Appendix A
Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools for Stating Functional Requirements and for Evaluating Facilities

Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, International Centre for Facilities

INTRODUCTION: THE FUNCTIONALITY AND SERVICEABILITY TOOLS HAVE STRONG FOUNDATIONS1

The functionality and serviceability tools are founded in part on “the performance concept in building,” which has roots before World War II in Canada, the United States, and overseas. In the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, the Public Buildings Service (PBS) of the General Services Administration (GSA) funded the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, then the National Bureau of Standards) to develop a performance approach for the procurement of government offices, resulting in the so-called Peach Book publication (NBS, 1971). Starting in the early 1980s, the performance concept was applied to facilities for office work and other functions by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Sub-committee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities. Worldwide, in 1970, the International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (commonly known as CIB) set up Working Commission W060 on the Performance Concept in Building. In 1982, the coordinator for that commission defined the concept in those terms: “The performance approach is, first and foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms on ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building is required to do, and not with prescribing how it is to be constructed” (Gibson, 1982). In 1998, the CIB launched a proactive program for the period 1998-2001 focused on two themes: the performance-based building approach, and its impact on standards, codes and regulations, and sustainable construction and development.2

By 1985, the importance of distinguishing between performance and serviceability had been recognized, and standard definitions for facility and facility serviceability were developed. Facility performance is defined by ASTM as the “behaviour in service of a facility for a specified use,” while facility serviceability is the “capability of a facility to perform the function(s) for which it is designed, used, or required to be used.” Both definitions are from ASTM Standard E1480. Serviceability is more suited than performance to responding to the stated requirements for a facility, because the focus of performance is only on a single specified use or condition, at a given point in time, whereas serviceability deals with the capability of a facility to deliver a range of performance over time. In the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), related work has been carried out within ISO/Technical Committee 59/Sub-Committee 3 on Functional/User Requirements and Performance in Building Construction.

The term programme, meaning a statement of requirements for what should be built, was in common usage in the mid-nineteenth century by architectural students at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris and, thereafter, in American universities as they adopted the French system. In North America, the architect’s basic

1  

For further information and details, see Szigeti and Davis, (1997) in Amiel, M. S., and Vischer, J. C., Space Design and Management for Place Making Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Resarch Association, The Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), Edmond, Okla., 1997.

2  

CIB Pro-Active Program, see CIB Web site for further details at <www.cibworld.nl>.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 63
Appendix A Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools for Stating Functional Requirements and for Evaluating Facilities Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, International Centre for Facilities INTRODUCTION: THE FUNCTIONALITY AND prescribing how it is to be constructed” (Gibson, 1982). SERVICEABILITY TOOLS HAVE STRONG In 1998, the CIB launched a proactive program for the FOUNDATIONS1 period 1998-2001 focused on two themes: the performance-based building approach, and its impact The functionality and serviceability tools are on standards, codes and regulations, and sustainable founded in part on “the performance concept in build- construction and development.2 ing,” which has roots before World War II in Canada, By 1985, the importance of distinguishing between the United States, and overseas. In the United States in performance and serviceability had been recognized, the 1950s and 1960s, the Public Buildings Service and standard definitions for facility and facility service- (PBS) of the General Services Administration (GSA) ability were developed. Facility performance is defined funded the National Institute of Standards and Tech- by ASTM as the “behaviour in service of a facility for nology (NIST, then the National Bureau of Standards) a specified use,” while facility serviceability is the to develop a performance approach for the procurement “capability of a facility to perform the function(s) for of government offices, resulting in the so-called Peach which it is designed, used, or required to be used.” Both Book publication (NBS, 1971). Starting in the early definitions are from ASTM Standard E1480. Service- 1980s, the performance concept was applied to facili- ability is more suited than performance to responding ties for office work and other functions by the Ameri- to the stated requirements for a facility, because the can Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Sub- focus of performance is only on a single specified use committee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities. or condition, at a given point in time, whereas service- Worldwide, in 1970, the International Council for ability deals with the capability of a facility to deliver a Building Research Studies and Documentation (com- range of performance over time. In the International monly known as CIB) set up Working Commission Organization for Standardization (ISO), related work W060 on the Performance Concept in Building. In has been carried out within ISO/Technical Committee 1982, the coordinator for that commission defined the 59/Sub-Committee 3 on Functional/User Requirements concept in those terms: “The performance approach is, and Performance in Building Construction. first and foremost, the practice of thinking and work- The term programme, meaning a statement of ing in terms on ends rather than means. It is concerned requirements for what should be built, was in common with what a building is required to do, and not with usage in the mid-nineteenth century by architectural students at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris and, there- after, in American universities as they adopted the 1For further information and details, see Szigeti and Davis, French system. In North America, the architect’s basic (1997) in Amiel, M. S., and Vischer, J. C., Space Design and Man- agement for Place Making Proceedings of the 28th Annual Confer- ence of the Environmental Design Resarch Association, The Envi- 2CIB Pro-Active Program, see CIB Web site for further details at ronmental Design Research Association (EDRA), Edmond, Okla., 1997. . 63

OCR for page 63
64 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS services included architectural programming (i.e., institutional memory of lessons learned. They are too “confirming the requirements of the project to the often dependent on what best practices have been rec- owner”), but excluded setting functional requirements, ognized and remembered by individual real estate and which was the owner’s responsibility. In Britain and facility staff members and passed on informally to their parts of Canada, the term “briefing” includes program- subordinates and successors. Most often, such accu- ming. By the mid-twentieth century, some clients for mulated knowledge disappears with the individuals large or complex projects paid extra to have their archi- responsible. Instead, as each facility project is acquired, tects or management consultants prepare a functional whether it is new construction, remodel or refit, or program for their projects.3 The functionality and leased or owned, both the facility and the processes serviceability tools were created to make it easier, involved should be evaluated. Each phase of each faster, and cheaper to create such functional programs project should be considered a potential source of in a consistent and comprehensive manner, to link lessons, including planning, management, program- requirements to results, and to evaluate performance ming, design, construction, commissioning, occupancy, against requirements. operation, and maintenance, even decommissioning. There is now a worldwide trend toward the use of a Figure A-1 shows such an ongoing cycle of feed- “performance-based approach” to the procurement, forward from project to project. delivery, and evaluation of facilities. This approach is To be effective, such evaluations, or programs of useful because it focuses on the results, rather than on lessons learned, need a way to organize the informa- the specification of the means of production and deliv- tion and to relate and compare it to what the client ery. It reduces trade barriers and promotes innovation requires now and in the future. Since 1965 when or at least removes many impediments to innovation. TEAG—The Environmental Analysis Group/GEMH – For such an approach to be successful however, there Groupe Pour l’Etude du Milieu Humain—was is a need for more attention to be paid to the definition launched, a programming assignment normally starts and description of the purposes (demand-results), short with an evaluation of the current facilities used by the term and long term, and for more robust ways of verify- client or similar surrogate facilities if need be. These ing that the results have indeed been obtained. This is evaluations give invaluable information and serve as a why there is a mounting interest in building perfor- context for the programming process. The work then mance evaluations and other types of assessments. Cus- proceeds with interviews of senior managers about tomer satisfaction surveys, post-occupancy evaluations current problems and future expectations, and group (POEs), lease audits, and building condition reports are interviews with occupants at several levels of the orga- becoming more common. nization. Questions are asked about what works, not This appendix has four sections: (1) context, just what does not work. It is important to know what (2) measuring the quality of performance of facilities should be carried over from the current situation. using the ASTM standards, (3) examples, and (4) final Over the years, interview guides and recording docu- comments. ments have been developed for such evaluations. This work and experience provided the foundation for the functionality and serviceability tools. Thus, evaluations CONTEXT: PROGRAMMING AND EVALUATION feed into functional programs, which become the basis AS PART OF A CONTINUUM for the next evaluations. Feed-Forward—The Programming-Evaluation Loop Defining Requirements Not only do most large organizations lack a compre- hensive facilities database, they also fail to develop an The functional program should focus on aspects of the project requirements that are important for the enterprise, in order to direct the best allocation of 3The first stand-alone, general practice in building programming, resources within the given cost envelope. The objec- not part of an architectural or management consulting practice, was tive is to get best value for the users and owners. A TEAG—The Environmental Analysis Group, founded in 1965 by knowledgeable client will prepare, in-house or with the Gerald Davis. The International Centre for Facilities was founded help of consultants, a statement of requirements (SOR), in 1986 to focus on research and development activities related to including indicators of capability of the solution that facilities and on standard development activities.

OCR for page 63
65 APPENDIX A Portfolio and Asset Management Property Operations and Maintenance Best Practices Feed-Forward Best Practices Feed-Forward Next iteration Lessons Lessons Learned Learned User + Project User + Project Requirements Requirements Revitalize Revitalize Design Design Evaluate Evaluate Project Project Review Review or Facility or Facility Construct Construct Commission Commission A B Evaluate Manage Evaluate Manage + Use + Use © 2000-2001 International Centre for Facilities, Inc. Diagram by Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis Based in part on a diagram by John Zeisel FIGURE A-1 Feed-forward. are easy to audit and are as unambiguous as practi- is particularly necessary for performance-based and cable. This is an essential step of the planning phase for design-build procurement and for any project devel- a project. oped using an integrated project team approach. In the Portfolio management provides the link between more traditional approach, the contractual documents business demands and real estate strategy. At the port- normally include very precise specifications (“specs”). folio level, requirements are usually rolled up and re- In the experience of expert witnesses, the root of many lated to the demands of the strategic real estate plan in court cases and misunderstandings can be traced back support of the business plan for the enterprise squarely to badly worded, imprecise, incomplete state- (Teicholz, 2001). ments of requirements that do not include any agreed Requirements for facilities needed by an enterprise means of verifying whether the product or service de- will normally be included in a portfolio management livered is in fact meeting the stated requirements. strategy. An asset management plan for a facility would In a performance-based approach and for design- include the specific requirements for that facility. A build and similar procurements, the focus is on the ex- statement of requirements, in one form or another, more pected performance, or on a range of performances, of or less adequate, is part of the contractual documenta- the end product. Therefore, the heart of these nontradi- tion for each specific procurement. tional approaches is defining those expected results and Statements of requirements serve as the starting the requirements of the customer or user in an objec- point for providers of material, products, facilities, ser- tive, comprehensive, consistent, and verifiable manner. vices, and so forth. As experienced readers of this re- In any dispute, it is necessary to be able to go back to port likely know, if there is ever litigation or other li- the contract and have a clear definition of what was ability issue, then the statement of requirements is the agreed between the parties. If the “legal” name of the first document that the parties will turn to. It is the ref- game is a “warranty of fitness for purpose,” then the erence point for any review process during tendering, purpose has to be clearly spelled out, as well as the design, production, and delivery, as well as for later ways to verify that “fitness.” This point is developed evaluation(s), no matter which methodology is used. It further later in this appendix.

OCR for page 63
66 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS Life Cycle of Facilities, Shared Data, and stored in incompatible formats and difficult to corre- Relationship to the Real Estate Processes late and keep accurate. The use of computerized data- of the Enterprise bases and the move to Web-based software applica- tions and projects are steps toward the creation of a For each facility, the information included in the shared information base for the management of real asset management plan, plus the more detailed pro- estate assets. Once such shared databases exist, the gramming data and the financial data, are the founda- value of evaluations and benchmarking exercises will tion for the cumulative knowledge base of shared data increase because the information will be easier to re- and support data about the facilities diagrammed at the trieve when needed. The shared data and knowledge center of Figure A-2. Throughout the life cycle of a base will also make it easier to “ close the loop” and facility, many people, such as portfolio and facility relate the facilities delivered to the demands of the en- managers, users, operations and maintenance staff, fi- terprise. nancial managers, and others, should be able to con- In discussions at the Facilities Information Council tribute to and access this pool of data, information, and of the National Institute of Building Sciences, such re- knowledge. creation of data over and over again has been identified Today, these kinds of data and information are still as a major cause of wasted dollars and the source of mostly contained in “silos,” with many disconnects potential savings. More important will be the reduc- between the different phases of the life cycle of a facil- tions in misunderstandings, the increased ability to pin- ity. Too often the data are captured again and again, Portfolio Management Gap Analysis Portfolio and Project Demand of Portfolio Requirements Renovate/ Project Delivery Re-use Plan Decision: Keep/ Program Dispose/Re-use Information Base Design of Shared Data Evaluate Construct and Support Data Commission Repair and Alterations Evaluate Operate and Evaluate Maintain Asset and Property Management Overall Enterprise Diagram by Based in part on Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis Dana K. Smith diagram for FIC of NIBS, 2000 © 2000 International Centre for Facilities FIGURE A-2 Life cycle of facilities.

OCR for page 63
67 APPENDIX A point weak links in the information transfer chain, and from the perceptual to the performance-based to the the improvements in the products and services because specific and technical. At the moment, there is not yet the lessons learned will not be lost. any consensus as to what kinds of evaluations should For evaluations to yield their full potential as part of be done and when or how they should be done. Even the life-cycle loop, the information that is fed forward the terminology is in great flux. Many terms are used, from such activities needs to be captured and presented such as analysis, assessment, audit, evaluation, investi- in comparable formats. Accepted terminology, stan- gation, rating, review, scan, and so forth, usually to- dard definitions, and normalized documentation will gether with some qualifier, such as building condition make such comparisons much easier. The links be- report, building performance evaluation, facility as- tween evaluations and stated requirements should be sessment, post-construction evaluation, post-occu- explicit and easy to trace. pancy evaluation, serviceability rating, etc. Figure A-2 diagrams the life cycle of a facility, in- The range of tools, methods, and approaches to cluding the particular points in the cycle when most evaluations is quite wide as well as deep. In some situ- evaluations occur. It shows in greater detail how one of ations, it is appropriate to take a broad strategic view the feed-forward loops unfolds. During project deliv- and to use tools that can give answers quickly and with ery, of course, there are or should be evaluation loops the minimum of effort. At the other extreme, there are that cannot be shown in the overall diagram. situations that call for in-depth, specific, narrowly fo- cused, very technical engineering audits that can take weeks and require sophisticated instrumentation. Fig- Evaluations: From Strategic to In-Depth ure A-3 shows the relationship between these different Evaluations can happen at any time and can be trig- levels of precision. gered by many situations. They range in their approach Strategic review of key indicators Macro level scan , not in-depth investigation Roll-up of focused in-depth data, such as Building Condition Audit, LEED, etc. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning System Electrical and electronic POE - Post Occupancy e.g: BEPAC, BREEAM Financial analysis and investigations . . . O&M - Operation and Energy conservation, types of in-depth Security: Threat and Plumbing and piping Real Estate market Life cycle costs and And many other drainage, condition investigations value engineerintg Lifecycle analysis Indoor Air Quality Water and waste In-Depth Electromagnetic Roof suitability, management Maintenance risk analysis Evaluation radiation analysis systems systems audit FIGURE A-3 Strategic to in-depth evaluations. Source: Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, © 1999, 2000 International Centre for Facilities.

OCR for page 63
68 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS MEASURING AND MANAGING THE QUALITY OF on schedule. Some do assess how well each new or PERFORMANCE OF FACILITIES USING THE remodeled facility meets the need of the business users ASTM STANDARDS ON WHOLE BUILDING who occupy it. Essential knowledge can be captured as FUNCTIONALITY AND SERVICEABILITY part of a formal institutional memory of what works well, what works best, and what should not be repeated. Assessing Customer Perception and There are an array of different methods and tools that Quality of Performance can be used to capture this information. A number of those tools have been catalogued by a group of researchers Assessing customer perception and satisfaction, or and practitioners based at the University of Victoria at evaluating the quality of the performance delivered by Wellington, New Zealand (Baird et al., 1996). a facility in support of customer requirements are two A quality management (or assurance) program needs complementary, but not identical, types of assessments. to measure and track performance against “stated In a recent issue of Consumer Reports, there is a series requirements.” Those who provide a product or service of items dealing with the ratings of health maintenance (e.g., a facility and its operations and management), organizations. In one of the articles, the question of the should ascertain the explicit and implicit requirements quality of the ratings is posed and an important point is of the customers (occupants), decide to what level those made. “Satisfaction measures are important. But, don’t needs should be met, meet that level consistently, and confuse them with measures of medical quality…” be able to show that they are in fact meeting those (Consumer Reports, 2000). The key point is that requirements within the cost envelope. measuring customer satisfaction is important and nec- Such programs, therefore, need to start with an essary, but not sufficient. appropriate process for preparing statements of require- There is a need for measuring the actual quality and ments. These should include the ability to determine performance of the services and products delivered, and assess features and characteristics of the product or whether it be medical care or the facilities and services service considered; to relate them directly to customers’ they provide in support of the occupants and the needs, expectations, and requirements; and to docu- enterprise. ment it all in a systematic, comprehensive, and orderly manner. Such documentation should include the means Defining Quality to monitor compliance during all phases of the life cycle of the facility. When dealing with facilities, informa- Quality is described in ISO 9000 as the “totality of tion should also be included about how the enterprise is features and characteristics of a product or service that organized and its business strategy, and about expecta- bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs” tions related to quantity, constraints, environmental and (ISO, 2000). Quality is also defined as “fitness for pur- other impacts, time, costs, and so forth. All these pose at a given cost.” The difference between Tiffany elements have to be taken into consideration when con- quality and Wal-Mart quality does not need to be ducting an overall evaluation, in particular at the time explained. Both provide quality and value for money. of commissioning or shortly thereafter. Both are appropriate, depending on what the customer is looking for, for what purpose, and at what price. Using the ASTM Standards on Whole Building Quality therefore is not absolute. It is the most Functionality and Serviceability to Measure Quality appropriate result that can be obtained for the price one is willing to pay. Again, in order to be able to evaluate The information provided by most POEs and by cus- and compare different results or offerings, and verify tomer satisfaction surveys is primarily about occupant whether the requirements have been satisfied, these perception and satisfaction, which is often necessary must be stated as clearly as possible. but rarely sufficient. It is seldom specific enough to be acted upon directly. Similarly, in-depth and specific Measuring and Managing the Quality of Performance technical evaluations usually do not address topics directly related to the functional requirements of the Many enterprises, public and private, review the users or cannot be matched to those requirements. project file during commissioning, or later, and note Based on some 30 years of experience with both pro- whether the project was completed within budget and gramming and evaluation, over the period 1987-1993,

OCR for page 63
69 APPENDIX A ASTM Standard Scales the International Centre for Facilities (ICF) team cre- ated a set of scales that have now become the ASTM The ASTM standard scales provide a broad-brush, standards on whole building functionality and service- macro level method, appropriate for strategic, overall ability, recognized as American National Standards decision-making. The scales deal with both demand (ANSI). More importantly, these standards are based (occupant requirements) and supply (serviceability of on a methodology for creating such scales that is cur- buildings) (MacGregor and Then, 1999). They can be rently being balloted at the international level under used at any time, not just at the start of a project. In the authority of ISO TC 59/SC3 on Functional/User particular, they can be used as part of portfolio man- Requirements and Performance in Building Construc- agement to provide a unit of information for the asset tion (ASTM, 2000). management plan, on the one hand, and for the roll-up These standards do provide information that can be of requirements of the business unit, on the other. acted upon. They measure the quality of services deliv- The ASTM standard scales include two matched, ered by the facility in support of the occupants as indi- multiple-choice questionnaires and levels. One ques- viduals and as groups. The results from serviceability tionnaire is used for setting workplace requirements for ratings complement POEs and can be cross-referenced functionality and quality. It describes customer to customer satisfaction surveys (see examples in needs—demand—in everyday language, as the core of “Final Comments”). These standards currently provide front-end planning. The other, matching questionnaire explicit, objective, consistent methods and tools and is used for assessing the capability of a building to meet include the means to monitor and verify compliance those levels of need, which is its serviceability. It rates with respect to office facilities. The usefulness of such facilities—supply—in performance language as a first structured information goes beyond a single project. It step toward an outline performance specification. can also be used for lessons-learned programs and for Both cover more than 100 topics and 340 building benchmarking. The methodology could be applied features, each with levels of service calibrated from 0 equally well to create a set of tools for measuring the to 9 (less to more). These standard scales are particu- quality of performance of any capital asset, including larly suitable as part of the front end for a design-build all types of constructed assets, whether public infra- project, to compare several facilities on offer to buy or structure such as bridges, roads, and utilities, or lease. The scales can also be used to compare the rela- buildings. tive requirements of different groups. This new generation of tools gives real estate pro- This set of tools was designed to bridge between fessionals the means to evaluate the “fit” between “functional programs” written in user language on the facilities and the users they serve. These tools use indi- one side and “outline specifications and evaluations” cators of capability to assess how well a proposed written in technical performance language on the other. design, or an occupied facility, meets the functional Although it is a standardized approach, it can easily be requirements specified by the business units and adapted and tailored to reflect the particular needs of a facility occupants. Even a small business, with only a specific organization. few dozen staff, needs to capture and conveniently For organizations with many facilities that house access the key facts about its workplaces, how they are similar types of functions, the functionality and service- used, and lessons to apply “next time.” ability scales capture a systematic and consistent record of the institutional memory of the organization. Their Functionality and Serviceability: use speeds up the functional programming process and Matching User Requirements (Demand) provides comprehensive, systematic, objective ratings and Their Facilities (Supply) in a short time. Evaluations are most useful when they provide the The Serviceability Tools and Methods means to compare results to expectations. Figure A-4 (ST&M) Approach shows the use of bar-chart profiles to match functional requirements and serviceability ratings using the The ST&M approach (Davis et al., 1993) includes ASTM standard scales. the use of the ASTM standards, and its results, but also

OCR for page 63
70 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS Functionality Serviceability Required of Facility Synthesize user Rate capabilities of requirements facility to support users • Set required levels of serviceability, by 9 9 Set rating levels of using the standard serviceability by 7 7 multiple-choice using the standard 5 5 questionnaires. multiple-choice • Set relative 3 3 questionnaires importance and set 1 1 minimum threshold, if any. Show Show rating Compare strengths and shortfalls. required levels as Consider relative importances. levels as a barcharts Consider tradeoffs, then decide. barchart FIGURE A-4 Matching demand and supply—gap analysis. Source: Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, © 1999, 2000 International Centre for Facilities. provides formats for describing the organization, func- 2. Facility serviceability bar-chart profile and indi- tion-based tools for estimating how much floor area an cators of capability organization needs, and other tools necessary to pro- 3. A match between two profiles and comparisons vide needed information for the statement of require- with up to three profiles ments (SOR). 4. A gap analysis and selection of “strength and con- At the heart of this approach is the process of work- cerns” for presentation to senior management ing with the occupant groups during the programming 5. Text profiles for use in a statement of require- phase of the project cycle, as well as during any evalu- ments and equivalent indicators of capability ation phase. This process of communication between 6. Descriptive text about the organization, its mis- the providers of services and products (in-house and sion, relevant strategic information, and other external) and the other stakeholders (in particular the information about the project in a standard format occupants), of valuing their input, and of being seen to 7. Quantity spreadsheet profiles be responsive can be as important as the outcome itself 8. Building loss features (BLF) rating table and will often determine the acceptability of the results. 9. Footprint and layout guide This is where satisfaction and quality overlap. ST&M includes several kinds of methods and tools, The ASTM standards and the ST&M approach are along with documents and computer templates for project independent. Requirements profiles can be pre- using them: pared at any time, and serviceability ratings can be done and updated at a number of points over the life cycle of 1. Functional requirement bar-chart profile and a facility. functional elements

OCR for page 63
71 APPENDIX A How Do These Tools Fit in the Overall Corporate Figure A-5 shows how the different processes in- Real Estate Framework? volved relate to each other and to the enterprise. In Figure A-6, the functionality and serviceability Setting requirements and evaluating results are two scales are shown as an overlay on this framework. In parts of what should be an ongoing dialogue between this manner, it is possible to see how they relate to the users and providers. Evaluations are becoming an in- underlying corporate real estate processes. The pro- dispensable tool for decision-making by senior man- cesses diagrammed here are each complex sets of agement and for appropriate responsiveness by all activities and secondary processes. A detailed map of those involved, whether they are working in-house or such activities is included in the next volume of scales are external providers. to be published by the ICF (Davis et al., in press). Facilities are an important resource of the enterprise. Figure A-6 also shows the relationship to a new set There are three main processes to take into account: of scales prepared to rate the condition and estimated (1) demand; (2) management, planning, procurement, residual service life of a facility, to compare them to production, and delivery; and (3) operations, mainte- the needs of the enterprise. These scales are also used nance, and use. External Culture and Strategic Environment CRE Knowledge base Enterprise Financial Strategy Overall Enterprise Portfolio / Strategic Strategy Asset Management Focus on management Focus on management Work- of overall portfolio of individual assets place Overall Enterprise Budget Project Real Asset Demand Portfolio Operations Estate Management Management cycle Require- process ments Strategy Plans Plan Enterprise Information Asset Infrastructure CRE&FM Acquisition - Information Base Project Delivery USE by Occupants and Others Operational Facility Operations & Asset Management Maintenance Overall Enterprise Legend: Decision flows: Other Stakeholders CRE&FM Enterprise and Investors Information flows Issues of sustainability, health, productivity improvements and other Diagram by Provide facilities benefits of real estate for occupants, Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis customers and others Primary processes © 1999, 2001 International Centre for Facilities for real estate FIGURE A-5 Corporate real estate processes—linking to the enterprise. Source: Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, © 1999, 2000 International Centre for Facilities.

OCR for page 63
72 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS Portfolio / Strategic Asset Management Focus on management Focus on management of overall portfolio of individual assets Overall Budget cycle Real Asset Portfolio process Estate Management Management Priorities among Strategy Plans Estimates of Plan requirements Work-place Demand Time Asset Suitability Functionality Requirement Workplace Suitability Use Serviceability of facilities Rating for Enterprise Operations Condition & Condition Service Life Requirements Requirement & Service Life Condition & Suitability Service Life Rating Details of Condition Asset Acquisition Project Delivery Operational Facility Operations & Asset Management Maintenance Overall Enterprise Diagram by Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis © 1999, 2001 International Centre for Facilities FIGURE A-6 Corporate real estate processes and use of the serviceability tools. Source: Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, © 1999, 2000 International Centre for Facilities. for setting budget priorities for repair and alteration satisfaction survey developed by the International projects. Facility Management Association. The satisfaction levels of occupants of its landmark John C. Kluczynski Building in downtown Chicago were compared to EXAMPLES: USES OF THE ASTM STANDARDS levels in a serviceability rating of the building and to AND LINKS TO OTHER TOOLS functionality requirement profiles for the main catego- ries of occupant groups. Link to GSA’s Customer Satisfaction Survey: The results correlated closely. The serviceability GSA, John C. Kluczynski Building, Chicago levels both predicted and explained the satisfaction GSA regularly assesses the satisfaction of occupants levels. However, the customer satisfaction survey had of its major buildings, using a version of the customer more detail about how occupants felt about the speed

OCR for page 63
73 APPENDIX A Part of Tool Kit for Portfolio Management and and thoroughness with which building operations staff Setting Budget Priorities for Repair and Alteration responded to problems and complaints. The service- Projects: PG&E ability scales gave more information about actual strengths and concerns of the facility to meet occupant Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation (PG&E) has functional needs. realigned the way it plans and manages its portfolio of Together, these two complementary studies pro- real estate and sets priorities in its annual budget for vided needed supporting information to submissions repairs and alterations. Integral to its new manage- for the funding of several renovation projects. An ment approach are the ASTM standard scales, the example of a bonus from the functionality and service- serviceability tools and methods including the new ability project was the identification of ongoing scales for building condition, and estimated remaining security concerns of the staff. Occupants did not real- service life. These ratings are compared to the required ize that the situation had been remedied and that thefts level set for that facility. had been reduced by three-quarters since the assign- ment of a policeman in uniform on-site, patrolling the New Design: National Oceanic and Atmospheric corridors. On the basis of this particular finding, a com- Administration (NOAA) munications and public relations effort was launched to inform the staff of the beneficial impact of the pres- The groups that operate the weather satellites of ence of the uniformed policeman. NOAA needed a new headquarters building. Their functional requirements were specified using the Link to Prior POEs: U.S. State Department ASTM standard scales. Their requirement profile was then compared to that of private sector organizations During the 1990s, the U.S. State Department con- doing similar work, such as the headquarters of a gas ducted POEs after many major projects. The findings pipeline company or the headquarters of a mobile from these projects were analyzed by in-house staff and phone company. NOAA’s requirement profile was very others of the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations similar to what was needed by other organizations (now Office of Overseas Buildings Operations). Then, doing similar kinds of work; there were very few dif- in the late 1990s, a functionality requirement profile ferences. This provided a kind of benchmarking for was developed for chanceries, using the ASTM stan- NOAA’s senior management and showed that NOAA’s dard scales. Data, as well as insights, from the POEs requirements were appropriate and consistent with were taken into account in setting requirement levels private sector practice, even though they were much and in preparing the main requirement profile for a base more demanding than would typically be provided for building as well as for the variant profiles for the dif- a general administrative office in government. ferent zones in a chancery. The ASTM standard scales provided a structure for applying the information from Choosing a Lease Property: U.S. State Department, the POEs, which could then be directly related to Passport Office equivalent levels of serviceability. The U.S. State Department and GSA reached agree- Part of Asset Management Plans: Public Works and ment on the functionality requirement profile for its Government Services Canada passport offices where citizens can come to have their applications adjudicated and a passport issued quickly. When the serviceability tools and methods were first When new leased office space was needed for its pass- developed, the government of Canada rated the service- port office in New Orleans, the requirement profile was ability of all its major office buildings across the verified for its applicability to this particular office. country. Recently, it has issued contracts to update the Then about a quarter of the requirement scales were asset management plans of all its major office build- used to scan the properties on offer that GSA had iden- ings. Each plan is required to contain a serviceability tified as relevant. In two days, six properties were rating using the standard serviceability scales. scanned for serviceability levels. Only one out of six

OCR for page 63
74 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS was found to meet the essential functionality require- ties group and the bidders were able to do this on short ments. However, once the real estate manager in GSA notice, without having received any special training or understood the requirement profile of the occupant guidance in using the standards. Comparable proposals, group, she was quickly able to identify two other valid based on these consistent requirements, were received options. Within weeks, the “best fit” was identified, on schedule without difficulty. This company also and a lease negotiated. asked TEAG to rate its main campus and to prepare a profile of requirement for the largest occupant group housed at that campus. This third-party assessment Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and Design Reviews: served as a benchmark to compare the results from the State Department Chanceries and other assessments and proposals. High-Tech Organizations During 1999 and 2000, the U.S. State Department FINAL COMMENTS used its functionality requirement profile and service- ability indicators to assess the functionality of design Some Relevant Anecdotes proposals for new embassies and consulates to be developed in the sequential project development The value of a property and its long-term benefits process, design-bid-build. The department’s require- are not just a matter of real estate dollars and cents and ment profile was also used to assess and compare the technical performance; corporations also look at the functionality of proposals using the integrated, design- effectiveness of the workplace for core business opera- build procurement process. In some cases, proposals tions and at the strategic advantage that facilities can had very similar levels of functionality, while some provide. Successful facilities and real estate groups other proposals showed significant differences between understand this (FFC, 1998). It can cost or earn the the functionality of the proposals and what had been company far more than the rise or fall of property required. prices. For example, one vice president for facilities at Thereafter, the same requirement profile was used an aircraft company explained to us that facilities costs during design reviews as a benchmark to ensure that represent about 5 percent of the total cost of each air- the designs were continuing to respond to the require- plane sold, but that 5 percent is critical to the ability of ments stated in the RFP. Contractors were trained to do his company to deliver new planes on time and on these assessments, to create comparisons bar-charts, budget. If a new hangar is not ready on time or the and to analyze the gaps between the designs and the facilities get in the way, the whole production line can requirement profile. be delayed or grind to a halt. The same holds true for When a slow-growth, high-tech corporation needed smaller companies who rent office space. For them the a new corporate headquarters, it developed a functional cost of rent, utilities, and other charges runs at about requirement profile in the language and format of the the same percentage. ASTM standards and included it, verbatim, in its RFP. For organizations, big or small, a 1 percent increase Responses to the RFP were rated, using the service- (or decrease) in the productivity of core business opera- ability scales. Although a number of the proposals were tions, brought about by an inadequate workplace, is fairly tightly clustered on price, there was a significant probably at least 10 times greater than a 1 percent difference in functionality among the proposals. increase (or decrease) in the value of the real property considered as a real estate asset. Put another way, here is the example of a laboratory where facilities were Levels of Service for Outsourcing: underused and inefficient: At zero facilities cost and A Major Oil Company with minimum rearrangements, an extra 15 scientists When a major oil company was considering out- could be added. This would give the lab extra gross sourcing its facility management operations, it asked revenue while lowering the cost of square feet per all companies who proposed to base their cost proposals employee. On the other hand, more substantial changes on using the same levels of serviceability, as specified in the facility layout would allow the lab to nearly using the ASTM standard serviceability scales. Senior double its population. This retrofit would cost far less management also asked the “in-house provider” to self- than the cost of a new facility. Other functional rate using the same standards. Both the in-house facili- improvements would increase the effectiveness of the

OCR for page 63
75 APPENDIX A staff by about 15 percent and speed time to market by In another case, staff retention was the victim. A about six months. All of these proposed changes were major industrial corporation was recruiting young based on an assessment of functional capability. Over- engineers to replenish its aging population, but these all, the asset value in use was expected to increase by were leaving the company in record numbers after three more than $3,000,000, after taking into account retrofit months or less on the job. The human resources depart- costs. The earning power of the lab would be multi- ment conducted exit interviews to find out what the plied by almost 2.5. These numbers were calculated by problem was. The young recruits reported that the one of the major accounting firms. Thus, typically, the space they were asked to work in was so unpleasant greatest leverage for a facility comes from enhancing and antiquated that they felt the company had no regard the performance of the core business. A factor of 10 or for them. The job market at that time was good, and more is not unusual. they could get jobs at other companies offering compa- The effect of a facility on the health of its occupants rable salaries and much more attractive and modern can have a severe impact on productivity. Medical facilities. This caused the company to start a $300 mil- records are seldom used to prove this point but prob- lion rehabilitation program of its offices and to gener- ably could be used more often. On one occasion, ICF ally pay more attention to the physical setting of work. was allowed to use records of sick days as part of a Facilities have an impact when attracting staff, comprehensive facility evaluation after a major con- which can be the reverse of the last anecdote. Another solidation of staff into a single facility. After plotting major industrial company reported that it was located the sick leave information for each of 18 groups for the in an industrial area with other competitors. Its policy year prior to the move, the year of the move, and the was to make its grounds attractively landscaped and to first year after the move, it became apparent that for all provide each of its software engineers with a private, but two groups, the curve shifted up. For two groups, well-furnished office with a window overlooking trees the curve shifted down. For those two groups, the build- and flowers. The human resources department at that ing they came from was worse than the new facility. It company could confirm that this “perk” was worth was estimated that the number of days lost to the about 10 percent of payroll, that is, more than the annu- increased sick leave and a few other facility-related alized cost of the buildings and grounds. factors amounted to more than the annualized first cost of the building. Current Developments and Trends Sometimes, the effect of the facility can be drastic and immediate. In one case, due to some work being Scales for Rating Condition and Estimated Remaining done in one part of the facility, traffic was redirected Service Life along an internal corridor cutting through the “terri- tory” of a work group. What had been a “private path” As stated earlier, new scales have been developed was transformed overnight into a “major highway” by the ICF to enable a manager to set priorities for (Davis and Altman, 1976). The partitions around that repair and alteration projects in the annual budget cycle. group were glass above 1 meter, which allowed These scales are used for building condition, estimated passers-by to see into the space. ICF had warned that service life, and asset management. They have been such a situation should not be allowed to happen designed to assist managers to take into account the because of the “fish-bowl” effect. The group in ques- actual and required physical condition and estimated tion was working on a critical path product that was at remaining service life of a facility or of its main sys- the heart of the future of the company and still highly tems and components. Typically, building condition secret. The group simply stopped work and did not put reports give cost estimates to return a building to its work on their desks. When the ICF team arrived on- original design but do not link directly to the level of site that day, it was asked to come directly to the office functional support now required for occupant opera- of the senior manager responsible for facilities. A work tions. These new scales can be matched directly, for crew was commandeered to work overnight. Butcher gap analysis against the condition requirement profile paper was pasted over the glass to create visual pri- in the asset management plan and overall portfolio vacy. By the next morning the problem had been management plan. They complement the information solved, and work resumed. about the functional suitability of the facility to support the mission of the occupant group.

OCR for page 63
76 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS Scales for Other Building Types strategy, which adapts some of the ASTM standard scales and methodology to its own circumstances. A set of scales, similar to the ASTM standards, has been drafted for low-income housing and is being Warranty of Fitness for Purpose—Duty of Care Versus tested in New Zealand (Gray, 2001). Duty of Results ICF has just completed additional scales for service yards and maintenance shops. Scales are also being In the wake of ISO 9000, with the advent of new developed to better cover sustainable building, manu- integrated team approaches to projects, and performance- facturing, retail, laboratories, education, health care, based procurement approaches, such as design-build, courts, and so forth. and construction manager at risk, there is an increased awareness of the need to state requirements more pre- Integrated Tools for Performance-Based Procurement cisely and comprehensively and to be able to confirm that the resultant asset meets those requirements. Fur- The Dutch government has mandated that all public ther, when delivering a full package, the contractor has procurement be performance based. With the ASTM the legal responsibility to deliver a product that fits the standards as a starting point, the Dutch Building intended purpose. This is a major change for the tradi- Agency has developed a systematic approach to define tional legal concepts of professional liability and duty client expectations for total building performance (Ang of care, based on professional competence and accepted et al., 2001). This approach also relates the translation practice. This legal territory is being explored by of “inputs” and “outputs” at different phase of the groups such as the Design-Build Institute of America project delivery process. and the CIB (CIB, 1996). Strategic Asset Management In Conclusion In some countries, portfolio management and strate- Evaluations are here to stay and will likely be taken gic planning come under the term “strategic asset man- for granted in the not too distant future. At a prior Fed- agement” (SAM). In these places, asset is the preferred eral Facilities Council (FFC) Forum, the presentation term, rather than facilities or buildings, of public sector of the Amoco common process, developed by its managers who deal with all kinds of constructed capital Worldwide Engineering and Construction Division, assets, many of which may not be buildings. One of the included the following in Figure 2: “Operate—Evalu- most pertinent publications on the subject is a news- ate asset to ensure performance . . . ” (FFC, 1998). letter dedicated to the international review of all areas To be more effective and useful, evaluations will of performance and strategic management of assets, have to be better coordinated with the information con- including economic considerations. Linking perfor- tained in statements of requirements. At the same FFC mance evaluations and costs is still a tricky business. forum, several presenters included a project system in Some of the concepts, such as profiles, levels of ser- their presentation. The presentation by the director- vice, benchmarking targets, etc., which are becoming construction of The Business Roundtable included a part of the performance evaluation, are explained in the description of “Effective Project Systems” developed newsletter in a practical and approachable way, with an by the Independent Project Analysis Corporation of emphasis on sharing of experience (Burns). Reston, Virginia. He made the point that “the supply chain begins when the customer need is identified and Levels of Service, Performance Profiles, translated into a business opportunity” (FFC, 1996). In Performance Benchmarks such project systems, which usually are conducted by integrated project teams, the evaluation of alternative The use of levels, or targets, is becoming prevalent solutions is taken for granted. Thus, evaluations are part for outsourced contracts, for performance-based pro- of the planning of the projects, not an afterthought. curements, and for strategic planning. The Department The worldwide trend to deal with performance defi- for Administrative and Information Services of the nitions rather than prescriptive or deemed-to-satisfy state of South Australia, is currently developing a build- specifications will likely continue to spread. In the next ing performance assessment and asset development few years, a further increase in the use of evaluations

OCR for page 63
77 APPENDIX A ABOUT THE AUTHORS will be driven by the acceptance of performance based procurement by the World Trade Organization (WTO), Gerald Davis helps decision makers and facility man- the European Union, and the European member coun- agers implement solutions that enhance worker effec- tries. Performance-based codes are also being adopted tiveness, improve the management of portfolios of in a number of countries, including the United States. corporate real estate, solve facility-related problems, The European Union (EU) is following suit. Since and ensure the optimum use of buildings and equip- dealing with results rather than specifying solutions ment. Since 1965, Mr. Davis has been considered a means that these results need to be shown to be per- pioneer and internationally recognized expert in strate- forming as required, there is an assured future for gic facility planning, facility pre-design, programming, evaluations and for evaluations as part of the process at performance-based evaluations, and ergonomics. As many stages. Such developments, as they affect the senior author, he led the team that developed the building industry, will be the focus of a major thematic Serviceability Tools & Methods® used to define work- network being launched by the CIB, with EU funding place and facility requirements and to rate existing and (Bakens, 2001). This network will also include partici- proposed facilities. Previously, he led the “ORBIT-2” pants from the United States and other countries out- project, a major North American multisponsor study side the EU. A key task will be how to prepare state- about offices, information technology and user organi- ments of requirements and their verification. zations and about the impact of each on the other. He In the United States, a performance-based code has coauthored the “1987 IFMA Benchmark Report” been adopted as a component of the new Unified Inter- which was the first of its kind. His work has been pub- national Building Code that has brought the three major lished in numerous trade and professional journals and codes together. Work is continuing at ASTM, the books. He is the recipient of the Environmental Design American Institute of Architects (AIA), NIST, and the Research Association Lifetime Career Award (1996), GSA, to cite only a few of the key leaders. 4 the IFMA Chairman’s Citation, (1998), was named an Benchmarking, lessons-learned programs, con- IFMA fellow in 1999, and one of 50 most influential tinuous improvements, and performance metrics are people in the construction industry by the Ottawa Busi- becoming part of business as usual. Indeed, to quote ness Journal. He is an ASTM fellow, and Certified again from the 1998 FFC report: “What are the charac- Facility Manager, president and chief executive officer, teristics of the best capital project systems? In addition International Centre for Facilities (ICF), president, to using fully integrated cross-functional teams, they TEAG (The Environmental Analysis Group), chair, actively foster a business understanding of the capital ASTM Subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and project process. . . . The engineering and project man- Facilities; past chair, ASTM Committee E06 on Per- agers are accountable to the business, not the plant formance of Buildings; and past chair, IFMA Standards management. There are continuous improvement Committee (1993-99). He is also the U.S. (ANSI) voting efforts that are subject to real and effective metrics” delegate to the ISO Technical Committee 59 on Build- (FFC, 1998). The evolution of POEs into building per- ing Construction, to its Subcommittee 3 on Functional/ formance evaluations, and now into an ongoing evalu- User Requirements and Performance in Building Con- ative stance, is likely to become the accepted norm struction, and the former delegate to its Subcommittee because it is part of the best practices of companies that 2 on Terminology and Harmonization of Language. have succeeded in using capital projects in support of Mr. Davis was recently appointed the Convenor of their primary business. Work Group 14 on Functional Requirements/Service- ability. Francoise Szigeti is the vice-president of the Inter- 4ASTM national Centre for Facilities, Inc., a scientific and edu- Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings has over- sight over this whole subject matter. The AIA has a Center for cational public-service organization established to Building Performance. NIST continues to provide leadership with inform and help individuals and organizations improve respect to housing and other more technical applications of the con- the functionality, performance, and serviceability of cept. The GSA, under the leadership of its Office of Government- facilities. She is also vice president and secretary- wide Policy, Real Estate, has embarked on a major program of treasurer of The Environmental Analysis Group research and publications on the subject.

OCR for page 63
78 LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS (TEAG) - Groupe pour l’Etude du Milieu Humain Burns, P. (Ed.) SAM—Strategic Asset Management Newsletter AMQ Inter- national, Salisbury, South Australia. (GEMH). She is president of Serviceability Tools & CIB Publication 192. (1996). A Model Post-Construction Liability and In- Methods, Inc. Ms. Szigeti is one of the vice-chairs of surance System prepared under the supervision of CIB W087. ASTM Subcommittee E06.25. She has served on the Rotterdam, Holland. Consumer Reports (2000). Rating the Raters, August 31. board of the Community Planning Association of Davis, G., and Altman, I. (1976). Territories at the work-place: Theory into Canada, the Environmental Design Research Associa- design guidelines. In: Man-Environment Systems, Vol. 6-1, pp. 46-53. tion and the International Association for the Study of Also published, with minor changes, in: Korosec-Serfati, P. (Ed.) (1977). Appropriation of Space, Proceedings of the Third International People and Their Physical Surroundings. She is a co- Architectural Psychology Conference Strasbourg, France: Louis Pasteur author and member of the team that developed the University. Serviceability Tools & Methods® used for defining Davis, G., et al. (1993). Serviceability Tools Manuals, Volume 1 & 2 Inter- workplace and facility requirements and for rating national Centre for Facilities: Ottawa, Canada. Davis, G. et al. (2001). Serviceability Tools, Volume 3—Portfolio and Asset existing and proposed facilities. Previously, she Management: Scales for Setting Requirements and for Rating the Con- launched and participated in the “ORBIT-2” project, a dition and Forecast of Service Life of a Facility—Repair and Alteration major North American multisponsor study about (R&A) Projects. International Centre for Facilities: Ottawa, Canada. Federal Facilities Council. (1998). Government/Industry Forum on Capital offices, information technology, and the user organiza- Facilities and Core Competencies. Washington, D.C.: National Acad- tions, and about the impact of each on the other. She is emy Press, p. 19. a coauthor of the “1987 IFMA Benchmark Report”, Gibson, E.J. (1982). Working with the Performance Approach in Building. CIB Report, Publication 64. Rotterdam, Holland. which was the first of its kind. Ms. Szigeti attended the Gray, J. (in press). Innovative, Affordable, and Sustainable Housing. Ecole Superieure d’Interpretes et de Traducteurs, Proceedings of the CIB 2001 Triennial Congress. Rotterdam, Holland. Universite de Paris. She is the recipient of the EDRA ISO 9000, Guidelines 9001 and 9004. (in process of reedition). Lifetime Career Award (1996). McGregor, W., and Then, D.S. (1999). Facilities Management and the Busi- ness of Space. Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group. National Bureau of Standards. (1971). The PBS Performance Specification for Office Buildings, prepared for the Office of Construction Manage- REFERENCES ment, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, by David B. Hattis and Thomas E. Ware of the Building Research Divi- Ang, G., et al. (2001). A Systematic Approach to Define Client Expectation sion, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards. to Total Building Performance During the Pre-Design Stage. Proceed- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce NBS Report 10 527. ings of the CIB 2001 Triennial Congress. Szigeti, F., and Davis, G. (1997). Invited paper. In: Amiel, M.S., and ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2000). ASTM Vischer, J.C., Space Design and Management for Place Making. Pro- Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, ASTM, ceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design West Conshohocken, Pa. Research Association (EDRA). Edmond, Okla.: EDRA. Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D., and McIndoe, G. (1996). Build- Teicholz, E. (Ed.) (2001). Facilities Management Handbook. MacGraw- ing Evaluation Technique. Wellington, New Zealand: McGraw Hill. Hill. Bakens, W. (2001). Thematic Network PeBBu—Performance Based Build- ing—Revised Workplan. Rotterdam:CIB.