Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

employees at different levels in the organization were gathered. However, the conference wasnot intended as an arena for building consensus on quantifications of future hospital capacity.Figure 3. Relation between conceptual design, process analysis, organisational developmentand the design of the hospitalConceptualdesign (HFP)ProcessanalysisBuildingdesignOrganisationaldevelopmentThe process analysis appears torn by different output needs. With reference to Figure 3, theprocess analysis should provide input to both building design and organisational development.To provide fruitful input to building design, results from process analysis were often toogeneral. Efforts had to be made to quantify the output, using experience data and prognoses.As the results from process analysis were formatted to provide relevant input to the buildingdesign, they appear to have become less suitable to serve as a basis for organisationaldevelopment. Finally, results from process analysis lost some of its edge when the conceptualdesign (HFP) were developed in parallel. Moreover, the HFP2 provided a more definitiveoutput in terms of available area, standards and similar parameters.CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONIn this paper we discussed how the process analysis contributed to four key success factors inhospital projects: efficiency, effectiveness, user involvement and flexibility. The first researchquestion was related to what extent the process analysis provided the necessary input to thehospital design. The second research question addressed to what extent process analysisfacilitated user involvement and organisational development.The process analysis should provide input to both building design and organisationaldevelopment. Regarding input to building design, the conceptual design (HFP) delivered amore definitive output than the process analyse.The process analysis did achieve user involvement. However, the experiences from thebottom-up approach pointed to the need to establish a strategic framework for the analysis.
User involvement also generated expectations. All desired features and volume of the newhospital building was not possible to combine within the allocated recourses. As a result ofthis the process analyses of the second phase had more elements of a top-down approach withmore intensive involvement of leadership in the first steps to define goals, priorities etc, andan emphasis on providing more facts when starting the group work. The group work was alsomore focused due to a more defined mandate owing to focus on critical aspects and processes.The learning curve for all parts involved in the process analyses in phase 2 was quite steep.One insight was that there was need of more defined direction, priorities and goals in the earlysteps of the process analyses. This also includes consensus related to facts and definitionssuch as in the HFP.The transfer from analysis to decision making proved challenging for two reasons: Firstly,user involvement also generated user expectations. Secondly, the decision process required ahigher level of detail, while the process analysis by nature was more conceptual. On aconceptual level, most stakeholders could agree on desirable solutions. As the level of detailincreased, so did the awareness of different group interests. The pressure to summariseprocess analysis results into straight forward decision supporting facts was related to projectefficiency. The design and construction project needed clarifications to be able to continue.Lack of clarifications meant delays and increased project-related costs. Project efficiency is akey issue when explaining why the process analysis was carried out as it was.An overall objective of the process analysis was effectiveness in terms of a suitable futurehospital building. One aspect of effectiveness of a hospital building project is the cost andquality level of the operation in the new building (the processes within a new hospital). Thesame cost and quality measures will be related to efficiency of the hospital, when the newbuildings are taken into use. In other words, the efficiency in the hospital (once it is built andtaken into use) is one dimension of effectiveness of the construction.Effectiveness in the future hospital was measured and interpreted in many ways by thedifferent involved stakeholders. Future cost of operation was one aspect. Ability toaccommodate future patient volumes was another key issue. Suitable working conditions forhospital staff was yet a concern. Given the long time frame and present rate of change inhealth care, flexibility is another aspect of effectiveness in hospital buildings. Regardingflexibility, our experience is that extensive user involvement does not necessarily ensurefuture flexibility. Especially in the “locking phase” when the results from the process analysiswere converted to hard facts for decision support, the reference point to most stakeholderswas the present situation; do we get more or less than we have now; are present trends takeninto consideration?ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors want to thank Asmund Myrbostad for valuable discussions related to the paper.
Page 1 and 2:
ISBN 82-471-8121-5 (printed ver.)IS
Page 3:
Preface and AcknowledgementsThe wor
Page 7 and 8:
Table of ContentsPreface and Acknow
Page 9 and 10:
Paper OverviewThe following papers
Page 11 and 12:
AbstractTraditionally, projects ten
Page 13 and 14:
alternative use. There are indicati
Page 15 and 16:
1. Introduction1. IntroductionThis
Page 17 and 18:
1. IntroductionFlexible projects ar
Page 19 and 20:
1. IntroductionA literature review
Page 21 and 22:
2. Study design2. Study designThe r
Page 23 and 24:
2. Study designInformation Content
Page 25 and 26:
3. Flexibility in different project
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
4. Project stakeholders4. Project s
Page 33 and 34:
4. Project stakeholdersmandatory qu
Page 35 and 36:
4. Project stakeholdersBased on res
Page 37 and 38:
5. Effectiveness and efficiency5. E
Page 39 and 40:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyconf
Page 41 and 42:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyDegr
Page 43 and 44:
6. Project flexibility categorisati
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
7. Conclusions7. ConclusionsThis th
Page 51 and 52:
7. ConclusionsProject phasesFlexibi
Page 53 and 54:
7. ConclusionsEnablersThis thesis r
Page 55 and 56:
7. Conclusions16, Figure 17, and Fi
Page 57 and 58:
7. Conclusions4. AbsorptionAbsorpti
Page 59 and 60:
7. ConclusionsThere appears to be a
Page 61 and 62:
ReferencesAbbot, A. & Banerji, K. 2
Page 63 and 64:
Gareis, R. 2004. Maturity of the Pr
Page 65 and 66:
Miller, R. & Lessard, D. 2000. The
Page 67 and 68:
Part 2.
Page 69 and 70:
Paper 1.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. Manage
Page 71 and 72:
N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Paper 2.Magnussen, O.M. & Olsson, N
Page 81 and 82:
282 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
Page 83 and 84:
284 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
Page 85 and 86: 286 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
Page 87 and 88: 288 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
Page 89 and 90: Projects trapped in their freedom:
Page 91 and 92: 1. IntroductionThe purpose of this
Page 93 and 94: project phases: preparation, freezi
Page 95 and 96: establish realistic cost and time f
Page 97 and 98: 4. ResultsIn the following, the emp
Page 99 and 100: lowered the quality but the volume
Page 101 and 102: Percent ofproject onSize of remaini
Page 103 and 104: flexibility is introduced by the us
Page 105 and 106: 100 %First official estimateApprova
Page 107 and 108: ReferencesAndersen, B., Fagerhaug,
Page 109 and 110: Paper 4.Olsson, N.O.E. 2004. ‘Fle
Page 111 and 112: The concept of project flexibilityF
Page 113 and 114: 3. CONCLUSIONSWhat seems to be impl
Page 115 and 116: Paper 5.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. ‘Imp
Page 117 and 118: 558 N. O. E. Olsson et al.ex-post s
Page 119 and 120: 560 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 1.O
Page 121 and 122: 562 N. O. E. Olsson et al.and actua
Page 123 and 124: 564 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 3.
Page 125 and 126: 566 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 7.S
Page 127 and 128: 568 N. O. E. Olsson et al.with a wi
Page 129 and 130: Paper 6.Henriksen, B., Olsson, N. &
Page 131 and 132: In this paper we use the process an
Page 133 and 134: PROCESS ANALYSIS IN THE PLANNING OF
Page 135: final framework for expected patien
Page 139: Paper 7.Olsson, N.O.E. & Samset, K.
Page 155 and 156: Project flexibility and front-end m
Page 157 and 158: uncertainty. External flexibility c
Page 159 and 160: 5.2. Flexibility in decision proces
Page 161 and 162: Degree of redundancySlackPrecisionC
show all

Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?