Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorThrondsen, William
dc.contributor.authorBerker, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorKnoll, Espen B.
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-14T10:45:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-21T10:07:37Z
dc.date.available2016-03-14T10:45:19Z
dc.date.available2016-04-21T10:07:37Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.isbn978-82-536-1486-1
dc.identifier.isbn978-82-536-1488-5
dc.identifier.issn1893-157X
dc.identifier.issn1893-1561
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2386709
dc.description.abstractAs a tool for cross-disciplinary collaboration, energy and emissions calculations were central as common reference point throughout the whole process studied here. Considering only the design phase, it is clear that particularly the energy account was useful in defining both the necessary amount of work and the methods of the collaborative work. One of the merits was its ability to force each participant onto neutral ground based on shared information and work requirements. The energy account served as a boundary object (Star 2010) in this way as it provided “something” around which to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and something that could translate different disciplinary specialities into a mutually comparable success criterion: the primary energy factor. The primary energy factor was both the what and the why of this collaboration, simultaneously a process of creation and a guiding force. The effort that went into creating the energy account and collaboration in workshops, which were employed as a sort of management tool, were argued by some informants to have made the process ‘heavy on the nose’. This was largely due to design aspects and the signal effect, which was important for PH Kjørbo as a pilot project. As this was a pilot project, it has received a certain degree of special attention from all involved institutions. The participants describe the special requirements connected to this building as • trust in the concept, • broad participation in the project’s definition process, • trust between partners, and • high level decision making at the different partners’ companies to cater to an acceptable risk allocation for all parts. According to the respondents, the design process benefited much from the oversight of a dedicated process manager, a role that was served by one of the project’s senior architects. In fact, many respondents noted the exact point in time when the process manager exited the project was also the point when the project encountered problems. The participants agree that “closeness” (in terms of frequent communication both face-to-face and by other means) between the central and defining actors in the project team was a key to success. Failures accrued once the distance between actors increased due to their involvement in other projects. According to respondents, one important role for a process manager in the later stages could have been as a liaison between project management levels (contractor) and subcontractors. Some problems that appeared in this phase involved the sheer disbelief shared by the subcontractors when they first became acquainted with the calculations, the functional demands, and the specifications that had resulted from the design process - a process they knew little about. This constituted a failure on behalf of the PH collaboration to translate the concept to the hired hands, which complicated the execution phase. Contract frameworks were also mentioned as a contributing source of errors as turnkey contract frameworks dis-incentivised subcontractors from making order changes also after they were clearly deemed necessary by consulting engineers. This is not an unusual mode of contracting in the construction business from a traditional viewpoint and could perhaps prove to work better in the future as the concept matures along with the market. A greater level of detailing in the design phase is one way to address this. However, in light of the experiences gathered at PH Kjørbo, the question is whether a more collaborative framework could have been applied to allow subcontractors to identify and share in ZEB Project report 25-2015 Page 6 of 32 the risk taking with the main contractors and/or project owner - or, in fact, to take part in the social learning that occurs as actors make the project ‘their own’. One way to incentivise junior contractors to join in more time-consuming, perhaps less profitable, contract arrangements could be to highlight the skill and knowledge development benefits available for participants in such projects. This would, however, require some proof of concept to be sufficiently translated into a clear added value for suppliers. At this juncture, the newly constructed Powerhouse is one such proof. In replicating elements of the Kjørbo project, it is likely that resources can be saved on design and parts of the pre-project phase. However, to avoid the amount of order changes seen in the execution of PH Kjørbo (especially for different projects), more resources must be spent on learning for junior contractors. Finally, the symbolic value that was characteristic of Powerhouse Kjørbo contributed to both its ability to be realised and concrete benefits for actors involved in the time after completion. Many have drawn parallels between PH Kjørbo and Tesla, implying that PH Kjørbo is for the building industry what that electric car is for the automotive industry. As many of the respondents emphasised, the building is a statement that says “it’s possible.” The goal had never been accomplished, let alone attempted, before, and success hinged on the project participants’ belief in that final statement. A radically different approach combined with an ambitious goal made that belief possible, and it was reinforced by the interdisciplinary work that was the basis of the project. This extra effort was a necessity in this project, but it might not be in the next. Some of it can most likely be implemented in other projects. However, as this report also demonstrates, picking pieces out of the success story PH Kjørbo may not yield equally impressive results because there is a connection between the pieces that is important for the whole building to succeed. 1.2 Summary of part 2: Taking a zero emission office building in use The second part of this report examined the early use phase of PH Kjørbo, which was undertaken by local actors with the tenant as well as the project team. Although it is clear that the planning and design phase and the technological solutions played important roles in the success of PH Kjørbo, the way in which the running-in period was handled contributed some crucial finishing touches to the users’ overall very positive experience with PH Kjørbo. Notwithstanding the technical calibrations themselves (which are outside the purview of this inquiry), the way user expectations were met by specific consideration of practical and cognitive aspects of the use of the building created a good use experience and not just an energy-saving machine. Great care was taken to prevent technical shortcomings from interfering with work and causing frustrations, even when it has compromised energy targets temporarily. A positive use experience was considered “elementary”, an attitude that, at least in theory, denied allowing money to become an issue in this pulling contest between energy efficiency and user experience. Challenges experienced in the running-in period overall were experienced by the tenant as lower or not above what was considered normal based on experience with previous moving processes. In PH Kjørbo the ventilation system was allowed to let temperatures drift more than in a normal building. However, this system also proved that indoor temperatures experienced as normal do not necessarily require them to stay consistently at “22.2 degrees” - in fact, a drift in temperature between 20-25 degrees was found to be perfectly acceptable by the occupants. Temperatures in the lower end of this range were considered cold by some but were manageable by providing information and handling practical and cognitive expectations - or, simply speaking, a sweater kept handy. Indoor temperatures in the top range or above, should they occur at all in the Nordic climate, are equally badly handled in most Norwegian buildings, according to the informants. Again, handling users’ expectations with care in this phase proved helpful in improving user acceptance. This same characteristic of the running-in period at PH Kjørbo was found when examining the acoustic issues posed by the extensive use of exposed concrete. Negative experiences were reported largely by ZEB Project report 25-2015 Page 7 of 32 users who were used to extremely silent conditions. Addressing the reasons for the design choices openly (thermal mass) allowed users to settle into their new surroundings. As one of the respondents noted, when viewing the experience of this particular building as a whole, the somewhat increased noise levels caused by scarce sound roofing due to a minimal ventilation system meant that the ventilation noise normally endured in other buildings was totally eliminated, but the indoor climate was still described as extremely good. The result was a sum of experiences that evidently surpassed any conventional building. PH Kjørbo shows that treating the user as a form of “sensor” and devoting resources to the “processing” of information from such “sensors” in the running-in period provides substantial insight into the user experience that is crucial for improving the use experience. At Kjørbo, user experiences were collected through the office link system by the office manager, who then bore witness for the users in the user forums that guided the work of the running-in team. This provided a unique data source for detecting the comfort threshold. When complaints started to come in, they could be addressed quickly - either through informing about the reasons or through actual technical fixes. According to our informants, at the time of the interviews, as issues were picked up, negotiated and solved, complaints began to disappear.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSINTEF Academic Press
dc.relation.ispartofseriesZEB Project report;25
dc.subjectPost occupancy evaluation
dc.subjectConstruction process
dc.subjectZero emission building
dc.subjectUsability
dc.subjectDomestication
dc.titlePowerhouse Kjørbo. Evaluation of construction process and early use phase
dc.typeResearch report
dc.date.updated2016-03-14T10:45:19Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.holder© 2015 SINTEF Academic Press and Norwegian University of Science and Technology
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Technology: 500


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel