Impact of Design

Sounds like something that would have stemmed from the MacLeamy curve...maybe just Google that and you can narrow more specifically from the results what you're looking for?

Here you go:  Page 327 of  "Building in Value: Pre-Design Issues" edited by Rick Best, Gerard de Valence (2013) has a figure 20.2 that cites "Average annual office expenditure, (Romm and Browning, 1994 page 30)"  Next page shows figure 20.4 Design fees as a percentage of project life costs. (Peck, 1993, page 56)   Sustainable Construction By Sandy Halliday (Routeledge, 2008) has a similar but uncited chart and discussion on page 79.   Screenshots are linked below. Amazing what Google Books turned up.... 

Actually that's not the message in the MacLeamy curve (named for former HOK CEO Patrick MacLeamywho created the graph that shows the importance of early investment in integrative design/BIM to reduce changes/cost overruns in later phases.) This one came from research that rolled out with early LEED as I recall. I can't remember the source though! I'll ponder. MAL Mary Ann Lazarus maryannlazarus2@gmail.com mobile: 314.805.9332

found this version which has a reference. Maybe there are newer ones? [image: Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 8.54.44 PM.png] Mary Ann Lazarus maryannlazarus2@gmail.com mobile: 314.805.9332

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bUlBYc_Gl4 A video from 2010 of Patrick MacLeamy explaining the curve.  

Mary Ann - I don't see the image - can you re-upload? thanks!

The source I found for that particular chart (also referenced over and over, most recently in WELL building standard materials) is the Sustainable Building Technical Manual, in the beginning in a narrative about economics by David Gottfiried (1994). JW

A Tale of Two Charts...
To John's original question about the chart showing the total cost of ownership for a building as 1-2% Design & Construction, 10-20% Maintenance and Energy, and 80-85% Salaries of Occupants -  It's interesting that the references we are finding seem to all come from the early 90's. As Mary Ann mentioned, it would be nice to have more recent data or research if anyone knows of any.   Thanks for the video of Patrick MacLeamy on the Effort Curve and cost impacts of project phases- that's great to have the original source! One critique of the Macleamy curve I got from a principal many years ago: he felt it was often presented in a way that ignores the "economic realities" of commercial real estate. His argument was that while it's compelling to advocate for more design effort at the early phases, there is usually very little fee available and clients, architects, and engineers are at greater financial risk since so many projects don't pencil and move past the early concept phases.  That got me thinking about the "Ecology of Money" and how a lot of design decisions that impact performance get baked in early in the process of determining feasibility (code, zoning, space planning, rentable area, ROM construction costs...) because of financial drivers in our business practices. Decision makers are compelled to see any "extra" analysis of energy, ecology, carbon, etc as increasing their financial risk. Yes, it's short-term, project management risk, not long-term, cost-of-ownership risk... but our own firm financial risk management and contracts can re-enforce that tension between short-term and long-term thinking.  If we recognize this aspect of risk/ tension that inhibits early design analysis and effort, it might help us make more compelling case for shifting our research effort and risk. Stuff we all do and talk about already: quick, schematic energy tools; case studies and examples of life-cycle cost analysis; shared research...    Preaching to the choir, I know... but the questions got me thinkin' (Forums can be a rabbit-hole of Architectural Distraction Disorder)!       

[image: Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 8.54.44 PM.png] Mary Ann Lazarus maryannlazarus2@gmail.com mobile: 314.805.9332

John - thanks for starting this thread! And thanks David and others for the great comments. I find the following lines from Paul Hawken's 'Natural Capitalism' (also late 90's) useful: 

• <quoting efficiency expert Joseph Romm> "By the time the design for most human artifacts is completed but before they have actually been built, about 80-90% of their lifecycle economic and ecological cost have already been made inevitable...Although up-front building and design costs may represent only a fraction of the building's life-cycle costs, when just 1% of a project's upfront costs are spent, up to 85% of life-cycle costs have been committed."
• Leading PH to assert that: "We can make no better higher-leverage investments for the future than improving the quality of designers 'mindware'..."  He goes on to provide examples of how the ROI for these investments is from 100-1000 fold. And when factoring in the added productivity of healthier inhabitants this skyrockets to 1M (p112)
• He (PH) also stresses the importance of holistic approaches - which I think are imperative for changing not just the math but the 'mindware' that drives its models: "The greater the degree to which the components of a system are optimized together, the more the trade-offs and compromises that seem inevitable at the individual component level becomes unnecessary. These processes create synergies and felicities for the entire system. And this in turn exposes a core economic assumption as a myth."  (Another goodie here is Wendel Berry's Solving for Pattern (1981)
• <all the above quotes from Ch6 - link to full online version of the text graciously provided by PH here>

I don't know about the US, but in Canada these reframings become all more important in the context of the areas identified by our Federal government as key barriers to innovation (per their 2018 long-range infrastrucutre report) - these being: "a lack of capacity during the pre-development phase, exacerbated by a lack of data and lack of capacity for asset management".  And irrespective of gaps, the magnitude of these opportunities right now is unparalleled given the confluence of our closing window for action and massive pending infrastructure stimulus. If anyone wants to go down this rabbit hole further, I am in the early throws of a PhD on related topics - essentially looking at myth-busting and capacity-building to build the business case for shifting from sustainable to regenerative development and from capital asset management to 'civic asset stewardship'* - and the tools, 'mindware' and 'innovation infrastructure' needed to support it. I would greatly value any / all casual insights, and if interest in being involved in a more formal advisory constellation, please let me know and I will follow up separately with more info (oh, and I'm also still shopping for funding in case anyone has leads on / connections with recommended funding partners;) with gratitude, J *Civic Asset Stewardship: term coined by me (as far as I can tell). Please feel free to use it with CC share-alike love.  And if you see it used earlier elsewhere please LMK so I can share the love accordingly.