Choosing the right type of technology to integrate into a building design is not an easy task and any miscalculations or incorrect selections can lead to increased energy costs, lower that average outputs, and insufficient amount of services or comfort for users. Problems in decision making are most notable in design phase for new construction where designers attempt to match building & product specifications, and installation phase for existing buildings.
This is categorized into 4 contexts, where the choice between using new technology and existing technology runs a thin line, more often than not, determined by architects & engineering consultants through Costs, Quality and Brand name of technology (Tuominen, 2001);
- Conceptual design
- Schematic detailing
- Design development stages
- Existing conditions for technology installation in building (requirements & performance),
This narrows a building designs scope that doesn’t allow for embracing different brand name products which may or may not provide better functions and services.
A recognized feature of building design practice is the need to make Changes to previous aspects of design as process continues. Iteration is often used where earlier details at one level must be adjusted or changed when more detailed issues are addressed, and when these changes in design occur there is often the need for change in technology specifications to meet the new design details.
Only in standardized design situations can effective technology selection and procurement be done without back tracking or making changes, such as in residential building and hotels (Garud, 1997).
In retrospect, preliminary meetings between myself and Architects & Engineers from design firms based in Bangkok, Thailand, has revealed that “Many Designers choose Technology products from suppliers and manufacturers whom they have a good working relationship with, or have used their technology in past projects”. It was also revealed that Designers in the construction industry are reluctant to embrace new suppliers or manufacturers in the market, as their products are untested for success or failure in construction projects and there is high risk in embracing these new technologies.
As mentioned previously, the development of technology for buildings and infrastructures has become one of the fastest growing markets in today’s economy, with multitude of products becoming more increasingly available to clients, designers and the general public alike. With this choice and availability comes the most commonly asked question in technology selection: Which One?
In today’s markets, Costs and Brand name alone cannot be seen as good measures for technology selection. A wide range of parameters must be considered, some of which include product lifecycle, maintenance and spare parts, certification and governmental standards, etc. Therefore, taking all these parameter into account, the problem becomes apparent;
“There is a need for suitable Decision-making & Selection Methods / Techniques for choosing the most appropriate M&E building technology systems for any one given construction project.”
In addressing the problem of choosing the right type of technology for any building project, and considering all factors which affect technology design & development, Mr. James Suvanaphen made a research which the core objectives were to: (1) investigate Current Technology selection practices in the construction industry; (2) design a Process & Decision model portraying an efficient selection technique; and (3) examine effectiveness of both models from its use by a Design professional.
To assess the success or failure of the both Process & Decision model on a Design project by way of Survey feedback on its usefulness from potential users, i.e.; Architects and Engineers.
This study focused on the trends of current technology in Building construction, looks at its usage compared with existing technology, and attempts to portray an efficient technique in technology selection for the benefit of any one construction project, in terms of financial costs, innovation, procurement and sustainability.
One of the main purposes of supplementing the Process model is to create guidelines for Consultants in selecting M&E equipment for various Building projects, through development of a Technology Comparator; a technology awareness tool that consultants can use to determine feasibility of using different M&E technologies in projects by looking at parameters such as design, functions, procurement, etc (This term is later referenced as the Decision Model)
Outcome of Model implementation in the Construction industry
The final analysis of this research study involves examining the feasibility of both the Process & Decision model when used by Architects and Engineers in the Construction Industry of Thailand. This analysis is concurrent with the 3rd objective of CHP 1 to examine model effectiveness. To start off, one copy of both the Process & Decision models were sent to an Architectural design consultants firm* based in Thailand for their use and assessment**.
The models were sent in late March 2007 and feedback was received towards the end of April 2007. This feedback came in the form of a written statement from the firm, as an overview of the opinions of many of their Architects regarding the feasibility of both models. It should be noted at this point that both models were not fully used by the Architects due to the lengthy process time it takes to implement the use of the models, and the short assessment time of this analysis. A summary of this feedback statement is presented below;
In evaluation of both models, it was discovered that not everyone at the Architectural firm was keen to use a Decision model as they may see it as a relatively time consuming exercise rather than a measurement tool. However, it was also relayed that the Architects were keener to use the Process model because it shows the selection process from a broader perspective and visualizes “the big picture” in technology selection. They had commented that the Process model in itself portrayed an effective selection technique which, given more time, they would like to use on their projects.
In regards to the Decision model, some positive comments were made about the model as portraying a clear view of the selection process, similar to the Process model. However, other comments relayed that the technology selection chart used a rather crude method of assigning values, and there were suggestions of using a more precise numerical rating method, such as Fuzzy sets. Nonetheless, it was stated in the objectives of this study that the chart would portray a simple calculation method that everyone would understand.
It was also discovered that the lead & response time from Building services contractor in reviewing and selecting appropriate suppliers was taking too much time, and may cause minor delays in the long run of using the models. However the firm also stressed that it is Building services contractors who were more qualified to select these suppliers as they had or would have to work with them in inspecting, installing and commissioning all building technology products
One final piece of information that was conveyed during this final analysis from the Architectural firm was that in the Building technology industry, hindsight had led them to believe that the one method that Architects and Engineers use the most to select their technology products is their experience with past products and suppliers. This is because they had successfully used technology in past projects and feel that they can rely on this same technology or suppliers for use in their new projects. The firm assumed that people involved in the selection process would be unwilling to try new technology products that are released into the market as there is a high risk involved, from not knowing if the new product can be successful in new projects or not.
*: This Architectural firm reserved the right to remain anonymous during this final analysis.
**: A similar copy of both models was sent to an M&E engineering consultants firm in Thailand as well, however no feedback was received in time to convey a final assessment from their point of view. Therefore their inclusion in this evaluation had to be voided under these circumstances.
Discussion
The models proposed in this Research study are basically attempts to simplify and organize the Technology product & Supplier selection process. It matches considerations which are important to decision makers who need to make selection decisions. Since decision makers should be directly involved with the selection process at each of its stages, support tools (either manual or computer based) may be essential to implement any single technique used, and the models leaves the choice of components or parameters to be used in any of these techniques up to the decision makers. This generic approach also allows each component or parameter chosen to be integrated into a decision support system which provides far better and more acceptable selections than those which can be generated by any single technique discussed throughout this Research study. Because of the concept of using “stages”, it is possible to eliminate certain stages if the model user finds it more efficient to do so. It is suggested to users that after their first application of the models, strategy development and component or parameter selection need only be reviewed as required, and not every time a new technology system is re-considered. Also, Technology screening is discretionary since it is used only to reduce the number of Products in the selection stage. This may not be needed if the number of Products is small or if there are interdependencies among all the Products being considered.
Conclusion
This research study addressed the current problems facing Architects and Engineers in the selection of suitable Building Technology products for any Construction project, and attempts to suggest many solutions to alleviate these problems. These solutions initially come in the form of 2 generic models based on current technology components & parameters used in the industry. However, in the end the choice of Technology product ultimately rests with the client, being the governing body that is investing in a project, therefore they dictate how their money is spent. The only thing that Architects and Engineers can really do regarding Technology selection is advise the clients and make potable suggestions as best as they could.
But this does not mean that the process of Technology selection should be taken for granted. As shown throughout this research study, technology selection techniques are essential in providing the most efficient measurement & awareness tool to get the most suitable machines and equipment there is for a building project. Current issues surrounding technology selection such as energy saving, sustainability and alternative energy sources are being addressed at the economic global level, and will affect the way a supplier designs and manufactures their product. It is hoped that the research and solutions presented in this study will help all parties involved in making the right choice in technology selection, both now and in the future.
His thesis abstract is copied and posted.
ABSTRACT
This Research Study aimed to examine the impact of Supplier selection on Building technology selection in a Construction project, and the outcome of comparing one technology product against another to assist Architects and Engineers in making the correct choices in the selection and decision making process. In doing so, its main objective was to design potent models which could be applied to the technology selection process and used accordingly.
In this Research study, details regarding the current industry practices of the UK and Thailand were analyzed to form models of the current techniques being used today. A survey of Architects and Engineers was also conducted to gather more information and data straight from design professionals in the field of Building technology. This survey took the form of interview and questionnaires with professionals in the UK and Thailand.
Analysis of all these data resulted in extracting components and parameters for use in the design process of a Supplier selection and Technology comparison model as mentioned above. These models were then supplied to an Architectural firm for their use and assessment of its feasibility as an efficient measurement tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment