09:00   Supply Chain Integration II
Chair: Peter Paul van Loon
09:00
20 mins 		SUPER-CHARGING SUPPLY CHAINS - THROUGH ‘RELATIONAL INTEGRATION’ FOR ‘OVERALL VALUE’
Mohan Kumaraswamy, Aaron Anvuur, Hedley Smyth
Abstract: ‘Relational integration’ means more than mere ‘structural integration’; and is needed for generating ‘genuine’ and sustainable collaboration in construction. However, higher levels of integration can evidently not be reached without a specially formulated and consolidated set of focal points. Relational integration and convergent agendas can therefore be targeted through directing a common focus on the ‘overall value’ of the ‘supply network’. To this end, ‘Relationally Integrated Value Networks’ (RIVANS) are conceptualised to engage and empower their members towards both short-term and long-term overall ‘network value elements’ that must be suitably structured and made explicit. These common network value elements and corresponding goals should then loom larger in project landscapes, but should also be designed to co-exist with each set of network member-specific value objectives. Whilst aligning the latter as much as possible towards the former, it is recognised that each organisation e.g. a sub-contractor or specialist supplier, will have some other (‘extra-network’ or ‘beyond network’) needs; and may indeed be part of other value networks. However, each network can benefit from healthy inputs from, and benchmarking against other networks. Secondly, the strengths of each network will be enhanced by the steady development of each of its members. The paper will explore the potential and pitfalls in developing such RIVANS, incorporating relevant outputs from a case study and two Workshops on these possibilities, that were conducted in Hong Kong. The needs for, and potential impacts of the RIVANS initiative are heightened in the present major economic downturn, and indeed during other periodic troughs in industry and market cycles. Relationally integrated networks should be more resilient in withstanding such pressures, while achieving critical efficiencies for reaching necessarily higher performance levels in general.
09:20
20 mins 		THE IMPACT OF BIM ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE
Dik Spekkink, ErnstJan Cornelis, Aart van der Vlist
Abstract: Slowly but surely Dutch architects take their first steps on the road to working with Building Information Modelling (BIM). Pioneers usually start with implementing 3D modelling applications and, in time, step by step, gradually move on to implementing BIM. Soon they experience that this new technology requires different skills and a completely different way of thinking and working. After a while they start to realize that BIM will probably affect the architectural practice more fundamentally than any innovation has ever done before. Where in retrospective the introduction of CAD can be seen as the mere translation of handicraft drawing to the computer, but business as usual, it is envisaged that BIM will alter that business substantially. Not only will it affect the design itself, the design process, the phasing of that process, the nature of deliverables and the collaboration and interaction with design team partners, it will also potentially have a large impact on the architect’s role and position and on the organisation and management of the architectural firm. Some experience that as a threat, others as an exiting challenge. It is obvious that BIM is not a subject that can be delegated to the ICT department or the firm’s ICT wizkid. It requires strategic planning, policy making and decision making at the very top of the firm. The paper will reflect the experiences of two Dutch pioneer architectural firms: a lager firm with appr. 60 employees and a small practice with 5 employees. The first firm is involved in a number of projects – a hospital, town halls, school buildings – where 3D modelling is fully implemented. The smaller firm has experience with outsourcing 3D modelling in two design projects to a specialized service provider. Questions will be addressed like: • What is the impact of 3D modelling and BIM on design quality? • What is the impact on the (organisation of) the design process and the architect’s workload and fee? • What are the benefits and possible drawbacks for the architectural business? • What are the consequences for the division of workloads between design team members? • What should be the consequences for the content of design contracts and the definition of deliverables in those contracts? • What kind of investments are required to implement 3D modelling and BIM and when can a break even point be reached? • How to cope with issues like ‘ownership of information’ and ‘liability’ when all design team members work in one Building Information Model and all design information is gathered in one database? • What does working with a BIM mean for the responsibilities and liabilities of the architect? • In how far is it to be expected that the implementation of 3D modelling and BIM will automatically lead to more supply chain integration and/or Design & Build contracts? • What are the two firms’ expectations for the future regarding BIM? Conclusions will be drawn and recommendations to the architectural profession will be made. One of the conclusions will be that the introduction of BIM is not a threat for the architectural profession, but a genuine opportunity for the architect to regain or strengthen the director’s role in the design process. The biggest threat will be that architects don’t grab the opportunity.
09:40
20 mins 		A CRADLE TO CRADLE (C2C) DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MIXED FUNCTIONAL AREAS
Adri Proveniers, Bauke de Vries, Dennie Collas, Bart Advokaat, Ingrid Nieuwenhuijsen
Abstract: Governments are enthusiastic about the cradle to cradle (C2C) concept. Consequently they request project developers to make C2C plans, but unfortunately there is very little experience in explicitly specifying what a C2C building, infrastructure or landscape is. Designers en engineers are facing a challenge, to develop C2C plans and to justify that the plan is C2C. One of the problems with C2C is, that the concept is very broad without a clear demarcation. In the presented paper we focus on energy production or consumption. We are aware that energy is only a part of C2C, but an important part. Secondly, we focus on urban area development that includes the following functions: houses, offices, industry and greenhouses. There is a trend towards this type of functional mixture because they allow for new energetic interesting combinations. Traditionally energy systems become part of the new plan after the main design decisions have been made. Instead a model was developed that can support the decision making process including the energy aspects at the start the project. The model takes an area and a division of the total floor area over the required functions as input. For the project as a whole the ambition level for C2C is set and for each (building) function the energy performance level. Following the return on investment period is specified because this has an effect on the techniques that can be used to make the plan sustainable. Infrastructure for energy exchange between building functions is optional. Finally the model will calculate what the total remaining energy demand is (if there is any) and it will give suggestions on how to resolve this energy shortage. The calculation model gives an indication of the energy flow. The model utilizes reference data on energy consumption/production for buildings and energy systems. Despite its limited accuracy the model supports easy manipulation of the entered building function division, C2C ambition levels, energy performance level, etc. to check whether the C2C goals can actually be realized within the plan area. In the presented paper we will discuss our C2C energy approach. The logic of the calculation model is presented and which data are used. Through a case study the application of the model is illustrated. Finally some preliminary experiences are discussed.