Refurbishment planning
Figure 3: The Decision-making Matrix.
through a process of comparison and trade-off techniques, a measured and reasoned ‘best fit’ approach is taken. Given the complexity of both a ‘typical’ large hospital, and the refurbishment activity itself, this was identified as the
Table 1. Phase 1: Initial criteria Technical Standards
Scottish Health Technical Memoranda •SHTM 1: Decontamination •SHTM 2: Medical gases •SHTM 3: HVAC
•SHTM 4: Water systems •SHTM 6: Electrical
BREEAM assessment AEDET
Initial agreement
Phase 2: Potential Criteria Initial Agreement Shortlist The 6 facets •Physical condition •Statutory compliance •Environmental management •Space utilisation •Functional suitability •Quality Project-specific criteria
Phase 3: Final Criteria
A Thermal performance Warm roof required U values (W/m2
K)=0.25 (notional building)
B Environmental performance (HTM 07-07 pp 52) SuDS, Green roof, Permeable surfaces etc
C BREEAM requirement D AEDET requirement E Maintenance availability
F Guaranteed source of materials and contractor
G Minimal disruption to services throughout works programme
only realistic means of specifying a suitable sub-element, and, simultaneously, demonstrating that VFM had been considered as far as practicably possible. A key feature of the research approach, and the subsequent design of the prototype, is that each facility and project must be considered as unique, and solutions explored on a case-by-case basis.
L L
L L L L
•SHTM 7: Environment and sustainabilityL •SHTM 8: Specialist services
L L L
Selection of criteria The criteria, in the context of the research, were identified as issues which are ‘of importance to the project, and/or the decision maker’. These may range from legislative and regulatory criterion requirements, to the criteria which may be desired for reasons other than regulation (for example, guaranteed source of materials, or maintenance availability). Selecting the relevant criteria, however, can itself be a challenging exercise for the NHS/PSCP, and so a facilitated and filtered approach was developed to enable consideration of elements ranging from the high-level to the detailed. A three-phase
Table 2. Phase 1: Initial Options Consider similar case studies Activity database Backlog maintenance report Risk profile ranking report Client specifications
Phase 2: Potential options BRE Green Guide to specification Building cost information service Schedule of typical life expectancies Schedule of rates
Proprietary literature
Phase 3: Final Options Assess integration challenges Assess maintenance issues Within funding parameters Meet legal requirements Availability of systems/data
L L L L
approach was used, to consider the Initial, the Potential, and ultimately, the Final, criteria. Table 1 illustrate these respectively. I should make clear that the process is designed to encourage and facilitate team discussion and consensus, and the documents and guidance are included with this strongly in mind. The ‘magnifying glass’ icons provide
direct links and ‘web links’ (where relevant) to the identified documents. Once the final criteria are decided, the user is automatically directed to the next step, which is the selection of potential options.
Selection of options A similar methodology as that described for the selection of criteria is undertaken in identifying a range of potential options. Table 2 illustrate this, although it is highlighted that the GUI has numerous other functions and reference paths, including identification of key product suppliers by product group, and a ‘gateway’ to exploring similar case studies. The Final Options are listed (Table 3),
and the model user is automatically directed to the actual decision-making page, which is ‘ready populated’ with the selected criteria and options shown, derived from the previous steps.
The decision-making phase Figure 3 shows the complete decision- making matrix for a single iteration of the decision-making process. Criteria are compared and ranked, and the Model’s inbuilt formula coding derives a weighting score. Similarly, the range of selected options are scored in terms of performance, and again, pre-defined background coding automatically derives a total score, which identifies the preferred
Table 3. Listing Final options 1 Option A 2 Option B 3 Option C 4 Option D 5 Option E
Health Estate Journal September 2013
41
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
