Refurbishment planning
knowledge often found within the client/PSCP teams, no standardised or formalised system of selecting ‘best fit’ elements and sub-elements was in use. The characteristics of refurbishment projects (with an often fixed orientation, form, and function) highlighted the difficulties in measuring and proving VFM, especially when a starting point of a project’s already tight budget may demand that a significant percentage be ‘ring- fenced’ to address backlog maintenance issues.While this may not come as a surprise to NHS/PSCP teams, it proved to be the very heart of the issue when considering the asset/estate management processes currently in use, and the progression into the detailed specifics of the standard business case.
Model prototype A key objective of the Model’s design was to develop a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI), and to enable integration within existing estate management tools. The MS Excel platform was identified as the most familiar, and the codings and references were placed to mirror the current Property Appraisal Guidance documents. Figure 1 shows an extract of the Project Information (home) page.
The Decision Support
from the sector The design of our new Model was strongly influenced by feedback from both NHS managers, and PSCP representatives, from interviews and conversations undertaken across the board.What was clear was the general feeling from NHS asset and estate managers that ‘…the last thing we need is yet another system to start using’, and, more prosaically from the PSCP teams, the warning that an ‘over-complicated’ and detailed Model would ‘probably find its best use in the site office…propping up a wobbly table’. Despite such seemingly light-hearted responses, this point was taken on board
Impact of feedback
Figure 1. An extract from the Project Information (home) page of the Decision Support Model prototype.
as perhaps the most critical factor to be considered from the outset.
The working parts of the Model The Model allows for key project documents to be uploaded, such as the Initial Agreement (and identified Scope of Works), but also potentially influential documents such as the BREEAM Pre- assessment. Once the Scope ofWorks has been identified, inclusive of any priority- ranked backlog maintenance items, the decision modelling process begins. An exemplar case study was used to illustrate the functioning prototype, and the first
sub-element selected was the re-felting of the facility’s flat roof (see Fig. 2).
Drop-down menus Simple drop-down menus are offered, which mirror the structure and the coding of the existing NHS Asset Management documents (in this case, NHS Scotland, Property Appraisal Guidance). Once selected, the user is taken automatically to the criteria selection page on the Model. The design allows, theoretically, for every single sub-element recorded within the Property Appraisal Guidance to be addressed within a single model (Fig. 2), although it is probable that only the high value, or clinically sensitive elements and sub-elements, would be considered.
Figure 2: Selection of elements and sub-elements for felting of a flat roof. 40 Health Estate Journal September 2013
modelling approach The range of potential criteria which requires consideration in a facility as complex as a modern hospital is nothing short of staggering. It was identified early on in the research process that the optimal approach to completing the criteria and ‘options selection’ tasks was to utilise multi-criteria decision modelling (MCDM) techniques. This allowed for consideration of a broad range of (very often, competing) criteria. The MCDM methodology was also considered ‘sound’ in clearly stating that no attempt is made to derive the ‘perfect fit’. Instead, and
A multi-criteria decision
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122
