Virtual DesignVirtual Design - web.stanford.edukunz/Chalmers/W1.pdf · SRG Management AEI Management Genentech PM SRG Lab Plan Ken Mouchka Task 27 Task 38 Organization Task 2 9 Task

Virtual DesignVirtual Design

Fina l P rogra m C onfirm ation w ith

P ha rm ac ology

Final Program c onfirm a tion wit h LAR

KPFF

SRG La b Ta s k 3 7 Tas k 44 Proje ct M gt A EI Core Tas k 4 1 Ta s k 26 H Bloc k Crew Ta s k 2 3S RG / AEI

Te c hnic alA EI Core and

SRG La bH DCCO Cos ting S RG

Te c hnica lKPFFAEI Core

a nd Te chHDC CO C ore C ode Re v

Consulta ntSolv ent Ta r te r

H Block Cre w& Te c h

SRGLa nds c a pe

Te le Da taDe s ign Code Re v

Furniture

SRG M ana gem e nt AEI M ana gem e nt

Ge nente c h PM

SR G La b P la n

Ke n Mouc hk a

Tas k 2 7Ta s k 3 8

Organization

Ta s k 2 9

Ta s k 2 8Ta sk 4 Tas k 2 2

Re view 8 0 % docum e nt s

Re vie w sk in c hange s w/db te a m

La b Pla nning Progra m Me e tings w ith

Pha rma c ologyLa b pla nning P rogram Me e ting with Prote in

C he m istry

BM S Controls Me e tings (W ee k ly )

La b Pla nning P rogram m e eting w ith Bio Orga nic 80 % Draw ing R ev ie w

Te le Da ta Coordina tion Me e tingsSte e l De ta iling Me e tings

Ge nente c h 8 0 % De ta ile d D es ign Re vie w

Final Progra m Conf irm a tion w it h Officing

We e k ly Coordina tion

Me et ingLa b Pla nning Progra m Me e tings with Direc tors

MEP , Te le da ta room de s ign

W ork Process

Meetings

*Ca l OS HA Re c om m e nd De te rmina tion of LFFH

*Exte r ior Progra m m ing

Ac c e pte d by Ge ne nt ec h

John Kunz

*0 5 -07 -0 1

Finis h

3 7. *Re program B# 15 Sha fts

3 4 . *Fina liz e Pha rm ac ology

P rogra m

3 3. *Fina lize LA R Progra m

3 2 . *Fina liz e B io-Orga nic Che m is try Progra m

3 5 . *Fina lize Prote in Chem is try

P rogram 20 . *De te rm ine S cope of pa c k age D inc luding v iv ar ium

c ha nges

4 5 . *Com ple te a ll B as e m ent/LAR Dra wings

4 1. *R eprogra m book ends B #1 3 a nd

B# 1 5

3 6. *Ana lyze s truct ura l impa c ts

12 . *Com ple te UG utiliite s

2 5 . *D o Ce ntral Plant de s ign cha nge s

1 9. *De te rm ine v er tic al utilitie s

22 . *Com ple te ca tw alk dra wings

52 . Fina lize la nds c a pe

2 6 . *Fina lize B# 1 3 a nd B# 1 5

Ex it ing/a rchite cura l H oc c upa nc y conc ept

*La b a nd v iv ar ium

Program m ing Comple te

2 7. *Fina lize B #1 3 , 15 Shaf t S ize &

M EP R oom Loc a tions

31 .* AEI & SR G

De term ine De s ign $/Tim e

Im pa c t of C h

2 3 . *Re program B# 1 3 a nd B# 15

Ex te r ior A rc hit ec ture

B ook e nd P rogra m m ing

Ac c e pt ed by Gene ntec h

Notic e to proc e e d on s truc tural cha nge s

A rc hitec t progra m /M EP

once pts Es ta blishe d By De s ign

Te a m

2 9 . *Docum e nt lab pla n

1. *R ede s ign m a in MEP distr ibution s ys te m s

5 . *Fina lize la b & Equipme nt pla ns

30 . *Approve C ha nge to

De sign Contrac t

2 1 . *Prepa re Pla n Vie ws for Re vie w of Conc ept w/City

3 9. *Fina lize M EP dis tr ibution a nd

s e c tion

4 8 . *D ev elop e x iting pla n

4 9. De ve lop refle c te d c eiling

pla n

Turnove r re flec te d

ce iling pla n to AEI

De ta ile d De s ign 80 PC Com ple te

3 . Com plete Tele D ata De s ign

4 2. *D ev elop Ex e c ut ion S tra te gy

44 . *Com ple te B #1 4 Off ic ing

Planning

1 8 . *De ta ile d Lab P rogram

Docum e ntat ion

4 7 . *De ve lop la b DD pla n

28 . *De te rm ine se grega tion of la b

a nd te c h s pa ce

G ac c e pt la b equipm e nt ma tr ix

*Pa c ka ge B s tructura l m odific a tions (C CD3 A)

13 . *Code C ons ulta nts Re vie w Conc ept for final

c ity Pre s enta tion

1 4. *H DCC O upda te Es tim at e of c os t of Progra m

5 0 . De s igna te s iz e, loc a tion of 1 3 M EP , te le da ta room s

5 4 . KP FF de s ign s ta irs for 1 3/1 4

3 8. *S RG Re progra m 13 /14 inter fa c e , e xiting,

s ta irs

4 3. *Cha nges in Ste e l Forwa rde d to Ste e l

D e tailers

4 6 . *RA Furnture Conc ept Com ple te

*De sign Budget & Sc he dule for C ha nges

Approve d

*N otic e to proc ee d with de tailed des ign

2 4 . *Com ple te B 13 ,4 H bloc k oc cupa nc y

re quirem e nts on M EP sy st em s

1 7. *R is ick re program s olve nt

dis tribution a nd w as te

Is s ue 8 0% MEP CDs

(2 0 ) Inc orpora te 8 0 % M EP re view

c om m e nts

(1 9 ) Ge nente c h rev ie w 80 % dra wings

5 3 . Inc orporat e com m e nt s, com ple te A rc hit ec tural de ta il

2 . Initial re de sign MEP bra nc h la tera l dis tr ibution

G a c ce pt 1 3 /1 4

Inte rfa c e

*City Ac c e pt ex iting

*Pa c ka ge C s k in

m odific a tions

5 5. KPFF de s ign s ta irs f or 15 /14

4 0 . *SRG Re progra m 1 5 /1 4 inte r fa ce , e x it ing,

s ta irs

B 13 MEP HVA C, c onduit, piping m a ins

c om ple te d

M EP 8 0 % R ev ie w c om m e nts inc orporat ed

P ac k a ge D a nd UG a dde ndum is s ued:

unde rground utilitie s , viv ar ium c at wa lk

10 . D ra ft Alte rna te m e a ns

1 5. Je ff reprogra m H MIS

(3 ) *A EI de s ign MEP H VAC , Conduit & piping m ains B 13

1 6 . *HDC CO D e term ine Sc hedule Impa c t

City Approva l of Alte rna te Me ans

for Progra m

8 . Re view A lte rnat e M e ans w /im pac t on LEL

a nd LFFH

(2 1 -4 ) Fina lize MEP De ta ils , upda te spe c s a nd p& ID's

(8) *Re vis e MEP loa ds , MEP

Equipm ent sc he dules fina lize d

(1 3,1 5,1 6 ) M EP s pe cs , P &ID's , c ontrol s eque nce s

(6 ) Coord B1 3 MEP f loor s ec tion

4 . c om plet e a ll Inte r ior Arc hitc ture

5 1 . De s igna te s iz e, loc a tion of 1 4 M EP , te le da ta room s G a c ce pt

1 5 /1 4 Inte rfa c e

*Ac ce pt proje c t sc ope:budge t by Ge ne nt ec h

*City Approva l of H Conce pt

*Turnove r lab a nd v iv ar ium DD pla n

to AEI

John KunzRate

Baseline ($K) Change

Year-1 (K$)

Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240Gross Margin 5,000 5,100Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040IT investment 70Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23Net income 3,000 3,037

Product Organization Process

Design for water-free subway box for AWVGood self-assessed coordination between neighbors, DOT, contractor, project manager Engineering designs finished by 12/31/2007

Design for structurally sound subway boxExchange of project documentation and specifications within 24 hours as needed Construction plans finished by 12/31/2007

Project costs Organization cost Tasks to design all systems and componentsTasks to specify all construction packagesTasks to plan and coordinate utility movement

Environmental impact statement Deputy project director Plan and Coordinate utility movement

Function: Design intent

Form: Design choices

The big idea:

Time to payback (years) 1.9Net Income change (%) 1.2


Traffic management plan UtilitiesDevelop and deliver engineering design documents

Relocated utilities Engineering Plan land acquisitionEngineering designs Urban design/Architecture Develop work packages

Secant pile tunnel walls Real EstatePlan transportation access in detail throughout construction

Tunnel box - King to Pike Construction Engineering Develop environmental impact studiesNorth section - Pike to BST Transportation PlanningSouth Section - Holdage to King Environmental

Construction plansConstruction staging planConstruction packages

Risks of leaks self-assessed stakeholder coordination quality Predicted schedule performancePredicted structural deformation Predicted actor backlogs Predicted task backlogsPredicted material costs Predicted actor costs Predicted task costs including material, labor

Observed actor response latencyObserved actor decision latency

Behavior: Analysis predictions

The big idea:Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) is use of integrated multi-disciplinary performance models of design-construction projects to models of design-construction projects to support (explicit, public) business objectives.

Virtual Design and Constructiong

Fina l P rogra m C onfirm ation w ith

P ha rm ac ology

Final Program c onfirm a tion wit h LAR

KPFF

SRG La b Ta s k 3 7 Tas k 44 Proje ct M gt A EI Core Tas k 4 1 Ta s k 26 H Bloc k Crew Ta s k 2 3S RG / AEI

Te c hnic alA EI Core and

SRG La bH DCCO Cos ting S RG

Te c hnica lKPFFAEI Core

a nd Te chHDC CO C ore C ode Re v

Consulta ntSolv ent Ta r te r

H Block Cre w& Te c h

SRGLa nds c a pe

Te le Da taDe s ign Code Re v

Furniture

4 1. *R eprogra m book ends B #1 3 a nd

B# 1 5

2 6 . *Fina lize B# 1 3 a nd B# 1 5

Ex it ing/a rchite cura l H oc c upa nc y conc ept

2 3 . *Re program B# 1 3 a nd B# 15

Ex te r ior A rc hit ec ture

B ook e nd P rogra m m ing

Ac c e pt ed by Gene ntec h

Notic e to proc e e d on s tr c t ral cha nge s

SRG M ana gem e nt AEI M ana gem e nt

Ge nente c h PM

SR G La b P la n

Ke n Mouc hk a

Tas k 2 7Ta s k 3 8

Organization

Ta s k 2 9

Ta s k 2 8Ta sk 4 Tas k 2 2

Re view 8 0 % docum e nt s

*P k B t t l

Re vie w sk in c hange s w/db te a m

La b Pla nning Progra m Me e tings w ith

Pha rma c ologyLa b pla nning P rogram Me e ting with Prote in

C he m istry

BM S Controls Me e tings (W ee k ly )

La b Pla nning P rogram m e eting w ith Bio Orga nic 80 % Draw ing R ev ie w

Te le Da ta Coordina tion Me e tingsSte e l De ta iling Me e tings

Ge nente c h 8 0 % De ta ile d D es ign Re vie w

Final Progra m Conf irm a tion w it h Officing

We e k ly Coordina tion

Me et ingLa b Pla nning Progra m Me e tings with Direc tors

MEP , Te le da ta room de s ign

2 4 . *Com ple te B 13 ,4 H bloc k oc cupa nc y

re quirem e nts on M EP sy st em s

(8) *Re vis e MEP loa ds , MEP

Equipm ent sc he dules fina lize d

(1 3,1 5,1 6 ) M EP s pe cs , P &ID's , c ontrol s eque nce s

W ork Process

Meetings

(6 ) Coord B1 3 MEP f loor s ec tion

*Ca l OS HA Re c om m e nd De te rmina tion of LFFH

*Exte r ior Progra m m ing

Ac c e pte d by Ge ne nt ec h

John Kunz

*0 5 -07 -0 1

Finis h

3 7. *Re program B# 15 Sha fts

3 4 . *Fina liz e Pha rm ac ology

P rogra m

3 3. *Fina lize LA R Progra m

3 2 . *Fina liz e B io-Orga nic Che m is try Progra m

3 5 . *Fina lize Prote in Chem is try

P rogram 20 . *De te rm ine S cope of pa c k age D inc luding v iv ar ium

c ha nges

4 5 . *Com ple te a ll B as e m ent/LAR Dra wings

3 6. *Ana lyze s truct ura l impa c ts

12 . *Com ple te UG utiliite s

2 5 . *D o Ce ntral Plant de s ign cha nge s

1 9. *De te rm ine v er tic al utilitie s

22 . *Com ple te ca tw alk dra wings

52 . Fina lize la nds c a pe

*La b a nd v iv ar ium

Program m ing Comple te

2 7. *Fina lize B #1 3 , 15 Shaf t S ize &

M EP R oom Loc a tions

31 .* AEI & SR G

De term ine De s ign $/Tim e

Im pa c t of C h

s truc tural cha nge s

A rc hitec t progra m /M EP

once pts Es ta blishe d By De s ign

Te a m

2 9 . *Docum e nt lab pla n

1. *R ede s ign m a in MEP distr ibution s ys te m s

5 . *Fina lize la b & Equipme nt pla ns

30 . *Approve C ha nge to

De sign Contrac t

2 1 . *Prepa re Pla n Vie ws for Re vie w of Conc ept w/City

3 9. *Fina lize M EP dis tr ibution a nd

s e c tion

4 8 . *D ev elop e x iting pla n

4 9. De ve lop refle c te d c eiling

pla n

Turnove r re flec te d

ce iling pla n to AEI

De ta ile d De s ign 80 PC Com ple te

3 . Com plete Tele D ata De s ign

4 2. *D ev elop Ex e c ut ion S tra te gy

44 . *Com ple te B #1 4 Off ic ing

Planning

1 8 . *De ta ile d Lab P rogram

Docum e ntat ion

4 7 . *De ve lop la b DD pla n

28 . *De te rm ine se grega tion of la b

a nd te c h s pa ce

G ac c e pt la b equipm e nt ma tr ix

*Pa c ka ge B s tructura l m odific a tions (C CD3 A)

13 . *Code C ons ulta nts Re vie w Conc ept for final

c ity Pre s enta tion

1 4. *H DCC O upda te Es tim at e of c os t of Progra m

5 0 . De s igna te s iz e, loc a tion of 1 3 M EP , te le da ta room s

5 4 . KP FF de s ign s ta irs for 1 3/1 4

3 8. *S RG Re progra m 13 /14 inter fa c e , e xiting,

s ta irs

4 3. *Cha nges in Ste e l Forwa rde d to Ste e l

D e tailers

4 6 . *RA Furnture Conc ept Com ple te

*De sign Budget & Sc he dule for C ha nges

Approve d

*N otic e to proc ee d with de tailed des ign

1 7. *R is ick re program s olve nt

dis tribution a nd w as te

Is s ue 8 0% MEP CDs

(2 0 ) Inc orpora te 8 0 % M EP re view

c om m e nts

(1 9 ) Ge nente c h rev ie w 80 % dra wings

5 3 . Inc orporat e com m e nt s, com ple te A rc hit ec tural de ta il

2 . Initial re de sign MEP bra nc h la tera l dis tr ibution

G a c ce pt 1 3 /1 4

Inte rfa c e

*City Ac c e pt ex iting

*Pa c ka ge C s k in

m odific a tions

5 5. KPFF de s ign s ta irs f or 15 /14

4 0 . *SRG Re progra m 1 5 /1 4 inte r fa ce , e x it ing,

s ta irs

B 13 MEP HVA C, c onduit, piping m a ins

c om ple te d

M EP 8 0 % R ev ie w c om m e nts inc orporat ed

P ac k a ge D a nd UG a dde ndum is s ued:

unde rground utilitie s , viv ar ium c at wa lk

10 . D ra ft Alte rna te m e a ns

1 5. Je ff reprogra m H MIS

(3 ) *A EI de s ign MEP H VAC , Conduit & piping m ains B 13

1 6 . *HDC CO D e term ine Sc hedule Impa c t

City Approva l of Alte rna te Me ans

for Progra m

8 . Re view A lte rnat e M e ans w /im pac t on LEL

a nd LFFH

(2 1 -4 ) Fina lize MEP De ta ils , upda te spe c s a nd p& ID's

4 . c om plet e a ll Inte r ior Arc hitc ture

5 1 . De s igna te s iz e, loc a tion of 1 4 M EP , te le da ta room s G a c ce pt

1 5 /1 4 Inte rfa c e

*Ac ce pt proje c t sc ope:budge t by Ge ne nt ec h

*City Approva l of H Conce pt

*Turnove r lab a nd v iv ar ium DD pla n

to AEI

John KunzRate

Baseline ($K) Change

Year-1 (K$)

Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240Gross Margin 5,000 5,100Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040IT investment 70Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23Net income 3,000 3,037








Bi id 2

Time to payback (years) 1.9Net Income change (%) 1.2










Big idea-2:Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social method to create and evaluate multi-discipline, multi-stakeholder Virtual Design models extremely rapidly.

This week overview

Day Take-homeTuesday Introduction:

Theory: integrated multi-disciplinary performance Virtual Design modelsPOP Models: Simple integrated project model of the product organization process (POP)of the product, organization, process (POP) models of function (intent), choice (form) and predicted behavior











Risks of leaks self-assessed stakeholder coordination quality Predicted schedule performancePredicted structural deformation Predicted actor backlogs Predicted task backlogsPredicted material costs Predicted actor costs Predicted task costs including material labor




3

Predicted material costs Predicted actor costs Predicted task costs including material, laborObserved actor response latencyObserved actor decision latency

Chalmers Virtual Design class

In this class, we will …,

• Use ABC of your POP - FFB based on th PBS OBS d WBS t it blthe PBS, OBS and WBS at a suitable LOD using MACDADI and ICE to

t Vi t l D isupport Virtual Design …

4Chalmers Virtual Design class

Virtual Design and ConstructionVirtual Design and Construction

If t b ild it i t ll• If you cannot build it virtually you will not be able to build it in realityWYMWYG li (Wh t• WYMWYG lives (What you model is what you get)y g )


Agenda: June 16

Big ideas: Virtual Design; ICE







Relocated utilities Engineering Plan land acquisition



– Big ideas: Virtual Design; ICE – Introduction of class concepts– POP models

Engineering designs Urban design/Architecture Develop work packages







POP models– Course objectives (and non-objectives) &

OrganizationSRGM t

Genentech PM

Ken Mouchka

Organization

– Narrator and a charrette– POP Lab

/*05-07-01

Finish

Final Program Confirmation with

Pharmacology

Final Program confirmation with LAR

KPFF

SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI Technical

AEI Core andSRG Lab HDCCO Costing SRG

Technical KPFFAEI Core and Tech HDCCO Core Code Rev

Consultant Solvent TarterH Block Crew

& TechSRG

LandscapeTele DataDesign Code Rev

Furniture

34. *Finalize Pharmacology

Program

33. *Finalize LAR Program

32. *Finalize Bio-Organic Chemistry Program

35. *Finalize Protein Chemistry

Program 20. *Determine Scope of package D including vivarium

changes

41. *Reprogram bookends B#13 and

B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts

25. *Do Central Plant design changes

22. *Complete catwalk drawings

26. *Finalize B#13 and B#15

Exiting/architecural H occupancy concept

*Lab and vivarium

Programming Complete

27. *Finalize B#13, 15 Shaft Size &

MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG

Determine Design $/Time

Impact of

23. *Reprogram B#13 and B#15

Exterior Architecture

Bookend Programming

Accepted by Genentech

Notice to proceed on structural changes

Architect program/MEP

oncepts Established By Design

Team

29. *Document lab plan

1. *Redesign main MEP distribution systems

SRG Management AEI Management

SRG Lab Plan

e ouc a

Task 27Task 38

5. *Finalize lab & Equipment plans

Task 29

Task 28

30. *Approve Change to Design Contract

21. *Prepare Plan Views for Review of Concept w/City

39. *Finalize MEP distribution and

section

Task4 Task22

Review 80% documents

48. *Develop exiting plan

49. Develop reflected ceiling

plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC Complete42. *Develop

Execution Strategy

44. *Complete B#14 Officing

Planning

18. *Detailed Lab Program

Documentation

47. *Develop lab DD plan

28. *Determine segregation of lab

and tech space

G accept lab equipment matrix

*Package B structural modifications (CCD3A)

13. *Code Consultants Review Concept for final

city Presentation

14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost of Program

Review skin changes w/db team

Lab Planning Program Meetings with Pharmacology

Lab planning Program Meeting with ProteinChemistry

BMS Controls Meetings (Weekly)

Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio Organic 80% Drawing Review

Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing Meetings

Genentech 80% Detailed Design Review

Final Program Confirmation with Officing

Weekly Coordination

MeetingLab Planning Program Meetings with Directors

MEP, Teledata room design

*Design Budget & Schedule for Changes

Approved

*Notice to proceed with detailed design

24. *Complete B13,4 H block occupancy

requirements on MEP systems

17. *Risick reprogram solvent

distribution and waste

Issue 80% MEP CDs

(20) Incorporate 80% MEP review

comments

(19) Genentech review 80% drawings

53. Incorporate

2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distr ibution

*Package C skin

modifications MEP 80% Review comments

incorporated

Package D and UG addendum issued:

underground utilities, vivarium catwalk

10. Draft Alternate means

15. Jeff reprogram HMIS

16. *HDCCO Determine Schedule Impact

City Approval of Alternate Means

for Program

8. Review Alternate Means w/impact on LEL

and LFFH

(21-4) Finalize MEP Details, update specs and p&ID's

(8) *Revise MEP loads, MEP

Equipment schedules finalized

(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's, control sequences

Work Process

Meetings

(6) Coord B13 MEP floor section

4. complete all Interior Architcture

*Cal OSHA Recommend Determination of LFFH

*Accept project scope:budget by Genentech

*City Approval of H Concept

*Exterior Programming


*Turnover lab and vivarium DD plan

to AEI

– +/Δ37.

*Reprogram B#15 Shafts

45. *Complete all Basement/LAR Drawings

12. *Complete UG utiliites

19. *Determine vertical utilities

52. Finalize landscape

3. Complete Tele Data Design

50. Designate size, location of 13 MEP, teledata rooms

54. KPFF design stairs for 13/1438. *SRG

Reprogram 13/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

43. *Changes in Steel Forwarded to Steel

Detailers

46. *RA Furnture Concept Complete

Approved 53. Incorporate comments, complete

Architectural detail

G accept 13/14

Interface

*City Accept exiting

55. KPFF design stairs for 15/14

40. *SRG Reprogram 15/14 interface, exiting,

stairs

B13 MEP HVAC, conduit, piping mains

completed

(3) *AEI design MEP HVAC, Conduit & piping mains B13

51. Designate size, location of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept

15/14 Interface


Traditional design modelsg

+: Work in practiceΔ: Ambiguities to

stakeholdersΔ: computer analysis

...?– Show value to owner– Show value to owner– List components– Estimate cost– Plan fabrication/

construction– Identify interferences

7

Identify interferences


Models

• PhysicalPhysical• Statistical

Mathematical• MathematicalSymbolicGraphic


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22










Weekly Coordination



Work Process

Meetings


*05-07-01

Finish


Program





changes


B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts


22. *Complete catwalk drawings




*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of



Bookend Programming





Team







section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI

Detailed Design 80 PC Complete


42. *Develop Execution Strategy


Planning


Documentation



and tech space




city Presentation



54 KPFF design


Detailers



Approved






Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments


53. Incorporate comments, complete


2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distribution

G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs

B13 MEP HVAC,

MEP 80% Review comments incorporated







for Program


and LFFH









15/14 Interface



g gAccepted by Genentech


to AEI




Project costs Organization cost Tasks to design all systems and componentsTasks to specify all construction packagesT k t l d di t tilit t


8

37. *Reprogram B#15 Shafts






stairs

conduit, piping mains completed


Tasks to plan and coordinate utility movement












POP model content• Columns:• Rows:

– Functions (intent)• Program Function,

Schedule, Cost,

– Product – Organization

Sustainability, ….– Forms (design choices)

• L-B: x10

Organization– Process (design +

construction)– Behaviors (predicted,

observed)• Functional performance

)Object Attribute

Requirement Relationship Requirement

Predicted value

Observed value -2 -1 0 1 2

ProductProduct Scope Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?oProject Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o

BuildingGoal . Net Energy Use (K-BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o

Function Product Behavior Qualitative Threshhold values

Functional performance• Cost • Value• Schedule

Building BTU/ft2) <= 250 - ?o

BuildingGoal . Quality conformance (%) >= 12 - ?o

Organization Scope Organization Scope . Actors includes - -Organization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) - <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Observed . Response Latency (days) 3 <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Predicted . Peak Backlog (days) 3 <= - ?o

OrganizationGoal . Predicted . rework (FTE-days) - <= - ?o

ProcessProcess GoalsProcess Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

Goal . Schedule Growth

Organization

9

• Schedule• …


Process (months) < - ?oProcess Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?oProcess Task . Action: Object Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designsProcess Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts

Process Task . Assess: Actor Actor that assessesProcess Task . Build: Actor Actor that builds

Model-based 3D model

Buildingg• Walls• Columns• Floors• Windows

D• Doors


Organization, Process Modelsg ,

Model Simulation predictions:• Organization• (Design) work

p• Gantt chart• Risks(Design) work

processRisks

KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization

Task 28Task4 Task22



Pharmacology


35. *Finalize


B#15

36. *Analyze structural impacts 22. *Complete catwalk drawings





Bookend Programming




Task 29











Weekly Coordination







Work Process

Meetings





*05-07-01

Finish


Program



Protein Chemistry Program 20. *Determine Scope of

package D including vivarium changes



*Lab and vivarium



MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of



Team






section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning


Documentation



and tech space



city Presentation


50 Designate size location of


Detailers



Approved




Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments


53. Incorporate comments, complete Architectural detail

2. Initial redesign MEP branch lateral distribution

G accept


*Package C skin

modifications MEP 80% Review comments incorporated







for Program


and LFFH






to AEI

11








stairs

G accept 13/14

Interface



stairs


completed



15/14 Interface


Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)g g g ( )

Given Performance change• Goal = “extreme collaboration” (1

week)• Excellent POP software

200004000060000

Latency (secs)

• Collocated team• iRoom • Good generic POP model

XC

Goo

dtra

ditio

nal

Latency(secs)

0

Duration

Good generic POP model• SD (DD) phase

D ti (d )

XC

Good traditional

050

100150200250300

Duration (days)


Virtual Design Enables “Top-Down” Project Design

C t l D t il d D i Cl t &

100%

ConceptualDesign

Detailed Design and Execution

Closeout &Learning

100%

Level of Level of Expenditure Expenditure InfluenceInfluence

pof Funds

pof Funds

OutcomeOutcome

KnowledgeVirtual Design

OutcomePredictions

M t

130%

ManagementChoices


Virtual Design and Constructiong

• Use of integrated multi-disciplinary t b d f d l fcomputer-based performance models of

design–construction projects– Product (building)– Organization – Work Process

• to support (explicit, public) business Final Program

Confirmation with Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture

33. *Finalize




changes


B#15




*Lab and



Bookend Programming





Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization


Task 29

Task 28Task4 Task22



Documentation












Weekly Coordination









Work Process

Meetings






pp ( p , p )objectives– Visualize and describe project– Analyze project performance

*05-07-01

Finish



Program

33 a eLAR Program






vivarium Programming

Complete


MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of



Team





section



plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI





Planning

DD plan


and tech space


city Presentation





stairs


Detailers



Approved




Issue 80% MEP CDs


comments





G accept 13/14

Interface


*Package C skin

modifications



stairs


completed

MEP 80% Review comments

incorporated







for Program


and LFFH



15/14 Interface




to AEI

Analyze project performance– Predict effects of choices– Evaluate choices

Product Organization ProcessFunction: Design intent

14

AEC IT investment by General Contractor

RateBaseline

($M) ChangeRevenue 100,000 22%Cost of work 85% 85,000 -2.0%CM, Design, GC fees 10% 10,000 2.0%Gross Margin 5,000Sales, G&A 2% 2,000IT investment 1,000Amortized costs of IT/yr 33%Net income 3,000Time to payback (years)

Year-1122,000101,26014,6406,1002,440

3333,327

3.1

3-year















Virtual Design Big Ideas g g

• Build project models early and often, before itti l ticommitting large money or time

• WhatProduct process organization– Product, process, organization

• How: – Detailed: to show the product, process, organizationDetailed: to show the product, process, organization

entities that use > 10% of project time, money– Virtual: in the computer

Vi l lti di i li lti i f lti l– Visual: multi-discipline, multi-view, for multiple stakeholders

– Integrated: relating the product, organization and process

15

– Objective-based: set and track explicit public objectivesChalmers Virtual Design class

Design-Construction Practice Goals

Practice: 2002 Goal: 2015Schedule 1-6 y Design

~1.5 y ConstructVariance 5-100%

1 y Design< .5 y ConstructVariance < 5%

Cost Variance 5-30% Variance < 5%

Function/ Large Variance 0 variance, by POE

Scope Good?Productivity impact?

Great, by POE++ productivity

Safety Good BetterSafety Good Better

Sustainability Poor 25% better than 2002

Gl b li ti S > 50% f l d

16

Globalization Some >= 50% of supply and sales


(Multiple) Predictable performance objectivesSafet 0 lost ho rs Outcome• Safety: 0 lost hours Outcome

• Schedule: 95% on-time performance• Cost: >= 95% of budgeted items within 2% of budgeted cost• Delivered Scope: 100% satisfaction• Delivered Scope: 100% satisfaction• Sustainability: 10-20% better than previous recent jobs• Decision latency (Decision-making promptness): Process

mean working days <= 1; 95% within 2 daysmean working days 1; 95% within 2 days• Response latency (Decision-making no earlier than necessary): mean

working days <= 1; 95% within 2 days• Field-generated Requests for Information: 0 (for questions related to issues

th t ld h b id tifi d t th d f th t ti t t)that could have been identified at the award of the construction contract) • Rework volume: 0 (for field construction work); Goal = 10-20% (virtual work)• Meeting effectiveness: > 90% participation• Meeting efficiency: > 70% prediction evaluation• Meeting efficiency: > 70% prediction, evaluation• Product, organization, process designs Controllable• Coordination activity: planned, explicit, public, informed > 90%• Facility managed Scope: 100% of items with > 2% of time, cost or energy

17

Facility managed Scope: 100% of items with 2% of time, cost or energy• Prediction basis: > 80% of predictions founded• Design versions: 2 or more >= 80%


Will current practice get us there?Will current practice get us there?


VDC provides

Integrating theoretical framework to Integrating theoretical framework to • Predict engineering behaviors, and

Systematically manage projects • Systematically manage projects and the business using the predictions and observed data to predictions and observed data, to

• Achieve measurable business bj iobjectives


Agenda: June 16




















Organization– Narrator and a charrette– POP Lab

/*05-07-01


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Program





changes


B#15




*Lab and vivarium




Bookend Programming





Team



Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization


Task 29

Task 28


Task4 Task22




plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI


Planning


Documentation



and tech space












Weekly Coordination






(20) Incorporate

*Package C skin










Work Process

Meetings








to AEI

– +/Δ Finish








MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of




d st but o a dsection





city Presentation

of Program




stairs


Detailers



Approved



Issue 80% MEP CDs

80% MEP review comments





G accept 13/14

Interface




stairs


completed

comments incorporated




for Program


and LFFH

p p p


15/14 Interface

y



POP model content• Columns:• Rows:

– Functions (intent)• Program Function,

Schedule, Cost,

– Product – Organization

Sustainability, ….– Forms (design choices)

• L-B: x10

Organization– Process (design +

construction)– Behaviors (predicted,

observed)• Functional performance

)

Object AttributeRequirement Relationship Requirement

Predicted value


ProductProduct Scope


Functional performance• Cost • Value• Schedule

Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?oProject Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o







ProcessProcess GoalsP G l P k Q lit Ri k 0 50

Organization

21

• Schedule• …


Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

ProcessGoal . Schedule Growth (months) < - ?o

Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?oProcess Task . Action: Object Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designsProcess Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts


POP models define structure of projectsp j

• Columns:• Rows– Functions

• Program Function, Schedule, Cost, Sustainability, ….

Rows– Product – Organization y,

– Forms (Scope - design choices)

• L-B: x10Product forms = content

g– Process (design +

construction)• Product forms = content

of a “BIM”– Behaviors (predicted,

observed)Object AttributeRequirement Relationship Requirement

Predicted value


ProductProduct Scope


P

F F B

• Functional performance• Cost • Value• Schedule

Product Scope . Building Spaces includes -Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= 60 - ?oProject Goal . Cost (M$) = 70 - ?o







ProcessProcess GoalsP G l P k Q lit Ri k 0 50

Organization

P

O

22

Schedule• …

Process Goal . Peak Quality Risk < 0.50 - -

ProcessGoal . Schedule Growth (months) < - ?o

Process Goal . Completion Date <= 1/1/09 - ?oProcess Task . Action: Object Process Task . Design: Actor Actor that designsProcess Task . Predict: Actor Actor that predicts


P


Generic Project POP modelj

23

Generic = applies to any project in general wayChalmers Virtual Design class

Integrated Example Level-B Function (Design intent) modelmodel

Form/ScopeObjective

Weight

Object Attribute Relationship Requirement Choice Predicted Observed Assessed -2 -1 0 1 2(sum =

100)Weighted

assessmentProduct

Function Behavior Qualitative Threshold values

Product

Product Scope Requirement Relationship

Functional Requirement

Product Form (Space, System)

Product Scope . Systems includes Systems Systems ?o ?a ?w 0Product Scope . Building Spaces includes Spaces Spaces ?o ?a ?w 0Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= - ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0Project Goal . Evaluated goodness ?o ?aOrganization

Organization Scope Requirement Relationship


Organization Form (Actor)

Organization Scope . Actors includes ActorsOrganization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) <= ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0Process

Responsible Process Form (Task Action:

Organization

Process Scope (Task Action: Object) Actor Object)

Process Task . Design: Building ActorActor that designs

Task . Design: Building

ProcessTask . Predict: Predictable Behaviors Actor

Actor that predicts

Task . Predict: Predictable Behaviors

Process Task . Assess: Behaviors ActorActor that assesses

Task . Assess: Behaviors

Process Task Build: Building Actor Actor that buildsTask . Build:

BuildingProcess Task . Build: Building Actor Actor that builds BuildingProcess GoalsProcess Goal . Peak Quality Risk < ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0

0 0 0Sum (Assessed goodness): Sum (weights):Legend

A-level model elementsspecfication missing

Predicted value that meets functional requirementPredicted value that does not meet functional

?o variable whose value is not yet observed

24

?p variable whose value is not yet predicted?a variable whose value is not yet assessed

Not applicable

?o variable whose value is not yet observed


Integrated Example Level-B Form(Design choice) model(Design choice) model

Level-A: ~1 Product, Organization, Process form

Each (“leaf”) element in form has ~ cost wrt total

Level-B: ~10Level-C: ~100

25

Each ( leaf ) element in form has ~ cost wrt total– TCE2 = total estimated Time, Cost, Effort, Energy


Integrated Example Level-B Behavior (Prediction, Observation Assessment) dataObservation, Assessment) data


MACDADI design goodnessg g

• MACDADI shows – Overall rated design goodness: ∑Assessed

goodness of behavior-i * Weight-i– Assessed values of each POP behavior

MACDADI Evaluation of Design Option Goodness (+ is good)

Goal . Evaluated goodness (high is good)

100

120

12

Conformance to product objectives

Rentable area (ft2)

Cost (K$)formance (Actual schedule to plan)

Peak Predicted Schedule Risk (wks)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Eval

uate

d go

odne

ss

Evaluated goodness

-10 Cost (K$)

Energy (KBTU/sq-ft/year)

Conformance (Actor assignment toOrganization Function) (%)

Conformance (Actor assignment toOrganization Function) (%) Actor Backlog

Safety: lost work incidents

Peak Quality Risk

( p )(%)

O ti 1 POP

1 2

Design Versions

27

Option 1: POPOption 2: POP V2


Behaviors have an Assessed Goodness (-2: 2)( )


Product Function, Form and Behaviors


Organization Function, Form and Behaviorsg


Process Function, Form and Behaviors,


Assign Assessed Goodness based on Qualitative Threshold ValuesQualitative Threshold Values


Weighted assessment = Assessed behavior value * WeightAssessed behavior value Weight

MACDADI Evaluation of Design Option Goodness (+ is good)

2Conformance to product objectives

Rentable area (ft2)Peak Predicted Schedule Risk (wks)

Goal . Evaluated goodness (high is good)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Eval

uate

d go

odne

ss

Evaluated goodness

33

-101

Cost (K$)

Energy (KBTU/sq-ft/year)

Conformance (Actor assignment toOrganization Function) (%)Conformance (Actor assignment to

Organization Function) (%) Actor Backlog

Safety: lost work incidents

Peak Quality Risk

formance (Actual schedule to plan) (%)

Option 1: POPOption 2: POP V2

01 2

Design Versions


Relationships in POP models

Form/ScopeObjective

Weight

Object Attribute Relationship Requirement Choice Predicted Observed Assessed -2 -1 0 1 2(sum =

100)Weighted

assessmentProduct

Product ScopeRequirement Relationship


Product Form (Space, System)

Function Behavior Qualitative Threshold values

p

• Functions describe project Product Scope Relationship Requirement System)

Product Scope . Systems includes Systems Systems ?o ?a ?w 0Product Scope . Building Spaces includes Spaces Spaces ?o ?a ?w 0Project GoalsProject Goal . Capacity (people) >= - ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0Project Goal . Evaluated goodness ?o ?a

Organization Scope Requirement Relationship


Organization Form (Actor)

Organization Scope . Actors includes ActorsOrganization GoalsOrganization Goal . Predicted . Cost (K$) <= ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0Process

Process Scope (Task Action: Object)Responsible

Actor

Process Form (Task Action:

Object)

Process Task . Design: Building ActorActor that designs

Task . Design: Building

ProcessTask . Predict: Predictable Behaviors Actor

Actor that predicts

Task . Predict: Predictable Behaviors

Process Task . Assess: Behaviors ActorActor that assesses

Task . Assess: Behaviors

Organization

p jbusiness objectives

• All forms follow a function Process Task . Build: Building Actor Actor that builds

Task . Build: Building

Process GoalsProcess Goal . Peak Quality Risk < ?r ?p ?o ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?a ?w 0

0 0 0Sum (Assessed goodness): Sum (weights):Legend

A-level model elements

?p variable whose value is not yet predicted?a variable whose value is not yet assessed

Not applicable

specfication missingPredicted value that meets functional requirement

Predicted value that does not meet functional ?o variable whose value is not yet observed

– “Form ever follows function” Luis Sullivan

All i i i h ibl• All activities have a responsible actor and relate to a componentF ti l bj ti h l t d• Functional objectives have related measurable process and outcome behaviors

34

behaviors


Agenda: June 16





















/*05-07-01


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Program





changes


B#15




*Lab and vivarium




Bookend Programming





Team



Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization


Task 29

Task 28


Task4 Task22




plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI


Planning


Documentation



and tech space












Weekly Coordination






(20) Incorporate

*Package C skin










Work Process

Meetings








to AEI

– +/Δ Finish








MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of









city Presentation

of Program




stairs


Detailers



Approved



Issue 80% MEP CDs






G accept 13/14

Interface




stairs


completed





for Program


and LFFH

p p p


15/14 Interface

y



Class mechanics

• All class• All class materials on th bthe webhttp://www.stanford.edu/~kunz/Chalmers/


Course Organization g

Time: 32 contact hoursClass meetings: 10 – 12pm; 1-3pm Tues –

Wednesdays, Y2E2 292• June 16, 17• June 23, 24• July 21, 22

Office Hours: after classCourse URL:

http://www.stanford.edu/~kunz/Chalmers/


Short Assessments:

• Purpose: help you understand what you do (not yet) knowyet) know

• One assessment per session (usually)– ~5 questions/assessmentq– Based on reading– Quick (< 10 minutes) – Require careful reading and good understanding– Some on-line; some in-class– Individual work, please!


ICE Charrettes

Our projectYour projectsYour projects


Submissions

• Short (individual) assessments (on line) on readingShort (individual) assessments (on line) on reading (40%):

1. Friday June 19, 5pm– you can go back and update existing responses until the surveyyou can go back and update existing responses until the survey

is finished. After finishing, you will not be able to re-enter the survey.

2. Due Tuesday June 23, 10 am 3. In class Wednesday June 24

• Labs (POP, SimVision, process charrettes) (20%)• Final (group) project (present last day of class)Final (group) project (present last day of class)

description due by 9am Friday 24 July (40%)


Course Objective: Discover how and why (value) of Virtual Design(value) of Virtual Design

1. Use Integrated Concurrent Engineering th dmethods:

• Design-construction project objectives• Multi-disciplinary design, analyses and presentations using

th lti di l CIFE iRthe multi-display CIFE iRoom2. Virtual Design methods and technology

effectively:– Integrated POP models – Organization models – Process models (design and construction plan and ( g p

schedule)– Use Virtual Design to describe, explain, evaluate, predict,

formulate alternatives, negotiate decide


Course Objective: Discover how and why (value) of Virtual Design and Construction(value) of Virtual Design and Construction

3. Theory: develop a practical understanding y p p gof the broad multi-disciplinary theoretical framework of Virtual Design, ICE– Project visualization– Symbolic and quantitative project modeling

O i ti k d h d li– Organization, work process and scheduling models and analysis


Course Non-objectivesj

• Study lots of systems or technologyStudy lots of systems or technology• Modeling breadth or expertise• Survey understanding only• Excessive workExcessive work


Agenda: June 16





















/*05-07-01


Pharmacology


KPFF





& TechSRG


Furniture


Program





changes


B#15




*Lab and vivarium




Bookend Programming





Team



Genentech PM

SRG Lab Plan

Ken Mouchka

Task 27Task 38

Organization


Task 29

Task 28


Task4 Task22




plan

Turnover reflected

ceiling plan to AEI


Planning


Documentation



and tech space












Weekly Coordination






(20) Incorporate

*Package C skin










Work Process

Meetings








to AEI

– +/Δ Finish








MEP Room Locations

31.* AEI & SRG


Impact of









city Presentation

of Program




stairs


Detailers



Approved



Issue 80% MEP CDs






G accept 13/14

Interface




stairs


completed





for Program


and LFFH

p p p


15/14 Interface

y



Labs

Ass mptionsAssumptions: – Use your computer

You know basic Windows– You know basic Windows– You will learn lots…

• To start: Download softwareTo start: Download software– POP: online through lab– SimVision:

• download .exe file from: http://www.stanford.edu/~kunz/Chalmers/SV42/

• Run startup; authorize (web) – takes a day; run

45

Run startup; authorize (web) takes a day; run SimVision


POP Lab instructions

1 Create a paper description of the basic 9-element matrix structure of a POP1. Create a paper description of the basic 9 element matrix structure of a POP model • Assume a mobil phone (pencil and paper) <- Sketch your simple building• Create a (paper based) POP matrix to record your POP with three

» Rows: Product, Organization, Process» Columns: Functions (i.e., product intent), design Forms (i.e., Scope or

Choices), Behaviors (i.e., Predictions)• Adjust your POP model so there is good consistency of the POP columns• Adjust your POP model so there is good consistency of the POP columns

and rows2. Build POP model of your mobil phone, based on your paper POP summary

from above step3. Submit (as an individual) one-slide image for each of:

• lab POP model annotated to indicate product, organization and process elements with highest weights

• MACDADI assessment of overall design goodness

46

• MACDADI assessment of overall design goodness


POP Lab: Build POP model of an “iPhone-2”

Assume that your project – develop a new mobil phone --i l d th f ll i ifi ti (i P d tincludes the following specifications (i.e., Product Functions):

• Includes a telephone number pad and control buttons p p• Includes a screen to show status that you specify • Includes a battery

I l d ll t d bil h• Includes a small computer and mobil phone transmit/receiver

• Memory capacity that you specify • Energy use is 25% less than 2002 comparables • Case at least 2 different colors

47

Similar for Organization, Process functionsChalmers Virtual Design class

POP Lab methods

First: Identify a set of 3-4 diff t ki d f

Next: Specify the different kinds of questions (with answers) that relate to your project

functions, forms & behaviors of a project to buildy p j

to build your phone:• Describe: what (product)

P di b

project to build these phones:

• Product• Predict: numbers• Explain: why (predicted

value is what it is)

• Product• Organization

Processvalue is what it is)• Evaluate: predicted OK?

• Process


POP Lab methods, continued

• Divide up into teams: • Launch POP tool(2-3 each)– Responsibility:

• Product

• Follow tipsProduct

• Organization• Process

E h C di t ith– Each Coordinate with sister teams to build integrated and consistent POP modelsPOP models


POP lab followupp

Things to note:Things to note:• F,F,B framework: How helpful is it?

Integrated POP model vs individual P• Integrated POP model vs individual P, O and P models: how helpful is it to integrate?integrate?

• Inter-rater variability: individual and i d POP d lintegrated POP models


Skills for success

• Good engineer: design analyze manage• Good engineer: design, analyze, manage• Research methods

C i ti• Communication– Written/Oral

M d l b d i li i– Model-based visualization– Colleagues, sponsors, stakeholders

I t t d f i k f l• Integrated use of quick-response, careful analysis, reflection


Speculations: Virtual Design p gP

ro

Symbolic Model • Objectives • Testing • Representation • Reasoning

U I t f

ojectPha

• User Interfaces • Systems Interfaces

ase

DisciplineDiscipline

Virtual Design will enable a small number of users to do rapid

52

multidisciplinary model-based design and managementChalmers Virtual Design class

What do you have? … What do you want?

2009? 2015?2009?, … 2015?

2009?, … 2015?


Virtual Design Big Ideasg g

• Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) is use of integrated multi-disciplinary performance models of design-construction projects to support (explicit, public)design construction projects to support (explicit, public) business objectives.

RateBaseline

($K) ChangeYear-1

(K$)Revenue 100,000 2% 102,000Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.0% 84,660Cost of self-performed work 10% 10,000 2.0% 12,240Gross Margin 5,000 5,100Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040IT investment 70Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 23Net income 3,000 3,037Time to payback (years) 1.9Net Income change (%) 1.2

*05 -0 7 -0 1

Fin ish

Fin a l Prog ram Co nf irmat ion w ith

Ph a rma c olo gy

Fin a l Prog ram co nf irmat ion w ith L AR

KPFF

SRG La b T as k 37 Ta sk 4 4 Proje ct M gt AEI Co re Ta sk 4 1 T as k2 6 H Blo c k Cre w Ta s k 2 3SRG / AEI T ec hn ica l

AEI Core an dSRG L ab HDCCO Co st ing

SRGT ec hn ica l KPF F

AEI Core a nd Te c h HDCCO Co re

Co de RevCon su lt an t So lve nt T ar t er

H Blo ck Crew& Te c h

SRGLa n ds ca pe

Te le Dat aDes ig n Cod e Re v

Furn itu re

3 7. *Re pro gra m B#1 5 Sh a ft s

3 4. *Fi na lize Ph arma co log y

Pro g ra m

33 . *Fin aliz e L AR Prog ram

3 2. *F ina lize Bio -O rg a nic Ch em ist ry Prog ram

35 . *Fin al ize Pro te in Che mis try

Prog ram 2 0. *De te rmine Sc op e o f p a ck ag e D inc lud in g v ivar iu m

ch an g es

45 . *Comp let e all Bas em en t/L AR Draw ing s

41 . *Re pro gra m bo ok e nd s B# 13 a nd

B#1 5

36 . *Ana lyze st ru c tu ra l imp a ct s

1 2. *Co mp let e UG u tiliit es

2 5. *Do Cen tra l Pla nt de si gn ch an g es

1 9. *De te rmine ve r tic al ut ilit ies

22 . *Co mple te c at wa lk dra win g s

5 2 . Fin aliz e la n ds ca pe

26 . *Fin aliz e B# 13 a nd B#1 5

Ex itin g /arc hit ec ura l H o cc up a nc y c on ce p t

*L ab an d viva r ium

Prog rammin g Co mp let e

2 7. *F ina lize B#1 3 , 15 Sh af t Size &

M EP Ro om Lo ca ti on s

3 1 .* AEI & SRG

De te rmin e Des ig n $ /T ime

Imp a ct of

2 3. *Re pro gra m B# 13 a nd B#1 5

Ext er io r Arc h ite ct ure

Bo ok en d Prog rammi ng

Ac ce pt ed b y Gen e nt ec h

No tic e to pro ce ed o n s tru ct ura l c ha ng es

Arch it ec t pro gra m/MEP

o nc ep ts Est ab lish e d By De si gn

T ea m

29 . *Do cu men t la b p lan

1 . *Red es ig n ma in MEP dis tr ib ut io n s ys te ms

SRG M an a ge men t AEI Ma na g eme nt

Gen en t ec h PM

SRG La b Pla n

Ke n M o uc hk a

T as k 2 7Ta s k 3 8

O rganization

5 . *Fin a lize lab & Equ ip men t pla ns

Ta sk 2 9

T a sk 28

3 0. *Ap pro ve Ch a ng e t o

Des ign Co nt rac t

2 1. *Pre pa re Pla n View s fo r Re vie w o f Con ce pt w /City

3 9. *F ina lize M EP d ist r ibu ti on an d

se ct ion

T as k 4 Ta sk 2 2

Revie w 80 % do c ume nt s

4 8. *De ve lop e xit in g pla n

4 9 . Dev elo p re fle c te d c ei ling

p lan

T u rn o ver re fle ct ed

c e iling p lan t o AEI

Det aile d Des ign 8 0 PC Co mple te

3 . Co mple te T ele Dat a Des ign

42 . *De velo p Ex ec ut io n St rat eg y

44 . *Comp le te B#1 4 Off ic ing

Pla nn ing

18 . *De ta iled L ab Prog ram

Do cu men ta ti on

47 . *De velo p lab DD p la n

2 8. *De te rmin e se g re g at ion of la b

a nd te c h s pa ce

G ac c ep t la b e qu ipme n t ma tr ix

*Pa ck ag e B st ruc tu ral mo d ific at io ns (CCD3 A)

13 . *Cod e Con su lta n ts Re vie w Con ce pt fo r fi na l

c ity Pre s en ta tio n

14 . *HDCCO u pd a te Es tima te o f c os t o f Pro gra m

Re vie w s ki n c ha n ge s w /d b t ea m

L a b Pla nn in g Pro gra m Me et in gs w ith Ph a rma c olo gy

La b p la nn ing Prog ram Me et ing w ith Prot ei nCh emis try

BM S Con tro ls Me et in gs ( We ek ly)

L ab Plan n ing Prog ram me e tin g w it h Bio Orga ni c 8 0% Dra w ing Rev iew

T ele Da ta Coo rdin at io n M ee t ing sSte el De ta ilin g M ee tin gs

Ge ne n te ch 80 % De ta ile d De s ign Re vie w

Fin al Pro g ra m Co nf irmat ion w ith Of fic ing

W ee kly Co ord ina tio n

Me et in gL a b Pla nn in g Pro gra m M e et ing s wit h Dire c to rs

5 0. Des ign a te siz e, lo c at ion of 1 3 M EP, te led a ta roo ms

54 . KPFF de sig n s ta irs fo r 13 /1438 . *SRG

Rep rog ram 13 /14 in te r fa ce , e xit ing ,

s t airs

4 3. *Ch an g es in Ste el F orw ard ed to Ste e l

De ta ile rs

4 6. *RA Fu rnt ure Co nc e pt Comp let e

M EP, Te led a ta roo m de s ign

*De sig n Bu d ge t & Sc he du le fo r Cha ng e s

Ap pro ve d

*Not ice to p ro c ee d wi th de ta ile d d es ig n

24 . *Comp let e B13 ,4 H b loc k oc cu pa n cy

re qu ireme n ts on M EP s ys te ms

17 . *Ris ick rep rog ram so lve nt dis tr ib ut io n a nd w as te

Iss ue 8 0% M EP CDs

(2 0) In co rpo rat e 8 0% MEP revi ew

c omme nt s

(1 9) Gen e nt ec h re vie w 8 0 % d ra w ing s

5 3. In c orp ora te c omme nt s, co mpl et e

Arc h ite ct ura l de t ail

2 . In iti al re de si gn MEP b ra n ch la te ra l d ist r ibu ti on

G ac c ep t 1 3/1 4

Int er f ac e

*City Acc ep t e xit in g

*Pac ka g e C s kin

mod ific a tio ns

5 5. KPF F de s ign st airs fo r 15 /1 4

4 0. *SRG Re pro gra m 1 5/1 4 i nt er fa c e, e x itin g,

st ai rs

B13 M EP HVAC, c o nd uit , p ipin g main s

co mpl et ed

M EP 80 % Re vie w c o mmen ts in c orpo rat e d

Pa ck a ge D an d UG a d de nd um iss ue d :

un d erg ro u nd ut ilit ies , viva r ium c at w alk

10 . Dra ft Alte rn a te mea n s

1 5. Je ff rep rog ram HM IS

(3 ) *AEI de si gn MEP HVAC, Co n du it & pip in g ma in s B1 3

1 6. *HDCCO De te rmine Sc he d ule Imp ac t

Cit y Ap pro val o f Alt ern at e M e an s

fo r Pro gra m

8. Revie w Alte rna te M ea n s w /imp ac t o n LEL

an d L FFH

(2 1- 4) Fin ali ze M EP Det ails , up d at e s pe c s a nd p &ID's

( 8) *Revi se M EP lo ad s , M EP

Eq uip men t s c he du le s

fin al ized

(1 3,1 5 ,16 ) M EP sp ec s, P&ID's , c on tro l s eq ue nc e s

W ork Process

Meet ings

( 6) Coo rd B1 3 MEP flo o r s e ct ion

4 . c omp let e all I nt er io r Arc hi tc tu re

*Cal O SHA Rec omme nd De te rmina tio n of LF FH

51 . De sig n at e s ize , lo ca tio n o f 1 4 MEP, te le da ta roo ms G ac c ep t

1 5/1 4 Int er f ac e

*Acc e pt pro jec t sc o pe :bu d ge t by Ge n en te ch

*Cit y App rov al o f H Con ce pt

*Ext er io r Pro g ra mmin g

Acc ep te d by Ge ne n te ch

*Tu rno ve r l ab an d viva r ium DD p la n

to AEI
















• Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) is a social method to create and evaluate multi-discipline, multi-stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.stakeholder VDC models extremely rapidly.


Documents

Virtual DesignVirtual Design - web.stanford.edukunz/Chalmers/W1.pdf · SRG Management AEI Management Genentech PM SRG Lab Plan Ken Mouchka Task 27 Task 38 Organization Task 2 9 Task