CREDIT Performance Indicator Framework - A proposal based on studies of building cases, regulations, standards and research in seven Nordic and Baltic countries. CREDIT Report 3.

This CREDIT Report 3 'CREDIT Performance Indicator Framework' presents
a framework of building costs, performance and impact indicators. The framework is an endeavor to map and communicate many and differing approaches and perspectives on building and real estate in one model. The
general and specific objectives of the research on the performance indicator
framework were to:
– Improve transparent value creation in both construction and real estate.
– Develop an international performance classification framework focusing
on the first step needed by the Nordic and Baltic countries.
– Provide recommendations for international key indicators for buildings.
– Focus on performance demands and requirements to buildings to satisfy
the end-user needs and functions of the building rather than to follow a
prescriptive approach.
– Distinguish between the demand and the supply perspective in the construction and facility management process.
– Secure that the needed performance information is available throughout
the life cycle of the building.
The performance indicator framework developed in CREDIT is a 'gross' inventory of indicators relevant in relation to building and real estate in the seven Nordic and Baltic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania. The content of the report is based on
CREDIT Report 1, State of the Art, the findings in 28 CREDIT case studies
as well as on input from national building regulations and standards on selected research topics. The performance indicator framework was developed
concurrently with the case studies and experience with assessment tools,
enterprises, buildings and international benchmarking reported in CREDIT
Reports 2, 4 and 5.
Performance indicators in seven independent facets A simple and understandable structure of indicators in seven independent facets was developed in CREDIT. They range from hard-core measurable indicators to soft, qualitative and hardly measurable indicators. The first facet
included costs and price through the life cycle of the building. The five next facets addressed performance of location, building, building parts, facility management and process. They all included objective measurable performance indicators and indicators that addressed less measurable properties as well as the users' experience and feelings. The final facet focused on the impact of the building on the external environment, social life and economy.
1 Costs, price and life cycle economy (LCE)
2 Location, plot, region and country
3 Building performance and indoor environment
4 Building part and product performance
5 Facility performance in operation and use
6 Process performance in design and construction
7 Impact environmentally, socially and economically
These 7 facets were divided into sub-facets, which in turn were divided into
sub-facets covering a total of 187 indicators.The performance indicator framework encompassed two different ways of looking at the building, depending on which relation you have to it:
– The building viewed from within as the occupier or owner of the building
– The building viewed from without as the surrounding society
Because of its inclusive character, the CREDIT performance indicator
framework could work as a tool to improve the performance of buildings as
well as the cooperation between the parties in the construction and real estate sectors.
Product and process performance indicators
User's experience and feelings are important and therefore they were included in five of the seven facets: location, building performance, building parts performance, facility management, and process performance. This was done with the intent to focus on values as well as end-user needs rather than prices, costs and standard of execution and equipment.
In the study it was also important to get a better understanding of how the built environment could create value for the users and thereby increase the outcome of activities housed in the building. One focus was therefore the assessing of indicators that were directly linked to the building or the perception of it.
It turned out to be the main topic in the performance indicator framework presented in the report. A second focus was the assessing of indicators and how we link the productivity of the enterprises involved and the different processes in construction and real estate. The report presents process indicators to support the primary focus in the building sector today. The third focus of the study was to change the focus from the building as an expense to how it could be a social and economic advantage for the business and the activities in the building in use. It appears in the CREDIT performance indicator framework as a new approach in several facets and levels, and it might be a new positive way to push the development forwards in the future.
Performance indicators and the phases of the buildings life cycle
The CREDIT Indicators have three different purposes depending on where
and when in the building process they are addressed. In the initial phases
they serve as specifications or requirements in the briefing and programming
phases. During design and construction phase they serve as guidelines for
the design and how to compare qualities and properties of building and
component in order to comply with the requirements. After completion, they
serve as tools to assess the performance, quality or economic potential of
the finished building as a delivery to facility management and the users of
the building. It is important that these three purposes in the practical application of the CREDIT performance indicator framework are carefully interlinked and information is reused to improve the process performance.
Key performance indicators
The CREDIT case studies showed that a few indicators turned up in all
cases or in relation to all building types and therefore could be common key
performance indicators in CREDIT. These few common key indicators were
of a basic character namely: location, building type, size/area and price/-
costs. Otherwise the indicators varied primarily depending on the purpose of
the assessment and on the user or recipient of the assessment. There did
not seem to be a strong linkage between particular indicators and specific
building types. Therefore CREDIT recommended that several sets of key
performance indicators should be defined, reflecting the needs of specific
user/recipients (end-user, client, authorities, contractors, consultants) of the assessments as well as sets that reflect the needs linked to particular phases in the life cycle of the building. With the interests and needs of the building owner/client in mind, CREDIT proposes a set of 10 key indicators with indicators from all facets of the classification framework and on various levels of facets. Other proposals could be prepared in the future as alternatives.
Readiness of the performance indicators
The various indicators described in the report were at very different stages
concerning their readiness for inclusion in national or cross- boarder benchmarking. Some of the indicators were already being applied in national
benchmarking, international certification schemes in many or all the countries in CREDIT and they were covered by international standards. This included many but not all the indicators on indoor climate, energy efficiency, environmental impact and facility management. To use these indicators in cross-boarder benchmarking, would require translation and harmonisation.
Other groups of indicator were not quite as readily applicable in benchmarking let alone in cross boarder benchmarking. This included areas like process performance and life cycle costing, both of which were covered by international standards. In these areas the barrier was the differences in the charts of accounts, making up of amounts and sizes both on national as well as international level.
A third group consisted of indicators that were possible to distinguish only in two classes, compliance with building regulations or not. This group included such areas as accessibility, construction safety and fire safety. The reason why they were not applicable right now differs.
A fourth group consisted of indicators of a relative character. This included indicators addressing usability, architectural or aesthetic quality and cultural heritage. Some of these indicators were included in international standards, but were not defined in acknowledgement of the relative character of these issues that either depends on building function or on cultural or national values.