e-Mail

Print

Renewing engineers’ focus on the environment

By Richard Sappé

In the past, whenever I spoke about the importance of sustainability and green building at construction industry conferences, eyes would almost immediately glaze over. That was only five years ago, but in many ways it seems like a completely different era. Despite the difficult economic climate our industry continues to weather, the importance of sustainability and green building is no longer being disputed, and as such, are now at the forefront of everyone’s minds.

Perhaps the current economy has led organizations to reconsider the benefits of differentiating themselves from their competition by embracing and developing their green building acumen. Or perhaps it is simply driven by owners that are increasingly demanding green building design be used to reduce asset lifecycle costs and score some brownie points with the public. Either way, green building is here to stay and will likely become as common as shifting dirt and raising steel in the construction industry.

The conversation around green design is now rapidly moving along with an increasing number of examples being erected around the world. Fortunately for the contracting community, examples of green construction — which involve greening the delivery of a particular facility — are also on the rise.

With all things green now at the top of the agenda, this is the time to reopen the subject of how construction technology can better assist greening the construction delivery process so that our built environment not only has a reduced operating footprint, but a reduced birthing footprint; and hopefully this time I will get fewer glazed-over looks!

The focus on green design is understandable. What we create should be designed and fashioned in a manner to reduce its overall impact on the environment. That said, there is no image more typical of environmental degradation and destruction than an average construction site, especially on a greenfield site. Take any layperson to a construction site and they will see a disturbed site reminiscent of a junk yard rather than a future LEED-rated office complex. This is to be expected, though, because we are in the business of changing what is to what will be, and that will inevitably cause a temporary scene of stark disturbance. But this very scene should make us pause to think about what we can do to design better facilities and deliver them in a manner less impactful on the environment.

The good news is that with such an extensive construction process, which in many cases is also somewhat archaic in its execution, there is no shortage of opportunities to minimize our impact. Sourcing, site management, methods, and means each offer an opportunity to reduce our footprint. Each player in the engineering and construction industry knows the degree to which they can make improvements to lessen the overall impact, but the challenge lies in reconciling this with the traditional concern of project delivery, which is of course delivering a certain scope (S) at a certain quality level (Q) within a given budget (C) and timeframe (t). In “Refabricating Architecture,” Kieran and Timberlake capture the guiding principle of facility design and construction to date as:

Q x S = c x t

They go further to say that as in several manufacturing industries, the paradigm for the design and delivery of capital assets must change to a premise of doing more with less, i.e.:

Q x S > C x t

Building on the formula from Kieran and Timberlake, if we take green design and construction into account, then a simple extension of this equation produces:

Q x S x EF₀ = C x t x Imp_Env

where EF₀ is the Environmental Footprint of a given facility (ideally targeting zero impact, or other target specified by the owner), which as a consideration of green design fits best with scope and quality; and where Imp_Env is an accounting of the impact of achieving EF₀ — in other words, the environmental impact of the delivery process itself. Imp_Env is naturally a project constraint, hence why it’s on the right side of the equation.

Now you may say, this is all great on a theoretical level, but it can’t work in practice. In response, I would say that application of this theory is not only possible, but practical. We manage cost and schedule of a project to exacting detail (the best organizations certainly do), and if compensated appropriately, or directed to, our industry can excel at accounting for environmental impacts (merely another type of project constraint after all) just as well.

More often than not, the only thing missing is an agreed-upon metric for that environmental impact. Once we define a metric, measure it, and report against it, we can make the appropriate decisions to control those metrics. To quote a savant of project controls (and my boss), Joel Koppelman, senior vice president and general manager of Oracle’s Primavera Global Business Unit, “What gets measured, gets done.” While ideally there would be some industry standards to evaluate these metrics, to wait for such standards would delay impact reduction unnecessarily. And as a matter of course, organizations are beginning successfully to do just that of their own volition.

For instance, assume that there is a set, or even a single, clearly defined metric for a form of environmental impact (Imp_Env). This can be emissions, soil degradation, water consumption, or a varied combination thereof. Once we have defined the said metric, it can readily be incorporated into our project management decision-making process and we can report on the impact reduction. With project management tools readily at hand that allow for the evaluation of different decisions through the predictive modeling of different outcomes, (i.e. through the development of forecasts) now not only cost and time, but also Imp_Env can be accounted for and optimized.

This is no different than incorporating resources (whether labor, material, or equipment), costs, or any other project constraint, so we already know how to do this. The question really is, will a given project team have the impetus to do so? This isn’t rocket science. There are any number of sources for valuable metrics out there, some of which we capture already on a routine basis to meet Department of Environmental Protection or Environmental Protection Agency requirements on construction sites.

Depending on the facility under construction, different environmental impact metrics may be relevant. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) recognized that a relatively simple measure of environmental impact on a current bridge replacement program was the environmental impact of construction equipment and vehicle CO₂ emissions (see the related article by UDOT’s Larry Myers, “Green Construction Project Management,” on HubDOT.net). With little outside guidance or previous experience available, or even an explicit mandate, UDOT began by measuring the construction's environmental impact and followed up with innovation to mitigate impact where possible. As UDOT’s engineers will attest, simply measuring to see impact allowed them to begin minimizing those impacts.

The Utah Department of Transportation recognized that a relatively simple measure of environmental impact on a current bridge replacement program was the environmental impact of construction equipment and vehicle CO₂ emissions.

Setting CO₂ emission targets, and measuring project delivery accordingly, enabled UDOT project managers not only to work on delivering projects on time and on budget, but also to minimize emission levels actively during project delivery and thereby reduce the project’s environmental impact.

While the full cost of vehicle and equipment CO₂ emissions is difficult to tally in dollars and cents, the value that UDOT has delivered to its primary stakeholders is clearly reported in reduced CO₂ emissions of more than 100,000 tons. Despite not generating a detailed cost analysis of a given impact reduction, by measuring the impact, and involving the measurement in decision making, the project management team has the information on hand to reduce emissions within the context of total project cost or schedule.

In addition to delivering infrastructure projects rapidly, thereby reducing time spent in congestion, reducing incidents of potential road rage, and significantly reducing increased emissions, the citizens of Utah know that their DOT officials are not merely paying lip service to environmental stewardship. In this case, the benefit of reduced impact comes at no increased cost to the residents, but rather in the form of an accelerated schedule and reduced cost. In a lagging economic environment, UDOT is a great example of an organization that leveraged innovative best practices to deliver far more, for less.

By delivering infrastructure projects rapidly, the Utah Department of Transportation reduced time spent in congestion, reduced incidents of potential road rage, and significantly reduced emissions, as well as reduced costs.

UDOT's example demonstrates two facts. First, taking environmental impact into account and measuring it in some form can provide sufficient information for project teams to reduce impact through simple changes, or even full-scale innovation where appropriate. Secondly, with innovative project management approaches based on deep project management expertise and best practices, environmental impact reduction need not come at a greater cost or at a lengthier schedule. Construction management must not be limited to balancing S and Q with C and t alone, but instead should incorporate EF₀ in the design and Imp_Env in the delivery process. Considering environmental impact as a core project constraint is not only possible, but should be considered a necessity in providing another vantage point of examination to improve project delivery.

It is for the project manager and the project team to balance the relative value of C, t, and Imp_Env to best meet the Q, S, and EF₀ requirements of the facility in question; but it must not be said that we are incapable of capturing this in our decision process. As a consequence, project managers and teams can now validate decisions, report on outcomes, and provide added value to project owners, not only in delivering a green design, but also in providing a greener project delivery process. These advancements and innovations further promise interesting and exciting times for our industry, and perhaps with a bit of luck, I will be able to continue to hold the attention of my audiences at future conferences.

Richard Sappé is E&C industry strategist for Oracle’s Primavera Project Portfolio Management group.