search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BUILDING DESIGN


a positive impact on improving awareness of the proposed design and supports the identification of emerging needs, which can then be addressed during early design development. Figure 5 includes three


different modes of visualisation of a healthcare building and its main corridor: (i) standard 3D visualisation; (ii) internal visualisation (X-ray mode); and (iii) spatial visualisation. It is important to highlight the improved awareness from both X-ray and spatial visualisations, in contrast to the standard 3D view.


Exhibit 3 – A futuristic outlook on the automation as support reasoning Design fiction drawings were developed as a means to illustrate a potential future application of automation as a support for design reasoning, through the use of a design assistant. This is represented in Figure 6, in which this assistant informs designers on their decision-making, providing the exact information at the time it becomes needed. That also includes improved design visualisation features, supporting improved awareness and feedback. This assistant could also track design decision-making by logging when its evidence or knowledge was needed and how the design was modified or influenced by this process. The use of technology as discussed


above can help streamline the design assessment process. Adopting a systematic approach to support design development and increase the frequency to which design proposals are assessed appears to be key to achieve time and cost savings. This can help minimise design rework which can happen due to late detection of non-compliances and derogations. In fact, derogations derived from non-


compliances can lead to delays and overspending in healthcare projects. In situations where access to healthcare services is critical, such as the one triggered by COVID-19, time is an element of the upmost importance. Any efforts in delivering healthcare infrastructure in a faster and more reliable way should be prioritised. When it comes to design, using automation to better support human decision-making and design assessment can be a means to pave the way towards improved healthcare outcomes.


IFHE DIGEST 2021


underpinning a guidance and supportive character in healthcare building design. The outcome of this hybrid


process is better and compliant healthcare buildings that will meet all the regulatory requirements emerging through the COVID-19 crisis. Future work should focus on


(i) the development of technologies and tools that better fit the ‘automation as support’ reasoning; and (ii) expanding the understanding on information from requirements as inputs to human decision-making during healthcare building design. IFHE


Acknowledgements This work incorporates results from the research project,


‘Recommendations for automated checking of regulations and requirements management in healthcare design’, funded by the Centre for Digital Built Britain, under Innovate UK grant number RG96233.


Figure 6. Future development. Developed by Christian Petersen for the CDBB’s ‘Recommendations for automated checking of regulations and requirements management in healthcare design’ research project.


Conclusion Existing tools to support the use of automation to assess healthcare design proposals can be helpful in achieving time and cost savings. Existing approaches are limited to the automated checking of objective and quantitative requirements. While some requirements represent


objective elements and relationships - and, therefore, easily incorporated into automated algorithms - others rely on different types of subjectivity, demanding human involvement in design and assessment. This is the main reason why automated approaches are difficult to be implemented to support design checking in practice. Automation should be understood as


continuum to support design, rather than a distinct design assurance phase – and this might pave the way towards better understanding and exploring relationships between humans and automated technologies. This could be achieved by using hybrid approaches, which could combine and better integrate technology and digital design tools with human operations during the design process,


References 1. Tzortzopoulos P, Chan P, Cooper R, Kagioglou M. Requirements management in the design of primary healthcare facilities. IV SIBRAGEC & I ELAGEC 2005; 386–97.


2 Department of Health and Social Care. Health Building Note 00-01. General design guidance for healthcare buildings, 2014,


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/316247/ HBN_00-01-2.pdf


3 Eastman C, Lee J, Jeong Y, Lee J. Automatic rule-based checking of building designs. Automation in Construction 2009; 18 (8): 1011–33.


4 Soliman-Junior J, Baldauf JP, Formoso CT, Tzortzopoulos P. Using BIM and Lean for Modelling Requirements in the Design of Healthcare Projects. 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction 2005; Chennai: 571–81.


Further Reading l Soliman-Junior J, Tzortzopoulos P, Kagioglou M. Exploring Mistakeproofing in Healthcare Design. In: Tommelein ID, Daniel E eds. Proc. 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC28), Berkeley, California, USA, doi.org/10.24928/2020/0034, 2020.


l Soliman-Junior J. Tzortzopoulos P, Kagioglou M. Healthcare Design Assessment using Semi-Automated Approaches for Code Checking. In: XI SIBRAGEC & VIII ELAGEC 2019.


99


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