Evaluating Sustainability in Construction Panagiotis D. Panagiotakopoulos 1 and Paul W. Jowitt 2 1 School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS 2 School of Built Environment, SISTech LTD., Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS KEYWORDS: management systems, mind mapping, property development, sustainability, systems theory, viable system model ABSTRACT The construction industry has recently started to face the challenge of operating in a more sustainable way. This paper presents a methodology based on System Theory and Mind Mapping that is appropriate to study the case of sustainability in a construction project. Results drawn from a case study that develops a sustainability reporting tool for a property development company are used to examine the methodology. The lessons drawn from the case study are then used towards developing a Sustainabilility Management System for the company, using the Viable System Model. Εκτίµηση της βιωσιµότητας στον κατασκευαστικό τοµέα. Παναγιώτης. Παναγιωτακόπουλος 2 και Paul W. Jowitt 2 1 School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS 2 School of Built Environment, SISTech LTD., Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ Ο κατασκευαστικός τοµέας καλείται τα τελευταία χρόνια να λειτουργήσει µε όλο και περισσότερο βιώσιµο τρόπο. Η εργασία αυτή παρουσιάζει µια µεθοδολογία που στηρίζεται στην Συστηµική Θεωρία και στην τεχνική των Νοητικών Χαρτών (Mind Maps), προκειµένου να µελετήσει τη βιωσιµότητα των κατασκευαστικών έργων. Η ανάπτυξη ενός εργαλείου αναφοράς και δηµοσίευσης της βιωσιµότητας µιας οικοδοµικής αναπτυξιακής εταιρίας, χρησιµοποιείται για τον έλεγχο και διερεύνηση της µεθοδολογίας. Τα συµπεράσµατα από την µελέτη χρησιµοποιούνται στην ανάπτυξη ενός Συστήµατος ιαχείρισης Βιωσιµότητας για αυτήν την εταιρία, µε τη βοήθεια του Προτύπου Βιώσιµων Συστηµάτων (Viable System Model). 1 P.Panagio@hw.ac.uk, 2 paul.jowitt@sistech.co.uk Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 1
1. INTRODUCTION Following the international environment and sustainability summits and the increasing public demands for sustainable development, the construction industry has started to face the challenge of operating in a more sustainable way. The challenge of Sustainable Construction, as it is widely known, is often realised as a mainly technological problem, i.e. a matter of developing new, more efficient construction methods. During the last decade, however, the soft character of the problem has been recognised, which is realising the concepts and principles of sustainability and putting them into practice. This is a difficult task, as the problem of delivering and operating sustainable construction projects involves the realisation of many complex linked parameters and, based on them, making decisions for much extended spatial and time scales. Many approaches have been developed to help organisations improve their sustainability performance. It is agreed by many, though, that the most appropriate one is the use of systems thinking. Systems theory principles and methodologies help in the structuring and solving of complex problems like those of sustainability [1]. 1.2 Research aim The aim of the research is the development and application of a methodology that aids in the analysis and conceptualisation of sustainable construction. It uses Systems Theory and methodology combined with the Mind Mapping technique to capture and visualise ideas. It is applied and tested in the development of a Sustainability Management System (SMS) for a property development company. 2. SUSTAINABILITY MODELS/ FRAMEWORKS Since sustainability is still a very new and complex issue, there is not yet an agreed definition, model or frame work to conceptualise it and implement it. 2.1 Triple Bottom Line 5 Capitals When referring to sustainability, organisations usually mean balancing the Financial, Environmental and Social aspects of their activities, in other words their Triple Bottom Line [2]. This approach is widely used to realise the organisation s sustainability aspects and to easily raise awareness. The 5 Capitals Model [3] is more elaborate, in stating that the operation of the economy and every company is based on five forms of capital namely the natural, manufactured, social, human and financial, that need to be balanced. 2.2 The Natural Step The Natural Step is promoted internationally as a framework with which to orient public and corporate decision-making towards socio ecological sustainability. Its core principles (systems conditions) are intended as a scientifically defensible, minimal representation of the requirements of sustainability - that is, a common denominator upon which all should be able to agree [4]. Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 2
2.3 Sustainable Construction In order to study the meaning of sustainability in construction, the above general approaches are intended to be integrated with more construction specific approaches, such as CIB s Agenda 21 [5] to formulate a framework that will be used as a reference throughout the research. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Mind Maps Mind Maps, as proposed by Buzan [6] are a way of drawing ideas that are particularly useful in brainstorming. They are extensively used throughout the research for brainstorming, as well as a data gathering tool, with the aid of the Mind Mapping software Mind Manager (www.mindjet.com). Initially, Mind Maps were used in a small case study that attempted to compare the sustainability performance of the Baltic Millennium Bridge in Newcastle and the Skye Bridge in the Isle of Skye, using the 5 Capitals Model. The assessment was based on data available from the internet that were mostly qualitative (comments, written descriptions, judgements) and a few quantitative (construction characteristics, financial data). They were aggregated using the mind mapping technique, as shown in Figure 1, by representing each of the 5 capitals with a different branch and classifying the data under the appropriate branch. It must be noted that a redefinition of the model had to be made in order to be implemented for a construction project, since it originally aims to be used at the company level of operation. Figure 1: 5 Capitals Mind Map of Skye Bridge Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 3
So while the original model is describing stocks and flows of different forms of capital, in the study they are rather used as different sustainability aspects. Also, the man-made capital was used in the broad sense of infrastructure and technical characteristics of the project, rather than material goods that contribute but don t get embodied in the output of the process. The conclusions drawn from the study were, first of all, that the 5 capitals model has certain limitations when used to assess a construction project. By regarding all the capitals of equal importance, it fails to capture the hierarchy and different importance of the issues involved in such a complex system as a construction project. However, combined with the use of Mind Maps, it was found very useful in organising ideas and raising awareness for companies interested to realise their sustainability aspects. 3.2 Systems Methodology Systems methodology uses four steps to develop a systems model [7], [8]: 1. Identification of the system and setting of its boundaries. (Where is the system?) 2. Description of the role and function of the system in relation to its environment- higher system. (What does the system do?) 3. Description of the internal structure of the system. (How is the system?) 4. Description of the successive system states; evolution of the system through time. (Where does the system go?) This methodology is used to analyze the construction project, which is one of the main research subjects. It was considered appropriate to first describe the evolution of a given construction project, since it usually extends to a large period of time and goes through a series of qualitatively different phases. Thus, the project is conceived as a flow of successive processes (phases) throughout its life cycle, in a way similar to the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology. These processes are the feasibility, the design, the construction, the operation and the end-oflife/disassembly as shown in Figure 2. They are effectively a series of interrelated systems, each having a different purpose and structure, which are now easier to analyse with the first three steps of the methodology. Figure 2: Construction Project Life Cycle 3.4 Methodology Benefits The benefit of studying the sustainability of a construction project with a systems methodology is, first of all, that the importance of the feasibility and design phase is immediately recognised. The decisions made at these stages affect the way the following systems of the life- cycle will operate, therefore affecting the sustainability performance of the whole project. Consequently, it is very Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 4
important that the appropriate information feedback from the construction and operation phases is given to the design team, in order to design for better sustainability performance. Moreover, by studying the relation of each phase to its operational environment, their sustainability impacts can be separated (e.g. energy used during construction and during operation) and their relative importance recognised (the energy used during operation is usually many times the energy used during construction). This systems view combined with the aforementioned sustainability Framework, allows for a better formulation of sustainability performance criteria. 4. CASE STUDY 4.1 Developing a reporting tool for a property development company 4.1.1Project The research case study is based on a consultation project that aims to develop a Triple Bottom Line Report for a property development company. The company is based in Edinburgh and its portfolio includes housing, retail, offices and area regeneration projects. The project requirements were to develop a reporting tool that would allow the company to annually report its sustainability performance to its various stakeholders. It was made clear from the beginning that this tool should not be a management system. 4.1.2 Reporting Tool The first step in developing the reporting tool was to formulate the company s policy and from it to build a hierarchy of performance objectives and possible targets. This hierarchy was drawn in a Mind Map as shown in Figure 3. The use of Mind Maps was found to be very useful in ensuring top-level commitment to the project and in the staff training and raising awareness processes. Figure 3: Policy and objectives hierarchy (objectives are indicative). Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 5
Next, a Data Gathering Mechanism was built that would perform an initial performance review of the company s projects. The mechanism had the form of a questionnaire based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are relevant to the company s operation. The KPIs were selected from various literature sources and were integrated to fit the policy and performance objectives. Moreover, the KPIs were customized to match the different development stages of each project (Design, Construction, and Operation). The initial intention was to base the Data Gathering Mechanism on Mind Maps, by having the data entered directly into the Mind Manager software. This was not fully achieved and the data were finally entered into Excel spreadsheets that were all linked to a project Mind Map. 4.1.3 Feedback and Assessment The data collection was carried out by interviews with the project managers. As it was expected, only a small part of the KPIs were eventually answered due to general lack of data and because the KPIs were proven to be too detailed. Nevertheless, the interviews provided valuable feedback to the project and a picture of the company s sustainability performance started to emerge. However, the collected data could not provide a sustainability assessment, so a second assessment was decided to be made. This time the assessment will consist of higher level sustainability categories, such as Resource Use, that the project managers will be asked to assess based on their value judgments. This way, the assessment is expected to serve as a driver for change within the company, until the Data Gathering Mechanism is improved. 4.1.4 Problems In developing the reporting tool several problems emerged. First of all, the data feedback indicated that the control boundaries and responsibilities of the company were not sufficiently studied. This resulted, for example, in asking for data about issues that were not under the company s control and could not be available. This was the case in assessing the operation phase, as it is more affected by the client s behaviour rather than the owner of the building. Also, the aggregation of the data to formulate a company level assessment was proven very difficult. This was due to the fact that the company s product, the construction project, has each time it is produced a different set of characteristics and context of operation. Consequently, the assessment can only be meaningful on a per project basis, with the exception of very few KPIs that could be aggregated across all the company s projects. It is believed that some of the above problems could have been avoided or better resolved, if a systems methodology had been applied from the beginning of the project, such as the study of the system s boundaries (company) and environment (project context). 5. TOWARDS A SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The development of the project showed that it is very difficult to develop a reporting tool separately from a management system, as the company required. This is because in order to make an assessment of the company s performance, measuring systems should be in place that need to be managed in an integrated way across the company s operations. This integration is a central part of Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 6
management systems, such as ISO 14001 or EMAS. Producing the Performance Report is the last step of these systems and can happen only after the measuring mechanisms have been in place for some time. However, these established systems are focused only on the environmental aspects of an organisation, not taking into account the social or financial bottom lines, while other systems manage only these aspects. There is not, as yet, a Sustainability Management System that would manage all three bottom lines of an organisation, with the exception of the SIGMA project (www.projectsigma.com) which is working towards this goal. 5.1 Cybernetics and Management Systems The world of business today is facing the challenge of operating in a continuously changing environment and approaches such as management systems are valuable in helping organisations adapt to these changes. However, there is a need to integrate these systems and other approaches as the case of the SIGMA project shows. According to Espejo et al. [9] : Cybernetics- the science of communication and control- can and should be used to connect these various approaches by presenting them in a common language. Seen from such a perspective, the common purpose of these approaches boils down to the following issues: How can organisations cope with the increasing environmental complexity? How can their action become more effective? The Viable System Model as developed by Beer [10], is such a perspective which attempts to apply the principles of cybernetics in the management of organisations. 5.2 The Viable System Model The Viable System Model (VSM) is a model of the basic organisational features a system should possess in order to be viable. Viability is considered the survival of the organisation in its ever changing environment. Beer identifies five interacting sub-systems whose proper operation will both fulfil the purpose of the organisation and ensure its viability. These systems are labelled System 1 through System 5 and their functions are summarised below [11] and shown in Figure 4. The set of interacting systems (System 1 through 5) are called the system in focus. The purpose of the system in focus is fulfilled by the coordinated behaviour of a number of Systems 1 (for example the different subsidiaries of a firm) also called primary activities. The systems 2 through 5 represent the meta-system which is concerned not with the direct fulfilment of the purpose, but with the enablement of that fulfilment. System 2 is a system whose role is to coordinate the operations of systems 1. System 3 is a control system whose purpose is the Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 7
proper implementation (by the component systems 1) of the understood purpose. System 3* is an audit system supporting System 3. Figure 4: The Viable System Model Total Environment Meta-System S5 Future Environment S4 S3* S3 S2 S1 Local Environment Local Environment S1 System 4 is responsible for the development functions of the system in focus. This means it has to capture the relevant information about the environment of the overall system, in order to develop the appropriate responses. It also involves predicting the possible future states of the environment. To do this, System 4 must have a model of both the organisation and its environment to base its predictions. System 5 is the thinking part of the system in focus. It determines its purpose and formulates the strategies and policies by which it will be fulfilled, using the information passed to it from Systems 4 and 3. It also has to balance the sometimes conflicting roles of system 4 (looking outside and into the future) and System 3 (looking inside and the present). The VSM is a recursive structure which means that the system in focus is a System 1 at a higher level of recursion. In the same manner, the Systems 1 of a system in focus have the same structure themselves (as shown inside the circles of S1 in Figure 4). This implies that in order for a system to be viable, its sub-systems (primary activities) must also be viable. Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 8
5.3 The property development company as a Viable System Using the VSM we can regard the property development company of the case styudy as being the system in focus, and its different projects as the Systems 1. However, the property developer is not involved in the actual building (implementation) of a project, but is rather involved in the development and management of each project. It can be argued that the company is actually operating the meta-system of each of its projects by managing information, coordinating action and allocating the appropriate resources. Moreover, the VSM explicitly mentions that every System 1 has interactions with its own local environment or context. This indeed is the case with all of the company s projects and it is manifested inside the company, by employing a different development team for each project. One of the main problems in developing the case study, however, was the the need to manage all of them from a common sustainability perspective. Building on the VSM, the appropriate functions could be put in place that would ensure the different sustainability characteristics and priorities of each project are managed in a coherent way across the company. A System 2 would provide a common sustainability database that shows progress for all the projects. The System 3* would form an audit process that checks if all projects are following sustainable construction principles and System 3 would take the appropriate corrective actions. System 4 would be gathering the relevant sustainable construction information, such as the latest scientific and technological developments or the latest construction best practice standards, and it would make recommendations for the improvement of the company s operation. It would also take feedback from the company s stakeholders and the society in general, to identify their view about the company s image and sustainability performance. Finally, System 5 would assess the current sustainability performance of the company (brought to it from system 3), compare it with that from System 4 and formulate a new sustainability policy, according to the latter s reccomendations. The research is currently focused on developing and refining such a sustainability management system for a property development company, based on the VSM. It should be noted that the there is some similarity of this system as described above, and the Deming cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) which is an integral part of most management systems. Indeed, this cycle can be found in the continuous exchange of information between Systems 2 through 5. Nonetheless, the VSM provides a much richer picture of a management structure based on cybernetic principles, and is believed that it is more appropriate to handle the complexity of a company dealing with maybe the most complex man-made systems, that is, buildings and the built environment. 6. CONCLUSIONS The research so far has showed that the domain of sustainability and in particular of sustainable construction is very complex and very dynamic. A construction project is a long lasting product that affects and gets affected by many different stakeholders. Applying technological solutions is simply not enough, when it is not creating new problems. This imposes new and difficult challenges to the construction companies that wish to be sustainable, as the case study so far has shown. It can Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 9
be argued that sustainability is a form of disturbance in the traditional operating environment of companies. The Viable System Model could be used to describe the relationship of this company with its environment and help it better adapt to its changes. It may show the implications this will/should have in its internal structure and management processes. A systems thinking approach, as used in this study, could also help in simplifying the issues without losing the whole picture and eventually aid in the creation of a more sustainable built environment. REFERENCES 1. Ngowi A. B. (1998) Is construction procurement a key to sustainable development?, Building Research and Information, Vol. 26(6), pp. 340-350. 2. Elkington J (1998) Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, New Society Publishing. 3. Ekins P et al. (2003) A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability, Ecological Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 165-185. 4. Upham P. (2000) An assessment of The Natural Step theory of sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, pp. 445-454. 5. CIB (1999) Agenda 21 on sustainable construction, CIB Report Publication 237. 6. Buzan T and Buzan B (1993) The Mind Map Book, BBC. 7. Banathy B. (2000) A taste of systemics, (www.isss.org/taste.html). 8. εκλερής Μ. (1986) Συστηµική Θεωρία, Εκδόσεις Σάκκουλα. 9. Jackson M. (2000), Systems approaches to management, Kluwer Academic. 10. Beer S. (1981), The Brain of the Firm, John Wiley & Sons 11. Snowdon B. and Kawalek P. (2003), Active meta-process models: a conceptual epxosition, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 45, pp. 1021-1029. Heleco 05, ΤΕΕ, Αθήνα, 3-6 Φεβρουαρίου 2005 10