No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the accuracy of life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for institutional (higher education) buildings as a predictor of actual realised facility costs. Design/methodology/approach -Research methodology includes a comprehensive literature review to identify issues, best practices and implementation of LCCA in the construction industry. A case study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of LCCA in predicting facility costs. Findings -Notwithstanding the benefits of LCCA, its adoption has been relatively slow for institutional buildings. The case study revealed that the average difference between estimated and actual construction cost is 37 per cent, whereas the average difference between the actual and estimated maintenance cost is 48 per cent. There is an average difference of 85 per cent in the actual and estimated administration cost. Research limitations/implications -While limited to a few buildings, the case study underscores that LCCA methods should not be used for cost predictions of facility performance but rather for comparing total costs of alternative building features and systems, as well as building types. Sensitivity analysis also revealed that the selection of a discount rate would have less impact on recurring costs estimates compared to non-recurring cost estimates. Facilities managers' involvement in LCCA technique developments and implementations will likely improve its performance during programming phases. Practical implications -The value of LCCA procedures is limited as a predictor of actual realised facility costs. Educational institutions can use the methods described in this paper to replicate the study and arrive at their own conclusions regarding the LCCA techniques and their potential use in programming stages. Originality/value -The paper evaluated the accuracy of LCCA for institutional buildings and the potential of LCCA as an asset management tool for institutional buildings and provided suggestions to improve its adoption in facilities management.

No abstract

Renovation projects exhibit complex characteristics due to the presence of constraints that lead to cost and schedule overruns. Numerous researchers have concluded that the performance of renovation projects is typically lower than that of new construction projects. This paper discusses the initial phases of a research conducted at Michigan State University, which focused on developing a framework for production management of renovation projects. The emphasis of this paper is on the findings from literature review and interviews, pertinent to performance measurement in renovation projects that led to the framework development. However, the framework development and the framework itself have not been discussed. This paper primarily addresses two questions: (1) what are the complexities of renovation projects that lead to underperformance in cost, time, and quality? and (2) what are the limitations of state-of-the-art construction performance measurement systems for managing production in renovation projects? Interviews of 10 construction companies were conducted to identify current practices of production management in renovation projects. This research observed a lack of a formal production management process in renovation projects, with a limited use of performance measurement systems. The research identified essential attributes for avoiding schedule and cost overruns on renovation projects.