Dipartimento ABC. Politecnico di Milano
Milestone 01: The Everyday life in Public Space in Waterfront Areas
1. Keyword 1: Public Space
1.1 Scopes of “Public XXX”
1.1.1 Public & Publicness
To comprehend ‘public space’, the critical fact is to clarify ‘public’ as well as to distinguish ‘public’ and ‘privacy’. Since the late 1960s, the ‘public’ has been a subject of intense interest by philosophers, sociologists, anthropologist, architects, political scientists, and urban planners. In general, Hannah Arendt, an American political theorist, was deemed the first modern scholar researched the “public” in her book, The Human Condition (1958). She provided human beings are social or political animals, so that rationalized the term “public” in a political context, which as vital to the relationship between the individual and reality. “Public” was defined in two closely interrelated but not altogether identical phenomena dimensions, publicity and common. The publicity means that which is seen, perceived by everybody, moreover, common means which are “assembles all of us together” in the world.
Sharing Environments and Digital Collaboration Platform for the Construction Sector: Specifications and High-Level Structure
ABSTRACT
In order to promote a progressive digitisation of the construction sector, there is the need of processes and instruments that can be dynamically adapted to the different competencies of the personnel involved in the sector itself. In the same way, these instruments have to be developed looking at the real needs of the industry, including services devoted to satisfying the contingent requirements that arise in real cases. Following this direction, the presented research project is focused on the development of a digital collaboration platform devoted to facilitate the introduction of digital practices, promote the transfer of knowledge and provide useful services including the whole chain. The structure of the platform includes two levels: the first level constitutes the driver for the use of the system, providing an effective means for collaboration and through this promoting the diffusion of digital processes and the transition to the use of digital data. The second level, the core of the digital collaboration platform, provides an inclusive environment where data are deconstructed, reorganised and analysed facilitating the transfer of knowledge throughout the entire sector. This brief paper presents the main line of our Ph.D. research project, exploring the high-level architecture of the system and providing the achieved results and the future activities of the project.
INTRODUCTION
The concept and consequently the practice that actually sees Building Information Models1 created, used and shared as files can hinder the implementation of integrated processes, due to the demonstrated difficulties of effective interoperability between different software \citep{Torma_2013}. Furthermore, this issue could have a disruptive effect in the long-term period, due to the huge distance between the software2 life cycle and the life cycle of the real object virtually represented through the software itself, i.e. buildings and infrastructures \citep{Graham_Serginson_Lockley_Dawood_Kassem_2013}. However, in the actual market framework, there are few solutions able to handle the data dimension and the stated capability of complete interoperability between different software is often inapplicable in real cases. On the other hand, it is critical consider the evolution registered in the informatics market and its future trends. In the last 20-plus years, companies have invested an estimated $3-4 trillion in IT and the results of these huge efforts were data silos, schema proliferation, and radical data heterogeneity \citep{Held_Stonebraker_Davenport_Ilyas_Brodie_Palmer_Markarian_2016}. Nowadays the central role of data is gaining more (and new) importance thanks to the development of new technologies able to collect and elaborate an increasing volume of informative atoms \citep{ConfindustriaDigitale_Assinform_2016a} with innovative analytic techniques. These last require a different approach because the existing data silos hinder effective use of data requiring new investment for data integration, data cleaning, etc. Furthermore, this framework often produces the impossibility of recovery information from the archived data and apparently simple queries cannot be answered. In \citep{Held_Stonebraker_Davenport_Ilyas_Brodie_Palmer_Markarian_2016} Michael Stonebraker stated that
Information systems and Cultural Heritage. Methods to promote its valorisation and fruition.
Milestone 03 - Position ReportSupervisor: Cristiana AchilleTutor: Daniele Fanzini ABSTRACT Nowadays, the digital technology increasingly influences how we perceive, understand and use Cultural Heritage. The range of technologies to capture and represent the cultural heritage made huge advances, varying in terms of costs, scales, purposes and outputs. In fact, they become more democratised in terms of both economic and practical accessibility of equipment and techniques, and access to information and models through the use of internet portals. The adoption of information modelling that embedded architectural, structural, plumbing, and more data, becomes mainstream in a lot of professional fields, encouraged also by the spread of Building Information Modelling. In this case, the structured models are used for lifelong activities (planning, maintenance, monitoring) and they develop into a professional tool made for experts. Within a consideration of Cultural Heritage, however, it is necessary to not lose sight of the need to capture and understand also the social aspects of the heritage. It always owns an inner meaning, tradition, stories, and cultural resonance which constitute the kind of information needed for its fruition and valorisation. It is important to focus on the contents of the model, which have to be sharable not only among specialist, but also among “common” people. To make the information open, it is necessary to overpass the BIM concept, and to think about the more generic and customizable conception of the terms: the information systems can be an efficient channel to capture the attention of visitors and to communicate cultural subjects. Proposing my research, I mean to explore the methods to valorise the Cultural Heritage, using the multi-layered information systems as an incentive to the fruition and re-appropriation of buildings and territories, suggesting new meaning and supporting innovation and insights. This is a vision where multiple competences give their expertise to valorise the Cultural Heritage. In fact, only the interoperability between software, professionals, areas, and more can generate a complete knowledge and can bring the buildings of the past into the world of the future.Keywords: Cultural Heritage, information, multi-layered models, methodology, fruition, valorisation, scenario Background Nowadays, speaking about Cultural Heritage and development, the question is: why should we invest in cultural heritage during an economic and political crisis? Lots of official international documents e.g. the Council of Europe Treaty Series – No. 199 (Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Faro 2005), or the Horizon Work Program 2018-2020 (Horizon 2020, 2017), highlights the answer to this question: through the culture it is possible to make innovation, to strengthen the identity and unity, to improve the quality of life and to make the development sustainable. Moreover, the 2018 is the European Year of Cultural Heritage, celebrating the diverse cultures across Europe at national, regional and local level. In a Europe where some part of population takes the distance from the unification (e.g. the Brexit, the exit of United Kingdom from the European Union, Referendum on June 23rd, 2018), the aim of the European Year of Cultural Heritage is to “encourage more people to discover and engage with Europe's cultural heritage, and to reinforce a sense of belonging to a common European space (https://europa.eu/cultural-heritage/)”. Considering this political/economic situation, it is clear the great interest to engage with communities and “the need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of Cultural Heritage ( Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, Faro 2005 )”. The matter now is how to make innovation through cultural heritage, engage with population, and strengthen the sense of belonging. For this reason, these are the topics of Horizon 2020 Work Program. In general, it is possible to say that there are many formulas to do this, for example the following complementary methodologies: 1 – The Cultural Heritage Management 3.0 (from protection to pro-action) that aims to involve the citizens through collaborative governance forms according to the European model of smart specialisation.
Hybrid Systems for Modular, Industrialized Architecture: Typological and Technological Innovation for the Application of Hybrid Systems to Housing Construction.
and 1 collaborator
This position paper has been selected for publication on Magazine "Techne" n. 13
ABSTRACT
The research tools used in the field of technology to elaborate development trend data in prefigurate terms and the undertaking of construction of planning scenarios are here applied to the evolution of housing demands and to the rapidly changing, correlated requirement framework. Thus, the development of a research that, in the first phase proposes a theoretical framework of reference for the development of building construction, aims to reduce critical issues related to actual production models. This basis has then led to the establishment of a second step in research that, instead, aims to identifying potential practical ramifications and operative opportunities to innovate both process and product.
Keywords
Innovation project and building production, project culture and evolution of housing demands, hybrid technologies.
Technological culture and evolutionary scenarios: crisis of the production system and new housing paradigms
Technological culture of architectural design has always been characterized by anticipary and prognostic capability, with the development of visions and theoretical evolutionary scenarios that have been then confirmed and validated and have had ramifications in the innovational approach to both procedures and design systems, considering that housing design culture, in which the capability to interpret and re-elaborate data in prefigurate terms, developed only “with the launch of the decennial Plan for public housing (law 547/1978) in the seventies”, and the institutional residential housing committee CER at the Ministry of Public Works (Schiaffonati (1) 2014:22). In the wake of cultural tradition that makes living a significant incentive for reorganizational procedures, the hereby presented “Hybrid systems and technologies for architectural designs ”[1] research proposes to investigate possible alternatives to meet housing needs and to verify that typological models satisfy new requirement frameworks. In the last decades, researchers have made advances in architectural technology in terms of technological and typological innovation related to new housing models (Schiaffonati and others 1994; Schiaffonati (2) 2014) as well as research in prefabrication and industrialization of building systems, on management, maintenance and upgrading issues of residential housing that represent the operative and theoretical basis on which the resulting scenarios of this research are based[2].
Certainly, with the nineties and the end of the long social housing cycle in Italy , applied research projects and construction have lacked a relevant stimulus in terms of growing inadequacy in both built heritage and new construction compared to dynamics in demand, which still represent a challenge for the technology culture of design. The actual trend scenario highlights the limitations of the construction system in meeting the global housing needs expected in the next years, and the technological and typological inability to match new housing needs of contemporary society.
[1] The research, developed by the Research Group "Governance project and built environment enhancement" coordinated by Elena Mussinelli, is supported by - in addition to a Doctoral Research scholarship in Architecture, Built environment and Building Engineering at Politecnico di Milano - three important companies that deal in the construction sector (Gewiss Ltd, Progress Ltd, Valsir Ltd.).
[2] Cf. Lucarelli M.T., Mussinelli E., Trombetta C. (edited by) (2015), “Cluster in Progress. La Tecnologia dell'architettura in rete per l'innovazione”, Maggioli Editore. This publication presents eight thematic clusters launched by the Scientific company SitdA in 2012. In particular, the aim of the “Construction production- construction product” cluster is deal with technical and organizational conditions within which construction processes are realized to optimize the capacity of structures to meet market and users’ needs adequately, to develop product and process innovations and to promote the application of effective practices and methodologies.
Urbanization and global demographic trends
According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ estimates, the world population figure in 2050 will be 9,5 billion, compared to the current 7, and the average urbanization rate will attest at approximately 65%, compared to the current 50% (UN-Habitat,2006). It is forecasted that one million new housing units will be necessary by 2025 (UN Habitat,2016). Differently from widespread perception among public views, the demographic growth of the last decades has coincided with an increase in global wealth on the planet. The percentage of the global population that lives in extreme poverty (less than one dollar a day) has essentially halved in the last thirty years. The decline in birthrates will continue also in developing countries and in a manner that is inversely proportional to the rise in the spread of wealth and to the increase in education levels until the number of inhabitants of the planet stabilizes (at approximately 10 or 11 billion), which will not occur before the end of the century (Gerland Raffery,2014). The urbanization process will thus continue to be related to economic growth. As for land use, it must be kept in mind that, according to urbanization models realized to this day, the recorded growth rate of urbanized soil has more than doubled in comparison to the rate of urbanization among the population(Seto and others, 2012). On average, a city that has experienced a 20% growth in population has required a 46% increase in urbanized soil.
Productive capacity of the industrialized building sector
The rise in workforce costs and the progressive decline in competency levels of mastery in developed countries has highlighted the advantages of off-site building and of a greater industrialization of the building process. The use of prefabrication/modularization has risen in the American market in the first decade of the century and an additional increase is expected in the next years. Operators who in 2011 made use of prefabrication/modularization technologies for at least 50% of their commissions have increased by 37% since 2009, with a trending growth of 45% in 2013 (AA.VV 2011). However, the actual production capacity of the industrialized/modularized construction sector is far from being sufficient to satisfy the global housing demand. It is expected that the production capacity of prefabricated/modularized houses may reach a figure of 829.000 housing units withing 2017, and that this number may reach 3,4 million produced units in 2050 (Kieran, Timberlake 2004) in the face of the aforementioned demand estimated to be a billion units in 2025 (UN Habitat 2016). Thus, according to assumptions based on these predictions, the result is that the actual entire industrialization system of prefabricated/modularized construction of buildings will be able to provide for only a minimal share of all housing needs forecasted for the next years (Wallance, 2015).
Real estate market trends
With the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the number of global accommodation purchases has significantly diminished. At the same time, however, the already increasing trend taking place in investments on renovations and in technological and typological adaptations has risen additionally. Owner expenses on improvements and technologic upgrades in the United States have increased by 40% in the last fifteen years (AA.VV 2015).The main objective of renovation strategies for social housing estates in Europe are directed towards the reduction of management costs, the increase in energy performance, the improvement of building capacity to satisfy users’ new needs and the rise in the rate of property use. Typological upgrades mainly result from an increase in the number of family members (Gaspari Antonini 2013). Furthermore, consumers are inclined to using housing services rather than purchasing new accommodations. As evidenced in the rentals Report of 2015 by Nomisma- SoloAffitti , the increase in home rentals in Italy is consistent, with a rise by about 10% in families that use a rental property as a living accommodation in 2015 as compared to 2014. This also reflects a modification in the concept of property that, especially among the more recent generations, is strongly influenced by the sharing economy on many levels of contemporary living, in which temporariness is taken on as a permanent condition (Di Pasquale and others 2014). Many real estate agents are attempting to innovate the business model towards identifying and satisfying new needs that emerge from the spreading of a new housing paradigm, above all in terms of providing housing services throughout the life cycle rather than selling square meters of accommodation.
MEDIUM TO LONG-TERM SCENARIOS
The above-mentioned data picture a medium-term scenario with some manifest critical points. The underdevelopment of the industrialization level in the construction sector and its yielding deficiency compared with the expected requirements will determine the persistence of the traditional building processes characterized by a low-tech content and a high environmental impact. The essential part of the environmental footprint produced by the urbanization process derives from the actualizing models of the transformations of the environment, from the production and the realization of lodgings, infrastructures, services, etc. In this sense, both the typologies and the technologies adopted in the productive processes are decisive. Notably, the outcomes of the adoption of different models of urban development have some relevant consequences not only in the occupancy of the soil, but also and above all in the consumptions and in the efficiency of energy and transportation. The typology of accommodation has a strong impact on the energetic consumptions, regardless of the adoption of building technologies characterized by a low environmental impact. Multistoried buildings in dense urban contexts require less electricity than those of low-density districts. It has been estimated that an apartment of a multistoried building constructed with traditional technologies consumes on average 40% less than an equivalent lodging in a single-family accommodation built with highly energy-saving constructive technologies. The differential increases until 53%, even though the multistoried building adopts the same technologies (Jonathan Rose Companies, 2011). The same applies to the emissions due to the necessities of private transportation. If we consider in general the three main components of the emissions - transportation, heating, cooling and electricity - a dense urban district will produce 30% fewer emissions than a low-density district. The biggest discrepancy is represented by the emissions due to heating and cooling - 34% less - followed by the emissions due to electricity - 25% less - and by the emissions due to transportation - 17% less (Glaeser Edward 2009).
In addition to this, it is necessary to consider the issue of the land-use. Always in the perspective of a future scenario, if the increase of the urban population by 2050 is considered and if a constant level of growth in the current urban density is maintained, the urban land-use rises up to 150%. It will go from the current 2.6% of the whole surface (3.6 million square kilometers) to about 6.5% (9.6 million square kilometers). Thus, a marked discrepancy exists between the expectations of the demand, which is both quantitative and qualitative, and the supply currently available. Very briefly, the main elements in terms of risk evaluation that explain this divergence are: · deficiency of the current industrialized production system in the quantitative satisfaction of the expected demand; · strong environmental pressure linked to the phenomenon of urbanization on a global scale; · excessive soil occupancy; · obsolescence of the typological models no longer able to interpret the new paradigms of the contemporary living. The aim of this research is to take on the scenario of transformation of the housing demand in the long term, in order to build an alternative theoretical model as a response, which then will be actualized in terms of techno-typological innovation, as well as of innovation of the constructional process.
A new theoretical frame for the innovation of the constructional production
The fact that the housing demand expected in the next years is mainly urban and the consideration that 70% of the urbanized land is occupied by houses (UN- Habitat, 2016) make the identification of the multistoried building typology a strategic option, by now ineluctable. The population density produced by the urbanization is “probably essential for the conservation of the remainig rural ecosystems” (Martine et al. 2008: 3). Based on this assumption, this research has identified the hypothesis of new buildings for residential use conceived as dynamic and technologically “hybrid” organisms as an alternative scenario. In the planning concept of these, the half-permanent subsystems having a long life cycle are separated from the half-permanent subsystems having a stronger technological content, which are subject to a faster obsolescence. This allows the interchangeability of the two in time and it reduces the environmental footprint of the building. This vision has been developed also through the analysis of the production industry and of the real estate, as well as through the direct involvement of some important stakeholders in seminars and workshops in which people in charge for the research and innovation divisions of Gewiss S.p.A. (electric plant design sector), of Valsir S.p.A. (hydro sanitary and mechanical plant design sector), and of Progress S.p.A. (advanced concrete prefabrication plant design sector) have been involved and confronted with each other. The building has been sectioned in a mother structure hosting the main backbones of the system, which is supposed to have a life cycle of about one hundred years. Some interchangeable units have been inserted to integrate the whole electric, hydraulic and mechanical system with a ten-year life cycle, so as to guarantee a complete flexibility and adaptability to the changes in the housing demand. Such a structured model can have multiple applications also to the affordable housing, to the temporary housing demand and to the new life and working styles requiring more and more mobility. These hybrid structures can have an interesting application also to some contexts of urban completion, in adherence to blind walls, residual lots and to renew degraded fabrics.
Environment - Driven Change Management in AEC Firms
ABSTRACT
The growing awareness of sustainability goals and environmental issues pushes even more the ongoing process of transformation and increasingly complexity of building sector, bringing out new pressure and more radical changing, involving all the firms’ inner resources. The change management process has been disruptive to the extent that while until a short time ago environmental targets were seen as constraints, today they are even more considered as a way to improve performance and increase competitiveness. The result is that nowadays more or less every design firms claim to be environmentally friendly to take advantage for their business.defini
In this context, the research project aims to understand and depict how Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) firms are equipping and reorganizing themselves in order to address and meet environmental issues. In particular, the effort is to identify all the tangible and intangible resources invested by design companies to achieve environmental goals and their role in decision-making process. In this direction, the attention is focused on the relationships and the information’s flow among i) the team of actors and experts involved in the design process; ii) the set of tools and assets adopted; iii) and the collection of data required both by experts and tools to work and design. The mapping of design process is fulfilled conducting, in relation to the phase of the project, two different models of interviews within AEC firms: the submission of a questionnaire survey and the examination of case studies. Moreover, consistently with current trends that lead to consider artefacts as small part of a larger networks, systems and environment, life cycle approach is taken during the entire work, to take a broadening of perspective and to avoid shifting problems from one stage to another.
Analysing and deepening current practice, the challenge is to develop a framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective. The goal is achieved combining the theoretical level, represented by Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and the practical level, represented by AEC firms. Life cycle approach is therefore matched and implemented in design process, according to the different phases of the process and identifying the actors engaged and tools used. To face the complexity of the system and to handle the large amount of data, Building Information Modeling (BIM) is identified as the most suitable tool to embed the proposed framework. The application of the framework allows to enforce life cycle perspective in AEC practice starting from the early stage of the project and to truly orient decision-making process in line with environmental targets.
Keywords
Environmental issues; AEC firm; change management; design process; competences; tools; information’s flow; decision-making; optimization; Life Cycle Thinking (LCT); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Building Information Modelling (BIM).
INTRODUCTION
All over the world, the awareness of sustainability and environmental issues is raised over time to the extent that, after creating a heated debate in the academic community and obtaining consensus among politicians and practitioners, they become part of many agenda and standards. In particular, the first of January 2016 represents a turning point since the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, previously adopted in September 2015, officially came into force. Indeed, over the next fifteen years, the 193 world leaders committed their respective countries to achieve the shared goals with the connected targets, mobilizing efforts not only to tackle climate change, but also to end all forms of poverty and fight inequalities, ensuring that no one is left behind. For this purpose, it is required a joined action at local, national and international level through a strong commitment of governments but also involving and empowering the private sector, the society and all individuals.
In this context, Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) becomes a crucial prerequisite to gain, at different scales, a global and holistic view of the ongoing processes and to help actors to think and operate in a sustainable perspective. Indeed, thinking in terms of life cycle allows to deal with problems avoiding to approach reality in a reductionist way, since too restrictive and obsolete to comply with the prescribed SDGs. Two are the key factors of LCT in promoting sustainable and innovative models, lifestyles and business. First, the chance to consider and evaluate in advance the possible reverberation that and action can have over time at environmental, economic and social level. Secondly, the chance to avoid shifting problems and so their transposition from one side to another, concerning not only the time frame but also the geographical location. All these factors are pivotal in sustainability, especially if it is expected to reach it at global scale as required by Agenda 2030.
Focusing on environmental issues, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is currently the most well-established scientific method to assess the environmental impacts of products, processes and services throughout their entire life cycle. In particular, its application is decisive for achieving the following goals: number 12 “Responsible consumption and production” and, since different impact indicators fall into other goals, the number 3 “Good-health and well-being”, 6 “Clean water and sanitation”, 13 “Climate action”, 14 “Life below water” and 15 “Life on land”. This method is adopted in a more or less systematic way in the most various fields, on one hand, to monitor resources and environmental impacts and, on the other, to optimize processes. Despite LCA still have some critical aspects not yet solved, such as the methodology itself, data availability and comparability of results, it is important to foster its widespread dissemination in order to activate the virtuous mechanisms able to meet the environmental sustainability demanded by SDGs.
To this end, construction sector is certainly a strategic field of action to address sustainable and environmental goals, as it is esteem as one of the most incisive and impacting sector at a global scale, due to the high consumption of soil, natural resources and energy and the high emission in air, water and ground. Just to give some numbers, from the environmental point of view, it consumes each year about 3 billion tons of raw materials to manufacture building products worldwide and it is responsible for 40% of solid waste derived from construction and demolition and for 25-40% of the total energy use at global level. Furthermore, it must not forget the economical point of view, since the construction industry collects total annual revenues of almost $10 trillion, accounting for about 5% of global GDP and employing more than 100 million people worldwide. In addition, with regards to social point of view, it is well known that construction continues to shape our daily life in unique ways, with a high impact on the health and well-being of its occupants \citep{WEF2016}.
The growing awareness of sustainability goals and environmental issues led many governments to provide regulations and requirements with the aim to control the impacts generated by building sector. In this way, environmental targets spread in design and construction firms, boosting the ongoing process of transformation and increasingly complexity of building industry and bringing out new pressure and more radical changing. The integration process has been disruptive to the point that while until a short time ago environmental targets were seen as constraints (just think about energy efficiency directive), today they are even more considered as a way to improve performance and increase competitiveness. The result is that nowadays more or less every design firms claim to be environmentally friendly to take advantage for their business.
Over time, several studies dealt with sustainability and environmental aspects in construction sector, on one hand, analysing advancement, key factors, weakness points, barriers and all the related topics to clarify the current state and, on the other, exploring new methodologies, framework, instruments and tools to support design tasks. The problem is that while we have a wide knowledge from the theoretical point of view, there is no literature about what happens in design practice. In this regard, many are yet the open questions to be solved, just to name a few: the environmental issues taken into consideration, the way of practice to address them, their role within the decision-making process, the kind of tools and software used for that purpose, the skills and competences involved in the process and the related information’s flow. Since this field remains until now fuzzy, the research project seeks to fill the gap with the aim to understand how AEC firms are equipping and reorganizing themselves in order to address and meet environmental issues.
The subject engaged are thus both Architecture and Engineering firms but also Construction companies, since they represent the key actors and practitioners responsible for the built environment development. Indeed, in a simplified and synthetic way, artefacts are essentially conceived and designed by architectural and engineering studios and they are physically realized and built by construction companies. Nevertheless, today the boundaries between AEC firms are blurred, since for several reasons they are even more characterized by an “hybrid” nature to interplay and collaborate in an integrated way. On account of this, the research deals with the whole AEC industry to identify shared strategies but also individual practice and decision-making process in relation to the type of company. In addition, with regards to firms’ dimensions, the attention is focused on big and medium-size firms, since they are strongly involved in the process of transformation, rather that small firms where inner changes are limited and less visible.
In this direction, the effort is to identify all the tangible and intangible resources invested by AEC firms to achieve environmental goals and their influence in the decision-making process. In particular, the attention is focused on the relationships and the information’s flow among i) the team of actors and experts involved in the design process; ii) the set of tools and assets adopted; iii) and the collection of data required both by experts and tools to work and design. Moreover, consistently with current trends that lead to consider artefacts as small part of a larger networks, systems and environment, life cycle approach is taken during the entire work, to take a broadening of perspective and to avoid shifting problems from one stage to another.
The research project analyses current practice with the aim to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective and thus to decrease, as demanded, the high impacts of building sector. To this end, the implementation of Life Cycle Thinking, as first, and then, in the next future, the application of Life Cycle Assessment within AEC practice are considered the key challenges to allow practitioners to make aware decisions, to gain long-term perspective, to optimize design process, to lead decision-making and to truly decrease construction impacts.
STATE-OF-THE-ART
The research project involves a broad spectrum of topics of growing interest in the international panorama such as, just to mention a few, sustainability, life cycle, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Building Information Modelling (BIM) and change management. To face the complexity of the matter and the wide background available, the state-of-the-art is structured in three main sections: i) change management in AEC practice; ii) environmental issues and tools in AEC practice; and iii) AEC firms sustainable practice. For each section a comprehensive literature was developed based on two different type of sources: on one hand, through the Web of Science to identify the scientific and academic paper and, on the other, through the Web to locate other researches, documents, reports and supporting materials on the topics. Indeed, dealing with design practice, it is important to examine not only the publication of the academic community but also internet browser, since only here are visible all the assets developed by the same AEC firms.
In the first section, the keywords used in the starting literature review included “AEC change management” and “design building practice change management” for ISI search and “AEC firms change management” for Web search. In the second section, the keywords are “sustainable building design practice”, “green BIM”, “interoperability BIM LCA”, “LCA software”, “LCA software building”, “Life Cycle design building practice” for ISI search and “sustainable design practice” and “tools sustainable building practice” for Web search. In the third section, the only source adopted is the Web and the keywords used are “AEC firm’s name sustainable practice” (considering the name of the first ten AEC firms listed in ENR’s ranking of 2015) and a randomly research. In relation to scientific publications, a cross-reference activity was carried out for the latest papers (considering the ones developed until 2014) to avoid losing documents, while were surfed the web checking the first twenty pages.
Given the topicality of the subject, the articles and papers collected refer mainly to the timespan between 2010 and 2017, with a strong concentration in recent years even though there are scattered references related to previous years. In this regard, it is possible to notice that the documents concerning change management are the most dated, since the topic in question emerged earlier than environmental issues that, on the contrary, are gaining more importance especially in recent years. Some of the top journals included in literature search were including, but not limited to: Automation in Construction, Building and Environment, Energy and Buildings, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Journal of Cleaner Production and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The documents and papers gathered during this process are then categorized according to specific sub-topics for each section.
The following paragraphs depict the three main sections of the state-of-the-art, explaining in a synthetic way the sub-clustering and the main findings to offer a quick overview of the phenomenon in progress (WP1 – cognitive phase at theoretical level).
Change management in AEC practice
The first section, related to change management in AEC practice, is split in the listed four main sub-topics: “increasingly complexity”, “tangible resources”, “intangible resources” and “decision-making process”.
Indeed, over the recent decades, building sector has expanded and become increasingly complex (Browning, 2016), as direct consequence of the globalization of the market (Bond and O’Byrne, 2014) and the demand of a wide range of requirement (Yu and Chan, n.d.), like the ones related to sustainable development and environmental issues (Štefaňák, 2011; Woods, n.d.). To face these pressures, construction field is changing step by step (Deamer and Bernstein, 2010; Renz et al., 2016; Weippert and Kajewski, 2004; Witthoeft et al., 2017), even if it is considered resistant to change (Davis, 2008; Smollan, 2011). The transformation process involves all the firms’ inner resources (Chinowsky and Byrd, 2001): tangible resources, such as materials, buildings, plant, equipment, tools, money; and intangible resources, such as knowledge, organization and intelligence of people (Norsa, 2005; Sinopoli, 1997). Regarding tangible resources, it is important to stress the relevance of technology in AEC practice, with tools able to meet any design issues (Boddy et al., 2007; Fox, n.d.; Rezgui et al., 2011; Riese, 2012), and the so-called digital revolution of BIM (Autodesk, 2011b; Babič et al., 2010; BCG et al., 2016; Becerik-Gerber and Kensek, 2010; Harris, 2010; Reinhardt et al., 2013; Succar and Kassem, 2015). By contrast, intangible resources deal with the specialization of competences (Cerovšek et al., 2010; Hoffman and Lintern, 2006), knowledge and know-how (Mills et al., 2003), conceiving design process as an integrated practice where autonomous units of work turn into systems (Tiwari and Howard, 1994). In this context, a key ingredient is the ability of the companies to manage decision-making process and thus to achieve collaboration, cooperation and coordination (AberdeenGroup, 2007; Shen et al., 2010; Susman et al., 2006), handling at best information’s flow and workflows (Carson and Baker, 2006; Sakhare et al., 2014). Due to the dynamic and fragmented nature of construction sector, the problem of data integration throughout the projects’ life cycle still remains a challenge (Chinowsky and Carrillo, n.d.; Mokhtar et al., 1998; Rezgui et al., 2010).
Environmental issues and tools in AEC practice
The second section, related to environmental issues in AEC practice, is a little more complex and articulated. It is split in four main sub-topics: “approaches life cycle”, “drivers”, “practice” and “tools”, which are in turn divided according to other themes. The sub-topic “approaches life cycle” is divided in: “life cycle approaches”, “Life Cycle Assessment” and “LCA case studies”. The sub-topic “drivers” is divided in: “clients” and “environmental policies”. And finally, the sub-topic “tools” is divided in: “environmental tools”, “LCA building tools”, “green BIM”, “BIM – Rating Systems”, “BIM – LCA”.
Environmental issues are gaining even more attention in the construction field, fostered by the concept of sustainable development and circular economy (Accenture, 2014; Arup, 2016; Carra and Magdani, 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015, 2016) and becoming part of many international agenda and standards. In this context, many approaches and methodologies arose in order to promote new business models, while reducing dependence on primary materials and energy. One of the most affirmed purpose is that whole-system thinking is required to reduce environmental impacts within construction sector and drive both sustainability and innovation (Faludi, 2015), starting at small scale with building level (Annex31, 2004d) to end at large scale with supply chain (Antink et al., 2014). In this direction, LCA is considered as the most scientific method and it is growing of importance (Annex31, 2004b; Bayer et al., 2010; Zabalza Bribián et al, 2009), not only to meet customer demands for environmental friendly products/projects, but also to improve environmental processes and services and thus increase competitiveness (Cassidy, 2005; Khasreen et al., 2009; Ortiz et al., 2009). The main drivers are, on one hand, clients, which have a key role in creating and stimulating the right conditions for construction innovation, understanding and sharing the needs of both end-users and stakeholders (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011; Hartmann et al., 2006; Kilinc et al., 2015); and, on the other, regulation, policies and planning in encouraging and facilitating facilities that meet high environmental standards (Fischer and Guy, 2009; Shaw and Ozaki, 2016). Due to sustainability and environmental targets, the shared belief is that probably in the next future every company will need to transform itself and change management to survive and succeed (Farmer, 2013; Hedstrom, 2015; Kaatz et al., 2006; Mendler et al., 2006; Pan and Ning, 2015), facing the several barriers that today occur in construction sector and sustainable practice (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). This challenge is not only addressed by AEC firms but also by software corporations (Autodesk, 2015), describing through reports their efforts and progress in sustainability during the last years. In this way, the set of tools available on the market is even more broader, allowing AEC practice to potentially meet any design issues concerning environmental issues (Forsberg and von Malmborg, 2004; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Reijnders and Van Roekel, 1999; Zhai and McNeill, 2014) but also LCA (Gantner et al., 2012; Han and Srebric, n.d.; Hitchcock et al., 2011; Lehtinen et al., 2011; Peuportier et al., 2005, n.d.). Moreover, given the potentialities of BIM (Autodesk, 2011a), it is possible to streamline the design process, exchanging data and models between different software and creating great opportunity to achieve sustainability targets (Azhar et al., 2008; BLP and Miller, 2011; Cidik et al., 2014; Koppinen and Morrin, n.d., Levring and Nielsen, 2011; Rajendran et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2015; Wong and Zhou, 2015; Zhang et al., 2013), Rating System certification (Azhar et al., 2011; Biswas et al, 2013; Jalaei and Jrade, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2010; Wu and Issa, 2015) and LCA analysis (Anton and Diaz, 2014; Basbagill et al., 2013; Kovacic, 2016; Lee et al., 2015).
AEC firms sustainable practice
The third section collects AEC firms sustainable practice, without any sub-division in sub-topics. AEC firms (AECOM, 2012, 2013, 2016; AMEC, 2014, 2015a, 2015b; ARCADIS, 2015; Arup, 2015, n.d.a, n.d.b; CH2M, 2015; Fluor, 2014; Foster&Partners, 2005; Jacobs, 2015; MottMacDonald, 2016; SOM, 2013a, 2013b, 2014; WorleyParsons, 2015; WSP-Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014a, 2014b) as well as other institutions, organizations, associations, companies and corporations (BusinessRoundtable, 2015; McKinsey, 2014; RobecoSAM, 2015a, 2015b) disseminate several documents, reports and supporting materials concerning environmental issues and in general sustainability. The problem is that looking into AEC publications, more or less every big and medium-size company claim to be environmentally-friendly, not allowing to really understand by the documentations available how they work, act, design and process in practice.
SoA in detail
In addition to the above reported overview, an in deep analysis was conducted in relation to the key issues of the research project.
With the aim to look into AEC firms’ perspective, the state-of-the-art was examined pointing out the literature studies based on questionnaire surveys inputs from design and construction company and concerning the following topics: BIM, Green BIM, LCA.
Regarding BIM, some questionnaires spread with the aim of exploring the users and business value of BIM to provide an overview of the trends in action \citep{construction2010businessc,construction2010businesse}or focusing on its implementation in specific countries, for instance UK \citep{khosrowshahi2012roadmap}. Moreover, some others broaden the perspective examining the degree of adoption and impact of BIM in relation to Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Integrated Design Process (IDP) and Building Energy Simulation (BES)\citep{becerik2009building,stipo2015standard}.
With regards to Green BIM, various surveys were developed to investigate the current state in which BIM operates and functions with respect to sustainable design practice as well as the potential of Green BIM in the future \citep{azhar2009bim,bynum2012building,construction2010businessf}. Concerning LCA, some authors explored the point of view of building designers on BES and LCA but enclosed to US context \citep{han2015comparison} and some others deepened the status of LCA application and challenges limited to Nordic countries \citep{schlanbusch2016experiences}.
The attention was furthermore focused on the application of LCA methodology in construction sector, analyzing the LCA tools now available on the market and developed to support practitioners for their environmental choices. In fact, several authors identified the existing stand-alone LCA tools for buildings, presenting their main characteristics \citep{young2009businessb,bayer2010aia,lasvaux2012requirements,han2011life,han2011lifea,han2011lifeb,presco2005,han2011lifed,quinones2011}, while others analyzed the possible integration of LCA in BIM. Indeed, some authors report a critical review of BIM-based LCA method to buildings \citep{spiegelhalter2012achieving,anton2014integration,Soust-Verdaguer2017} and some others present environmental assessment tools to provide fully integrated approach applying LCA directly in BIM \citep{tucker2003lcadesign,kulahcioglu20123d}. Some studies focus on the evaluation of buildings’ carbon emissions and embodied energy in a BIM-driven design process \citep{li2012research,shadram2016integrated} and some others restrict the field of application to commercial buildings \citep{means2015framework} or structural systems \citep{eleftheriadis2017life}. In addition, some case studies shown and explore the potentialities of BIM as supporting tool for LCA starting from the early stage of design decision-making process \citep{basbagill2013application,lee2015green,kovacic2016}. Lastly, few case studies display models that link BIM and LCA with other functionalities such as energy analysis, lighting simulation and green building certification systems \citep{jalaei2014automated}, or Life Cycle Costing \citep{shin2015bim}, or scheduling, costing and sustainability dimensions \citep{yung20146d}.
Finally, the search explored the developed LCA studies, finding in literature a lot of single LCA studies carried out at building level but also some literature reviews on collected LCA analysis \citep{buyle2013life,cabeza2014life,chastas2016embodied,soust2016simplification}.
METHODS FINDINGS AND ARGUMENT
With the aim to understand how environmental issues are addressed in AEC practice and their role within the decision-making process, during the entire work, the adopted methodology combines the search conducted at theoretical level with the search conducted at practical level. In particular, the theoretical research is developed exploring and upgrading the studies and findings available in literature, while the practical research is developed conducting interviews to design and construction firms. In the last case, the working method elected is strictly related not only to the subject in question that requires itself a close investigation into AEC firms and their workability, but it also calls to mind the field of qualitative research methodologies: the ethnography approach. Indeed, as stated in literature \citep{pink2013introducing}, ethnography is now emerging as part of the set of techniques used to understand the construction industry, a sector considered extremely complex and influential but that despite this remains mostly unexplored and under-theorised. In this way, the research project embraces the ideas that construction ethnography, involving the main actors engaged in the process, can offer new routes to knowledge about and in the construction sector. Ethnography become thus the methodology adopted to deal with the practical search, applying two different models of interviews in relation to the level of detail to be achieved according to the phase of the project.
The following paragraphs shown the structure of the research project, briefly presenting the Work Packages (WP) and describing for each phase the associated specific targets and the results expected.
- The cognitive phase at theoretical level (WP1), previously depicted, aims to define the state-of-the-art of the research project, identifying through the Web of Science the related scientific and academic paper and through the Web other researches, documents, reports and supporting materials on the topic. The outcome is the identification at theoretical level of current trends in the field of change management ongoing in AEC practice and specifically focusing on environmental issues.
- The descriptive phase (WP3) aims to develop, at conceptual level, the supporting materials necessary to the following research’s phases. The challenge is to match, integrate and interconnect life cycle approach (theoretical level) and design process (practical level). The outcome is a framework able to figure out LCA data and choices according to the different phases of the process, as well as the connected actors engaged and tools used. In this way, the research proposes a new way to orient the change management of design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective.
- The partnership phase (WP4) aims to establish agreements with some national and international AEC firms in order to encompass their practices in the analysis. This is a crucial point since from the companies’ point of view the partnership can represents an effort but at the same time an opportunity for their workability. The call is turn to AEC firms considered environmentally friendly, selecting from their portfolio a case study, built with the accomplishment of high environmental targets and possible equipped with an LCA study. The outcome is a list of design and construction firms available to actively contribute to the research goals.
- The analytic phase (WP5) aims to understand how AEC firms deal in practice with environmental issues and how environmental issues are integrated in the design process and the connected information’s flow. To this end, the second model of interview is applied by means of a personal involvement within the joined practice. It involves punctual partnerships, focusing on specific environmental-friendly projects and using direct means of communication, such as face to face questions, not structured since they vary in relation to the firms’ practice. The outcome is a mapping of AEC design process stressing environmental issues and their role in decision-making.
- The synthetic phase (WP6) aims to get the meaning of the different AEC design processes examined and of the possible application of the suggested framework within their practice. The outcome is a validated framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective, optimizing the decision-making process and thus the connected tangible and intangible resources and maybe introducing new competences and new organizational models.
The cognitive phase at practical level (WP2) aims to start gain insight on the AEC perspective in order to understand if the theoretical data are confirmed by real practice and to provide an overview of the transformation process and trends in environmental topics. To this end, the first model of interview is applied by means of the spread of a questionnaire survey. It involves a large target audience, focusing on general design practice and using indirect means of communication, such as mail or telephone interviews, structured with open-ended questions. The outcome is the identification at practical level of current trends within AEC practices, since design and construction firms are analysed as groups rather than as individuals.
The levelsynthetic phase (WP6) aims to get the meaning of the different AEC design processes examined and of the possible application of the suggested framework within their practice. The outcome is a validated framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective, optimizing the decision-making process and thus the connected tangible and intangible resources and maybe introducing new competences and new organizational models.
The following paragraphs look into the Work Packages of the research explaining, on one hand, the methods and the main findings of the WP addressed and still now underway (WP2 and WP3) and, on the other, the plan of action for the WP started but not yet yet concluded (WP4) and in the forthcoming agenda (WP5).
Starting gain insight on AEC firms
From the first steps of the research, a questionnaire survey was conducted to start gain insight on AEC perspectives, analyzing current design practice in order to provide a general overview of the transformation process and determine trends in environmental topics (WP2 – cognitive phase at practical level).
The target audience was architectural and engineering firms but also construction companies established both at national and international level and restricted to big and medium-size firms. Indeed, as just mentioned, with regards to environmental issues the transformation process gets involved especially the big and medium-size firms rather than the small ones which are for this reason excluded from the study. In addition, since today a variety of design firms operate worldwide and that the sample population can affect significantly the outcome of the study, it was adopted an as unbiased as possible criterion for the selection. AEC firms were thus identified through published ranking, considering for the medium-size firms the Italian list named “Top 100 national design firms” developed by Edilizia e Territorio in 2013 \citep{edilizia2013} and for the big-sized firms the “Top 150 global design firms” developed by ENR according to revenue for design services performed in 2015 . Right now, it is possible to point out that seven of the ten global AEC firms are tagged environmentally friendly by ENR, stressing the assumption that design business are taking advantage by the integration of environmental topics and goals. Participants were recruited through email invitations to the selected ranking lists and were later widen through the direct contacts gained during the study. Moreover, to meet as much as possible firms’ demand, AEC companies can choose if reply independently to the survey, if set a phone/skype call or fix a meeting according to their preference and availability.
The questionnaire is structured with open-ended questions split in three main sections: i) general info; ii) structure and organization; and iii) environmental issues. The first section provides an overview of the firm interviewed, explaining the type, the network in relation to the number of offices, the size in relation to the number of employees, the competences required and the projects/tasks developed. The second section deals with the structure and the organization of the firms, depicting the operational units and the sub-specialized units, if necessary the support of external partners, the different ways to manage and tackle the design process, the potential use of BIM tools and the information’s flow between the different actors involved. The third and last section is focused on environmental issues, pointing out the main drivers of such topics, the main goals addressed, the main experts engaged, the main environmental consultants if any and the use of Life Cycle Assessment as supporting tool in the decision-making process. Before the widespread dissemination of the survey, the questionnaire was validated inviting one national and one international company to respond in advance to the survey in order to understand if questions were clear and comprehensible form practitioners’ point of view, testing and if required adjusting the queries.
The questionnaire survey was lunched on November 2015 and submitted to forty-six international and national AEC firms. Until now, despite the countless reminders, only nine firms completed the survey: four medium-size firms, involving Renzo Piano Building Workshop of Genova (ranked at the first place in Italy), Progetto CMR of Milano (eleventh place in Italy), PiuArch of Milano (sixteenth place in Italy) and Cucinella of Bologna (thirty-second place in Italy); and five big-size firms, including HDR of Chicago (ranked at the twenty-first place in the world), Arup of Berlino (twenty-fourth place in the world), HOK of Washington (seventy-eight place in the world), Foster and Partners of London and Skanska Finland and UK (not located in the raking). In this way, the survey response rate is 20% which is a little low but, given the diversity of firms, good enough to identify general current practice and trends. Among the survey respondents, the majority are architectural firms (45%) or integrated firms (33%), followed by engineering firms (11%) and construction companies (11%).
The survey was thus presented in the different AEC firms demanding for the responses the involvement of the environmental experts. Indeed, also the expertise, the background and the employment of the individuals engaged in the questionnaire going to strongly affect the outcome of the study. For this reason, it is important to underline that, in relation to firm’s availability, in some case the informants are environmental experts while in others are workers of different hierarchical levels and positions. When possible, multiple participants were interviewed simultaneously to provide different point of views and improve the reliability of data. In this way, the wealth and the accuracy of the replies gained depends not only to the type and dimension of the firms but also to the willingness to participate which was not equal across the offices
After the interview, for each firm the information gathered are summarized and schematized in a graphic way, as shown on Figure \ref{803566}. At the base, it is specified the name of the company under study, followed by its location, the type of firm identifying with “A” architecture, “E” engineering and “C” construction, the position in the ranking explaining if at Italian level or in the world. Moreover, the base colour indicates whether the company belongs to big or medium-size firms. Afterwards, data are explained in eight columns: the first three columns provide “general info” related to the firm and the last five columns refer to “environmental issues”. In this way, “general info” are grouped in “dimensions”, “structure” and “experts”; while “environmental issues” in “drivers”, “topics”, “tools”, “simulations” and “development”. The column “dimensions” explains the number of country where is set the firm and the related number of offices and employees. The column “structure” explains the operational units, including administration, commercial and technical-operative areas, and if specified the tools used to share and manage the information’s flow within the firm. The column “experts” explains the specific competences in-house, representing with the symbol if it is a single expert or a group, and eventually the external partners. With regards to “environmental issues”, the column “drivers” explains the motivation items, such as regulations, clients or philosophy, that push in that direction the design practice. The column “topics” explains the environmental issues mostly considered, such as energy, water, pollution, health and wellness. The column “tools” explains the assets used by the firms during the design process, in particular simulation software, BIM, LCA study, environmental information and if it relies on external partners for some aspects. The column “simulations” explains the name of tools and software used by the firm to address environmental issues. Finally, the column “development” explains if these tools are available on the market or are homemade.
Environment - Driven Change Management in AEC Firms
ABSTRACT
The growing awareness of sustainability goals and environmental issues pushes even more the ongoing process of transformation and increasingly complexity of building sector, bringing out new pressure and more radical changing, involving all the firms’ inner resources. The change management process has been disruptive to the extent that while until a short time ago environmental targets were seen as constraints, today they are even more considered as a way to improve performance and increase competitiveness. The result is that nowadays more or less every design firms claim to be environmentally friendly to take advantage for their business.defini
In this context, the research project aims to understand and depict how Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) firms are equipping and reorganizing themselves in order to address and meet environmental issues. In particular, the effort is to identify all the tangible and intangible resources invested by design companies to achieve environmental goals and their role in decision-making process. In this direction, the attention is focused on the relationships and the information’s flow among i) the team of actors and experts involved in the design process; ii) the set of tools and assets adopted; iii) and the collection of data required both by experts and tools to work and design. The mapping of design process is fulfilled conducting, in relation to the phase of the project, two different models of interviews within AEC firms: the submission of a questionnaire survey and the examination of case studies. Moreover, consistently with current trends that lead to consider artefacts as small part of a larger networks, systems and environment, life cycle approach is taken during the entire work, to take a broadening of perspective and to avoid shifting problems from one stage to another.
Analysing and deepening current practice, the challenge is to develop a framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective. The goal is achieved combining the theoretical level, represented by Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and the practical level, represented by AEC firms. Life cycle approach is therefore matched and implemented in design process, according to the different phases of the process and identifying the actors engaged and tools used. To face the complexity of the system and to handle the large amount of data, Building Information Modeling (BIM) is identified as the most suitable tool to embed the proposed framework. The application of the framework allows to enforce life cycle perspective in AEC practice starting from the early stage of the project and to truly orient decision-making process in line with environmental targets.
Keywords
Environmental issues; AEC firm; change management; design process; competences; tools; information’s flow; decision-making; optimization; Life Cycle Thinking (LCT); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Building Information Modelling (BIM).
INTRODUCTION
All over the world, the awareness of sustainability and environmental issues is raised over time to the extent that, after creating a heated debate in the academic community and obtaining consensus among politicians and practitioners, they become part of many agenda and standards. In particular, the first of January 2016 represents a turning point since the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, previously adopted in September 2015, officially came into force. Indeed, over the next fifteen years, the 193 world leaders committed their respective countries to achieve the shared goals with the connected targets, mobilizing efforts not only to tackle climate change, but also to end all forms of poverty and fight inequalities, ensuring that no one is left behind. For this purpose, it is required a joined action at local, national and international level through a strong commitment of governments but also involving and empowering the private sector, the society and all individuals.
In this context, Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) becomes a crucial prerequisite to gain, at different scales, a global and holistic view of the ongoing processes and to help actors to think and operate in a sustainable perspective. Indeed, thinking in terms of life cycle allows to deal with problems avoiding to approach reality in a reductionist way, since too restrictive and obsolete to comply with the prescribed SDGs. Two are the key factors of LCT in promoting sustainable and innovative models, lifestyles and business. First, the chance to consider and evaluate in advance the possible reverberation that and action can have over time at environmental, economic and social level. Secondly, the chance to avoid shifting problems and so their transposition from one side to another, concerning not only the time frame but also the geographical location. All these factors are pivotal in sustainability, especially if it is expected to reach it at global scale as required by Agenda 2030.
Focusing on environmental issues, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is currently the most well-established scientific method to assess the environmental impacts of products, processes and services throughout their entire life cycle. In particular, its application is decisive for achieving the following goals: number 12 “Responsible consumption and production” and, since different impact indicators fall into other goals, the number 3 “Good-health and well-being”, 6 “Clean water and sanitation”, 13 “Climate action”, 14 “Life below water” and 15 “Life on land”. This method is adopted in a more or less systematic way in the most various fields, on one hand, to monitor resources and environmental impacts and, on the other, to optimize processes. Despite LCA still have some critical aspects not yet solved, such as the methodology itself, data availability and comparability of results, it is important to foster its widespread dissemination in order to activate the virtuous mechanisms able to meet the environmental sustainability demanded by SDGs.
To this end, construction sector is certainly a strategic field of action to address sustainable and environmental goals, as it is esteem as one of the most incisive and impacting sector at a global scale, due to the high consumption of soil, natural resources and energy and the high emission in air, water and ground. Just to give some numbers, from the environmental point of view, it consumes each year about 3 billion tons of raw materials to manufacture building products worldwide and it is responsible for 40% of solid waste derived from construction and demolition and for 25-40% of the total energy use at global level. Furthermore, it must not forget the economical point of view, since the construction industry collects total annual revenues of almost $10 trillion, accounting for about 5% of global GDP and employing more than 100 million people worldwide. In addition, with regards to social point of view, it is well known that construction continues to shape our daily life in unique ways, with a high impact on the health and well-being of its occupants \citep{WEF2016}.
The growing awareness of sustainability goals and environmental issues led many governments to provide regulations and requirements with the aim to control the impacts generated by building sector. In this way, environmental targets spread in design and construction firms, boosting the ongoing process of transformation and increasingly complexity of building industry and bringing out new pressure and more radical changing. The integration process has been disruptive to the point that while until a short time ago environmental targets were seen as constraints (just think about energy efficiency directive), today they are even more considered as a way to improve performance and increase competitiveness. The result is that nowadays more or less every design firms claim to be environmentally friendly to take advantage for their business.
Over time, several studies dealt with sustainability and environmental aspects in construction sector, on one hand, analysing advancement, key factors, weakness points, barriers and all the related topics to clarify the current state and, on the other, exploring new methodologies, framework, instruments and tools to support design tasks. The problem is that while we have a wide knowledge from the theoretical point of view, there is no literature about what happens in design practice. In this regard, many are yet the open questions to be solved, just to name a few: the environmental issues taken into consideration, the way of practice to address them, their role within the decision-making process, the kind of tools and software used for that purpose, the skills and competences involved in the process and the related information’s flow. Since this field remains until now fuzzy, the research project seeks to fill the gap with the aim to understand how AEC firms are equipping and reorganizing themselves in order to address and meet environmental issues.
The subject engaged are thus both Architecture and Engineering firms but also Construction companies, since they represent the key actors and practitioners responsible for the built environment development. Indeed, in a simplified and synthetic way, artefacts are essentially conceived and designed by architectural and engineering studios and they are physically realized and built by construction companies. Nevertheless, today the boundaries between AEC firms are blurred, since for several reasons they are even more characterized by an “hybrid” nature to interplay and collaborate in an integrated way. On account of this, the research deals with the whole AEC industry to identify shared strategies but also individual practice and decision-making process in relation to the type of company. In addition, with regards to firms’ dimensions, the attention is focused on big and medium-size firms, since they are strongly involved in the process of transformation, rather that small firms where inner changes are limited and less visible.
In this direction, the effort is to identify all the tangible and intangible resources invested by AEC firms to achieve environmental goals and their influence in the decision-making process. In particular, the attention is focused on the relationships and the information’s flow among i) the team of actors and experts involved in the design process; ii) the set of tools and assets adopted; iii) and the collection of data required both by experts and tools to work and design. Moreover, consistently with current trends that lead to consider artefacts as small part of a larger networks, systems and environment, life cycle approach is taken during the entire work, to take a broadening of perspective and to avoid shifting problems from one stage to another.
The research project analyses current practice with the aim to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective and thus to decrease, as demanded, the high impacts of building sector. To this end, the implementation of Life Cycle Thinking, as first, and then, in the next future, the application of Life Cycle Assessment within AEC practice are considered the key challenges to allow practitioners to make aware decisions, to gain long-term perspective, to optimize design process, to lead decision-making and to truly decrease construction impacts.
STATE-OF-THE-ART
The research project involves a broad spectrum of topics of growing interest in the international panorama such as, just to mention a few, sustainability, life cycle, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Building Information Modelling (BIM) and change management. To face the complexity of the matter and the wide background available, the state-of-the-art is structured in three main sections: i) change management in AEC practice; ii) environmental issues and tools in AEC practice; and iii) AEC firms sustainable practice. For each section a comprehensive literature was developed based on two different type of sources: on one hand, through the Web of Science to identify the scientific and academic paper and, on the other, through the Web to locate other researches, documents, reports and supporting materials on the topics. Indeed, dealing with design practice, it is important to examine not only the publication of the academic community but also internet browser, since only here are visible all the assets developed by the same AEC firms.
In the first section, the keywords used in the starting literature review included “AEC change management” and “design building practice change management” for ISI search and “AEC firms change management” for Web search. In the second section, the keywords are “sustainable building design practice”, “green BIM”, “interoperability BIM LCA”, “LCA software”, “LCA software building”, “Life Cycle design building practice” for ISI search and “sustainable design practice” and “tools sustainable building practice” for Web search. In the third section, the only source adopted is the Web and the keywords used are “AEC firm’s name sustainable practice” (considering the name of the first ten AEC firms listed in ENR’s ranking of 2015) and a randomly research. In relation to scientific publications, a cross-reference activity was carried out for the latest papers (considering the ones developed until 2014) to avoid losing documents, while were surfed the web checking the first twenty pages.
Given the topicality of the subject, the articles and papers collected refer mainly to the timespan between 2010 and 2017, with a strong concentration in recent years even though there are scattered references related to previous years. In this regard, it is possible to notice that the documents concerning change management are the most dated, since the topic in question emerged earlier than environmental issues that, on the contrary, are gaining more importance especially in recent years. Some of the top journals included in literature search were including, but not limited to: Automation in Construction, Building and Environment, Energy and Buildings, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Journal of Cleaner Production and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The documents and papers gathered during this process are then categorized according to specific sub-topics for each section.
The following paragraphs depict the three main sections of the state-of-the-art, explaining in a synthetic way the sub-clustering and the main findings to offer a quick overview of the phenomenon in progress (WP1 – cognitive phase at theoretical level).
Change management in AEC practice
The first section, related to change management in AEC practice, is split in the listed four main sub-topics: “increasingly complexity”, “tangible resources”, “intangible resources” and “decision-making process”.
Indeed, over the recent decades, building sector has expanded and become increasingly complex (Browning, 2016), as direct consequence of the globalization of the market (Bond and O’Byrne, 2014) and the demand of a wide range of requirement (Yu and Chan, n.d.), like the ones related to sustainable development and environmental issues (Štefaňák, 2011; Woods, n.d.). To face these pressures, construction field is changing step by step (Deamer and Bernstein, 2010; Renz et al., 2016; Weippert and Kajewski, 2004; Witthoeft et al., 2017), even if it is considered resistant to change (Davis, 2008; Smollan, 2011). The transformation process involves all the firms’ inner resources (Chinowsky and Byrd, 2001): tangible resources, such as materials, buildings, plant, equipment, tools, money; and intangible resources, such as knowledge, organization and intelligence of people (Norsa, 2005; Sinopoli, 1997). Regarding tangible resources, it is important to stress the relevance of technology in AEC practice, with tools able to meet any design issues (Boddy et al., 2007; Fox, n.d.; Rezgui et al., 2011; Riese, 2012), and the so-called digital revolution of BIM (Autodesk, 2011b; Babič et al., 2010; BCG et al., 2016; Becerik-Gerber and Kensek, 2010; Harris, 2010; Reinhardt et al., 2013; Succar and Kassem, 2015). By contrast, intangible resources deal with the specialization of competences (Cerovšek et al., 2010; Hoffman and Lintern, 2006), knowledge and know-how (Mills et al., 2003), conceiving design process as an integrated practice where autonomous units of work turn into systems (Tiwari and Howard, 1994). In this context, a key ingredient is the ability of the companies to manage decision-making process and thus to achieve collaboration, cooperation and coordination (AberdeenGroup, 2007; Shen et al., 2010; Susman et al., 2006), handling at best information’s flow and workflows (Carson and Baker, 2006; Sakhare et al., 2014). Due to the dynamic and fragmented nature of construction sector, the problem of data integration throughout the projects’ life cycle still remains a challenge (Chinowsky and Carrillo, n.d.; Mokhtar et al., 1998; Rezgui et al., 2010).
Environmental issues and tools in AEC practice
The second section, related to environmental issues in AEC practice, is a little more complex and articulated. It is split in four main sub-topics: “approaches life cycle”, “drivers”, “practice” and “tools”, which are in turn divided according to other themes. The sub-topic “approaches life cycle” is divided in: “life cycle approaches”, “Life Cycle Assessment” and “LCA case studies”. The sub-topic “drivers” is divided in: “clients” and “environmental policies”. And finally, the sub-topic “tools” is divided in: “environmental tools”, “LCA building tools”, “green BIM”, “BIM – Rating Systems”, “BIM – LCA”.
Environmental issues are gaining even more attention in the construction field, fostered by the concept of sustainable development and circular economy (Accenture, 2014; Arup, 2016; Carra and Magdani, 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015, 2016) and becoming part of many international agenda and standards. In this context, many approaches and methodologies arose in order to promote new business models, while reducing dependence on primary materials and energy. One of the most affirmed purpose is that whole-system thinking is required to reduce environmental impacts within construction sector and drive both sustainability and innovation (Faludi, 2015), starting at small scale with building level (Annex31, 2004d) to end at large scale with supply chain (Antink et al., 2014). In this direction, LCA is considered as the most scientific method and it is growing of importance (Annex31, 2004b; Bayer et al., 2010; Zabalza Bribián et al, 2009), not only to meet customer demands for environmental friendly products/projects, but also to improve environmental processes and services and thus increase competitiveness (Cassidy, 2005; Khasreen et al., 2009; Ortiz et al., 2009). The main drivers are, on one hand, clients, which have a key role in creating and stimulating the right conditions for construction innovation, understanding and sharing the needs of both end-users and stakeholders (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011; Hartmann et al., 2006; Kilinc et al., 2015); and, on the other, regulation, policies and planning in encouraging and facilitating facilities that meet high environmental standards (Fischer and Guy, 2009; Shaw and Ozaki, 2016). Due to sustainability and environmental targets, the shared belief is that probably in the next future every company will need to transform itself and change management to survive and succeed (Farmer, 2013; Hedstrom, 2015; Kaatz et al., 2006; Mendler et al., 2006; Pan and Ning, 2015), facing the several barriers that today occur in construction sector and sustainable practice (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). This challenge is not only addressed by AEC firms but also by software corporations (Autodesk, 2015), describing through reports their efforts and progress in sustainability during the last years. In this way, the set of tools available on the market is even more broader, allowing AEC practice to potentially meet any design issues concerning environmental issues (Forsberg and von Malmborg, 2004; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Reijnders and Van Roekel, 1999; Zhai and McNeill, 2014) but also LCA (Gantner et al., 2012; Han and Srebric, n.d.; Hitchcock et al., 2011; Lehtinen et al., 2011; Peuportier et al., 2005, n.d.). Moreover, given the potentialities of BIM (Autodesk, 2011a), it is possible to streamline the design process, exchanging data and models between different software and creating great opportunity to achieve sustainability targets (Azhar et al., 2008; BLP and Miller, 2011; Cidik et al., 2014; Koppinen and Morrin, n.d., Levring and Nielsen, 2011; Rajendran et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2015; Wong and Zhou, 2015; Zhang et al., 2013), Rating System certification (Azhar et al., 2011; Biswas et al, 2013; Jalaei and Jrade, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2010; Wu and Issa, 2015) and LCA analysis (Anton and Diaz, 2014; Basbagill et al., 2013; Kovacic, 2016; Lee et al., 2015).
AEC firms sustainable practice
The third section collects AEC firms sustainable practice, without any sub-division in sub-topics. AEC firms (AECOM, 2012, 2013, 2016; AMEC, 2014, 2015a, 2015b; ARCADIS, 2015; Arup, 2015, n.d.a, n.d.b; CH2M, 2015; Fluor, 2014; Foster&Partners, 2005; Jacobs, 2015; MottMacDonald, 2016; SOM, 2013a, 2013b, 2014; WorleyParsons, 2015; WSP-Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014a, 2014b) as well as other institutions, organizations, associations, companies and corporations (BusinessRoundtable, 2015; McKinsey, 2014; RobecoSAM, 2015a, 2015b) disseminate several documents, reports and supporting materials concerning environmental issues and in general sustainability. The problem is that looking into AEC publications, more or less every big and medium-size company claim to be environmentally-friendly, not allowing to really understand by the documentations available how they work, act, design and process in practice.
SoA in detail
In addition to the above reported overview, an in deep analysis was conducted in relation to the key issues of the research project.
With the aim to look into AEC firms’ perspective, the state-of-the-art was examined pointing out the literature studies based on questionnaire surveys inputs from design and construction company and concerning the following topics: BIM, Green BIM, LCA.
Regarding BIM, some questionnaires spread with the aim of exploring the users and business value of BIM to provide an overview of the trends in action \citep{construction2010businessc,construction2010businesse}or focusing on its implementation in specific countries, for instance UK \citep{khosrowshahi2012roadmap}. Moreover, some others broaden the perspective examining the degree of adoption and impact of BIM in relation to Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Integrated Design Process (IDP) and Building Energy Simulation (BES)\citep{becerik2009building,stipo2015standard}.
With regards to Green BIM, various surveys were developed to investigate the current state in which BIM operates and functions with respect to sustainable design practice as well as the potential of Green BIM in the future \citep{azhar2009bim,bynum2012building,construction2010businessf}. Concerning LCA, some authors explored the point of view of building designers on BES and LCA but enclosed to US context \citep{han2015comparison} and some others deepened the status of LCA application and challenges limited to Nordic countries \citep{schlanbusch2016experiences}.
The attention was furthermore focused on the application of LCA methodology in construction sector, analyzing the LCA tools now available on the market and developed to support practitioners for their environmental choices. In fact, several authors identified the existing stand-alone LCA tools for buildings, presenting their main characteristics \citep{young2009businessb,bayer2010aia,lasvaux2012requirements,han2011life,han2011lifea,han2011lifeb,presco2005,han2011lifed,quinones2011}, while others analyzed the possible integration of LCA in BIM. Indeed, some authors report a critical review of BIM-based LCA method to buildings \citep{spiegelhalter2012achieving,anton2014integration,Soust-Verdaguer2017} and some others present environmental assessment tools to provide fully integrated approach applying LCA directly in BIM \citep{tucker2003lcadesign,kulahcioglu20123d}. Some studies focus on the evaluation of buildings’ carbon emissions and embodied energy in a BIM-driven design process \citep{li2012research,shadram2016integrated} and some others restrict the field of application to commercial buildings \citep{means2015framework} or structural systems \citep{eleftheriadis2017life}. In addition, some case studies shown and explore the potentialities of BIM as supporting tool for LCA starting from the early stage of design decision-making process \citep{basbagill2013application,lee2015green,kovacic2016}. Lastly, few case studies display models that link BIM and LCA with other functionalities such as energy analysis, lighting simulation and green building certification systems \citep{jalaei2014automated}, or Life Cycle Costing \citep{shin2015bim}, or scheduling, costing and sustainability dimensions \citep{yung20146d}.
Finally, the search explored the developed LCA studies, finding in literature a lot of single LCA studies carried out at building level but also some literature reviews on collected LCA analysis \citep{buyle2013life,cabeza2014life,chastas2016embodied,soust2016simplification}.
METHODS FINDINGS AND ARGUMENT
With the aim to understand how environmental issues are addressed in AEC practice and their role within the decision-making process, during the entire work, the adopted methodology combines the search conducted at theoretical level with the search conducted at practical level. In particular, the theoretical research is developed exploring and upgrading the studies and findings available in literature, while the practical research is developed conducting interviews to design and construction firms. In the last case, the working method elected is strictly related not only to the subject in question that requires itself a close investigation into AEC firms and their workability, but it also calls to mind the field of qualitative research methodologies: the ethnography approach. Indeed, as stated in literature \citep{pink2013introducing}, ethnography is now emerging as part of the set of techniques used to understand the construction industry, a sector considered extremely complex and influential but that despite this remains mostly unexplored and under-theorised. In this way, the research project embraces the ideas that construction ethnography, involving the main actors engaged in the process, can offer new routes to knowledge about and in the construction sector. Ethnography become thus the methodology adopted to deal with the practical search, applying two different models of interviews in relation to the level of detail to be achieved according to the phase of the project.
The following paragraphs shown the structure of the research project, briefly presenting the Work Packages (WP) and describing for each phase the associated specific targets and the results expected.
- The cognitive phase at theoretical level (WP1), previously depicted, aims to define the state-of-the-art of the research project, identifying through the Web of Science the related scientific and academic paper and through the Web other researches, documents, reports and supporting materials on the topic. The outcome is the identification at theoretical level of current trends in the field of change management ongoing in AEC practice and specifically focusing on environmental issues.
- The descriptive phase (WP3) aims to develop, at conceptual level, the supporting materials necessary to the following research’s phases. The challenge is to match, integrate and interconnect life cycle approach (theoretical level) and design process (practical level). The outcome is a framework able to figure out LCA data and choices according to the different phases of the process, as well as the connected actors engaged and tools used. In this way, the research proposes a new way to orient the change management of design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective.
- The partnership phase (WP4) aims to establish agreements with some national and international AEC firms in order to encompass their practices in the analysis. This is a crucial point since from the companies’ point of view the partnership can represents an effort but at the same time an opportunity for their workability. The call is turn to AEC firms considered environmentally friendly, selecting from their portfolio a case study, built with the accomplishment of high environmental targets and possible equipped with an LCA study. The outcome is a list of design and construction firms available to actively contribute to the research goals.
- The analytic phase (WP5) aims to understand how AEC firms deal in practice with environmental issues and how environmental issues are integrated in the design process and the connected information’s flow. To this end, the second model of interview is applied by means of a personal involvement within the joined practice. It involves punctual partnerships, focusing on specific environmental-friendly projects and using direct means of communication, such as face to face questions, not structured since they vary in relation to the firms’ practice. The outcome is a mapping of AEC design process stressing environmental issues and their role in decision-making.
- The synthetic phase (WP6) aims to get the meaning of the different AEC design processes examined and of the possible application of the suggested framework within their practice. The outcome is a validated framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective, optimizing the decision-making process and thus the connected tangible and intangible resources and maybe introducing new competences and new organizational models.
The cognitive phase at practical level (WP2) aims to start gain insight on the AEC perspective in order to understand if the theoretical data are confirmed by real practice and to provide an overview of the transformation process and trends in environmental topics. To this end, the first model of interview is applied by means of the spread of a questionnaire survey. It involves a large target audience, focusing on general design practice and using indirect means of communication, such as mail or telephone interviews, structured with open-ended questions. The outcome is the identification at practical level of current trends within AEC practices, since design and construction firms are analysed as groups rather than as individuals.
The levelsynthetic phase (WP6) aims to get the meaning of the different AEC design processes examined and of the possible application of the suggested framework within their practice. The outcome is a validated framework able to orient and streamline the design process in line with environmental targets and life cycle perspective, optimizing the decision-making process and thus the connected tangible and intangible resources and maybe introducing new competences and new organizational models.
The following paragraphs look into the Work Packages of the research explaining, on one hand, the methods and the main findings of the WP addressed and still now underway (WP2 and WP3) and, on the other, the plan of action for the WP started but not yet yet concluded (WP4) and in the forthcoming agenda (WP5).
Starting gain insight on AEC firms
From the first steps of the research, a questionnaire survey was conducted to start gain insight on AEC perspectives, analyzing current design practice in order to provide a general overview of the transformation process and determine trends in environmental topics (WP2 – cognitive phase at practical level).
The target audience was architectural and engineering firms but also construction companies established both at national and international level and restricted to big and medium-size firms. Indeed, as just mentioned, with regards to environmental issues the transformation process gets involved especially the big and medium-size firms rather than the small ones which are for this reason excluded from the study. In addition, since today a variety of design firms operate worldwide and that the sample population can affect significantly the outcome of the study, it was adopted an as unbiased as possible criterion for the selection. AEC firms were thus identified through published ranking, considering for the medium-size firms the Italian list named “Top 100 national design firms” developed by Edilizia e Territorio in 2013 \citep{edilizia2013} and for the big-sized firms the “Top 150 global design firms” developed by ENR according to revenue for design services performed in 2015 . Right now, it is possible to point out that seven of the ten global AEC firms are tagged environmentally friendly by ENR, stressing the assumption that design business are taking advantage by the integration of environmental topics and goals. Participants were recruited through email invitations to the selected ranking lists and were later widen through the direct contacts gained during the study. Moreover, to meet as much as possible firms’ demand, AEC companies can choose if reply independently to the survey, if set a phone/skype call or fix a meeting according to their preference and availability.
The questionnaire is structured with open-ended questions split in three main sections: i) general info; ii) structure and organization; and iii) environmental issues. The first section provides an overview of the firm interviewed, explaining the type, the network in relation to the number of offices, the size in relation to the number of employees, the competences required and the projects/tasks developed. The second section deals with the structure and the organization of the firms, depicting the operational units and the sub-specialized units, if necessary the support of external partners, the different ways to manage and tackle the design process, the potential use of BIM tools and the information’s flow between the different actors involved. The third and last section is focused on environmental issues, pointing out the main drivers of such topics, the main goals addressed, the main experts engaged, the main environmental consultants if any and the use of Life Cycle Assessment as supporting tool in the decision-making process. Before the widespread dissemination of the survey, the questionnaire was validated inviting one national and one international company to respond in advance to the survey in order to understand if questions were clear and comprehensible form practitioners’ point of view, testing and if required adjusting the queries.
The questionnaire survey was lunched on November 2015 and submitted to forty-six international and national AEC firms. Until now, despite the countless reminders, only nine firms completed the survey: four medium-size firms, involving Renzo Piano Building Workshop of Genova (ranked at the first place in Italy), Progetto CMR of Milano (eleventh place in Italy), PiuArch of Milano (sixteenth place in Italy) and Cucinella of Bologna (thirty-second place in Italy); and five big-size firms, including HDR of Chicago (ranked at the twenty-first place in the world), Arup of Berlino (twenty-fourth place in the world), HOK of Washington (seventy-eight place in the world), Foster and Partners of London and Skanska Finland and UK (not located in the raking). In this way, the survey response rate is 20% which is a little low but, given the diversity of firms, good enough to identify general current practice and trends. Among the survey respondents, the majority are architectural firms (45%) or integrated firms (33%), followed by engineering firms (11%) and construction companies (11%).
The survey was thus presented in the different AEC firms demanding for the responses the involvement of the environmental experts. Indeed, also the expertise, the background and the employment of the individuals engaged in the questionnaire going to strongly affect the outcome of the study. For this reason, it is important to underline that, in relation to firm’s availability, in some case the informants are environmental experts while in others are workers of different hierarchical levels and positions. When possible, multiple participants were interviewed simultaneously to provide different point of views and improve the reliability of data. In this way, the wealth and the accuracy of the replies gained depends not only to the type and dimension of the firms but also to the willingness to participate which was not equal across the offices
After the interview, for each firm the information gathered are summarized and schematized in a graphic way, as shown on Figure \ref{803566}. At the base, it is specified the name of the company under study, followed by its location, the type of firm identifying with “A” architecture, “E” engineering and “C” construction, the position in the ranking explaining if at Italian level or in the world. Moreover, the base colour indicates whether the company belongs to big or medium-size firms. Afterwards, data are explained in eight columns: the first three columns provide “general info” related to the firm and the last five columns refer to “environmental issues”. In this way, “general info” are grouped in “dimensions”, “structure” and “experts”; while “environmental issues” in “drivers”, “topics”, “tools”, “simulations” and “development”. The column “dimensions” explains the number of country where is set the firm and the related number of offices and employees. The column “structure” explains the operational units, including administration, commercial and technical-operative areas, and if specified the tools used to share and manage the information’s flow within the firm. The column “experts” explains the specific competences in-house, representing with the symbol if it is a single expert or a group, and eventually the external partners. With regards to “environmental issues”, the column “drivers” explains the motivation items, such as regulations, clients or philosophy, that push in that direction the design practice. The column “topics” explains the environmental issues mostly considered, such as energy, water, pollution, health and wellness. The column “tools” explains the assets used by the firms during the design process, in particular simulation software, BIM, LCA study, environmental information and if it relies on external partners for some aspects. The column “simulations” explains the name of tools and software used by the firm to address environmental issues. Finally, the column “development” explains if these tools are available on the market or are homemade.
Seismic Analysis of Underground Works and Practice: the Case of MetroLima
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of the seismic behaviour of underground structures represents one of the most actual seismic geotechnical and structural engineering research topics about the study of the complex phenomena of soil-structural interaction. In the last decades, different types of simplified and numerical approaches have been developed for the correct analysis of the seismic vulnerability of these important infrastructures and a series of laboratory tests for the seismic behaviour characterization of the soils (resonant column test, etc.) and of the coupled soil-structure system (centrifuge test, etc.) have been conducted, especially after the recent strong earthquakes where the underground structures have been subjected to significant damages. In the same way, in the last few years, the International Codes are beginning to pay attention to the concepts of the seismic design of these structures.
Despite the significant development of knowledge, described above, still remain open several uncertainties of the correct reproduction of the underground structures behaviour under seismic load. In this paper, the evaluation of the seismic behaviour of Mercato Santa Anida metro station was conducted through the application of two different seismic input, considering the soil-structure interaction effects. The results of the nonlinear Time History analysis are analysed in terms of bending moment acting on the concrete retaining walls of two different significant sections of the metro station.
Keywords
Underground structures; Soil-structure interaction; Finite element analysis; Earthquake; Seismic vulnerability.
INTRODUCTION
Underground structures can be grouped into three broad categories [1], each having distinct design features and construction methods: bored or mined tunnels, cut and cover tunnels and immersed tube tunnels (Figure 1).
Unlike surface constructions, underground structures were considered, for a long period, practically invulnerable to earthquakes. This consideration about underground structures safety, however, has been changed after some of them suffered serious damages caused by earthquakes, including the 1995 Kobe (Japan), the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) and the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquakes [3].
Damaging effects of earthquakes on underground structures can be classified into two main groups:
- damages caused by vibratory motion (shaking) of the ground;
- damages due to ground failures.
This study has the purpose of determining the most important aspects of the soil-structure interaction effects on underground structures subjected to seismic loads, taking as case study the new Lima Metro line 2 project.
Enhancement Strategies for Public Administrations: Rental Reductions, Rationalization and Relocation of Institutional Functions
This paper presents an overview of the main topics about enhancement strategies for public real estate, with a focus on cost of lease and its corrective actions: rental reduction, rationalization and relocation of institutional functions.
The research has a dual objective of defining a management model to support the government decision-making process on reduction costs of lease and allowing to verify and to assess technical and economic feasibility of public spaes rationalization plan.
From goals and scarcity of specific documents available arise a set of assumptions which will guide the research.
As regard the methodology, the study used a sequential mixed method approach. Starting on literature review; data analysis and processes both in PREM and in CREM. The comparison of findings will be used to define criteria and factors that may affect strategy feasibility, and therefore the choice among any alternatives by Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. In addition, the research aims to test the model on a case study in order to verify its usability and delivery capability.
Finally, the first results show that, even in strategies of space rationalization, there is a lack of appropriate information, expertise and tools suitable for managing the process.
NEIGHBORHOOD -SCAPE AS A METHODOLOGY IN ENHANCING GULF REGION CITIES CHARACTERISTICS – CASE OF DOHA, QATAR
and 1 collaborator
ABSTRACT
Sustainability is increasingly being considered as a key aspect in shaping the urban environment. It works as an invention development basis for global urban growth. Currently, different models and structures impact the means of interpreting the criteria that would be included in defining a sustainable city. There is a collective need to improve the growth path to an extremely sustainable path by presenting different suggestions regarding multi-scale initiatives. The global rise in urbanization has led to increased demand and pressure for better urban planning choice and scenarios for a better sustainable urban alternative. The need for an assessment tool at the urban scale was prompted due to the trend of developing increasingly sustainable urban development (SUD). The neighborhood scale is being managed by a growing research committee since it seems to be a pertinent scale through which economic, environmental, and social impacts could be addressed. Although neighborhood design is a comparatively old practice, it is in the initial years of the 21st century when environmentalists and planners started developing sustainable assessment at the neighborhood level. Through this, urban reality can be considered at a larger scale whereby themes which are beyond the scale of a single building can be addressed, while it still stays small enough that concrete measures could be analyzed. The neighborhood assessment tool has a key role of helping neighborhood sustainability to perform approach and fulfill objectives through a set of themes and criteria. These tools are also known as neighborhood assessment tool, District assessment tool, and sustainable community rating tool. The main focus of research has been on sustainability from the economic and environmental aspect, whereas the social cultural aspect is rarely focused on.
This research is based on Doha, Qatar, the current urban conditions of the neighborhoods is discussed in this research. The research problem focuses on the spatial features do not correlate with the socio-cultural aspects. This research is outlined through three parts; First section comprises of review of the latest use of socio-cultural assessment methods in order to improve physical features of the neighborhood . Second section includes urban settlement development with regard to regulations and the process of decision making. An analysis of urban development policy with particular reference to neighborhood development is also discussed in this section. Moreover, it includes a historical review of the urban growth of the neighborhoods as an atom of the city system present in Doha . Last section involves developing quantified indicators regarding subjective well-being through participatory approach. additionally, applying GIS will be utilized as a visualizing tool for the apparent Quality of Life (QOL) that need to be provided in the neighborhood area as an assessment approach. Envisaging the present QOL situation in Doha neighborhoods is a process to improve current condition neighborhood function involves many day to day activities of the residents , due to which neighborhoods are considered dynamic \cite{Choguill_2008} )neighborhood function involves many day to day activities of the residents , due to which neighborhoods are considered dynamic of neighborhoods in Doha.