Criteria in decisionmaking

First cost is usually the criterion given most consideration in decision-making for integrated façade systems. This is unfortunate, as focus on first cost typically fails to consider the benefits of particular investment on life-cycle cost. All too often a building element that is more expensive to install than some other alternative works better and reduces operating, maintenance and replacement costs in the future use of the building.

Not willing to invest more at the beginning to realize much larger savings later is a poor business strategy. A frequent reason for this is the fact that those who control construction (first cost) budgets are not the same individuals or groups as those who control operation and maintenance budgets. They have no incentive to invest in the future of the building and have every incentive to minimize what they view as their expenditure. It takes an informed and involved owner to resolve this contradiction.

There are several valid reasons for primary consideration of first cost. One is the physical limitation (“ceiling cost”) of the budget. This may be simply because additional funding is not possible to obtain, or because the limitation is imposed for some other reason, such as a political process that is involved in all budgetary issues for the particular building. Such limitations are quite typical for public and institutional projects.

“Building as investment” strategy is another reason. The goal of speculative building construction is to build the building at the lowest possible cost and sell the finished or partially finished product for the highest possible amount. The only plausible increase in first cost is that which increases the sales value of the building by significantly more than the increase in first cost. Again, it takes an enlightened owner-speculator to realize that an integrated façade system may increase the building’s sales value and to approve the additional cost if the proposed integrated façade system costs more than the alternative.

Financial considerations may be yet another reason for consideration of first cost. Factors such as owner’s cash flow, corporate or personal capital investment strategy and constraints, rate of return and/or debt service may play a role in limiting the construction budget. Such factors are sometimes not shared by others, which makes the decision-making more difficult. In addition, the authority to make additional funding decisions may be obscure and decisions related to funding may be delayed until approval is obtained.

It is important to understand that integrated façade systems do not have to cause higher overall building cost. If a certain level of building performance is a goal, an integrated façade system that achieves that goal may actually cost less than an elaborate building skin that may or may not provide comparable performance. For example, a naturally-ventilated building may allow the building owner to downsize or eliminate the HVAC system resulting in a lower overall building cost.

Specific performance goals can be important criteria in decision-making and may be the catalyst in designing a specific integrated façade system. These can be a better energy performance of the building, better or specific response of the building to its surrounding environment, increased occupant comfort, lower operating cost, a “greener” building (i.e., a higher LEED rating), attained publicity, etc.

Operating and maintenance costs are other important criteria. If planned, designed and installed properly, integrated façade systems usually result in lower overall operating costs. The savings are mostly achieved from a reduced overall energy consumption in the building. Properly designed systems are usually easier to maintain because maintenance is accounted and planned for, specific performance can be monitored, and problems and malfunctions may be detected sooner.

Technical merit and constructability of the proposed integrated façade system can be an issue. The proposed system may include components that have not yet been proven to work together under some particular condition, may be difficult to construct in the given location, or may cause general construction problems for the building. This is particularly true if deployment of new technology is involved.

Planning, design and procurement processes and time lines and schedules also need to be considered. The delivery of integrated façade systems often is in conflict with standard building procurement practices that may make the entire plan impossible to execute. This is particularly true if the proposed system adversely affects time to occupancy.

Several other “hidden” criteria may significantly influence decision-making. These range from ascertaining and maintaining control over the project or the particular issue at stake to achieving political goals and schedules to meeting personal goals and objectives to meeting expectations that are frequently evolving.

Question/Information: eslee@lbl.gov