Briefing: Measuring the value of design Free

Modern thinking demands that design is an integral part of the collaborative processes now being developed at the leading edge of our industry. Design is not just ‘a task for the designers’ (i.e. the architect and various engineers); it should involve the client, provider, operator, funders, users, constructor, specialists, suppliers and facilities managers.

In that light, we all need to value design and to be able to measure the value we are getting, at the very least to enable us to steer the design process so that we get what we need from it. The skill of design leadership also becomes central to the whole enterprise if all these stakeholders are to be able to interact in a successful manner.

If value equals quantum times quality divided by cost, then we are seeking to maximise the quantum and quality of the delivered product whilst containing total costs. The cost of design will be only a small part of the total whole-life costs, typically, based on the example of an office block given in a paper to the Royal Academy of Engineering (see Table 1).1 It can be seen from these indicative values that design costs are small and that reductions in other costs–particularly the facility operating cost and (most of all) the business operating cost–may well be available through investment in better design and better construction. It would be worthwhile to spend several times more on design to achieve a 1% reduction in business operating cost.

Note that design in this context includes all those designing the facility–with inputs from all of them as appropriate, including the operators (designing how the facility will be operated and staffed), the provider and funders (running financial models), the facilities managers (designing how the facility will be maintained, serviced and refurbished, etc.) and so on. Note also that consideration of ‘business operating cost’ may be replaced or extended by the measurement of outcomes–for example, the value of goods or services produced or, in education, the achievement of better learning results from a superior learning environment.

Currently, private finance initiative (PFI) and public–private partnership (PPP) frameworks are providing a test-bed for the development of methods for the modelling of design options. The initial design work (in its widest sense), which can leverage such benefits, needs to be provided and procured in as productive a manner as possible. One might ask questions such as the following.

How do we measure up on a typical PFI? The following points are made based upon industry experience and discussion, particularly comments made at a workshop held by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in January 2003 and upon follow-up discussions and input by members of the CIC's Procurement Panel.

Experience here is so far mixed; some teams have developed a modus operandi but by and large the traditional chaos of much design-and-build work prevails and indeed is exacerbated by the constraints of the PFI process (as currently practised in the UK) and the consequent commercial realities. The main stages are typically performed as follows

• Prequalification. A beauty parade in which little work is done, but ideas are born and relationships start to gel.

• Outline proposals–first submission. The most important design stage, when the basis of each competing team's design is agreed, documented and priced. Because the work is entirely speculative, there is little money available for much fundamental design thinking. The different aspects of design (building, facilities management and operation) often proceed in a loosely integrated manner and late changes in thinking about operational issues may impact on the other aspects at a late stage in the work, causing confusion and errors.

• Outline proposals–‘Best and final offer’ submission. In response to questions (and often hints) from the client, competing teams refine their designs, prepare additional information and firm-up pricing. Because the time for this work is tight and it is still entirely speculative, there is still normally little time or money available for much fundamental design thinking. However, there may be heroic attempts to rework the design in response to comments received and/or new ideas. As the consequences are realised, everyone is pushed to rework their designs and pricing, often under intense pressure. The design and pricing submitted at this stage are meant to form the basis for a contract and the various players will therefore be held to the information they provide.

• Work by the preferred contractor, leading to contract. Having been appointed as ‘preferred bidder’, a team has to continue to refine its design, in consultation with the client, and prepare information ready for a fast start on site once the contract is signed. Because the work is still entirely speculative, albeit with a good chance of a contract, there is still normally little money available for design work.

• Construction. Signature of a contract unlocks finance but the design as it exists has to remain frozen as significant changes (which need time and careful risk management) cannot be incorporated in the programme.

We therefore see a process in which design is usually under-funded while the important decisions are being taken and still under-funded during the substantial period between achieving ‘preferred contractor’ status and contract signature, when there should be a real chance for collaborative development involving all parties.

Selection of designers should nearly always be primarily based upon quality, including the commitment and ability to perform both individually and as a member of a team, bearing in mind the advantages which good design can leverage.

Skills needed should be considered in the widest possible sense, including

• understanding and interpreting the service delivery requirement

• taking account of all the stakeholder interests

• whole-life thinking

• collaborative working

• looking beyond and across traditional boundaries.

The manner in which providers currently assemble teams varies widely but a great deal of thought does go into the selection of all the members of a team. Decisions are normally guided by a balance between quality and cost, including a willingness to do work at reduced rates in the pre-contract stages. This has tended to favour larger companies, as has the need for design inputs often to be made with little notice.

It is apparent that providers are increasingly taking a more proactive role in ensuring that the design activity is competently led and that skilled leaders are appointed who understand the importance of collaborative working. Where there is poor design leadership, often combined with wrangles about the funding of design, a team is unlikely to succeed; the substantial sums invested by all members of the delivery team are thereby wasted.

It is apparent that within both the wider team (client, provider, operator, constructor, facilities manager) and the building design team, groups of people have been able to move forward from one project to another. This is a welcome aspect of PFI and one which should strengthen as successful teams move forward onto new projects and (increasingly) are involved in expansions and adaptations of existing facilities. Whether or not teams actually work on their integration processes and skills depends upon personalities and leadership: there is a wide range of experience and performance.

In seeking to improve design as delivered, designers of buildings (led by architects) have examined the range of issues and how they might be addressed by the various stakeholders. The CIC has developed the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) and this tool is introduced below.

The DQI tool (or ‘the DQI’ as it is normally called) provides a method for each person or group contributing to the assessment to mark against a number of topics, with several questions in each, as outlined below. The results are then presented in graphical form for comparison of alternatives and/or for team discussion. It is in the nature of the subject that judgements are qualitative, not quantitative and therefore it is in fact through discussion that the benefits of assessment are best realised; ‘why do you feel so strongly about that?’ and ‘we clearly all agree that this will be a stunning building but that it will be at odds with its surroundings’ (etc.). To summarise, the DQI aims to help

• the client team to establish their aspirations

• the design team to identify diverging views

• provide a better understanding of what design is

• clients and designers to develop a shared language for the project

• the team to measure the project's success against their aspirations.

The DQI has been developed by CIC with sponsorship from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and Constructing Excellence, as well as support from many other industry bodies, including CIC members. Development was aided by a multi-disciplinary steering group (chaired up to launch by Michael Dickson, chairman of Buro Happold and now by Giles Oliver, Penoyre and Prasad LLP) and a research partner, Imperial College, London.

The DQI looks at the ‘product’ being produced by the design process. It poses a series of questions that probe a range of topics as shown in Fig. 1. Each person contributing to the use of the DQI will have their own view; the tool is used from early days to in-use and it helps track how everyone feels and how the team feels about a building design. Marks can be weighted. Above all else, it acts as a vehicle to tease out issues and promote communication about common themes. Results are presented in an easy-to-use spider diagram such as the example shown in Fig. 2, in which all areas of measurement were performing ‘reasonably well’.

The DQI has been thoroughly trialed, a process that engages client and user feedback heavily. It has been widely endorsed and taken up by large organisations. The DQI is available at www.dqi.org.uk. The total number of projects registered online with the DQI is around 600, but well over 1000 projects are known to be using either the DQI or DQI-related tools. Usage in registered projects is spread across education (60%), offices (20%), housing (5%), civic (7%) and others (13%).

Too often, it is the designer's experience that design is seen as a necessary cost burden that simply delivers what is expected. World-class architecture is certainly an exception to that, but it should be our aspiration to treat all projects in the same manner, because the client and users for the humblest civic project will live with the results on a daily basis for years to come. It is not appropriate to the state of our civilisation to erect poorly made, boring buildings which provide a roof over a head and little more. Only if we truly value design when balancing cost against quality will we deliver projects that are appropriate to our society. This has been recognised by government.

In addition, as explained above, there are whole-life benefits to be had by investing in design. Design activity, in its widest sense, offers an opportunity to

• invest in lower running costs

• make upgrades easier and hence faster and cheaper

• provide facilities which are cheaper to operate

• enable a better outcome from the operation itself.

It is therefore a recognised social duty and a business imperative to place a high value upon design.

It is a fact that designers are always responding to a brief from a client. Providers and their designers may be faced with different scenarios, ranging from the prescriptive situation (where a client has actually already decided what is wanted) to the open-ended (where a need is stated and no more). The situation is probably usually somewhere in between but it can take some time (and frustration) to arrive at an understanding. One disadvantage of the current PFI system is that providers are required to give a firm price at a relatively early stage in reaching that understanding. Several teams will be developing firm price proposals before alternative delivery scenarios are considered and affordability issues addressed; it is common to have to unpick the design and remake it as these matters are dealt with. Quite apart from the wasted design time (often not fully paid for) and frustration, delays during this process are common and can significantly affect the delivery start date (but not the performance once a contract is signed).

At the same time as the DQI initiative outlined above unfolded, major government client bodies have (as a matter of government policy) raised the profile of design and put in place a range of initiatives to promote high quality design on their projects. This work has been actively encouraged and supported by CABE. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has been particularly active in seeking to raise design quality in schools. The Prison Service has encouraged innovative design solutions and this has enabled a 20% reduction in overall costs.2 Across government, the message has been understood that money spent on good design is money well spent, with a good payback.

From all that is presented above it is clear that the modern methods of procurement increasingly being adopted in the UK and elsewhere provide an opportunity to leverage substantial financial advantage in whole-life costs, through the application of high quality processes, skills and knowledge. Looking to the future, four areas stand out.

Design processes will be improved and refined by teams working together and seeking to continuously improve their performance. Tools such as CIC's DQI will increasingly be used to facilitate the examination of all the issues involved in a design. Client bodies will develop their methods and skills in setting out their brief for a project and may instigate changes to the PFI process so that potential providers can initially concentrate on developing service delivery scenarios prior to selection, supported by outline schemes and cost plans, followed by a period of development and detailed costing carried out by a selected provider in collaboration with the client. This would give providers and their funders confidence to invest in major design activity at an earlier stage in the design process.

It is thought that skill in design is increasingly in short supply in the UK. If this is true–and it may not be, as productivity continues to increase, thanks to the continuing IT revolution–the challenge for those leading design teams in the PFI environment is to enable and assist their designers to perform to a higher standard than has been possible in the past. Just assembling teams will not be enough; if the benefits of improvements in design processes and access to knowledge are to be maximised, new skills will be required to operate the new systems and to improve team-working.

Much time is spent on any project in acquiring, interpreting and communicating information around the team. This starts when the first wave of client documentation arrives (often simply copied on en masse with little pre-processing) and continues as designs (in their broadest sense) are developed, documented, coordinated and priced. Each activity draws upon knowledge systems and databases that are in many cases poorly developed. IT-based improvements are to be expected and stable teams are already leading the way. Most current developments formalise what has been done in the past but new approaches (for example using full 3-D modelling and developing facilities management scenarios based on warranted performance) are increasingly being developed. The construction design community has recently updated the guidance provided by the Construction Project Information Committee in the new (2003) code.3 

Improvement in all the above areas of endeavour will come most rapidly where there is high-level leadership and an appreciation that investment has to be made to reap the benefits. The level of investment need not be great–though we are coming from low levels of investment in the construction design industry in recent decades. Where teams have developed their processes as a supply chain investment, the benefits of team investment have been found already and this will continue. As supporting IT systems are developed for collaborative working, mobilising electronic data support to design so that scheme options may be rapidly developed, visualised and whole-life costed, performance will be further improved. This has already happened in other industries, promoted by their supply chain leaders (eg. automotive manufacture, oil and gas). Public sector clients are demanding that we deliver through excellent design, which means investment in design.

Design is an essential and integral aspect of any construction project. The DQI tool has been developed for the measurement of design quality and this facilitates input and discussion by all stakeholders. Opportunities exist for the thinking team to develop competitive and commercial advantage by investing in improvements in how design (in its broadest sense) is carried out, to leverage reductions in whole-life service delivery cost and improvements in speed and quality.