20150707 나는pm이다 박성호 교수님 발표자료

Whole Life Sustainability &

Project Management

7th July 2015

Dr Kenneth Sungho Park

BSc MSc PhD PGCert FHEA MCIOB PMP CCM

Senior Lecturer in Construction Management

MASSEY UNIVERSITY, New Zealand

Presented by

Who am I?

Who am I?

Project

manager

Aston Uni

2009 – 2015

Reading Uni2007 – 2009

Orienbil Inc.

& IBCAK Inc.2000 – 2003

PL CO, Ltd.

Exxon Mobil2004 – 2005

GS Engineering

& Construction2005 – 2007

SWN Co., Ltd1995 – 1997

Coland

Construction1998 – 2000

Construction

manager

Procurement

managerForeign

business

coordinator

Facilities

manager

Teaching

Research

Construction

Project

Mgmt

BSc 1991

MSc

PhD

MCIOB

PMP

KCCM

PGCert

FHEA

BREEAM

Assessor

Massey Uni

2015 ~

Who am I?

Who am I?

Who am I?

Massey University

Motto Floreat scientia (Let knowledge flourish)

Established 1927

Name after former NZ Prime Minister William

Fergusson Massey

Students + 33,000 from more than 100 countries

Campuse Palmerston North, Auckland, Wellington

“virtual” distance-learning campus

College Business, Creative Arts, Health, Humanities and

Social Science, and Science

Programme + 200 programmesConstruction

Contracts

Smart

BuildingSustainable

Buildings

Green

Buildings

Innovative

Lighting

Productivity

Built

Environment

Cluster

Bachelor of Construction

Quantity Surveying

Construction Management

Master of ConstructionBuilding Technology

Quantity Surveying

Construction Project Mgmt

Construction Law

Facility Managmene

USA25%

Europe33%

Japan10%

China7%

Korea2%

Rest of Asia5%

Rest of world

18%

The share of global constructionThe share of global construction

Africa

1%

Canada

4%

USA

14%

Brazil

2% S.

Africa

0.1%

N. Africa

0.2%

Germany

4%

China

15%

India

5%

Japan

9%

Indonesia

3%

Australia

3%N

Zealand

0.1%

Russia

1.5%

Middle

East

1.5%

Korea

2%

Source: AsiaConstruct,

Euroconstruct, national

statistical offices. All

figures are current -

exchange rate @ April 2007

France

4%Spain

4%

Italy

3%

UK

3%

Mexico

2%

The building and construction industry is New Zealand’s 5th largest

sector. It contributes about 4.3% to GDP and employs one in every 12

New Zealanders in the workforce, or roughly 178,000 people.

The construction sector contributed 7.6 billion to GDP in 2010.

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers. October, 2011. Valuing the role of Construction in the New Zealand

economy: A report to the Construction Strategy Group.

Global Construction Market 2010


Africa

1%

Canada

3%

USA

15%

Brazil

2% S.

Africa

0.1%

N. Africa

0.2%

Germany

3%China

21%

India

7%

Japan

6%

Indonesia

3%

Australia

3%

N

Zealand

0.1%

Russia

2%

Middle

East

1.5%

Korea

2%

France

3%Spain

2%

Italy

2%

UK

2%

Mexico

2%

Construction is a $30 billion plus industry.

Production from the construction sector dominates New Zealand

investment, contributing up to 52% of all gross fixed capital

formation in the period 1992–2012.

Construction is heading for an unprecedented boom, driven by the

Canterbury rebuild, Auckland housing, infrastructure demand and

remedial weather-tightness work.

Source: MBIE. November, 2013. New Zealand Sectors Report 2013, Construction.

Source: Global construction Perspective and Oxford Economics

$8.75 trillion in 2012 $15 trillion by 2025


% change in construction GVA

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

US Germany France Italy UK Spain Japan Developed China Emerging

Source: Haver Analytics / national sources / Oxford Economics

Year to 2008Q3 Year to 2009Q3


-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

-2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Governmentfinancialbalance

as % GDP,2010

Annual % growth in infrastructure activity, 2010-15

Source: Oxford Economics

US

Indonesia

India

China

Spain

Germany

UK

Japan

France

Italy

Mexico

Poland

Russia

South Africa


2003-2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014-2018

Germany -1.2 -0.6 -1.2 -0.1 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.0

France 1.3 0.8 -6.6 -0.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.2

Italy 1.5 -1.2 -7.4 -2.8 1.4 2.0 2.7 1.7

UK 2.6 -0.3 -12.4 -1.3 2.6 4.6 4.5 3.0

Spain 4.3 -1.3 -10.0 -9.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.5

EU15 1.8 -0.8 -7.6 -1.9 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.2

United States 1.3 -6.3 -16.9 3.9 9.8 10.0 9.5 5.4

Japan -3.5 -8.1 -1.3 -0.9 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.8

Developed countries 0.6 -4.0 -9.3 0.5 4.8 5.2 5.0 3.3

Eastern Europe (EU12) 7.4 8.1 -2.2 3.3 8.2 8.6 7.4 5.4

Brazil 2.9 8.0 -7.7 7.6 7.0 6.9 5.7 3.7

Russia 13.9 15.3 -19.5 0.8 8.1 10.4 9.8 6.9

India 13.3 7.2 5.5 6.8 10.5 10.8 10.3 9.1

China 11.8 7.4 6.0 9.4 7.0 8.2 8.5 8.1

BRICs 10.2 8.5 -0.1 7.7 7.8 8.7 8.5 7.5

Emerging Markets 8.0 5.2 -0.2 5.8 7.1 7.8 7.3 6.4

World 2.6 -1.2 -6.3 2.4 5.6 6.2 5.9 4.5

Construction

Annual percentage changes

Understanding of Value, Risk, WLC +Sustainability

Original cost estimation: $7million

Final cost in completion: $102million

Original schedule: by 26 Jan 1963

Final completion in 1973

RISK?

The government push for work to begin early

Funding, public opinion, unexpected difficulties

Major structural issues unsolved

Significant changes to Utzon’s design

VALUE?

Australia’s most iconic building

Pritzker Prize, UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2007

the most popular visitor attractions in Australia


RISK?

Various disputes over design, estimate, fees

Specified stone supply problems

Foremen on strike (for 30 weeks)

VALUE?

Representative symbol not just of the parliament

but of Britain, recognised throughout the world.

Original cost estimation: £700,000

Final cost in completion: £2 million

(equivalent to at least £500 million today.)

Expected schedule: 6 years

Final completion: nearly 30 years


Time

Cost

Risk Value

Project Success?

Adequacy of documentationRealistic appraisal of time required;Understanding & management of risks;Accurate programming in stages;Sound communications all parties;Adherence to key milestones;Regular monitoring & review;Control of change orders in time.

Risk identification;Risk analysis;

Risk response;Risk control & monitor;

Whole life risk management plan.

Defined purpose for the project;Client & user specs-performance criteria;Well considered design brief-solution;A quality control process;Focus on whole life costs;Integration of design & delivery.

Realistic costing & budget;Accurate cash flow forecast;

Appropriate contractual arrangements;Regular monitoring & review;

Control changes to scope of work.


Placing and Management of

Building Contracts: The Simon Committee

Report (1944)

The Working Party Report to the Minister of Works: The Phillips

Report on Building(1948-1950)

Survey of Problems

before the

Construction Industry:

A Report Prepared by

Sir Harold Emmerson

(1962)

The Placing and Management of

Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering Work: The Banwell

Report (1964)

Tavistock Studies into the Building Industry: Communications in

the Building Industry (1965)

Large Industrial Sites Report (1970)

Faster Building for Industry: NEDO (1973)

The Public Client and the Construction

Industries: The Wood Report (1975)

The Faster Building for Commerce (1988)

The Latham Report (1994)

The Egan Report (1998)

‘ModernisingConstruction’, The NAO

Report (2001)

‘Accelerating Change’ (2002)

‘Achieving Excellence in Construction

Procurement Guides, OGC, (2003)

‘Improving Public Services through Better

Construction’, NAO (2005)


Time

Cost

Risk Value

Project Success Sustainability

Economic Social

Environmental

Whole Life


"...Value for Money is not the lowest cost but the optimum combination of whole-life

cost and quality to meet the user's requirement”. Source: OGC (2007) “Procurement

Guide 01 Initiative into action” Achieving Excellence in Construction.

Maintenance cost:

Road Tax £175/yr

Insurance £700/yr

Front bumper repair: £150

Residual value after 5yr

: £ 4,995 (20%)

Maintenance cost:

Road Tax £280/yr

Insurance £1500/yr

Front bumper repair: £550


(10yr in total): £ 9,995 (40%)

New car

Price: £1,000,000+

New car

Price: £25,000.

Used car (2008, 31,000m)

Price: £25,000.

40.4 MPG

163 CO2

Top speed 155 mph

Maintenance cost:

Road Tax £400/yr

Insurance £2500/month

Front bumper repair: POA


: £ 1,000,000+ ( over 100%) ?

32.2 MPG

206 CO2

Top speed 173 mph

10 MPG

596 CO2

Top speed over 260mph

Whole Life Sustainability Fundamentals

The roots are in engineering economics over 80 years ago.

Costs-in-use (1960s/70s)

It was coined by Stone in the late 1950s;

Common practice for investments in plant and machinery;

In the early 1970s, the term ‘costs-in-use’ began to be used in the industry;

the total costs of producing and occupying a building.

Figure 1 The evolution timeline of whole life cost

Source: ‘Whole life-cycle costing : risk and risk responses’ Modified from (Boussabaine and Kirkham 2003)



Terotechnology (1960s)

the technology of tero, derived from the Greek word “terein”;

Meaning to look after, to maintain, to sustain, to bring back, to keep

something in previous or acceptable condition;

This term has been widely accepted as the management of the possession of a

technically complex system.





Life Cycle Costing (1980s/90s);

It was first developed in the mid-1960s to assist the US Department of Defense

in the procurement of military equipment;

Later in the 1970s, it was used to assess and compare relative benefits of

alternative energy design options in buildings.

In the mid-1980s attempts were made to adapt LCC to building.





Whole Life Costing (late 1990’s);

Service life planning (BS ISO 15686-1: 2000); and

Whole life appraisal in support of PFI and BOT projects (2000).

Towards the late 1990s, the concept of ‘whole life costing’ and ‘whole life-

cycle costing’ emerged.

It is an attempt to overcome some of the problems of LCC.




The purpose of both WLC and LCC is to include longer-term financial

implications in the evaluation of design, construction, and real estate decisions;

The difference between WLC and LCC relates to the cash flow data, not the

calculation method.

Figure 2 WLC and LCC elementsSource: ISO 15686-5: Building and constructed assets. Service life planning. Part 5 : Life cycle costing (International Standardization Organization (ISO) 2008))


LCC is a sub-set of WLC; represents the period of interest of the cost analysis;

According to BS ISO 15686-5, WLC is equivalent to LCC plus non-construction cos

ts and benefits, such as income, land and externalities.

Figure 2 WLC and LCC elementsSource: ISO 15686-5: Building and constructed assets. Service life planning. Part 5 : Life cycle costing (International Standardization Organization (ISO) 2008))


Value is about considering the 1 : 5 : 200 rule by The

Royal Academy of Engineering reports where:

1 = the initial cost of a

constructed asset;

5 = maintenance costs/cost

in use over 30 years;

200 = costs of the operation

being carried out in the

building & the value of the

business done in a

constructed asset

over 30 years.

Conventional commercial

development concentrates

on 1 and ignores the rest.

PFI is based on 5.

Figure 3 The Hidden CostsSource: Flanagan, R., Jewell, C., and Norman, G. (2005). Whole Life Appraisal for Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford.


How to identify the hidden costs?

The initial costs are clear and visible

at an early stage, longer-term costs

are not;

These long-term costs can far

outweigh initial capital costs, and

should have a much stronger influence

on decisions with respect to facilities

and individual elements.

Figure 3 The Hidden CostsSource: Flanagan, R., Jewell, C., and Norman, G. (2005). Whole Life Appraisal for Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford.


Cost Category for WLC

On the whole, the generic costs for WLC analysis are categorised in six ways: (1)

Initial capital costs (2) Operation costs; (3) Maintenance costs; (4) End-of-life

costs; (5) Income; and (6) Externalities.

CategoryBS ISO 15686-5

(2008)

Flanagan et al.

(2005)Kishk et al. (2003) Task Group (2003)

Kirk and

Dell’Isola(1995)

Initial capital costs (or acquisition costs)

construction costs

non-construction costs

Energy costs

Operation costs

Occupancy costs

Maintenance costs

Alteration or Replacement costs

Terminal costs or salvage value

Associated costs (staffing, etc.)

Income

Externalities

Table 1 Category of costs for WLC Source: Park, S.H. and Flanagan, R. (2009) Integrating whole life cost into the evaluation of design-build in Korea.


The life of an asset is commonly taken to be equal to its economic life; positive

contribution to the financial position the period over which the owner has a

financial interest the time horizon or study period for all WLC planning

activities. 60 years are often quoted in the

literature as reasonable (Ashworth 1988, Seeley 1983, Stone 1980);

25-40 years for most applications, particularly as 80% of ownership costs are believed to be incurred within 25years (Kirk 1979)

It is often a good idea to set the study period equal to the period the building owner intends to hold the property, ‘holding period’. (Ruegg & Petersen 1987)


Time Value of Money

Money today is not the same as

money tomorrow;

It is a reflection on the fact that

present capital (cash in hand) is more

valuable than a similar amount of

money received in the future;

It is based on present value and

discounting techniques;

Whole life costing needs to reduce

cash expenditures and receipts that

arise at different points in time to a

common base.

Figure 4 PV over the timeSource: Flanagan, R., Jewell, C., and Norman, G. (2005). Whole Life Appraisal for Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford.


Real life

Theory and practice are worlds apart, or they appear to be when viewed from the

everyday life of an Estates’ workforce;

Budgets are being cut, more is wanted from less resource;

Many facilities are wearing out faster than they are being upgraded;

Privatisation will have a larger role in the future; and

Pressure is on for productivity to be increased.

WLC Obstacles

Lack of Interest / Motivation: The diverse nature of the industry’s clients, with

very different motivation;

Lack of data & methodological limitations: The long time lag between the design

process and data becoming available on the running costs of the project in use;

and

Uncertainty / Reliability in WLC: not guarantee accurate forecasting.

Relevant Standards, Tools & Techniques

ISO 15686 from 1 to 11 ISO 15686-1 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 1, General principles and framework

ISO 15686-2 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 2, Service life prediction procedures

ISO 15686-3 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 3, Performance audits and reviews

ISO 15686-4 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 4, Service Life Planning using IFC based

Building Information Modelling

ISO 15686-5 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 5, Life-cycle costing

ISO 15686-6 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 6, Procedures for considering

environmental impacts

ISO 15686-7 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 7, Performance evaluation for

feedback of service life data from practice

ISO 15686-8 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 8, Reference service life and service-

life estimation

ISO 15686-9 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 9, Guidance on assessment of service-

life data

ISO 15686-10 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 10, When to assess functional

performance

ISO 15686-11 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning: Part 11, Terminology

BS ISO 15686-5, the UK supplement and the differences between WLC and LCC


Figure 5 Process map of the key stages of WLC for Design-Build by client and design-builder

Source : Modified from SMLCC (International Standardization Organization (ISO) 2008b) by Dr Kenneth S. Park


The nine steps for implementing Whole life Sustainability Planning & Analysis

approach

Step 1: Establish the objectives;

Step 2: Establish the constraints;

Step 3: Choice of method;

Step 4: Formulate assumptions;

Step 5: Identify the period of analysis, the input data for the proposed project,

the costs and the whole life;

Step 6: Determine the discount rate to be used for the appraisal, together with

the impact of inflation;

Step 7: Compare costs and rank the alternatives;

Step 8: Sensitivity analysis;

Step 9: Investigate capital costs constraints.

How to apply?

Out of the stock of 24 million homes in 2007 at least 87% (22million) will still be standing

in 2050.

The UK population is ageing and it is projected to continue ageing with the average

(median) age rising from 39.7 years in 2010 to 39.9 years in 2020 and 42.2 years by 2035.

The government’s 80% reduction targets in CO2 emissions by the year 2050 compared to

1990 levels will only be met by a step-change in energy efficiency across all sectors of

the UK economy.

Housing energy use accounts for 27% of the UK's CO2 emissions, which is the major

contributor to climate change.

It has been estimated 600,000 whole-house refurbishments are needed each year from

2012 in order to achieve this target.

How to apply?

The UK has the oldest housing stock in the developed world with 8.5 million properties

over 60 years old.

As solid walls are the greatest consumers of energy and greatest emitters of CO2, solid

wall houses have the greatest potential to improve energy performance and improve the

carbon footprint.

A whole life refurbishment information model to estimate the life cycle environmental

impacts and costs of the preferred and affordable solution(s) to solid wall housing in the

UK.

Multi-criteria decision making approaches into a combined LCA/WLC methodology, which

is integral to the full potential of a whole life refurbishment information process and

model, including environmental and economic parameters as decision support and

appraisal tools.

How to apply?

10 8

7th July 2015

Dr Kenneth Sungho Park

BSc MSc PhD PGCert FHEA MCIOB PMP CCM

Senior Lecturer in Construction Management

MASSEY UNIVERSITY, New Zealand

Presented by