New Generation Whole-Life Costing

Ellingham, Ian; Fawcett, William

doi:10.4324/9780203624425

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When choosing between two or more possible solutions, a designer is deciding between alternatives. When he/she defers this choice to a later date, he/she is establishing options that can be called into service in the future (Ellingham and Fawcett, ). The purpose of establishing and calling upon future options is to reduce any adverse effects or take advantage of potential benefits that may arise from a change in external conditions.…”

Section: Methods and Generic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering these challenges, we developed a new model that extends the “future options” approach to flexible design, as put forward by Ellingham and Fawcett () and De Neufville and Scholtes (). The model is designed to assess the costs and benefits of embedding construction and retrofitting options in a realistic and robust way, allowing users to better integrate different types of infrastructure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design with Uncertainty: The Role of Future Options for Infrastructure Integration

Martani

Jin

Soga

et al. 2016

Computer aided Civil Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methods and Generic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design with Uncertainty: The Role of Future Options for Infrastructure Integration

Martani

Jin

Soga

et al. 2016

Computer aided Civil Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While the terms whole life costing and LCC are applied in construction, the term total cost of ownership (TCO) is generally applied in other business sectors (Ellram, 1993) and in the recent European directive on public procurement (Directive 2014/24/EU). A number of different approaches and guidelines on LCC have emerged over the years (Bjørberg et al, 1993;Dhillon, 2010;Farr, 2011;Caplehorn, 2012;Ellingham and Fawcett, 2006). In addition, a range of different tools exists.…”

Section: Sustainable Office Buildings In Denmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking life cycle cost drivers for sustainable office buildings in Denmark

Haugbølle¹,

Raffnsøe

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Sustainable building design suffers from a lack of reliable life cycle data. The purpose of this paper is to compare life cycle costs of sustainable building projects, examine the magnitude of various cost drivers and discuss the implications of an emerging shift in cost drivers. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on data from 21 office buildings certified in Denmark according to the sustainable certification scheme DGNB. Findings The paper supports previous findings that construction costs and running costs each roughly make up half of the life cycle costs over a 50-year period. More surprising is the finding that the life cycle costs for cleaning are approximately twice as high as the supply costs for energy and water. Research limitations/implications The data set is based on actual construction costs of office buildings constructed in 2013-2017. Although all running costs are calculated rather than measured, they are based on a more detailed, specific and industry-supported set of calculation assumptions than is usual for life cycle costing studies because of extensive collaborative work in a number of concomitant national research and development projects. Practical implications Authorities, clients and building professionals heavily emphasise energy-saving measures in new Danish buildings. The paper suggests redirecting this effort towards other more prominent cost drivers like cleaning and technical installations. Originality/value This paper provides a notable contribution to the academic understanding of the significance of different cost drivers as well as the practical implementation of life cycle costing.

show abstract

“…Provision for change over time may act as a constraint on achievable utilisation at a particular point in time. This requires further investigation, for example, using the concept of “lifecycle options” where short‐term costs are incurred in order to manage medium‐ and long‐term uncertainty (Ellingham and Fawcett, 2006).…”

Section: Synthesis Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Space‐time management and office floorspace demand

Fawcett

Chadwick²

2007

Journal of Corporate Real Estate

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo model the floorspace demand of office‐based organisations in which employees spend periods of time working at off‐site locations, and identify the scope for efficiency improvements.Design/methodology/approachThe paper compares the experience gained in applying an innovative method of space‐planning in practice, with mathematical simulations of activity‐space scenarios. Both approaches are described.FindingsExperience in practice demonstrates that significant reductions can be made in the floorspace demand of many office‐based organisations, but the simulations show that is not feasible to achieve a perfect activity‐space “fit” when the pattern of activities is uncertain. Space‐time management becomes increasingly critical as office floorspace is used more efficiently.Originality/valueShows that there are opportunities for reducing the floorspace demand of most organisations compared to current usage, but there is a limit on achievable efficiency gains.

show abstract

New Generation Whole-Life Costing

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Design with Uncertainty: The Role of Future Options for Infrastructure Integration

Design with Uncertainty: The Role of Future Options for Infrastructure Integration

Rethinking life cycle cost drivers for sustainable office buildings in Denmark

Space‐time management and office floorspace demand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About