A framework for combining risk-management and performance-based building approaches

Abstract

Models and frameworks used for managing construction projects are typically inspired in business ‘cultures’ that prevail within industrial contexts. The conceptual backgrounds of quality, performance, and risk environments are explored to ascertain whether these ‘cultures’ can complement each other. A new general approach towards Risk-Managed Performance-Based Building (RM-PBB) is presented, including the principles and inputs used for designing and implementing an RM-PBB framework. Such a framework envisages the fulfilment of end-users' (society and individuals) and other interested parties' requirements relating to the building product, as well as the agile interaction between and within the building, manufacturing, property, and capital and insurance markets, at both national and international levels.

Les modèles et les cadres utilisés pour gérer les projets de construction trouvent habituellement leur inspiration dans les « cultures » d'entreprise qui prévalent dans les contextes industriels. Les arrière-plans conceptuels en matière de qualité, de performance et de milieux à risques sont examinés afin d'établir si ces « cultures » peuvent être complémentaires les unes des autres. Il est présenté une nouvelle approche générale visant à une Construction Performancielle à Risques Maîtrisés, incluant les principes et les apports utilisés pour l'élaboration et la mise en œuvre d'un cadre de référence performanciel dans le bâtiment. Un tel cadre permet d'envisager la satisfaction des exigences des utilisateurs finaux (société et individus) comme des autres parties intéressées par rapport à ce produit qu'est le bâtiment, ainsi qu'une souplesse d'interaction entre et au sein des marchés du bâtiment, de la production, de l'immobilier, des capitaux et des assurances, aussi bien au niveau national qu'au niveau international.

Mots clés: performance des bâtiments qualité des bâtiments réglementation des constructions normes de construction construction utilisateurs finaux construction performancielle gestion de la qualité gestion des risques

Keywords:

• building performance
• building quality
• building regulations
• building standards
• construction
• end-users
• performance-based building
• quality management
• risk management

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Miljana Horvat, Brian Meacham and Rachel Becker, amongst others, for their interaction with the authors at the inception stage of the ongoing research at the Technical University of Lisbon (IST). The authors gratefully acknowledge the very useful comments and suggestions offered by the Editor and anonymous reviewers. The authors would also like to thank the support of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).

Notes

There is some parallel to the discussion around ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable construction’ in which ‘requirements’ are seen as ‘needs’.

The concept of performance associated with construction can be traced back to ancient times and it is frequent to state a particular article of the four millennia-year-old code of King Hammurabi that states that ‘If a builder builds a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death’ (King, 2004).

Clause 2.8 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade states ‘Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or prescriptive characteristics’ (World Trade Organisation (WTO), 1997).

The CIB initiated a priority theme titled Performance Based Building (PeBBu) in 1998 and obtained funding from the European Union to manage a ‘Thematic Network’ dedicated to the exploration of the performance-based concept, as it applies to the building and construction sector.

Namely, TC 59/SC 3 – Functional/User Requirements and Performance in Building Construction; and TC 59/SC 15 – Performance Criteria for Single Family Attached and Detached Dwellings.

Namely, ASTM Subcommittee E06.25 – Whole Building and Facilities.

Formed after the completion of CIB TG11 (Tubbs, 2004).

In practice, some confusion may arise from risk and uncertainty. Knight (1921) distinguished risk as quantifiable, whereas uncertainty is not. Consequently, uncertainty relates to the lack of knowledge regarding what will happen, while risk focuses on the possibility of gain or loss as a result of uncertainties (Rodger and Petch, 1999). This approach has been followed since by several authors (e.g. Raftery, 1994) and was integrated into some of the most relevant documents about this theme (e.g. ISO/IEC Guide 73; IRM et al., 2002; AS/NZS 4360; ISO/FDIS 31000).

Examples of risk management processes being implemented can be found in the UK (Ministry of Defence, Procurement Executive, Directorate of Procurement Policy (MoD-PE-DPP), 1991), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Rosenberg et al., 1999), the US Department of Defense (Defense Systems Management College (DSMC), 2006), and the US Department of Transportation (2007), to name just a few.

Leading project management institutions have agreed upon the fact that risk management should be an important and integral part of project management (Simon et al., 1997; International Project Management Association (IPMA), 1998; Project Management Institute (PMI), 2004; Asociación Espanõla de Ingeniería de Proyectos (AEIPRO), 2001) and, therefore, this should also be the case for construction projects. Discussion on this subject has been held within the construction research community in CIB W55 – Building Economics, CIB W65 – Organization and Management of Construction, CIB W92 – Procurement Systems (Edwards and Bowen, 1998), and others. There are many examples of risk-management initiatives being implemented in construction. Since the 1990s, several project risk-management frameworks have been proposed that are applicable to construction projects. These include Construction Risk Management System (CRMS) (Al-Bahar, 1990), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) (PMI, 2004), Project Risk Analysis and Management (PRAM) (Chapman and Ward, 2003), Risk Analysis and Management for Projects (RAMP) (Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), 1998), and Project Uncertainty Management (PUMA) (Caño and Cruz, 2002), among others.

CIB W087 – Post Construction Liability and Insurance, replaced in 2006 by CIB W103 – Construction Conflict: Avoidance and Resolution, have been very active on this subject.

Performance-based regulatory systems are presently evolving towards including risk-related information (May, 2007; Meacham, 2007).

Risk and performance interrelate fairly regarding earthquakes, fires, hazardous materials releases, and other similar technical issues, but do not apply as well to hazards or minimum societal expectations associated with buildings functionality (Meacham et al., 2002). This conforms to the RM-PBB principle of focusing on technical requirements.

Based on ISO 6240 and the subsequent ISO 6241 and ISO 7162.

ISO 19011 is being revised by ISO TC 176/SC 3 in order to be extended to all types of management systems. ISO TC 176/SC3 is an ISO Sub Committee for Supporting technologies (SC 3) which pertains to the Technical Committee on quality management and quality assurance (TC 176): http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=53934