Future-proofing
INTRODUCTION
The term future-proofing is a concept that has emerged in the last few decades and refers to safeguarding against change, which is a by-product of time. Future-proofing is an effort to maintain and prevent the decline of an advantageous situation. It enables the longevity and persistence of such a case, no matter the prevailing conditions. Future-proofing is actively applied in numerous scenarios that have high investment and even higher returns. This is because such scenarios might accrue bountiful benefits, thus making an effort put in future-proofing small in comparison.
Future-proofing in the assets and project management ensure that any investment made in this field is of high flexibility and is adaptable in any situation to come. There are various ways to approach this task of future-proofing. The best way is to take a holistic approach and take into consideration all the elements that come into play. This can be an infinitely large task, but best efforts should be made.
The breakdown of a good wholistic approach is to take into consideration the factors listed below.
- Social elements – These are the factors that are a result of how society is set up. To be more precise, how it may develop and influence the success of the project under consideration. It involves community outreach and engagement to gain a better understanding of how it may develop. Social elements are focused on the needs and want of the people that will be interacting with the project.
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
- Technical elements – this refers to the set guidelines or specifications of how projects are to be done. It can also be said to be involved with the methodology of actualizing the project in terms of future-proofing, how this can affect response to changes. Technical aspects include the operation activities during the life of a project and how they may change. Technical elements are more concerned with physical limitations.
The above is more of a broad stroke division of the elements to take into consideration when carrying out future-proofing. Within each of the two elements, we can go io much further detail and sub-classification as one would imagine.
Future-proofing in asset operations and management
The future-proofing approach can be highly beneficial to your business as the operator of an asset. It could greatly influence the choice of the assets chosen by your firm going forward. This is because future-proofed assets are far more attractive and have a high valuation. For a firm focused on profitability, it should be easy to pick between an asset that has better future-proofing options than with an option with less.
Integration of BIM to ensure future-proofing of assets
Asset management can stand to benefit greatly from taking future-proofing assets. Take the example of Australia who has had its Public-private partnerships (PPS), which is a way of developing their public infrastructure assets, facing some problems. This includes going over the expected budget and schedule overruns. For a successful public-private partnership, there has to be effective performance and evaluation. Evaluation is usually carried out with areas focusing on meeting the budget and sticking to the predetermined schedule.
A review of the methods used to evaluate the PPPs, such as performance measurement literature, showed that a lifecycle approach to evaluation is needed to future-proof the project’s performance. This will ensure the projects delivered are of greater value than the money spent by and to the public sector.
The life cycle approach is one where the entire life span of a project is taken into consideration, starting from inception to the design and construction stages, followed by the utility and maintenance of the project to scraping and salvage of the assets. This approach takes into account all the facets of a project.
The way Australians started implementing the lifecycle approach to infrastructure assets construction by PPP was by adopting the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM). They realized that there was a need to step up the coordination between Special Purpose Vehicle, the public sector, and the end-users. BIM was found to be a great way of improving these vital relationships needed for successful PPPs.
What is BIM, you may ask? It is an integrated platform created by software companies that allow the process for creating and managing information during a construction project across its lifecycle. Integrated meaning that all the parties participating is given direct and up to date access to all the information going into facilitating the project.
One of the key outputs of this process is the Building Information Model, the digital description of every aspect of the built asset. This model draws on information assembled collaboratively and updated at key stages of a project. Creating a digital Building Information Model enables those who interact with the building to optimize their actions, resulting in a greater whole life value for the asset.
BIM will allow decision-makers to come up with well-informed decisions across the project lifecycle. BIM can be aligned with the core indicators used in the measurement of performance in PPPs; it will catalyze the future-proofing of the projects. This will ensure maximum profitability and utility of the infrastructure created by these partnerships.
BIM encompasses the life cycle approach by accumulating data that can illustrate projects from inception and design to demolition and materials reuse. It also can signal when there is conflict in the data, thus preventing the occurrence of errors coming in at various stages of construction.
BIM is a wonderful tool modern technology has given us. To practically illustrate its usefulness, we could look into a real-life example of a project which could have greatly benefited from BIM. The Faraday tower in Southhampton was built in 1960 long before BIM was developed. The tower has faced various challenges over its lifetime to the present day. One of these is to do with the functionality of its design. There was very little insulation installed, leading to poor heat retention in cold months. This could have been avoided since Bim would allow professionals to evaluate the performance of the insulation beforehand.
There is also a poor plan layout that is a failing of the architect, that does not allow effective interaction and communication. If the end-users and architects were on one platform where the users could observe the design come to life, then the mistake could have been noted before construction. The Faraday tower is a failed investment, and the building fails to be an asset turning instead of a liability. This is because it is unoccupied and cost money to maintain and undergo a regular safety inspection.
Future-proofing the energy performance of buildings
Human advancement and development have been trending toward increasingly large urban populations. It is said that in 2050 the number living in cities and other urban environments will be nearly double the rest of the population. This increasing urban development has resulted in the construction of more high rise buildings than ever in human history. This has lead to many great benefits to our societies as a whole.
However, the environmental impact this has had on our planet has been of increasing concern among the scientific community. Thes impacts include issues such as; climate change, resource depletion, alteration of landscapes, environmental degradation, Habitat encroachment, and the urban heat island effect. The concept of sustainability has come into play to address these challenges. Sustainability put simply refers to the ability to meet the needs of the present without placing strain on the requirements of future generations to meet their own needs.
In this sense, sustainable thinking is a way of future-proofing developments. One of the key areas modern buildings should address is energy consumption. Old designs did not take into consideration the sustainability of the systems in buildings that consume energy. Forward-thinking in energy use in buildings is of utmost importance from now on.
Some of the key aspects of the complexities of buildings that have a significant impact on energy consumption include lighting, thermal comfort, and building services. Buildings should be able to respond to changes in the energy supply to prevent being obsolete prematurely. The energy performance aspect of buildings needs to be future-proofed.
This will involve considering it from the planning stage onwards. This will enable the building to be safe from any long term social, technological, economic, environmental, and regulatory changes. It is thus increasing its utility for a long time, even beyond the planned time.
One of the ways governments are trying to implement and encourage future-proofing is through stringent environmental legislation, standard, and building regulations. These three introduce the need for long term thinking. When this long term thinking is taken into the framework of energy design of buildings, then there are a few things that arise as a result.
This includes the holistic energy design process, which includes aspects such as environmental, financial, and social-economic criteria. These are all criteria beyond normal design considerations. There is also the adoption of a full lifecycle approach to reduce the environmental impact of buildings over there lengthy life spans to negligible levels. The designers also have to have a future perspective that is uncertain since there many unforeseen events that come about, affecting energy consumption.
The need for this future thinking in energy use of buildings is necessary due to a few factors we will briefly high light. It is starting with the established status quo and priority for intervention in Green House Gas emissions. The United Nations has had the campaign to reduce the global Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. It was found that the construction sector is a major contributor to this. It accounts for 40% of energy use globally, which translates to 30% of the Carbon (IV) oxide emissions.
There is also the immobility of the built environment, which means buildings stay in place for long periods. This has to lead to the low turnover rate of the building assets as material.
Future thinking is also informed by the understanding that prevention is always better than cure. This encourages early decision making in terms of design. The implementation of future-proofing consideration during design is critical to prevent the pitfalls of the poor energy performance of buildings. The future-proofing of energy use in a building will require an understanding of the long term impacts of a building.
The longterm impacts can be broadly divided into two; the impact of the environment on the building and the impacts of the building on the environment. The first takes into account the unpredictable situations that will affect energy use in the building. The latter relates to taking a full lifecycle approach to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of the building.
As we earlier stated in the introduction, future-proofing has two few facets that we consider when carrying it out, social facet and the technical facet concerning energy use in building the social criteria that affect future-proofing include.
- Population growth
- Larger living spaces per person
- An aging population
- Shrinking household size
- Energy-intensive behaviors such as the purchase of more energy-sapping electronics
- New working and living patterns
- Housing units and tenure types
The technical criteria will include technological, economic, political, and environmental influences. A few of them are listed below.
- Novel construction practices
- Novel energy-efficient designs
- New fuel types, especially renewable energy sources.
- Higher energy prices
- fuel poverty
- energy security
- Hotter and drier summers
- More stringent regulations on environmental goals.
- Urban heat island effect.
The goal is to construct buildings with energy-efficient systems that not only have the flexibility to adapt to changing technology but also to changing energy use methods. To future-proof a building design, we will have to implement three main aspects of the design. The first is to cover issues of sustainability in an environmental, socio-economic, and financial aspect. This ensures the holistic approach preferred. The second is accommodating the uncertainties and risks to the degree in which they are reasonably foreseeable.
The final one is to incorporate life cycle considerations of how energy designs will do from the inception to the decommissioning of the building. When these three pillars come together, excellent future-proofed design of energy use in buildings is established. Some of the types and examples of future-proofed designs include the following. The uncertainty oriented design goes beyond the current policy framework and seeks adaptability to remain a functional asset for a long time. The design makes use of dynamic models in risk management and explores different plausible futures.
The life cycle oriented design, which applies methods such as systematic monitoring of operational energy use to enable life cycle thinking. It also could involve the selection of construction solutions taking into account energy considerations. The last type is a straightforward one. This involves narrowly focused design processes in the construction of conventional cost-effective and low energy use buildings. It does not take considerations far into the future; it is a more myopic approach to future-proofing.
In conclusion, the benefits of future-proofing energy use in buildings will go a long way into ensuring the continued advancement of our species. If we ignore the warning signs, all the effort put into getting humanity to this point in civilization will have been in vain.
Future-proofing opportunities in light rail transport systems(LRT)
The ability of a government to provide well functioning transport systems is indicative of an economy that is doing well. There, however, have been several instances where these infrastructure assets fail to deliver on the promised benefits. This is characterized by cost overruns and inefficiency in service delivery.
In urban environments, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems are commonly referred to as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This is because people consider LRT to be far superior to BRT. When it comes to making a decision on these two means, policymakers tend to pay the closest attention to the cost parameters. These parameters include mean capital expenditure (CAPEX), which is measured per kilometer for transport systems.
There is also the operational cost /expenditure (OPEX), which is not always considered. It is suggested that this persistent ignoring of the OPEX to be stopped. This will lead to better service delivery and future-proofing of the assets.
The potential of future-proofing infrastructure assets has caught the attention of government leaders worldwide as they strive to develop their regions sustainably. The governments face a challenge to maximize the productivity of assets and minimize the costs associated with construction, operations, and maintenance. This is the capital efficiency of the assets. In terms of LRTs, the improvement of its capital efficiency will require changes in policy that will affect how the system is delivered.
A conclusive investigation into the problem has come up with four considerations that need to be made when implementing LRTs to future proof of the assets. This includes financial considerations, digitization, asset management, and delivery.
When considering the financial aspect, we will look into the source of the funds that drive the project. Traditionally the funds to build LRTs have come from the public sector of the economy. Lately, however, there has been a trend of financing the LRTs and other infrastructure projects through PPPs. It has been found that this is a far better way to finance these projects since it delivers assets and services at reduced costs and has improved service outcomes.
The use of PPPs to fund LRT would usually involve arrangments made for the investment and management over a period of a few years. This gives the public sector the chance to escape the risks associated with OPEX and CAPEX.
When we look at the aspect of delivery, we should have the idea in mind to move away from reactive collaborative procurement. We should instead opt for proactive integration that engenders collective learning. When using PPP as funding, the form preferred is one that would cater to the Design, Build, Finance, and Operations (including maintenance) DBFO.
When considering digitization, we will consider a fundamental aspect of future-proofing. This is the ability to collect data at appropriate stages in an asset’s lifecycle that can be used to improve adaptability.
This ability can be greatly improved by the digitization of this collection process. Creating such a database forLRTs by use of software such as BIM can of great value. Digitization allows for the integration of processes that make use of predictive analytics to improve decision making among the stakeholders.
The last facet is asset management, which refers to optimal management of the lifecycle of an asset to ensure sustainability. Having access to information at the right time and in the correct format improves productivity, reduces cost, and facilitates effectual decision making. Better asset management is facilitated by the incorporation of modern technology to organize the data required. These smart technologies could produce intelligent assets that react according to data.
CONCLUSION
Future-proofing of assets has become an increasingly apparent necessity when investing in anything. This is due to our current predicament as a planet, where we are facing an uncertain future due to persisting unsustainable practices. We should all strive to understand and implement this emerging school of thought for the benefit of us all and our future generations.
References
Love, P. E., Liu, J., Matthews, J., Sing, C.-P., & Smith, J. (2015). Future-proofing PPPs: Lifecycle performance measurement and Building Information Modelling. Automation in Construction, 56, 26–35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.04.008
NBS. (2016, August 3). What is BIM? Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-building-information-modelling-bim
Georgiadou, M. C., Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2012, May 11). A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512003448.
UN, 2010. Buildings and Construction as Tools for Promoting more Sustainable Patterns of Consumption and Production. Innovation Brief. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development Policy Analysis and Network Branch, New York.
UNEP, 2009. Buildings and Climate Change, Summary for Decision-Makers. Report of the Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme
Grattan Institute. Cost overruns in transport infrastructure. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/report/cost-overruns-in-transport-infrastructure/
Love, P. E. D., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D., Welde, M., & Odeck, J. (2017, April 9). Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641730191X
Regan, M., Smith, J., Love, P.E.D., 2011a. Impact of the capital market collapse on Public-Private Partnership infrastructure projects. ASCE J. Constr., Eng. Manage. 137 (1), 6–16.
Regan, M., Love, P.E.D., Smith, J., 2011b. Infrastructure procurement: learning from public-private partnership experiences ‘down under.’ Environ. Plan. C: Govern. Policy 29, 363–378.