Success factors of sustainable office development. - Breaking the Circle of Blame -

Success factors of sustainable office development - Breaking the Circle of Blame -

Author:

A.J.G. (Gjalt ) Vink

Master study:

TU/e Construction Management & Engineering

Date:

30 January 2009

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

2

Success factors of sustainable office development - Breaking the Circle of Blame -

Title: Subtitle:

Success factors of sustainable office development Breaking the Circle of Blame

Content:

Final thesis report

Name: Id nr: E-mail:

A.J.G. (Gjalt) Vink 0510955 [email protected]

University: Study: Master track:

Eindhoven University of Technology Architecture, Building and Planning Construction Management and Engineering

Internship:

ARCADIS Gebouwen, Advies & Management, Amersfoort

Supervisors:

Prof. Ir. G.J. Maas Ir. G. Abdalla Ir. J. Huyghe D.J. van Rees MSc MBA

Place and Date:

Eindhoven, 30-01-2009

Final thesis report

TU/e TU/e TU/e ARCADIS

A.J.G. Vink

3

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

4

Preface Dear reader, With great pleasure I, Gjalt Vink, present to you my final thesis report. This report is the end result of a research, conducted at ARCADIS Buildings, department Advies & Management in Amersfoort, to complete the master study Construction Management and Engineering at the Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. Sustainability of the built environment is a hot issue in today’s society. More and more people are becoming aware of global problems of climate change, declining natural resources and decreasing air quality and the consequences these problems might have on humanity. My personal motivation to choose this subject was on the one hand to increase my own knowledge on this important and interesting issue, and on the other hand the desire to contribute to a change towards a more sustainable society. I would like to take the opportunity to thank some people, who helped me in the course of this research. Firstly, I’d like to thank the persons who were so kind to cooperate in the case study research: Mrs. M. Huysmans of OVG projectontwikkeling, Mr. B. Krikke of the Triodos Bank, Mr. Hersbach and Mrs. M. de Grooth of ING Real Estate, Mr. B. Custers of VOCUS architecten bna, and several colleagues at ARCADIS. Secondly, I like to thank my supervisors G.J. Maas, G. Abdalla, J. Huyghe and D. van Rees for their useful feedback and support. Thirdly, a special thanks to my good friend J. Berkhout, who helped designing the online survey. Finally, I want to thank my loving family and my girlfriend Emmy, who offered me great support and understanding during this intensive period. Concluding, I have enjoyed executing this interesting research and am proud and satisfied with the result. I wish you great pleasure reading it. Gjalt Vink Utrecht, January 2009

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

5

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

6

Management Summary The sustainability of the built environment is a major societal issue. The changing climate, decreasing natural resources such as fossil fuels, degrading air quality, and drink water scarcity are worldwide problems that need to be tackled. In December 2008 the EU agreed on a plan to reduce CO2 2

emissions by 20% by 2020. Because over 35% of the CO emissions are caused by the use of buildings, there is a large potential to contribute to these goals. The development of sustainable offices is being driven not only by ecological and political drivers, but also by economical and social drivers. Concluding, technological innovations in building parts and sustainable energy production as well as the development of environmental assessment tools also drive sustainable office development. Despite all these driving trends, sustainable office development is far from being main stream. One of the causes is the circle of blame; a vicious circle in which the stakeholders blame each other for not initiating the demand or supply of sustainable buildings. Recently, we see that the demand for sustainable offices grows rapidly (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2008). While a rising demand has triggered investors to finance sustainable office development, a problem occurs on the supply side. Project developers, designers and builders experience major problems when trying to realise sustainable offices. One of the problems is a lack of knowledge on the success factors of sustainable office development. This research shows a model of 23 success factors, which have influence during the decision making process on the success sustainable office projects. The model is based on a case study research on six projects and three companies, supported by literature on the success factors of projects (Fortune and White, 2006) and a survey among 74 experienced real estate professionals. The end result of the research is an identification of the key success factors of sustainable office development and a view on the different opinions of the involved stakeholders on these factors. Success factors of sustainable office development can be categorised into three groups; project factors, stakeholder factors and environmental factors. The project factors are directly related to the project and are highly influential by the project manager. Stakeholder factors have indirect influence on the project success, as they concern the policy and attitude of the stakeholders’ organizations. The environmental factors are external factors that influence project success. The most important success factors are the project factors: ‘commitment to sustainability from the involved persons’, ‘willingness of the end-user to invest in sustainability’, ‘focus on long term value creation’, ‘early involvement of all stakeholders in the project’ and ‘clear definition of sustainability goals’ are the key success factors of sustainable office development. The economical situation and the type of contracts are the least important factors.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

7

Among the stakeholders two groups are identified with partly different views on the importance of the success factors. Advisors and designers (group 2) allocate greater importance to the role of the government (both national as local) than project developers and builders (group1). These groups also think differently about the interrelationship of the success factors. For developers and builders, the most important success factors are stimulated by the financial resources, the organisation of the project and the technological innovations in the market. Advisors and designers think the involvement of the user in the project and a stable national sustainability policy are stimulating factors. The result of this research is a number of recommendations on how to manage the development process of sustainable offices. By implementing these recommendations project developers, builders, advisors

and

designers

Final thesis report

can

contribute

to

permanently

A.J.G. Vink

break

of

the

circle

of

blame.

8

Index Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Management Summary ........................................................................................................................... 7 Index ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Sustainability and sustainable development ............................................................................... 11 1.2 Sustainable buildings .................................................................................................................. 12 1.3 Advantages of sustainable offices .............................................................................................. 13 1.4 Breaking the circle of blame........................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 2: Research question............................................................................................................... 17 Problem definition ............................................................................................................................. 17 Research goal ................................................................................................................................... 17 Research questions .......................................................................................................................... 17 Definitions.......................................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 3: Theoretical background ....................................................................................................... 21 3.1 Sustainable Office Development................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Project Success Factors ............................................................................................................. 36 Chapter 4: Research Methodology........................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Research design ......................................................................................................................... 41 4.2 Phase 1: Explorative desk research and expert interviews ........................................................ 42 4.3 Phase 2: Case studies ................................................................................................................ 43 4.4 Phase 3: Design model ............................................................................................................... 45 4.5 Phase 4: Survey.......................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 5: Results................................................................................................................................. 47 5.1 Results case study research ....................................................................................................... 47 5.2 Model........................................................................................................................................... 49 5.3 Results survey............................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 6: Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................... 63 7.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 63 7.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 65 7.3 Suggestions for further research................................................................................................. 66 References ............................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................ 71 Index.................................................................................................................................................. 71

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

9

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction The sustainability of the built environment is a major societal issue. The changing climate, decreasing natural resources such as fossil fuels, degrading air quality, and drink water scarcity are worldwide problems that need to be tackled. In December 2008 the EU agreed on a plan to reduce CO2 2

emissions by 20% by 2020. Because over 35% of the CO emissions are caused by the use of buildings, there is a large potential to contribute to these goals. Despite this large potential, sustainable office development is far from being main stream in the current construction and real estate industry. In this first chapter, the concept of sustainability and sustainable development are explored. A short overview on the literature is followed by a list of advantages of sustainable office. The chapter is concluded by the description of the circle of blame, one of the major barriers of sustainable office development.

1.1 Sustainability and sustainable development The first question that comes to mind when discussing sustainability and sustainable real estate development is: “What is sustainability?” There is no single and easy answer to this question, but in this chapter I will try to explain what my interpretation of this concept is. As Wilkinson and Reed (2008) state in their book ‘Property Development’ there are as many definitions of the concept of sustainability as there are groups trying to define it. However, all the definitions are concerned with:

•

Comprehension of the relationships between economy, environment and society

•

Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities

•

Living within limits

The definition most frequently referred to is the one established by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development report, ‘Our Common Future’ in 1987. This definition states that: “Sustainable development is development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” According to Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2005) this concept comprises two strong elements: “(1) that of satisfying human needs and requirements (quality of life) and (2) that of intra- and intergenerational ethics (do not cheat your fellow citizens and children).

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

11

Chapter 1: Introduction Another important definition is that of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2000): “Sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. Companies aiming for sustainability need to perform not against a single, financial bottom line but against the triple bottom line.” Figure 1.1: People, Planet, and Profit

The triple bottom line is also referred to as the 3P’s and involves the need for balance between people, planet and profit. (Fig. 1.1) These three aspects should be taken into account and need to

be

in

balance

in

sustainable

development. (Source: www.greeninnovation.com.au)

1.2 Sustainable buildings From the concept of sustainable development we now come to the concept of sustainable buildings. Kats (2003) defines them in his article ‘The costs and financial benefits of green buildings’: “Green” or “sustainable” buildings use key resources like energy, water, materials, and land much more efficiently than buildings that are simply built to code. They also create healthier work, learning, and living environments, with more natural light and cleaner air, and contribute to improved employee and student health, comfort, and productivity. Sustainable buildings are cost-effective, saving taxpayer dollars by reducing operations and maintenance costs, as well as by lowering utility bills.” “Green” or “sustainable” buildings are sensitive to (Kats, 2003): •

Environment.

•

Resource & energy consumption.

•

Impact on people (quality and healthiness of work environment).

•

Financial impact (cost-effectiveness from a full financial cost-return perspective).

•

The world at large (a broader set of issues, such as ground water recharge and global warming, that a government is typically concerned about).

These quotes indicate the broadness of the concept of sustainable buildings. Because it is such a broad concept, the subject of this study is narrowed down to sustainable offices. There are many different aspects of sustainability in office buildings. Energy, materials, health and comfort, water use, flexibility, mobility, ecology, aesthetics, social justice pollution and waste are all aspects of buildings which can be considered part of its sustainability (see appendix I). In every sustainable building project, choices need to be made on which of these aspects are to be taken into consideration.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

12

Chapter 1: Introduction Or, in other words, which definition of a ‘sustainable building’ is used. This choice determines for a large extend the design. This is the reason, that there are many different buildings that are all being called sustainable, but that they differ greatly in form and function.

Costs and benefits The costs and benefits of sustainable buildings is a major point of interest in the current research. In 2003, G. Kats performed a research among 100 green buildings in the USA. The report concluded that financial benefits of green design run from $50 to $70 per square foot in a LEED building - more than ten times the additional cost associated with building green. These benefits were in: “lower energy, waste, and water costs; lower environmental and emissions costs; lower operational and maintenance costs; and increased productivity and health…” and “From a life cycle savings standpoint, savings resulting from investment in sustainable design and construction dramatically exceed any additional upfront costs” (Kats, 2003). Concluding, sustainable buildings have large financial advantages. In the next section, all advantages of sustainable office are listed.

1.3 Advantages of sustainable offices The advantages of sustainable offices over conventional offices are categorised in three groups; the ecological, social and economical advantages. The ecological advantages of sustainable offices are (Kats (2003), Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2005)): •

Protection of natural resources, such as fossil fuels

•

Protection of the natural environment/ ecosystem

•

Longer life span of building

The social advantages of sustainable offices are (Kats (2003), Jones Lang LaSalle (2008), Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2005)): •

Healthier indoor air quality

•

More comfort

•

Positive ‘green’ image of tenant, developer and investor

•

Better liveable neighbourhoods

The economical advantages of sustainable offices are: For users (Kats, 2003 and Jones Lang LaSalle, 2008): •

Lower operational and maintenance costs

•

Higher productivity of employees

•

More attractive as an employer

For developers (Gossink, 2008): •

Higher selling price

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

13

Chapter 1: Introduction For investors (Gossink, 2008): •

Higher long term value

•

Higher ROI

•

Less obsolescence; more stable cash flow

1.4 Breaking the circle of blame Although there are many advantages, there are also barriers that obstruct the development of sustainable offices. In 2000, David Cadman, identified the so-called ‘circle of blame’ in the British real estate industry. According to ING Real Estate Development, a large project developer in the Netherlands, the circle of blame also exists in the Dutch real estate industry. Figure 1.2: The circle of blame

Figure 1.2 displays the vicious circle in which the main stakeholders of sustainable real estate development have been trapped for years. All parties said that they were willing to contribute to sustainable real estate development, but they needed cooperation of the other stakeholders. The initiative from at least one of the parties was necessary to break this vicious circle. Because of the lack of initiative, the circle of blame has been a major barrier for sustainable office development. In 2008, different Dutch companies have taken the initiative to break the circle of blame. The most outstanding example is the TNT project in Hoofddorp, where the end user TNT took the initiative and demanded an extremely sustainable new office.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

14

Chapter 1: Introduction The project developer OVG and investor Triodos Bank have reacted on this initiative by forming a project joint venture to develop seven new and sustainable office buildings and maintain and operate them for a period of 15 years. This example shows, that the because of one initiating party, the circle starts to break. TNT is not the only ambitious end user demanding sustainable office space. More and more companies are executing their Corporate Social Responsibility policies by moving towards a more sustainable way of housing. Because of this rising market demand for sustainable offices, investors are more and more investing in sustainable offices. The first steps to beak the circle of blame are taken, but it is not yet broken permanently. For this to happen, all stakeholders should cooperate and turn the circle of blame into a system of contiuous loops of feedback and adaptation. This research is aimed at providing knowledge to developers, builders, desigers and advisors and can be categorised in the groups of researchers and educators. (fig. 1.3) Fig. 1.3: Loops of feedback and adaptation

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

15

Chapter 1: Introduction

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

16

Chapter 2: Research question

Chapter 2: Research question Problem definition Because of the circle of blame, not enough sustainable building projects are being developed to 2

comply with the ambitions to reduce CO emissions and improve the long term quality of office buildings. Although benefits of sustainable buildings are clear, not all involved stakeholders are convinced of the benefits for themselves. In addition, the traditional attitudes, roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders and the traditional development process are a major barrier for sustainable office development. However, there are different examples of sustainable building projects, both in the Netherlands as in other EU countries and the rest of the world, where the circle of blame has been broken and which have been successfully developed. This proves that it is possible to build these sustainable buildings. Apparently, the traditional development process is not suitable for the development of sustainable buildings. The development process should therefore be adapted to suit sustainable development. This change is in the hands of project managers and their companies. These project managers need to change the way they manage the development process in order to permanently break the circle of blame. Project management can be supported by knowledge on the success factors of projects. Currently, there is no scientific knowledge on the success factors in the development process of sustainable offices.

Research goal The goal of this research is to give recommendations on the improvement of the initial phases of sustainable office development, by giving insight in the success factors of these projects. This research will provide this insight by displaying the success factors in a model, and by identifying the most important factors. This insight will contribute to break the circle of blame.

Research questions The main research question of this research is: •

What are the key success factors of sustainable office development projects?

To answer the main research question the following sub questions are to be answered: •

What is a sustainable office?

•

What are project success factors?

•

What are the differences between the opinions of the different stakeholders on the success factors of sustainable office development?

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

17

Chapter 2: Research question Along with the questions above, the following sub questions are also answered: •

What is sustainable office development and what are the differences between sustainable office development and traditional office development?

•

How can the knowledge on success factors of sustainable office development be used to break the circle of blame?

Definitions Sustainable office buildings The term ‘office buildings’, as used in this research, is defined as: “A new office building, which is developed by a project developer, owned by an investor and rented by a tenant.” This definition is used because these are the stakeholders involved in the circle of blame. The reason for choosing office buildings is that these buildings are the main type of building types which are developed by these stakeholders. A second reason is that ARCADIS is mainly involved in the project management of commercial buildings, among which offices. The term sustainable building is defined by one or more of the following characteristics: -

Greencalc > 240; or

-

‘GPR gebouw’ score > 7.5 on average; and

-

Energy label A+; and

-

Application of sustainable materials; and

-

Indoor health and comfort higher than legally required

This definition is based on the currently highest ranked buildings in the Greencalc project list (www.greencalc.com). Because the Dutch Green Building Council is currently developing a standard sustainability assessment tool called BREEAM, future projects will be assessed by this standard. In this tool the sustainability of a building is being measured according to its score on management, health & wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials & waste, land use & ecology and pollution. For my research, I decided to use the sustainability aspects energy, health and comfort, materials and waste as the most relevant sustainability aspects. The Greencalc assessment is largely comparable with BREEAM, except that the aspects health and comfort are not included in the Greencalc assessment tool. In GPR gebouw the aspect of health is included.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

18

Chapter 2: Research question Decision making phase Sustainable office development consists of many different phases and stages. In chapter 3.1.2 this process is explained. Because most of the decisions are taken in the early stages of the process, the research is focused on the decision making phase, which consists of the following phases: 1. Area development 2. Initiative 3. Land acquisition 4. Plan development 5. Design All stages following the design phase are not included in the research. Key stakeholders There are many stakeholders involved in sustainable office development. This research focuses on the key stakeholders, which are the •

project developers

•

investors

•

end users

•

designers

•

advisors

•

builders

•

local government

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

19

Chapter 2: Research question

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

20

Chapter 3: Theoretical background

Chapter 3: Theoretical background This chapter shows an extensive literature review to answer the following two sub research questions: •

What is sustainable office development?

•

What are project success factors?

3.1 Sustainable Office Development 3.1.1 Sustainable offices Sustainability is a complex and dynamic concept, because there are many aspects which are considered to be part of sustainability, and the concept changes over time. In this paragraph a short introduction to the relevant aspects of sustainability is provided. Definition of a sustainable office Although sustainability is a major issue in the current society in general and the construction sector in particular, there is not a commonly accepted definition of sustainability yet. Therefore, it was necessary to choose a definition for this research. Senter Novem uses the following definition for sustainable buildings. If the building: -

has a Greencalc score of 185 or more; or

-

has a GPR score of 7 or more; or

-

has an EPC score above the norm, with “Nationaal Pakket Duurzaam Bouwen” measures; or

-

has obtained a “groenfinanciering”;

Then the building may be called ‘sustainable’ (Senter Novem, 2008). Sustainability is a dynamic concept, as opinions and technology changes over time. The Senter Novem definition is therefore not a permanent, but a temporary definition. However, there is no mention of the term it is valid. Sustainability is not only a dynamic concept; it is also not objectively measurable. The assessment tools Greencalc, GPR and EPC all measure different aspects of the building (see appendix III). Because of these reasons, it is very hard to give a specific and commonly accepted definition of a sustainable office. Sustainability aspects In this paragraph the most important sustainability aspects are shortly elaborated on. These are: energy, materials and waste, and health and comfort. In appendix I a more comprehensive view on all sustainability aspects is provided. Energy 2

One of the most important aspects of sustainability is energy. To reduce CO emission and diminish the consumption of fossil fuels, the three steps strategy or trias energetica is a well known strategy. 21 Final thesis report A.J.G. Vink

Chapter 3: Theoretical background The first step is to reduce energy demand, e.g. by insulating and the re-use of heat of ventilation air. The second step is to use sustainable energy sources, such as solar energy or heat and cold storage. The third step, if necessary, is to use fossil fuels as efficiently as possible (see figure 3.1 and appendix IV for more examples of possible measures). Fig. 3.1: Trias Energetica (source: www.ecn.nl)

In

current

practice,

this

strategy has become more and more the standard. It is therefore possible to build socalled CO

2

neutral or zero-

energy buildings. These are buildings that use no more energy then they produce. Materials and Waste Another important sustainability aspect is the use of materials and the waste that is produced by constructing and demolishing buildings. The environmental impact of buildings can be minimized by using sustainable materials. When selecting building materials, the following questions need to be answered: 1. Where do the materials come from? 2. How are the materials being produced? 3. How are the materials being transported? 4. How much maintenance is required? 5. How do the materials influence the indoor health and comfort? 6. How well are the materials re-useable? One of the most popular sustainability concepts of today is the ‘Cradle-to-cradle’ philosophy. The credo of this concept is ‘waste is food’. Translated to the use in construction projects, it means that all materials should be fully re-useable as construction materials, or they should be fully absorbed in nature. This way, there will not be any waste which is damaging the environment. Health and Comfort Although a low energy use and sustainable materials are very important, the indoor health and comfort are in daily use of course at least as important. Aspects of indoor health and comfort are the amount of fresh air and ventilation, the quality and control of lighting and natural daylight access, the control of temperature and type of heating system, the amount of pollutants in the air. According to Kats (2003), increased health and comfort leads to reduced absenteeism, employee retention and increased productivity.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

22

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Sustainability assessment tools Environmental Assessment methods are aimed to measure the degree of sustainability of buildings. In the UK, the government funded research institute BRE (Building Research Establishment) developed an environmental assessment method called BREEAM. From January 2009 the Dutch Green Building Council will be using the BREEAM assessment method as a standard to measure the degree of sustainability of buildings. The aspects of sustainability that are measured with BREEAM are: 1. management, 2. health and wellbeing, 3. energy, 4. transport, 5. water, 6. materials and waste, 7. land use and ecology, and 8. pollution. The credit criteria which are used to score each of these aspects are being developed by a group of companies involved in the real estate development industry in the Netherlands. The tool is being developed by an open source strategy, so that every involved party can give a contribution and have its input in the tool. It is also easily adaptable to future developments. (www.dgbc.nl) The Senter Novem definition uses the assessment tools Greencalc and GPR as a measure for sustainability. These assessment tools are the most commonly used of Dutch assessment tools. Other examples of Dutch assessment tools are ‘Eco-Quantum’, ‘groenverklaring’, ‘EPC’, ‘Nationaal Pakket Duurzaam Bouwen Utiliteitsbouw’, ‘GPR Gebouw’ and ‘Triodos Toets voor duurzaam vastgoed’. (www.duurzaambouwen.senternovem.nl) Examples of international tools are LEED (VS), BREEAM (UK), CASBEE (Japan), Green Globes (Canada), GBTool and EPBD (EU). These tools are listed and compared in appendix III. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Van den Dobbelsteen (2004) says: “The best indicator for sustainability, the total annual environmental load, consists of the once-only loads divided by the expected service life (ESL) plus the annually repeating loads. For the demolition and new construction solution, the once-only load consists of the environmental capital remaining and initial and demolition load of the new building.” So, sustainability is not only about how much energy is used during the operation phase, but also the energy used during construction and demolition are part of its sustainability. This is often revered to as the ‘cradle to grave’ environmental load. To determine the sustainability of a building, one can use a Life Cycle Assessment. According to Ortiz et al (2007), “life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology for evaluating the environmental load of processes and products (goods and services) during their life cycle from cradle to grave. LCA has been used in the building sector since 1990 and is an important tool for assessing buildings.” Three phases The process of an LCA can be divided into three phases: “Firstly, defining goal and scope involves defining purpose, audiences and system boundaries. Secondly, the life cycle inventory (LCI) involves collecting data for each unit process regarding all relevant inputs and outputs of energy and mass Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

23

Chapter 3: Theoretical background flow, as well as data on emissions to air, water and land. This phase includes calculating both the material and the energy input and output of a building system. Thirdly, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase evaluates potential environmental impacts and estimates the resources used in the modelled system. This phase consists of three mandatory elements: selection of impact categories,

assignment

of

LCI

results

(classifications)

and

modelling

category

indicators

(characterization).” (Ortiz et al, 2007) According to Ortiz et al (2007), there are roughly two kinds of LCA methods: problem-oriented methods (mid-points) and damage-oriented methods (end points). “The mid-points approach involves the environmental impacts associated with climate change, acidification, eutrophication, potential photochemical ozone creation and human toxicity. The end points approach classifies flows into various environmental themes, modelling the damage each theme causes to human beings, natural environment and resources.” Life Cycle Costing (LCC) “Life cycle costing looks at costs and benefits over the life of a particular product, technology or system. LCA, in contrast, involves accounting for all upstream and downstream costs of a particular activity, and integrating them through a consistent application of financial discounting. The result – if data is available -- is a current “cradle to grave” inventory, impact assessment and interpretation (e.g., a net present value estimate)” (Kats, 2003). According to Lützkendorf and Lorenz (2005) LCC calculations usually consist of the following elements: •

Initial capital cost for design and construction or acquisition

•

Management and operating costs

•

Costs for maintenance and renovation

•

Costs incurred of benefited from the building’s disposal

Developers and project managers increasingly use LCA and LCC tools to calculate what effects sustainability measures have on the environmental load, but also to calculate financial effects. During the initiative phase, feasibility studies are executed to determine the financial feasibility of a project. There is a common prejudice, that sustainability is always more expensive than traditional. In a LCC analysis, not only the costs of extra investments, but also the benefits on the longer term can be calculated. Experienced architects, such as e.g. Thomas Rau, state that sustainability doesn’t have to cost more than traditional construction, as long as sustainability is implemented in the design right from the beginning. The purpose of assessment tools Kaatz (2006) discusses the purpose of assessment tools: “Sustainable construction requires more than what green building assessment methods and technologies were conceived to do or can presently offer. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

24

Chapter 3: Theoretical background It challenges the very basis of decision-making, which occurs during the building process, so that decisions taken by building stakeholders reflect sustainability values and principles. Consequently, sustainable building assessment methods are faced with significant expectations and demands resulting from the imperative within sustainable development to transform practices and processes in construction.” And “Environmental Assessment and the Process Protocol are proposed as valuable sources of new and innovative thinking that can contribute to the enhancement of building sustainability assessment practice. Environmental Assessment provides insights on addressing sustainability at a project level. Moreover, it reveals the potential value and benefits of stakeholder participation for building assessment. The Process Protocol, as an integrative, normative and cognitive framework, offers a structured way of communicating a shared understanding of the building process. Hence, it provides a template for delineating a process of building assessment that is integrated into the project cycle.” Kaatz distinguishes environmental assessment tools from a process protocol and pleas that both are necessary for a successful sustainable construction project. Besides LCA and LCC tools, a third category exists, which is called Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). POE can be characterized as (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005): •

Design aid: as a means of improving building procurement, particularly through feed-forward’ into briefing

•

Management aid: as a ‘feedback’ method for measuring building performance, particularly in relation to organizational efficiency and business productivity.

•

Benchmarking aid for sustainable development: for measuring progress in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption of the built environment

3.1.2 Development process of sustainable offices In this paragraph the development process to create sustainable offices is discussed (see appendix II for a more extensive overview). The development process of sustainable offices is in essence comparable to that of conventional offices, in that the process can be divided into the same phases in time. These phases are: 1. Area development 2. Initiative 3. Land Acquisition 4. Plan development 5. Design 6. Tendering 7. Contracting and construction 8. Rent or sale 9. Maintenance and operation 10. Redevelopment or destruction Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

25

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Decision making stage Although the process steps are the same, the activities in each of these phases can be very different. Because of the limited scope of this research, it is focussed on the first five phases of the development process. This part of the process is the decision making stage, and is therefore very interesting to observe in order to identify the most important differences between traditional and sustainable office development. Stakeholders In the development of sustainable offices many different stakeholders are involved. The main stakeholders are the users, designers, developers, investors, constructors and local authorities. These stakeholders are therefore the most important parties in this research. Other stakeholders, like advisors, certifiers, educators, researchers, owner associations, insurers, and banks are not explicitly used in the analysis. Users Buildings are always constructed to fulfil a certain housing need of the user. In the case of offices, the user wants to have a building in which he can execute his core business as well as possible. Offices are used by corporations mainly for processing information (Van den Dobbelsteen et al, 2004). The office is thus used by companies to provide a productive, healthy and comfortable working place for its employees. Project developers The development of real estate is often initiated and coordinated by the project developer. Their purpose usually is to make financial profit from the process of development (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 12) “Project developers operate primarily as either traders or investors. Most small companies have to trade, that is to sell the properties they develop. Many larger public quoted development companies (merchant developers) have preferred to trade developments to capitalise on rising rents and values.” “Property companies formulate their policy according to the interest and expertise of the company and their perception of the prevailing market conditions. There is a trend visible that an increasing number of developers are aiming at the market of sustainable offices.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 13) Investors Investors play an important role if developers don’t use their own resources. Investors are often pension funds or insurance companies, but also banks or other financial institutions can be investors. Developing real estate requires two types of money: short-term (development finance) to cover the costs during the development process; and long-term (funding) to cover the cost of holding the completed development as an investment. (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008)

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

26

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Both the short-term and the long-term finance are sometimes paid by ‘forward-funding’. This means the investor agrees to purchase the development on completion whilst providing all the finance in the interim. Financers can also choose to act as the developer themselves, which means that they develop for their own portfolio. ING Real Estate and Triodos Real Estate Development are examples of this kind of companies. Figure 3.2: Stakeholders in the real estate development industry (WBCSD, 2007)

Designers In the design process different stakeholders are involved. The main designer is usually the architect. Other advisors, such as structural engineers, physical engineers and technical engineers also have important roles to play. Key characteristic of sustainable office design processes is the need for cooperation between the different design parties to make an integral design. Very few companies do have all the expertise in house, making collaboration necessary. Contractors Some contractors in the UK have adopted CSR and are committed to reducing environmental impact and adopting social responsibility in their business operations (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008). Dutch contractors also are starting to adopt sustainability policies. Examples are Dura Vermeer and Royal BAM Group who are partners in the Dutch Green Building Council. Local Government The local government is the party that makes the area development plans and provides building permits. Some governments, like Almere, have specific sustainability ambitions in the development areas.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

27

Chapter 3: Theoretical background

3.1.3 Drivers for sustainable office development Sustainability is a hot item in today’s society and in the construction and real estate industry in particular. There are different trends and drivers that are cause or effect of this situation. In this paragraph the ecological, political, economical, technological and social drivers will be discussed. Ecological drivers In May 2006, Al Gore published his movie “An inconvenient truth”. In this movie the consequences of global warming on the climate were presented in a very dramatic way. Although there is still no complete consensus among scientists, the general opinion about global warming shifted from ignoring to alarming. Figure 3.3: Energy demand in the EU 2

35-40% of the CO emission in Europe is caused by the built environment. The sector therefore has large opportunities to 2

reduce the amount of CO emission. Another ecological problem is small dust. Especially in densely populated areas, such as the Dutch ‘Randstad’ area, fine dust is a hazard for public health. Political drivers EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) In the EPBD, the Energy Performance Building Directive of the European Union a number of requirements

are

mentioned

which

are

to

be

implemented

by

the

Member

states

(www.buildingsplatform.org): •

the general framework for a calculation methodology of the integrated energy performance of buildings;

•

the application of minimum requirements on the energy performance of new buildings;

•

the application of minimum requirements on the energy performance of large existing buildings that are subject to major renovation;

•

energy performance certification of buildings;

This energy label provides information on how much energy the building uses for heating, hot water, lighting, ventilation and cooling. The performance is indicated by an energy-index (EI) and a standardised energy class (A – G). The EPDB was published in January 2003 and its overall objective is to promote the improvement of energy performance of buildings within the Community taking into account outdoor climate and local conditions, as well as indoor climate requirements and cost-effectiveness. Final thesis report A.J.G. Vink

28

Chapter 3: Theoretical background This directive had to be implemented by the EU member states in 2006. By labelling buildings, a Building Energy Rating will result. This rating then shows the relative performance of buildings in the existing building stock. EPC norms EPC stands for the Energy Performance Coefficient of buildings. The current norm in the Netherlands for office buildings is 1.5, and from January 2009 the norm will be 1.1. PeGO The PeGO platform aims to support a continuously innovating industry by improving collaboration and the sharing of knowledge of important companies. The goal is from 2015 a yearly reduction of 45% in energy use in all newly built buildings. From 2020 the goal is a 60% energy reduction in new buildings and 45% in renovation projects. (www.senternovem.nl/energietransitiego)

Sustainable purchasing of Dutch government The Dutch government is striving to have a 100% sustainable purchasing policy in place in 2010 (Senter Novem). The exact criteria are yet being determined, but this plan shows a high ambition of the national government and the criteria also apply to the building sector. Economical drivers The economical situation in Europe is an important driver of sustainable development. Rising energy prices, material prices and construction costs all influence decision makers. The Jones Lang LaSalle research ‘Global trends in sustainable real estate (2008) reports that 70% of office space users indicate that sustainable housing is an urgent issue. Conclusions of the report are: 1. Sustainability is not for tomorrow’s agenda. It is a critical Corporate Real Estate issue right here, right now. 2. Under normal circumstances corporate occupiers accept that sustainable real estate costs more to deliver and are prepared to pay a premium. However, under the current economic downturn they seem less willing to pay this premium. 3. A huge gap exists between the demand and supply of green offices. The Jones Lang LaSalle survey shows that 70% of the interviewed companies want to occupy green offices within five years. This number implies a demand of 20 million m2 floor space in sustainable offices. Other findings were: “Some early findings regarding the impact of sustainable space on employee health, productivity and job satisfaction are compelling. The young knowledge worker talent, in especially short supply, is particularly keen on environmental issues and corporate social responsibility”

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

29

Chapter 3: Theoretical background And: “As we enter 2008 one thing is for certain – the green wave of momentum will not dissipate, meaning that sustainability will be at the forefront of occupier’s real estate decision making.” Wilkinson and Reed (2008) conclude: “There is a growing awareness of the potential benefits for banks in integrating sustainability into their business strategy. The UK-based HSBC bank has adopted environment-related policies and procedures. The list includes guidelines on dangerous chemicals, freshwater, infrastructure and forest products. As banks globalise, they have to consider the broader context of sustainability.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008) Figure 3.4: Average cost premium of LEED certified buildings

A research of the University of Maastricht shows interesting results on the value of sustainable buildings; not only are the rents 2% higher, but they also have a more stable occupancy rate, which results in a 6-9% advantage for the landlord/ investor. The selling price of the property is even 16% higher, because the risk of obsolescence is lower. (Gossink, 2008)

Figure 3.4 shows the result of a study among green offices and schools in the USA. It shows the average cost premium of the initial costs of these buildings. Technological drivers There are a great number of technological drivers, which contribute to the development of sustainable buildings. New technological innovations are essential for sustainable office development. Technological innovations in construction materials and building systems Suppliers of building materials are continuously improving their products. The demand for sustainable materials and building parts stimulates these innovations. Not only the innovation of new products, but also the improvement of existing techniques and products is beneficial, because prices of sustainable materials are driven down. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) tools LCC is a technique that integrates the capital expenditure committed to a project with the operational costs involved in operating and maintaining the building. By calculating the Life Cycle Costs of a building, the total costs of ownership become clear. These costs can then be considered in design choices.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

30

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Environmental Assessment Tools Globalisation and the rise of the trans-national businesses have combined with an increased awareness of the environment. This has generated demand for ‘international’ systems of measuring the environmental performance of materials, buildings and the wider built environment (Saunders, 2008). These tools enable benchmarks to be set, which the market recognises and acknowledges. An overview on existing EA tools is provided in appendix III. Process innovations: integral designing Not only product innovation is driving sustainable development, also process innovations are important drivers. To successfully design a sustainable building, integral designing appears to be a necessary approach. Stakeholders like designers, contractors and advisors are more and more involved in the early stages of the project to collaborate in an integral design process. Social drivers Market demand from end-users The social trend toward sustainable consumption is driving the development of sustainable buildings. “There has been a significant change in attitudes towards sustainability since the early 2000s. Property developers need to keep abreast of social and cultural trends, especially relating to sustainability, to ensure that their properties meet market requirements, reduce environmental impacts and are future-proofed to some extent. Also, increasing attention to Corporate Social Responsibility has driven a move towards environmentally friendly products and services.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 325) Many internationals have adopted a CSR policy. Types of CSR policies are ethical, altruistic and strategic CSR. Wilkinson and Reed (2008) used the following definitions: “Ethical CSR is the moral, mandatory fulfilment of a corporation’s economic, legal and ethical responsibilities, even if the business might not appear to benefit. Altruistic CSR might be the funding of school or donations to drug and alcohol programmes. Strategic CSR is defined as caring, corporate, community services that accomplish strategic business goals. Corporations contribute not only because it is morally right but also because it is in their best financial interests to do so, hence fulfilling their duties to stakeholders [Friedman and Miles, 2001]” The increasing attention to CSR from consumers coincides with the increasing number of large corporations to develop a CSR policy. This also means that decisions on their housing are more and more influenced by sustainability considerations. A recent study of corporate occupiers by Jones Lang LaSalle has discovered that many tenants would be willing to pay higher rental costs to occupy a ‘green’ building with a higher level of energy efficiency. (Jones Lang LaSalle, BER, 2008)

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

31

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Market initiatives st

On 1 June 2008, the Dutch Green Building Council was founded. The DGBC has four goals: 1. To make sustainable construction measurable 2. To make sustainable buildings more visible 3. To increase knowledge by sharing knowledge 4. To make sustainable construction common property The most important goal is to create a standard Dutch assessment tool which is acknowledged by both the governmental as market parties. The DGBC is currently working to adapt and translate the British BREEAM into a Dutch version (www.dgbc.nl) Marketing on sustainability credentials Increasingly, property developers are being promoted to the market and sold on their sustainability credentials. Commercial buildings such as offices are promoted on the basis of their BREEAM assessment ratings. (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008) Conclusion From the analysis of the current trends can be concluded, that there are drivers for both the demand for sustainable buildings as the supply. Lützkendorf and Lorenz identify a ‘communication gap’ (see figure 3.5) which causes the lack of implementation in the real estate industry. The examples used in their article are typical for the UK situation, but in the Netherlands comparable examples are known. Figure 3.5: Trends for sustainable development in property and construction (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005)

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

32

Chapter 3: Theoretical background

3.1.4 Barriers for sustainable office development Although there are many drivers of sustainable office development, there are also barriers. In this paragraph the economical, political, technological and social barriers are described. Economical barriers The extra investment, which is needed to build sustainable offices, is an important barrier. Although there are developers, investors and users who choose to ‘go green’, the majority is not yet convinced. Developers are not all convinced of retaining higher investments by higher selling price or rent. Investors use a too short investment time frame, so that investments in sustainable measures are not being earned back. Additionally, traditional service contracts do not give incentives for investors to invest in energy efficiency, because they don’t profit from a lower energy bill. Here the unbalance between investments and revenues play an important role. The initial higher investments are not earned back because the revenues of the cheaper operations and maintenance are attributed to the tenants. “For many investors the whole issue of energy efficiency rating is a question for later, when the directive has been fully implemented. However, many industry spokespeople have suggested that a value differential will happen and that property investors need to review the rate of their portfolio obsolescence accordingly. It is thought that the real impact of having a poor energy efficient building will only be realised when it comes to the transfer of the asset through sale or leasing.” (Jones Lang LaSalle, BER, 2008) Political barriers One of the major barriers is the long term sustainability policy of the national government. In the last decades, the policy has been very instable. The provision of subsidies to apply sustainable energy sources has changed every few years. This policy results in cautious developers, who are not certain of governmental support at the moment they need it. Technological barriers Lack of a standard measurement tool for sustainability Because there is no standard tool to measure the sustainability of a building, there are no benchmarks and innovation is not stimulated. The DGBC is working on the development of this standard. Social barriers Lack of common definition Sustainability is a complex concept and there is no common definition of sustainable offices. Wrong perception of financial feasibility Numerous examples have proven that sustainable buildings can be financially feasible. However, in the perception of many people, sustainability is associated with ‘expensive’ and ‘less feasible’. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

33

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Slow rate of adoption of innovations in construction sector The application of sustainable materials in new buildings is not yet standard. The strong traditions and the large size of the construction sector cause a slow rate of the adoption of innovations, which is a large barrier for sustainable real estate development. Non-innovative companies resist against the change because of their lacking experience and fear for market-share loss. Lack of experience The lack of experience among stakeholders causes increasing development time and effort. Especially in project with time pressure sustainability is therefore not an important issue. Wrong use of measurement tools is related to this lacking experience. Sustainability is considered too late in the design process, when adaptations to the design are not possible anymore Lack of leadership When asked about their responsibility in driving change, very few decision-makers saw their task as leading the move to sustainable building (see Figure 15). The answers suggest some willingness to adopt new practices, but also hint at the conservatism for which the building industry is renowned. (WBCSD, 2007) Organizational barriers Figure 3.6: Players and practices in the building market (WBCSD, 2007)

Fragmented development process As figure 3.6 shows, the building market is very fragmented. This causes difficulties when changes need to be implemented in the sector (WBCSD, 2007). Users are not involved in design process Users are not always involved in the design process. Therefore, there is a lack of support and the design is not sufficiently custom-made (WBCSD, 2007). Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

34

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Lack of feedback from users towards developer Because the developer is not involved in operational phase, feedback of users is not returned to the developer (WBCSD, 2007). Lack of A-Z responsibility No single party is responsible for a building from the first beginning until the end of its life-cycle. In the development process, developers often pass the responsibility of meeting energy efficient guidelines to the architect to be dealt with at the design stage (Jones Lang LaSalle, BER, 2008). Corporations like TNT change the rule of the game by asking for sustainable offices and committing themselves to a rental period of considerable length (10 yrs). In the research ‘Valkuilen bij procesinnovatie’ (Poel et al, 2007) the following organizational problems are mentioned. These are possible problems, but are not necessarily the case in every project. 1. There is no consensus on the sustainability ambitions among stakeholders. 2. The client is not convinced on the advantages of a sustainable building 3. The client does not focus on the total costs of ownership, but on the construction costs. 4. Sustainability measures are the first aspects to cut in case of low budget. 5. There is no quality guarantee and quality control of the energy concept 6. Increased development costs 7. Willingness to invest in low operating costs is low 8. Lacking laws and norms for the implementation of sustainability goals in the process of permit provision by local governments. Conclusion In this paragraph, the theory and practice of sustainable office development has been the subject. The scope of this research has been explored by discussing the most important sustainability aspects, the development process and the drivers and barriers of sustainable office development. In the next paragraph, the concept of project success factors is the subject.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

35

Chapter 3: Theoretical background

3.2 Project Success Factors 3.2.1 Project success The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) defines a project as: “…a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product of service. Temporary means that every project has a definite end. Unique means that the product or service is different in some distinguishing way from all similar products or services.” Other distinctive features of a project include: •

A start and finish

•

A life-cycle

•

A budget with an associated cash-flow

•

Activities that are essentially unique and non-repetitive

•

Use of resources, which may be from different departments or (sub)contractors and need coordinating

•

A single point of responsibility

•

Fast tracking

•

Team roles and relationships that are subject to change and need to be developed defined and established.

What is a successful project? There are different right answers to this question. “Traditionally, success is defined as the degree to which project goals and objectives are met.” (Chan, 2002) Westerveld (2003) defines project success as the satisfaction of all stakeholders. A more narrow view is simply the compliance with time, cost and quality (Westerveld, 2003). Research on project success shows, that it is impossible to generate a universal checklist of project success criteria suitable for all projects. (Westerveld, 2003) Success criteria The success criteria are the set of principles by which the judgement of success is made (Chan, 2002). And Lim and Mohammed (1999) state: “Since every stakeholder (the developer, contractor, users, the general public, and so on) will have different expectations on a project, their criteria of project success will differ also.” Time, cost, quality, performance and safety of completion have been accepted as the most widely used criteria to measure the micro viewpoint project success. In the macro viewpoint, not only completion but also satisfaction is a criterion for success. (Lim and Mohamed, 1999) Chan (2002) describes a large number of criteria (see fig.3.7). The set of success criteria can be categorised in objective and subjective criteria. Objective criteria are: time and cost, profitability, and health and safety.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

36

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Subjective criteria are: quality, technical performance, functionality, satisfaction, completion, productivity/efficiency, absence of conflicts, professional image, aesthetics, educational, social & professional aspects, and environmental sustainability. Fig. 3.7: Criteria for project success (Chan, 2002)

3.2.2 Critical success factors To achieve success, the formulated success criteria must be achieved. Critical success factors (CSFs) are factors that have major influence on the achievement of these criteria. CSFs are defined by Fortune and White (2006) as:

•

Areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management.

•

The areas in which good performance is necessary to ensure attainment of goals.

So, the difference between success factors and success criteria is that: “Criteria are the set of principles or standards by which judgement is made; whereas factors are the set of circumstances, facts, or influences which contribute to the result.” (Lim & Mohamed, 1999) Existing literature on the success factors of projects can be categorised in two groups. The first group aims to identify the success factors of a project and to arrange these factors in a model. Examples are the articles of Fortune & White (2006), Belassi & Tukel (1996), Lim & Mohamed (1999), Kim, D. Y. et al., 2008, and Westerveld (2003). The second group aims to identify the critical success factors and rank or rate them on the level of importance. Examples: Black et al, (2000), Jha & Iyer (2007), Toor & Ogunlana (2007). Criticism on the critical success factor approach Fortune and White (2006) identified three major criticisms on the critical success factors approach. The first is the lack of agreement between the many authors of scientific publications on CSF’s. The second criticism is that “the inter-relationships between factors are at least as important as the individual factors but the CSF approach does not provide a mechanism for taking account of these Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

37

Chapter 3: Theoretical background inter-relationships.” The third criticism is that “the factor approach tends to view implementation as a static process instead of a dynamic phenomenon, and ignores the potential for a factor to have varying levels of importance at different stages of the implementation process.” Formal Systems Model The article of Fortune and White (2006) reviews 63 publications on critical success factors. In their article they present the Formal Systems Model as a framing device for the 23 most cited success factors in the reviewed literature. This model aims at providing insight in the inter-relationships between factors and the relative importance at different stages of the project. (See figure 3.8) Fortune and White describe the model: “The formal system at the heart of the model comprises a decision-making subsystem, a performance monitoring subsystem and a set of subsystems and elements which carry out the tasks of the system and thus effect its transformations by converting inputs into outputs. The decision-making subsystem manages the system. It is responsible for decisions about how the purposes of the system are to be achieved such as which transformations are to be carried out and by what means and for providing the resources to enable this to happen. It makes known its expectations to the subsystems and components that carry out the system’s transformations and to the performance monitoring subsystem.” …“The other features of the model include: a continuous purpose or mission that gives rise to expectations; a degree of connectivity between the components; an environment with which the system interacts; boundaries separating the system from its wider system and the wider system from the environment; resources; and some guarantee of continuity.” (Fortune & White, 2006) “The Formal Systems Model (FSM) has been used over a long period of time to investigate failures”. In these investigations a number of common failures are revealed (Fortune&White, 2006): 1. Deficiencies in the apparent organizational structure of the system, such as a lack of performance-measuring subsystem or a control/decision-making subsystem. 2. No clear statements of purpose supplied in a comprehensible form to the system from the wider system. 3. Lack of an effective means of communication between the various subsystems. 4. Not enough consideration given to the influence of the environment, and insufficient resources to cope with those environmental disturbances that were foreseen.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

38

Chapter 3: Theoretical background Fig. 3.8: Formal Systems Model (Fortune and White, 2006)

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

39

Chapter 3: Theoretical background

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

40

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 4.1 Research design In this chapter, the research methodology is described (see fig.4.1). Figure 4.1: Research design

Phase 1: Explorative desk research and expert interviews In the first phase a desk research is performed to explore the concepts of ‘sustainable offices’, the ‘development process of offices’, and ‘success factors of construction projects’. Expert interviews with ARCADIS employees also contributed to the concept exploration. Phase 2: Case studies To identify the possible success factors of sustainable office development, expert interviews have been organised with employees of front runner companies in the field of sustainable office development: ING Real Estate, OVG projectontwikkeling and Triodos Bank. After the expert interviews six project case studies are conducted to determine which success factors can be found in the present practice of sustainable office development. Phase 3: Model design The concept of project success factors has been explored by a desk research. Different theories from the field of project management have been compared with the practice of sustainable office development. Based on the model, found in the article “Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model” by Fortune & White (2006), a model was constructed in which the success factors found in the desk research, expert interviews and case studies were included.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

41

Chapter 4: Research Methodology Phase 4: Online survey The model is validated and the key success factors are determined by means of an online survey among 74 experienced real estate professionals.

4.2 Phase 1: Explorative desk research and expert interviews Desk research The first phase was an explorative desk research on the concepts of sustainable real estate development and project success factors. Search engines like Web of Science, Google Scholar, Science Direct were used with search terms success factors, (construction) (project) (success factors), project success, (sustainable) real estate development, sustainability. Many articles are found in journals like Building Research and Information, Construction Management and Economics, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Building and Environment, and Journal of Green Building. Besides this scientific literature also many articles in professional journals and news papers are used. The goal of this explorative research was to develop a clear view on the current literature on sustainable office development. Expert interviews The first three expert interviews were conducted in the problem definition phase and were primarily aimed to identify the problems ARCADIS faces in respect to the development of sustainable buildings. These interviews were used to formulate the problem definition, research goal and research questions. Expert interviews have been conducted with the following ARCADIS employees: •

Mr. Peter Schroote, director Advies en Management, ARCADIS Buildings

•

Mrs. Marjolijn Versteegte, director Stedenbouw en Architectuur, ARCADIS Buildings

•

Mr. Paul Brouns, department binnenmilieu en energie, ARCADIS Buildings

•

Mr. Douwe van Rees, Business Development Manager Sustainability, ARCADIS Buildings

•

Mr. Gerben Smit, team leader Advies en Management, ARCADIS Buildings th

The result of this phase was the research proposal, which was approved on 20 June 2008. Concurrently to my research Maarten Danser, a student from Delft University of Technology, Master track Real Estate and Housing, has been working on a fairly similar research. Danser examines the causes and solutions of the phenomenon of degrading sustainability ambitions during the development process of zero-energy buildings. The goal of his research is also to give recommendations to improve the development process. The interviews he conducted proved useful to validate the case studies and as input in the discussion.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

42

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

4.3 Phase 2: Case studies The goal of the second phase of the research was to identify the possible success factors of sustainable office development. Secondly, it is aimed at providing insight in the differences between traditional and sustainable office development. The reasons to choose for this research method are the limited number of possible research subjects and the many factors involved. At this point it was not feasible to conduct a quantitative research, which is needed for the identification of critical success factors. I found several front runner companies willing to cooperate in this case study research.

4.3.1 Companies Three companies have been selected for the identification of success factors in their companies and projects (see table 4.1). These interviews were open interviews structured by a topic list. Each of the interviews was used to get insight in the success factors of these companies. The minutes of these interviews can be found in appendix VI. Table 4.1: Company cases

Cases

Experts

Triodos Real Estate Development

Drs. Ing. B. Krikke, Director

ING Real Estate OVG projectontwikkeling

Ing. C.A. Hersbach, Director Mrs. M. de Grooth, Project Manager Ir. M.A.P. Huysmans, Director Sustainability

Selection of cases These cases have been selected, because these companies are the major front runner companies in the Netherlands, concerning the development of sustainable offices, based on their reputation and current projects. Therefore, it may be assumed that they are experts in this field and have knowledge on the success factors to realize sustainable offices. Selection of experts In the selection of informants I used the following criteria: The informant must be •

able to obtain as much information as possible on the subject

•

involved in the decision-making process of sustainable office development projects

•

able and willing to transfer his knowledge on the subject

•

able to provide objective information

Three of the four experts are directors of their companies, so they have good access to information. Because they were all willing to cooperate it can be concluded that they are all interested in the subject. Whether they are able to provide objective information is questionable. However, because experts of different companies are interviewed, the data from the case studies can be compared to each other and in case of deviant responses, it was possible to ignore the data or find consensus. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

43

Chapter 4: Research Methodology Data collection Because the interviews took place right in the beginning of the research, there was no clear structure or model identified to base a question list on. Therefore, a topic list was used to make sure the most important subjects were covered in the interviews. The results of these interviews can be found in chapter 5.1 and appendix VI.

4.3.2 Projects Six projects have been selected for the identification of success factors (see table 4.2). Table 4.2: Project cases

Cases

Experts

TNT

Drs. Ing. B. Krikke, Director Triodos RED

Kraanspoor

Mrs. M. de Grooth, Project Manager ING RE

Akzo Nobel

Mrs. M. de Grooth, Project Manager ING RE

Cross Towers

Mrs. M. de Grooth, Project Manager ING RE

Baltimore

Mrs. M. de Grooth, Project Manager ING RE

Bussumse Watertoren

Ir. B. Custers, VOCUS architecten bna

Selection of cases For the selection of cases, different considerations have been of importance. Firstly, the projects had to comply with the set definition of sustainability and the scope of the research. The cases TNT and Bussumse Watertoren have a significantly higher sustainability ambition then the other (ING RE) projects. The second consideration was the accessibility of information. The interviewed experts were all very cooperative to provide the requested information. All but the Bussumse Watertoren are newly built projects, in which all stakeholders of the circle of blame are involved. The selected cases all meet the criteria of the Senter Novem definition of sustainability, cited in paragraph 3.1.1. Selection of experts For the collection of relevant data, it was important that the interviewed experts had access to the project data. The TNT expert Mr. B. Krikke is the director of Triodos RED, and has therefore good access to the relevant data. The ING Project Manager Mrs. De Grooth was involved in two of the four selected projects, and called in the help of her colleagues to collect the data on the other projects. As for the ‘Bussumse Watertoren’ project, the director of the initiating architecture company provided the case study data, so it may be expected that this expert also has good access to the relevant information.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

44

Chapter 4: Research Methodology Data collection To collect data on the project cases, a case study protocol (appendix V) was composed. This protocol was used as a question list which was sent to the experts by e-mail in advance. In five of the six cases, a face-to-face meeting was organized to discuss the question list and record the data on the development process. In the ‘Bussumse Watertoren’ case, the question list was answered by e-mail only. Case study protocol: question list The question list is based on the ten phases of the development process, as described in paragraph 3.1.2. By using this question list, I intended to obtain the information as objectively as possible on the undertaken steps in the development process. Registration and arrangement of data The data from the case studies is registered in a report. In appendix VIII the results of this data collection can be found.

4.3.3 Data analysis case studies The data analysis of this multiple case study research has been executed in an iterative process. In the first analysis, the data from the desk research and three company case studies are analysed. This analysis has been executed by summarising the data from the interviews in summary data tables. After the company case studies, the second round of case studies has been conducted. The data from these project cases has been analysed, again by using a summary table. After the analysis of both types of case studies, a list of success factors was created. This list is presented in tables 5.1 and 5.2. Because of the exploring and describing goal of the research, this research strategy was suitable. To validate the results from the data analysis, the summary tables were presented to my counsellors.

4.4 Phase 3: Design model After this case study research I did a comparison between the found results in practice and the existing literature on success factors. Chapter 5.1 presents the results of this literature review. The result of this phase is the model depicted in figure 5.1.

4.5 Phase 4: Survey In the final phase of this research, the model is validated by a survey among experienced professionals, concluding in a rating of the success factors. The reason why this survey is conducted is that a survey is relatively fast, easy and cheap with the possibility to reach a large number of people. Disadvantages of surveys are that the reliability of the answers of respondents is relatively low, the answers are not always valid, and there is often a small response. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

45

Chapter 4: Research Methodology Population and sample The population consists of professionals in the Dutch construction and real estate industry, who are interested in, or have experience with the development of sustainable offices. The people who were invited all visited at least one of two congresses on sustainability; ‘De kwaliteit van duurzaamheid’ on Provada 2008 or ‘VDCM 2008; Naar een energieleverende gebouwde omgeving’ on TU/e. Research instrument: online survey The research instrument was an online survey (see appendix IX), produced by using the free web tool surveygizmo.com. The question formulating is uniform for all questions. I decided to measure only one variable per factor, because respondents have limited time and interest in cooperating in an online survey. Because the survey functioned as a validation of the case study research, all of the 23 success factors were included in the survey. The success factor model was added to the survey, to clarify the type of factors and their relation. Also, the duration and progress are mentioned explicitly. On the title page, a short introduction on the subject and a list of definitions is included to create a common understanding of the expected answers. The questions are all closed questions and they are grouped by subject. The questions are formulated as concrete, measurable, answerable and neutral as possible. The answer alternatives for all questions on the success factors were scaled 1 to 5, 1 meaning no influence and 5 meaning very high influence. Example of question (in Dutch): “Hoe groot is de invloed van de factor ‘commitment aan duurzaamheid’ op het projectsucces?” (1) Geen invloed – (2) Beperkt – (3) Matig – (4) Groot – (5) Zeer groot – (6) Geen mening Data collection and preparation The respondents were personally invited by an e-mail. There was also a call up in the newsletter of the Dutch Green Building Council. One week after the invitation a reminder was send. Before the survey was send, a number of tests were performed to assure the quality of the survey itself and the distribution email. The survey was tested by counsellors and colleagues. The personal invitation email was send using the program Groupmail 5. The data was collected in a database of surveygizmo.com. After the close-down of the survey, the date was exported to excel and then imported in SPSS. Data analysis The analysis of the collected data consisted of three steps. The first step was a comparison of the modes and means of the variables. Then the respondents were categorised in two different groups; group 1 consisted of project developers and builders, and group 2 of advisors and designers. In the second step the groups 1 and 2 were analysed separately. By means of a spearman’s correlation test the correlation between the 23 variables was analysed. In the third step, all the variables that had a correlation (p=0.01) with one or more variables in at least one of the two groups were included in a principal components analysis (PCA). The goal of this factor analysis is to identify latent variables with which a pattern of variance in a set of items and observations can be explained (Pallant, 2007).

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

46

Chapter 5: Results

Chapter 5: Results In this chapter, the results of the research are presented. Paragraph 5.1 shows the results of the case study research, the model is presented in paragraph 5.2 and paragraph 5.3 shows the survey results.

5.1 Results case study research Companies In the first round of case studies, three experts have been interviewed to get an idea of their vision on the success factors, barriers, and necessary changes in the development of sustainable offices. In this paragraph, the results from these case studies are presented, by listing the data collected in the interviews. This data is then structured in table 5.1, which shows the most frequently mentioned success factors. Table 5.1: summary table 1

Company

Success factors mentioned

ING

Top management support/ambition Personal commitment to sustainability Sustainability ambitions client Willingness client to invest in sustainability

Triodos

Personal commitment to sustainability Focus on long term value creation Sustainability starts in area development Integral vision from the developer Involve client actively in design process Involve contractor in design process

OVG

Personal commitment to sustainability Integral designing Internal knowledge development Using sustainability tools Minimum sustainability requirements government Developer is involved in operational phase Focus on long term value creation Product innovation of suppliers Competition based on sustainability performance Positive image of sustainability

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

47

Chapter 5: Results Projects For a better understanding of the success factors a total number of six projects have been studied. In appendix VIII the data from these case studies can be found. In the interviews, the question list (appendix V) was used to get an objective view on the undertaken steps in the development process. In table 5.2 the success factors mentioned in these projects are summarized. Table 5.2: Summary table 2

Projects

Success factors mentioned

TNT

Skills PM

(Triodos/OVG)

Investor is willing to invest in sustainability measures Developer is committed to project in operational phase Selection of competent and experienced design partners Involvement of user in design process Flexibility of the client in the design process Innovative tenant contracting Use of sustainability tools

Kraanspoor

Focus on optimising user value

(ING RE)

Commitment to sustainability from developer and architect Early involvement design partners in design process Subsidies

Cross Towers

Commitment to sustainability from developer

(ING RE)

Selection of competent and experienced design partners Early involvement design partners in design process Involvement of user in design process Support from municipality Subsidies

Akzo Nobel

Commitment to sustainability from developer

(ING RE)

Selection of competent and experienced design partners Early involvement design partners in design process High sustainability ambitions user Support from municipality Involvement of user in design process Willingness user to invest in sustainability Clearly defined sustainability goals

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

48

Chapter 5: Results

5.2 Model The model is based on the model of Fortune and White (2006), called the ‘Formal Systems Model’ (see chapter 3.2.2). The model identifies success factors on three levels; environmental factors, stakeholder factors, and project factors. In this paragraph, first the different success factors and the relations between the factors will be explained. Figure 5.1: Success factors model

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

49

Chapter 5: Results

Level 1: Project factors The first level of success factors is the level of the project. These factors are controllable by the project manager. The factors are categorised in five groups: project characteristics, project management, design team, end-user and contracting. The factors are listed in these groups and are clarified by the bulleted additional comments. Project characteristics 1. Commitment of the involved persons to sustainability •

A committed project manager or project champion will generate momentum and goodwill with the involved project partners and stakeholders.

•

Team members committed to sustainability are more willing to cooperate and better able to cope with the increased complexity of a sustainable office development process.

2. Integral designing •

A sustainable office asks for an integral design process, in which all designing and advising stakeholders work together on an integral design.

3. Early involvement of all stakeholders in the project •

Users taking initiative in the development of their office, cooperating actively and being flexible to make important trade-offs during the entire development process contribute to a successful sustainable office development.

4. Focus on maximizing long term value •

Users can create their own incentive for sustainable office development, by focussing on the total costs of ownership of their office, instead of the costs of construction. Service costs are becoming an increasing part of the total costs, so savings on energy will reduce the total costs of ownership substantially.

5. Clearly defined sustainability goals •

SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Result oriented, Time) goals.

Project management 6. Use of life-cycle-costing (LCC) tools for calculating total costs of ownership. 7. Soft skills of the project manager: flexibility, adaptability •

Are necessary to cope with changing sustainability goals during the project.

Design team 8. Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc, GPR, and BREEAM) by design team •

Designers who are competent to use sustainability design tools like BREEAM can use these tools to create a feasible and sustainable office design.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

50

Chapter 5: Results End-user 9. High sustainability ambitions of the end-user •

A project champion will stimulate the design team to strive for more sustainable and innovative solutions.

10. Willingness of end-user to invest in sustainability measures •

To achieve high sustainability goals, financial investments are needed. Because the client can benefit from lower operational costs, there is an incentive to invest in sustainability measures.

11. Active involvement of end-user in development process •

Trade-offs need to be made during the development process. Not all sustainability aspects can be achieved. The trade-offs need to be based on the client’s wishes.

Contracting 12. Innovative financing schemes •

The financing of sustainable offices asks for an innovative approach. Because investments in sustainability are returned over many years, the investors should be involved with the project during a longer period than usual.

•

With a cooperating investor early in the development process, the design can be adapted to optimize the long term value of the building. The investor can finance investments in sustainability measures, which will be earned back in time.

13. Developer takes responsibility for exploitation •

Contracts in which the operator and maintainer are stimulated to reduce the costs of operation and maintenance contribute to the success of sustainable office development. Examples of these contracts are described in the Senter Novem publication ‘Dure plannen, goedkope oplossingen; adviseren over organisatie en financiering van energiebesparing in de utiliteitsbouw (2005).

Level 2: Stakeholder factors The second level of factors concerns the level of the main stakeholders involved in sustainable office development. These stakeholders are the project developer, user, designer, investor and local government. The factors apply on a super-project level, which means that they have influence on the organization and policy of the stakeholders and therefore indirectly on the project success. Developing stakeholders 14. Use of sustainability policy •

Project developers, investors, designers and contractors with a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or sustainability policy have specified their sustainability goals and ambitions. These companies are actively working on their sustainability performance, and are better able to contribute to the success of sustainable office development.

•

End-users with a CSR policy are demanding sustainable offices.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

51

Chapter 5: Results •

Sustainable offices are excellent investment objects for investors with a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) policy.

15. Internal knowledge development and education on sustainability •

Sustainability is a dynamic and complex concept. A continuous internal education and generation of knowledge is essential to keep up with the current developments.

•

Although the advantages may be very clear for professional developers, users often do not have a clear view on the advantages of a sustainable office. The developer should educate users on these advantages, so that users will be more willing to pay for sustainable offices.

•

Building experience and sharing knowledge

16. Focus on long term value creation •

Stakeholders focussing on short term profit are not beneficial. A focus on long term value creation is the key of sustainable office development.

•

Investors focussing on the long term quality and value of an office building are more willing to invest in sustainability measures, because these will increase this long term value.

Local Government 17. Minimum sustainability requirements in area development •

By defining minimum sustainability requirements in area development plans, developers are forced into sustainable office development. This is not being brought into practice yet, although many municipalities have stated high sustainability ambitions.

Level 3: Environmental Factors The environmental success factors are factors that have a positive influence on the project success, but they cannot be influenced or managed by the project manager. The environmental factors are categorised in four groups: political, economical, social, technological factors. Political factors 18. Sustainability ambitions and subsidies local/regional/national government •

The national government can support sustainable office development by setting high sustainability ambitions and providing subsidies.

•

The sustainable purchasing policy of the national government will be a large incentive for sustainable real estate development.

19. Stability in long term sustainability policy •

National sustainability policy should be stable and continuous on the longer term. This is beneficial to investments in sustainable office development.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

52

Chapter 5: Results Economical factors 20. Economic situation •

In times of prosperous economic situations there is more money to invest in sustainable office development.

21. Competition among companies based on sustainability performance •

Competition on sustainability performance will increase knowledge and performance of stakeholders.

Social factors 22. Public awareness/ attitude towards sustainability •

A positive public attitude towards sustainability increases the need and relevance for Corporate Social Responsibility; thus more attention for sustainable office development. It also increases demand for sustainable products.

Technological factors 23. Technological innovations in building parts •

Innovations in technology increase the performance of sustainable offices.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

53

Chapter 5: Results

5.3 Results survey Analysis 1: Response A total number of 278 professionals were invited for the survey by an invitation e-mail. After two weeks and one reminder 74 responses were collected. The group of 74 respondents consists of 23 project developers, 16 advisors, 9 designers, 8 contractors, 4 researchers, 3 local government employees, 2 end-users and 9 others (see figure 5.2). 61 of the 74 respondents (~80%) had experience with at least one sustainable building project. Figure 5.2: Respondent categories

Fig. 5.2 Respondent categories

num ber of respondents

25

23 Project developer

20

Advisor 16

Designer

15 10

Builder 9

5

9

8 4

Research/education Local government

3

2

Client Other

0 Total = 74

Analysis 1.1: Mode and mean The first step of the analysis was to look at the modus of the data per variable. The modus is the most frequently given score of each variable. In this analysis, all respondents are included. In table 5.3 the results of this analysis are presented. The majority of respondents consider these five variables as highly important: •

Variable 1: Commitment to sustainability by all involved persons

•

Variable 10: Willingness to invest in sustainability by the client

•

Variable 16: The focus on long term value creation by the stakeholders

•

Variable 3: Early involvement of all stakeholders in the project

•

Variable 5: Clearly defined sustainability goals in the project

Apparently, designing offices with low environmental impact asks for a highly committed project team and a client with high sustainability ambitious, which is willing to invest in sustainability. In addition, all stakeholders need to be involved in the project early in an integrative design process and they should be selected based on their focus on creating long term value. The project sustainability goals have to be defined clearly.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

54

Chapter 5: Results Analysis 1.2: Comparing groups Then, two groups are identified, namely group 1: project developers and builders, and group 2: advisors and designers. The decision to compare these groups has two main reasons. The first reason is that the two groups have different roles in the development process. Developers and builders have a direct responsibility for realising the project, whereas advisors and designers have an advising role. The second reason is that by combining these groups of respondents, two somewhat similar sized groups are created that are large enough to be analysed using statistical analysis methods. The results of this analysis can be found in appendix X. To test whether group 1 (developers/builders, n=31) answered differently then the group 2 (advisors/designers, n=25), a Mann-Whitney U-test was performed. From this test can be concluded, that only for the variables 17: ‘sustainability demands by the local government’ and 18: ‘high ambition of national government’ the answers of the two groups differed significantly. Among advisors and designers, the relevance of political influence is experienced as higher than among project developers and builders. Table 5.3: Modes and means all respondents Table 1: Modes and means of the value of different variables for sustainable office development, as assessed in the questionnaire; 1 = no influence, 5 = very high influence n

Variables 1 10 16 3 5 4 2 9 19 15 6 7 23 14 11 17 21 8 22 18 12 20 13

Commitment to sustainability Willingness user to invest in sustainability Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Early involvement of all stakeholders in project Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Focus on maximising long term value project Integral designing High sustainability ambitions Long term stability in sustainability politics Internal knowledge development by stakeholders Use of LCA tools by PM Soft skills PM Technological product innovations in building parts Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Active involvement of user in development process Minimum sustainability requirements by local government Market competition based on sustainability performance Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Image of sustainability among the public High sustainability ambitions of national and EU government Innovative financing constructions Economical situation Developer takes responsibility in operation phase

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

74 74 74 74 73 74 74 74 73 74 68 72 72 74 74 73 73 68 73 73 72 73 71

mode mean 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4

4,59 4,50 4,32 4,24 4,21 4,19 4,35 4,32 4,22 4,08 4,03 4,03 3,97 3,96 3,96 3,88 3,81 3,76 3,71 3,70 3,67 3,58 3,49

55

Chapter 5: Results Conclusion analysis 1 From this first analysis, the following five variables were the highest ranked in the total group of respondents. These are the ‘commitment to sustainability by the involved persons, ‘willingness to invest in sustainability by the user’, ‘focus on long term value creation by the stakeholders’, ‘early involvement of all stakeholders’, and ‘clearly defined sustainability goals’. The variables ‘economical situation’, ‘developer takes responsibility in operation phase’ and ‘innovative financing constructions’ are the least important variables. There are no significant differences between project developers/builders (group 1) and advisors/designers (group 2), except that group 2 considers the role of the government more important then group 1.

Analysis 2: Correlation To test the correlation between the measured variables, a spearman’s correlation test was performed. For all respondents a matrix with all 23 variables added with 3 ‘personal feature’ variables was created. In this correlation matrix a large number of correlations appeared (appendix X). However, the correlation factors are not very high. To get a better view on the correlation (p=0.01) between different variables, the two groups are analysed separately. The results of this analysis are: Group 1: variables 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23 Group 2: variables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19 Conclusion analysis 2 From the correlation analysis can be concluded, that the variables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 have significant correlation with one or more other variables in either one or both groups of respondents. In the third and last analysis, these variables are included in a principal components analysis.

Analysis 3: Factor analysis Inter-relationship of key success factors As stated in the article of Fortune and White (2006), the inter-relationship between success factors is just as important as the factors themselves. From the factor analysis, differences between the two groups in terms of the inter-relationship of the most important success factors can be identified. For a further comparison of groups 1 and 2 a principal components analysis (pca) was performed. The variables with a correlation (p=0.01) in at least one of these groups were included in the analysis. These are success factors 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. The rotated component matrices (tables 5.4 and 5.5) show the following results. Developers and builders consider clearly defined project goals and the use of LCA tools essential to translate their commitment and long term vision in an integrative design process (Table 5.4, factors 1 and 4, explaining 15% and 12% respectively of the variance). Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

56

Chapter 5: Results In addition, they consider the demand for sustainable offices by ambitious clients that are willing to invest in sustainability as associated with a flourishing economy (Table 5.4, factor 3, explaining 12% of the variance). Moreover, because of lacking standards caused by in the instable Dutch sustainability policy, developers need to involve the client more actively in the development process (Table 5.4, factor 5, explaining 11% of the variance). With these five factors 64% of the variance is explained among project developers and builders. According to advisors and designers, the first factor (explaining 20% of variance; Table 5.5) has six key characteristics that we interpret as follows. In an integrative design process, it is important to focus on long term value maximisation. The client should be willing to invest in sustainability and should be involved actively in the development process. The sustainability goals need to be clearly defined and the project manager needs LCA tools to control these goals. In addition, the commitment to sustainability and high ambitions of clients especially occurs in a flourishing economy (Table 5.5, factor 3, explaining 13% of the variance). This view is similar to the developers’ response. The negative correlation between the use of sustainability tools and the appreciation of sustainability among the public indicates that the use of tools by advisors is more important when the appreciation of sustainability is low (Table 5.5, factor 2, explaining 15% of the variance). Commitment to sustainability For developers and builders ‘commitment’ is related to the use of LCA tools, a focus on long term value creation and integral designing. For them, commitment can be created by using the correct working method and focussing on long term value creation. For advisors and designers, commitment to sustainability is correlated to a high sustainability ambition of the user and the economical situation. This indicates that the advisors are more depending on external factors, where developers take the initiative by organizing the project the way they want it to be organized. Willingness of the user to invest in sustainability For developers, this factor is correlated to the economical situation and the sustainability ambitions of the client. For advisors and designers, this willingness to invest is correlated to the active involvement of the end-user in the development process. Focus on long term value creation For advisors, the stakeholders’ focus on long term value creation (variable 16) is enhanced by technological product innovations, but for developers this focus on long term value creation is highly correlated to a personal commitment to sustainability, integral designing and the use of LCA tools. Conclusion analysis 3 From the factor analysis can be concluded that the respondents of the two groups do not have the same idea about the interrelation between the most important success factors. For developers and builders, the most important success factors are stimulated by the financial resources, the Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

57

Chapter 5: Results organisation of the project and the technological innovations in the market. Looking at the same success factors, advisors and designers find the involvement of the user in the project and a good national sustainability policy most important. These differences may cause problems when these stakeholders try to improve the success factors independent from each other. Table 5.4: Rotated component matrix group 1; project developers and builders Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix Group 1 Developers and Builders Component

First 5 components: % of variance explained: 64% 17 variables 1 6 16 2 23 22 21 20 10 9 5 4 11 19 14 12 8

Commitment to sustainability Use of LCA tools by PM Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Integral designing Technological product innovations in building parts Image of sustainability among the public Market competition based on sustainability performance Economical situation Willingness client to invest in sustainability High sustainability ambitions client Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Focus on maximising long term value project Active involvement of client in development process Long term stability in sustainability politics Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Innovative financing constructions Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.

15% 14% 12% 12% 11% 1 0,88 0,74 0,71 0,67 0,06 0,14 0,07 -0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,11 0,42 0,07 -0,08 0,08 0,09 -0,08

2

3

4

5

Use of LCA tools by PM Integral designing Focus on maximising long term value project Active involvement of client in development process Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Willingness client to invest in sustainability Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Image of sustainability among the public Commitment to sustainability High sustainability ambitions client Economical situation Market competition based on sustainability performance Long term stability in sustainability politics Technological product innovations in building parts Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Innovative financing constructions Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

0,76 0,75 0,70 0,70 0,63 0,57 0,06 0,16 0,23 0,15 0,10 -0,25 -0,14 0,22 0,00 0,54 0,12

6

-0,09 -0,14 -0,07 0,21 -0,16 0,31 0,10 -0,11 -0,05 0,33 0,19 0,23 0,17 -0,46 -0,07 0,07 -0,20 0,37 0,26 0,00 0,86 0,00 -0,06 -0,06 0,15 0,82 0,01 -0,21 0,00 -0,07 0,59 -0,06 0,54 0,06 -0,10 0,14 0,89 0,16 0,03 0,07 -0,15 0,73 -0,28 0,24 0,11 0,07 0,63 0,20 -0,18 -0,51 -0,11 0,09 0,86 0,26 0,06 -0,09 0,01 0,61 0,08 0,15 0,11 0,27 0,07 0,74 -0,05 0,19 0,20 -0,29 -0,70 0,04 0,41 0,32 0,19 0,50 -0,23 0,02 0,01 0,09 -0,19 0,86 0,46 0,19 0,22 0,08 0,44

Table 5.5: Rotated component matrix group 2 Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix Group 2 Advisors and designers Component First 5 components: % of variance explained: 69% 20% 15% 13% 11% 10% 1 2 3 4 5 17 variables

6 2 4 11 5 10 8 14 22 1 9 20 21 19 23 16 12

9%

-0,06 0,22 0,10 0,13 0,36 -0,17 0,92 0,79 -0,53 0,01 0,47 0,17 -0,25 0,09 0,09 -0,39 -0,04

0,17 0,28 -0,13 0,12 0,12 -0,23 0,06 0,23 0,49 0,87 0,71 0,56 0,01 -0,01 0,03 -0,10 0,26

-0,04 -0,28 0,16 -0,04 0,45 0,26 -0,12 0,04 -0,08 0,05 -0,15 0,44 0,81 0,71 -0,15 0,31 0,11

0,06 0,04 0,24 0,15 -0,18 -0,15 -0,17 0,35 0,47 -0,06 0,22 -0,12 -0,11 0,03 0,87 0,59 0,09

7% 6 -0,01 0,14 0,27 -0,44 0,03 0,20 -0,05 -0,12 -0,25 0,26 0,11 -0,43 -0,01 0,13 0,08 0,11 0,75

58

Chapter 6: Discussion

Chapter 6: Discussion In this chapter the results are subject to discussion. First, the case study and model will be discussed. Then, the survey itself and the results are subject to discussion.

6.1 Case study The reliability of the model has been optimised by using project cases of different companies. These companies were selected, because of their experience and status on realizing sustainable offices. The relevance of the cases is therefore very high. The measurement of the success factors in the interviews could have been more trustworthy, if it would have been possible to validate the data by asking colleagues of the experts to describe the projects as well. However, in the cases of ING, the expert has asked her colleagues to deliver their knowledge of the projects, so this is an indication that the data is correct. This has been dealt with by performing the survey study among a wide range of experts. The selected cases are very typical cases of companies and projects in the Netherlands today. The companies Triodos Bank, OVG projectontwikkeling, and ING Real Estate are front running companies in the field of sustainable development. The projects are quite diverse. The projects Kraanspoor, Cross Towers and Baltimore can be considered medium to highly sustainable projects. The projects Akzo Nobel and TNT can be considered highly to extremely sustainable projects. By selecting these projects, the differences and similarities between medium, highly, and extremely sustainable projects can be identified and the conclusions are quite general.

6.2 Model Fortune and White (2006) mention three criticisms on current literature on success factors. 1. The lack of agreement between the many authors of scientific publications on CSF’s. 2. The inter-relationships between factors are at least as important as the individual factors but the CSF approach does not provide a mechanism for taking account of these interrelationships. 3. The factor approach tends to view implementation as a static process instead of a dynamic phenomenon, and ignores the potential for a factor to have varying levels of importance at different stages of the implementation process. In the design of the model, these criticisms have been leading in the formulation of the factors and the possible interpretation of the model.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

59

Chapter 6: Discussion 1. The factors are largely similar with the factors identified by Fortune and White, which are deducted from an extensive comparative study of 63 publications on success factors. The success factors in the model also correspond to a large extend with other research on sustainable construction, such as Van Hal (2000) and Poel et al (2007) 2. The inter-relationship of the factors is analysed by a factor analysis, which provides insight in the related success factors. 3. In the next chapter, recommendations for the practical implementation of the results in project management are formulated for the different phases of the project. The result of the case study research was a model with 23 factors. These factors are largely similar with the results of relevant research, e.g. Van Hal (2000). However, in this research of Van Hal, the focus was not on office development and is therefore not entirely comparable. To validate the model more thoroughly, the online survey was executed.

6.3 Survey Response The group of 74 respondents is a representative sample of the population of experienced professionals. About 80% of the respondents have experience with at least one sustainable project, and 30% has 3 or more projects experience (see fig. 5.3). The sample is therefore suitable for this research. The response rate of completed surveys was 30% after two weeks, when the data collection was finished. A small percentage of about 5% did not fill out the complete survey. Approximately 30% of the invited persons did open the survey, but did not fill out any of the questions. The other 35% did not open the online survey. Figure 6.1: Experience of respondents

Fig. 6.1. Experience with sustainable office development

number of respondents

45

39

40 35 30

no experience

25

1 or 2 projects

20 15

3 to 5 projects 13

13 9

10

more than 5 projects

5 0 Total = 74

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

60

Chapter 6: Discussion Reliability The reliability of the results is good, because the group of respondents is relatively large, the homogeneity in terms of experience is good, the sample is a good representation of the population and the data is well spread. However, the reliability might have been negatively influenced by the following factors. Survey questions The type of questions may have caused a bias to answering 4 or 5, because of the formulation. The questions were formulated as follows (translated Dutch-English): “How large is the influence of the following success factors?” In the survey, there was asked how much influence the success factors had on the project success, hereby indicating that all of the factors are success factors. It would have been better to formulate the questions more objectively. Answer categories From the 23 formulated success factors 22 are considered to have a large influence. This may indicate that the answer categories (1 to 5, 1 = no influence, 5 = very large influence) were not suitable and that there should have been a broader array of answer categories, e.g. 1 to 7. Another explanation is that the respondents were not able to make a good judgement because of their limited experience. To assure a good comprehension of the survey a clear explanation of the definitions and the model, as well as its reference were provided. This will have contributed to the reliability of the response. Formulation of the questions and variables One of the groups of project success factors are the factors related to the end-user of the office. In the case study and survey research, the term user has been used. However, because of the experience and perception of the respondents, it is possible that some respondents have interpreted ‘user’ as ‘client’. This may have caused a bias or unreliable answers for these questions.

6.4 Results The personal commitment to sustainability is experienced as one of the most important factors. This can be explained by the fact that sustainable real estate development is relative new and it requires extra effort from the involved team members. Without the personal commitment to sustainability, this effort will be too much of a threshold for the project to be successful. So leadership is essential and a top-down approach a prerequisite for green office development. The importance of commitment to sustainability from the client and all other stakeholders can also be explained by a risk management perspective. “Environmental solutions that are not cost-effective will not be proposed unless instigated by clients, demanded by legislation or come from accepted, local business ethics” (Demaid & Quintas, 2006). Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

61

Chapter 6: Discussion Because legislation is not ambitious enough and sustainability is not yet accepted business ethics, it comes down to commitment to set and pursuit high sustainability ambitions. The involvement and willingness to invest of the client is also mentioned in literature on innovation in the construction sector (Hartmann et al, 2008). The extra financial investment needed to build offices sustainably is a point of discussion among experienced architects. Thomas Rau, architect of the new WNF headquarters in Zeist, claims he can design highly sustainable buildings at no extra cost. It seems that experience is an important factor in designing sustainable offices. The focus on long term value creation is a factor that is also mentioned in book ‘‘Maak van je bedrijf een toporganisatie! De vijf pijlers voor het creëren van een high performance organisatie” by A. de Waal (2008). The other success factors mentioned in this book are ‘high quality management’, ‘high quality employees’, ‘openness and action mindedness’, and ‘continuous improvement’. This book shows the results of a research among over 2000 companies on the success factors of High Performance Organizations. Clearly defined sustainability goals are important for the success of sustainable office projects. However, current practice shows that the sustainability goals are often degraded during the project. It seems hard to define clear goals that can be attained during the entire development process. This problem is indicated in several interviews executed by M. Danser (appendix VII) The difference in opinion on the role of the government is an interesting finding. In the last decade, the government has tried several times to stimulate sustainable measures like PV panels by providing subsidies. However, these attempts haven’t had the required outcome. Now, the government has chosen a more market oriented approach, where market parties themselves get the responsibility of innovating and stimulating sustainable development. It seems that project developers and builders agree with this strategy, while advisors and designers prefer a more active role of the government. One possible explanation for this difference is that advisors and designers often experience the consequences of the lacking regulations in their advices. Another explanation could be the difference in risks taken between the two groups. Developers take a direct financial risk during the development process, where advisors and designers take other financial risks. In the UK, developers seem to have a different attitude, as appears from the article of Sayce et al (2007). Here, the project developers think the role of the government is very important. Some factors have not been included in the survey, but they have been added by the respondents: •

Choice of location

•

Alignment of common and individual goals of involved stakeholders

•

Experience and expertise of sustainability in project team

These factors have also been mentioned in one or more case studies. In a follow-up study these factors should also be included. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

62

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations 7.1 Conclusions In this chapter the research questions of this research are answered. First, the main research question is answered, followed by the three sub questions. Main research question: What are the key success factors of sustainable office development? Based on a case study research among six sustainable office projects and three sustainable project developers a model with 23 success factors is designed. From this list, the following key success factors are identified by means of an online survey among 74 professionals (23 project developers, 16 advisors, 9 designers and 8 contractors): 1. Commitment to sustainability by the involved persons 2. Willingness of the end-user to invest in sustainability 3. Focus on long term value creation by all stakeholders 4. Early involvement of all stakeholders in an integral design process 5. Clearly defined sustainability goals Apparently, developing sustainable offices asks for a highly committed project team and an involved end-user with high sustainability ambitious, which is willing to invest in sustainability. In addition, all stakeholders need to be involved in the project early in an integral design process and they should be selected based on their focus on creating long term value. The project sustainability goals have to be defined clearly. Sub question 1: What is a sustainable office? Sustainable offices are offices with low environmental impact and a high long term user value. The most important sustainability aspects are energy, materials, and health and comfort. However, there are many other aspects, and a trade-off needs to be made when determining the project goals. There is no universal definition for a sustainable office, so every sustainable project has its own sustainability goals. The definition used in this research is that a sustainable office has a Greencalc score of at least 240 points or a GPR gebouw score of at least 7.5, energy label A+, application of sustainable materials and high indoor health and comfort. In the near future the assessment tool named BREEAM, developed by the Dutch Green Building Council, will be the Dutch standard for determining the sustainability of buildings. In chapter 3.1 you can find an extensive literature review on this subject. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

63

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations Sub question 2: What are project success factors? Key success factors are factors that have major influence on the achievement of the success criteria. They are defined as:

•

Areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management

•

The areas in which good performance is necessary to ensure attainment of goals

Project success factors are dependent on the formulated success criteria. The success criteria of sustainable offices are largely the same as any other office, except that they include specific sustainability criteria/goals. These goals need to be defined clearly based on a commonly accepted and standard assessment tool (BREEAM), so that the goals are SMART and clear and communication between the stakeholders is unambiguous. The key success factors should be considered as preconditions to project success. Without implementing these factors, it will be very hard to successfully develop a sustainable office. This subject has been explored in chapter 3.2. Sub question 3: What are the differences in opinion of the different stakeholders on the success factor of sustainable office development? The online survey has shown that project developers, builders, designers and advisors have the same opinion on the relevance of all the key success factors. They do however have different opinions on the interrelationship between the success factors. For developers and builders, the most important success factors are stimulated by the financial resources, the organisation of the project and the technological innovations in the market. Advisors and designers think the involvement of the user in the project and a stable national sustainability policy are stimulating factors. Sub question 4: What is sustainable office development and what are the differences between sustainable office development and traditional office development? The goal of the research was to provide a comprehensive view on the differences between sustainable and traditional office development. These questions have been answered in chapter 3.1, where the characteristics of sustainable office development have been described, and in chapter 5.2, where the model of success factors shows all important areas of attention, when developing sustainable offices. Sub question 5: How can the knowledge on success factors of sustainable office development be used to break the circle of blame? This research question is answered in the next chapter 7.2, where recommendations to change the organization of the development process are given.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

64

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations

7.2 Recommendations How to break the circle of blame The break-up of the circle of blame is currently taking place already. An increasing number of users are demanding sustainable offices, because they are healthier and more comfortable, use less energy and have a lower environmental impact. Investors are picking up this trend; an increasing number of investors is investing in sustainable offices. Now, the other stakeholders should develop their knowledge and skills on how to build sustainable offices, so that the circle of blame will be broken permanently. So a large challenge lies ahead for project developers, builders, designers and advisors. These are recommendations that these stakeholders should take into practice: Organizing the development process Based on the results of this research I give the following recommendations on the organization of the development process. •

Find end-user who is willing to invest in sustainability and involve him actively in the development process

•

Select partners on commitment to sustainability and focus on long term value creation

•

Use BREEAM to determine and define the project goals

•

Involve all stakeholders early in an integral design process

•

Use life cycle costing tools to calculate the long term costs and benefits of the design

Knowledge development and cooperation To facilitate better communication and cooperation between developers, investors, designers, contractors and end-users need to collaboratively develop BREEAM as standard assessment tool. Only when all stakeholders agree on the assessment, it will have its function. These stakeholders should also collaborate with suppliers to develop innovations in building parts. Governmental support National and local governments have high sustainability ambitions. By setting sustainability requirements to area development, developers can be forced to build sustainable buildings. At the same time, subsidies and a stable long term national policy are essential for market players to invest in their sustainable products and services and increase competition on sustainability performance. Governmental support is essential for large scale sustainable real estate development. The goal of this knowledge development, cooperation between market players and governmental support is to provide the necessary input in the contiuous loops of feedback and adaptation, as introduced in chapter 1 (fig. 1.3), and permanently break the circle of blame.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

65

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations

7.3 Suggestions for further research This research has been part of a currently popular field of research; sustainable real estate development. In the course of this thesis research, numerous relevant articles have been published. Future research in the field of success factors of sustainable office development could be focused on the following subjects. Interrelationship between factors With the five key success factors of sustainable office development identified, future research needs to investigate to what degree these success factors are interrelated to each-other, or to other factors. This knowledge is important for determining strategies to influence these success factors. Questions that need to be answered are for example: How can the commitment of the involved persons in a project be enhanced, or how can the willingness to invest from the user be increased? Partner selection for sustainable real estate development For successful sustainable real estate development, a team of competent and committed stakeholders needs to be selected. It would be interesting to investigate how to select on these criteria. An interesting research questions could be for example: How can we measure commitment to sustainability? Concept development Although the benefits of sustainable buildings have been investigated in several researches, it would be useful to have a better insight in the impact of different design choices on the life cycle costs and benefits. This can than be used to develop concepts of successful sustainable offices. For both developers and end-users, it will be interesting to develop concepts of buildings, based on different sustainability goals.

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

66

References Belassi, W., Tukel, O.I., 1996, ‘A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects’, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 141-151 Black, C. et al., 2000, ‘An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction’, International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 423-434 Bouwmeester, H., Van IJken, J., 1999, [Book] ‘Bouwen op de zon’, Remu NV, Utrecht Brandon, P.S., Lombardini, P., 2005, ‘Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment’, ISBN 0632064862, Blackwell, Oxford, UK Bossink, B. A. G., 2007, ‘The interorganizational innovation processes of sustainable building: A Dutch case of joint building innovation in sustainability’, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 20864092 Brown, D., Dillard, J., Marshall, R.S., 2006, ‘Triple Bottom Line, a Business Metaphor for a Social Construct’, Barcelona, Spain Building Future, 2004, ‘Visie op de Ontwikkelingen naar een Energie-neutrale gebouwde omgeving’ Cadman, 2000, ‘The Carbon Challenge’ Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., Lam, E.W.M., 2002, ‘Framework of success criteria for design/build projects’, Journal of Management in Engineering Vol.18, No. 3, pp. 120-128 Clarke, A., 1998, ‘A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management’, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 139-145 Cornick, T.C., 1988, ‘Quality management model for building projects’, Project Management Vol 6 No 4 November 1988 Crul, M.R.M., 1994, [Book] ‘Milieugerichte productontwikkeling in de praktijk’, Den Haag Cramer, Prof. Dr. J.M., 1994, [Book] ‘Naar een duurzame stad, welzijn en welvaart voor nu en later’, The Hague Dobbelsteen, A.A.J.F. van den, Cauberg, J.J.M., Jonge, H. de, Kristinsson, J., 2004, ‘Sustainable Offices - Effective Solutions for Office Organisation, Space Use, Lifespan, Design and Technology’, CIB FiBRE, 2008, ‘Breaking the Vicious Circle of Blame – Making the Business Case for Sustainable Buildings’, Brussels Fortune, J., White, D., 2006, ‘Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model, International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 53–65 Frej, A., 2003, ‘Green Buildings and Sustainable Development: Making the Business Case’, ULI Land Use Policy Forum Report Gething, B., Bordass, B., 2006, ‘Rapid assessment checklist for sustainable buildings’ Building Research & Information (2006) 34(4), 416–426 Gossink, W., 2008, ‘Groen kantoor floreert door dure energie’, Financieel Dagblad 7 July 2008 Hal, A. van, 2000, ‘Beyond the demonstration project; the diffusion of environmental innovations in housing’, Proefschrift TU Delft, Aeneas, Best Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

67

Hanford, D., 2007, ‘Do Green Buildings Cost More?’, http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id= 8954 Houghton, J.T. et al, 2001, ‘Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis’, Cambridge University Press, New York Hutjes, J.M., Buuren, J.A. van, 1992, ‘De gevalsstudie; Strategie van kwalitatief onderzoek’, Open Universiteit Heerlen, ISBN 978 90 6009 200 2 Janssen, R. 2004, ‘Towards energy efficient buildings in Europe’, London Jha, K.N., Iyer, K.C., 2007, ‘Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle’, International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 527- 540 Jones Lang LaSalle, 2008, ‘Global trends in sustainable real estate: an occupier’s perspective’ Jones Lang LaSalle, 2008, ‘Building Energy Rating: Ready to take stock?’ Kaatz, E., Root D. S., Bowen P. A., Hill R.C., 2006, 'Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment', Building Research & Information, 34:4, 308 - 320 Kats, G., 2003, ‘The costs and financial benefits of green buildings’, Capital E, California Kim, D. Y. et al., 2008, ‘Structuring the prediction model of project performance’, Expert Systems with Applications (2008), doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.048 KNAW Verkenningscommissie energieconversieonderzoek, 2007, [Book] ‘Duurzaamheid duurt het langst; Onderzoeksuitdagingen voor een duurzame energievoorziening’, Amsterdam Senter Novem, 2005, ‘Kompas energiebewust wonen en werken’, Utrecht Leaman, A., Bordass, B., 2007, 'Are users more tolerant of 'green' buildings?', Building Research & Information, 35:6, 662 - 673 Lim, C.S., Mohamed, M.Z., 1999, ‘Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination’, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 243-248 Lorenz, D., Lützkendorf, T., 2005, ‘Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment’ Building Research and Information 33 (3), pp. 212-234 Lowe, R., 2007, ‘Addressing the challenges of climate change for the built environment, Building Research & Information, 35:4, 343 - 35 Maas, G., van Eekelen, B., 2004, ‘Reisgids naar de ‘The Future Site’, dictaat faculteit bouwkunde TU/e Mora, E.P., 2005, ‘Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials’, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1329 –1334 Opstelten, I.J., Bakker, E.-J., Sinke, W.C., Bruijn, F.A. de, Borsboom, W.A., Krosse, L., 2007 ‘Potentials

for

energy

efficiency

and

renewable

energy

sources

in

the

Netherlands’,

www.buildingfuture.org Opstelten, I.J., Bakker, E.-J., Kester, J., Borsboom, W., Elkhuizen, B., 2007, ‘Bringing an energy neutral built environment in The Netherlands under control’, www.buildingfuture.org Ortiz O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2007, ‘Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA’, Construction and Building Materials (2008) Pallant J., 2007, ‘SPSS Survival Manual’, Two Penn Plaza, New York Peace, L., 2007, ‘The Circle of Blame moet doorbroken worden’, Building Business Okt 2007. Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

68

Poel, A., De Vries, G., Hutjes, G.T., Tiekstra, C.A., 2007, ‘Valkuilen bij procesinnovatie’, Creatieve Energie, i.o.v. PeGO. Saunders, T., 2008, ‘A discussion document comparing international environment assessment methods for building’, BREEAM, UK Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J., 2003, ‘Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors, International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 219 – 228 Schutte, A., Schoonhoven, P., Dolmans-Budé, I., 2002, ‘Commercieel Vastgoed’, Berenschot Osborne B.V./ Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie bv, ISBN 90 5895 006 9 Scott-Young, C., Samson, D., 2007, ‘Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries’, J Operations Manage, doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.006 Senter Novem, ‘Duurzaam Vastgoed en de Praktijk’ Senter Novem, 2005, ‘Dure plannen, goedkope oplossingen; adviseren over organisatie en financiering van energiebesparing in de utiliteitsbouw’, Kompas. Senter Novem, 2008, ‘Instrumenten beoordeling en promotie duurzame kantoren’, Kompas. Stern

Review

Final

Report

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/

stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., 2006, ‘Zero Enery Buildings: A critical look at the definition’, ACEEE Toor, S., Ogunlana, S.O., 2007, ‘Critical COMs in large-scale construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry’ International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 420-430 ULI Netherlands, PWC, 2008, ‘Dutch trends in Real Estate’ Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S. and Levine, M.D., 2007, 'Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world's buildings', Building Research & Information, 35:4, 379 – 398 Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Koeppel, S., Mirasgedis, S., 2007, ‘Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’CO2 emissions’, Building Research & Information (2007) 35(4), 458–477 Waal, A. de, 2008, ‘Maak van je bedrijf een toporganisatie! De vijf pijlers voor het creëren van een high performance organisatie.’ ISBN 9789089650030, Van Duuren Management. Walraven, B.S., 2005, ‘Push and Pull Drivers’, GreenTech WBCSD, 2007, ‘Energy efficiency in buildings Facts and Trends, business realities and opportunities, Summary Report’ Westerveld, E., 2003, ‘The Project Excellence Model ®: linking success criteria and critical success factors’, International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 411–418 th

Wilkinson, S., and Reed, R., 2008, ‘Property Development – 5 edition’, Routledge, Oxon, UK

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

69

Websites www.buildingsplatform.org www.circle-of-blame.nl www.creatieve-energie.nl www.dgbc.nl www.eeb-blog.org www.ecn.nl www.senternovem.nl www.rics.org www.upstreamstrategies.co.uk www.vrom.nl www.worldgbc.org

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

70

Appendixes The appendixes of this report are separately bound.

Index Appendixes...............................................................................................................................................4 Appendix I: Sustainability.....................................................................................................................6 Appendix II: Development process of Office Buildings......................................................................10 Appendix III: National and international sustainability tools...............................................................12 Appendix IV: Trias Energetica/ The three steps strategy ..................................................................14 Appendix V: Question list case studies Projects ...............................................................................16 Appendix VI: Expert interviews ..........................................................................................................18 Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser .........................................................................................24 Appendix VIII: Results case studies ..................................................................................................40 Appendix IX: Online survey ...............................................................................................................52 Appendix X: Results survey...............................................................................................................60

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

71

Final thesis report

A.J.G. Vink

72

Appendixes Success factors of sustainable office development - Breaking the Circle of Blame -

Author:

A.J.G. (Gjalt) Vink

Study:

TU/e Construction Management & Engineering

Date:

30 January 2009

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

2

Appendixes

Title: Subtitle:

Success factors of sustainable office development Breaking the circle of blame

Content:

Appendixes final thesis report

Name: Id nr: E-mail:

A.J.G. (Gjalt) Vink 0510955 [email protected]

University: Study: Mastertrack:

Eindhoven University of Technology Architecture, Building and Planning Construction Management and Engineering

Internship:

ARCADIS Gebouwen, Advies & Management, Amersfoort

Supervisors:

Prof. Ir. G.J. Maas Ir. G. Abdalla Ir. J. Huyghe D.J. van Rees MSc MBA

Place and Date:

Eindhoven, 30-01-2009

Appendixes

TU/e TU/e TU/e ARCADIS

A.J.G.Vink

3

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

4

Appendixes Appendixes .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendix I: Sustainability .................................................................................................................... 7 Appendix II: Development process of office buildings ...................................................................... 11 Appendix III: National and international sustainability tools .............................................................. 13 Appendix IV: Trias Energetica/ The three steps strategy ................................................................. 15 Appendix V: Question list case studies Projects............................................................................... 17 Appendix VI: Expert interviews ......................................................................................................... 19 Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser......................................................................................... 25 Appendix VIII: Results case studies.................................................................................................. 41 Appendix IX: Online survey............................................................................................................... 53 Appendix X: Results survey .............................................................................................................. 61

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

5

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

6

Appendix I: Sustainability

Appendix I: Sustainability Sustainability is a concept which is very complex and wide. As stated above, there are many different definitions and there is little consensus on which definition is right. Because it is necessary to define the concept for this research, the different aspects which are considered to be of importance for sustainable offices are described shortly. The aspects which will be described here are partly deducted from the BREEAM design stage assessment. Other parts of the description are deducted from other literature. Management The aspect of management is about how the user of the building is dealing with sustainability. Examples of ‘credits’ are: a) Monitor and report CO2 or energy arising from site activities. b) Monitor and report on water consumption from site activities. c) Monitor and report transport to and from site to enable CO2 emissions arising from transport to be calculated. d) Monitor construction waste on site. e) Sort and recycle construction waste on site. f) Adopt best practice policies in respect to air (dust) pollution. g) Adopt best practice policies in respect to water (ground and surface) pollution. Health and Comfort Buildings can have numerous functions. Which ever function it has, it is always important to insure a healthy environment. Employees of organisations need to be healthy to be able to do their jobs, clients of shops like to be in a healthy surrounding, and people want to live in healthy houses. It is therefore very important to ensure a good indoor air quality, (social) safety and security, sufficient daylight, sound insulation and a positive atmosphere. A building that scores good on these aspects is a sustainable environment for the user, and will moreover have a longer life expectancy, which is of course very sustainable. Sustainability doesn’t only involve technical aspects, but also involves aspects like joy, pleasure and a positive working atmosphere. Features influencing health and comfort are: Energy The built environment is responsible for 30 to 40% of the total national energy use. In 2002, the EU Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings has been adopted. This directive builds on the policy framework that has been evolving since the early 1990’s. The global potential is about 22% of the present consumption that can be realized in 2010. This consumption is for heating, hot water, air conditioning and lighting (Janssen, 2004). Trias Energetica/ Three steps strategy To achieve a more efficient use of energy in the built environment, a common approach is that of the Trias Energetica (see appendix IV). This principle is based on the reduction of energy use in three steps. The first step is the reduction of energy demand, by implementing a high degree of thermal insulation in walls and glazing and air tightness. Also mixed-mode ventilation, radiant heating/cooling, evaporative cooling, use of a dedicated outside air system (i.e. separate ventilation and thermal conditioning) can be used to reduce energy demand. The second step is to use renewable energy sources, like solar collectors, PV solar panels and underground energy storage/ ground source heat pumps The third step is to use non-renewable energy sources as efficiently as possible, e.g. by recovering heat from ventilation air and waste water and using efficient HVAC systems, lighting systems, household equipment and computers. Zero Energy Buildings By using existing technology and design techniques, it is possible to create buildings, that use no more energy then they produce. Especially with the rising energy prices, it can be very beneficial to rent or buy a zero-energy building.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

7

Appendix I: Sustainability Embodied energy “Embodied energy is the energy that it takes to create the materials used in construction. Materials such as brick of concrete have high embodied energy. However, offset against this must be the capacity for a material to obtain heat, which will then be released back into the building. It is necessary to work out what is the best combination of materials for a project. The intended use has to be taken into account, along with the heating system and other installations to be used, not just the construction technique and materials.’ (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 323) Transportation Develop and implement policies that (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 321): - Improve and promote walking, cycling and public transport and changing habits to reduce car use - Manage freight transport by moving more by rail and reducing heavy truck traffic - Make streets, bus stops and tram stops safer, including lower traffic speeds and better security - Reduce oil dependence and shifting to cleaner, renewable energy for transport - Ensuring transport impacts are reflected in investment decisions and the costs that users pay - Plan in a more integrated way to involve the community and link land use and transport In property development schemes transport issues include: - Access to public transport nodes and facilities. - Providing of bicycling facilities and changing rooms for cyclists. - Proximity to local amenities such as banks, shops, pharmacy, school, medical centre, place of worship, children play area and so on. Water Efficient use of water is another important aspect of sustainability. The scarcity of water is a global issue. In the built environment, a number of measures can be taken to reduce the demand for fresh water. Here, the same strategy as with energy can be taken. Firstly, lower the demand by technical measures, such as water saving toilets, showers, and taps and installing water meters. Secondly, recycle used water by collecting and filtering rainwater and household water. A second issue concerning water is the reduction of water pollution. This can be achieved by using natural filter systems like green roofs. Runoff water should not be carried off towards the sewerage, but should be discharged in the soil at the building location, to prevent soil dehydration in dense urban areas. Materials and Waste The four major aspects of the sustainability of materials are: 1) The renewability of the source of the material. This means the degree and rate in which the source of the material renews itself. In the case of wood, there is the FSE certificate, but for many other natural materials such a certificate does not yet exist. This can make it difficult to determine whether the material is produced in a sustainable way. 2) The production conditions on the production site. This also includes whether there is any form of child labour or unacceptable working hours. 3) The impact of the material winning to the environment. 4) The location of production and the transportation costs of the material. If a material is produced in China, the environmental impact of transportation will be much higher than when it is produced close to the construction location. “Waste management during construction can increase profitability and lower construction costs as wasted materials are paid when purchased and disposed of. Project developers need to consider waste to save money and reduce environmental impact. In the UK some contractors use Site Waste Management Plans with reported savings of around 3 per cent of build costs.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 324) “Another way in which developers can increase the sustainability of a development project is to require the designers to specify the reuse of materials if the development involves the partial of complete demolition of a building. Also, the designer can specify recycled materials such as recycled concrete for hardcore or recycled timber. Reuse is better than recycling as no further embodied energy is used to transform the materials from one form to another. However, the use of recycled materials is preferable to the consumption of raw resources and materials.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 324) Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

8

Appendix I: Sustainability Land Use Zoning and land-use issues (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 320-321) Sustainability on a regional level can be affected by which land is zoned for different uses. Clearly, the property developer has less influence individually on the regional plans. However, consultation with the local authority plans will highlight the intentions with respect to zoning and land-use issues. Ecology The sustainability issues that affect land include loss of habitat and biodiversity, and contamination of land. Ecology and site issues These issues centre on the loss resulting from developing land and destroying or impacting on the local ecosystems such as flora and fauna. There is merit in selecting land that has little ecological value. Developers are able to enhance the ecological value of sites e.g. by sanitizing land and planting trees. Therefore, developers must consider the ecology and site issues at an early stage to avoid negative attention from environmental groups or unwanted media coverage. (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008) Pollution “Pollution from the construction process can take many forms other than the pollution into the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses; fuel spillages, fly tipping and mud/silt from sites or lorry wheels are the most common. In addition, many construction materials can pose a pollution risk in their manufacture of in use.” (Wilkinson and Reed, 2008 pp. 323)

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

9

Appendix I: Sustainability

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

10

Appendix II: Development process of office buildings

Appendix II: Development process of office buildings Introduction In the previous paragraph I have described the relevant aspects of a sustainable office building. In this paragraph, the development process of an office building is being clarified. After an explanation of each of the phases of the development process, the different stakeholders are analysed. The book ‘Commercieel Vastgoed’ has been used as a basis for this paragraph. Unless otherwise indicated, this is the reference. The development process of commercial office buildings can be divided into ten different phases. 1. Area development 2. Initiative 3. Purchase of land 4. Plan development 5. Design 6. Tender 7. Contracting and construction 8. Rent or Sale 9. Maintain and Operate 10. Redevelopment or destruction 1. Area development In the Netherlands, there are mainly two types of area development; Development of former agrarian areas into urban areas, and redevelopment of urban areas. The first are called Greenfield developments. Brownfields are abandoned or under-used industrial and commercial facilities. These are often subject to redevelopment. Examples are old station areas, wharf sites, factories etc. Inner city redevelopment often involves the restoration or renovation of old buildings. Area development process New area development often starts from a social political context. In growing economies, the demand for new houses and offices is often higher than supply. New office space can also be an incentive for more economic growth. In the case of Brownfields, the condition of the buildings and the degraded quality of the area is often a reason for redevelopment. Usually, the following steps are being taken in the development process. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Development Vision Master plan and Development plan Urban plan Plotting plan and Regional planning program

Trends and developments In recent years, the project developers are playing an increasingly important role in the urban development process. Developers are being involved in this process from the beginning and are taking over the role of the urban designers. This trend is being stimulated by the selling of land to developers on VINEX locations. 2. Initiative The start of every building project is called the initiative. In the case of commercial office buildings, there are mainly three different approaches of taking initiative. The first possibility is that the client, e.g. an insurance company or a bank, needs new office space and decides to initiate the project. This client is the future owner/ occupier and is responsible for the complete development of the building. The second possibility is that a project developer takes initiative. Sometimes the developer already has a future buyer, but when this is not the case, it can decide to develop for a future ‘market’. The third possibility is that the client itself takes initiative by asking a developer to develop his future building. The initiative phase is concluded by an evaluation. This evaluation includes market research and the financial appraisal of the proposal (Reed, 2008).

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

11

Appendix II: Development process of office buildings 3. Land acquisition The required land for the development needs to be purchased by the developer or municipality. One of these parties is responsible to prepare it for the construction of the building. When the project is sited in a built-up area, the municipality usually buys the land and prepares it for construction, after which the land is sold in different plots to developers or end-users. In some municipalities, the land cannot be owned by another party than the municipality itself. In these cases, the land is leased to the developer or owner for a certain period (usually 50 – 100 years) 4. Plan development As stated in the first paragraph, the initiative is usually taken by a project developer. In most large projects, the municipality also has a role. This role can vary between setting conditions to full partnership in a ‘public-private-partnership’. In the plan development four different sub-plans can be identified. These are aimed at the aspects of marketing, legal issues, finance and the construction itself. These sub-plans cannot be considered individually and are being developed and fine-tuned iteratively during the development process. In the marketing plan development the program of requirements is formulated on the base of a market/ client research. In this phase the demands and wishes of the client are being identified. The legal plan development includes changes in the development plans of the municipality for the specific location and the obtaining of building permits, if necessary. Also the agreements with different partners, such as financers, contractors, end users, and the municipality are part of the legal plan development. The financial plan development involves all the costs, benefits, financial risks and the project profit. Decisions on how the project is financed are also part of this sub-plan. This plan results in an investment proposal and a financing plan. The accuracy of the financial plan depends on the level of completion of the design and tender process. For the first financial feasibility studies general figures on investment and operational costs and rent levels are used. The fourth sub-plan is the construction plan development. In this sub-plan the design process is being developed. It involves all the architectural and engineering drawings, and there are usually many external companies involved, such as architects, engineers and advisors. Especially the role of the architect is usually important. He translates the program of requirements into a design. 5. The design process The design process is divided into different sub-processes. The base of the design is the program of requirements, in which the required functions of the new building are specified, both the special and the technical requirements. On this base a conceptual design, a temporary design, and a definite design are made. Per phase the level of detail of the design, and the accuracy of building costs increase. In the conceptual design, the functional and structural arrangement of the design is determined, as well as the location, accessibility and urban function. In the temporary and definitive design the functions are being translated into a spatial and technical design.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

12

Appendix III: National and international sustainability tools

Appendix III: National and international sustainability tools National Tools • Greencalc+ • ‘Groenverklaring’ • EPC and ‘Nationaal Pakket Duurzaam Bouwen Utiliteitsbouw’ • GPR Gebouw • Triodos Toets voor duurzaam vastgoed Greencalc Greencalc is a Dutch assessment tool, which calculates the damage or impact the building causes on the environment during the total life cycle (construction, operation and demolition). There are different scores for the use of materials, energy and water, as well as for mobility. The ‘milieu-index’ is the total score which shows the environmental impact compared to a reference building. The ‘milieu-index’ shows the level of sustainability by a single number. The reference building, in which materials and services from the year 1990 are used, has a ‘milieu-index’ score of 100. The higher the score, the more sustainable a building is. A building with a score of 185 may be called ‘sustainable’. (Senter Novem, Duurzaam vastgoed in de praktijk) Groenverklaring The ‘groenverklaring’ is a declaration of sustainability which can be earned by very sustainable buildings. There are eight criteria, which are chosen, so that only 5% of the buildings will receive a ‘Groenverklaring’ and can therefore apply for a special loan, called ‘Groenfinanciering’. When the building has obtained a ‘groenverklaring’, it may be called ‘sustainable’. (Senter Novem, Duurzaam vastgoed in de praktijk) EPC or ‘Energie Index’ and the ‘Nationaal Pakket Duurzaam Bouwen Utiliteitsbouw’ Buildings, built after 1995, have to have an EPC (energieprestatie coefficient) of 1.5. This means that the building is 70% more energy efficient than demanded by the building code at that time. The lower the EPC, the more energy efficient. When a building complies with the EPC demands and the ‘nationaal pakket duurzaam bouwen utilitietsbouw’, then the building is ‘sustainable’. (Senter Novem, Duurzaam vastgoed in de praktijk) GPR Gebouw GPR Gebouw, another Dutch tool, translates aspects of a building to scores on quality and sustainability. GPR gives scores from 0 to 10 on five sustainability aspects; energy, materials, waste, water and health. The higher the score, the higher the quality is. A score of 5 means that the building is built according to the building code. The scores are coloured and this colour turns green when the building complies with the desired ambitions. When all the scores are at least a 7, the building is ‘sustainable’. (Senter Novem, Duurzaam vastgoed in de praktijk) Triodos toets voor duurzaamheid Triodos is a Dutch bank which uses a tool to determine the level of sustainability of a building. In a calculation model points are acknowledged to four factors: People, Planet, Profit and Project. All these factors have to score a 5 or higher, and at least one a 7.5 or higher. If a building does not achieve these scores, it is not suitable for the Triodos Real Estate fund (Senter Novem, 2008).

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

13

Appendix III: National and international sustainability tools International tools • LEED • BREEAM • CASBEE • Green Globes • GBTool • EPBD LEED (USA) LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) is developed in 2000 by the US Green Building Council. LEED considers aspects like sustainable area development, water use, energy use, atmosphere, materials and indoor air quality. Each of these aspects are scored and a total score is given, which can be one of the following: Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum. LEED is based on the British tool BREEAM (Senter Novem, 2008). BREEAM (UK) BREEAM is a qualitative software tool and is design by the Centre for Sustainable Construction of Britisch BRE. The abbreviation stands for Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method and it has been introduced 19 years ago to stimulate sustainable construction. It considers the aspects management, health and comfort, energy, transportation, water, materials and waste, land use, ecology and pollution. A project can score: Pass, Good, Very Good, and Excellent (Senter Novem, 2008). CASBEE (Japan) CASBEE stands for Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency. The goal of CASBEE is to: 1) improve awareness of the environmental load of a building design, and 2) improve implementation of sustainable construction measures. The tool consists of four important aspects: energy efficiency, resource efficiency, local environment and indoor air quality (Senter Novem, 2008). Green Globes (Canada) Green Globes is a design and management tool. It is interactive and flexible. It gives practical advise about possible design improvements and gives information about relevant strategies and technologies. It considers seven aspects: emissions, project management, energy, resources, water use, location, materials, transportation and indoor air quality (Senter Novem, 2008). GBTool GBTool is a method to judge the potential energy and environmental efficiency in the Green Building Challenge (GBC) process. It is an attempt to develop a general international language to describe green buildings. An important difference with other tools is that it is designed to judge different countries with different priorities, technologies, construction traditions, and cultural values. It considers the aspects energy, environmental load, indoor quality, social and economical aspects, water, long term performance and functionality of materials (Senter Novem, 2008). EPBD (EU) st From 1 January 2009 this norm will be lowered to 1.1. In the EPBD, the Energy Performance Building Directive of the European Union a number of requirements are mentioned which are to be implemented by the Member states (www.buildingsplatform.org): • the general framework for a methodology of calculation of the integrated energy performance of buildings; • the application of minimum requirements on the energy performance of new buildings; • the application of minimum requirements on the energy performance of large existing buildings that are subject to major renovation; • energy performance certification of buildings; This energy label provides information on how much energy the building uses for heating, hot water, lighting, ventilation and cooling. The performance is indicated by an Energy-Index (EI) and a standardised energy class (A – G). The goal is that buildings with a lower energy class will not be offered anymore, as happened with household devices, such as laundry machines. Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

14

Appendix IV: Trias Energetica/ The three steps strategy

Appendix IV: Trias Energetica/ The three steps strategy To achieve sustainable use of energy, the trias energetica or three steps strategy is a commonly understand strategy. This strategy includes the following steps: 1. Avoid unnecessary demand for resources 2. Use resources that are unlimited or renewable 3. Use limited resources wisely (cleanly and with a large return) The possibilities to accomplish these steps are (Van den Dobbelsteen, 2004): Step 1: Avoid unnecessary demand for resources • Consider the option of not-building: consider adapting the organisation from within to avoid moving • Re-use or renovate a building instead of constructing a new one • Design efficiently: do not make elements larger than necessary. • Compact shape • High insulation • Regulated ventilation • Regulated Lighting • Efficient Floor plan design • Building mass and night ventilation • Save hot water • Reduce waste Step 2: Use resources that are unlimited or renewable: • Solar energy o Thermal energy o Photo-voltaic • Heat pump and low temperature heating and cooling • Wind energy • Heat and cold storage in soil Use renewable or abundantly obtainable resources (Van den Dobbelsteen, 2004) • Use organic materials: timber, bamboo, reed etc. • Use bulk materials from the purification processes (fume gas desulphurisation gypsum, fly ashes, furnace ashes, copper ashes etc.) • Use mineral materials and metals that are abundantly available (e.g. sand, clay, pebbles, respectively aluminium, steel etc.). Step 3: Use limited resources wisely (cleanly and with a large return) • Efficient installations and equipment • Energy-efficient lighting (Van den Dobbelsteen, 2004) Use clean processes for extraction and manufacture, and increase re-use of materials that are depleting or whose primary manufacture is harmful to the environment • Use clean manufacture processes • Close production circuits: re-use waste materials, waste heat and wastewater • Re-use building elements and components • Recycle construction and demolition waste for new applications • Re-use materials with a great initial environmental load, metals in particular • Avoid circulation of pollution in the air, water or ground.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

15

Appendix IV: Trias Energetica/ The three steps strategy

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

16

Appendix V: Question list case studies Projects

Appendix V: Question list case studies Projects 0. Project beschrijving Naam project: Functie: Oppervlakte:

Locatie: Opdrachtgever: Start initiatief:

1. Gebiedsontwikkeling In welk gebied wordt het project ontwikkeld? Zijn er al andere duurzame gebouwen in het gebied gerealiseerd of zijn daar plannen voor? 2. Initiatief Door wie wordt het initiatief genomen? Wie is de opdrachtgever? Is er sprake van: • Ontwikkeling in eigen beheer; • Projectontwikkeling in opdracht; of • Afname uit de markt? 3. Grondverwerving Is er bij de grondverwerving duurzaamheidmaatregelen?

specifiek

gekeken

naar

de

mogelijkheden

m.b.t.

4. Planontwikkeling Welke betrokkenheid heeft de gemeente bij de planontwikkeling? Welke externe partijen zijn betrokken bij de: a. Markttechnische planontwikkeling b. Juridische planontwikkeling c. Financiële planontwikkeling d. Bouwkundige planontwikkeling Ad a. Markttechnische planontwikkeling • In hoeverre is ‘duurzaamheid’ een belangrijk voor het imago van het project? Ad b. Juridische planontwikkeling • Zijn er bijzondere overeenkomsten/ contracten met participanten (gemeente, beleggers, financiers, eindgebruikers, bouwers)? Ad c. Financiële planontwikkeling • Zijn er speciale financiële constructies opgezet voor de financiering van duurzaamheidsmaatregelen? Ad d. Bouwkundige planontwikkeling • Architect: • Constructeurs: • Bouwfysische adviseurs: • Installatietechnische adviseurs: Zijn de teamleden specifiek geselecteerd op basis van hun ervaring met duurzaam ontwerpen/bouwen? 5. Ontwerp Zijn er duurzaamheideisen opgenomen in het Programma van Eisen? Is er sprake van een traditionele rolverdeling of is er een ontwerpteam? Welke duurzaamheidmaatregelen zijn uiteindelijk toegepast in het gebouw? 6. Drivers en barrières duurzaamheid Wat zijn in uw ogen de grootste succesfactoren en de grootste barrières van duurzaamheid in dit project?

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

17

Appendix V: Question list case studies Projects

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

18

Appendix VI: Expert interviews

Appendix VI: Expert interviews Case study interview B. Krikke Director Triodos Real Estate Development, June 2008 Hoe definieer je duurzaamheid? Triodos bekijkt duurzaamheid breder dan alleen de technische aspecten. Op gebiedsniveau kijken naar duurzaamheid door bijvoorbeeld gedeelde voorzieningen en OV bereikbaarheid mee te nemen. Ook het aspect welzijn is een erg belangrijk onderdeel van duurzaamheid. Bottlenecks zijn: - Voor energieneutrale gebouwen: Energieopwekking op de locatie kan moeilijk zijn. - Materiaalgebruik: herkomst, productie en transport van materiaal heeft invloed op de duurzaamheid er van. - Er wordt niet hetzelfde onder duurzaamheid verstaan. Door snelle tempo van technische ontwikkelingen is het lastig op de hoogte te blijven, ook voor architecten en adviseurs. - Als een project te laat in een gebiedsontwikkeling wordt betrokken, kunnen soms duurzame energie voorzieningen in de wijk niet meer worden gerealiseerd. - Als een project te vroeg in een gebiedsontwikkeling plaatsvindt, zijn er te weinig andere gebouwen om samen energievoorzieningen te ontwikkelen. - Duurzaamheid wordt gezien als een scorecompetitie. Het gaat erom dat er een discussie wordt gevoerd met de opdrachtgever/huurder in de PvE fase. Op gebiedsniveau kunnen vooral voorzieningen worden gedeeld, zoals WKO, stroom, en sociale voorzieningen als kinderopvang e.d. Verschillen met traditionele ontwikkeling: Meer vanuit praktisch en exploitatie oogpunt kijken naar ontwerp. Waardevastheid naar de toekomst Het is belangrijk om de wensen van de gebruikers/huurders te betrekken in het ontwerp. Het is belangrijk de bouwer te betrekken bij het ontwerp. Triodos werkt het liefst met locale bouwers. Triodos wil niet te snel de contracten sluiten in een project, om zo de partners uit te blijven dagen. Triodos doet geen opdrachten voor overheid. Europese aanbestedingsregelingen gelden alleen voor overheidsopdrachten. Overheden kunnen de prijs/kwaliteit verhouding moeilijk inschatten/meten. Ze gaan nog vaak voor de laagste prijs. Triodos heeft adviseurs op gebied van duurzaamheid in huis. Andere adviseurs hebben vaak gebrek aan integrale visie. Ze denken te weinig mee. Dit is iets wat een PM zou moeten sturen. De grootste verschillen tussen traditionele en duurzame projecten zijn: 1. Communicatie met opdrachtgever 2. Proces wordt ingewikkelder/complexer a. Projectmanager wordt procesmanager. b. Van projectontwikkeling naar gebiedsontwikkeling

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

19

Appendix VI: Expert interviews Case study interview R. Hersbach en M. de Grooth Director and project manager ING Real Estate, July 2008 Doel van het interview: - Verschillen tussen traditionele en duurzame bouwprojecten in kaart brengen o Ontwikkelproces o Stakeholders
Met name: Hoe stelt een partij als ING RE zich ‘anders’ op?
Maar ook: Wat verwacht ING van de andere partijen?
Hoe wordt dit gemanaged? - Succesfactoren van duurzame bouwprojecten Verslag interview: Aanwezigen: Ing. C.A. (René) Hersbach: Directeur van ING Vastgoed Ontwikkeling B.V. Meeke de Grooth: Project Manager bij ING Real Estate Wat zijn voor een partij als ING RE verschillen in duurzame projecten ten opzichte van traditionele projecten? Veranderend rol/ houding/ belang/ verantwoordelijkheden van ING ING gaat voor kwaliteit. Dit is lange tijd een onmeetbaar en rekbaar begrip geweest. Met de standaardisering van duurzaamheid door het DGBC kan duurzaamheid als onderdeel van kwaliteit meetbaar gemaakt worden. Zowel intern als extern moet duurzaamheid nog verder worden verankerd. Er moet nog veel onderwezen worden over de voordelen van duurzaamheid en de manier waarop dit vorm moet krijgen in het ontwikkelproces. ING does not yet use other models then the traditional tendering model, with multiple actors. This is to reduce the risks involved in the project. Het ontwikkelproces Het hangt van de mate van duurzaamheid af. ING onderscheid eigenlijk 3 stappen: 1. Slim ontwerpen Door slimmer te ontwerpen kunnen al veel duurzaamheidaspecten gerealiseerd worden. Hiervoor hoeft het ontwikkelproces niet anders ingericht te worden 2. Toepassen DuBo maatregelen Dit is ook onderdeel van het normale ontwerpproces. Er moet wel duidelijk op gestuurd worden in het ontwerpteam. 3. Investeringen in energiebesparende/ waardeverhogende maatregelen (zoals bv zonnepanelen) Hiervoor dient het proces wel anders ingericht te worden. De investering moet ergens vandaan komen, ofwel van de ontwikkelaar, ofwel van de investeerder/belegger. Onderhandelingen over dergelijke meerinvesteringen zijn geen onderdeel van het traditionele ontwikkelproces. ING wil stap 1 en 2 perfectioneren en in ieder project toepassen. Alleen als de omstandigheden hiervoor geschikt zijn zal stap 3 worden genomen. Wat zijn de succesfactoren van duurzame projecten volgens ING RE? Ambities moeten worden vastgesteld op directieniveau. Er moet een ‘stip op de horizon’ worden gezet waar vervolgens naartoe gewerkt kan worden. Wat zijn volgens ING de belangrijkste veranderingen die nodig zijn om de ‘circle of blame’ voorgoed te doorbreken? Wat is het ideaalbeeld? Wat ontbreekt er nog in de huidige praktijk? De klant moet er om vragen. Het initiatief komt nu nog vooral vanuit de ontwikkelaar die de klant moet ‘leren/overtuigen’ dat duurzaamheid moet en kan. De klant kan zijn de gebruiker, belegger, gemeente. De rijksoverheid moet niet zoals in de jaren ’90 regels opleggen, maar moet het overlaten aan de markt. Wat zijn de grootste voordelen/belangen voor ING? Op lange termijn kan het niet anders. Klanten zullen niet anders meer willen. “Als je nu niet meegaat in de trend heb je over 10 jaar geen werk meer”, aldus ING.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

20

Appendix VI: Expert interviews Wat zijn de grootste barrières voor duurzame bouwprojecten? • Financieel De kosten van duurzaamheid zijn toch hoger dan niet-duurzaam. Als hier slim mee omgegaan wordt, wordt er ook een hogere kwaliteit gerealiseerd, maar hier is niet altijd budget voor • Gebrek aan kennis • Niet iedereen is overtuigd Te hoge kosten - ’10-20 jaar geleden was het ook een hype, en nu is het weer een hype’ Welke projecten van ING kunnen gebruikt worden in de casestudy analyse? • Kraanspoor • AKZO • Vivaldi • (Baltimore) Case study interview M. Huysmans Director Sustainability OVG Projectontwikkeling, Tuesday 12 August 2008, Rotterdam 0. Background OVG - Project Developer o 75 personnel o Turnover: €326 million - Focus on end-user - Portfolio outsourcing - Sustainability as a core value and business opportunity - Sustainability centre is being founded 1. What are the different roles of the involved parties in the development of sustainable office buildings? -

-

-

User: o TNT asks for a new building. The first DBFMO contract by market parties. Architect: o Besides aesthetic quality are the sustainability and long term quality becoming more important. The design process is becoming more complex because the architect is required to integrate more building physics and services in his design. Project developer: o OVG is also becoming an investor; foundation of green fund o Developer is starting to think on the longer term, instead of cutting all lines when the building is sold. o Developer is also providing services like energy
OVG is giving guarantees to TNT for energy costs; this is very exceptional for a developer. Investor: o Sustainable offices are more valuable on the long term. Although the investment is higher, the return is higher as well.

2. What are the differences in the development process between traditional and sustainable building projects? -

Integral design: o More cooperation between architect, physical and services engineers. o Climate oriented design:
More use of natural principles, like ventilation, daylight, N-S orientation.
Sustainable energy production on site
Knowledge on climate systems is essential and not sufficient o Comfort criteria have to be reconsidered; trade-off between sustainability and comfort o Different architecture; clients want new designs (round shapes), sustainable materials, solar panels, etc. Sustainability has to be visible.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

21

Appendix VI: Expert interviews -

-

Sustainability measurement tools, such as LEED, Greencalc, BREEAM are becoming more essential for a successful development There is more attention to health and productivity of occupants. There is more space for product innovation, driven by suppliers; new roofs, facades, climate systems, and floor plan design. Contracts are becoming more complex LCA analysis is becoming an essential tool for calculating the total costs of ownership of sustainable projects. o LCA; construction costs, development costs, and exploitation costs. o Construction costs are higher when sustainability is not implemented from the start. o Development costs are higher because of inexperience team members. o Exploitation costs: EPC calculation is not correct. No proven techniques yet. Local energy production is becoming part of the building; however it is not yet profitable. EPC norm will be set from 1.5 to 1.1; a problem is that the EPC calculation is not correct, which causes uncertainty at the investors.

3a. What are success factors of the development of sustainable office buildings? - A different role for the developer: commitment to maintain the building improves the quality and sustainability of the design. - Peer-pressure: because of set promises OVG has to improve its skills - Visibility of sustainable buildings: Sustainability is hot, so it should be marketed as an interesting new product. 3b. What are barriers to the development of sustainable office buildings? - There is no official acknowledged certificate yet: the sustainability of building is not comparable. - There is resistance to change by the established (smaller) companies - The fragmented construction market makes changes difficult - The level of education on sustainability is too low. 4. What are necessary changes to break the circle of blame? - More regulation and directing by the government - Fiscal stimulation and subsidies (such as ‘groenfinanciering’) - Municipalities should attach sustainability conditions to the selling of land - Education on sustainable design should be better Case study interview B. Custers Director VOCUS architecten bna, September 2008 Naar mijn stellige overtuiging zijn er 3 factoren van belang bij duurzame ontwikkeling: 1. marktacceptatie 2. productinnovatie 3. overheidsregulatie Een duurzaam gebouw wordt betaald door de koper of eindgebruiker. Heeft deze geen financieel voordeel van één of meerdere duurzame maatregelen, dan is ieder duurzaam ideaal ten dode opgeschreven. Dus: een warmtepomp die zich niet in 10 jaar terug verdient is kansloos. Waarom worden warmtepompen nu toegepast? Omdat het rendabel wordt. Waarom kunnen PV-collectoren alleen worden toegepast met subsidie, omdat de prijs-kwaliteitverhouding niet klopt en ze een te lange terugverdientijd hebben. Naar mijn idee een kansloos product voor de consumentenindustrie, tenzij de kostprijs verminderd wordt. Misschien op megaschaal interessant, maar het levert weinig op. Alles wordt bepaald door marktmechanisme. Met andere woorden: de succesfactor marktacceptatie staat voor mij op 1. Op twee staat productinnovatie, want hiermee kan duurzaamheid betaalbaar worden. Heel simpel: dit is de realiteit van iedere dag en geldt ook voor duurzame projectontwikkeling. Uiteindelijk wil iedere investeerder of initiatiefnemer maar één ding en dat is simpelweg geld verdienen.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

22

Appendix VI: Expert interviews Daar is ons systeem op geënt. Dit zit nog veel te weinig tussen de oren van politici en vele idealisten en daarom blijft duurzaamheid zo’n achterhoedegevecht. Duurzaamheid moet uiteindelijk uitgedrukt worden in euro's. De derde cruciale succesfactor is overheidsregulatie. Het vervelende is dat er altijd een mentaliteitswijziging moet komen en deze moet altijd gestimuleerd worden vanuit de centrale overheid. De markt, maar ook de locale overheden hebben een korte termijn focus. Geen rendement, geen duurzaamheid. Echter een lange termijn focus is noodzakelijk om letterlijk en figuurlijk het klimaat te veranderen. Innovatie moet lonen. Daarom zijn we gebaat bij een sterke krachtige overheid die eisen stelt. Als een projectontwikkelaar een EP van 0,6 moet halen, of een greencalcscore met een MIG van meer dan 300 punten, komt er uiteindelijk een duurzaam product. De Nederlandse overheid neemt nauwelijks leiding in het duurzaam ontwikkelen van Nederland. Heel simpel: verhoog de duurzaamheidambities, maak beleid, stel wetten vast en zorg dat er gehandhaafd wordt. Mentaliteitsverandering en idealisme is niet sterk genoeg. Gewoon keiharde prestatie-eisen neerleggen voor alle bouwers, ontwerpers en ontwikkelaars en keihard handhaven van het beleid. Pas als de dijken doorgebroken zijn zal er wat in Nederland veranderen. Welnu, het proces is omgekeerd: Eerst overheidsregulatie, daardoor ontstaat productinnovatie, en daardoor wordt duurzaamheid geïntegreerd in massaproductie en betaalbaar. De markt accepteert altijd het product met de beste prijs-kwaliteitverhouding. Er hoeft geen nieuwe markt te worden aangeboord: immers we wonen, werken en recreëren allemaal in dezelfde gebouwde omgeving. De bouwmarkt is een van de grootste markten. Dus: ik geloof best in mentaliteitsverandering en idealisme, maar dit is niet sterk genoeg om de markt te veranderen. Het gaat altijd om de beste prijs-kwaliteitverhouding. Duurzaamheid moet betaalbaar worden gemaakt! Productinnovatie is dé sleutelfactor.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

23

Appendix VI: Expert interviews

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

24

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Open interview Bart Poel Builddesk Arnhem, dinsdag 16 september ‘08 conducted by Maarten Danser Hogere ambitie, meer flexibel proces, geen verschil duurzaam of niet Cyclisch ontwerpproces met dynamisch PVE Mensenfactor, juiste competenties Problemen bij procesinnovatie Kwaliteitscontrole

Is er een probleem dat duurzame ambities niet behaald worden? Ja, het probleem is deels technisch en financieel van karakter, maar ook heel sterk van procesmatige kant. Als duurzame ambities niet behaald worden waar wrikt het meest? Men werkt vanuit foute beelden in de initiatief fase, dingen worden verkeerd ingestoken. Het besef is er in initiatieffase niet dat men het proces wezenlijk anders moet aanpakken. En dan introduceer onnodige risico’s die leiden tot mislukkingen her en der, tot onvoldoende standvastigheid, negatieve ervaringen met duurzaam bouwen in zichzelf, dat is op zich ook al jammer. Leidt ook tot verspilling van tijd en geld, duurt langer, door het proces bereik je niet wat je wilde bereiken, betekend allerlei frustraties en diskwalificaties, zwarte pieten spel. Dat kan op allerlei fronten, dat kan hem zitten in de detaillering zitten, kan hem zitten dat sommige technieken of concepten in de gebruiksfase niet praktisch zijn. Kan zijn dat ze instabiel zijn, niet robuust, of dat ze in de onderhoudsfase tot onoverkomelijke problemen leiden. Er kan heel veel mis gaan, gelukkig gaat niet alles mis. Als je een proces hebt wat daar niet op is toegesneden, dan is het lastig met zulke problemen om te springen. In het ontwerptraject wat toch wat minder conventionele elementen in zich heeft, dan is het lastig in een rigide proces met die vereiste flexibiliteit om te gaan. Daar gaat het dan soms mis. Scheelt het dan nog, of je een gebouw hebt met een hele hoge duurzame ambitie of bijvoorbeeld een gebouw met een hele hoge andere ambitie, bijvoorbeeld esthetisch? Nee, eigenlijk niet, welke hoge ambitie je ook nastreeft, die er eigenlijk toe leidt dat je gebouw op een minder traditionele manier vorm krijgt, speelt eigenlijk dat je proces ander moet inrichten, om met niet bekende elementen in je proces flexibel om moet gaan. In essentie is het geen probleem van duurzame bouwen alleen. Of je nu een gebouw met extreme visuele eisen, of extreme veiligheideisen, moet je die eisen of wensen in een vroeg stadium het proces vormgeven. In de initiatief fase moet je al nadenken over de functie van het proces, daarna moet je het gaan vormgeven. Het oude adagium, “form follows function”, geldt ook hier. Een van de meest opvallende dingen in het proces is dat het altijd mis gaat bij de discontinuïteiten in de voortgang. Een hele belangrijke, op een gegeven moment is het ontwerpproces afgelopen, is bestek en tekeningen af, en begint men met bouwen, dat is een hele belangrijke discontinuïteit in het proces dan gaan er dingen mis. Dat zijn processeparaties, maar dat zie je ook bij scheidingen tussen de verschillende vakgebieden. Als die scheidingen heel erg aanwezig zijn, dan wordt er ook geen interactie gepleegd tussen de verschillende vakgebieden. Stel dat een installateur begint met de installaties te berekenen als het gebouw klaar is, dan krijg je wel een gebouw met juiste comfort, maar het is niet een optimaal gebouw. Als die installateur meedenkt in het ontwerpproces ten behoeve van de installaties dan krijg je een veel efficiënter gebouw, op die manier vereist zo’n optimalisatieslag wat van je processtructuur. Daar moet je in de initiatieffase over nadenken, en het vergt ook andere competenties van de mensen die in het proces aanwezig zijn. De keuze van bureau of zelfs personen, zelfs die keuze, kan in je initiatieffase al spelen. Welke partijen zou je in de initiatieffase aan tafel willen hebben? Hangt van het soort gebouw af en de complexiteit. Maar in ieder geval is het van belang om in mijn optiek, de architect, waar mogelijk ook de opdrachtgever/gebruiker aan tafel te hebben, de installatieadviseur en een adviseur die bouwfysica duurzaamheid kan dekken. En op enig moment moet er ook een constructeur en een kostendeskundige bij komen, in ieder geval tijdig.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

25

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Er zijn bijvoorbeeld ook gebouwen waar brandveiligheid een grote rol speelt, dan kun je ook een adviseur van brandveiligheid erbij willen. Hoe selecteer je deze partijen? Dat scheelt van partij tot partij, maar het komt er in essentie op neer dat de mensen de bereidheid en het vermogen hebben om over hun vakgebied heen te denken, en zich ook te laten inspireren door anderen. Ze moeten hun vak goed kennen, zodat ze niet alleen de gebaande paden kunnen bewandelen, maar dat ze weten waar ze zitten als ze van die paden afwijken. Dan pas kun je spelen met de materie, en bij meer innovatieve projecten tot iets komen, dat zijn belangrijke competenties. Hoe kun je mensen ‘dwingen’ tot het verlaten van de gebaande paden? Heel beperkt, je kunt mensen die een competentie missen niet dwingen die competentie te hebben. Soms zijn er wel potenties in mensen die ze niet aanspreken, die ze wel makkelijk kunnen gaan aanspreken. Ik ben regelmatig soort facilitator in zulke innovatieve ontwerpprocessen, we hebben een methodiek ontwikkeld in een groot internationaal project (IEA) van een aantal jaren met een 12 landen. Het secretariaat heeft een deel jou toegestuurd. In het faciliteren van die voorbeeldprojecten, kwamen twee interessante voorbeelden voor. In de eerste waren we bezig concept denken te stimuleren, de architect mocht geen tekeningen maken, en de installateur mochten geen systemen staan (zonder apparaten). Na die opgave lukte de installateur het niet om in concepten te denken, na een aantal keren ging het wel, hij leerde die potentie gebruiken, hij had de kennis wel, maar had het nooit op die manier toegepast. Een ander voorbeeld, waar het niet lukt, was waar een persoon de gebruikers representeerde, maar een eigenschap van die man was dat hij goed presenteert in conflict situaties. Dat kun je niet gebruiken in ontwerpsessies, waar je zoekt naar gezamenlijkheid, en hij zoekt naar polariteit. Daarom werd hij eruit gehaald en achteraf was hij wel bruikbaar, voor een kritische blik pas als het ontwerp klaar is. Zo scheelt het van persoon tot persoon hoe een bepaald karaktertrekken zich ontwikkelen, en hoe ze bruikbaar zijn in het proces. Dit is ook afhankelijk van de scholing die de personen hebben gehad, een installateur is niet gewend in concepten te denk, maar in radiatoren en ketels etc. Dus in veel gevallen is het mogelijk dit aan te leren, want niet iedereen is 100procent analytisch of concept denker. Onderzoek “valkuilen bij procesinnovatie”? Ja, de “de design proces guidelines” van het internationale onderzoek zijn daarvan ook nog toegestuurd. Valkuilen is de volledige lijst, het was een project van 5-6jaar, internationaal 12 landen, we zijn gaan kijken hoe het ontwerpproces zou moeten ingericht worden als je een duurzaam gebouw wilt. Grote diversiteit per land, dus niet te vergelijken, dus zijn we gaan kijken naar de functionaliteit in het proces. De ontwerpbeslissingen zijn wel uniform in het proces, op hetzelfde moment kies je voor een bepaalde gevel. Wat we ontdekt hebben, is dat processen die succes hadden, dat zij een soort ontwerp loops hadden. Toen hebben we een schema ontwikkeld voor ontwerploops gebaseerd op functies in het proces. In zo’n proces moet het PVE ook dynamisch zijn, de opdrachtgever op gebruiker moet dan ook verbonden zijn met het ontwerp proces, want het moet eventueel gedurende proces aangepast worden. Daarnaast moest er een reken tool zijn die op verschillende detailniveaus kan werken. Zo’n is beschikbaar gemaakt, en een communicatie tool “Multi-descision tool” en een opzet voor een “kick off” mogelijk gemaakt, zodat er een team gevormd wordt. En dat mensen zich gecommitteerd voelen, dat brandveiligheid adviseur zich mede verantwoordelijk voelt voor het eindresultaat. Hoe regel je dat contractueel? Dat is heel lastig, die vormen zijn er nog niet. Er zijn wel verkeerde contractvormen. Bijvoorbeeld dat het honorarium van de installateur verbonden is aan de kosten van de installatie. Je moet naar een contractvorm die veel meer de activiteiten beschrijft. Je zou zelfs kunnen denken dat een adviseur beloond wordt op zo efficiënt mogelijk leveren van de installaties. Of dat je een intentieverklaring laat tekenen om gecommitteerd te raken als team, zonder juridische verantwoordelijkheden. Andere denken dat commissioning de ideale vorm is, maar dat is meer een kwaliteitszorg iets, bestaat wel voor installaties maar je wil juist de samenwerking van de systemen beoordelen. Zelfs als je één partij turn-key een opdracht geeft, betekend niet dat ze als één team werken, verschillende dochterbedrijven pakken de opdracht op en die werken ook traditioneel, en daar ontstaat ook frictie.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

26

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Eigenlijk heb je een soort van facilitator nodig, die het proces bewaakt. Een PM is er eigenlijk ook niet mee bezig, omdat die heel dominant sturen op tijd en geld, en PVE zijn de kwaliteitsdoelstellingen. Probleem organisatie/informatie/communicatie of financiën? Hangt van je ambitieniveau af. Sommige ambitieniveaus liggen niet hoog, maar halen ambities niet omdat hun proces niet goed ingericht was. Als je gebruik maakt van ontwerploops kan dat veel eenvoudiger, omdat je gebruikt maar van een dynamisch PVE. Er zit een programma van wensen aan vast, wat veel meer inspeelt op de kwalitatieve eisen in plaats van de kwantitatieve eisen. Dan is het eindresultaat veel beter beschreven, en kun je belegger ook beter op binnenhalen. Verder als je niet integreert ben je geneigd duurzaamheid in een kosten baten afweging te doen heel beperkt is. Maar er zijn ook heel veel zachte waarden die dan niet in de kosten baten analyse zouden worden opgenomen. Er is bijvoorbeeld nog nooit een kosten baten analyse geweest over een marmeren vloer bij een hoofdkantoor van een bank, daar doet men niet moeilijk heeft. Als een opdrachtgever wordt betrokken in het ontwerpproces, gaat ie van het gebouw houden, en denkt niet na of een onderdeeltje kosteneffectief is, maar kijkt naar prijs/kwaliteit verhouding in het groter geheel. Hoort er een innovation champion bij te zitten? Het is licht overtrokken, maar je hebt wel een partij met de competentie en drive nodig. In het hele team moet ook zo’n 60-70% moet het willen, anders red je het niet. Als 20-30% de hakken in het zand steekt dan kom je er niet. Zo’n facilitator kan helpen meer balans in het geheel te krijgen, soms zie je ook dat een gebouw over gedomineerd wordt door een prestatieveld. Dat is jammer, het is veel mooier als een gebouw in de breedte een prestatie levert, op alle vlakken. In het bouwproces zijn er ook conflicten door gebrekkige integratie, over gebrekkige kennisoverdracht? Hoe kan men dit proces integraler maken? De aannemer eerder in het ontwerpproces, dat levert in het begin weerstand op, dingen waren risicovol om uit te voeren voor de aannemer. Met een risicoanalyse kan dit stap voor stap in kaart gebracht worden. Dan maak je het overzichtelijk, de angst afpellen. Ook voorlichting aan de bouwvakkers in combinatie met de intensivering van de toetsing op de bouw. Opblaas, luchtdrukproef bij oplevering. Als het niet luchtdicht is, maak je het opnieuw. Is het reëel zo’n kwaliteitscontrole op grote schaal in te voeren? Ja, en ook nodig bij dit soort gebouwen. Zelfs een aannemer/bouwvakkers moeten gecontroleerd worden, niet alleen de wortel, maar ook de stok! Eis dat je inregel rapportjes krijgt van je installateur, dan dwing je iemand van afleveren voor kwaliteit. Het gebeurt gewoon niet. Plus denk na over de robuustheid van het systeem, hoe moet het schoongemaakt worden, en hoe moet men het gebruiken. Het ontbreekt aan goede systematiek, waar staat het allemaal op een rijtje?? Nergens, daar ontbreekt het aan. Kwaliteitszorgsystemen zijn contraproductief aan deze ontwikkelingen, ze zijn heel fragmentarisch opgebouwd. Bij nieuwe technologieën waar mensen afhankelijk worden van andere beroepsgroepen, dan trekt men zich terug op dat wat in de kern van kwaliteitszorg geregeld is. De kwaliteitszorg stimuleert niet buiten je eigen vakgebied te treden en handreikingen te doen naar andere vakgebieden. Mensen werken vaak in routines, en noemen andere waaghalzen, maar dat zijn geen waaghalzen maar mensen die hun vak goed verstaan en de risico’s kunnen en durven schatten. Contractvormen, je wilt partijen vrijheid gunnen, hoe vaag wil je het contract omschrijven? In de termen van functionaliteit en prestaties heel nauwkeurig, maar niet in materialisering.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

27

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Open interview Bart Bossink Conducted by Maarten Danser Innoveren in de bouw, niet optimaliseren van het project. Om echte innovatie in het bouwproces wil bewerkstelligen dien je een andere benadering toe te passen dan een projectbenadering. Stap af van het project-denken! Het toe passen van een projectbenadering leidt ertoe dat er nog meer voorbeeldprojecten komen welke niet op grotere schaal toegepast worden. De partijen die bij het voorbeeld project betrokken zijn houden de kennis voor zichzelf, of is van een dermate specialistisch niveau dat deze tot enkele experts behouden blijft. Dat is ‘individual/organisational absorbtive capacity’, waar je niet in opgeleid bent, neem je niet in je op. (eenvoudig gezegd) Trans organisationeel niveau De regelgevende partijen als overheidsinstanties en uitvoerende partijen die zich daaronder scharen, als senternovem. Dit organisationeel niveau heeft de macht door middel van wet en regelgeving structurele verandering door te voeren aan de andere niveaus. Hiervoor hebben de partijen verschillende tools ter beschikking om een verandering te weeg te brengen. Inter organisationeel niveau Is de organistatie van de bedrijven onderling: de architect de aannemer, de ontwikkelaar, etc. De wet is er, wie gaat het doen? Intra organisationeel niveau Binnen je organisatie kijken hoe je aan een bepaalde vraag gaat voldoen. Komt er een nieuwe wet, is daar scholing van personeel voor nodig bijvoorbeeld. Voorbeeld organisatie theorie: Populatie Ecologie Een manager in een bouwbedrijf heeft een populatie werkmanagers onder zich, welke een populatie bouwers om zich heen hebben die het uiteindelijke werk doen. Maar de hoofd manager heeft bijvoorbeeld ook een college van bestuur boven zich, een populatie adviesraden naast zich etc. En iedereen heeft de overheid boven zich, die bestaat uit een populatie ministers die een heleboel adviseurs om zich heen hebben etc. Al die partijen zijn van elkaar afhankelijk, staan met elkaar in contact, een groot netwerk. Het is de kunst de belangrijke knooppunten in die enorme organisatie te prikkelen, om zo innovatie mogelijk te maken. Je kunt bijvoorbeeld een EPC label verplicht maken, maar daar niet de tools voor zijn om dat doen, of niet mensen, dan loopt het systeem stuk, en veranderd er niets. De kunst is met nauwkeurige ingrepen de standaard veranderen, en op grote schaal een innovatie te weeg brengen. Zoek bijvoorbeeld naar een prikkel om architecten beter met bouwers samen te werken, dat kan op heel veel manieren/niveaus. Voorbeeld: Een aantal jaren geleden is er na veel pijn en moeite doorgevoerd dat het veilig is om 15% puingranulaat in beton te verwerken. Maar komt het op de markt zeggen aannemers: Het is te duur, wij kunnen daar niet mee werken, het is niet veilig etc etc. Het zeker weer 10 jaar voordat het breder wordt toegepast. Ze blijven bij hun eigen traditionele proces. Als je dat vanuit organisationeel perspectief bekijkt, en het vergelijkt met de apple ipod, daar komt elke keer naar 1,5 jaar een nieuw product op de markt. Ze creeeren markt, en ze duwen hun eigen oudere producten van te markt af; zij zijn leidend. Ze blijven innoveren, en wie dat niet volgt ligt eruit. Leveranciers moeten daar in mee, concurrenten moeten daar in mee, als het niet volgen dan liggen ze na een aantal innovatie slagen zo ver achter, dat ze extra kosten moeten maken om de inhaalslag te maken, terwijl er eigenlijk geen markt meer is voor hun eigen product. Als je dat weer terug vertaald naar de bouw, zou er eigenlijk een partij moeten opstaan die de durf heeft om zo’n positie in te nemen. We bouwen volgens deze methode, en we eisen van andere partijen dat ze daar in meegaan, anders zoeken we een partij die dat wel kan voor die prijs om die tijd, desnoods in China. Niet erg duurzaam, maar het gaat om het lef om te innoveren, je kunt er achteraan lopen maar je kunt ook je markt creëren. Hypercompetition: Bedrijf breekt concurrentie voordeel af met een nieuwe standaard. (blu-ray dvd) Door de broncode vrij te geven, verliest Sony concurrentie voordeel, maar zorgt er op deze manier wel voor dat nieuwe technologie breed gedragen wordt. Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

28

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Open interview Jack de Leeuw Conducted on Woensdag 8 september ’08 by Maarten Danser Overeenkomsten met andere niet duurzame ambities Financieringsconstructies Toepasbaar in BREEAM Is het een probleem? Als opdachtgever, na een paar jaar krijg ik eindelijk mijn product, en het voldoet niet aan de eisen. Dan heb je wel een probleem. Maatschappelijk is het probleem, we willen met z’n allen graag dat er milieubewust gebouw wordt. Elk gebouw waar het dan niet lukt is er één te veel, om je maatschappelijke doelstellingen te halen. Projectontwikkelaars bouwen niet iets zonder dat er een vraag is, vanuit een marktbehoefte, of vanuit een opdrachtgever. Vaak beginnen ze niet eens als er geen huurder is. In dat geval is de huurder de opdrachtgever, de ontwikkelaar voert het uit tot oplevering en de belgger heeft het uiteindelijk in eigendom. Het probleem dan is dat de prioriteit vaak ligt bij de vierkante meter prijs, niet zo zeer om de exploitatie. Dat is een van de redenen dat die processen niet tot een goed resultaat komen. In het traditionele markt heb je een opdrachtgever, een ontwikkelaar en een belegger. En die drie zijn alle drie gericht op de oplevering van het gebouw, en daarmee op de uiteindelijke huurprijs. Als je naar het klimaat kijkt, begint het dan pas. Water aan het gebruiken, materiaal, afval, energie etc, die klimaatbelasting zit tijdens de gebruiksfase. Het bouwproces richt zich daar niet op, richt zich op een gebouw met een huurprijs. Een beetje zwart wit. TNT: Projectontwikkelaar en financier maken wij mede verantwoordelijk voor de exploitatie, die zitten daar tien jaar in vast. Dan ga je hele andere investeringen doen, omdat je veel meer bespaart tijdens de exploitatie. Als je voor 2% extra investering bijna geen energierekening hebt, is dat ontzettend interessant. Waarin verschilt de ontwikkeling van een duurzaam gebouw en klimaat neutraal? Het klimaatneutrale karakter draait eigenlijk om het om techniek en beheer. Dat is niet het moeilijkste stuk, dat is gewoon eis aan het voorzieningen deel. Het lastige zit hem in financiële kant, exploitatie en investering. Verder zie je dat er een informatie achterstand is. In Nederland zijn er misschien maar 40 of 50 architecten die duurzaamheid echt snappen wat er bij komt kijken. De rest roept dat ze het kunnen, maar dat wil helemaal niet zeggen dat ze echt de expertise in huis hebben. De opdrachtgever moet ook goed naar zichzelf kijken; wil ik dat om mooie sier te maken, wil ik dat om kosten te besparen, wil ik dat vanwege sociaal-maatschappelijk ondernemen. We moeten er ook niet te moeilijk over doen, het is gewoon een extra eis die je aan je gebouw stelt. Maakt het een verschil met een andere hoge ambitie, bv esthetisch? Nee, volgens mij hoeft dat geen verschil uit te maken. Uiteindelijk loop je ergens tegen aan, en dat is kosten, dan kun je wel een probleem verwachten. Maar dat scheelt niet met een hoge andere ambitie. Om bijvoorbeeld de vergelijking te trekken met domotica, als je vindt dat je in je primaire bedrijfsproces domotica belangrijk vindt. Daarvan moet je je ook vroeg in het ontwerpproces verdiepen, dan heb je ook adviseurs nodig, dan moet je ook weten hoeveel dat kost, hoeveel dat oplevert, je moet die kennis vergaren (probleem), en dan moet je keuzes maken. Wat wil ik eigenlijk, wat is belangrijk, op welke manier kan het beste mijn doelstellingen behalen en hoe moet ik proces invullen. Ik merk aan mezelf dat ik het beetje probeer te bagatelliseren, maar technisch gezien is het mogelijk. Je ziet dat er een soort smoes wordt verzonnen dat het niet kan of niet werkt, maar technisch is mogelijk. Vergelijking: parkeergarage Osdorp - ventilatiesysteem Vathorst Geen verschil in typen fouten: door onjuiste installatie maakt het bouwdeel zijn functie niet waar. Ik zie wel dat je veel meer partijen moet leren wat er bij komt kijken, dan je altijd denkt. We denken als we nou een klimaatneutraal ontwerp maken, dan wordt het wel gerealiseerd. De aannemer moet leren, dat hij niet vrij is in materiaalkeuze, of een ander formaat pijp kan gebruiken omdat hij die nog had liggen. Zo ontstaan er fouten, maar die klimaatinstallatie fouten zijn daarmee nog niet anders dan draagconstructie fouten. Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

29

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Hoe selecteer je aannemers dan? Het wel logisch dat als je geen risico’s wil lopen dat je selectiever bent in het selectieproces van je aannemers. In een prestatiecontract? Ik betwijfel of een prestatiecontract helpt bij het kennisniveau van de aannemer. Sterker nog, als iets niet helemaal goed beheerst, dan kent hij ook niet de mogelijke varianten. Dan grijpt hij eerder naar de reeds bekende oplossingen. Het kennisprobleem is gewoon aanwezig, en zoiets kost gewoon tijd. Het is een grote sector, het duurt een tijd gewoon voordat alle partijen het leren. Hoe ‘dwing’ je mensen het gezamenlijk creatief op te lossen, in plaats van in het traditionele proces verzeilt te raken? Heel belangrijk: investeren en exploiteren combineren. Een vernieuwend proces zal toch heel vaak gestuurd worden vanuit de life cycle cost. Opdrachtgevers zijn eigenlijk niet professioneel, zullen zijn hel goed hun primair proces. Ze zijn niet geëquipeerd om een gebouw neer te zetten, terwijl zij juist een belangrijk aandeel hebben in het uiteindelijke resultaat. Daarom moeten die partijen beter worden geïnformeerd zodat ze zich als professionele opdrachtgevers kunnen gedragen. Waarom? Omdat anders alle traditionele partijen in de bouw jou gaan vertellen, waarom datgene wat jij bedacht hebt dat dat niet handig, niet slim, of te duur etc etc is. Het klopt vaak wel deels, maar het is ook uit hun eigen belang. Per definitie doen ze liever traditioneel, want als gaan innoveren is dat risico, niet zeker of het werkt en je bent er verantwoordelijk voor. Als je iets wil, als uitvoerende partij, is het risico’s mijden. Normaal gesproken heb je als opdrachtgever een vaag idee van wat je wilt, en dan komt die bouwwereld over je heen denderen, die zegt dan “ja meneertje, dat werkt natuurlijk niet, dat ziet u ook”. Zo’n opdrachtgever, maar ook de aannemer moet dat leren, omdat hij in het begin zich niet goed bedacht heeft wat hij wil, dat er wijzigingen komen. Daardoor haal je je resultaat niet. Tenzij je bijvoorbeeld gekozen hebt voor een gescheiden drager/inbouw, maar dat moet al in het PVE staan. Of geen rekening gehouden met huisvesting over 3 jaar (als het bedrijf is opgeleverd). Wanneer erkent men als eerste het probleem dat ambities niet behaald worden? Dat weet ik niet, maar daar kan ik wel een voorstelling van doen, dat is als de nauwkeurige kostenberekeningen gemaakt worden. In de vroege ontwerpfasen zijn er al wat kostenoverschrijdingen, daar wordt wat aan gesleuteld totdat het weer klopt. Maar dan bij de definitieve berekeningen gaat het mis, en als er ding mis gaat, komen er meer problemen. Als je een ander bouwproces wil, dan moet je niet denken dat je dezelfde voorbereidingstijd nodig. Omdat je veel dieper moet nadenken wat er mis kan gaan, of duurder kan worden. Compromissen die te laat worden gesloten zijn altijd duurder. Veranderingen en fouten gedurende de bouw, oorzaak ligt voor 95% in de voorbereiding. Een goed project goed loopt, blijkt de helft van de tijd in de voorbereiding te zitten, en de helft in de uitvoering. Hoe kun je dat stimuleren? Das lastig, meestal gewoon tijdsdruk door een concrete behoefte. Afweging bij initiatief: Lange voorbereiding, hetzelfde proces, wel de kwaliteit, later klaar Korte voorbereiding, eerder starten, niet de kwaliteit, eerder klaar zijn. (eerder huur!) Realiteit: Korte voorbereiding, eerder starten, niet de kwaliteit, later klaar door vertragingen. Men verwacht niet dat de tijdswinst en kostenbesparingen van een langere voorbereidingstijd dermate groot zijn. Maar je planning wordt gewoon veel strakker, beter doordacht. Stimuleren van langere voorbereidingstijd, zou je het met de BREEAM kunnen sturen. Ik denk dat dat ingewikkeld is, er zijn zoveel verschillende typen gebouwen, dat het heel lastig is om een minimum tijd voor voorbereiding te vragen. Stimuleren voor andere organisatievormen is reëler maar ook lastig.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

30

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Ik denk dat het meest toepasbaar is om de overbrugging in het investering/exploitatie te stimuleren, zorgen dat de ontwikkelende partijen hun winsten in de exploitatiefase ophalen. Zeg: Maak duidelijk hoe de relatie wordt gelegd tussen de investering en de exploitatie van het gebouw. Voorbeeld HBG Engeland – Ziekenhuizen (guus hoefsloot) Investeren om het onderhoud te minimaliseren. Voorbeeld Betuwelijn – HBG design construct finance maintain Prestatie contract van Opdrachtgever naar ontwikkelaar/belegger, lease. LCA en sterke opdrachtgever toch ambities niet behaald? Misschien gewoon onvoldoende budget. Valkuilen bij proces innovatie, waar zit de oorzaak? Bevestigd, de organisatie en informatie zijn hoofdoorzaken voor problemen. Wie zou de opdrachtgever in het proces erbij willen hebben in de initiatief fase? Das niet zo makkelijk. Allereerst een adviseur die hem ondersteund in zijn professionaliteit. Geen bouwmanager, hij zit al te veel in het standaardproces, meer een organisatieadviseur (procesadviseur). Als je dan weet wat je echt wil, en je vertaald dat bouwkundig en qua installatie heel vroeg, dan moet je dat meenemen in het ontwerp. Ik ben er voor dat Architect, bouwer, installateur. Maar ook, laat eens een facility manager meepraten. Je exploitatie aspecten moet je je ontwerpproces intrekken. Andere projecten? Stan Vermeulen heeft andere innovatieve projecten paraat. Ander onderzoek? Bouwprocesmodellen, contractmodellen, oude publicatie samenwerkingsvormen. Gerrit de Heer heeft die publicaties wel.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

“programma

van

eisen”,

31

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Open interview Wim Pullen en Jaap Hanekamp Conducted on Woensdag 17 september ’08 by Maarten Danser Concentreert zich van de oorspronkelijke brede duurzame gedachte naar de invloed daarvan op de bouwpraktijk. “Probeer labels en andere tools eens los te laten en waar gaat het om?”

Is het een probleem dat de duurzame ambities niet behaald worden? Ja, voor gebruikers, als het gebouw niet voldoet dan komen er problemen. Dan worden ook andere partijen, als aannemers/installateurs, aansprakelijk worden gesteld. En dan ook nog de Nu hebben het over contractuele afspraken, of sociale. Maar het gaat over maatschappelijke verantwoordelijke, intergenerationeel gezien, zoals Brundtland. Wat het verschil tussen de typen ambities? Breeam is ‘window dressing’ het zegt mij als fysicus niet, het gaat om pJ’s. Als het over duurzame ambities moet je over petajoules praten. Al die logo’s is fantastisch, maar het zegt mij niets, ik zie niet hoeveel Joules ermee gemoeid zijn. Als men het over duurzaam heeft moet men over joules praten. – Jaap Hanekamp Model 1, hoge duurzame ambitie, of model 2, hoge esthetische ambitie, meet zich uit in de hoeveelheid Joules die daarmee gemoeid zijn. Als je een bouwopgave hebt van model of 1 En daar moet je uiteraard de levensduur meenemen, een durable gebouw is dan ook duurzaam. De investering vs levensduur, als het gebouw functioneel goed gebruikt kan blijven, ben je natuurlijk heel duurzaam bezig. Materiaal Levensduur Gebruik (intensiteit) Mobiliteit Arbeid Ruimte Als je permanent materialen moet vervangen in een gebouw, dan moet je ook meenemen hoeveel petajoules dat kost. Prijselasticiteit, als de olieprijs stijgt worden de petajoules heel interessant. “Duurzaamheid wordt bij lange na niet serieus genomen.” Men kijkt onvoldoende naar de kosten en de petajoules. Als je deze definities zegt maar als een soort grondwerk beschouwd, denk ik dat men duurzaamheid niet serieus genoeg neemt. Klimaatneutraal bestaat helemaal niet, dat is onzin een non-term, dat is thermodynamische onzin. Energie is de mogelijkheid om arbeid te verrichten, dat is de standaarddefinitie, elk proces wat arbeid genereert warmte, en warmte is de energievorm die onbruikbaar is. Alle arbeid resulteert dus een restenergie waar we niks mee kunnen. Dus als ik bouw of gebruik dan genereer ik CO2 bovenop wat ik zou willen compenseren met wat dan ook. Dat is de tweede hoofdwet, dat heet entropie. Met andere woorden, als je het heel kosmisch zou willen zeggen, het heelal koelt af tot nul en er is geen leven meer mogelijk, dan is het helemaal klaar. Dat is de drijfveer achter alles dat je een verval is in de mogelijkheden om energie te gebruiken voor iets nuttigs, voor arbeid. Dat zou zeggen dat je een “perpetuum mobieler’ zou kunnen bouwen. Alle vormen van arbeid zit een verlies factor, hoe efficiënt je ook een arbeid inricht, zit die factor, daar kun je niks aan doen. Er is maar één mogelijkheid, we kunnen het alleen efficiënter maken, maar dan moeten we wel zicht hebben op de hoeveelheid Joules er in om gaan.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

32

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Opsomming 1. Klimaat neutraal bestaat niet. 2. Wat bedoelen we dan wel, welke maat? Petajoules 3. Hoe serieus nemen we duurzaamheid? Toepasbaarheid / reëel 4. Hoe kijken we met elkaar naar de doelstelling en de maat? CO2 heeft een hoge publiekstrekkende functie, iedereen heeft het over klimaatverandering, terwijl er nog redelijk wat onduidelijkheden bestaan over de oorzaak en de gevolgen daarvan. Misschien is CO2 over 10jaar van het toneel verdwenen is, het is daarom veel belangrijker over Joules te praten, dat is duidelijk. CO2 leidt soms tot bizarre situaties, waar het als een giftig gas wordt gezien, dan heeft men fotosynthese nog niet begrepen. We waren aan het afpellen, het moet toepasbaar en reëel zijn. Het ontbreekt aan goede definities en meetbaarheid. Het beide lastig, maar het is wel te doen. Het is een kwestie van de hele keten doormeten op energie gebruik en water gebruik. Toepasbaar en reëel bedoel ik dan mee, eenvoudig en simpel in een korte tijd. Ergens in die keten zitten nog lastigere dingen als gebruik, representeert BREEAM de hele keten? Is het haalbaar om een geheel proces door te rekenen op Joules? In de keten zitten zoveel belanghebbenden ontstaat er een verbinding tussen maatschappelijk belang en bedrijfsbelang. Waar zitten die belanghebbende en waar verdienen zij hun geld? Je ziet dus ook dat partijen steeds vaker gaan samenwerken, omdat gezamenlijk die lastige vraagstukken op te lossen. Maar dat vraagt toegenomen transparantie, maar dat willen een aantal partijen niet. Dat is een van de vraagstukken, transparantie is over het algemeen niet gewenst. Niet in het belang van het bedrijf, omdat ze geld verdienden met vage definities en onduidelijke targets, het gaat om beschermen van belangen. In de hele duurzaamheid discussie mis ik eigenlijk de hele exergie berekeningen, hoeveel petajoules gaan we nu verminderen ten opzichte van X. Daar heeft men het niet over, omdat er verschillende belangen een rol spelen, men lijft vervallen in vage definities. De petajoules moeten vervolgens worden gekoppeld aan euro’s zodat er een lifecycle cost is, dan kun je overzicht krijgen wat iets in zijn volledige cyclus kost. Anders kun je niet de je gebruiksfase afzetten tegen je investering. Die qua totale petajoules uiteindelijk onder de streep positief of negatief uitvalt. En dat hangt natuurlijk van hoge mate afhankelijk van de levensduur van een object. Wat zijn de berkeningen die de basis hebben gevormt tot BREEAM? Zal ook deels gebaseerd zijn op lifecycle costs, zoals greencalc. DGBC maakt de dingen wel transparant, blijkbaar gebaseerd op LCA. Level Playing Field, al het moeilijkste is de transparantie. Iedereen mag op gelijke voorwaarden aan de markt meedoen. LPF levert winners en losers op. Maar de basis moet zijn Joules, dat zie je via de LCA methode. ---Begrippen: PetaJoules - LCA - BREEAM - Duurzaam Detailnivo: Nauwkeurig ----------------- Vaag Transparantie: Open -------------------------- Gesloten Kosten: Duur ------------------------------ Goedkoop Tijd: Veel ---------------------------- Weinig Toepasbaarheid: Gering --------------------------- Aanzienlijk Methode: Kwanititatief  Kwalitatief Iedereen kan heel snel/eenvoudig/goedkoop roepen dat het project duurzaam is, maar dat is dan een heel vaag begrip. Idealiter wil je controles in Joules, dat is zeer nauwkeurig en vraagt ook een zeer transparant proces, maar heeft een geringe toepasbaarheid omdat het prijzig en tijdsintensief is. ---Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

33

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser 42.38 De mens zelf is in de gebruiksfase is het meest essentieel, hoe de installaties gebruikt worden maakt het verschil. Wat als er nou eens niet wordt aanbesteed op geld, maar op petaJoules. Ik ga voor de beste kwaliteit, de beste kwaliteit voor het milieu is de aanbieding met de laagste petajoules. Als input krijgen de ontwikkelaars/aannemers Dit is de oorspronkelijke Limits to Growth (1972) benadering, niet euro’s maar petajoules! Aannemer A kan bijvoorbeeld de duurste zijn, dat wordt heel interessant. Maar ze hebben het op basis van dezelfde aannames doorgerekend en misschien zelfs met de zelfde tool. Als partijen willen dat we iets gaan doen aan intergenerationele solidariteit (kern duurzaamheid) en je wilt antwoord op de vraag “beter georganiseerd naar tevredenheid van alle partijen?”, dan moet men het gaan hebben over Joules ipv Euro’s. Organisatie in: transparantie, methode, tool. De ontwikkelaar A krijgt bijvoorbeeld de opdracht, hoe gaat hij vervolgens aan de slag, welke architect kiest hij, welke leverancier, etc. Hoe Uitvoerbaar is het? Hoe maakbaar? Je krijgt eigenlijk een nieuw systeem, de aannemer heeft een eigen netwerk van onderaannemers met hun eigen leveranciers die aan de petajoules waarden voldoen. Dicht bij huis, minimale belasting door vervoer, minimale arbeid, minimale schadelijke milieueffecten. Het draait allemaal om de petajoules, dat is de nieuw currency, dat zijn we even vergeten, rond de prijselasticiteit heeft gedwongen dat de euro’s niet meer domineren maar de petajoules. Als projectontwikkelaar een petajoules ambitie uitspreekt, maakt hem dat direct zeer organisatieafhankelijk. De ketting is zo sterk als de zwakste schakel. Je kan nog zo’n mooi duurzaam concept bedenken, maar als al je staal uit Australië komt in plaats van uit IJmuiden, waar ben je dan bezig. Steeds meer industrieën zijn tegenwoordig bezig met het in kaart brengen van deze logistiek. De organisatie van de keten moet een petajoules optimalisatie krijgen, waarschijnlijk komt daar een LCA bij kijken. Over installaties, hoog rendementsketels spelen geen rol meer, maar vervangbaarheid wordt belangrijker. Huib van Heel: “Moet ik een koelkast bouwen die honderd jaar mee gaat, of moet ik een koelkast bouwen die recyclebaar is omdat de warmtepompen over 10 jaar het veel beter doen?” – Het antwoord is recyclebaar, en ze hebben gelijk gehad. Combineerbare brokken die los vervangen kunnen worden bij technologische verbetering/innovatie. Zijn de delen modulair op te bouwen. Energie is materie, materie is energie. Weghalen van asbest als voorbeeld, het kost ontzettend veel energie om alles weg te peuteren. De wet van de verminderde meeropbrengst. Disproportioneel opbrengsten tov de investering. Entropie, je verlies neemt exponentieel toe, op een gegeven moet je er mee stoppen. Praktisch gezien: Moet er dus na een aanbesteding op petajoules, een team gevormd worden met die de klus moeten gaan klaren, zij moeten gaan nadenken over al die punten gaan nadenken die we hebben opgeschreven (Materiaal, Levensduur, Gebruik intensiteit, Mobiliteit, Arbeid, Ruimte). Een consortium heeft er dus gezamenlijk belang bij om die target te halen, maar ze zitten naar elkaar te kijken waar zit hij te optimaliseren, waar zit zij te optimaliseren, die moeten dus naar die transparantie waar ze moet gezamenlijk optimaliseren. Nico Lemmens – ISS – schoonmaak / beheer, moest in beginfase de aannemer/ontwikkelaar gaan uitleggen hoe zij moesten gaan bouwen. Ja, dat geeft natuurlijk problemen. Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

34

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Organisatievormen die aan het veranderen zijn kun je ontzettend veel van leren, bijvoor die PPS projecten, of gezamenlijke projecten over de hele levensduur zijn interessant. Je zult voornamelijk projecten moeten gaan bekijken waar ze die levensduur in het proces meenemen. Anders zijn ze niet het resultaat aan het optimaliseren, maar wellicht is dat wel de realiteit. Als we kijken naar TNT in hoofddorp: Dat is heel interessant. Maar wordt dat een onderhoudbaar, leefbaar, bruikbaar gebouw? Gaan die partijen dan niet op ten duur ergens inleveren. Misschien hebben ze zoiets van we gaan het blijven doen met de installaties die erin zitten. Of er zijn zulke strenge eisen aan het gebouw, dat geen spijker in de muur mag slaan (ministerie van financiën). En als de energie contractueel is vastgelegd in termen van installaties in plaats van gebruik, dan kun je nog wel eens aardig de klos zijn. 01:06:24 “Helaas dit gebouw moet zo gebruikt worden, nieuw gebruik is niet mogelijk, nou, dan weet ik wel wie er na een paar jaar weg is: de huurder, en die neemt z’n verlies dan wel.” –Wim Pullen, “Absoluut! Dat is heel snel klaar” – Jaap Hanekamp. MD: Eigenlijk wil je dus de volledige petajoules voor alle categorieën contractueel vastgelegd voor het hele consortium. Hoe kun je een architect aansprakelijk maken voor een resultaat wat pas over 25 jaar bekend is? De mensen die doelstelling belangrijk vinden. De keten is zo sterk als de zwakste schakel. Maar met aansprakelijkheid kom je in een juridisch domein waar je nu even niet in moet begeven. Initial Type Testing gebeurd, maar uitgebreide test van gebruik en gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid voor de ontwikkelende partijen niet.

Groen denken ideologie, mijn grootste bezwaar is ook dat CO2 een morele consultatie heeft. Vooral op lange termijn, mode komt en gaat. Zure regen is nu bijna als hype verdwenen. Laat duurzaamheid zich nu eens ontdoen van die hypes, dat doe je door te praten over Joules en het verhaal zo scherp te krijgen. En regiehouder binnen het concept CO2 werkt op de lange termijn, omdat mensen verschillend denken. Tegengestelde belangen visies op het hele leven, dat is de filosofische politieke visies. Het CO2 gedachtegoed poogt daar lijn in te krijgen bij alle mensen, maar dat is onmogelijk, mensen denken niet hetzelfde. Als prijselasticiteit ons dwingt niet meer in euro’s te denken, maar is een vat olie zo duur geworden, dan spreekt men alleen nog maar over Joules. Dan is een regiehouder alleen maar boekhouder van Joules. Over 10/20jaar zijn de windmolens verdwenen. Windmolenpieken moeten worden opgevangen, speelt rusland in de kaart. Osmose centrales of photovoltaische cellen zijn waarschijnlijk de toekomst. Hoe maak de petajoules meetbaar? Tot in den treuren doorrekenen van de het proces, ketenoptimalisatie, daar heeft de bouw nog een grote slag te slaan.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

35

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Open interview Geert Verlind Builddesk Arnhem, dinsdag 16september ’08, conducted by Maarten Danser Verschil: gewoon – duurzaam – klimaatneutraal

Duurzaam is meer dan alleen technologie, ga er in de beginfase anders over na denken. Tegenwoordig zeggen ze standaard doe er een warmtepomp in, en we hebben een duurzaam gebouw. Heb je verdiept in “natural” step en cradle to cradle? Ik heb gesproken met vergein en partners. Wij hangen er een groen sausje overheen en doen we in Nederland te vaak. Zij zeggen ook we anders gaan denken, ik hou niet van grijze oplossingen, ga het nou gewoon eens anders doen. Er is geen duidelijke begripsdefinitie voor “cradle to cradle” of “klimaatneutraal”, aan welke termijn denk je, is het duurzaam? En wil je wel een mondiaal energie netwerk, als het ook op wijkniveau georganiseerd kan worden. In welke schaal ben je aan het ontwerpen. Normaal redelijk duurzaam: Ambitie hoog, in de realisatie gaat het minder, omdat je budgettair vastloopt. Het zijn dan vaak allang bewezen technologieën, tussen innovatie klein, dus daar weinig mis. Omdat de groene saus er achteraf niet gelijk loopt met de groene ambitie. We willen wel maar we hebben er geen geld voor. Niemand lig dwars, maar als later extra techniek geld kost en dan loopt het vast. Want je kunt niet terugschakelen naar je hoofdbudget. Bij huizen worden in het begin al een vrij op naam prijs vastgested. Als je er dan later in het pakket budgettair moet aanpassen, dan is het al te laat. Er is in de budgettering geen aandacht gehouden met Extreme hoge duurzaamheid: Vanaf dag één er mee bezig zijn met wat je wil. Installaties, inbouw casco, alles heeft op elkaar invloed. Je moet het echt intergraal benaderen, je kunt de stappen niet achterelkaar zetten. Heel simpel: Als je een goed geisolleerd gebouw, heb je een mindere installaties nodig. Welke partijen? Gemeente, architect, ontwikkelaar, adviseur. Cradle 2Cradle in floriade in Venlo, hebben in begin als bestuurders gezegd we willen een zeer hoge duurzame ambities. Tweede fase, iedereen wil zo’n grote klus (Arcadis). Technische oplossingen in een latere fase gaat mis. Terwijl men aan het nadenken is over de riolering in keramiek is bijvoorbeeld 30% duurder dan beton. Leg dan in die late fase uit in bestuurders dat er onvoldoende budget is. Laat de investeerders in een eerdere fase er mee over nadenken, wat heeft de ambitie voor een invloed. Duurzaamheid is lange termijn, dat is al lastig genoeg in de context van de Floriade. Flexibiliteit belangrijk. “Bij projecten met een echte hoge duurzaamheidsgehalte, moet je ze dwingen vanaf de alle eerste dag erover nadenken, welke partijen je nodig hebt aan tafel en die moet je bijelkaar zetten, waar je ze normaal achterelkaar zou zetten.” In fase 4 of 5 loop je ergens tegenaan die je in beginfase had moeten tackelen. “In de begin van het proces heb je de meeste behoefde kennis en heb je het minst beschikbaar.” 22:30 Andere hoge ambitie: Verschil is bij duurzaamheid dat er nog veel dingen onbekend zijn, en er is nog veel onduidelijkheid van wat de effecten zijn van bepaalde materialen en concepten. Of men wil het niet aan elkaar vertellen. Specialist zegt dat sommige warmtepompen soms 8000kW kosten per jaar, terwijl je zonnepanelen max 3000kW opleveren. Bij het onderzoek “valuilen bij procesinnovatie” gaat het Niet zo zeer geld, maar organisatie en informatie, reactie: Als je weet wat het van te voren kost is het geen probleem, alleen als je tijdens het proces bezig bent, wordt het heel lastig om dat in een latere fase anders sturen is. Financieringsconstructie voor/naar oplevering: Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

36

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Als je een hele directe opdrachtgever, bijvoorbeeld Exxon, die denkt wel aan Total Cost. Hij weet wel, ik investeer nu 6 miljoen extra, hij weet, op basis van de stijgende energiekosten, dat verdien ik in achter jaar terug. Belegger wil niet investering in de huursector als hij vervolgens niet meer huur mag vragen. In de private sfeer gaat dat wel, maar voor woningcorporaties is dat lastig. Puntenstelsel willen ze wel in de wet veranderen, dat er life cycle cost geregeld gaat worden. Je moet niet alleen naar investeringkosten kijken maar ook kijken naar total cost. Er zoveel dingen in de plus in het gebruik die investeringen interessant maken. Mijn objectdefinitie is niet ik realiseer een gebouw van zoveel, nee, je definitie moet zijn je realiseert een functionaliteit dat kantoorgebruik over vijftig jaar (primaire investering + onderhoud). Hoe rendeert dat dan mijn duurzaamheid in waardevermeerdering, energiebesparing, minder onderhoud over de volledige periode. Draait het dan alleen om een sterke opdrachtgever? Sterke opdrachtgever is natuurlijk altijd goed, je weet niet of die opdrachtgever het na 5 jaar verkoopt aan een belegger die dat gevoel niet heeft. De overheid kan het al redelijk afdwingen bij bedrijven als het zich binnen zeven jaar terugverdient. Zij zeggen dit is een bedrijfseconomisch een gezonde investering op basis van de huidige gegevens die we hebben, bij een reële investering kunnen ze het afdwingen. Maar je wil ook niet dat een agent aan de zijkant zit. Maar het belangrijkste is als de partijen bij elkaar gaan zitten, praten ze over hetzelfde. Voor mij is het dus niet dat je het ergens anders met milieucertificaten terugverdienen. In welke fasen zitten de grootste risico’s, waar loopt het vast? Ik merk dat het bij de bestekfase stuk loop. Andere mensen maken de materialisatieslag en technische slag, dan zijn er ambitieuze plannen waar een tekort aan kennis, ervaring, budget blijkt. Ik kan niet krijgen wat ik wil, het is duurder, dat kan niet samen. Onvoldoende communicatie, zwarte piet toeschuiven. Bijvoorbeeld: Als je een warmtepomp wil hebben in de ambitiefase, zorg dat je een specialist erbij hebt in warmtepompen, wees voorbereid. Hoe gaat de huidige bouwsector met de problemen om, organisatorisch? 90% wordt nog altijd op een traditionele wijze ontwikkeld, de andere 10% is eigenlijk altijd in bouwteam. Maar de bouwteams zijn dan traditionele bouwteams die al jaren gevormd worden, er wordt nooit om een reden als duurzaamheid in de beginfase een ander team om die reden gevormd. Stel: er wordt in de initiatieffase besloten dat er een vegetatiedak moet komen, ik heb nog nooit gezien dat in die fase al een partij erbij gevraagd wordt die daar gespecialiseerd in is. De specialist komt er pas bij het definitieve ontwerp bij, als de meeste ontwerpbeslissingen reeds genomen zijn, dan gaat het mis. Je ziet het niet. De eerste stappen zijn gewoon traditioneel, je proces innoveert in principe dan ook niet. Je bent met suboptimalisatie bezig tijdens het proces. Als wil doen, wat jij zegt wil doen, dan heb je een sterke opdrachtgever nodig, die zegt: ik wil duurzaam, en ik heb daar een architect bij nodig, en wie hebben we daar als duurzaamheidspecialist bij nodig om dit te kunnen realiseren. Bij TNT willen ze een extreem duurzaam gebouw, en het moet wat kenmerken hebben, en dit wordt de huur. Die zitten ook in Tilburg, dat is een hele krachtige opdrachtgever, die zeggen pats. Er zijn vreemde krachten aan het werk hier, een opdrachtgever die dat wil, die heeft dan ook grip op z’n budgettering. In de kantorenbouw of woningbouw bouwwereld moeten ze concurreren, de goedkoopste zijn. Wie schrijft er een aantrekkelijk aanbod, als er dan achteraf duurzaamheid bij komt dan is het altijd duurder. Standaard bieden ze het niet aan, achteraf als een duurzaam sausje erover wel, maar dan wordt het weer duurder. Een sterke partij die duurzaam wil, maar je die wel moet kunnen organiseren. Die heb je gewoon altijd nodig, er moet een initiatiefnemer zijn. Het moet een visionair durven zijn, om de innovatie te prikkelen. Maar dan niet in het verval raken zoals het project in Venlo. Waar ik wel naar toe zou willen gaan, wat is mijn groene ambitie, en het is jou kracht om innovatieve oplossingen te komen. Wat zeggen aannemers bij goed isolerende woningen, ja, die kosten meer, want er gaat meer isolatiewol in. Nee, want kunt dat besparen op de ketel, ja maar die is standaard. Zulke discussies kunnen vermeden worden als de partijen binnen hun eigen sector met creatieve oplossingen komen. 50:00

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

37

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Dan doel ik ook meer op prestatie gerichte contracten, Senter Novem Innovatieve Prestatie Contracten (IPC), als je daarin partijen de ruimte geeft om met nieuwe innovatieve oplossingen te komen. We hebben altijd een aanbod gestuurde bouwsector gehad. Waar zitten de innovaties in de bouwkolom de afgelopen 40 jaar, bij de bouwtoeleveranciers. Het was product push, ze vonden een nieuw product, en de aannemer ging dat toepassen als er genoeg markt was. De innovatie had niks te maken met de vraagkant. Het tegenovergestelde gebeurt nu, de vraagzijde verlangt nu duurzame innovatie. De bouwtoeleverende industrie hoort die vraag niet, de architecten en die aannemers zitten in het midden en hebben er geen ervaring mee. Dus er ontstaat frustratie, nu zie je dus dat ontwikkelende bouwers met de bouwtoeleverende industrie samenwerkingsverbanden oprichten. Dan zie je dat er innovatiecirkels ontstaan. Zoals bij de BAM / Dura moeten ze bijvoorbeeld om de starters te kunnen bedienen met nieuwe goedkopere woningen komen, dus zij moeten dicht gaan samenwerken met de toeleverende industrie hebben. Casco en techniek staan los van elkaar, terwijl het wel invloed heeft op elkaar. Je ziet ze zelden dicht samenwerken, wel steeds meer bij grote bouwers, maar middelgrote ontwikkelaars kansen laten liggen. Je ziet wel joint venture projecten ontstaan, het is meer een statement maken, opgehangen aan een project, maar je ziet weinig echte structurele innovatie in de bouwkolom. Niet risico dragend innoveren buiten projecten om. Stork air, van huis uit leverancier ventilatoren. Heeft uit de markt gesignaleerd dat klanten niet meer vragen naar een type ventilator, maar vragen naar een binnenklimaat. Dus gaan ze zich meer richten op adviseren van klanten op binnenmilieu, ze bieden meer een service. Hetzelfde zie je bij Rockwool, en bij BAM herken je het ook steeds meer, het bewust kiezen voor een innovatieve werkwijze los van een project. Je moet je vraag concretiseren, bij een sterke opdrachtgever is het makkelijker. Maar in het voorbeeld van Almere is het een stuk lastiger om de opzet te definiëren. We bouwen zelden goede kennisdatabank, we werken 1 keer samen en we zijn weer weg. Als je naar de auto industrie kijkt, er is niet een auto in 1 fabriek geproduceerd, ze kopen alle leveranciers, gaan allemaal samen. Er zijn wereldwijd misschien nog maar zes fabrieken die dieselmotoren maken. Lange termijn consortiums, kennisdata, DGBC…. GPR, komt maar met één getal, dan worden mensen lui. Ze kennen het trucje en weten met een extra groenbak heb ik de score. Je wilt juist innovatie stimuleren, continue innovatie, want de vraag uit de markt zal ook niet veranderen. De vraagzijde vraagt niet naar technische oplossingen, de vraagzijde vraagt comfort, een prettige woning, een plek om te leren. Presentatie contracten zegt men van dat doet men in Nederland al veel, maar die zijn allemaal gericht op feitjes, daar zegt men: de isolatiewaarde van die wand moet zo veel zijn. Daar wil je niet naar toe, je wil van dag één afspraken maken over zoveel energie wil ik maximaal per jaar gebruikt. Als je auto 1op9 rijdt in plaats van 1op14, dan ga je terug naar de dealer als 1op14 op de folder staat. Natuurlijk met enige marge, maar je moet een controle functie hebben, en partijen zijn daar verantwoordelijk voor. Gebouwen niet gecontroleerd op gebruik, en ook niet op kwaliteit. In Scandinavië wordt de luchtdichtheid van een woning getest als hij opgeleverd wordt, dat doen we niet in Nederland. Als je de test niet haalt, doe het dan maar opnieuw. De valkuil in Nederland is dat het puur marketing is, dan hoor je niemand erover als het mis gaat, er wordt niet getest wat de prestatie is. In Duitsland moet dat wel. Marketing: Als een gemeente Amsterdam zegt dat ze in 2030 klimaat neutraal willen, zullen ze toch echt eerst moeten weten hoeveel CO2 nu de lucht in geblazen wordt. Ze weten niet wat hun nulpunt is, hoe kun je dan aangeven wanneer je CO2-neutraal bent? Dat werkt niet.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

38

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser Passief bouwen, als gebouw een lage energiebehoefte hebben…. Etc etc – lage EPC. Duitsland, Zwitserland, Oostenrijk worden in detail goede panden neergezet, in Nederland zit dat pas in de eerste ontwikkeling. Hoe hoger de ambitie, hoe kritischer je op de afwerking moet zijn, let op de details. Elk detail telt zwaar mee, voor een gewone woning van EPC=0,8. Zelf bij onderaannemers is er een kwaliteitsverlies mogelijk, hun aandeel is wel degelijk zeer belangrijk. Als voorbeeld, in Duitsland wordt de isolatie aangebracht door iemand die daar verstand van heeft, hij is verantwoordelijk voor hoe die woning energetisch presteert. In Nederland wordt de isolatie aangebracht door metselaar, omdat ie toevallig op die plek staat. Hij wordt afgerekend op het aantal stenen dat hij stapelt, niet op energetische waarde. Wat er dus moet veranderen, is dat je bij die onderaannemers een gigantische kwaliteitsselectie moet doen en een training, dat die mensen beseffen wat zij doen dat dat heel belangrijk is in het geheel.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

39

Appendix VII: Interviews Maarten Danser

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

40

Appendix VIII: Results case studies

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Case study 1.1: Triodos Real Estate Development Success factors of development of sustainable offices: • Choice of location/ area: sustainability score depends on the surrounding infrastructure; public transport accessibility, heat and cold storage in soil, neighbourhood services • Early involvement of future user: project goals should be set together with the user • More emphasis on operational phase: optimize long term value of building • Involve construction company in the design phase: Use local knowledge • Develop integral vision on sustainability in development company: use of LCA tools is essential • Communication with client: Client is expected to be more involved and cooperative • Flexibility and adaptation of all stakeholders during development process. Barriers to development of sustainable offices: • Energy production on site can be problematic because of necessary permits • Sustainable material use involves much more then people think: production, transport and source all have influence • Lack of a common understanding of the concept sustainability • Project can be involved too early or too late in area development. Too early: not enough other buildings to combine energy infrastructure. Too late: Unsustainable energy infrastructure is already provided. • Use of assessment tools can lead to sub-optimal result as effect of ‘scoring-behaviour’ Differences in development process: • Increasing importance of area development • Increasing focus on long term value of building Necessary changes to break the circle of blame: • Industry-wide education and commitment on sustainability Case study 1.2: ING Real Estate Success factors: • Sustainability is measurable: Because of sustainability assessment tools like BREEAM communication is being improved. • Commitment to sustainability in the own organisation: Without the commitment to sustainability of the developers’ organisation it is impossible to create sustainable buildings • Ambitions/ support from top management: By setting ambitions and supporting the project the top management influences the result of the project Barriers to development of sustainable offices: • Financial barrier: sustainability measures ask for a higher financial investment • Lack of knowledge on how to design and develop sustainable buildings Necessary changes to break the circle of blame: • If the user asks for sustainable buildings, developers will develop them Case study 1.3: OVG projectontwikkeling Success factors: • Long term commitment of the developer: incentive to optimize long term quality and value of the building • Competition among developers: Incentive to enhance sustainability competences • Increase visibility of sustainable buildings: Sustainability is popular, so developers should use this trend to distinguish their sustainable buildings from conventional.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

41

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Barriers to development of sustainable offices: • There is no officially acknowledged certificate yet: the sustainability of buildings is not comparable. • The EPC calculation is not correct: this causes uncertainty for investors • There is resistance to change by the established (smaller) companies • The fragmented construction market makes changes difficult • The level of education on sustainability is too low. Changing roles of stakeholders: User: • Tenant can take initiative • Sustainability ambitions can conflict with comfort criteria, trade-off is necessary Designer: • Increasing focus on the sustainability aspects • Integral designing in design teams Developer: • Widening of activities: not only developing, but also investing, maintaining and providing energy services for buildings Investor: • More (Corporate) Social Responsible Investment: investing in sustainable real estate Differences in development process: • Integral designing asks for a number of adaptations: o More cooperation between architect, physical, structural and technical engineers. o More climate oriented design:
Natural principles of ventilation, daylight, north-south orientation
On-site sustainable energy production o ‘Green architecture’ is a new style • Use of sustainability assessment tools during development and design is essential • Use of LCA tools is becoming more important to determine life cycle costs: development, construction and operational costs. • Increasing demand for technological/ product innovation • Contracts are becoming more complex Necessary changes to break the circle of blame: • More regulation and direction by the government • Fiscal stimulation and subsidies (such as ‘groenfinanciering’) • Municipalities should attach sustainability conditions to the selling of land • Education on sustainable design should be better

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

42

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Case study 2.1: Kraanspoor Date: Tuesday 5 august 2008 Contact person: Meeke de Grooth, ING RE 0. Project Description Name: Kraanspoor Function: Multiple tenant office building 2 Area: 12.500 m Location: Amsterdam Noord User: Different tenants 1. Initiative The initiative was taken by ING Real Estate for the market. The developer wanted to create a high level of user comfort. The architect had ‘love’ for the location and wanted to preserve the crane track. 2. Land acquisition The land was bought from the Municipality of Amsterdam for a symbolic amount. 3. Plan development The project developer ING RE is affiliated to a financial company, ING group. The municipality is involved in the quality control of the development area, the providing of permits, and is owner/leaser of the land. 3a. Marketing plan development Combination of type 1: given location, and type 2: special concept. This project was realized before the ‘sustainability-hype’ in 2007. The energy efficiency is part of the ING strategy of delivering quality. 3b. Legal plan development The development plan needs to be adapted. A building permit is required, and a land contract 3c. Financial plan development - Subsidies - Lower operational costs in financial feasibility study There are no financial agreements with the tenants to finance sustainability measures. 3d. Construction plan development Architect: Ontwerpgroep Trude Hooykaas Structural Engineer: Aronsohn Physical engineer: Lichtveld, Buis & Partners Services engineer: Huygen Installatie Adviseurs 4. Design Sustainability measures: have been implemented from the initiative phase. Design process: From the first conceptual design a design team with all the advisors was organised. Sustainability measures taken: EPC: 1,49 Energy efficiency: - Heatpump, which uses the river water from the IJ - HR++ glass - Natural ventilation - High insulation (EPS) - Regulated lighting - Good air tightness Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

43

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Materials: - Re-use of concrete Cranetrack - Very light steel structure - FSC wood - Recycled plastic for roof Adaptability: - Flexible floor plan design - Easily adaptable to other functions, such as residential Location and accessibility: - Easily accessible via ferry - Redevelopment of Brownfield - Close to Amsterdam city centre Sustainable urbanism: - Transformation of area NDSM wharf Comfort/ appeal to occupants: - 100% transparent façade - Individually operable windows - No temperature excesses - Free cooling via river water Case study 2.2: Cross Towers Date: Tuesday 5 august 2008 Contact person: Meeke de Grooth, ING RE 0. Project Description Name: Cross Towers Function: Office high rise building 2 Area: 30.000 m Location: Amsterdam, Zuidas User: Ernst&Young 1. Initiative The initiative was taken by ING Real Estate for the market. 2. Land acquisition The land was leased by the Municipality of Amsterdam. 3. Plan development The project developer ING RE is affiliated to a financial company, ING group. The municipality is involved in the quality control of the development area, the providing of permits, and is owner/leaser of the land. 3a. Marketing plan development This is a type 1 development: given location. This project was realized before the ‘sustainability-hype’ in 2007. The energy efficiency is part of the ING strategy of delivering quality. 3b. Legal plan development No special changes/permits 3c. Financial plan development - Subsidies - Lower operational costs in financial feasibility study 3d. Construction plan development Architect: Foster + partners Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

44

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Structural Engineer: Aronsohn Physical engineer: DGMR Services engineer: Hiensch 4. Design Sustainability measures: have been implemented from the initiative phase. Design process: From the first conceptual design a design team with all the advisors was organised. The end user Ernst&Young was very committed during the entire design process. Sustainability measures taken: Energy Label: A Energy efficiency: - WKO: 10% more energy efficient than 2008 standard 2 - 40% reduction of CO emissions Water: - 65% rain water retention Materials: - 20% weight savings by light, steel ‘diagrid’ construction. Adaptability: - Multi tenant building - Large open floor spaces - All services easily accessible Location and accessibility: - Public transport nearby - Close to A10 - Close to Schiphol Airport - Redevelopment of Brownfield Sustainable urbanism: - Blending of functions in Vivaldi-area - High quality architecture Comfort/ appeal to occupants: - Optimal use of daylight: 100% glass on North face, 30% glass on other faces. - Large water basin in front of building Case study 2.3: Akzo Nobel Date: Tuesday 5 august 2008 Contact person: Meeke de Grooth, ING RE 0. Project Description Name: AkzoNobel HQ Function: Office building 2 Area: 12.000 m Location: Amsterdam, Zuidas User: Akzo Nobel 1. Initiative The initiative was taken by ING Real Estate for the market. 2. Land acquisition The land was leased from the Municipality of Amsterdam. The location of the project is in the beatrixpark. In return for the new building, other buildings in the park are being demolished and the quality of the park is being increased. 3. Plan development The project developer ING RE is affiliated to a financial company, ING group.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

45

Appendix VIII: Results case studies 3a. Marketing plan development Type 1: Given location 3b. Legal plan development Article 19 procedure: Location in Beatrixpark 3c. Financial plan development There will be special financial constructions with the future tenant to finance sustainability measures. 3d. Construction plan development Architect: Groep A Structural Engineer: Corsmit Physical engineer: DGMR Services engineer: Hiensch 4. Design Sustainability measures: have been implemented from the initiative phase. Akzo is highly involved in the design process and has very high ambitions on the level of sustainability. Design process: From the first conceptual design a design team with all the advisors was organised. Sustainability measures taken: EPC: 0,49 Energy label: A++ Energy efficiency: - Heat/cold storage in soil - Heat transfer (75%) from ventilation-air. - Regulated lighting 2 - PV solar panels (970 m ) - Compact building design - Atrium Water: - water saving toilets and taps Materials: - Cradle 2 cradle philosophy - FSC wood Adaptability: - Flexible floor plan design - Large open floor spaces Location and accessibility: - Located in a park ‘Rood voor Groen’ - Double parking use Sustainable urbanism: - Improve park area Beatrixpark Comfort/ appeal/ health to occupants: - Individually operable windows - Low emission interior materials - Abundant daylight

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

46

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Case study 2.4: Baltimore Date: Tuesday 5 august 2008 Contact person: Meeke de Grooth, ING RE 0. Project Description Name: Baltimore Function: High rise office building 2 Area: 50.000 m Location: Rotterdam, Wilhelminapier User: not yet known Delivery: 2010 1. Initiative The initiative was taken by ING Real Estate for the market. ING wants to set a new business case and prove that high sustainability ambitions can coexist with financial feasible projects. 2. Land acquisition The land is in ownership of the municipality of Rotterdam and will be acquired by ING RE. 3. Plan development The project developer ING RE is affiliated to a financial company, ING group. The municipality is owner of the land, provides building permits, and executes quality control in the development area. 3a. Marketing plan development Type 1: Given location 3b. Legal plan development The development plan needs to be adapted. A building permit is required, and a land contract 3c. Financial plan development There will be special financial constructions with the future tenant to finance sustainability measures. 3d. Construction plan development Architect: Foster & Partners Structural Engineer: Aronsohn Physical engineer: DGMR Services engineer: Hiensch 4. Design Sustainability measures: ING RE has the ambition to make the Baltimore building the most sustainable office building of The Netherlands. Sustainability measures taken: EPC: 0,98 Energy label: A Greencalc: 215 2 CO -reduction: 20% Energy efficiency: - Heat and cold storage with making use of river water from the Maas river - Heat transfer on ventilation air - Re-use brake-energy lifts (TWIN) - Natural ventilation: 50% of yearly working time possible - Regulated lighting: daylight and presence

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

47

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Water: - Rain water retention Materials: - Conscious material use Adaptability: - Flexible floor plan design Location and accessibility: - Easily accessible by public transport and car - Brownfield development Sustainable urbanism: - Mixture of functions on Wilhelminapier - New city centre of international allure Comfort/ appeal/ health to occupants: - Individually operable temperature, lighting and sun screens Case study 2.5: TNT Date: Monday 11 August Contact person: Bert Krikke, Triodos Real Estate Development 0. Project Description Name: TNT Green Office Hoofddorp Function: High rise office building 2 Area: 5300 m Location: Hoofddorp, gemeente Haarlemmermeer User: TNT Start Design: 2007 1. Initiative TNT has taken the initiative by looking for a sustainable investor, who wanted to develop and operate a sustainable office building. 2. Land acquisition The project consortium has bought the land. The municipality did not put any sustainability requirements on the land. 3. Plan development The developing BV is a consortium of a bank; Triodos, and a developer; OVG projectontwikkeling. The municipality has no role except the provision of the land. 3a. Marketing plan development Type 2; The building has to have a score of LEED Platinum and Greencalc 1000+. Therefore a location close to public transport is essential. The current office of TNT is already located in Hoofddorp, and it is close to Schiphol. It is hard to obtain a high Greencalc score on inner urban areas, because of a lack of space for on-site energy production. 3b. Legal plan development Special agreements: Project BV - Tenant: Rent is inclusive Energy. This was a demand from TNT. Fixed price for energy. Developer - Financer:

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

48

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Triodos Real Estate Development has formed a consortium with OVG projectontwikkeling called Triodos OVG Green Offices BV. This BV is responsible to design, build, finance, maintain and operate the building. This project is therefore the first DBFMO project executed by market parties. The permits for wind energy are hard to obtain, because of the proximity to the Schiphol Airport. For a higher Greencalc score, you need to produce energy on the site. 3c. Financial plan development - Higher rents to finance sustainability measures, compensated by lower energy bill. - For the financial feasibility studies lower operational costs have been used, as a result of lower energy use. The money saved by lower energy use, is invested in sustainability measures. - Triodos takes a financial risks by guaranteeing a fixed low energy price. This way, they can stimulate the user to lower the energy use even further. - The project BV is looking for subsidies 3d. Construction plan development Architect: Paul de Ruiter Structural engineers: Arup, ABT Physical Engineers: DGMR, Deerns 4. Design The selection of the architect was mainly on his experience with sustainable buildings. Two architects have been pre-selected, from which Paul de Ruiter was one. At this moment the preliminary design is finished by a design team. There is no list of requirements. A technical description is formulated to specify the design requirements. Minimum sustainability requirements are a LEED Platinum score and a Greencalc 1000+ score. Sustainability measures taken: Energy efficiency: Reduce number of lifts Use of solar panels for hot water Materials: Efficient use of materials Production in proximity of the building site Maximise BVO/VVO: reduce width of stairs, reduce number of pillars. Adaptability: 16.20 meter span to maximise flexibility in floor plan 1.80 x 1.80 grid for flexible work spaces Location and accessibility: Close to train station 7. Rent or Sale The building is sold to a Triodos CV/BV. TNT rents the building for a period of 10 years with an option for 5 more years. 8. Maintenance and Operation The project BV will not only develop and maintain the building, it will also supply the building with electricity, water and heat and cold for a predetermined price. This way, the operator has a large incentive to help the user to reduce the use of energy. Triodos Real Estate Investment Management will maintain the building. The facility management is offered by Triodos REIM, but is not yet contracted.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

49

Appendix VIII: Results case studies The Greencalc and LEED scores are being re-calculated every two years and must stay on the required levels. The project BV is even obligated to innovate the sustainability technologies to keep the building an example of a state-of-the-art sustainable office. Because of this clause, the project BV has a large interest in making a high quality building. The building is designed to last as long as possible. There are possibilities to increase the number of lifts to increase the possibility for future re-rent to a different tenant. 9. Urban development The building is located in an office park in Hoofddorp, near a train station and near Schiphol airport. Common facilities, such as restaurants, hotels, shops, childcare, etc. are being developed. 10. Drivers and barriers the development process Drivers: • Commitment of all the involved parties • Integral vision of the developer/investor • Design on maximum sustainability • The tenant is flexible and willing to cooperate; trade-off between sustainability and comfort • Investor is competent: constant view on building/ life cycle costs Barriers: • Lack of experience in decisions on sustainability measures. • The process takes more time. All parties need to be willing to invest. • The market sees sustainability too much as just energy efficiency; it is hard to persuade tenants to go for extreme sustainability Changes to break the circle of blame: The implementation of sustainability in the real estate development is a responsibility of all involved parties. All parties should invest in the learning process. Case study 2.6: Bussumse Watertoren Contact persoon: Bob Custers, VOCUS architecten 0. Project beschrijving Naam project: Functie: Oppervlakte: Locatie: Opdrachtgever: Start initiatief: 2004

Bussumse Watertoren Kantoorgebouw 3.500 verhuurbaar oppervlak Bussum Zuid Bussums Watertoren Collectief (BWC Sustainable Development BV)

1. Gebiedsontwikkeling In welk gebied wordt het project ontwikkeld? Stationsgebied Bussumzuid. Matig stedelijk. Zijn er al andere duurzame gebouwen in het gebied gerealiseerd of zijn daar plannen voor? Nee. Bussum deed voor dit initiatief nauwelijks aan duurzame ontwikkeling. 2. Initiatief Door wie wordt het initiatief genomen? BWC Sustainable Development BV bestaande uit Michiel Haas en Bob Custers ofwel - Nederlands Instituut voor Bouwbiologie en Ecologie - VOCUS architecten bna Is er sprake van: • Ontwikkeling in eigen beheer. Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

50

Appendix VIII: Results case studies 3. Grondverwerving Is er bij de grondverwerving duurzaamheidmaatregelen?

specifiek

gekeken

naar

de

mogelijkheden

m.b.t.

De Bussumse Watertoren is via een openbare inschrijving te koop aangeboden. Men mocht een plan met een prijs indienen. Vanwege de duurzame ambities is het gebouw aan de initiatiefnemers verkocht. 4. Planontwikkeling Welke betrokkenheid heeft de gemeente bij de planontwikkeling? Ze maken mogelijk dat het bestemmingsplan gewijzigd wordt. Veel support en ondersteuning. Geen participatie. Welke externe partijen zijn betrokken bij de: e. Markttechnische planontwikkeling Verkoopadviseur: Maarten Smits – Sixpence BV f. Juridische planontwikkeling Roland Bos – CMS Amsterdam g. Financiële planontwikkeling Eigen Beheer h. Bouwkundige planontwikkeling VOCUS architecten bna Evion Bouwadvies Ad a. Markttechnische planontwikkeling • In hoeverre is ‘duurzaamheid’ een belangrijk voor het imago van het project? Enorm groot! Zonder duurzaamheid was dit project niet mogelijk geweest. Ad b. Juridische planontwikkeling • Zijn er bijzondere overeenkomsten/ contracten met participanten (gemeente, beleggers, financiers, eindgebruikers, bouwers)? Nee, normale huurcontracten met huurders Ad c. Financiële planontwikkeling • Zijn er speciale financiële duurzaamheidsmaatregelen?

constructies

opgezet

voor

de

financiering

van

Ja, er wordt gekeken naar subsidie. Wij zijn van mening dat duurzaamheid niet afhankelijk moet zijn van subsidies. Je moet je eigen broek op kunnen houden. Ad d. Bouwkundige planontwikkeling • Architect: VOCUS architecten bna • Constructeurs: IMD Rotterdam • Bouwfysische adviseurs: Techniplan • Installatietechnische adviseurs: Techniplan Zijn de teamleden ontwerpen/bouwen? Ja.

specifiek

geselecteerd

op

basis

van

hun

ervaring

met

duurzaam

4. Ontwerp Zijn er duurzaamheideisen opgenomen in het Programma van Eisen? Ja.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

51

Appendix VIII: Results case studies Is er sprake van een traditionele rolverdeling of is er een ontwerpteam? Ontwerpteam Welke duurzaamheidmaatregelen zijn uiteindelijk toegepast in het gebouw? - Hergebruik gebouw - WKK op bioolie - Zonnepanelen - Windmolen - Betonkernactivering - Absorptiekoeling - Waterzuivering met helofytenfilter - Spuwer als hwa 5. Drivers en barrières duurzaamheid Wat zijn in uw ogen de grootste succesfactoren en de grootste barrières van duurzaamheid in dit project? Succes - Duurzaamheid kan alleen tot stand komen op basis van visie, geloof en doorzettingskracht. - Duurzaamheid doet het goed bij de overheid. Gebruikers zijn in eerste instantie geïnteresseerd in een functioneel, betaalbaar en aansprekend gebouw. Duurzaamheid staat niet op 1, maar ‘bekt wel lekker’. - Duurzaamheid is marketing. - Je krijgt meer voor elkaar als je maatschappelijk verantwoord onderneemt. Barrieres - De overheid is weinig op de hoogte van de mogelijkheden en heeft vaak een kennisachterstand. - Kosten van duurzaamheid zijn hoog. Je investeert voor de gebruiker, niet voor de ontwikkelaar - Achterstand in technieken.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

52

Appendix IX: Online survey

Appendix IX: Online survey Figure 10.1: Invitation e-mail

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

53

Appendix IX: Online survey

Online survey page 1

Het belang van duurzame vastgoedontwikkeling wordt steeds duidelijker; klimaatverandering, stijgende energie- en bouwkosten, fijnstofproblematiek en de eindigheid van fossiele brandstoffen zijn sterke drijvende krachten. Ook wordt duurzaamheid steeds betaalbaarder; er is aangetoond dat de totale kosten van eigendom van een duurzaam gebouw op de lange termijn lager zijn dan van een conventioneel gebouw. Je zou zeggen dat er genoeg redenen zijn om massaal duurzame gebouwen te ontwikkelen. Echter, dit gebeurt nog niet. De oorzaak hiervoor is de zogenaamde 'circle of blame' waarbij de betrokken actoren naar elkaar wijzen en op elkaar wachten. Inzicht in de succesfactoren van de ontwikkeling van duurzame gebouwen bij projectontwikkelaars, investeerders, gebruikers en ontwerpers kan helpen deze cirkel te doorbreken. Doel van het onderzoek Het doel van dit onderzoek is het achterhalen van de belangrijkste succesfactoren in het ontwikkelproces van duurzame kantoorgebouwen. In het onderzoek wordt alleen het besluitvormingstraject van het ontwikkelproces beschouwd. De beschreven succesfactoren zijn geformuleerd op basis van een uitgebreid literatuur- en casestudy onderzoek. Definities In het kader van dit onderzoek zijn de volgende definities gegeven. Houd hier rekening mee met het beantwoorden van de vragen. Definitie 1: Project De ontwikkeling van een duurzaam kantoorgebouw Definitie 2: Projectsucces Het voltooien van het project binnen de vastgestelde tijd en budget met het behalen van de onderstaande duurzaamheidsdoelstelling Definitie 3: Duurzaam kantoorgebouw Een duurzaam kantoorgebouw is een gebouw met een: • Greencalc score van minimaal 240 punten of GPR score van minimaal 7,5 (gem); en • Energielabel minimaal A+; en • Bovengemiddeld gezond en comfortabel binnenklimaat; en • Toepassing van duurzame materialen Definitie 4: Het besluitvormingstraject van een project Het besluitvormingstraject van een project bestaat uit de volgende vijf fases: • Fase 1: Gebiedsontwikkeling • Fase 2: Initiatief voor ontwikkeling duurzaam kantoor • Fase 3: Locatiekeuze en grondverwerving • Fase 4: Planontwikkeling • Fase 5: Ontwerp

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

54

Appendix IX: Online survey Afzender van de enquête Deze enquête is deel van een promotieonderzoek uitgevoerd aan de TU Eindhoven, faculteit Bouwkunde, in samenwerking met ARCADIS Gebouwen te Amersfoort. Onderzoekers: A.J.G. (Gjalt) Vink (TU/e) Ir. G. (Gaby) Abdalla (TU/e) Begeleidingscommissie:

Prof. ir. G.J. Maas (TU/e) (voorzitter) Ir. J.C. Huyghe (TU/e) D.J. van Rees Msc MBA (ARCADIS) Door op de knop 'Volgende pagina' onderaan deze pagina te drukken kunt u de enquête direct online invullen en na afloop eenvoudig verzenden. Onderin beeld is een voortgangsbalk te zien. Het invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag nemen. Bent u benieuwd naar de resultaten? Vul dan na het beantwoorden van de vragen uw contactgegevens in. Na afronding van het onderzoek krijgt u de resultaten toegestuurd. Uw medewerking wordt zeer op prijs gesteld!

Online survey page 2 Instructies De vragenlijst bestaat uit drie pagina's, waarin vragen worden gesteld over drie hoofdgroepen; projectfactoren, stakeholderfactoren en omgevingsfactoren. In de onderstaande figuur ziet u een model waarin de samenhang tussen deze factoren is af te lezen. Geef aan in welke mate de beschreven factoren volgens u invloed hebben op het projectsucces. Antwoordmogelijkheden 1. Geen invloed 2. Beperkte invloed 3. Matige invloed 4. Grote invloed 5. Zeer grote invloed 6. Geen mening Model succesfactoren Onderstaand model is opgesteld op basis van het 'Formal Systems Model' van Fortune en White (International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) pp. 53-65). Klik hier om dit artikel te downloaden. Het model geeft de verschillende categorieën succesfactoren en hun onderlinge samenhang weer. Er zijn drie niveau's succesfactoren: projectfactoren, stakeholderfactoren en omgevingsfactoren. Projectfactoren De eerste vijf vragen betreffen de projectfactoren. De projectfactoren hebben betrekking op de organisatie van het besluitvormingstraject van een project en bestaan uit de factoren algemeen, project management, ontwerpteam en contractvorming.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

55

Appendix IX: Online survey Project algemeen Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

Commitment aan duurzaamheid van de betrokken personen Integraal ontwerpen Vroege betrokkenheid stakeholders bij het project

van

alle

Focus op maximaliseren lange termijn waarde Duidelijk gedefinieerde duurzaamheiddoelstellingen

Project management Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

Gebruik van levenscyclus analyse (LCA) tools om te sturen op total costs of ownership (TCO)

Soft skills: Flexibiliteit/ inlevingsvermogen/ aanpassingsvermogen aan veranderende klantwensen en projectdoelstellingen Ontwerpteam Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactor op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

zeer groot

geen mening

Gebruik van duurzaamheids/ontwerptools (Greencalc, GPR, BREEAM) door het ontwerpteam Gebruiker Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

Hoge duurzaamheidsambitie Bereidheid tot duurzaamheid Appendixes

investering

t.b.v.

A.J.G.Vink

56

Appendix IX: Online survey geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

zeer groot

geen mening

Actieve medewerking/betrokkenheid van gebruiker in ontwikkelproces

Contractvorming Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

Toepassen innovatieve financieringsconstructie t.b.v. duurzaamheidsmaatregelen Projectontwikkelaar neemt verantwoordelijkheid voor beheer en onderhoud (bijv. door DBFMO contract) Overige projectfactoren Eventueel: Welke andere projectfactoren hebben volgens u invloed op het projectsucces?

Online survey page 3 Stakeholderfactoren De tweede hoofdgroep factoren betreft de belangrijkste stakeholders bij de ontwikkeling van duurzame kantoren. De factoren zijn projectoverstijgend en hebben betrekking op de organisatie en het beleid van de stakeholders. De stakeholders die in dit onderzoek beschouwd worden zijn: • projectontwikkelaars • investeerders • ontwerpers • gebruikers • lokale overheden Onwikkelende stakeholders: projectontwikkelaar, investeerder, ontwerpers en gebruiker De volgende factoren betreffen alle ontwikkelende stakeholders. Hoe groot is naar uw mening de invloed van deze succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen Hanteren van een duurzaamheidbeleid

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

expliciet

Interne kennisontwikkeling duurzaamheid Focus op lange termijn waarde creatie

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

57

Appendix IX: Online survey Overige stakeholders: lokale overheid Deze vraag betreft de lokale overheid, oftewel gemeente. Hoe groot is naar uw mening de invloed van deze succesfactor op het projectsucces? geen Stellen van duurzaamheidseisen (gebieds)ontwikkeling

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

minimum aan

Overige stakeholderfactoren Eventueel: Welke andere stakeholderfactoren hebben volgens u invloed op het projectsucces?

Online survey page 4 Omgevingsfactoren De derde hoofdgroep factoren betreft de omgevingsfactoren bij de ontwikkeling van duurzame kantoren. De factoren zijn project en stakeholderoverstijgend. Op deze factoren kan geen directe invloed uitgeoefend worden, maar er kan wel rekening mee gehouden worden. De vijf groepen omgevingsfactoren zijn: • politieke factoren • economische factoren • sociale factoren • technologische factoren Politieke factoren Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

zeer groot

geen mening

Hoge duurzaamheidsambities van nationale en Europese overheid

Lange termijn stabiliteit in duurzaamheidsbeleid en subsidies

Economische factoren Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactoren op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

Economische hoogconjunctuur Concurrentie op de markt op basis van duurzaamheidsprestaties

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

58

Appendix IX: Online survey Sociale factoren Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactor op het projectsucces? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

Imago van duurzaamheid onder de bevolking

Technologische factoren Hoe groot is de invloed van de volgende succesfactor op het projectsucces? geen

Productinnovaties gebouwonderdelen

beperkt

matig

groot

zeer groot

geen mening

in

Overige omgevingsfactoren Eventueel: Welke andere omgevingsfactoren hebben volgens u invloed op het projectsucces? Uw werkervaring Tot welke categorie stakeholders behoort u? Projectontwikkelaar Investeerder Ontwerper Gebruiker Lokale overheid Bouwer Adviseur Onderzoek/onderwijs Anders, namelijk Uw werkervaring Bij hoeveel duurzame kantoorbouw projecten bent u betrokken geweest? geen 1 tot 2 projecten 3 tot 5 projecten meer dan 5 projecten

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

59

Appendix IX: Online survey Uw werkervaring Hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid had u bij deze projecten? geen

beperkt

matig

groot

eindverantwoordelijk

Uw verantwoordelijkheid Persoonsgegevens Laat hier uw persoonsgegevens achter indien U op de hoogte wilt worden gesteld van de onderzoeksresultaten. Voornaam Achternaam Bedrijf/instelling Emailadres

Opmerkingen Heeft u nog opmerkingen of wilt u iets toelichten? Bedankt voor uw deelname! Namens de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven en ARCADIS Gebouwen, met vriendelijke groet, Gjalt Vink

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

60

Appendix X: Results survey

Appendix X: Results survey Table 2: Mode en Mean Group 1 Developers and Constructors N Mode Mean

Variables 1 10 2 16 9 5 3 19 4 15 11 6 7 23 8 14 12 21 17 22 20 13 18

Commitment to sustainability Willingness user to invest in sustainability Integral designing Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders High sustainability ambitions Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Early involvement of all stakeholders in project Long term stability in sustainability politics Focus on maximising long term value project Internal knowledge development by stakeholders Active involvement of user in development process Use of LCA tools by PM Soft skills PM Technological product innovations in building parts Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Innovative financing constructions Market competition based on sustainability performance Minimum sustainability requirements by local government Image of sustainability among the public Economical situation Developer takes responsibility in operation phase High sustainability ambitions of national and EU government

31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 31 31 31 27 30 31 29 31 31 31 30 30 31 30 30

5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

4,71 4,58 4,42 4,32 4,32 4,26 4,23 4,20 4,16 4,10 4,10 4,00 4,00 3,97 3,90 3,87 3,77 3,74 3,63 3,60 3,61 3,47 3,37

Fig. 5.2 Respondent categories 23

num ber of respondents

25

Project developer Advisor

20 16

Designer

15

Builder 9

10

9

8

Local government

4

5

Research/education

3

2

Client Other

0 Total = 74

Fig. 6.1. Experience with sustainable office development

number of respondents

45

39

40 35 30

no experience

25

1 or 2 projects

20 15

3 to 5 projects 13

13 9

10

more than 5 projects

5 0 Total = 74

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

61

Appendix X: Results survey Table 3: Mode and Mean Group 2 Advisors and designers N Mode Mean

Variables 10 1 2 3 4 9 16 19 5 17 6 7 18 14 15 21 23 11 22 20 8 13 12

Willingness user to invest in sustainability Commitment to sustainability Integral designing Early involvement of all stakeholders in project Focus on maximising long term value project High sustainability ambitions Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Long term stability in sustainability politics Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Minimum sustainability requirements by local government Use of LCA tools by PM Soft skills PM High sustainability ambitions of national and EU government Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Internal knowledge development by stakeholders Market competition based on sustainability performance Technological product innovations in building parts Active involvement of user in development process Image of sustainability among the public Economical situation Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Developer takes responsibility in operation phase Innovative financing constructions

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 25 25 25 25 25 24 25 25 24 24 23 23

5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4,64 4,44 4,36 4,32 4,28 4,28 4,24 4,24 4,12 4,08 4,04 4,04 4,00 3,96 3,92 3,92 3,92 3,84 3,76 3,75 3,67 3,57 3,57

Table X.4: Mann-Whitney U test group 1&2

1: Commitment to sustainability Mann-Whitney U 336,500 Wilcoxon W 714,500 Z -1,119 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,263 a. Grouping Variable: Categorie_2

9: High sustainability ambitions Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

382,000 760,000 -,171 ,864

2: Integral designing 390,000 768,000 -,028 ,978

10: Willingness user to invest in sustainability 364,500 799,500 -,537 ,591

18: High 17: Minimum sustainability sustainability ambitions of requirements by national and EU local government government Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Appendixes

259,500 665,500 -2,141 ,032

217,500 623,500 -2,992 ,003

3: Early 4: Focus on involvement of all maximising long 5: Clearly defined stakeholders in term value sustainability 6: Use of LCA project project goals in project tools by PM 7: Soft skills PM 375,500 810,500 -,286 ,775

11: Active involvement of user in development process 303,500 681,500 -1,615 ,106

19: Long term stability in sustainability politics 375,000 781,000 -,055 ,956

343,500 778,500 -,847 ,397

12: Innovative financing constructions 302,500 627,500 -1,131 ,258

20: Economical situation 368,000 803,000 -,161 ,872

A.J.G.Vink

371,500 749,500 -,350 ,726

13: Developer takes responsibility in operation phase 306,000 712,000 -,817 ,414 21: Market competition based on sustainability performance 387,500 822,500 -,074 ,941

311,000 636,000 -,032 ,974

14: Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders 374,000 809,000 -,322 ,748

373,500 779,500 -,083 ,934

8: Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) 278,000 629,000 -1,412 ,158

15: Internal 16: Focus on long knowledge term value development by creation by stakeholders stakeholders 367,000 745,000 -,460 ,645

357,000 735,000 -,618 ,537

22: Image of 23: Technological sustainability product among the innovations in public building parts 345,000 751,000 -,597 ,550

345,000 696,000 -,640 ,522

62

Appendix X: Results survey Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix Group 1 Developers and Builders Component

First 5 components: % of variance explained: 64% 17 variables 1 6 16 2 23 22 21 20 10 9 5 4 11 19 14 12 8

Commitment to sustainability Use of LCA tools by PM Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Integral designing Technological product innovations in building parts Image of sustainability among the public Market competition based on sustainability performance Economical situation Willingness client to invest in sustainability High sustainability ambitions client Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Focus on maximising long term value project Active involvement of client in development process Long term stability in sustainability politics Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Innovative financing constructions Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.

15% 14% 12% 12% 11% 1 0,88 0,74 0,71 0,67 0,06 0,14 0,07 -0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,11 0,42 0,07 -0,08 0,08 0,09 -0,08

2

3

4

5

Use of LCA tools by PM Integral designing Focus on maximising long term value project Active involvement of client in development process Clearly defined sustainability goals in project Willingness client to invest in sustainability Use of sustainability design tools (Greencalc+, BREEAM) Use of sustainability policy by stakeholders Image of sustainability among the public Commitment to sustainability High sustainability ambitions client Economical situation Market competition based on sustainability performance Long term stability in sustainability politics Technological product innovations in building parts Focus on long term value creation by stakeholders Innovative financing constructions Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Appendixes

A.J.G.Vink

0,76 0,75 0,70 0,70 0,63 0,57 0,06 0,16 0,23 0,15 0,10 -0,25 -0,14 0,22 0,00 0,54 0,12

6

-0,09 -0,14 -0,07 0,21 -0,16 0,31 0,10 -0,11 -0,05 0,33 0,19 0,23 0,17 -0,46 -0,07 0,07 -0,20 0,37 0,26 0,00 0,86 0,00 -0,06 -0,06 0,15 0,82 0,01 -0,21 0,00 -0,07 0,59 -0,06 0,54 0,06 -0,10 0,14 0,89 0,16 0,03 0,07 -0,15 0,73 -0,28 0,24 0,11 0,07 0,63 0,20 -0,18 -0,51 -0,11 0,09 0,86 0,26 0,06 -0,09 0,01 0,61 0,08 0,15 0,11 0,27 0,07 0,74 -0,05 0,19 0,20 -0,29 -0,70 0,04 0,41 0,32 0,19 0,50 -0,23 0,02 0,01 0,09 -0,19 0,86 0,46 0,19 0,22 0,08 0,44

Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix Group 2 Advisors and designers Component First 5 components: % of variance explained: 69% 20% 15% 13% 11% 10% 1 2 3 4 5 17 variables

6 2 4 11 5 10 8 14 22 1 9 20 21 19 23 16 12

9%

-0,06 0,22 0,10 0,13 0,36 -0,17 0,92 0,79 -0,53 0,01 0,47 0,17 -0,25 0,09 0,09 -0,39 -0,04

0,17 0,28 -0,13 0,12 0,12 -0,23 0,06 0,23 0,49 0,87 0,71 0,56 0,01 -0,01 0,03 -0,10 0,26

-0,04 -0,28 0,16 -0,04 0,45 0,26 -0,12 0,04 -0,08 0,05 -0,15 0,44 0,81 0,71 -0,15 0,31 0,11

0,06 0,04 0,24 0,15 -0,18 -0,15 -0,17 0,35 0,47 -0,06 0,22 -0,12 -0,11 0,03 0,87 0,59 0,09

7% 6 -0,01 0,14 0,27 -0,44 0,03 0,20 -0,05 -0,12 -0,25 0,26 0,11 -0,43 -0,01 0,13 0,08 0,11 0,75

63