4747442

24. Canada Davidson Colin University of Montreal

[email protected] 146 Springrove Avenue>OUTREMONT H2V 3J2>Québec

+1 514 3437420

25. Croatia Katavic Mariza University of Zagreb

[email protected] Kaciceva 26 ZAGREB 10000

+385 1 4639290

26. Czech Republic Kalousek Milos Brno University of Technology

[email protected] But-Fast-2330, Veveri 95 662 37 BRNO

+420 5 41147440

27. Czech Republic Sedlak Jiri Brno University of Technology

[email protected] Department of Building Engineering Veveri 95 662 37 BRNO

+420 5 41147404

28. Czech Republic Stepanek P. Brno University of Technology

[email protected] But-Fast-2330, Veveri 95 662 37 BRNO

+420 5 41147400

29. Czech Republic Teply Bretislav Brno University of Technology

[email protected] Department of Chemistry, Zizkova 17 662 37 BRNO

+420 5 41147642

30. Czech Republic Dudácek Ales VSB - Technical University of Ostrava

[email protected] Lumirova 13 700 30 OSTRAVA

+420 596 747213

31. Czech Republic Jelinkova Radmila VSB - Technical University of Ostrava


+420 596 747213

32. Czech Republic Kucera Petr VSB - Technical University of Ostrava


+420 596

33. Czech Republic Netopilová Miroslava VSB - Technical University of Ostrava

[email protected] Lumirova 13 70030 OSTRAVA

+420 596 7322823

34. Czech Republic Podjukl Martin VSB - Technical University of Ostrava


+420 596

35. Czech Republic Senovsky Michail VSB - Technical University of Ostrava


+420 596 747213

36. Denmark Bech-Danielsen Claus Danish Building Research Institute

[email protected] Postboks 119 DK 2970 HORSHOLM

+45 45 865533

37. Denmark Brandt Erik Danish Building Research Institute

[email protected] Postboks 119 DK-2970 HØRSHOLM

+45 45865533

38. Denmark Haugbølle Kim Danish Building Research Institute

[email protected] Building Technology and Productivity

+45 45 865533


320

DivisionPostboks 119DK 2970 HORSHOLM

39. Denmark Marsh Rob Danish Building Research Institute


+45 45865533

40. Denmark Munch-Andersen

Jørgen Danish Building Research Institute


+45 45865533

41. Denmark Rasmussen Torben Valdbjorn

Danish Building Research Institute


+45 45865533

42. Denmark Sørensen Nils Lykke Danish Building Research Institute

[email protected] Postboks 119 DK 2970 HORSHOLM

43. Denmark Stang Birgitte Dela

Danish Building Research Institute


+45 45865533

44. Estonia Liias Roode TTU - Tallinn Technical University

[email protected] Department of Building Production Ehitajate tee 5 EE 19086 TALLINN

+372 6202456

45. Finland Kurnitski Jarek Helsinki University of Technology

[email protected] P.O. Box 4100 HUT FIN-02015

+358 9 4513609

46. Finland Seppänen Olli Antero Helsinki University of Technology

[email protected] P.O. Box 4100 HUT FIN-02015

+358 9 4513601

47. Finland Finne Christer RTS - Building Information Foundation

[email protected] Runeberginkatu 5 P.O. Box 1004 HELSINKI FIN-00101

+358 40 5444992

48. Finland Huovila Pekka VTT Building and Transport

[email protected] P.O. Box 1801 VTT 02044

+358 20 7225903

49. Finland Saarimaa Juho VTT Building and Transport

[email protected] P.O. Box 1800 VTT 02044

+358 20 7226800

50. France Carassus Jean CSTB [email protected] Economics and Human Sciences Department 4, Avenue du Recteur Poincaré F-75782 PARIS CÉDEX 16

+33 1 40502916

51. France Chevalier Jean-Luc CSTB [email protected] 24, Rue Joseph Fourier F-38400 SAINT-MARTIN D'HÈRES

+33 4 76762526

52. France Laret Louis CSTB [email protected] Direction de la Recherche et du Développement 84, Av. Jean Jaures BP 02 F-77420 MARNE LA VALLEE CEDEX 2

+33 1 64688233

53. France Morand Patrick CSTB [email protected] Dept. of Information Technologies for AEC Route des Lucioles BP 209 F-06904 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS

+33 4 93956719

54. France Nibel Sylviane CSTB [email protected] Department of +33 1 64688244


321

Energy, Indoor Environment and Automation 84 avenue Jean Jaures BP2 F-77421 MARNE LA VALLEE

55. France Salagnac Jean-Luc CSTB [email protected] 4, Avenue du Recteur Poincaré F-75782 PARIS CÉDEX 16

+33 1 40502839

56. France Allard Francis University of Rochelle

[email protected] Avenue Michel Crépeau F 17042 LA ROCHELLE

+33 5 46458204

57. France Inard Christian University of Rochelle

[email protected]

58. Germany Lützkendorf Thomas [email protected]

School of Economics and Business Engineering - Sustainable Management of Housing & Real Estate Kaiserstraße 12 D-76128 KARLSRUHE

+49 721 6088336

59. Germany Holm Andreas Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics

[email protected] Fraunhoferstraße 10 P.O. Box 1152 D-83626 VALLEY

+49 80 2464326

60. Germany Mayer Erhard Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics

[email protected] P.O. Box 1152 D-83601 HOLZKIRCHEN

+49 8024 64314

61. Germany Wetzel Christian Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics

[email protected] Fraunhoferstr. 10 D-83626 VALLEY

+49 802464328

62. Germany Trinius Wolfram KTH - Royal Institute of Technology

[email protected] Ingenieubüro Trinius Dorotheenstraße 21 22301 HAMBURG

+49 40 22759430

63. Germany Konieczny Günter Slovak University of Technology

[email protected] c/o Architecten und Stadtplaner Gerokstrasse 3 D-70188 STUTTGART

+49 711 248492-3

64. Germany Speer Thorsten University of Karlsruhe

[email protected] School of Economics and Business Engineering - Sustainable Management of Housing & Real Estate Kaiserstraße 12 76128 KARLSRUHE

+49 721 6088336

65. Greece Papaioannou Kyriakos Aristotle University

[email protected] P.O. Box 429 54006 THESSALONIKI

+30 2310 995793

66. Hungary Bánky Tamás ÉMI [email protected] P.O. Box 69 H-1518 BUDAPEST

+36 1 3726144

67. Hungary Matolcsy Károly ÉMI [email protected] Diószegi Ut. 37 H-1113 BUDAPEST

+36 1 3726146

68. Hungary Tiderenczl Gábor ÉMI [email protected] P.O. Box 69 H-1518 BUDAPEST

+36 1 3726100

69. Hungary Toth Peter ÉMI [email protected] P.O. Box 69 H-1518 BUDAPEST

70. Iceland Olafsson Håkon Building Research Institute of Iceland

[email protected] Rb-Keldnaholti IS-112 REYKJAVÍK

+354 5676000

71. India Prashad Deependra VIA Architectural Consultants

[email protected]

72. Ireland Beattie Ken Dublin Institute of Technology

[email protected] Faculty of Civil Engineering Bolton Street

+353 1 4023822


322

DUBLIN 1

73. Ireland Connor James Dublin Institute of Technology

[email protected] Bolton Street DUBLIN 1

+353 1 4023000

74. Ireland Gunnigan Louis Dublin Institute of Technology


+353 1 4023604

75. Ireland Kamp Henk Dublin Institute of Technology


+353 1 4023745

76. Ireland Murray Philip Dublin Institute of Technology

[email protected] Bolton StreetDUBLIN +353 1 4024013

77. Ireland Nolan John Dublin Institute of Technology


+353 1 4023729

78. Israel Pilzer David Division of Planning and Building Guidelines and Regulations

[email protected] Planning Administration POB 6158, 91061 JERUSALEM

+972 2 6701450

79. Israel Baum Hadassa TECHNION [email protected] Technion City 32000 HAIFA

+972 4 8293123

80. Israel Becker Rachel TECHNION [email protected] Faculty of Civil Engineering Technion City 32000 HAIFA

+972 4 8292248

81. Israel Paciuk Monica TECHNION [email protected] Technion City 34980 HAIFA

+972 4 8293120

82. Israel Rosenfeld Yechiel TECHNION [email protected] Technion City 32000 HAIFA

+972 54 7489666

83. Israel Shohat Igal TECHNION [email protected] Technion City 32000 HAIFA

+972 4 8292970

84. Israel Wassermen Rina TECHNION [email protected] Technion City 32000 HAIFA

+972 4 8293123

85. Italy Collaro Carolina Architettura Senza Frontiere

[email protected] Architettura Senza Frontiere O.N.L.U.S. Corso Vittorio Emanuele 494/d 80135 NAPOLI

+39 81 19579600

86. Italy Cardillo Paolo National Research Council

[email protected] Via Lombardia 49 Frazione Sesto Ulteriano 20098 SAN GIULIANO MILANESE (MI)

+39 02 9806418

87. Italy Esposti Valter National Research Council

[email protected] Via Lombardia, 49 20098 SAN GIULIANO MILANESE (MI)

+39 02 9806201

88. Italy Galimberti Vittorio National Research Council

[email protected] Via Lombardia 49 Sesto Ulteriano 20098 SAN GIULIANO MILANESE (MI)

+39 02 9806223

89. Italy Meroni Italo National Research Council

[email protected] Via Lombardia, 49 20098 SAN GIULIANO (MI)

+39 02 9806211

90. Italy Varone Giuseppina National Research Council

[email protected] Via Lombardia, 49 20098 SAN GIULIANO MILANESE (MI)

+39 02 9806203

91. Japan Azuma Kenichi National Institute of Public Health

[email protected] Department of Architectural Hygiene and Housing POC: 25-10 Tsuji-machi, Ikoma-city NARA 630-0212

+81 743 752619

92. Lithuania Atkociunas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University

[email protected] Saulètekio al. 11 2040 VILNIUS

+370 5 2745215

93. Lithuania Ginevicius Romualdas Vilnius Gediminas Technical

[email protected] Business Management Faculty Saulètekio al. 11

+370 5 2764390


323

University 2040 VILNIUS

94. Lithuania Kaklauskas Arturas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 5 2700119

95. Lithuania Kvedaras Akve Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 5 2745227

96. Lithuania Lepkova Natalija Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 6 8758936

97. Lithuania Sapalas Vainiunas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 5 2745243

98. Lithuania Stragys Vicentas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


99. Lithuania Trinkunas Vaidotas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 6 8783837

100. Lithuania Vainiunas Povilas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 5 2763785

101. Lithuania Zavadskas Edmundas Kazimieras

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University


+370 5 2700115

102. Netherlands Notenboom Cor BAM Advies & Engineering

[email protected] Runnenburg 12, gebouw E Postbox 54 3980 CB BUNNIK

+31 30 6598669

103. Netherlands Scheublin Frits BAM Advies & Engineering


+31 30 6598677

104. Netherlands Tieleman Huib BAM Advies & Engineering


+31 30 6598681

105. Netherlands Tolman Fedde BAM Advies & Engineering

BAM Advies & Engineering HBG Civiel Winthoutlaan 28 3526 KV UTRECHT

+31 30 2876966

106. Netherlands Asch Peggy CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation

[email protected] Postbus 1837 3000 BV ROTTERDAM

+31 010 4110240

107. Netherlands Bakens Wim CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation

[email protected] P.O. Box 1837 3000 BV ROTTERDAM

+31 10 4110240

108. Netherlands Bol Charles CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation


+31 10 4110240

109. Netherlands Heyblom Tom CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation


+31 010 4110240

110. Netherlands Jasuja Mansi CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation

[email protected] Postbox 1837 3000 BV ROTTERDAM

+31 10 4110240

111. Netherlands Pinas Mea CIBdf - CIB Development Foundation


+31 10 4110240

112. Netherlands Spekkink Dik EGM Architects [email protected] Postbus 298 +31 183


324

- Research Department

3300 AG DORDRECHT

661200

113. Netherlands Gassel Frans Eindhoven University of Technology

[email protected] Vertigo 08.15 Postbus 513 5600 MB EINDHOVEN

+31 40 2474077

114. Netherlands Maas Ger Eindhoven University of Technology

[email protected] Vertigo 08.13 Postbus 513 5600 MB EINDHOVEN

+31 40 2472523

115. Netherlands Verlinden Hans Eurocer-Building

[email protected]

Eurocer-buildingPostbus 161772301 GD LEIDEN

+31 71 5661311

116. Netherlands Ang George Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

[email protected] P.O. Box 20952 2500 EZ DEN HAAG

+31 70 3391657

117. Netherlands Teodorescu Rodica Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

[email protected] P.O. Box 20952 2500 EZ DEN HAAG

+31 70 3391660

118. Netherlands Johannes Koos SBR [email protected] Postbus 1819 3000 BV ROTTERDAM

+31 10 2065959

119. Netherlands Straatman Jan SBR [email protected] Postbus 1819 3000 BV ROTTERDAM

+31 10 2065959

120. Netherlands Woestenenk Kees STABU [email protected] Postbus 36 6710 BA EDE

+31 318 633026

121. Netherlands Bluyssen Philomena TNO [email protected] Department Healthy Buildings and Systems P.O. Box 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763306

122. Netherlands Geus Aart TNO [email protected] Postbus 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763042

123. Netherlands Groosman Marcel TNO P.O. Box 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763115

124. Netherlands Loomans Marcel TNO [email protected] Department Healthy Buildings and Systems P.O. Box 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763321

125. Netherlands Scholten Nico TNO [email protected] P.O. Box 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763130

126. Netherlands van der Klauw Roland TNO [email protected] P.O. Box 49 2600 AA DELFT

+31 15 2763133

127. Netherlands(National-Poland)

Pretnicki Norbert Architect & Urban Housing Manager

[email protected] Veelzichtstraat 21B 3022 DR ROTTERDAM Netherlands National-Poland)

128. Norway Haagenrud Svein Erik Norwegian Building Research Institute

[email protected] RTD-Department Building Services P.O. Box 123 Blindern N-0314 OSLO

+47 22 965555

129. Poland Batorowicz Beta ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557709

130. Poland Goreczna Maria ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557715

131. Poland Lizak Romualda ASM [email protected] Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

132. Poland Rutkowska Violetta ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557715


325

133. Poland Stelmachowicz-Panyza

Dominika ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557717

134. Poland Swiezawska Beta ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557734

135. Poland Syrda Elzbieta ASM [email protected] ASM Market Research & Analysis Centre Ltd. Ul. Grunwaldzka 5 99-301 KUTNO

+48 24 3557709

136. Poland Babut Roman KAPE [email protected] ul. Pozaryskiego 28, budynek 6 04-703 WARSZAWA

+48 607 8127674

137. Poland Loth Karolina KAPE [email protected] ul. Pozaryskiego 28, budynek 6 04-703 WARSZAWA

+48 22 8127674

138. Poland Weglarz Arkadiusz KAPE [email protected] ul. Pozaryskiego 28, budynek 6 04-703 WARSZAWA

+48 22 8127674

139. Poland Bartkiewicz Piotr Warsaw University of Technology

[email protected] Nowowiejska str. 20 PL 00 - 653 WARSZAWA

+48 22 6605312

140. Poland Panek Aleksander Warsaw University of Technology

[email protected] Nowowiejska str. 20 PL 00 - 653 WARSAW

+48 22 8251977

141. Poland Sowa Jerzy Warsaw University of Technology

[email protected] Nowowiejska str. 20 PL 00 - 653 WARSAWA

+48 22 6605279

142. Portugal Alves Dias Luís Manuel IST [email protected] Avenida Rovisco Pais 1 1049-001 LISBOA

+351 21 8418337

143. Portugal Oliveira Fernandes

Eduardo University of Porto

[email protected] Demegi - FEUP Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n 4200-465 PORTO - PT

+351 22 5081763

144. Saudi Arabia Jannadi Osama Ahmed

King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals

[email protected] P.O. Box 1978 31261 DHAHRAN

+966 3 8602800

145. Slovakia Darula Stanislav Institute of Construction and Architecture

[email protected] Dubravska cesta 9 845 03 BRATISLAVA

+421 2 59309267

146. Slovakia Krivacek Jozef Institute of Construction and Architecture

[email protected]

147. Slovakia Matiasovsky Peter Institute of Construction and Architecture

[email protected] Dubravska cesta 9 84220 BRATISLAVA

+421 2 59309244

148. Slovakia Moravikova Henrieta Institute of Construction and Architecture


+421 2 59309230

149. Slovakia Sladek Jan Institute of Construction and Architecture


+421 2 59309210

150. Slovakia Hraska Jozef Slovak University of Technology

[email protected] Radlinského 11 813 68 BRATISLAVA

+421 2 59274458

151. Slovakia Minarovicová Katarína Slovak University of Technology


+421 2 59274433

152. Slovakia Olbrímek Juraj Slovak University of


+421 2 59274450


326

Technology

153. Slovakia Durica Pavol Technical University

[email protected] Vysokolska 404200 KOSICE

+421 55 6024121

154. Slovakia Katunsky Dusan Technical University

[email protected] Technical University Vysokolska 4 04200 KOSICE

+421 55 6024157

155. Slovakia Kozlovska Maria Technical University

[email protected] Vysokolska 4 04200 KOSICE

+420 95 54681

156. Slovakia Merjavá Veronika Technical University

[email protected] Vysokolska 4 04200 KOSICE

157. Slovakia Bahyl Vladimir Technical University in Zvolen

[email protected] Department of Wooden Structures Masarykova 24 960 53 ZVOLEN

+421 45 5206464

158. Slovakia Jurcak Bramslav Technical University in Zvolen


+421 45 5206495

159. Slovakia Parobek Jan Technical University in Zvolen

[email protected] Department of Marketing, Trade and World Forestry T.G. Masarykova 24 960 53 ZVOLEN

+421 45 5206 484

160. Slovakia Sedlak Pali Technical University in Zvolen


+421 45 5206495

161. Slovakia Stefko Jozef Technical University in Zvolen


+421 45 5206410

162. Slovakia Bendzalova Jana VVUPS [email protected] Studena 3 P.O.Box 44 820 02 BRATISLAVA

+421 2 49228590

163. Slovakia Sternova Zuzana VVUPS [email protected] Studena 3 P.O.Box 44 820 02 BRATISLAVA

+421 2 49228220

164. Slovenia Bosiljkov Vlatko ZAG [email protected] Section for Earthquake Engineering Dimiceva 12 1000 LJUBLJANA

+386 1 2804280

165. Slovenia Knez Friderik ZAG [email protected] Section for Earthquake Engineering Dimiceva 12 1000 LJUBLJANA

+386 1 2804361

166. Slovenia Lutman Marjana ZAG [email protected] Section for Earthquake Engineering Dimiceva 12 1000 LJUBLJANA

+386 1 2804410

167. Slovenia Srpcic Jelena ZAG [email protected] Section for Earthquake Engineering Dimiceva 12 1000 LJUBLJANA

+386 1 2804254

168. Slovenia Tomazevic Miha ZAG [email protected] Dimiceva 12 SL-1000 LJUBLJANA

+386 1 2804217

169. Spain Andrade María del Carmen

Eduardo Torroja

[email protected] Serrano Galvache, 4 28033 MADRID

+34 91 3020440

170. Spain Linares Alemparte

Pilar Eduardo Torroja

[email protected] Instituto de Ciencias de la Constructión Eduardo Torroja Serrano Galvache, 4 28033 MADRID

+34 91 3020440

171. Spain Olaya Adán Manuel Eduardo Torroja


+34 91 3020440

172. Spain Río Suarez Olga Eduardo Torroja


+34 91 3020440

173. Spain Casals Miquel UPC [email protected] C/ Colon, 11 08222 TERRASSA

+34 93 7398153


327

174. Spain Galloway Cuadrat

Samantha UPC [email protected] C/ Colon, 11 08222 TERRASSA

175. Sweden Andersson Johnny Scandiaconsult International

[email protected] Scandiaconsult International Kapellgränd 7 - P.O. Box 4205 SE-102 65 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 6156215

176. Sweden Dawidowicz Nina FORMAS [email protected] Box 1206 S-111 82 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7754020

177. Sweden Ekstrand-tobin Annika FORMAS [email protected]

178. Sweden Graf Henrik FORMAS [email protected] Box 1206 S-111 82 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7754000

179. Sweden Hagerhed Linda FORMAS [email protected] SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute

+46 8 7754000

180. Sweden Nylander Ola FORMAS [email protected] Chalmers University of Technology - Graduate School of Architecture Sven Hultins Gata 6 S-412 96 GÖTEBORG

181. Sweden Nylander Ola FORMAS [email protected] Chalmers University of Technology - Graduate School of Architecture Sven Hultins Gata 6 S-412 96 GÖTEBORG

182. Sweden Olofsdotter Britt FORMAS [email protected] Box 1206 S-111 82 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7754007

183. Sweden Rolén Conny FORMAS [email protected] Box 1206 S-111 82 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7754000

184. Sweden Sandelin Jan FORMAS [email protected] Box 1206 S-111 82 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7754000

185. Sweden Holmgren Jonas KTH [email protected] S-100 44 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7907948

186. Sweden Bejrum Hakan KTH [email protected] Department of Planning S-100 44 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7909114

187. Sweden Johannesson Gudni KTH [email protected] Building Technology Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Brinellvägen 34 S-100 44 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7908670

188. Sweden Mattsson Bertil KTH [email protected] S-100 44 GÄVLE

189. Sweden Sjöström Christer KTH [email protected] S-801 76 GÄVLE +46 26 648177

190. Sweden Snickars Folke KTH [email protected] Department of Infrastructural and Urban Planning S-100 44 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 7907909

191. Sweden Skarendahl Åke Swedish Construction Sector Innovation Centre

[email protected] Box 13064 103 02 STOCKHOLM

+46 8 4111640

192. United Kingdom Davies Edward Masons edward.davies@pinsentmasons Pinsent Masons Solicitors100 Barbirolli SquareMANCHESTER M2 3SS

+44 161 2348234

193. United Kingdom Sneddon Kathryn Masons [email protected] Pinsent Masons Solicitors

+44 161 2348234


328

100 Barbirolli Square MANCHESTER M2 3SS

194. United Kingdom Pittman Christopher Borough Council of Wellingborough

[email protected] Swanspool House WELLINGBOROUGH NN8 1BP Northamptonshire

+44 1933 231710

195. United Kingdom Clift Mike BRE [email protected] BRE - Building Research Establishment Garston WATFORD WD25 9XX

+44 1923 664122

196. United Kingdom Gulvanessian Haig BRE [email protected] BRE - Building Research Establishment Garston WATFORD WD25 9XX

+44 1923 664233

197. United Kingdom Prior Josephine BRE [email protected] Bucknalls Lane Garston WATFORD WD25 9XX Herts

+44 1923 664468

198. United Kingdom Smithies Nigel BRE [email protected] BRE - Building Research Establishment Garston WATFORD WD25 9XX

+44 1923 664951

199. United Kingdom Yates Tim BRE [email protected] BRE - Building Research Establishment Garston WATFORD WD25 9XX

+44 1923 664341

200. United Kingdom Liyanage Champika Glasgow Caledonian University

[email protected]

201. United Kingdom Edwards Rodger University of Manchester

[email protected] P.O. Box 88 MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 2004250

202. United Kingdom Emsley Margaret University of Manchester

[email protected] Department of Building Engineering MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 2004234

203. United Kingdom Fenn Peter University of Manchester

[email protected] P.O.Box 88 MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 2004233

204. United Kingdom Levermore Geoff University of Manchester

[email protected] Manchester Centre for Civil & Construction Engineering P.O. Box 88 MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 2004257

205. United Kingdom Morse Tim University of Manchester

[email protected] Department of Building Engineering P.O. Box 88 MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 2004233

206. United Kingdom Winch Graham University of Manchester

[email protected] Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering P.O.Box 88 Sackville Street MANCHESTER M60 1QD

+44 161 3064591

207. United Kingdom Wright Andy University of Manchester

Department of Building Engineering


329

P.O. Box 88 MANCHESTER M60 1QD

208. United Kingdom Al-Bizri Salam University of Reading

[email protected] P.O. Box 219 - Whiteknights READING RG6 6AW

+44 118 9318196

209. United Kingdom Gray Colin University of Reading

[email protected] P.O. Box 219 - Whiteknights READING RG6 6AW

+44 118 9318196

210. United Kingdom Hutchinson Keith University of Reading

[email protected] P.O. Box 219 – Whiteknights READING RG6 2BU

+44 118 9318201

211. United Kingdom Barrett Peter University of Salford

[email protected] Room 108 The Old Firestation SALFORD M5 4WT Lancashire

+44 161 2955588

212. United Kingdom Curwell Steve University of Salford

[email protected] SALFORD M5 4WT +44 161 2954622

213. United Kingdom Haig University of Salford

[email protected] Bridgewater Building SALFORD M7 9NU

+44 161 2953426

214. United Kingdom Lee Angela University of Salford

[email protected] Department of Surveying Bridgewater Building Meadow Road SALFORD M7 1NU

+44 161 2955855

215. United Kingdom Sexton Martin University of Salford

[email protected] Department of Surveying Bridgewater Building SALFORD M7 9NU

+44 161 2953991

216. United Kingdom Swan University of Salford

Bridgewater Building SALFORD M7 9NU

+44 161 2954808

217. United Kingdom Dimitrijevic Branka University of Strathclyde

[email protected] The Lighthouse 56 Mitchell Street GLASGOW G1 3NU

+44 141 2499888

218. United States Malkawi Ali University of Pennsylvania

[email protected] PennDesign Department of Architecture PHILADELPHIA, PA

+1 215 5738718

219. United States Mawn Stephen ASTM International

[email protected] 100 Barr Harbor Drive PO Box C700 WEST CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428-2959

+1 610 8329726

220. United States Augenbroe Godfried Georgia Institute of Technology

[email protected] Doctoral Program ATLANTA GA 30332-0155

+1 404 8941686

221. United States Kampschroer Kevin GSA [email protected] Office of Real Property 1800 F Street, NW Suite 6223 WASHINGTON DC 20405

+1 202 5014411


330

AA N N E X N N E X 11 : L11 : L I S T O F A L L I S T O F A L L PP EE B BB B U U OO B S E R V E RB S E R V E R -- M E M B E R S M E M B E R S / L/ L I A I S O N SI A I S O N S

LISTING OF PEBBU OBSERVER-MEMBERS / LIAISON ORGANISATIONS 1 Australia Dr. G.C.

Foliente CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology

[email protected] Observer T19

2 Australia Mrs. A.M. Kelly

Australian Building Codes Board

[email protected] Observer D9

3 Canada Ms. F. Szigeti ICF - International Centre for Facilities

[email protected] Observer D2 D5– T19

4 Canada Prof. C.H. Davidson

University of Montreal - IF Research Corporation

[email protected] Observer T17 T19

5 Canada Dr. S. Mallory-Hill

University of Manitoba - Faculty of Architecture


6 Canada Mr. M. Stylianou

NRC/CETC [email protected] Observer D2 D8

7 Croatia Prof.Dr. M. Katavic

University of Zagreb - Faculty of Civil Engineering - Department of Construction Management & Economics


8 Estonia Prof. R. Liias TTU - Tallinn Technical University - Faculty of Civil Engineering


9 Germany Mr. T.M. Speer

University of Karlsruhe [email protected] Observer D3

10 Germany Prof. Dr. T. Luetzkendorf

University of Karlsruhe [email protected] Observer D3

10 Iceland Mr. H. Olafsson

Building Research Institute of Iceland


11 India Mr. D. Prashad

VIA Architectural Consultants


12 Italy Arch. C. Collaro

Architettura Senza Frontiere O.N.L.U.S.

[email protected] Observer D2 D3

13 Japan Mr. K. Azuma

National Institute of Public Health


14 Netherlands Mr. H.J. Verlinden

Eurocer-Building [email protected]

Observer T12

15 Netherlands Dr.Ir. W.J.P. Bakens

CIB - The International Council for Research and innovation in Building and Construction

[email protected] Liaison

16 Netherlands (National-Poland)

Mr. N. Pretnicki

Architect & Urban Housing Manager



331

17 Norway Prof. Dr.Ing. S.E. Haagenrud

Norwegian Building Research Institute

[email protected] Observer D1 T13

18 Saudi Arabia

Prof. O.A. Jannadi

King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals - College of Environmental Design


19 United Kingdom

Mr. E. Davies Pinsent Masons Solicitors Liaison

20 United Kingdom

Dr. B. Dimitrijevic

University of Strathclyde - Faculty of Engineering


21 United Kingdom

Ms. C. Liyanage

Glasgow Caledonian University - The School of the Built & Natural Environment


22 United Kingdom

Mr. C. Pittman

Borough Council of Wellingborough


23 United States

Mr. K. Kampschroer

GSA - US General Services Administration


24 United States

Prof. G.L.M. Augenbroe

Georgia Institute of Technology - College of Architecture


25 United States

Mr. S.F. Mawn

ASTM International [email protected] Liaison

26 United States

Dr. A. Malkawi

University of Pennsylvania

[email protected] Observer D2 D8


332

AA N N E X N N E X 12 : L12 : L I S T O F A LI S T O F A L L L PP EE B BB B U U MM E E T I N G SE E T I N G S

Date Title Country City 1. 17/12/01 PeBBu Kick-off Meeting Netherlands Amsterdam 2. 17/3/02 Domain 1: Building Technique - Life Performance of

Construction Materials and Components Australia Brisbane

3. 15/5/02 Domain 7: Building Industry - Regulations Belgium Brussels 4. 10/6/02 Domain 5: Building Process - Organisation and

Management Netherlands The Hague

5. 12/6/02 Domain 3: Building Design - Design of Buildings Netherlands Rotterdam 6. 17/6/02 Domain 9: Building Industry - Information and

Documentation Yugoslavia Belgrade

7. 19/7/02 Domain 6: Building Process - Legal and procurement Practices

United Kingdom

Manchester

8. 23/7/02 Domain 8: Building Industry - Innovation United Kingdom

Manchester

9. 2/09/02 Domain 2: Building Technique - Indoor Environment United Kingdom

Garston

10. 16/9/02 Task 18: PeBBu Network Management – Steering Committee in conjunction with Task 19: PeBBu Network Management - Technical Committee

Netherlands Amsterdam

11. 20/9/02 Domain 1: Building Technique - Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components

Sweden Stockholm

12. 24/3/03 NAS Kick-off Meeting Hungary Budapest 13. 25/3/03 Domain 1: Building Technique - Life Performance of

Construction Materials and Components Hungary Budapest

14. 25/3/03 Domain 2: Building Technique - Indoor Environment Hungary Budapest 15. 25/3/03 Domain 3: Building Design - Design of Buildings Hungary Budapest 16. 26/3/03 Domain 4: Building Design - Built Environment Hungary Budapest 17. 26/3/03 Domain 5: Building Process - Organisation and

Management Hungary Budapest


Hungary Budapest

19. 27/3/03 Domain 7: Building Industry - Regulations Hungary Budapest 20. 27/3/03 Domain 8: Building Industry - Innovation Hungary Budapest 21. 27/3/03 Domain 9: Building Industry - Information and

Documentation Hungary Budapest

22. 28/3/03 Task 15: Regional Platform 3 East Europe Hungary Budapest 23. 22/6/03 Domain 9: Building Industry - Information and

Documentation UK Glasgow

24. 4/8/03 Task 18: PeBBu Network Management – Steering Committee


25. 4/9/03 Task 13: Regional Platform 1 North Europe Sweden Stockholm 26. 19/9/03 Task 16: Regional Platform 4 Mediterranean Europe Italy Milan 27. 29/9/03 Task 14: Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Belgium Brussels 28. 1/10/03 Task 19: PeBBu Network Management – Technical

Committee Belgium Brussels

29. 12/1/04 Domain 1: Building Technique - Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components

United Kingdom

Manchester

30. 12/1/04 Domain 2: Building Technique - Indoor Environment United Kingdom

Manchester

31. 12/1/04 Domain 8: Building Industry - Innovation United Kingdom

Manchester


333

32. 12/1/04 Task 19: PeBBu Network Management – Technical Committee

United Kingdom

Manchester

33. 13/1/04 Domain 3: Building Design - Design of Buildings United Kingdom

Manchester


United Kingdom

Manchester

35. 13/1/04 Domain 7: Building Industry - Regulations United Kingdom

Manchester

36. 11/3/04 Mid Term Assessment Belgium Brussels 37. 30/5/04 Task 10: PeBBu User Platform 1 representing Building

Owners, Users and Managers Belgium Brussels

38. 31/7/04 Task 13: Regional Platform 1 North Europe Sweden Stockholm 39. 31/7/04 Task 15: Regional Platform 3 East Europe Hungary Budapest 40. 1/11/04 Domain 1: Building Technique - Life Performance of

Construction Materials and Components Portugal Porto

41. 1/11/04 Domain 2: Building Technique - Indoor Environment Portugal Porto 42. 1/11/04 Domain 3: Building Design - Design of Buildings Portugal Porto 43. 1/11/04 Domain 6: Building Process - Legal and procurement

Practices Portugal Porto

44. 1/11/04 Domain 7: Building Industry - Regulations Portugal Porto 45. 1/11/04 Domain 8: Building Industry - Innovation Portugal Porto 46. 1/11/04 Task 18: PeBBu Network Management – Steering

Committee in conjunction with Task 19: PeBBu Network Management - Technical Committee

Portugal Porto

47. 9/11/04 Domain 3: Building Design - Design of Buildings Czech Republic

Brno

48. 10/12/04 Task 18: PeBBu Network Management – Steering Committee


49. 11/4/05 NAS SOTA Meeting Slovakia Bratislava 50. 10/6/05 Task 13: Regional Platform 1 North Europe Finland Helsinki 51. 13/6/05 Task 18: PeBBu Network Management – Steering

Committee Finland Helsinki

52. 8/7/05 Task 16: Regional Platform 4 Mediterranean Europe Italy Rome 53. 31/7/05 Task 15: Regional Platform 3 East Europe Bulgaria Sofia 54. 25/8/05 Task 14: Regional Platform 2 West/Central Europe Netherlands Delft


334

AA N N E X N N E X 13 : A13 : A T T E N DA N C E T T E N DA N C E AA N A LY S I S F R O M N A LY S I S F R O M PP EE B BB B U U MM E E T I N G SE E T I N G S

A n n e x 1A n n e x 1 3 . 1 : D o m a i n M e e t i n g s3 . 1 : D o m a i n M e e t i n g s


335


336


337

A n n e x 1 3 . 2 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m M e e t i n g sA n n e x 1 3 . 2 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m M e e t i n g s

338

A n n e x 1 3 . 3 : S t e e r i n g / T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g sA n n e x 1 3 . 3 : S t e e r i n g / T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g s

Country City Date of Meeting

SC/TC attendance

Steering Committee

Netherlands Amsterdam 16/9/02 SC1/ TC1 80% Netherlands Amsterdam 4/8/03 SC 2 60% Netherlands Amsterdam 10/12/04 SC3 100% Finland Helsinki 13/6/05 SC4 /TC5 60% Average = 75% Technical Committee Netherlands Amsterdam 16/9/02 TC1/SC1 86% Belgium Brussels 1/10/03 TC2 81% UK Manchester 12/1/04 TC3 90% Portugal Lisbon 1/11/04 TC4 90% Finland Helsinki 13/6/05 TC5/SC4 53% Average = 80%

2001- 2005 Pe r fo rmanc e Ba sed Bu i ld ing Themat ic N etwo rk P e B B u F i n a l R e p o r t

339

AA N N E X N N E X 14 : L14 : L I S T O F A L L I S T O F A L L PP EE B BB B U U NN E W SE W S -- A R T I C L E SA R T I C L E S

These News Articles can be downloaded from www.pebbu.nl/newsarticles & www.pebbu.nl/newsarticles/archives/ Title of News article Author(s) Publication Date

1. Expressions of Interest PeBBu Secretariat April 2003 2. PeBBu Related National Initiatives PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

3. International PBB Related Activities PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

4. Workshop Preparation Reports PeBBu Secretariat April 2003 5. Domain Workshops PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

6. PeBBu NAS Extension PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

7. The PeBBu Network Secretariat PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

8. Network Members PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

9. Overall Approach PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

10. PeBBu Objectives PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

11. What is PeBBu? PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

12. First Domain Reports available PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

13. First PeBBu Progress Report Published PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

14. PeBBu NAS Week Planned, Budapest, 24-28 March 2003 PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

15. PeBBu Observers PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

16. PeBBu Website Database PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

17. PeBBu NAS Kicked Off To A Good Start PeBBu Secretariat April 2003

18. Progress on Domain 1: Building Materials and Components

Christer Sjöström, Robert Cope

May 2003

19. PeBBu Basic Literature Collection: Additional section in PeBBu Website

PeBBu Secretariat May 2003

20. Statements of Requirements - The key to unlocking Performance Based Building?

Josephine J Prior, Françoise Szigeti

June 2003

21. Why all the fuss about Performance Based Building? Josephine J Prior, Françoise Szigeti

July 2003

22. International Standards and Conformity Leaders Meeting: Report on the meeting held in Brussels 24 June 2003, Importance of Construction Products Directive and Energy Performance in Buildings

PeBBu Secretariat July 2003

23. Aus-PeBBu - Performance Based Building Network Down Under Established

Greg Foliente August 2003

24. Introducing the New PeBBu Programme Manager Mansi Jasuja August 2003


340

25. PeBBu Series of Technical/Domain Meetings, 12th - 14th January 2004, Manchester, UK

PeBBu Secretariat October 2003

26. Introducing: New PeBBu Observer-Members PeBBu Secretariat October 2003

27. Progress on Domain 6: Legal and Procurement Practices in Building and Construction

Tim Morse December 2003

28. PBB and Indoor Environment: un update from Domain 2 Marcel Loomans, Philomena Bluyssen

January 2004

29. CIB-ISIAQ Publication for Task Group TG42: Performance Criteria of Buildings for Health and Comfort

Jorma Säteri February 2004

30. Performance Based Methods for Service Life Prediction Per Jostein Hovde, Konrad Moser

April 2004

31. A Swedish National Platform on Performance Based Building

Åke Skarendahl, Christer Sjöström

April 2004

32. Introduction of Performance Based Regulation in Latvia N. Scholten, M. Groosman May 2004

33. Upcoming Event: 10th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components

J.-L. Chevalier June 2004

34. Performance Based Building and the Construction Products Directive (CPD) - New Task

Eric Winnepenninckx, Luk Vandaele, Piet Vitse

November 2004

35. Promising Results with Decision Support Tools (DST) for Performance Based Building - An Update of the New Task

Pekka Huovila, Janne Porkka November 2004

36. Mediterranean Regional Platform - Example of Israeli Best Practice on PBB at a national level

Monica Paciuk, Rachel Becker November 2004

37. Performance-Based Energy Design: The Mediterranean Area Status

Paolo Cardillo, Gioseppina Varone, Italo Meroni

November 2004

38. Earthquake Related Performance Based Engineering Vlatko Bosiljkov, Matei Fischinger

November 2004

39. Performance Based Design: An Explanation Dik Spekkink January 2005

40. Building Research & Information: Special Issue on Performance Based Building

Richard Lorch February 2005

41. Reform of Building Regulation - A Publication by Productivity Commission (Australian Government)

PeBBu Secretariat February 2005

42. Performance Indicators for Sustainable Urban Planning Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes February 2005

43. Performance-Based Building Regulation Systems - TG37 Publication

PeBBu Secretariat March 2005

44. Forthcoming Publication: Assessing Building Performance Wolfgang F.E. Preiser & Jacqueline C. Vischer

April 2005

45. PBB & Indoor Environment - An Update from Domain 2 Marcel Loomans & Philomena Bluyssen

April 2005

46. Progress on Domain 8: Innovation Peter Barrett, Martin Sexton & Angela Lee

April 2005

47. Decision Support Toolkit (DST) - A step towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB)

Pekka Huovila & Janne Porkka April 2005

48. Building Owners, Users & Managers: Questionnaire Tim Yates May 2005

2001- 2005 Pe r fo rmanc e Ba sed Bu i ld ing Themat ic N etwo rk P e B B u F i n a l R e p o r t

341

49. Mediterranean Platform - State of the Art Giuseppina Varone & Paolo Cardillo

June 2005

50. What is Performance Based Building (PBB): in a Nutshell Françoise Szigeti & Gerald Davis

June 2005

51. PeBBu EEP Priority Themes - Housing Gábor Tiderenczl October 2005

52. Performance Approach in Fire Safety Engineering Kyriakos Papaooannou October 2005

53. NAS Priority Theme - Durability Peter Matiašovský October 2005

54. The Development of performance based Building Regulations - The Spanish Case

Pilar Linares Alemparte October 2005

55. Performance Based Building: Combining Forces – Advancing Facilities Management & Construction through Innovation Series

PeBBu Secretariat October 2005

56. Concluding Remarks and Outlook on Life Performance of Products and Systems

Wolfram Trinius, Christer Sjostrom, Jean-Luc Chevalier

October 2005

57. Renovation and Recycling Status in NAS Milos Kalousek October 2005


342

PeBBu Final Report

Annex 15 – Finances Year 4

Annex 15 – Financial Tables Year 4 – is produced as a separate document

© 2005 CIBdf – International Council for Research and Innovation in Building & Construction Development Foundation CIB General Secretariat Postal Address: Postbox 1837, 3000 BV ♦ Visitors Address: Kruisplein 25-G, 3014 DB ♦ Rotterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31.10.4110240 ♦ Fax: +31.10.4334372 ♦ www.cibworld.nl