Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20

Download by: [Kingston University Library] Date: 28 September 2015, At: 06:53

Building Research & Information

ISSN: 0961-3218 (Print) 1466-4321 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessmentand design processes

Libby Schweber & Hasan Haroglu

To cite this article: Libby Schweber & Hasan Haroglu (2014) Comparing the fit betweenBREEAM assessment and design processes, Building Research & Information, 42:3, 300-317,DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2014.889490

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.889490

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &Francis.

Published online: 04 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1056

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

RESEARCH PAPER

Comparing the¢t betweenBREEAMassessment anddesignprocesses

Libby Schweber1and HasanHaroglu2

1School of ConstructionManagement andEngineering,University of Reading,Whiteknights,PO Box 226,Reading RG6 6AY,UKE-mail: l.schweber@reading.ac.uk

2Faculty of Science,Engineering andComputing, KingstonUniversity,PenrhynRoad,Kingston uponThames KT12EE,UKE-mail: H.Haroglu@kingston.ac.uk

This paper explores the mapping of the environmental assessment process onto design and construction processes. A

comparative case study method is used to identify and account for variations in the ‘fit’ between these two processes.

The analysis compares eight BREEAM projects (although relevant to LEED, GreenStar, etc.) and distinguishes

project-level characteristics and dynamics. Drawing on insights from literature on sustainable construction and

assessment methods, an analytic framework is developed to examine the effect of clusters of project and assessment-

level elements on different types of fit (tight, punctual and bolt-on). Key elements distinguishing between types

include: prior working experience with project team members, individual commitment to sustainable construction,

experience with sustainable construction, project continuity, project-level ownership of the assessment process, and

the nature and continuity of assessor involvement. Professionals with ‘sustainable’ experience used BREEAM

judiciously to support their designs (along with other frameworks), but less committed professionals tended to treat it

purely as an assessment method. More attention needs to be paid to individual levels of engagement with, and

understanding of, sustainability in general (rather than knowledge of technical solutions to individual credits), to

ownership of the assessment process and to the potential effect of discontinuities at the project level on sustainable

design.

Keywords: BREEAM, building assessment methods, building design, design process, environmental assessment,

implementation, sustainable building, team dynamics

IntroductionEnvironmentalism and sustainability pose major chal-lenges for firms in general and for construction firmsin particular. In the UK, as in many countries, govern-ment policies and industry strategies are beginning toconverge around a small number of methods, toolsand instruments designed to realize these goals.While a great deal of attention has been given to thetechnical development of such tools and to theireffects on the built environment, far less attention hasbeen directed to their impact on design and construc-tion processes. This paper contributes to that smallbut growing literature by examining the effect of theBuilding Research Establishment’s EnvironmentalAssessment Method (BREEAM) on design and

construction processes. Whereas most research in thisarea focuses on general effects, this paper uses the com-parison of eight case studies to explore variations in theeffect of BREEAM on the construction process.

The European Union (2002) Energy Performance ofBuildings Directive (EPBD) and the UK ClimateChange Act of 2008 placed sustainable buildingsfirmly on the UK policy agenda. Since then a myriadof tools and instruments have been developed tosupport, guide and assess construction projects.BREEAM is among the most successful of thesetools, at least in terms of uptake. Over 15 000 build-ings have been certified since BREEAM was firstlaunched in 1990, nearly half of them since 2008

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 2014

Vol. 42, No. 3, 300–317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.889490

# 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

(BRE Global, 2013). Most UK construction pro-fessionals involved in new commercial buildings haveat least encountered BREEAM and many, especiallyspecialist engineers, work with it on a regular basis.Despite the growing prevalence of the method, littlesystematic research has been conducted into theeffect these methods have on core building practicesand processes.

This paper is the second of two papers on BREEAM.The first examined construction professionals’ atti-tudes towards and experiences with the method(Schweber, 2013). In contrast, this paper focuses onthe effect of the assessment process on design and con-struction processes. More specifically, the comparativecase study method is used to identify variations in theeffect of BREEAM on project team design decisions,where design is defined broadly to include architecturaldesign, construction practices and procurement writlarge. By this definition, design is not confined to a par-ticular phase of a building project or set of actors, butbegins at conception and continues through to hand-over (and beyond, although these subsequent decisionsare beyond the scope of this paper).

As the phrase ‘Environmental Assessment Method’indicates, BREEAM was initially developed to assessand certify buildings. Viewed from this perspective,its primary function is to capture and communicatesomething about the environmental quality of a build-ing to the public and to the property market. Themethod involves a series of steps leading to the assign-ment of a numerical score and certification. However,in the past decade both the Building Research Estab-lishment (BRE) and policy-makers have also promotedit as a design tool.

As the discussion below indicates, research intomethods, instruments and tools often focuses on theirformal features. Implicit in much of this work is anassumption that technical features dictate use andeffect, leading to uniformity across cases. In contrast,this study begins from the assumption that localcontext significantly influences the use and thus theeffect of tools and methods. Thus, while all projectscan be assumed to use BREEAM for assessment pur-poses, not all projects engage with its (potential)design function in the same way.

The paper is exploratory; its aim is to develop an ana-lytic framework for more systematic enquiry. Its twomain objectives are, first, to develop an initial classifi-cation of types of design effect and, secondly, torelate those types to differences in project-level charac-teristics and elements. The comparative case studymethod contributes to these aims by comparing clus-ters of elements that come together in particular localcontexts to produce observed design effects. Whilethe focus is on BREEAM, the proposed analytic

framework should prove relevant for the study ofassessment methods more broadly (includingmethods such as Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED) and GreenStar) and for thestudy of tools and instruments more generally.

This study differs in two ways from previous research.First, instead of focusing on the statistically indepen-dent effect of each factor, the paper uses the compara-tive case study method to explore the effect of differentcombinations of factors on the decision-makingprocess. Secondly, instead of taking environmentalassessment methods (EAMs) as evidence of ‘greenbuilding’, the study distinguishes between the effectof BREEAM and the environmental quality of thebuildings with which it is associated. Both are impor-tant questions; but they are not the same. This paperfocuses on the former. The research asks: ‘Whateffect does BREEAM have on design decisions?’ and‘Do the above-mentioned elements help to accountfor variations in the effect of BREEAM on designand procurement decisions?’.

The paper begins with a brief review of two related lit-eratures: a somewhat diffuse literature on sustainableconstruction and a second literature on building assess-ment methods. The literature on sustainable construc-tion is used to identify project-level elements seen toinfluence the environmental quality of buildings andtheir building assessment scores. Whereas the literatureon sustainable construction examines the effect ofassessment methods on the built environment, researchinto assessment methods at the project level highlightsthe effect of the method on project team dynamics.Elements from both literatures provide an initial fra-mework for the data analysis that follows.

Literature reviewSustainable constructionResearch on sustainable construction can be dividedinto: (1) general goals and approaches, (2) technicalproblems and solutions, and (3) challenges that con-struction professionals face in meeting these goalsand implementing these solutions. The discussionthat follows draws on the first and third of thesethemes, as they relate to the use of EAMs.

One of the catchwords in the literature on generalapproaches to sustainable construction is ‘integration’.The term is both useful and distracting. It is useful inthat it points to a relatively well-established consensusregarding the challenge and conditions for sustainableconstruction. It also serves to link discussions of sus-tainable construction with more established concernsfor ‘improvement’, which also posit ‘integration’ as amagic bullet, with the promise to solve all thesector’s problems.1 It is distracting because it subsumes

Fit between assessment and design processes

301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

within it a wide variety of different organizational andproject-level characteristics and types of processes. Inan attempt to synthesize and operationalize the litera-ture on integration, Ibrahim, Costello, & Wilkinson(2013) identified 15 different key practice team indi-cators, each corresponding to a different concept oraspect of the term. By grouping them together underone heading, many scholars fail to examine therelations between them.

When it comes to building assessment methods, thistheme has led to a variety of studies on the relationbetween project team integration (in the broadestsense) and sustainable construction. In a comparisonof dominant construction practices with sustainableconstruction, Lutzkendorf & Lorenz (2011) arguethat sustainable construction requires greater disciplin-ary specialization and greater functional dependencebetween components than traditional construction,which in turn depends on greater integration betweenproject team members (see also Robichaud & Anantat-mula, 2011; Rohracher, 2001). Moving on to moreempirically based research, a number of scholarshave tried to test such claims by developingquantitative indices for different dimensions ofproject team integration and sustainable constructionand by testing the statistical relation between them.

The relevance of these studies for this paper lies in theiruse of building-level environmental assessment certifi-cations as proxies for high-performance sustainableconstruction. For example, Mollaoglu-Korkmaz,Swarup, & Riley (2013b) examined the relationbetween project delivery methods, project team inte-gration and LEED building scores in 12 case studiesin the United States. They operationalized ‘integration’by the ‘early collaboration of the project’s participants,method and timing of communication and the chem-istry among participants’ (Mollaoglu-Korkmaz,Swarup, & Riley, 2013a, p. 72). The research foundthe expected relation between project team integrationand procurement method (with American Construc-tion Management at Risk and Design–Build contractsproviding higher levels of team integration than tra-ditional Design–Bid–Build). It also found that inthose cases where these conditions were not present,early contractor involvement proved critical forLEED scores.

Another contribution of statistical studies on therelation between project team integration andBREEAM scores involves the synthesis of a muchbroader literature on project team dynamics. Factorsdeemed to be particularly important for sustainableconstruction include collaborative working amongteam members and strong commitment (Ozorhorn,2013), owners’ commitment to green building(Beheiry, Chong, & Haas, 2006), early involvementof cross-disciplinary teams (Robichaud &

Anantatmula, 2011), early involvement of specialistengineers (SEA, 2009), project teams’ experiencewith prior experience in sustainable construction(Horman et al., 2006; Robichaud & Anantatmula,2011), and project team experience with EAMs.

From the perspective of this paper, one of the difficul-ties with these studies lies in their assumption of inde-pendence between factors and in their concern toidentify general or universal laws governing the rela-tive importance of discrete factors for the observedoutcome. In contrast, this study begins from thepremise that the effect of these factors varies not onlywith their value (high or low, present or absent), butalso with the dynamic relation between them. Theaim of the research is to identify clusters of elementsthat come together in particular local contexts toproduce observed effects.

A second limitation lies in the conflation of BREEAMor LEED scores with sustainable construction. Byadopting BREEAM or LEED scores as proxies forhigh-performance sustainable construction, thesestudies obscure the processes by which assessmentmethods come to influence building designs. Thispaper avoids that problem by adopting a narrower,yet hopefully less problematic, research problem. Asindicated above, the paper focuses on the relationbetween project-level elements and the effect ofBREEAM on design decision, thereby suspendingclaims regarding the environmental quality or ‘sustain-ability’ of highly rated buildings. While not the inten-tion, this decision also removes the confusion thatstems from the attempt to compare scores across mul-tiple versions of BREEAM by building type and year.

From the literature on project team integration andsustainable construction, this paper takes the sugges-tion that the design effect of building assessmentmethods varies with a number of project-relatedelements or dimensions. In particular, these include:prior experience of working together; better projectteam collaboration; greater communication andcoordination; higher levels of commitment and engage-ment; the early involvement of key actors; prior experi-ence in sustainable construction; and prior experiencewith BREEAM. All these factors are deemed by someauthors to enhance the design effect of EAMs. Inaddition, studies on contract type suggest that certainmethods of procurement will support ‘integration’and thereby the design effect of BREEAM.

Environmental assessment methods (EAMs)A second relevant literature is the growing body ofresearch on building-level assessment methods. Cole(2005) described this literature as focusing on eitherthe refinement of existing methods or a comparisonbetween them. In both cases, he argued, authors tend

Schweber andHaroglu

302

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

to focus on the technical content with ‘little or no refer-ence to the organizational or market context withinwhich the methods operate’ (p. 458). While theuptake of tools has increased dramatically since thenand research has proliferated, Cole’s characterizationof this body of work remains largely accurate. Thispaper attempts to begin to address that gap by focusingon the project-level context and its impact on the wayin which BREEAM is used.

The UK version of BREEAM comes in a number of cat-egories for different types of new commercial buildings.Each category specifies credits for a wide variety ofitems and organizes them into nine weighted categories,including: Management, Energy, Transport, Water,Materials, Waste, Land Use and Ecology, Pollution,and Health and Well Being. To obtain BREEAM certi-fication, an external BREEAM assessor prepares aformal submission and submits it to the BRE. TheBRE then evaluates the file and certifies the buildingwith a rank ranging from Poor to Excellent. In 2008,the BRE added a fifth category of Outstanding.

Descriptions of building assessment methods in generaland BREEAM in particular have been presented else-where (Cole, 1998; Cooper, 1999; Crawley & Aho,1999; Kajikawa, Inoue, & Goh, 2011; Schweber,2013) as have comparisons between tools (Forsberg& Von Malmborg, 2004; Haapio & Viitaniemi,2008; Reed, Wilkinson, Bilos, & Schulte, 2011;Todd, Crawley, Geissler, & Lindsey, 2001; Urge-Vorsatz, Koeppel, & Mirasgedis, 2007) and will notbe repeated here. Instead, the discussion focuses expli-citly on the relatively small number of studies thatexamine the project-level implementation of EAMs.Whereas the literature on sustainable constructionfocuses on the effect of project-level factors on greenbuilding, the small but growing literature onBREEAM in practice focuses on the effect ofBREEAM on project teams and the building process.

A number of authors signal the potential use ofBREEAM as a design tool, although few actuallystudy it. Writing in 1998, before clients had begun toask for BREEAM in significant numbers, Cole (1998)noted that ‘existing assessment methods are used asdesign tools, even though they were not specificallydesigned to do so’ (see also Crawley & Aho, 1999;Kajikawa et al., 2011). Similarly, the BRE websiteopenly refers to BREEAM as ‘The world’s leadingdesign and assessment method for sustainable build-ings’ (BRE, n.d.). Writing a number of years later,Cole cautioned against the potential limits which theuse of EAMs as design tools pose for innovation:

Many existing assessment methods are used asdesign tools, even though they were not specifi-cally designed to do so. [This, in combinationwith the fact that most assessment methods are

voluntary is deeply problematic in that theymay] potentially institutionalize a limited defi-nition of environmentally responsible buildingpractices at a time when exploration and inno-vation must be encouraged . . . Building ownersmay commit their designers to achieving a highperformance score on a specific assessmentmethod.

(Cole, 2005, p. 463)

Curiously, very little research has been done on theactual effect of BREEAM on design decisions (seebelow).

Research that considers the effect of BREEAM onproject teams highlights its (potential) impact on com-munication and project team integration. A number ofauthors claim that BREEAM enhances communicationamongst project team members and between projectteam members and stakeholders:

An important indirect benefit is that the broadrange of issues incorporated in environmentalassessments require greater communication andinteraction between members of the design teamand various sectors within the building industry,i.e. environmental assessment methods encouragedialogue and teamwork.

(Cole, 1998, p. 14)

Cole’s point about the potential of BREEAM to supportproject team communication has recently been pickedup by Kajikawa, Inoue, and Goh (2011) in a review ofthe EAM literature where communication and knowl-edge transfer are identified as key themes for futuredevelopment of the method (other themes include com-prehensiveness, design guideline and signalling). In acomplementary discussion, Lorenz, Trusk, &Lutzkendorf (2007) argue for greater integration ofassessment methods across the different phases of a con-struction project. While this literature creates a spacefor enquiry into the effect of EAMs on project teamdynamics, it tends to work with a quite generic, stylizedmodel of both BREEAM and the building process.

In the past decade the shift in focus from ‘green building’to sustainable development has introduced new themesinto the analysis of EAMs. These new functions reflectthe value that the concept of ‘sustainable development’places on governance processes both as ends in and ofthemselves and as vehicles for the specification ofvalues and goals. When it comes to the EAM literature,a number of authors point to the potential role of EAMsas dialogic tools to support stakeholder engagement(Conte & Monno, 2012; Kaatz, Root, & Bowen,2005). At the moment most of this literature is prescrip-tive, with little evidence of current methods actuallycontributing to this aim. Moreover, a growing numberof authors challenge the adequacy of EAMs – with

Fit between assessment and design processes

303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

their primarily technical focus and reliance on genericframeworks – to contribute to the governance aims ofsustainable development (and thereby to genuinely sus-tainable construction) (du Plessis & Cole, 2011; Kaatz,Root, Bowen, & Hill, 2006).

Two striking features of the literature on assessmentmethods are its focus on the formal features of themethod and the movement between description andprescription, such that it is never clear whether theseeffects are actual or potential. This slippage canpartly be ascribed to a lack of empirical research intothe impact of BREEAM at the project level. Anotable exception can be found in Holmes &Hudson’s (2002) study of a commercial office building.An important finding concerned the way in whichproject team members used BREEAM to further theirown professional interests (Holmes & Hudson, 2002;Schweber, 2013). A second study by Thomson, El-Haram, & Emmanuel (2010) documented the deploy-ment of BREEAM on a single project from the perspec-tive of knowledge transfer. This study, like the work oncommunication mentioned above, treats BREEAM asa self-contained process that develops independent ofthe broader project team dynamics. As such it ignoresthe dynamic interaction between the assessmentprocess and the design/construction process.

As this brief discussion indicates, the literature onEAMs reverses the (possible) direction of influencebetween project team dynamics and EAM scores.Thus, whereas the literature on sustainable construc-tion focuses on the effect of project team characteristicson the environmental quality of the building (and byextension EAM scores), research on EAMs focuses onthe potential impact of the method on project teams.Promises include enhanced communication, coordi-nation and ‘integration’ variously defined. A numberof authors develop these general claims by focusingon particular aspects. More specifically they underlinethe (potential) effect of EAMs on the specification andcoordination of roles and tasks across a buildingproject and collaboration amongst project teammembers. Finally, research at the BRE has found thatexperience with prior assessments is one of, if not theonly, primary determinant of a successful assessmentproject (personal communication). Whereas in statisti-cal research the direction of influence is critical, thecomparative case method allows for a simultaneousenquiry into the effect of project team characteristicson BREEAM scores and the effect of the BREEAMprocess on project team dynamics.

MethodsResearch designA comparative case study research design was selectedin order to explore the mapping of BREEAM onto

design and construction processes. The comparativecase study method is relatively common in sociology,but less usual in construction research. Comparativecase study research calls for an analysis of each case asa whole, comparing processes and understandingsacross cases, rather than individual actors or elements(Ragin, 1989). Whereas most research on organizationstends to make claims either about universal relations orunique cases (McKelvey & Aldrich, 1983), comparativeorganizational research makes claims about differ-ences. Similarly, whereas much organizational researchis either deductive or inductive, comparative research issituated between the two (Haverman, 2009; King,Felin, & Whetten, 2009). As Whetten (2009) notes,comparative research is a method not a theory; assuch it must always be used in conjunction with a par-ticular theoretical frame. In the case of this paper, thetheory is taken from literatures on sustainable construc-tion and building-level EAMs.

A number of features of this approach recommend itfor the research questions posed herein. First, thecase study method allows for an enquiry into the wayin which clusters of elements (such as good projectteam communication and early client involvement)support a particular outcome. Secondly, the methodfocuses attention on processes and understandings.When it comes to the study of BREEAM, this approachshifts the focus from formal features to the assessmentmethod as a process. This move, in turn, supportsenquiry into the mapping of the assessment processonto core building processes. Finally, by comparingcases, the method supports the search for variationsor differences in ‘fit’ across cases and for configurationsof elements which support them.

Case studiesThe research for this study relies on eight case studies.Each case corresponds to a different BREEAM assess-ment. Six of the case studies were obtained from threeBREEAM assessor firms, each of which provided twocases. In discussing the choice of cases, assessor firmswere asked for one exemplary case and one casewhere they felt they had lessons to learn. In addition,a large engineering consultancy and construction firmoffered two examples of what they referred to as‘routine’ assessments in their capacity as project man-agers (PMs). As this suggests, cases were selected onthe basis of the contact person’s perception of theassessment experience, not the ‘fit’ between the assess-ment experience and the design and constructionexperience. Once the projects were selected, theauthors sought permission from all the other keyplayers in the project. In three cases this was not pro-vided and alternate projects had to be selected.

Not surprisingly this process favoured relatively moresuccessful projects and BREEAM assessments.

Schweber andHaroglu

304

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Having said that, the projects were not all flagship orexemplary projects. Five of the eight obtained scoresof ‘Very Good’, while three achieved Excellent or Out-standing. All the project teams reported good projectteam communication and coordination (although notexcellent BREEAM assessment processes). While thebias to better coordinated projects was not a seriousproblem given the interpretivist character of theresearch design and consequent absence of any claimsto representativity, it does limit the conclusions. Find-ings concern the relation between the BREEAMprocess and projects in which there was an initialclient commitment to green building (accounting forthe BREEAM requirement) and a very competent, pro-fessional project team.

All the projects were of medium size; their constructioncosts ranged between £3.5 million and £11 million andall involved commercial buildings (a condition for aBREEAM assessment). These features are summarizedin Tables 1, 3 and 5. In considering the findings, it isimportant to keep in mind that the cases were at differ-ent stages of the assessment process at the time of datacollection. Three of the buildings had been completedat the time of the study; two had obtained theirBREEAM design based certification but were not fullycompleted; two had submitted their initial file to theBRE but were awaiting a response; and one was prepar-ing to submit its initial file. By the time of writing all theprojects had been completed, such that the reported cer-tification levels are current. For those projects that werenot yet completed when the initial data were collected, afollow-up interview was conducted. Whereas in a studyof one or two in-depth cases this difference in timingmight prove significant, in a study of eight cases wherethe level of rich description and detail is necessarilyless and the focus is on types of fit (across two to threecases) then it is less serious.

Data collection and analysisData collection combined semi-structured interviewswith documentary evidence produced by the assess-ment process. Interview schedules were developedbased on the literature discussed above. For eachcase, 1–2-h interviews were conducted with the mainactors directly involved in the assessment process. Interms of formal roles this included some combinationof the BREEAM assessor, client, architect, PM,design manager and specialist engineers (usually themechanical and electrical (M&E) engineer and thestructural engineer). In total 49 interviews were con-ducted. In three cases, key members of the team hadleft and could not be reached. In one case, this involvedthe client, in another, the BREEAM assessor, and in athird, the M&E engineer. While unfortunate, this gapdoes not significantly compromise the findings, giventhe focus on types of processes and effects and the com-parison across types of cases rather than single cases.

When it comes to data analysis, comparative case studyanalysis differs from both positivist research2 and casestudy analysis. In contrast with many positivistresearch designs, it does not seek to identify which dis-crete factor mattered most for a particular outcome. Incontrast with case study analysis, it does not set out toprovide rich, highly contextualized accounts ofindividual cases. Instead the method seeks to identifyclusters of elements or configurations that supportparticular outcomes. More specifically, the methodfocuses on sources of difference (Bryman & Bell,2003). In keeping with this general purpose, the aimof the data analysis was to identify clusters ofelements which accounted for differences in threetypes of ‘fit’.

In applying the comparative case study method, dataanalysis was divided into three stages. In the firststage, interviews were coded for categories derivedfrom the literature and for new elements that poten-tially influenced variations in the effect of BREEAMon design decisions. At this stage, coding focused ondiscrete elements. Key categories included:

. firm-level characteristics including reported com-mitments to sustainable construction and historiesof inter-firm relations

. project-level characteristics, including: type ofcontract, the selection of project partners, experi-ence working together, individual project teamaspirations for the building, perceived quality ofcommunication and coordination, and thehistory of the project

. the BREEAM assessment process including: themain driver for the assessment, assessor involve-ment, past experience with BREEAM and thehistory of the assessment (as told by different inter-viewees and documented in reports and trackersheets)

In a second stage these data were analysed for differ-ences in types of ‘fit’. Three types were identified:tight-fit, punctual-fit and bolt-on-fit (the labelschanged in the course of the analysis, but the corecharacteristics of each type remained constant).

In a final third stage the other researcher recoded all thedata. The aim of this second round of coding was toidentify clusters of elements within each case andacross cases that accounted for differences in the typeof ‘fit’. In considering the findings, it is important tokeep in mind that the analysis relies almost whollyon interviews and formal documents. As such, itreflects individuals’ perceptions of what happenedand what mattered. While the account is more robustthan if only one person had been interviewed,

Fit between assessment and design processes

305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

it remains an amalgam of different perspectives,offered at a single point in time.

Ethics procedures were followed in conformitywith University of Reading requirements. Infor-mation and consent forms were distributed priorto each interview, data were anonymized immedi-ately after transcription and copies of the tran-scripts were sent to each interviewee for reviewand final approval. Case study names werechanged to hide individual and firm identities.Direct quotes will be referenced by formal rolesand project pseudonyms to protect confidentiality;they should not be taken as claims regarding pro-fessional roles.

FindingsAn initial analysis of the data led to a classification ofthe eight building projects into three categories corre-sponding to the type of ‘fit’ between the assessmentprocess and design and construction processes. Theseincluded:

. tight-fit, where BREEAM was present throughoutthe design and building process

. punctual-fit, where BREEAM figured at keymoments but was not continuously on the agenda

. bolt-on-fit, where the assessment process had littleeffect on everyday design and constructiondecisions

One case, Bailey Primary School, proved difficult toclassify. It was eventually placed in the bolt-on-fit cat-egory on the grounds that BREEAM only entered intodesign and construction processes in the very beginningand at the very end of the project, making it moresimilar to the other bolt-on-fit cases than the punc-tual-fit cases.

In analysing the data, a number of elements proved tobe roughly similar across all cases. These included thelevel of communication and coordination, which allinterviewees on all projects reported to be good.While there were undoubtedly variations across theprojects, none seemed significant enough to accountfor differences in type of fit. Similarly, while the typeof formal contract varied across projects, these differ-ences were not found to have a systematic effect andthus will not be discussed.

Enquiry into the effect of BREEAM on project teamdynamics proved inconclusive. When asked explicitlyabout the effect of BREEAM on project team inte-gration, interviewees conceded that BREEAM might

have had some effect, but did not see it as significant.As one interviewee explained:

I think that’s probably . . . a bit of a stretch, butit’s not entirely wrong. I think . . . it widens thedesign meeting . . . and involves everybody else. . . It’s maybe not the biggest thing in theworld, but it’s certainly adding some value.

(Client/developer, The Barnes Academy)

Similarly, one M&E engineer with BREEAM trainingnoted:

I mean, who knows how . . . I think it was a veryintegrated and cooperative design team. I think itwent very well. But who knows how much thatwas down to BREEAM or just the design teamhappened to get on well.

(M&E engineer, Barford Court)

As with the effect of contracts and communication, thislack of clear effect may be partly due to the fact that alleight projects were deemed to have relatively goodcommunication and coordination, such that the effectof BREEAM was negligible. Had the study includedprojects with serious breakdowns in communication,the findings might have been different.

Comparative analysis of the documentary and inter-view data suggested the relevance of five project-level characteristics and three assessment-specificcharacteristics. The five project-level characteristicsincluded: prior experience working together, personalcommitment (and consequent level of engagementwith the project), timing of the involvement of special-ists, personal commitment to sustainable constructionand continuity of project. The three assessment-levelcharacteristics included: the level of assessor involve-ment, continuity of assessor involvement and theproject team’s prior experience with BREEAM. Inaddition, individual firms’ experience of workingtogether (in contrast to personal experience) and therelative importance of sustainability in individualfirms’ image and practice seemed relevant. However,given their overlap with project-level elements, theywere not privileged in the analysis.

Tight-¢t assessmentsThree cases in the sample were classified as tight-fit:Barnes Academy, Readett Community Centre andBarford Court (Table 1).

BarnesAcademyBarnes Academy offers a case in which all the elementsdeemed essential for sustainable construction cametogether. The project was characterized by a highlevel of commitment to the project, a high level of

Schweber andHaroglu

306

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

commitment to sustainable construction, extensiveprior experience working as a team and extensiveprior high-target BREEAM experience.

The clients included a representative from the localcouncil and a client/developer, both of whom were com-mitted to sustainable construction. Both clients sawBREEAM as a way to realize their goals for theproject. The council representative saw it as a way toensure that the building was genuinely ‘green’ (despitehis own lack of technical knowledge). The client/devel-oper had her own three-pronged strategy for sustainableconstruction. These included: (1) a commitment tocarbon-neutral buildings, (2) a fabric-first approachand (3) the highest BREEAM target possible.

Turning to the BREEAM target, the council represen-tative initially set the target at Very Good, but was per-suaded by the client/developer to raise it to Excellent.The target was raised a second time to Outstandingwhen that option became available in 2008. To meetthis ambitious target, the client/developer not onlystudied the BREEAM manual, but also brought it toevery meeting and consulted it regularly. Both clientsviewed the project as a flagship project.

Client commitment to sustainable construction and tothe project more generally was matched by the enthu-siasm of the project team as a whole. The BREEAMtarget provided an important focus for that energy.As the design manager explained:

everyone wants it, so it makes it a lot easier insome respects. Obviously, it’s hard work,there’s a lot of time, a lot more of my timeinvolved in getting an Outstanding from anExcellent, but at the same time it’s motivating,isn’t it?

(Design Manager, Barnes Academy)

The team’s ability to deliver this ambitious goal washelped by their prior experience as a team and withBREEAM. As the client/developer explained:

Well, the contractors that we work with, we’vespent a lot of time . . . educating them . . . intohow the whole process works. So, RS havedone seven or eight of these things now. Theyhave a design manager (who) takes responsibilityfor it and drives it through.

(Client/developer, Barnes Academy)

In addition, all the key project team members, with theexception of the architect and the school client, hadextensive experience working with BREEAM. Whilethe architect did not have BREEAM experience, heworked in a firm that had a BREEAM assessor onhand for consultation.

A striking feature of most of the interviews for this casewas the project team’s focus on sustainable building,rather than on BREEAM. While BREEAM waspresent in every decision the team made, it was nevertreated as an end in itself, but rather as a means toachieve their goal of an environmentally soundbuilding.

Readett Community CentreReadett Community Centre offers a slightly differentscenario, but one which also delivered BREEAM Out-standing. In this case everyone except for the client, theflood-risk surveyor and the ecologist were from thesame multidivisional, multinational firm. What theylacked in experience with sustainable constructionthey made up for in motivation, long-term workingrelations and proximity. The team’s motivationrested on two factors. First, this project was the firstthey had delivered for the local council in a new frame-work arrangement. Success would bring them a futurestream of work; failure could damage their chances onthe next project. Secondly, while the firm itself was nota niche sustainability firm, it had a small ambitiousSustainability Unit. Like Barnes Academy this was aflagship project with strong client motivation andengagement.

Table 1 Tight-¢t assessments cases

Case study Readett Community Centre BarfordCourt BarnesAcademy

Type Community centre O⁄ce School

Cost (», millions) 3.7 8.0 6.9

BREEAMscheme 2008Bespoke 2006O⁄ce 2008Education

Initial target Excellent VeryGood Outstanding

Final Certi¢cation Outstanding Excellent Outstanding

Time of study On-site On-site On-sitea

Notes: aWaiting on design stage certi¢cation.

Fit between assessment and design processes

307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

At some point in the process both the SustainabilityUnit and the client’s aspirations converged around acommitment to zero carbon. For the client, zerocarbon was seen as a way of bringing pride to a rela-tively deprived community. For the SustainabilityUnit, it opened the door to a BREEAM Outstandingscore and contributed to their efforts to persuadesenior management to invest in their unit.

The Readett Community Centre team differed from theBarnes Academy team in their relative lack of BREEAMexperience. Neither the architect nor the PM had exten-sive BREEAM experience. While the specialist engineersdid, none of them had any sense of ownership vis-a-visthe BREEAM process. Physically, they were located ina different regional office, which limited their day-to-day involvement with the PM and architect. This,however, was balanced by a very proactive BREEAMassessor who was brought onto the project at theinitial concept stage and attended design meetings regu-larly. Thus, although the assessor needed to chase boththe architect and the specialist engineers for evidence,the assessor’s personal commitment to the task(fuelled by her commitment to the Sustainability Unitand its future within the firm) meant that everythingwas provided in the end. The point here is not thatsome project team members failed to engage as fullyas they might, but rather that the assessor assumed own-ership of the process. As the cases below suggest, this isnot standard practice.

BarfordCourtFinally, Barford Court offers an example of how ateam of high-end, sustainability minded individuals,from different firms, without extensive experience ofworking together, can nevertheless engage withBREEAM in a continuous manner. In this case, a rela-tively inexperienced client selected a PM who in turnselected an architect, with expertise in sustainabledesign. Once appointed, the architect effectivelyserved as the client representative on the project.While the client did not begin with any particularvision for the building, the architect brought to theproject a distinctive approach to sustainable construc-tion, informed by ‘The Natural Step’.3 The architectalso selected specialist engineers and a BREEAM asses-sor from his preferred M&E firm. As in the BarnesAcademy project, the Barford Court project benefitedfrom the team’s prior experience of working togetheron sustainable building projects. In contrast to theBarford Court and Readett Community Centre pro-jects where the clients were very hands on, theBarford Court client trusted the PM and architectand largely deferred to their decisions.

When it comes to BREEAM, Barford Court exemplifiesthe combined effect of ownership, prior BREEAMexperience and shared commitment. The architect and

M&E team had considerable BREEAM experience anda strong commitment to do something special and sus-tainable. The M&E engineer had been trained as aBREEAM assessor and acted as the assessor’s representa-tive at team meetings, drawing attention to the BREEAMimplications of specific decisions as they were discussed.This cooperation was undoubtedly enhanced by the factthat they both come from the same firm. The PM had lessexperience with BREEAM, but worked for a firm within-house experience. Finally, the local contractors werenew to the BREEAM game.

In this case, the architect and assessor assumed owner-ship of the BREEAM process, overseeing its implemen-tation and making sure that documentation wasdelivered to specification and on time. This washelped by the fact that every credit of the BREEAMpre-assessment was costed up-front and included inthe specifications for the contractor.

Preliminary discussion: tight-fit assessmentsThe three cases outlined in this section document threedistinct BREEAM–project team configurations, eachof which allowed for a maximum input of BREEAMinto the building design and each of which was partlymotivated by the clients’ association of a highBREEAM score with both quality and reputationalvalue. In terms of the effect of BREEAM on designand construction processes, the cases discussed abovesuggest two general points. The first concerns the impor-tance, not of BREEAM experience on its own, but of thecombination of BREEAM experience and a strongproject-level sense of ownership of the BREEAMprocess. In Barnes Academy, the client developer embo-died this combination and was supported by a proactiveassessor and a team with a shared history of highBREEAM assessments. In Barford Court, the architectoversaw the BREEAM process, with the support of aproactive assessor. The Readett Community Centreoffers an example where this ‘marriage’ was absent,thus drawing attention to its importance. In this lattercase, while the specialist engineers had a great deal ofBREEAM experience, their physical distance from therest of the team and the specialist engineers’ sense thatBREEAM was the Sustainability Unit’s responsibilitymeant that their expertise did not feed into dailydesign decisions. This was compensated for by an excep-tionally proactive assessor.

A second suggestion concerns the role of BREEAM insupporting an already existing commitment to sustain-able construction. In all three cases, BREEAM wastreated as a tool to keep sustainability on the agendaand deliver it, rather than an end in itself. In two of thethree cases, an important element in the incorporationof BREEAM into design and construction decisionswould seem to have been the project teams’ prior experi-ence of working together to deliver specifically

Schweber andHaroglu

308

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

sustainable buildings. This observation points to a moregeneral phenomenon, namely the existence of sustain-ability project teams who are brought together by thePM, architect or contractor because they are known toshare his/her approach and can be trusted to deliver.

As this discussion suggests, while BREEAM does notensure either a sustainable design or an ‘integrated’project team, the combination of high team engage-ment, a clear commitment to sustainable construction(independent of BREEAM), BREEAM experience andactive ownership of the assessment process give it animportant role in sustainable design and construction.

Table 2 summarizes the main elements identified as rel-evant for distinguishing the three tight-fit cases dis-cussed above from the other cases.

Punctual-¢t assessmentsThe two cases of punctual-fit assessments involvedmore standard projects, with less widely distributedsustainability and BREEAM expertise. Both punc-tual-fit assessments involved school projects (Table 3).

RamleyCollegeRamley College was the initiative of a very proactiveheadmistress who had transformed a failing secondaryschool into a ‘high performing school’ (in terms of aca-demic achievement) and now wanted to build a sixthform college on the premises. While she was very com-mitted, she was also very busy and did not know muchabout construction. When it came to sustainability, herfocus was primarily on social sustainability. However,she used BREEAM as a framework to monitor thequality of the building and the project team.

The PM chose the rest of the team; while she hadworked with the design-phase M&E and assessor,she had not worked with other members of the team.Moreover, project team members were located indifferent parts of the country and much of the com-munication was done by e-mail. As the contractorexplained:

I think communication has been very good. . . .Everybody’s been copied into information.People are very keen. Obviously, the odde-mails have come into their own a little bit,and they, sort of, fly around, but everybody’sbeen using it in a responsible manner. We insiston having regular design meetings and work-shops to make sure that any information thatis, sort of, bandied about across the consultanciesis tied together at regular meetings.

(Contractor, Ramley College)

Table 2 Project andBREEAM elements in tight-¢t assessment cases

Case study Readett CommunityCentre

BarfordCourt

BarnesAcademy

Project characteristics and process

Prior experience working together High High High

Commitment and engagement High High High

Early involvement of specialist High High High

Commitment to sustainableconstruction

High High, but new High

Continuity of project High High High

BREEAMcharacteristics and process

Level of assessor involvement High High Medium

Continuity of assessor involvement High High High

Prior experience with BREEAM High Medium High

Table 3 Punctual-¢t assessment cases

Case study Heather WoodsSecondary School

RamleyCollege

Type Residential school School

Cost (», millions) 5.4 5.0

BREEAMscheme 2008Bespoke 2008Education

Initial target Very Good VeryGood

Final Certi¢cation Very Good VeryGood

Time of study On-sitea Completed

Notes: aWaiting on design stage certi¢cation.

Fit between assessment and design processes

309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

When asked to describe the building, most members ofthe project team described it as a ‘standard, straightforward job’, although one or two pointed to thenatural ventilation and atrium as distinctive features.

The most experienced member of the team in terms ofsustainability and BREEAM was the contractor whocame from a high-end firm with a reputation for sus-tainable construction. The firm has its own commit-ment to achieve high BREEAM scores on all projects,independent of client requirements, however the con-tractor was brought in relatively late in the process(despite being a Design–Build contract). To the disap-pointment of the PM, the contractor did not engagewith specific design decisions; to the delight of theassessor all site-specific BREEAM requirements weredelivered beyond expectations and with precisely theright kind of documentation. Other project teammembers came from firms with good general reputa-tions, but without distinctive sustainability profiles.

Turning to the BREEAM process, everyone on theteam had some prior experience working withBREEAM. As noted above, the contractor (and theirappointed service engineers) had extensive experiencedelivering BREEAM Excellent buildings. The architecthad participated in one previous project in whichBREEAM credits were lost unnecessarily, and he wasdetermined not to repeat the experience. The PM hadalso been involved in a previous assessment, but thiswas the first time they were project managing aBREEAM assessment. In this case, the architect andPM’s lack of experience driving an assessment wasbalanced by their strong sense of ownership. Whilethe client initially targeted Excellent, this waschanged to Very Good relatively early on, on costgrounds.

In many ways Ramley College offers an example of atextbook assessment process. Everything wentsmoothly. The architect included detailed BREEAMcredit specifications in the tender and the contractor’sextensive experience with BREEAM Excellent build-ings meant that it was already standard practice. Asthe contractor noted: ‘it kind of rumbled along in thebackground’. The assessor was excellent, having beeninvolved in one of the BREEAM Outstanding projectsdescribed above; however, in this project their involve-ment was limited to the six meetings for which theywere paid. The only delays in delivering evidence thatwere reported concerned some of the specialist engin-eers who had been subcontracted by the contractor,leaving the assessor without direct access to them.

Heather WoodsSecondary SchoolThe second project in this category was a major refurb-ishment project, designed to transform an army basecamp into a residential school. Like the Readett

Community Centre (in the tight-fit category), all theproject team members were from the same firm andall were located in the same office, with the exceptionof the assessor and engineer designer. There was aninternal information and communication technology(ICT) cross-referencing system which the team usedto communicate and update changes. As in theReadett Community Centre, sustainability featureswere driven by the firm’s Sustainability Unit in theperson of the assessor.

The BREEAM target of Very Good was both a plan-ning requirement and a Department for Educationand Schools (DfES) requirement. The project teamitself had less direct BREEAM experience than theteam responsible for Ramley College. The PM anddesign engineer had no BREEAM experience. Themechanical and structural engineers had doneBREEAM buildings before, but the electrical engineerhad not.

This relative lack of BREEAM experience amongst keyproject team members was balanced by a proactiveassessor who worked side by side with the PMthroughout the project. In addition, the feasibilitystudy included monies for a deputy PM with the soleresponsibility of delivering BREEAM. As one projectteam member reported, BREEAM was on the agendaat every design team meeting and the deputy managerand assessor touched base at least once a week todiscuss the assessment and its progress.

As in Ramley College, the assessment process inHeather Woods Secondary School was relativelystraightforward, although the process did suffer a bitwhen the deputy PM was withdrawn to reduce costs.When asked how he would rate the assessmentprocess overall, the assessor responded:

It was okay. It was one of the better ones. I mean,there were moments. I do feel like I had to spoonfeed the M&E. . . . I mean [laughs], bearing inmind, RC who did the electrical spec . . . he lit-erally sits as far away as you are now from meand JH sits in the next pod behind.(BREEAM assessor, Heather Woods SecondarySchool)

In part because of their proximity in the same office,whatever evidence issues arose were caught in timeand at the time of the interviews, the project was ontrack to deliver its target of BREEAM Very Good.

Preliminary discussion: punctual-fit assessmentsThe two cases described above offer examples of ‘stan-dard’ projects. In both Ramley College and HeatherWoods Secondary School, BREEAM had a punctualeffect on key design decisions. This effect is clearly

Schweber andHaroglu

310

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

evident in the case of Heather Woods SecondarySchool where the decision to replace the boiler wasexplicitly framed in terms of BREEAM credits. IfBREEAM functioned as an orienting framework inthe tight-fit cases, its job in the punctual-fit cases wasto weigh in on discrete decisions; although, as the refer-ence to a ‘domino’ effect below suggests, these oftenhad spillover effects.

Turning to project-level characteristics, the two punc-tual-fit cases involved ‘standard projects’, which didnot pose any exceptional challenges but which alsodid not generate the kind of intense commitment ormotivation seen in the tight-fit cases. If one comparesthe cases, each offers an example of how the absenceof certain project-level conditions can be balanced bythe presence of others. In the Ramley College project,geographic dispersal and a lack of prior experienceworking together was balanced by the distributionof BREEAM experience across the team and astrong sense of ownership (of the BREEAMprocess), such that the architect and PM and contrac-tor all took responsibility to keep it on the agenda. Incontrast, Heather Woods Secondary School presents acase where the relative lack of direct BREEAMexperience was balanced by a particularly well-integrated project team with extensive informalcommunication. In both cases, the continuous invol-vement of a high-end assessor also proved essentialfor the relatively trouble-free achievement ofBREEAM targets.

Table 4 summarizes the project and assessment levelcharacteristics of each of these two punctual-fitcases. The mixed profiles underline the importanceof clusters of elements rather than single factors. Ineach of these two cases low values for certain keyelements were compensated for by high values forothers.

Bolt-on-¢t assessmentsTurning to the three bolt-on-fit assessments, the firstthing to emphasize is that these cases were not poorprojects. On the contrary, all the clients interviewedreported high levels of satisfaction. One of the threewon a number of awards. However, a good buildingdoes not (necessarily) a good environmental assess-ment make. The three cases reported below (and inTable 5) provide an opportunity to consider how andwhy this is so.

Bailey Primary SchoolThe first example of a bolt-on-fit project is borderlinebetween a punctual-fit assessment and a bolt-on-fitassessment. Bailey Primary School involved theaddition of a new building onto an existing schoolsite. In this case, the acting client had left the counciland could not be located, so their perspective ismissing from the data. From what other teammembers said, the client was relatively hands-offduring the process. The project was a traditionalcontract, led by an architect from a very good, butnot particularly sustainability minded, firm and therewas no PM. The architect and the M&E firms hadworked together a number of times, but there wereno other long-term relations between the teammembers. The M&E and the assessor were from thesame firm and together they drove the sustainabilityfeatures in the building. When asked about communi-cation and coordination, the project team was not par-ticularly forthcoming; most interviewees indicated thatit was fine.

As in Heather Woods Secondary School, the BREEAMtarget was a condition for funding. Within the team,the architect had no prior BREEAM experience; nordid he have any sense of ownership over theBREEAM process. When, after some initial probing,

Table 4 Project andBREEAM elements in punctual-¢t assessment cases

Case study RamleyCollege Heather WoodsSecondary School

Project characteristics and process

Prior experience working together Medium^low High

Commitment and engagement Medium Medium^low

Early involvement of specialist Medium High

Commitment to sustainable construction Low Medium^low

Continuity of project High High

BREEAMcharacteristics and process

Level of assessor involvement Medium High

Continuity of assessor involvement High High

Prior experience with BREEAM Medium Low

Fit between assessment and design processes

311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

he was asked if he was responsible for overseeing theassessment, he quickly replied ‘no’. When asked whowas responsible, he replied:

Okay, at the point of a breakdown it would beour – the Architects’ – responsibility as theDesign Team Leader. So if someone wasn’t deli-vering the information we would have to callthem and say, you know, ‘Chivvy up, we needto, kind of, get this information out.’

(Architect, Bailey Primary School)

Two factors would seem to have contributed to thearchitect’s lack of ownership, despite being theclient representative and despite the absence of a sep-arate project or design manager. First, the initialBREEAM pre-assessment predicted a high VeryGood, suggesting that the team had significantroom for manoeuvre. Secondly, and perhaps mostimportantly, the architect was not familiar withBREEAM and assumed that evidence could be col-lected and credits documented at the end of theproject. While the contractor and specialist engineershad experience and knowledge of BREEAM, they didnot go out of their way to keep it on the agenda. Theresult was that no one within the team owned theassessment process. In addition, once the pre-assessment phase had been completed, theBREEAM assessor took a back seat. As he explained,at least eight or nine months went by without anycontact. While this might seem as a neglect of hisresponsibilities, it was well within the workloadcovered by the assessor fee.

The result was that BREEAM fell off the agenda. Whenthe assessor did re-engage, he found that a number ofcredits had been lost. These included relatively ‘easywins’ such as the user guide and ‘ease of maintenance’credits as well as more expensive features, such as thequality of the glazing. In addition, a number ofcredits were lost for lack of correct documentation.

In the end, the assessor did a great deal of last-minute chasing and the project scraped through witha low Very Good.

TurneyRehabilitationCentreTurney Rehabilitation Centre was commissioned by aNational Health Service (NHS) Trust. Within theNHS there is a general requirement of BREEAM Excel-lent for all new builds. The project team included anarchitect and specialist engineers from differentmedium-sized firms and a high-end contractor with nospecial sustainability profile. None of the firms involvedwas known for sustainable construction and the projectfirms and project team members had not workedtogether before. One of the most striking characteristicsof Turney Rehabilitation Centre was the discontinuityin project team members. The PM changed three timestowards the beginning of the project and was finallyassigned to a young graduate. Similarly the electricalengineer was replaced part way through the project,although he was later brought back into the team. Theproject itself was on a brownfield site and the teamhad to do significant (and unexpected) remedial workto make the site safe for construction. Despite theseissues, the project was delivered ahead of time, onbudget and to an award-winning standard. While thediscontinuities may not have affected the finalproduct, they did affect the BREEAM process.

The initial pre-assessment report predicted therequired Excellent score. However, once the pre-assessment was completed, the assessor was taken offthe job to save money. The plan was to re-employher towards the end of construction process tosubmit the final dossier to the BRE for certification.This might have been acceptable (from a BREEAMperspective) if the architect and/or PM had beenexperienced in sustainable construction andBREEAM, however in this case they were not. For-mally, the PM had responsibility for delivering

Table 5 Bolt-on-¢t assessment cases

Case study Bailey Primary School TurneyRehabilitationCentre DunningHalls

Type School Residential health Residential school

Cost (», millions) 7.0 11.5 n.a.a

BREEAMscheme 2005 Schools 2008Healthcare 2006Multi-residential

Initial target Very Good Excellent Excellent

Final Certi¢cation Very Good Very Good Very Good

Time of study Completed On-siteb Completed

Notes: aThe scale of the project was signi¢cantly curtailed midway through the design phase.Final ¢gures for the sectionsubject to the relevant BREEAM assessment were not provided.bPreparing to submit design stage certi¢cation at time of the study.

Schweber andHaroglu

312

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

BREEAM; however, this was the second project he hadever managed and he had his hands full with projectdelivery. The electrical engineer, who had begun withthe project, had done a BREEAM course and wasvery knowledgeable, but he was replaced by someoneelse with no BREEAM experience and only broughtback in towards the end. As such, he was not in a pos-ition to oversee the BREEAM process.

The result was that BREEAM was largely neglected formost of the on-site phase of the project. Interviews forthis research were conduced half way through on-siteconstruction. At that time, the initial design assessmenthad yet to be submitted and the PM had realized thatBREEAM was slipping. As a result, they moderatedtheir target to Very Good. Both the architect andclient mentioned a calculation that BREEAM Excellentwould cost an additional £30 000 and seemed to thinkit had been paid. Moreover, the client was under theimpression that the project was still on target forBREEAM Excellent, although he was aware thatthere were problems. Follow-up telephone interviewssuggested that the BREEAM process was not recov-ered. The original assessor was not brought back into complete the assessment, although the reasons areunclear. In the end the project obtained a Very Good,but BREEAM is not mentioned in the extensivepublicity surrounding an otherwise very successfulproject.

DunningHallsThe final bolt-on-fit assessment was with the same con-tractor as Turney Rehabilitation Centre. Like theCentre, Dunning Halls was a solid, well-designed,well-delivered project, with significant discontinuitiesthat contributed to a lower than initially anticipatedBREEAM score. Dunning Halls was a school residen-tial facility. The building was initially part of a muchlarger multi-building scheme. The architect andspecialist engineers were from the same multidisciplin-ary medium-sized consultancy. A decisive moment inthe project came during the detailed design phasewhen the client decided to abandon their ambitiousdevelopment plans and to restrict the project to asingle residential facility. This change in scope of theoverall project had a direct impact on the BREEAMtarget. The initial target was Excellent, however thisrelied on other buildings in the multi-buildingscheme. When the project was reduced to a singlebuilding, the possibility of Excellent was deemed tohave been lost.

Within the team, the architect and specialist engineersall had some BREEAM experience, however the designmanager who was charged with overseeing BREAMdid not. Moreover the assessor, from a large London-based firm, was brought in on the project relativelylate. In addition, the assessor tended to rely on

written communication; a number of project teammembers reported confusion over what was requiredfor particular credits. According to one interviewee,the BREEAM process was largely a box-tickingexercise.

Preliminary discussion: bolt-on-fit assessmentsA comparison of the three bolt-on-fit assessments high-lights a number of common features both in theBREEAM process and in the broader project context.When it comes to the BREEAM process, all threebolt-on-fit cases failed to achieve the initial predictedtarget. In Turney Rehabilitation Centre and DunningHalls the projects targeted Excellent, but the teamdelivered Very Good; in Bailey Primary School theypredicted a high Very Good, but came in just overthe Very Good threshold. In all three cases, theBREEAM process was overseen by an architect orproject or design manager with relatively littleBREEAM experience and little commitment tokeeping it on the agenda. In all three cases, the assessorwithdrew (or in the case of Turney RehabilitationCentre was removed) from the process following theinitial pre-assessment process. In all three cases, noone within the project team felt responsible for theassessment process.

Rather than ‘blaming’ one person or another, theseobservations underline the importance of the threeBREEAM process characteristics: level and continuityof assessor involvement and prior experience ofBREEAM. They also point to the crucial importanceof project-level ownership. In the absence of theseelements, BREEAM functioned purely as an assess-ment exercise, with little to no impact on the buildingprocess or product.

In addition, the reduced attainment of a specified targetwas also due to characteristics and contingenciesassociated with the project as a whole. In all threecases, the project was marked by significant disconti-nuities in team members and/or in the scope andremit of the team. While these project teams did nothave significant prior experience working together,interviewees did not feel that this posed a majorobstacle. All described project team communicationand coordination as good, relative to other projectson which they had worked.

The characteristics of the three bolt-on-fit assessmentsare summarized in Table 6.

Discussion and conclusionsThrough the literature review, a list of discreteelements were identified that are deemed relevant forthe achievement of a high BREEAM score. Those

Fit between assessment and design processes

313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

suggestions were used in the current study to explorethe ‘fit’ of the assessment process with design and con-struction processes. While there is clearly a connectionbetween a tight fit and a high BREEAM score, the twooutcomes are not necessarily identical. Logically onecan imagine a building project with so many externalconstraints (relative to BREEAM credits) that itwould be impossible for even the best, most experi-enced project team to achieve an Excellent or Out-standing. In other words, BREEAM assesses buildingdesigns and buildings, not project teams and theirefforts. Having said that, it is the project team whodeliver the assessment and their efforts clearly matter.

Much of the literature focuses on the effect of: (1)formal contracting methods, (2) communication andcoordination or (3) prior experience with BREEAM.In analysing the eight cases included in this study,neither of the first two elements proved to be relevant.This does not mean that they do not affect either the sus-tainability of the building or the BREEAM process, butrather that they do not distinguish between these eightcases. In contrast, ‘prior experience with BREEAM’was found to be relevant, although not on its own.

In terms of ‘prior experience with BREEAM’, it isfound that while experience mattered, it mattered dif-ferently across the three types of fit. For the tight-fitprojects, prior experience with BREEAM came as anextension of strong personal commitments to andextensive experience with sustainable construction. Ineach of the three tight-fit cases, key individualsbrought to the project an approach and set of sustain-ability goals which they defined independently ofBREEAM. And all used BREEAM as one of a numberof different frameworks and guides to help implementthat approach. If one turns to the punctual-fit cases,

in these projects experience with BREEAM mattered,but only if it was combined with ownership of theassessment process. Finally, lack of experience was anelement in the relatively weak impact of BREEAM oneveryday decisions in the bolt-on cases; although heretoo other elements also mattered.

These observations draw attention to clear differencesin the involvement of the BREEAM assessor in each ofthe three types of fit. In principle, the presence of theassessor should ensure that all projects can benefitfrom prior experience with BREEAM. However, asconstruction professionals know and research hasbegun to show, the assessor does not own or implementthe assessment process, at least not usually. In bothReadett Community Centre (tight-fit) and HeatherWoods Primary School (punctual-fit) a very proactiveassessor, together with a single-firm project team,managed a successful assessment despite the absenceof prior BREEAM experience within the team. Asecond related, but distinct, element involves the conti-nuity of assessor presence. One striking feature of allthree bolt-on-fit assessments involved considerable dis-ruptions in assessor presence on the project.

An important finding from this study concerns therelation between assessor involvement and project-level characteristics. As the discussion of ownershipsuggests, while assessors matter, they do not, on theirown, determine the ‘fit’ of the assessment with theproject. Instead project-level characteristics provedcritical. This is especially striking in the bolt-on-fitcases where discontinuities in the project help toexplain the neglect of the BREEAM process.

When it comes to the tight-fit cases another importantproject-level element was prior experience working

Table 6 Project andBREEAM elements in bolt-on-¢t assessment cases

Case study Bailey PrimarySchool

TurneyRehabilitationCentre

DunningHalls

Project characteristics and process

Prior experience working together Medium Medium Medium

Commitment and engagement Medium Medium Medium

Early involvement of specialist Medium Medium

Commitment to sustainableconstruction

Low Low Low

Continuity of project High Low Low

BREEAMcharacteristics and process

Level of assessor involvement Low Low Low

Continuity of assessor involvement Low Low Low

Prior experience with BREEAM Low Low Medium^low

Schweber andHaroglu

314

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

together. One of the striking features of the tight-fitassessments was the extent to which project teammembers had worked both with the other firms inthe project team and with individuals from thosefirms. In each of the three cases, one or two keymembers of the project team actively went out oftheir way to recruit the others, on the grounds thattheir expertise and way of working was essential forsuccessful delivery. Given the usual image of construc-tion projects as temporary organizations with littleprior experience working together, this findingwould seem to point to the emergence of an informalpractice of long-term informal partnering aroundshared sustainability commitments. The contributionof this element to the tight-fit of BREEAM withdesign and construction processes was undoubtedlyenhanced by the high level of commitment and enthu-siasm for the project.

In closing it seems worth repeating one of the key find-ings, namely the use of BREEAM as a design tool aswell as an assessment tool in sustainable building pro-jects and the absence of that design function in moreconventional projects. While this may seem obvious,it is not completely logical. An important differencebetween those professionals characterized as being‘more sustainable’ (i.e. those with more commitment,knowledge and experience) and the others is that the‘more sustainable’ professionals have a well-thought-out approach to ‘green building’ that extends wellbeyond BREEAM. As such one might have expectedthem to reject the design function of BREEAM as toomechanistic or narrow. Conversely, in the absence ofany such approach, one might have expected less com-mitted or experienced professionals to have relied onBREEAM to guide them in meeting their client’s com-mitments. However, the opposite is the case. Sustain-able professionals used BREEAM judiciously todevelop and support their designs (along with anumber of other frameworks), while less committedprofessionals tended to treat it purely as an assessmentmethod. This paradox can be partly explained by theadditional functions associated with a high-endBREEAM score. For sustainable professionals, targetssuch as Excellent and more recently Outstandinghave the additional function of communicating greenvalue to clients and thus delivering reputational value.

A number of practical considerations emerge fromthese findings. These concern the role of theBREEAM assessor and the challenge of sustainableconstruction more generally. There are argumentsboth for and against whether the BREEAM assessorshould be part of the project team or external to it. Pro-ponents of an external role point to the importance ofproviding an external, ‘objective’ assessment; propo-nents of an internal view underline the role ofBREEAM and, by extension, the assessor in ongoingdecision-making. This study examined the extent and

nature of that ‘internal’ role in eight building projects.It found first that BREEAM and BREEAM assessorscan and sometimes do play a significant role in sup-porting design and construction decisions. It alsopointed to some of the conditions influencing theengagement of BREEAM and, by extension,BREEAM assessors in the project team. These includedshared commitment to and understanding of sustain-able commitment and continuity in the project.Finally, it illustrated the way in which a proactiveassessor can compensate for the absence of otherelements. The more assessors and project teams areaware of these relations, the better able they will beto resource assessments appropriately.

A second practical implication stems from the impor-tance of project-level ownership for the incorporationof BREEAM into everyday design and constructiondecisions. Formally, this responsibility usually falls tothe design manager or PM. However, as these findingssuggest, it also depends on either the individual’s com-mitment to sustainable construction or the client’scommitment (which effectively pushes the PM tocare, at least for the life of the project). Either way,the study suggests that project and design managersneed to be supported in this task, both through trainingand recognition.

Turning to the challenges of sustainable constructionmore generally, the study points to the importance ofa cluster of different elements. Thus, while formalmechanisms such as the type of contract or buildingassessment methods are clearly important, they donot act on their own. Instead, their effect on designand construction processes, and thus on buildings,varies with project team characteristics. The emphasisin the literature on the importance of ‘integration’suggests that both professionals and researchers areacutely aware of this general claim.

The theoretical contribution of this study lies in thetranslation of this very general concept into morespecific social and organizational elements whichdirectly impinge on environmental assessments and,by extension, sustainable construction. The compari-son of clusters or configurations suggests that, at theproject level, sustainable construction depends on acombination of a clear vision or approach (whichextends beyond the use of one or more formal tools),a high level of project team commitment and engage-ment and early involvement of specialists. It alsobenefits from prior experience working together as ateam (on sustainable projects) and continuity in theproject brief and team. Finally, it suggests that charac-teristic of the BREEAM process both contribute to andpotentially compensate for weaknesses in project-levelelements; but that this contribution depends on aproactive, continuously involved assessor and clearproject-level ownership of the assessment process.

Fit between assessment and design processes

315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

This analysis suggests that in order for sustainable con-struction to diffuse, there is a need for greater attentionto be paid to individual levels of engagement with, andunderstanding of, sustainability in general (rather thanexperience or knowledge of BREEAM and technicalsolutions to individual credits), to ownership of theissue and to the threat which any type of discontinuityposes to the realization of sustainability related projectgoals.

The analytic framework and observed effects dis-cussed above rest on eight, relatively similar, cases.As such, the above suggestions should be taken as astarting point for more extensive research the effectof clusters of project and assessment level character-istics on the implementation of assessment methods.Examination of less well-coordinated projects mayhighlight additional project and assessment levelelements as well as other ways of compensating forweak elements. A better understanding of thesedynamic interactions would help to support theuptake and effect of BREEAM. Nor are these findingslimited to BREEAM or building-level assessmentmethods. Policy-makers, professional associationsand individual firm strategists all rely on a myriad oftools, instruments and methods to implement policies,be it to promote sustainable construction, innovationor growth. The research reported above underlinesthe need to consider not only formal features andrequirements, but also the way in which projectteams engage with them. More specifically, the ana-lytic framework developed above offers an alternativeto either general discussions of the importance of inte-gration or long lists of discrete elements, most ofwhich are far more mutually dependent than statisti-cal analyses assume.

In summary, the research reported herein challengesthe assumption that BREEAM and other policy instru-ments for the promotion of sustainable constructioncan be treated as generic formal tools. Instead, theireffect varies across projects. For assessors and theBRE, it points to the need to incorporate systematicunderstandings of variations across types of casesinto the training and approach to BREEAM assess-ments. For professional firms, it points to the need tobridge the gap between firm-level sustainability initiat-ives and project-level activity. More specifically, it callson them to offer project teams far more support in deli-vering BREEAM and sustainable construction than iscurrently the case (outside of niche firms) with theaim of incorporating such delivery into firm wide stan-dard practice. Finally, for policy-makers, it highlightsthe need to move away from the current technocratic,formal approach to sustainable construction focusedon mandatory mechanisms such as BREEAM andformal project delivery methods to a more capacitybuilding approach, focused on supporting specializedniche delivery teams, educating and incentivizing

clients, and developing sustainability skills and exper-tise across the sector.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the many firms andindividuals who contributed their time and experiencesto this project.

FundingThis work was supported by the Engineering and Phys-ical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grantnumber EP/E001645/1.

ReferencesBeheiry, S. M. A., Chong, W. K., & Haas, C. T. (2006). Examin-

ing the business impact of owner commitment to sustainabil-ity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,132(4), 384–392.

BRE. (n.d.). BREEAM, Retrieved 20 January, 2014, from http://www.breeam.org/

BRE Global. (2013). BREEAM in numbers Retrieved 25 May,2013, from http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=559

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cole, R. J. (1998). Emerging trends in building environmentalassessment methods. Building Research & Information,26(1), 3–16.

Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods:Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Infor-mation, 33(5), 455–467.

Conte, E., & Monno, V. (2012). Beyond the buildingcentricapproach: A vision for an integrated evaluation of sustain-able buildings. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,34, 31–40.

Cooper, I. (1999). Which focus for building assessment methods– Environmental performance or sustainability?. BuildingResearch & Information, 27(4/5), 321–331.

Crawley, D., & Aho, I. (1999). Building environmental assess-ment methods: Applications and development trends. Build-ing Research & Information, 27(4/5), 300–308.

du Plessis, C., & Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating change: Shiftingthe paradigm. Building Research and Information, 39(5),436–449.

European Union. (2002). Energy Performance of Buildings Direc-tive (Directive 2002/91/EC). Retrieved from http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feur-lex.europa.eu%2FLexUriServ%2FLexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DOJ%3AL%3A2003%3A001%3A0065%3A0065%3AEN%3APDF&ei=vZL7Uq2fAdGI7Abp-4GYAg&usg=AFQjCNEUy3j2LnG-U9XO9-7eh-6ssTX5yA&bvm=bv.61190604,d.d2k

Forsberg, A., & Von Malmborg, F. (2004). Tools for environ-mental assessment of the built environment. Building andEnvironment, 39, 223–228.

Green, S. D. (2011). Making sense of construction improvement.Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of buildingenvironmental assessment tools. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 28, 469–482.

Haverman, H. A. (2009). Lives of their own: The Columbiaschool and the study of organizations. In P. S. Adler (Ed.),

Schweber andHaroglu

316

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Oxford handbook of sociology and organizations. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Holmes, J., & Hudson, G. (2002). The application of BREEAMin corporate real estate: a case study in the design and mar-keting of a city centre office development. Journal of Corpor-ate Real Estate, 5(1), 66–78.

Horman, M. J., Riley, D. R., Lapinski, A. R., Korkmaz, S.,Pulaski, M. H., Magent, C. S., . . . Dahl, P. K. (2006).Delivering green buildings: process improvements for sus-tainable construction. Journal of Green Building, 1(1),123–140.

Ibrahim, K. I., Costello, S. B., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Keypractice indicators of team integration in construction pro-jects: a review. Team Performance Management, 19(3/4),132–152.

Kaatz, E., Root, D., & Bowen, P. (2005). Broadening projectparticipation through a modified building sustainabilityassessment. Building Research & Information, 33(5),441–454.

Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P., & Hill, R. C. (2006). Advancingkey outcomes of sustainability building assessment. BuildingResearch & Information, 34(4), 308–320.

Kajikawa, Y., Inoue, T., & Goh, T. N. (2011). Analysis of build-ing environment assessment frameworks and their impli-cations for sustainability indicators. Sustainability Science,6, 233–246.

King, B., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2009). Comparative organ-izational analysis: An introduction. In B. King, T. Felin, & D.A. Whetten (Eds.), Studying differences between organiz-ations: Comparative approaches to organizational research(Vol. 26, pp. 3–19). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publish-ing, Ltd.

Lorenz, D. P., Trusk, S., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2007). Exploring therelationship between the sustainability of construction andmarket value: Theoretical basics and initial empiricalresults from the residential property sector. Property Man-agement, 25(2), 119–149.

Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2011). Capturing sustainability-related information for property valuation. BuildingResearch & Information, 39(3), 26–273.

McKelvey, B., & Aldrich, H. E. (1983). Populations, naturalselection and applied organizational science. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 28(101–128).

Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2013a). Deli-vering sustainable, high-performance buildings: Influenceof project delivery methods on integration and project out-comes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29, 71–78.

Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L., & Riley, D. (2013b). Deli-vering sustainable, high-performance buildings: Influenceof project delivery methods on integration and project out-comes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29, 71–78.

Ozorhorn, B. (2013). Analysis of construction innovation processat project level. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29,455–463.

Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A., & Schulte, K.-W. (2011). Acomparison of international sustainable building tools –An update. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Pacific RimReal Estate Society Conference, 16–19 January 2011,Gold Coast.

Robichaud, L., & Anantatmula, V. (2011). Greening projectmanagement practices for sustainable construction. Journalof Management in Engineering, 27(1), 48–57.

Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing the technological transition tosustainable construction of buildings: a socio-technical per-spective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,13(1), 137–150.

Schweber, L. (2013). The effect of BREEAM on clients and con-struction professionals. Building Research & Information,41(2), 129–145.

Schweber, L. (2014). Putting theory to work: The use of theory inconstruction research. Paper presented at the 8th CIDBPostgraduate Conference, University of the Witwatersrand,10–11 February, 2014, Johannesburg, South Africa.

SEA. (2009). Sustainable buildings need integrated teams.London: Specialist Engineering Alliance.

Thomson, C. S., El-Haram, M. A., & Emmanuel, R. (2010).Mapping knowledge flow during sustainability assessment.RIBA Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:Urban design and planning, 163, 67–78.

Todd, J. A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G. (2001).Comparative assessment of environmental performancetools and the role of the green building challenge. BuildingResearch & Information, 29(5), 324–335.

Urge-Vorsatz, D., Koeppel, S., & Mirasgedis, S. (2007).Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’CO2 emissions. Building Research & Information, 35(4),458–477.

Whetten, D. A. (2009). Organizational comparative analysis:Investigating similarities and differences among organiz-ations. In B. King, T. Felin & D. A. Whetten (Eds.), Studyingdifferences between organizations: Comparative approachesto organizational research (Vol. 26, pp. 63–87). Bingley:Emerald Group.

Endnotes1For a critical analysis of the ‘improvement agenda’ in the UKconstruction sector, see Green (2011).

2For a discussion of the difference between positivist and interpre-tivist research strategies as applied to construction research, seeSchweber (2014).

3The Natural Step framework builds on a socio-ecological systemsapproach to sustainable development. The approach is associatedby the Swedish non-profit organization with the same name. Formore information, see http://www.naturalstep.org/.

Fit between assessment and design processes

317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

gsto

n U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

54 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2015