DF45 Brochure
User Manual: DF45
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 32
CIBSE ANZ 1/2014
The
Soft Landings
Framework
Australia and
New Zealand
For better brieng, handover and building performance in-use
www.softlandings.org.au
In response to the on-going challenges of providing
buildings that deliver best practice, not only in design
but in construction and through into reliable long term
operation, the Australian and New Zealand Region of
the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
(CIBSE ANZ) hosted a series of seminars throughout the
ANZ Region. The objective of the seminar series was to
bring to the attention of building services professionals
across all spectrums of the industry the benets of
applying the Soft Landings Framework to supporting
building design and delivery.
Representatives attending the CIBSE ANZ seminar series included
architects, services consultants, construction contractors, owner’s,
agents, occupiers and operations managers. The series culminated
in the convening of an industry group to help broaden the scope
and knowledge of Soft Landings within Australia and New Zealand.
This version of the Framework is the outcome of these efforts. It has
been developed and tailored to the needs and specic contexts of
Australia and New Zealand such that it can be more readily applied
to the ANZ construction industry
This Soft Landings Framework has been adapted for Australia and
New Zealand from the original authored by Mark Way of the Darwin
Consultancy and Bill Bordass of the Usable Buildings Trust, with
assistance from Adrian Leaman and Building Use Studies, and
Roderic Bunn of BSRIA.
Development of the Soft Landings Framework Australia and
New Zealand was led by an industry Task Group convened by the
Australia and New Zealand Region of The Chartered Institution of
Building Services Engineers (CIBSE ANZ) and adapted and revised
from the original by the following and is issued for initial comment
and use:
Justin Hill (Beca)
Philip Cowling (Cromwell Property Group)
Roderic Bunn (BSRIA)
Stephen Hennessy (WT Sustainability)
This Australia and New Zealand version of the Framework is adapted
from the Soft Landings methodology devised by Mark Way and
developed in 2012/13 with an Australia and New Zealand Soft Landings
Steering and Support Group comprised of the following organisations:
Beca
BSRIA
CIBSE (ANZ Region)
Cromwell Property Group
WT Sustainability
Support for the publication of this Australia and New Zealand
version of the Framework has been provided by ARBS as part of
their on-going commitment for the promotion and education of air
conditioning, refrigeration and building services engineering.
Soft Landings logo reproduced under licence from BSRIA
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
For better brieng, design, handover and building performance in-use
Rights to use and adapt the content of the Soft Landings Framework has been granted by BSRIA to CIBSE ANZ. The content of the Australia
and New Zealand edition is copyright CIBSE ANZ. Permission is granted to users to reproduce and modify extracts for practical application.
Unless otherwise agreed with the publisher all published extracts must carry the following acknowledgment: “Reproduced from the Soft
Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand, published by CIBSE ANZ.”
CIBSE ANZ 1/2014 August 2014 ISBN 978-1-906846-44-2
Acknowledgements
02 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
All buildings are prototypes to one degree or another. No two are
ever the same. To the untrained eye a fully-glazed ofce block may
look identical to its neighbour, but such supercial similarities can
be misleading. Every building is a response to its local context,
the needs and expectations of its owner or developer, the budget,
the time taken to build or refurbish it, and the use to which it
is subsequently put. One of the problems of a one-size-ts-all
perspective is that we often fail to recognise the inherent fragilities
in design decisions, and the critical importance of installing,
commissioning and nishing things off properly. On top of that,
we presume that occupants and maintenance staff will instantly
understand what they’ve been given. But all these assumptions
are awed. What works in one context might fail in another simply
because a design feature isn’t appropriate. It might be because of
a lack of attention to detail, a failure to design or install properly,
or simply unwillingness to support and familiarise occupants with
often highly complex air-conditioning and lighting systems.
Construction professionals are also not incentivised to follow-
through after completion to make sure everything works as it
should, and to support the occupiers through the rst few months
of operation. Resolving defects and snags is not the same as
ensuring good performance, and matching that performance
against whatever targets the client has set. Furthermore, design
professionals rarely go back to study and analyse their projects.
It’s not in their training, it’s not part of their culture, and it’s not
what they are contracted to do. There is also a fundamental belief
that design inputs are the same as operational outcomes, and that
every input will work as intended. Builders and contractors fall into
the same trap. They won’t do anything outside the terms of their
contract on the basis that it will increase their exposure to risk. The
whole of construction can therefore operate as an open loop system,
rather than a closed loop system where feedback from performance
is captured to improve design and construction practice.
All this means that clients and their construction delivery teams
are effectively ying blind in terms of delivering well-performing
buildings. Is it any wonder that energy use, carbon dioxide
emissions, and other performance targets, such as occupant
satisfaction and well-being, rarely match the design ambitions?
And the closer we try to get to the cutting edge of performance on
any of these factors, the less likely we are to achieve it.
Soft Landings is the antidote to these problems.
At its core is a greater involvement by designers and
constructors with building users and operators before,
during, and after building handover.
It emphasises the need for earlier and deeper dialogue between
the client, end-users and operators in order to inform the
client’s requirements, and the design brief that ows from those
requirements. It calls for feedback analysis of earlier projects,
a greater understanding of the risks that may compromise
performance, and a greater diligence in managing those
risks during the project delivery phase. It introduces a period
of extended handover and professional aftercare - the new
professional duties which gives Soft Landings its name.
Many people say: “Hang on, I already do a lot of this, and it’s mostly
common sense anyway.” That is true. If Soft Landings is anything,
it’s the application of common sense. The trouble is, along with
quality, common sense tends to be sacriced in the urge to design
and build quickly, get paid and get off site as soon as possible. And
while one individual may practice common sense, for some reason
it seems to be in short supply elsewhere in the project team. The
whole-team adoption and systematic application of Soft Landings
worksteps, as laid out in this guide, will ensure that common sense
is practiced by everyone on the entire project team, collaboratively,
and to a shared set of objectives. What’s more, it provides a robust
chassis to carry other performance-enhancing mechanisms, such as
the NABERS and NABERSNZ energy rating schemes.
From my perspective, it is both cheering and satisfying to see the
Soft Landings Framework adopted in Australia and New Zealand.
We in the UK look enviously at some of the real advances Australia
and New Zealand has made, particularly the NABERS and Green
Star schemes, and we acknowledge the evident commitment that
construction professionals have in improving the performance of
their buildings. I hope their efforts inspire
other countries and regions to tailor Soft
Landings to suit their needs and local contexts.
Roderic Bunn,
BSRIA Soft Landings, September 2014
Introduction;
Why bother
with Soft Landings?
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 03
Many buildings suffer
a ‘hard landing’ due
to the rigid separation
between construction and
operation, telescoping of
commissioning periods
and complication, or
unfamiliar techniques and
technologies.
Soft Landings is not
just about better
commissioning. It is the
golden thread running
through the project from
inception to post handover.
“While there are outstanding examples of delivery of high
performance buildings in Australia, there are still some not so
good examples. Frameworks that make excellence in delivery
the consistent outcome are much needed, so, I welcome
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand”
Bruce Precious
National Manager – Environment & Reporting, The GPT Group
04 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
06 The birth of Soft Landings
08 Background to Soft Landings
10 Introduction to the Soft Landings process
14 Stage 1: Inception and brieng
16 Stage 2: Design development and review
18 Stage 3: Pre-handover
20 Stage 4: Initial aftercare
22 Stage 5: Years 1–3 Extended aftercare and
post-occupancy evaluation
Appendices
24 Appendix A: Example worksheets
Contents
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 05
The following is the original introduction to the 2009 UK Soft Landings
Framework, written by the method’s creator, architect Mark Way.
As an architect I used to design buildings, get them built, hand them
over, and then move on to the next job. This was rarely the end of the
matter: I had to respond to things that came up during the defects
liability period, and help with the nal account – routine procedures
that had to be followed. Along with most of my fellow professionals,
my post-handover connection with the building in use was largely
reactive. However, I felt that the accumulation of experience could be
put to better use if one could head off issues before they happened.
This meant knowing more about the building in use.
In the late 1990s, as a project director, I found myself
regularly calling in to check progress with the client
at the tail end of a particularly leading-edge building
RMJM had designed for a major pharmaceutical
company. My team had put a lot of brainpower into the
project and it would be a pity if this was undermined
by the usual post-handover minor glitches that could
easily be allowed to mutate into chronic problems. This
happened to coincide with a prolonged user occupation
programme and offered a golden opportunity to be
around while staff were beginning to work there. I
borrowed a typical ofce as a base and used its facilities
just like any member of staff, while observing the
building in use and the occupants at work.
This short period in residence was a transforming experience,
providing major insights that I had suspected, but not experienced in
thirty years of professional practice. I saw people not understanding
how things were supposed to work, such as the BMS-linked solar
blinds, and was able to explain the design intent to them. I could
often spot things not working properly before the users did, such as
over-zealous presence-detected lighting, head-off potential problems,
and organise follow-up. I learnt about things that were good but which
users didn’t understand. I found well-intended design features that
fell at the rst fence when used by non-architects, in other words the
average building user.
In a subsequent project at Cambridge University, David Adamson, the
Director of Estates, asked me to give one of a series of lectures. It was
around the time of the last nancial crisis and there was much talk of
hard or soft landing of the global economy (where clearly lessons are
not learnt). I picked up the theme in my talk, and Soft Landings for
buildings was born.
The Soft Landings research
David Adamson then wondered whether the approach might become
more of a standard procedure, which resulted in the next stage of
development. Supported by the University Estates Department I led
a project guided by a panel of designers, project managers and client
representatives that investigated what might need to be done. In time,
we were joined by Bill Bordass of the Usable Buildings Trust (UBT), and
the team drew on a rather similar idea known as Sea Trials, together
with other recommendations from the PROBE series of post-occupancy
surveys.
In 2004 we produced preliminary documentation, in the form of a
scope of service document set for Soft Landings1. Since then, team
members and others have been applying parts of the service in some
of their projects. The results have been insightful, but mostly restricted
to the rms that were members of the original development team,
and those in close touch with them.2
When we began, some expected us to come up with a completely new
procurement process. The difculty of this soon became apparent as a
wide range of contracts and processes are already deeply embedded
with standard forms, agreed procedures and so on. So, at best, Soft
Landings was likely to be regarded as yet another process among
many. Instead, we saw it as a golden thread which could run alongside
any procurement process, improving the setting of design targets,
the managing of expectations with a focus on outcomes, reinforcing
activities in the weeks immediately before and after handover, and
providing a natural route for feedback and post-occupancy evaluation.
Some were keen to explore whether nancial penalties could be
attached to the attainment of agreed performance targets. After
considering this in some depth, we recommended against it, owing
to the expense of setting-up a legally-defensible system, uncertainties
about metrics, the difculties in dividing any responsibility for
outcomes between all the parties concerned (not least the occupiers
and facilities managers), and the fact that the industry is (as yet)
The birth of
Soft Landings
06 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
largely unfamiliar with the true in-use performance of the buildings it
produces. Instead, we felt that Soft Landings needed to be undertaken
in a spirit of learning and continuous improvement, or possibly with
a nancial incentive which would be easier to organise and to share
out than a penalty. After a few years, designers and builders may
have become sufciently condent to be able to offer guaranteed
performance. But to start with, we need to learn in a no-blame
situation; otherwise onerous requirements may actually stie the
purposeful innovation that we need to produce better buildings with
far fewer environmental consequences.
Next steps
With the challenges of more sustainable buildings now hard upon
us, there has been increasing interest in scaling-up Soft Landings.
This Framework is the fruit of these efforts and sets the overall scene.
Detailed development will be tailored to the needs of specic contexts.
The world is becoming aware of the need to reduce building energy
use and carbon emissions. There is also growing interest in post-
occupancy evaluation (POE). Less well-appreciated is the fundamental
importance of integrated feedback, feed-forward of lessons learned
into the later stages of the construction and handover process and
POE to the development and renement of the new techniques and
technologies. These actions are central to ensuring that sustainable
strategies work in practice.
I hope that this Framework for Soft Landings will
interest and inspire clients, designers, builders,
occupiers and managers around the world, be of
immediate practical utility to those who want to make
building design and construction more performance-
driven, and narrow the credibility gaps that often yawn
between expectations and outcomes.
Mark Way, June 2009
1 WORKSHEETS IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT ARE BASED ON AND ADAPTED FROM THIS SOURCE.
2 THE AWARENESS-RAISING DOCUMENTS ON SOFT LANDINGS, PUBLISHED IN 2008 BY BSRIA AND THE USABLE BUILDINGS TRUST, INCLUDE EXAMPLES FROM TWO AWARD-WINNING BUILDINGS:
THE MATHEMATICS FACULTY AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND HEELIS, THE NATIONAL TRUST’S HEAD OFFICE IN SWINDON.
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 07
Over the past decade the ANZ region has seen a growing expectation
for increased sustainability, energy efciency and occupant satisfaction
to be provided in new and existing buildings. Owners, occupiers,
Governments, and society are looking to the construction industry to
meet increasingly challenging targets: building owners seek robust
sustainable investments, economically delivered to meet occupant
demands whilst treading lightly on the environment.
Whilst a number of new buildings are being delivered to meet increasingly
higher standards of sustainability and energy efciency, through
accreditation systems such as the Green Building Council of Australia
Green Star rating, National Australian Built Environmental Rating Scheme
(NABERS) and NABERSNZ, the construction industry and its clients do not
yet have the right structures in place to reliably and repeatedly deliver
these improvements. Surveys of recently completed buildings regularly
reveal substantial shortfalls between client and design expectations
and delivered performance – the performance gap – especially energy
performance.
There are many reasons for this, including:
•
Many designers do not take sufcient account of how occupiers will
ultimately use and manage buildings and the equipment they introduce1.
• General ‘spec built’ designs are not sufciently exible to
accommodate tenancy t-outs and their operating equipment
without detrimental impacts to the base building performance and
performance compromises to the t-out.
• Achieving performance is becoming increasingly dependent on
high technology solutions that require careful attention during
installation and specialist aftercare if they are to work as intended.
Pre-handover commissioning is seldom enough.
• Post tuning obligations are focused on the defects liability
period and often concentrate on demonstrating delivery of the
contract obligations without consideration to occupant comfort or
operational efciency opportunities.
• Solutions that look good in design calculations can often prove to
be too complicated to be manageable, both through the design
and delivery process and particularly in use. Designers can easily
forget that management is a scarce resource, as can those procuring
clients who do not have a direct involvement in building operation.
An underlying problem is that designers and builders are typically
appointed on contracts that focus on achieving practical completion
with obligations post practical completion focussed on the defects
liability period, which is normally only 12 months. They are seldom
asked or paid to follow-through afterwards, to pass on their knowledge
to occupiers and management, or to learn from the interaction.
Consequently, the industry is missing opportunities for improving
the knowledge base of its people, its organisations, and indeed for
everybody and not unlocking all the value in the buildings it creates.
Nor does it fully understand what it is creating, what works well, and
what needs to be impr oved. One might be tempted to blame the
industry for this, but the causes are more deeply rooted, making it
difcult for anybody to step far out of line.
The rigid separation between construction and operation
means that many buildings are handed over in a state of
poor operational readiness and suffer a ‘hard landing’,
particularly – as often happens – when delays have led to
the telescoping of the commissioning period. Problems
can be worst where complicated or unfamiliar techniques
and technologies are used and nobody can understand
why, or what they need to do. If the problems are not
dealt with rapidly, occupants’ initial enthusiasm can
easily turn into disappointment.
Background to
Soft Landings
Designing for manageability; A note by the Usable Buildings Trust (UBT)
The UBT’s studies of buildings in use suggest that they fall into four main groups.
TYPE A: These are complicated, require lots of management to look after the complication, and get it. They can work well, but tend to be expensive to run and
fragile, as their performance can collapse in bad times.
TYPE B: These are less complicated, require less effort to run, and are more robust. We need many more of these, particularly in the public sector, as high
maintenance is ultimately unaffordable and unsustainable.
TYPE C: This is unfortunately where all too many buildings that aspire to be Type A end up. They are too complicated, need too much money and
management to look after, and end up delivering poor value.
TYPE D: These buildings receive more care and attention than they deserve. They are procured, designed, built, operated and often occupied by
dedicated enthusiasts. They can achieve excellent performance – and sometimes they are demonstration projects – but they are not necessarily
replicable in the real world.
As a general rule, beware Type A, try to do more of Type B, avoid Type C, and question Type D
08 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Doing things differently
To meet these changing expectations and to reduce the gaps between
predicted and achieved performance, the design and construction
professions must not only focus on technical inputs, but also put
much more emphasis on in-use performance strategies. The desired
operational outcomes need to be considered at the very earliest stages
of procurement, managed right through the project and reviewed in use.
This culture shift in the way buildings are delivered will require:
• Better and more direct understanding of how buildings are actually
used and managed.
• Integration of follow-through and feedback into clients’
appointments and industry procurement processes.
• Better review and reality checking and ne-tuning during the
procurement process.
• Closer links between design, construction, operation, research and
development, so that experience gained on all projects is rapidly
internalised, digested and fed-forward to inform existing projects
and future work.
The industry and its clients must move fast; especially to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, which otherwise threaten to trigger rapid
climate change. The challenge is immense and time is short; buildings
last a long time, but the industry changes slowly.
The required alterations are radical, but we need ways of
making an orderly transition from existing procedures to
improved procedures.
The purpose of Soft Landings
Soft Landings can be used for new construction, refurbishment and
alteration. It is designed to smooth the transition into use and to
address problems that post- occupancy evaluations (POE) show to be
widespread. It is not just about better commissioning and ne tuning,
though for many buildings commissioning can only be completed
properly once the building has encountered the full range of weather
and operating conditions.
Soft Landings starts by raising awareness of performance in use in the
early stages of brieng and feasibility, helps to set realistic targets,
and assigns responsibilities. It then assists the management of
expectations through design, construction and commissioning, and
into initial operation, with particular attention to detail in the weeks
immediately before and after handover. Extended aftercare, with
monitoring, performance reviews and feedback helps occupants to
make better use of their buildings, while clients, designers, builders
and managers gain a better understanding of what to do next time.
Soft Landings can run alongside any procurement process as well as
environmental rating schemes2, where it can also help achieve certain
criteria. It also provides a natural route for POE and feedback.
Soft Landings provides additional support throughout the
process, especially:
• During inception and brieng, to establish client and design targets
which are better-informed by performance outcomes in use on
previous projects. It also commits those joining the design and
building team to follow-through after handover and for project
management to begin to allocate responsibilities for on-going
reviews of design intent and anticipated performance, and to
prepare for the other activities required.
• Alongside the design and construction process, to review
performance expectations as the client’s requirements, design
solutions, and management and user needs become more concrete
and the inevitable changes are made. In addition the team must
plan for commissioning, handover and aftercare, and involve the
occupier much more closely in decisions which affect operation and
management.
• In the weeks before and after handover. Although practical
completion is important legally and contractually, with Soft
Landings handover is no longer the end of the job, but just an
event in the middle of a more extended completion stage. Before
handover, the team prepares to deliver the building and its systems
in a better state of operational readiness. When the occupants
begin to move in, the aftercare team (or team member) will have
a designated workplace in the building and be available at known
times to explain the design intent, answer questions, and to
undertake or organise any necessary troubleshooting and ne-
tuning. Both before and after handover, the design and building
team will work closely with client, occupiers, and facilities managers
to share experiences and smooth the transition into use.
• During the rst three years of occupancy: to monitor performance,
to help to deal with any problems and queries, to incorporate
independent post- occupancy surveys (such as occupant satisfaction,
technical and energy performance), and to discuss, act upon and learn
from the outcomes. Achievements and lessons should then be carried
back to inform the industry and its clients.
1 FOR EXAMPLE, DESIGN ENERGY ESTIMATES HAVE OFTEN ONLY REPORTED THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOADS SUBJECT TO BUILDING CODES, AND EVEN THEN OPTIMISTICALLY. THE
UNREGULATED AND OCCUPIER LOADS HAVE FREQUENTLY GONE UNREPORTED.
2 REFER TO BSRIA BG28/2011 BREEAM 2011 AND SOFT LANDINGS – AN INTERPRETATION NOTE FOR CLIENTS AND DESIGNERS
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 09
Why use Soft Landings?
Soft Landings helps clients and occupiers to get the best out of their
new or altered buildings. It is designed to reduce the tensions and
frustrations that so often occur during initial occupancy, and which
can easily leave residual problems that persist indenitely. At its core
is a greater involvement of designers and constructors with building
users and operators before, during and after handover of building
work, with an emphasis on improving operational readiness and
performance in use.
Soft Landings is not just a handover protocol. It also provides the
golden thread which links between:
• The procurement process: setting and maintaining client and
design aspirations that are both ambitious yet realistic, and
managing them through the whole procurement process and
into use
• Initial occupation, providing support, detecting problems, and
undertaking ne-tuning; and
• Longer-term monitoring, review, Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
and feedback – drawing important activities into the design and
construction process which are both rare in themselves and often
disconnected.
• Recognises the importance of the end user ensuring that solutions
are developed that are focused towards enhancing the users
aspirations and experience
Other important, but less directly tangible benets include client
retention and - increased client satisfaction and trust owing to the
improved levels of service, greater mutual understanding between
designers, builders, clients, occupiers and managers, education
of design and project team members in what works well and what
may be causing difculties. It also helps to develop industry skills in
problem diagnosis and treatment.
What is special about it?
Soft Landings is embedded in the entire procurement process
from initial scope to well beyond project completion. Traditionally,
buildings are simply handed over to the client and the design and
building team walk away, never to come back, except to deal with
snags or reported failures. By contrast, Soft Landings helps to:
• Minimise the chances of unsatisfactory performance by
strengthening the vulnerable areas of traditional scopes of service,
which too often result in occupier complaints downstream.
• Address and even pre-empt problems during the early occupation
phase, by providing an on-site designer/contractor representative or
team that can assist occupiers and management.
• Ensure that lessons from closer interaction with the occupiers – and
from evaluating actual building performance in use – are learnt and
shared to the benet of all stakeholders.
Soft Landings helps to bring things together
Many techniques of project feedback and Post-Occupancy Evaluation
(POE) are aimed at one particular stage of a project or to suit a single
discipline or element such as building services engineering. Many are
used solely in the post-occupation phase when it is too late to tackle
the strategic problems that originated in brieng, design and project
management. Soft Landings provides a process carrier for these
techniques, so helping to unite all disciplines and all stakeholders
and to extend the procurement process beyond handover through
adopting and following the Soft Landings core principals1.
As POE becomes more routine, ndings and benchmarks from
previous POE surveys can be used to help calibrate client and design
expectations. Where practicable, results from these surveys can
also provide metrics that allow these expectations to be tracked
from brieng, through design development, construction and
commissioning, and into operation.
How do contractual duties change?
Soft Landings extends the duties of the team before handover, in the
weeks immediately after handover, for the rst year of occupation2,
and for the second and third years. In order to improve the chances
of success, it reinforces activities during the earlier stages of brieng,
design and construction. The overall objective is better buildings, with
better performance which matches more closely the expectations of
the client and the predictions of the design team.
Soft Landings creates opportunities for greater
interaction and understanding between the supply side
of the industry and clients, building users and facilities
managers. It helps everybody concerned to improve
their processes and products, and to focus innovations
on things that really make a difference.
Is there a standard scope of service?
Soft Landings procedures are designed to augment standard
professional scopes of service, not to replace them. They can be tailored
to run alongside most industry standard procurement routes
3
to create
the most appropriate service to suit the project concerned.
BSRIA BG45/2013 How to Procure Soft Landings, provides guidance
on procuring Soft Landings and the requirements for the various roles
of each party which can be incorporated into tender documents and
conditions of engagement. Whilst this is currently written based on
UK procurement routes, it still provides relevant guidance that can be
applied to the various Australian and New Zealand procurement routes.
Introduction to
Soft Landings
010 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Major revisions to industry-standard documentation are not necessary.
The main additions to normal scopes of service occur during ve main
stages:
1. Inception and brieng to clarify the duties of members of the client,
design and building teams during critical stages, and help set and
manage expectations for performance in use.
2. Design development and review (including specication and
construction). This proceeds much as usual, but with greater attention
to applying the procedures established in the brieng stage,
reviewing the likely performance against the original expectations and
achieving specic outcomes.
3. Pre-handover, with greater involvement of designers, builders,
operators and commissioning and controls specialists, in order to
strengthen the operational readiness of the building.
4. Initial aftercare during the users’ settling-in period, with a resident
representative or team on site to help pass on knowledge, respond to
queries, and react to problems.
5. Aftercare in years 1 to 3 after handover, with periodic monitoring
and review of building performance.
The following sections outline the content of the ve stages in Soft
Landings. Each section includes a checklist that summarises the
specic activities in the particular stage, with notes on things to
consider and pitfalls to avoid.
1 REFER TO BSRIA BG38/2012 THE SOFT LANDINGS CORE PRINCIPALS
2 THE DEFECTS LIABILITY PERIOD USUALLY FINISHES ONE YEAR AFTER PRACTICAL COMPLETION AND HANDOVER.
3 FOR EXAMPLE THE LIKE OF NZ3910 AND AS4000 FORM. IT CAN BE EMPLOYED ON A RANGE OF OTHER PROCUREMENT ROUTES FROM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT THROUGH TO PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (PPP).
“In conjunction with our client, we applied the Soft Landings Framework to a major building refurbishment
in the Adelaide CBD. We found applying the framework to be a positive experience that helped us to
identify a number of design and delivery improvements whilst integrating and enhancing with our own
existing quality management systems.”
Michael Barnes, CEO, ISIS
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 011
Briefing is the most
crucial stage of
procurement. If it’s
not done well, it is
all too easy to sow
the seeds of future
misunderstanding
and discontent.
012 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
TYPICAL PLAN OF WORK SOFT LANDINGS
Phase of Work Main Activities Principal Additions Supporting Activities
Preparation
Appraisal Identify client needs
Do feasibility studies
Stage 1 (B). Brieng:
Identify all actions needed to support the
procurement
Explain Soft Landings to all participants
Dene goals, roles and responsibilities
Identify processes and sign off gateways
Afrm Soft Landings principals, roles,
objectives and goals
Design brief Develop an initial statement of
requirements and procurement
methods
Design
Concept Implement and expand the brief.
Prepare the concept design.
Review the procurement route
Stage 2 (D). Design development:
Support the design as it evolves
Review past experience
Agree performance metrics
Agree design targets
Design
development
Develop concept design.
Update design reports and costs.
Complete project brief.
Reality check 1:
Scheme design reality check
Global reality check of the entire design. Review design
targets. Review usability and manageability
Technical
design
Prepare technical design and
specication sufcient for
coordination and costing
Reality check 2:
Technical reality check
Conduct evidence based design risk review. Review
against design target. Involve the future building
managers
Pre-construction
Detailed
design
Prepare detailed information for
construction. Review information
provided by specialists.
Review against design targets. Involve the future
building managers
Tender
documentation
Prepare or collate tender
information
Optional reality check revisit
Include additional requirements related to Soft Landings
procedures. Ensure Principal Contractors understand and pass
on clear obligations / introduce a Soft Landings Charter to Sub
Contractors and let trade packages
Tender
Evaluation
Identify and evaluate potential
contractors and/or specialists.
Submit recommendations to client.
Reality check 3:
Tender award stage reality check
Communicate reality checked items. Evaluation of tender
responses to Soft Landings requirements
Construction
Mobilisation Let the contract Issue information
to the contractor. Arrange site
handover to the contractor.
Reafrmation of Soft Landings
Re-engagement workshop to celebrate the Soft Landings
successes to date, explain to new parties and reconrm
to the existing team the Soft Landings principals, roles,
objectives and goals
Construction
Design
Preparation of shop/fabrication
drawings including detailed
coordination.
Review against design targets. Involve the future
building managers
Construction
to practical
completion
Administer the contract.
Provide further information as
required. Review information
provided.
Reality check 4:
Pre-handover reality check
Check need for any extra support that has not yet been
anticipated. Include FM staff and/or contractors in review.
Demonstrate control interfaces. Liaise with move-in plans.
Review and revise performance metrics and measureable
design targets
Stage 3 (P). Pre-handover:
Prepare for building readiness. Provide
technical guidance.
Reafrmation of Soft Landings Re-engagement workshop to celebrate the Soft Landings
successes to date and reconrm the Soft Landings principals,
roles, objectives and goals
Use
Post-practical
completion
Administer the contract after
practical completion and make
nal inspections
Reality check 5: Post-handover sign-off
review. Ensure all outstanding reality
check items are complete and system is
signed off as operational
Incorporate Soft Landings requirements
Assist building users during the
initial occupation period
Stage 4 (A). Aftercare in the initial
period: Support in the rst few weeks of
occupation.
Setup home for resident on site attendance. Provide
assistance as needed
Review of building performance
in use
Stage 5 (Y). Years 1 to 3 Aftercare:
Monitoring, review, ne-tuning and feedback
Setup home for resident on site attendance. Provide
assistance as needed
Reafrmation of Soft Landings prior to yearly
review and feedback
Re-engagement workshop to celebrate the Soft Landings
successes to date and reconrm the Soft Landings
principals, roles, objectives and goals
Table 1: How the Soft Landings process can be generically integrated into the design and construction process. The Soft Landings worksteps are
shown in the orange boxes with reality checking1 in green.
1 REFER BSRIA 27/2011 PITSTOPPING – BSRIA’S REALITY-CHECKING PROCESS FOR SOFT LANDINGS
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 013
Brieng is the most crucial stage of procurement. If it is not done well, it is all too easy to sow the seeds of future misunderstanding and discontent.
A common problem is to put too much emphasis on the intended product, at the expense of the general background, performance requirements
(both qualitative and quantitative), and the processes by which solutions should be developed and tested. The more time that can be made
available for constructive dialogue, the greater the likelihood of success.
To obtain the greatest value from Soft Landings, the expectations and performance targets that emerge from the brieng process should be arrived at
within a well-structured, logical and recorded context. However, for various reasons it may not always be possible to give the brieng stage all the time it
deserves at the outset. Consequently, Stage 1 of Soft Landings also establishes tasks, responsibilities and review procedures that allow the brief to be re-
examined in response to new ndings, and to help ensure that critical issues are not lost along the way.
Stage 1 (B):
Inception and briefing
NOTES ON BRIEFING AND
DESIGN BRIEF MANAGEMENT
Post-occupancy reviews often reveal major differences in performance
between ostensibly similar buildings. For example, energy use can
be higher by a factor of two or three, while self-assessed productivity
scores from occupant surveys can differ by 15–20 percentage points.
In the best buildings, high levels of occupant satisfaction and good
energy performance often go together. The unifying reason is usually
that good committed people with good processes are able to achieve
good all-round outcomes which enable multiple objectives to be met.
By encouraging design brief management Soft Landings will help to
ensure that this happens.
An effective brieng process needs to seek clarity in three main areas:
• The context for the project: the client’s goals, the site and
neighbourhood, environmental objectives, and wider social,
economic and environmental trends and how the building should
adapt to them.
•
The qualities of the solution: the client’s ends. Commonly
included are space requirements and relationships, operational
characteristics, indoor environment, mechanical, electrical and
information services, costs, and image. Interest in building and
environmental performance has been growing rapidly, but there still
tend to be major differences between expectations and outcomes.
Soft Landings helps teams to improve clarity of purpose, attention to
detail, and include follow-through and feedback arrangements.
• The implications of the solution. The implications of the above
become expressed in the emerging building design. However,
what this really means in terms of performance is often less clearly
examined, or examined under modelling assumptions rather than
in relation to real life. How will people actually use it? How will it
affect organisational effectiveness? Who will be needed to manage
it? What if the building (or part of it) is no longer needed?
As a design develops, the emerging solutions should be tested against
the brief, and vice-versa, as insights, opportunities and sometimes
constraints emerge that may not have been envisaged when the brief
was originally formulated. The tests should include:
• A review of the assumptions. Has the context changed? Does
physical representation of the requested qualities cause the client
to have second thoughts? Have all the stakeholders been properly
identied?
• Checks on the needs and demands of the proposed solution.
Post-occupancy surveys reveal that buildings can easily become too
complicated, sometimes in the name of labour-saving automation.
If not carefully evaluated, this can make things difcult for their
users, expensive to operate and maintain, and demanding
of management time. The quest for simpler solutions can be
rewarding.
• Tests of the design expectations. Designers are not users, though
they often think they are, so designers can easily make optimistic
assumptions about user behaviour. If design intent is not clear to
users, it can be difcult for the building to perform as intended.
A widespread problem is where user interfaces to manual and
automated controls are poorly considered, specied, located
or signposted.
• Review of likely and actual outcomes. Soft Landings supports this,
with regular reviews of client and design expectations during
procurement; and by monitoring, ne-tuning, post-occupancy
evaluation and feedback once the building is occupied.
by Adrian Leaman, Building Use Studies
014 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
B1. Dene roles and responsibilities
Roles and limits of responsibility must be spelt out clearly from the very beginning. If nothing else,
this will highlight any gaps. Sometimes the project leader may also need to review how well certain
individuals are suited to their assumed roles. It is not enough to have the right job titles: individuals
also need the right mix of ability, experience and temperament.
To ensure that the design reects operational needs, it is important to involve the client’s facilities
management team early on, ideally with the individuals who will take over the installed systems. If staff
are not yet appointed (for example because the building will be sold on, or operations outsourced), then
independent advice will often be desirable.
B2. Review past experience
Past experiences of team members and others will benet the brieng, design, and construction
process, and allow better and more realistic targets to be set. The project manager should seek
to elicit all relevant experiences – good and bad – in a spirit of openness. These will be hugely
benecial to the project.
B3. Plan for intermediate evaluations and evidence based reality checks
The programme should incorporate opportunities for intermediate evaluation workshops. These
will help to ensure that stakeholders are fully engaged as the design develops and that input
from key users is obtained and not lost along the way. The workshops will help to ush out
misconceptions on all sides. Topics will also come up which may seem incidental at the time but
which can help to identify and sometimes to resolve decisions on things which might otherwise be
overlooked, or taken for granted.
B4. Set environmental and other performance targets
The processes of target setting, prediction and measurement will highlight the need for roles and
expertise on the client side. Clients may not have anticipated some of the skills and activities required.
Targets will normally have to satisfy the criteria of being unambiguous, measurable and of some value.
The design targets should include human factors issues, even if they are descriptive in nature rather
than numerical or statistical. Independent occupant satisfaction surveys of similar buildings (or in a
refurbishment situation, the existing building) can inform many aspects of a new building’s design and
future operation. The survey can be repeated in Stage 5: Years 1 to 3 Aftercare to verify achievement and
highlight areas for improvement.
B5. Sign-off gateways
Premature decision-taking can blunt innovation. However, there will be no chance of optimum
success if one leaves too many loose ends for too long. Sign-off gateways create the structure for
xing decisions. Gateways are both entry and exit points, but different criteria may be applied
depending on entry and on exit, after which the requirements will be more binding on all parties.
B6. Incentives related to performance outcomes
For the environmental and other targets set in B4, the team needs to agree how to measure
performance in use, and what action is appropriate if anything falls short. A suitable action might
be for the design and building team to agree to follow-up any shortcomings and to suggest how
performance might be improved.
STAGE 1 (B) CHECKLIST: INCEPTION AND BRIEFING SUPPORTING NOTES
Clarity on the client side is absolutely essential, particularly in
dening responsibilities, identifying the chain of command and
agreeing the decision- making protocols. If any independent
advisers are involved, it is important to clarify what authority they
have, and that everyone in the project team is aware of it.
The client and the project team should each identify their Soft
Landings champion(s) who have the responsibility to ensure
that the Soft Landings process is developed to suit the project
and is followed through the entire procurement process and
on into use. Ideally the client champion should be mirrored
on the project team side. There may also be other nominated
champions further down the contractual chain. The Champions
should also ensure that Soft Landings principles take their proper
place as part of the routine management of the project and are
properly resourced. The Champions need to be individuals who
have an interest in the in-use performance of the building, and
are likely to be on the team for the full duration of the project, for
example the client representative, the job architect, or the
project manager.
Communication between designers and facilities managers
can be difcult owing to their often very different perspectives.
It is unlikely to happen automatically, so the client’s project
manager needs to make sure that it does. If not, senior clients
and designers may well have ideas that in practice prove to be
too complicated, or too difcult to look after. As unmanageable
complexity is often the prime cause of occupant dissatisfaction
with the indoor environment (and of excessive energy use), it is
vital to address complexity problems by designing for usability
and manageability, either simplifying the solutions or increasing
the levels of facilities management budget and skills.
Where quantied targets are not practicable, for example owing
to the difculty of calculation, or a lack of suitable metrics,
qualitative indicators (for example, on a scale of good practice –
best practice – innovative – pioneering) can be useful guides in
helping to calibrate client aspirations, and to revisit them during
design reviews. A suitable action might be for the design and
building team to agree to follow-up any shortcomings and to
suggest how performance could be improved.
Some people would like to see nancial incentives, such as a
bonus to the design and building team for meeting certain
performance levels. Penalties for falling short are more
contentious and could be expensive and complicated to make
legally bulletproof: a requirement to investigate and report
may be preferable.
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 015
Whilst it is obvious what this
speed controller is and does and
how to use it, it is possibly not the
most user-friendly of controllers
being at ceiling level and above
spinning metal blades!
For more examples of controls usability problems and ways to avoid them, download Controls for End Users – a guide for good design and
implementation free from www.bsria.co.uk/bookshop
There are lots of these types of control devices in buildings that
confuse or alienate occupants. In this Australian ofce example,
the standard air conditioning controller with its multi-functional
LCD screen and wide range of control options has frustrated the
occupants enough for it to be taped-off and a simple control switch
added. While it is not clear what the replacement controller does,
it does at least speak to the occupants in terms they understand:
“When you have lots of people in the room and you want better
comfort conditions, press the button”. The device has a useful light
to show its status. Occupants don’t really care what it does, or how it
does it, so long as it solves their problem, simply and immediately.
This replacement controller is a response to over-complicated
controllers supplied by air-conditioning suppliers. Its attempt to
simplify everything the LCD controller can do into a single switch
could have adverse effects for comfort and energy use. But, overall, it
demonstrates is that greater care needed to be taken with the design
and specication of the original controller in the rst place.
Stage 2 (D): Design
development and review
Once a project team has adopted Soft Landings at Stage 1: Inception
and brieng, then design development, technical design, production
information and tendering will proceed much as usual. However, people
will need to bring a somewhat different approach to the process. In
particular:
• Everyone joining the client, design and construction teams will need
to be made aware that Soft Landings is in operation and commit to
adopting its principles.
• All team members will be encouraged to obtain and contribute insights
from the performance-in-use of comparable projects.
• Client and design targets will be informed by actual performance
in use, reviewed at intervals as the project progresses, and have any
adjustments agreed and signed-off.
• Requirements for independent post-occupancy evaluation (POE)
services will need to be veried. To assist comparability and
transparency, where appropriate and practical, the same metrics should
be used for the design targets and what the POE will measure.
• The design process should include reality checking workshops, including
reviews by experts in building performance. Evidence based design risk
reviews should form part of this process.
• To accompany the design data, an illustrated narrative will be developed
on how the building will work from the point of view of the manager
and the individual user. This can evolve into the technical and user
guides that will be issued to managers and occupiers at handover.
• Close attention needs to be given to the usability and manageability
of the proposed design solutions, and in particular moving parts,
electrical components and their control interfaces. Where the occupiers
are known, their facilities managers and user representatives should
be involved in reviewing the proposals and commenting not just on
the design intent but also on the details of the management and user
interfaces, including the equipment selected and its location.
• Suitable preparations must be made during design and construction
to plan, programme and resource the critical periods in the weeks
immediately before and after handover.
To make sure that all angles are covered, tender documentation may
require unfamiliar interventions by other design team members.
Reality Checking
There is a need for Soft Landings project teams to regularly conduct reality
checking reviews on selected design issues. These are issues selected by
the project team for extra attention, either because they are regarded as
particularly risky, or because they are innovations for which risks would
be unknown or not identiable during the design period, or because of
the feedback from the review of past experience. A method for conducting
reality checking reviews is provided in BSRIA BG27/2011 Pitstopping –
BSRIA’s reality checking process for Soft Landings.
Reality checking requires a project team to plan ahead and limit any risks
of under-performance. This might involve planning for extra care during
installation and commissioning, seasonal commissioning after occupation,
and/or ne-tuning during Soft Landings aftercare.
016 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
D1. Building Revisits – review past experience
Reviewing the good and bad aspects of relevant previous projects can generate a list of technical and
non-technical watch points that should be fed-forward into the design. These can be used to rene the
client’s requirements and better inform the design brief as well as providing insights into the reality-checking
process. These issues should be recorded such that they are not forgotten and can be addressed and revisited
as the design progresses. Consider maintaining a living design risk register that includes reasons for the risks,
mitigation measures detailed and an owner appointed to each.
D2. Buildability, Commissionability and Maintainability Review
It is important to design for buildability, commissionability and maintainability. From the outset designers and
clients must think realistically about the design concepts with respect to the budget, the construction skills and
resources needed to turn ideas into a physical reality. The in-use performance implications should be clearly
identied, agreed by all and approved by the client. Record issues arising in the design risk register.
A Safety in Design review further encourages the team consider not only the construction and installation, but
also ease of maintenance, decommissioning, removal and replacement.
D3. Usability and Manageability Review
It is important to design for usability, manageability and successful operation and review these aspects from
the perspective of those who will ultimately control and manage the building. It is important to identify how
the environmental control needs of the end-users will be met, such that it suits the occupiers and doesn’t
demand too much of them. Controls usually play a signicant role in this regard, it is therefore benecial to
engage with a controls company early and involve them in these reviews. Record issues arising in the design
risk register.
D4. Reality Checking
A reality checking process for selected elements of the building (using a systematic method, such as BSRIA’s
process called Pitstopping) can build on the process started in the brieng stage and incorporating the outcomes
from Stage 1: B1, B2 and B3. The reality checking process allows the project team to give specic elements closer
attention through the design, construction and installation. Use a matrix to record the outcomes and for each
identify those that need to be held responsible, accountable, supported, consulted or informed. Honesty and
openness are required to create the right conditions for reality checking such that the critiquing is healthy and
productive. Be under no illusion; passing on responsibility and risk to others through contract conditions will not
achieve the outcomes required, an ‘all-in’ approach is required. It is prudent to hold mid-stage review meetings
and get ‘end of stage’ sign-off from the identied parties, before proceeding to the next stage.
D5
1
. Iterative Reviews
Iterate between stages D1 to D4 during the design process as required. The sequence, number of iterations
and participants will depend on the procurement route and timing of engagement with various parties.
D6
1
. Revisit and Update Early Performance Targets
The early simplistic energy targets should be developed by the project team to provide greater detail of the
building’s energy and environmental performance and should be benchmarked. Early modelling will use
notional values, however these can be updated and rened as the design progresses. Consideration should
be given to using tools (such as Excel) that the FM team will understand, as the FM team should inherit the
modelling information after handover and update over time and used to inform POEs. An Excel-based tool is
provided by CIBSE in its TM22 Energy Assessment and Reporting Methodology.
D71. Tender documentation and evaluation
The requirements related to Soft Landings procedures need to be incorporated as part of conventional
contract documentation and included in the tender documentation. The requirements will need to reect the
outcomes of the various reviews and reality checks.
The evaluation of submissions from the lead contractor, key sub-contractors and suppliers must include an
assessment of their understanding and acceptance of the Soft Landings procedures and the outcomes of the various
reviews and reality checks. Any shortfall must be rectied and the arrangements claried prior to nal acceptance.
D8
1
. Contractor mobilisation and construction design
At this stage there is still an element of design and coordination required which can still inuence the Soft
Landings outcomes. Engagement between the designers, constructors and facilities maintenance is key.
The principals, roles, objectives, goals and requirements related to Soft Landings need to be explained and
re-enforced to the construction team. This is also an opportunity to celebrate the Soft Landings successes to
date and refresh the client’s and design team’s commitment to Soft Landings moving forward
STAGE 2 (D) CHECKLIST: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTING NOTES
It is vital to engage with the facilities and maintenance
people, as they can be very insightful with regards
construction, maintenance and end-user experiences.
At the simplest level this can be detailing for airtightness,
making sure that lamps can be reached and changed, and
that electrical connections are provided for actuators. At a
more complex level, it might be digital communications
between separate systems. In particular, interfaces to
controls must be well thought-through in relation to
the technical requirements and their intelligibility to
management and a range of different users.
Reviews can be undertaken as part of normal design meetings.
However, well- organised peer reviews (with independent
experts at key stages in the design) can be effective in helping
to pinpoint issues that may prove problematic. They will also
help to identify solutions which may have been tried elsewhere.
Including a cross-section of people with different jobs and
seniority will provide valuable perspectives on aspects of
building usage and operation that may otherwise emerge too
late and compromise the design. For example, natural cooling
strategies have been undermined when security staff close
night ventilation openings or insurance policies require it.
The openings could have been designed differently had these
concerns been identied earlier.
Design review meetings require sensitive preparation and
chairing if they are to be constructively critical. A trained
facilitator can unlock tacit knowledge that may otherwise not
surface and is also experienced in dealing with design team
egos and ensuring all voices are heard. Timing is important;
reviews are best undertaken when options are relatively clear,
allowing discussion to be focused, but with solutions not so well
crystallised that the design team nds it difcult to respond to
important comments.
At review meetings, designers should not sell design themes
and solutions too forcefully, as clients, managers and users
may then be reluctant to offer their comments and to share
their experiences of buildings in use. This may deny the
project the benet of the management and user experience
and insights that are often crucial to a building’s ultimate
performance.
Ensure that the requirements of Soft Landings are
thoroughly written into the scope. Refer to BG 45/2013 how
to Procure Soft Landings for further information. Check any
contractual clauses for legal appropriateness.
Under Soft Landings the relationship is one of mutual
collaboration and shared responsibility. As the project
progresses it is easy to gravitate back to the conventional
customer/supplier roles. Therefore at each major milestone
take time to revisit why Soft Landings was adopted,
celebrate successes to date, and reafrm commitment
to the process. This includes dening/re-dening all
stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities and re-articulating
the goals.
1 Stage numbers differ from other Soft Landings documentation due to re-sequencing The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 017
The main purpose of the pre-handover stage is to help to ensure
that by the time the building is handed over it is not just physically
complete, but ready for operation. A building readiness sub-
programme therefore needs to be developed in good time, and well
ahead of the start of commissioning work. Activities by the design
and building team must also include static commissioning (such
as inspections of airtightness details, checks of window opening
devices and linkages, and envelope pressure tests). Commissioning
of building services needs extending to include, for example, natural
ventilation, renewable energy systems, metering installations
and effective user interfaces. Great care needs to be given to
demonstration, training and documentation. Proposed activities by
the client and occupier also need to be reviewed, for example stafng,
operation and maintenance contracts, and move-in plans including
t-outs where relevant.
It is essential that the client’s management team takes over the
operation of the building in a timely fashion. Problems that occur after
handover can often be traced back to insufcient understanding by the
occupier’s staff of technical systems (particularly building services) and
their user interfaces, or where solutions have been developed without
enough understanding of user and operator requirements. Too often,
buildings start their operational lives with too few operating staff, who
are not sufciently trained, know little about the design intent, have
had no opportunity to attend a demonstration, and are unfamiliar with
the systems provided and how to use them.
To avoid problems, the project team should take more care in design
and specication and to pay more attention to the contractor’s
proposals for commissioning and handover. They will also need
better understanding of operator skills and requirements and better
arrangements for demonstrating interfaces and systems properly
to operating staff before handover. The time spent will lay the
foundations for future co-operation.
Clients play a vital part in ensuring building readiness. If they leave
stafng too late (as they often do), problems with initial performance
can be virtually guaranteed. However much the designer and
constructor do to help, resolution is nearly impossible if there are no
good operators available on site.
A design and construction team is often told very little about how
the occupier intends to move themselves into the building.
As a result, occupiers can easily make incorrect assumptions about
how ready the building will be to receive them, and what access
and services will be available. This in turn can cause clashes and
disappointments while the move is under way, and sour initial user
experiences of their new or altered building. With Soft Landings,
designers and builders need to be involved with the occupier’s
logistics planning, if only to a small extent.
Even in the best-managed projects, the commissioning period can
get squeezed, owing to delays outside the control of the design and
building team, and an occupier’s business requirement for a non-
negotiable handover date. Soft Landings will help to reduce the effects
of any such slippages as the continuity
it provides between the pre-handover and aftercare stages makes
it much easier for any outstanding commissioning activities to be
continued after handover.
Stage 3 (P): Pre-handover
Shell, core and t-out
In some buildings, particularly rented ones, spaces are handed
over in an unnished state, to be tted out by others, or for
specialist purposes.
It is vital that design intent is made clear to the t-out team,
with rules on what to do and what to avoid. This can be done
through the likes of a tenancy t-out manual prepared in
advance by the original design team. It is also important for
the original design team to review t-out proposals thoroughly,
but with a quick turnaround as tenants will be in a hurry.
Otherwise, major problems can easily arise, particularly
affecting control systems and HVAC services, especially for
more innovative designs which may have characteristics
unfamiliar to the t-out team.
Rented buildings
In speculative buildings (apart from pre-lets), it is more difcult
to maintain the continuity that is the hallmark of Soft Landings
owing to a lack of information on the occupier and the
delays that can occur between the physical completion of the
building and the arrival of the rst tenant. Reviewing t-outs
by incoming tenants does not form part of core Soft Landings
activities. However, clients for such projects should consider
appointing the original design team to do reviews of this kind
and again, should also consider the preparation of a tenancy
t-out manual by the original design team.
018 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
P1. Environmental and energy logging review
Responsibilities and routines for data recording must be agreed and related to the targets that are established.
Where required, these roles and responsibilities need to be coordinated with the building’s logbook and its
metering strategy.
P2. Building readiness programme
This building readiness programme needs to be prepared well in advance of move-in. Site completion and
commissioning activities need to be coordinated, training activities written, and other records nalised. This
should include the setting-up of energy meters, their recording accuracy, their reconciliation with scal meters and
the data recorded by energy monitoring software.
P3. Commissioning records check
Commissioning records should include energy data where available (such as true power consumed by fan motors, and not
just current readings). There should also be a programme for post-completion commissioning and ne-tuning.
P41. Review Performance Metrics
Review and revise performance metrics and design targets taking account of any changes that have occurred
through the construction.
P51. Maintenance contract
Ensure that the contract is appropriate and that the service is in place immediately after handover.
P61. Compile a guide for occupants
A simple guide for occupants will help individual users to understand the design intent and use the building
effectively. It will complement the required O&M manuals and logbook, within which copies of the user guide
should be led.
P71. Compile a technical guide
The technical guide should provide a succinct introduction for the facilities management team to help to smooth
the transition to local operation. Ideally, it will have been developed in the course of design and construction, so
that at any stage in the project people can nd a clear description of how the systems in the building are supposed
to work. This should also be incorporated into the O&M manual.
P81. Training
Adequately trained operation and maintenance staff must be in place before handover. They will need proper
familiarisation and training about the building and its systems in good time – not at the last minute.
P9
1
. Building management system interface completion and demonstration
A demonstration to the building operators of the building management system (BMS) and any allied controls helps to
ensure that the systems are familiar, operating appropriately, and that staff have some understanding of how to use and
ne-tune them. These actions will identify any need for additional work. A list of items requiring, or likely to require, ne
tuning should be prepared and trend logs setup to collect data to aid in ne tuning. Trend logs also setup to compare
against performance metrics and design targets.
P101. Migration planning
The occupier’s move-in programme needs to be coordinated with the design and building team. A small
involvement of the design and building team in the occupier’s logistics planning can help minimise the upsets
that can easily arise if moving-in operations clash with site activities, for example if an access is obstructed, a lift is
not available, rooms or services are being nished off, or oor nishes curing and not able to carry heavy loads.
P111. Aftercare team home
The occupier must provide a visible and accessible workplace in the new building for the aftercare team from day
one. The size and complexity of the project will determine whether the presence is permanent or at specied hours,
and whether by one or more people.
P121. O&M manual review
The team should review the content of the O&M manual with the facilities manager, who should sign it off when it
is complete and acceptable.
The lead-up to handover can be a good time to reafrm the
commitment of the client and the team to Soft Landings prior to
moving into a phase of practical completion, sign off of defects,
performance metrics and the like and construction completion.
Traditionally relationships can be at their most strained during
this period and it is easy for clients, contractors and designers to
gravitate back to their traditional roles and a customer/supplier
relationship, which will not achieve the Soft Landings outcomes. It
is therefore important to take time to celebrate the Soft Landings
successes to date and reafrm the Soft Landings objectives and
goals and the teams roles, responsibilities and commitment to
achieve these.
A review is necessary to ensure design and measured in-use
comparisons are relevant. Changes during construction e.g.
lower efciency lamps or the addition of a server room, will affect
the performance metrics and design targets established during
Stage 2.
Develop maintenance scopes and identify performance metrics as
part of the design , including long term post defects liability period
maintenance obligations can assist in evaluating installation tenders and
the quality of the aftercare service that may follow construction
The guide should be completed in good time, with input from
facilities management staff and user representatives if possible.
It may well need revisions after operational experience is gained.
It will save time by reducing the number of questions when the
building is rst occupied and the complaints that arise from
misunderstanding or misuse.
Written material must be made available in good time so that edits and
improvements can be made and should be organised to make revisions
easy in the light of initial experience and ne-tuning. Including the
clients / occupants Facilities Manager (FM) enables early building and
systems orientation and enables seamless transition from control and
management by the contractor and design team to the occupants
Operating staff will be happier to take ownership of the
installation when they are comfortable with the design concepts,
understand their roles, and have commented on interface
development.
Soft Landings representatives must make themselves visible to
the occupants of the building. Staying off-site, or hiding in the
contractor’s hut will defeat the objective.
Guidance for occupiers and managers need revising after in-use
operational experience has been gained.
STAGE 3 (P) CHECKLIST: PRE-HANDOVER SUPPORTING NOTES
1 Stage numbers differ from other Soft Landings documentation due to re-sequencing The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 019
The service during the initial aftercare period is intended to help the
occupiers to understand their building, and the facilities managers to
operate its systems. The aftercare team is there to provide information
and support, to respond to any questions that arise and to investigate
any problems that emerge. It is important that the building’s facilities or
management team is properly resourced, so they have the skills and time
to take advantage of this service. Soft Landings will not work properly if the
occupiers think they can sit back and leave things to the aftercare team.
During the initial aftercare period, one or more members of the design
and building team will be present on site for typically four to six weeks
immediately after move-in. After this initial period, the residential
presence of design and construction team members will taper off, but
periodic reviews will continue, as outlined in Stage 5.
The size and complexity of the project and the occupants’ move-in
timetable will determine how much time will be required, over what
period, and for how many people. It could be as little as one day per
week, but much will depend on what actually happens once the occupier
moves in.
One of the team should act as the main point of contact for overall
liaison. This will usually be the architect, but that depends on the
project. Building services and commissioning engineers always need to
be closely involved and readily available, because many initial queries
are often related to the use and performance of unfamiliar mechanical,
electrical and control systems and environmental control strategies.
The aftercare team must be visible, with a workplace in a readily-
accessible location and not hidden away. Team members must work
not just with the facilities management team, but be accessible to
anyone. Occupants must therefore be told that the aftercare team is
operating, what it will be doing, where it will be and when. The times of
residence need to be regular (such as every morning, or every Tuesday)
so everybody knows what to expect.
Team members must make themselves available to deal pre-emptively
with queries and misunderstandings. The observations they make, the
questions they answer, the responses they get and the insights they
derive will help prevent minor problems developing into longer term
chronic irritants for the occupants and the client alike. Their period of
residence also provides an opportunity to observe and learn from initial
feedback and problem-solving.
Visibility also includes sessions at which the aftercare team describes the
building and its systems to groups of occupants as soon as possible after
they move in, and introduces them to the guide for occupants (see box).
The aftercare team will also provide news on issues, problems and progress,
possibly via the occupier’s intranet, email newsletter, or other medium.
Aftercare is not an administrative exercise or a supercial attempt at
marketing, but a service which will generate a lot of goodwill if it is
effective. Being seen to be on the side of the users helps a lot – and
ensures a meaningful invitation to the ofcial opening.
Stage 4 (A): Initial aftercare
Tips for an occupants’ guide
A guide for building occupants is a practical method of informing
individuals about a building’s systems and procedures.
There are no strict rules on content or style, but ideally the
guidance must be written for lay users, should avoid using
technical jargon, be illustrated to assist comprehension, and
be available in both electronic and printed form. It should
also full the user guide requirements of requirements of any
rating schemes being used such as Green Star.
The content should include information on general features
of the building such as security, safety and access, and
environmental features (including energy and water efciency
and waste management). It should also cover principles of
design and operation, particularly where the environmental
systems rely partially or wholly on local controls for heating,
lighting, cooling, and ventilation.
Other issues that may be important to cover include furniture,
space use and cycle storage, and where to go for help and
more information.
User guides mounted adjacent the like of controllers, switches,
etc. can also prove useful in helping occupants identify with
them and understand how they can use them.
Tips for a technical guide
A good technical guide will incorporate a Logbook on Building
Services, and a strategy for energy and metering in accordance
with prevailing technical guidance from CIBSE and BSRIA and any
other regulatory requirements. Refer to CIBSE TM39: Building
Energy Metering and CIBSE TM31: Building logbook toolkit. Where
applicable it should also full the requirements of any rating
schemes being used such as Green Star, NABERS and NABERSNZ .
The technical guide explains to the owners and operators (not
the individual users) how the building and its systems work
and the performance that is expected. This guide is not the
same as an O&M manual, which contains far more detail.
Even though it is technical in nature, the guidance should still
be written in relatively simple language.
020 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
The aftercare checklist covers the initial period of occupation,
typically four to six weeks after handover.
A1. Resident on-site attendance
Conrm who will be there, where and when.
A2. Provide workplace with data and communications links
The occupier must provide an appropriate and well-located workstation for the
aftercare team.
A3. Introductory guidance for building users
The occupier’s representative should organise informal user meetings as soon as possible after
the building has been occupied. The size of the meetings and who exactly should go will depend
on the size of the project and the nature of the occupying organisation. The prime purpose is for
the aftercare team to explain why they are there, to present key information on how the building
operates, introduce the guide for occupants, and answer questions. Anticipate the need to hold at
least two meetings.
A4. Technical guidance
The purpose is to smooth the transition of responsibility from the project team to the client’s
facilities management team and to help them gain a good understanding of the building and be
able to take full authority over operating and ne-tuning its systems. The ground will have been
prepared in the pre-handover stage, but further support may often be necessary in the light of
issues that emerge over the rst weeks of operation, and to accommodate new people arriving as
part of the move.
A5. Communications
It is important that users are kept informed of progress on operational issues, for example via
regular newsletters or other bulletins.
A6. Walkabouts
Members of the Soft Landings aftercare team (preferably those most familiar with the design
intention and the controls systems) should roam the building informally on a regular basis, to
examine the building in use, observe occupation and spot emerging issues. Walkabouts can be
combined with other visits as appropriate. They should make spot-checks with instruments if
necessary; these also provide opportunities to discuss with individuals their experience of the
building, its systems and the indoor environment.
Aftercare team members should have good ‘people skills’, a
hands-on approach to problem solving and continuity with
the project. The leader will require regular support from
the team, in particular the building services contractor and
commissioning team, and the mechanical and electrical
designers.
In addition to responding to day-to-day comments, allow
for two dedicated meetings with facilities management
representatives to explain systems and discuss their views.
Keep communications simple, not too technical and easy
to update. The occupier’s intranet, a website or a similar
service can also be effective and time-efcient. Fortnightly
updates will usually sufce.
STAGE 4 (A) CHECKLIST: AFTERCARE SUPPORTING NOTES
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 021
Once the initial aftercare period is over, the Soft Landings service
moves from regular visits to periodic reviews. The aftercare team is
there to provide insights, review performance, and help the users
and operators to get the best out their building, not to run it on their
behalf. Responsibility for operation and provision and initial review of
routine information (such as BMS logs and meter readings) must lie
rmly with the building’s facility manager or team.
In Year 1 (the traditional defects liability period), the primary focus is
on settling everything down, making sure that the design intent is well
understood, identifying any problems, and logging usage and change.
There may well also be a need to ne-tune systems, particularly
lighting controls and HVAC systems, in order to optimise effective and
energy-efcient operation and to take account of occupant feedback
and changes in weather and occupancy.
In Years 2 and 3 the reviews become less frequent, concentrating on
recording the operation of the building and reviewing performance.
By then the facilities management team should be fully in command
of the building’s systems, be dealing with all problems (usually
without reference to the design and building team). They should
also be collecting and reviewing their own data, and rening their
operational strategies. The Soft Landings process will have helped
them to overcome any initial difculties.
The Aftercare period will also include a number of independent
post-occupancy surveys. The type, coverage, method and timing of
these surveys will depend on what has been agreed for each project.
An occupant questionnaire survey can be undertaken at a number of
different times:
•
Year 3 is the best time for a single survey to summarise the
occupants’ views on the performance of a new building and to make
comparisons with results other projects. It allows enough time for
the building and its systems to have settled down, for occupants to
draw on a relatively long experience of the building in use, and for
any initial problems to be long past.
•
Where the design and building team has committed to undertaking
an occupant survey and following-up any problem areas, the
brief should include suggested survey timings. The timing of the
occupant survey depends on the project in question. It is best to
wait until occupants have experienced one full heating and cooling
season, but phased handover, phased occupation, or additional
t-out works may justify a delay beyond 12 months. The Soft
Landings team need to judge carefully the point at which survey
results are likely to reect the building’s steady pattern of operation.
Performing a survey too soon may mean the results will carry too
many caveats to be of much value.
•
Occupant focus groups held in the initial aftercare period can
provide valuable initial reactions and help to target early action.
However, this may be premature, particularly if initial teething
problems are still fresh in peoples’ memory. Focus groups can also
be dominated by a vocal minority who set the agenda on behalf
of the others who may be meeker, or for the majority not attending
the focus group who may be quite happy. There is also a tendency
for the project team to only listen to opinions that chime with
their views, or for facilities managers to seek conrmation of
their prejudices. Focus groups therefore need to be used with
great caution.
Everybody involved in the extended aftercare service will gain
valuable information and insights. This feedback will help the
building to work better and the client and occupiers to get the best
out of the design. The feedback also provides valuable intelligence
that all those involved will take back to their work, their organisations
and the industry. This in turn will help to improve the goods and
services they and the industry provide and make sure that their future
efforts are targeted more accurately on the things which will really
make a difference.
Stage 5 (Y): Years 1–3
Extended aftercare and
post-occupancy evaluation
Alterations to the building
The aftercare service in Years 1 to 3 assumes that the building
continues to be used in general accordance with its design
intent. It does not anticipate major alterations in occupancy or
space planning. However, sometimes the owner or occupier
may need to make signicant physical changes to all or part of
building, or to its use.
In the past, owners and occupiers have often embarked on
such changes without appreciating the adaptability potential
that the designer may have provided and the constraints that
may also exist. The Soft Landings team’s knowledge of both the
design potential and its performance-in-use will help to inform
the occupier’s decision-making processes, and may allow
before-and-after comparisons to be made.
A readily available, up-to-date, evidence base will improve
insights and outcomes and sustain a positive relationship with
the design and building team.
022 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
The activities below are repeated each year, though at a reducing frequency (see Appendix A).
Y1. Aftercare review meetings
Once the initial period of intensive aftercare is over, regular meetings should continue in order to
review progress with the user representatives and facilities management. The frequency of meetings
will depend on the project. Intervals of 3–4 months may be appropriate in Year 1, decreasing to six
months in Years 2 and 3.
Y2. Logging environmental and/or energy performance
The facilities manager must take the lead in monitoring energy consumption and usage. Logging
provides the basis for comparison with the energy plan and will assist ne-tuning of the systems.
The frequency will depend on extent of sub-metering and the provision of energy data gathering,
monitoring and analysis software running on the building management system.
Y3. Systems and energy review
A written review of overall energy and systems performance is desirable. Six-month intervals will
normally be adequate, though some can be done remotely and much of the rest combined with
activities Y1 and Y4.
Y4. Fine tune systems
Seasonal changes and any particular issues emerging (for example from environmental and energy
monitoring and occupant comments) will dictate when this needs doing and whether it needs
repeating. The facilities management team and commissioning engineers may need to be involved as
well as the building services contractor.
Y5. Record ne-tuning and usage change
Dependable comparison of actual and forecast performance will be impossible unless the facilities
manager records changes routinely. The O&M manuals and building logbook will also need updating
to reect alterations to systems and equipment and any changes to standard control settings and
operating schedules.
Y6. Communications
Updates to newsletters and websites will be less frequent, and may cease before the end of Year 3 if
felt appropriate.
Y7. Walkabouts
As in the rst weeks of occupation, when on-site members of the design and building team must not
just do technical things and attend meetings. They must also take the opportunity to walk around the
building, make observations and where possible discuss performance with occupiers, management
and maintenance staff. This provides opportunities for spotting actual or emergent changes which
may go unrecorded, and may otherwise compromise performance or not make the most of the latent
potential in the design.
Y8. Measure environmental and energy performance
A key part of the annual end of year review is to compare environmental, energy and human factors
performance with the design targets. The performance metrics will be a mix of scientic data, statistical
data, and anecdotal feedback. The most informative performance feedback may come from the stories
rather than hard data. Independently-curated occupant surveys (held not less than 12 months apart)
help to put energy consumption and other scientic data into a human and operational context.
Y9. End of year review
An annual meeting is required to review the general and environmental performance of the building.
This also allows all parties (client, design and building team, users and facilities managers) to
maintain a positive relationship and decide any change in focus for the next year. The nal review
at the end of Year 3 provides a well-structured wrap-up of lessons learned, and an opportunity to
celebrate success and prospects for future collaboration.
Several key actions can be combined on one visit.
Monthly reviews of energy performance would be a
minimum, but much more frequent checks will often be
rewarding. For example, logs of half- hourly electrical
consumption can indicate whether equipment is coming
on too early; or being left on unnecessarily overnight, at
weekends, or over holiday periods. A change in energy use
patterns can also give early warning of equipment failure or
underperformance and permit rapid corrective action. Such
logging can also help to determine the effects of operating
systems differently. The designers may be able to log
consumption directly via the BMS but this must not replace
the FM’s monitoring responsibility for routine monitoring
and review.
In order to make meaningful comparisons between forecast
and actual energy use, it will be essential to understand how
control and operation differs from the assumptions made at
the design stage.
Combine walkabouts with other visits as
appropriate. Every three months is a good baseline. See
and be seen.
This activity can be combined closely with Y3 above.
Be careful not to over-survey the occupants. People can
suffer from survey-fatigue very quickly, and this may distort
the results.
The review at the end of Year 1 can be coordinated with
the Defects Liability Period sign-off and can also allow any
performance targets for future years to be re-visited in the
light of experience.
As an introduction and scene setting for the end of year
review, revisit why Soft Landings was adopted and the
successes realised. Reafrm the Soft Landings goals and the
teams roles, responsibilities and commitment to these to
ensure the mutual collaboration and shared responsibility
relationship is maintained.
STAGE 5 (Y) CHECKLIST: YEARS 1–3 EXTENDED AFTERCARE SUPPORTING NOTES
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 023
These generic worksheets were developed as part of the
original Soft Landings research, and have formed part of
the background to writing this Framework document.
The worksheets cover all ve stages of the Soft Landings
process. Stage 2 (design), varies much more with
procurement route than the four other stages and
therefore should be used as a guide and tailored to suit
the actual procurement route.
For each activity outlined in the Framework, clients,
project managers and design and building teams can use
the worksheets to help them identify the actions required,
who should initiate them and who needs to participate.
The participants can then agree how they propose to carry
them out, and assign responsibilities for doing so.
The worksheets include notes to assist implementation.
Teams may wish to use a similar format to assist their
project management, by recording what they have
decided to do, who is responsible, the actions agreed,
and the programme for undertaking them. They can
also identify techniques to be used, who may need to be
brought in for specialist support or advice, when and how
post-occupancy surveys should be carried out, and so on.
Do not attempt to use the generic worksheets exactly as
written. You will need to think how the concepts should
be applied to suit the requirements of your particular
project, for example different forms of procurement and
contract. The initiator of certain tasks may also differ from
project to project, as may the participants. For example, if
the team includes specialist advisors on, say, acoustics or
information technology, they might be selected to lead
(or otherwise participate) in certain activities.
As the Framework is tested in practice on a variety of
projects, in different countries and sectors and using
different procurement systems, progress will be
monitored by the Soft Landings user groups and the
worksheets will be revised.
Go to www.softlandings.org.uk, www.softlandings.org.au
and www.usablebuildings.co.uk for up-to-date downloads
of worksheets in Excel and PDF, together with advice,
support and guidance on Soft Landings techniques
and applications.
Appendix A:
Example worksheets
024 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Soft Landings helps teams to
improve clarity of purpose,
attention to detail, and include
follow-through and feedback
arrangements.
At its core is a greater
involvement of designers and
constructors with building users
and operators before, during and
after handover of building work,
with an emphasis on improving
operational readiness and
performance in use.
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 025
Stage Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
B1 Dene roles and
Responsibilities
Project teams
should identify
their Soft
Landings
champions.
Others may be
identied later
To review
individual roles,
highlight any
gaps and clarify
the scope of
individual’s
responsibilities
Client Design team
Constructor (where
appointed) The Soft
Landings champions
can either attend
all meetings,
or nominate
rapporteurs for all
Soft Landings stages
Client: Issue a
list that states
clearly the roles
and scope of
responsibilities
Roles and limits of responsibility must be clear from the
start. If nothing else, this will highlight any gaps and,
possibly, the unsuitability of individuals in their assumed
roles. Titles are less important than an individual’s
ability and temperament. While the focus is often on
the supply-side (the design team and constructors), it is
equally important that the roles and responsibilities in
the demand-side client team are equally well dened.
The team should involve the project sponsor, Soft
Landings Champions, building users representative,
facilities manager, client advisors, and the project
manager.
B2 Review past
experience
To identify past
experience (good
and bad) which
may benet
the design and
construction and
the Soft Landing
process
Client and
design team
Design team Client
Constructor (where
appointed)
User representative
Facilities manager
Agree which
issues need to
be taken into
account
Include feedback for reality checking, quality assurance
and awareness of constraints, past experience and
past performance. What has worked before in similar
situations? Third party involvement may be helpful in
unearthing this information.
B3 Intermediate
evaluation
programme
To ensure
stakeholders are
engaged in the
process and that
input from key
users is not lost
along the way
Design team Design team
Client Constructor
(where appointed)
User representative
Facilities manager
Include
evaluation
and decision
points in design
programme
Intermediate evaluation workshops during the
early design stages are very effective in ushing out
misconceptions on all sides. They ensure stakeholders
are fully engaged in the process and that input from
key users is obtained and is not lost along the way. In
particular the workshops will help to incrementally
x decisions on the many smaller (but still important)
issues during this stage.
B4 Set
environmental
and other
performance
targets
Ensures that
the actual
performance
of key issues is
realised
Client and the
design team
Constructor (where
appointed) User
representative
Facilities manager
Agree subjects,
target(s) and
appropriate
measurement
methods
All targets should be unambiguous, measurable and
of some value. Design targets should be a mix of the
scientic, statistical and the subjective – do not try to
distil occupant comfort and wellbeing into numerical
proxies. The setting of environmental and energy targets
(whether with some nancial incentive or not) raises a
number of issues that need consideration:
• The design solution must be within the ability of the
users to control it
• There will be a greater dependency on a good
building energy management systems (BEMS),
effectively used
• Common sense must be applied to averaging out
expectations.
Ideally, the processes of target setting, prediction and
measurement should be able to identify the roles of
client requirements, design solutions and user and
management behaviour in achieving the desired
outcomes.
The level of expertise within the client body to maintain
and control the internal environment needs clarication
at the start of the early design stage, so that design
for manageability can be realistically undertaken. The
individuals who will take over the installed systems must
be involved.
B5 Sign-off
gateways,
including reality
checks
Creates the
structure for
xing decisions
Client and user
representative
Client User
representative
Design team
Constructor
Independent
reviewer(s)
Agree decision
makers and
criteria for
sign-offs
Sign-off gateways create the structure for xing
decisions. The following questions should be addressed
at each gateway: Is the strategic brief being met? Are
intermediate evaluation decisions incorporated? Have
risks been assessed and are they acceptable? Is it still
what is wanted? Are targets likely to be met? Are we
ready to move on to the next stage?
B6
Incentives
including
independent
occupant surveys
Incentivises both
the demand and
supply sides of
team
Client Design team
Constructor
Decide form of
incentives. Agree
targets and dene
measurement criteria
An independent occupant survey provider should be
appointed early, based on a proven, robust survey
methodology, and the ability to benchmark the results
against a relevant dataset.
Stage 1 (B) Worksheet Example: Inception and brieng
026 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Stage
1
Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
D1 Continue
building revisits
for specic
design options,
and use the
ndings to
inform design
decisions
To rene the design
in the light of
information from
feedback of other
relevant projects
and/or properties
owned by the client
Client Client Design
team Facilities/
premises managers
Maintenance
personnel
Constructor (where
appointed) End-user
representative(s)
Building revisits, talks
between property
managers and maintainers
and the design team.
Checklists created of both
well-functioning and
dysfunctional systems,
and occupant experiences.
Tie-in ndings with
project reality-checking
procedures.
Building revisits can generate checklists of technical and non-
technical watch points. The checklists can be used to rene the
client requirements, to inform the design brief, and to provide
insights for reality-checking meetings throughout the construction
process. It is vital to engage with facilities and maintenance
people. They can be very insightful about construction details,
items of plant, commissioning, and end-user experiences.
Some effort may be required to persuade them to take part
in discussions as they may not be used to it. Issues should be
recorded in such an way that the feedback doesn’t get forgotten as
the design develops. An operational risk register may be a useful
working document, particularly for those joining the project later.
D2 Review design
for buildability,
commssionability
and
maintainability
To ensure that the
design concepts
can be built,
commissioned and
operated successfully
Constructor
Client, Constructor,
Design team, Project
manager, Key sub-
contractors (or proxies),
Cost consultant,
Facilities manager,
Commissioning
manager, Maintenance
personnel, End-user
representative(s)
Identify key sub-
contractors to attend pre-
contract, or nd proxies.
Tie-in outputs with
project reality-checking
procedures.
The review process may be a single meeting or a series of
meetings. If time and budget only allows for one review
meeting, its timing will be crucial. It will be of little value
if the meeting occurs before the main contractor, M&E
contractor and commissioning manager have been appointed.
Deliberations and decisions should be related to the cost
plan, and any cost implications discussed with the client and
cost consultant. The in-use performance implications should
be made clear, agreed by all, approved by the client, and
recorded in the project documentation.
D3 Review design
for usability and
manageability
To review the design from
the perspective of those
who will control and
manage the building after
handover, and to identify
how the environmental
control needs of end-
users will be met
Lead
designer or
Constructor
Client, Constructor
Design team, Project
manager, Facilities/
premises managers,
Maintenance personnel,
Controls specialist (or
proxy), Commissioning
manager, M&E contractor
Identify gaps in
knowledge and spot
specic risks for building
management and end-
users. Determine the
end-user control systems.
Tie-in ndings with
reality-checking (see D4).
The review process may be a single meeting or a series of
meetings. A workshop can still be useful even where time and
budget restrictions only allow for one review meeting, but
expectations will need to be realistic. Controls usually play
a signicant role in usability and manageability. Where the
controls company has not been appointed, efforts should be
made to nd a proxy. Many controls companies will be jump
at the chance to give pre-contract advice.
D4 Undertake the
reality-checking
process started
in the Brieng
stage worksheet
and import the
outcomes from
Stage 1: B1, B2
and B3.
Chose a reality-
checking process
and reality-check
selected elements
(see notes)
Project
manager
Client, Project
manager, Design
team, Selected
sub-contractors or
proxies, End-user
representative(s)
Duties in line with the
BSRIA process BG27/2011
Pitstopping. Create RASCI
2
charts, or similar.
BSRIA BG 27/2011 Pitstopping describes a process for
reality-checking, the process whereby the project team gives
specic elements closer attention during design, construction
and installation. Outputs from reality-checking should inform
the activities for the pre-handover, handover and aftercare
stages. It is important to create the right conditions for reality-
checking. The required honesty, openness, and critical analysis
by attendees won’t come easy. People will buy into it if the
rst meeting is a success.
D5 Iterate between stages D1 to D4 during the design process as required. The sequence, number of iterations
and participants will depend on the procurement route
D6 Revisit and
update early
performance
targets
To ensure that
targets remain
realistic and
appropriate
Lead
designer or
Constructor
Client, Project
manager, Constructor,
M&E contractor,
Design team, Facilities
manager, Any rating
scheme advisors
such as Green Star,
NABERS(NZ) (optional)
Identify and describe the
performance targets, such
as energy, environmental,
social and other
performance targets (such
as water and embodied
energy). Review, and
communicate to all
relevant parties
By their nature, early energy targets generated for planning
compliance are simplistic and do not require designers to break down
energy consumption by end-use. Soft Landings requires the project
team to develop more detailed models of the building’s energy and
environmental performance, including unregulated (plug-in) power
loads and hours of operation. Early modelling will use notional
values, but these can be progressively rened during later Soft
Landings stages. The team should use tools that can be understood
by facilities managers (such as Excel charts). Facilities teams should
inherit the spreadsheets after handover. They should be updated over
time, and used to inform formal post-occupancy evaluations.
D7
Incorporate
Soft Landings
requirements in
tender documents,
and evaluate
tender responses
and results from
interviews
To ensure
that contract
requirements are
worded to reect
outputs from reviews
Project
manager
Client, Project
manager, Lead
designer, Constructor,
M&E contractor
Create contract
documents, review and
sign-off in accordance
with design review and
reality-checking ndings.
Review tender responses
against requirements.
The review and reality-checking decisions need to nd their way
into sub-contract tender documents, which should be evaluated
by the designers before going out to tender. A process also needs
to be set up to review the tender submissions and results from
tender interviews. Some sub-contracts will be more important than
others. The increasing preponderance of specialist sub-contracts
that include bespoke controls systems will need extra attention to
ensure the vendors’ systems will satisfy the requirements.
D8 Appoint
contractor and
explain and
re-enforce Soft
Landings to the
construction team
To celebrate Soft
Landings successes
to date and bring
on-board the
construction team
Project
Manager
Client, Project Manager,
Constructor, M&E
contractor, Design team,
Facilities manager,
Commissioning manager,
Controls specialist
Dene/re-dene Soft
Landings roles and
responsibilities and
articulate goals
Under Soft Landings relationships are one of mutual collaboration
and shared responsibility. Over time and in adversity, it is easy to
gravitate back to traditional customer/supplier roles. It is prudent
therefore to take time to revisit the reasons why Soft Landings was
adopted, celebrate the successes to date, and reafrm commitment
to the process and re-articulated objectives and goals.
Stage 2 (D) Worksheet Example: Design
1 Stage numbers differ from other Soft Landings documentation due to re-sequencing
2 RASCI. A simple matrix for those in a team who need to be either held Responsible,
Accountable, Supported, Consulted or Informed about a particular topic. Window motors,
for example, require people to specify, install, commission and witness their testing
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 027
Stage 3 (P) Worksheet Example: Pre-handover
Stage
1
Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
P1 Environmental
and energy
logging review
To clarify
responsibilities and
the scope of energy
logging and review
Facilities
Management
Design team Constructor Review and agree routine for
future logging. Integrate with
the requirements of the Building
Logbook and any rating schemes
being used such as NABERS(NZ)
The energy and environmental plan
and the targets set earlier will inuence
logging demand. Soft transfer of data will
help reduce visits by the design team
P2 Building
readiness
programme
To ensure coordination
to site activities and
witnessing by the
designer and/or client
representative
Constructor
Design team, Client,
Constructor, End-user
representative, Facilities
manager
Provide updated sub-programme
in good time ahead of any
commissioning start
Essential if the building readiness team
are to be effective. Static commissioning
(such as inspections, airtightness
checking, and window operation) should
be included
P3 Commissioning
records check
To verify adequacy of
records
Facilities Manager Design team, Constructor
Facilities Manager,
Commissioning Manager
Include evaluation and decision
points in design programme
Include energy performance checks
P4 Review
performance
metrics
To ensure the design
performance metrics
are still relevant
Design team Client, Constructor, M&E
contractor, Design team,
Facilities manager, any
rating scheme advisors such
as Green Star, etc. (optional)
Revisit the design performance
targets set during Stage 2
against which the building in use
performance will be measured
Changes during the construction may
require the performance metrics to be
revised to suit. For example, the addition
of a server room will increase the in-use
electrical consumption, the use of higher
efciency lights or fans will reduce the
in-use energy consumption. The metrics
against which the building is measured
need to be relevant and as accurate
as possible to make the comparisons
meaningful and useful
P5 Building services
maintenance
contract
To ensure there are
no gaps in support,
post-handover
Facilities Manager Design team, Constructor
Facilities Manager
Agree subjects, target(s) and
appropriate measurement
methods
Important in helping to avoid confusion of
roles and responsibilities post-handover
P6 Compile
building users
guide
To help building users
to better understand
and operate the
building efciently in
the manner envisaged
by the design team
Design team Client
End-user representative
Compile guide in book form.
Content to include information
on local HVAC and lighting
controls, energy and water
efcient features, security and
access, furniture, space use, cycle
storage, and the principles of
design and operation.
The guide should be written clearly
and avoid overuse of technical jargon.
Illustrations aid comprehension. The
guide should be made available in hard
and electronic formats (consider also
other digital formats such as intranet
video clips, etc.). Consult the facilities
team and building users on content. File
a copy in the O&M records. Be prepared
for revisions after operational ne-tuning
Incorporate the requirements of any rating
schemes being used such as Green Star
P7 Technical
Guidance
To smooth transitions
to local operation by
the client’s facilities
management team.
Design team Facilities management Provide a building operations
technical guide. Relate to the
Building Logbook. Liaise with the
facilities manager over content
Copy led in the O&M records and/or the
building logbook
P8 Training
programme
To ensure adequately
trained operation and
maintenance staff are
in place, pre-handover
Facilities Manager Facilities Manager Building
services maintenance
contractor/personnel
Agree decision makers and
criteria for sign- offs
As P4. Designers also need to be open to
the views of operational staff
P9 BMS Interface
demonstration
To demonstrate
operation and ne-
tuning of systems
Design team Design team, Constructor
End-user representative,
Facilities Manager, Building
services maintenance
contractor/personnel
Decide form of incentive. Agree
targets and dene measurement
criteria
As P4. Operational staff also need to
be involved in interface development,
specication and review where possible
P10 Migration
Planning
To coordinate move-in
with site continuing
activities
End-user
representative
Facilities Manager
Design team Constructor Set up meetings It’s important that the design team and
constructor are not left out of the loop
during user logistics planning
P11 Aftercare team
home
To provide visible and
accessible home for
the aftercare team
during the initial post-
handover phase
End-user
representative
Facilities Manager
Design team Constructor Arrange suitable workplace with
datacoms links
Essential if the aftercare team is to be
effective
P12 O&M manual
review
To check content of the
O&M manuals
Facilities manager Facilities management
Design team
Verify content and sign off Should be coordinated with P4, P5, P9
and P10.
1 Stage numbers differ from other Soft Landings documentation due to re-sequencing and the addition of stage P4
Note: The lead up to handover can be a good time to revisit why Soft Landings was adopted and the successes that have been realised and re-afrm the commitment to Soft Landings prior to moving into a phase of sign off
028 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Stage Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
A1 Resident on-site
attendance
Spot, respond to and help
to deal with emerging
issues
Design team
Constructor
Design team Constructor Team members resident in
the building for (n) days per
week
The number of days per
week will depend on the
size and complexity of the
building. Team members
should have good people,
practical capability and
continuity with the project
A2 Provide
workplace and
datacomms links
To give resident team
members a visible home
within the new building
User or client
representative
User representative
Client representative
Set up and make available
prior to actual handover
See pre-handover actions.
The workplace must be
available from the rst day
of occupation
A3 Building use
guidance
To introduce users to
how their building
operates and the use of
local controls. This stage
is useful for obtaining
feedback.
Design team
Constructor
Design team Constructor
Typical user groups
Participate in (n) focus groups
of building users to present
key information. Introduce
the building user guide and
discuss views and queries.
Anticipate at least two
meetings. See pre-
handover actions. Mention
the helpline and/or
newsletter
A4 Technical
guidance
To smooth transition
to local operation by
the client’s facilities
management team
Design team
Constructor
Building facilities
management
representatives
Design team
Constructor
Participate in (n) meetings
with the facilities
management representatives
to introduce content of the
technical guidance and
explain systems and discuss
views.
Anticipate two meetings.
Ideally, this should have
already happened during
the pre-handover stage.
A5 Helpline/
Newsletter
To encourage local
feedback and
communicate status of
issues
Design team
User
Representative
Building operator and
user representatives.
Constructor
Design team
The design team to set up
a simple bulletin board
possibly linked to the
client’s intranet, for email
dialogue and posting of
information updates. The
user representative should
aim to update the website or
newsletters fortnightly and to
moderate user comments.
Keep this simple, not
too technical and easy
to update. It’s best if the
newsletter or helpline is
available electronically
A6 Walkabouts To spot emerging issues
and observe occupation
usage
Design team
Constructor
Design team Constructor
If required, the users,
the maintenance team,
and the commissioning
engineers
Roam building informally on
a regular basis. Make spot
checks with instruments if
necessary.
Combine with other visits
as appropriate. See and be
seen.
Stage 4 (A) Worksheet Example: Initial aftercare
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 029
Stage Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
Y1 Aftercare review
meetings
Review progress Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor Client
representative
User representative
Participate in onsite meetings Four to six meetings in the 10 months
following weeks 1-8 should be adequate.
Y2 Log and review
energy use
To provide
the basis for
comparison with
the energy plan
and to assist ne-
tuning of systems.
Facilities
management
Design team Facilities management to
monitor and forward-read
every (n) weeks. Design team
member to review readings
every (n) weeks.
The frequency will depend on the extent
of sub-metering and the quality of the
BMS links. Monthly readings should
be a minimum. the design may be
able to log consumption directly via
the BMS, but this must not replace the
facilities manager’s monitoring. Try and
coordinate with the requirements of
any rating schemes being used such as
NABERS(NZ)
Y3 Systems and
energy review
To monitor overall
energy usage and
systems.
Design team
Facilities
management
Design team
Facilities
management
Client representative
User representative
Maintenance team
Participate in review meeting
every (n) weeks.
Six-monthly is suggested. This activity
may need to be more frequent, though
some can be done remotely and much of
the rest absorbed into stages Y1 and Y4
Y4 Fine-tune
systems
To adjust systems
for seasonal
change and any
emerging usage
patterns.
Facilities
manager
Design team
Constructor Facilities
management
Carry out ne-tuning at every
(n) month(s)
The frequency will depend on seasonal
timing and any particular emergent
issues. The maintenance team and
commissioning engineers may
sometimes need to be involved. Tie in
with outcomes of Y2 activities
Y5 Record
ne-tuning and
changes of use
To help
progressive
changes
Facilities
manager
Design team
Constructor
Facilities
management
Record changes to systems in
the building logbook and add
to the O&M manuals
Essential for accurate comparison of
forecast energy use.
Y6 Helpline/
newsletter
To encourage
local feedback
and communicate
status of issues
Design team Facilities
management and
user representatives
Update every (n) weeks A monthly update should be adequate.
Y7 Walkabouts To spot emerging
issues and observe
occupation usage
Design team Design team
Constructor
Roam building informally on
a regular basis.
Every two months is a good baseline;
combine with other visits as appropriate.
See and be seen
Y8 Measure
energy and
environmental
performance and
obtain occupant
feedback.
To compare actual
against forecast
targets
Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor
Measure performance
to agreed programme
and against any agreed
performance metrics and
targets.
Feedback used to inform the end of
Year review meeting agenda. Year 1
reporting may only include partial data
and feedback if the building has not
operated in a stable condition for at least
12 months. Do not rush to judgement
before the building has settled down into
a steady pattern of operation.
Y9 End of year
review and
reafrmation of
Soft Landings
To review
overall building
performance
Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor
User representative
Facilities
management
Client representative
Participate in annual meeting Revisit why Soft Landings was adopted
and the successes that have been
realised. At the same time the Soft
Landings objectives and goals and
the teams roles, responsibilities and
commitment to Soft Landings can
be reafrmed to ensure the mutual
collaboration and shared responsibility
relationship is maintained.
Coordinate with the end of defects
liability sign-off. This is also the
opportunity to decide any change of focus
for the coming year
Stage 5 (Y) Worksheet Example: Extended Aftercare Years 1–3
030 | The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand
Stage Action Purpose Initiator Participants Scope of duties Notes
Y1 Aftercare review
meetings
Review progress Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor Client
representative
User representative
Participate in onsite meetings Four to six meetings in the 10 months
following weeks 1-8 should be adequate.
Y2 Log and review
energy use
To provide
the basis for
comparison with
the energy plan
and to assist ne-
tuning of systems.
Facilities
management
Design team Facilities management to
monitor and forward-read
every (n) weeks. Design team
member to review readings
every (n) weeks.
The frequency will depend on the extent
of sub-metering and the quality of the
BMS links. Monthly readings should
be a minimum. the design may be
able to log consumption directly via
the BMS, but this must not replace the
facilities manager’s monitoring. Try and
coordinate with the requirements of
any rating schemes being used such as
NABERS(NZ)
Y3 Systems and
energy review
To monitor overall
energy usage and
systems.
Design team
Facilities
management
Design team
Facilities
management
Client representative
User representative
Maintenance team
Participate in review meeting
every (n) weeks.
Six-monthly is suggested. This activity
may need to be more frequent, though
some can be done remotely and much of
the rest absorbed into stages Y1 and Y4
Y4 Fine-tune
systems
To adjust systems
for seasonal
change and any
emerging usage
patterns.
Facilities
manager
Design team
Constructor Facilities
management
Carry out ne-tuning at every
(n) month(s)
The frequency will depend on seasonal
timing and any particular emergent
issues. The maintenance team and
commissioning engineers may
sometimes need to be involved. Tie in
with outcomes of Y2 activities
Y5 Record
ne-tuning and
changes of use
To help
progressive
changes
Facilities
manager
Design team
Constructor
Facilities
management
Record changes to systems in
the building logbook and add
to the O&M manuals
Essential for accurate comparison of
forecast energy use.
Y6 Helpline/
newsletter
To encourage
local feedback
and communicate
status of issues
Design team Facilities
management and
user representatives
Update every (n) weeks A monthly update should be adequate.
Y7 Walkabouts To spot emerging
issues and observe
occupation usage
Design team Design team
Constructor
Roam building informally on
a regular basis.
Every two months is a good baseline;
combine with other visits as appropriate.
See and be seen
Y8 Measure
energy and
environmental
performance and
obtain occupant
feedback.
To compare actual
against forecast
targets
Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor
Measure performance
to agreed programme
and against any agreed
performance metrics and
targets.
Feedback used to inform the end of
Year review meeting agenda. Year 1
reporting may only include partial data
and feedback if the building has not
operated in a stable condition for at least
12 months. Do not rush to judgement
before the building has settled down into
a steady pattern of operation.
Y9 End of year
review and
reafrmation of
Soft Landings
To review
overall building
performance
Design team
Constructor
Design team
Constructor
User representative
Facilities
management
Client representative
Participate in annual meeting Revisit why Soft Landings was adopted
and the successes that have been
realised. At the same time the Soft
Landings objectives and goals and
the teams roles, responsibilities and
commitment to Soft Landings can
be reafrmed to ensure the mutual
collaboration and shared responsibility
relationship is maintained.
Coordinate with the end of defects
liability sign-off. This is also the
opportunity to decide any change of focus
for the coming year
Soft Landings
provides a unified
vehicle for engaging
with outcomes
throughout the
process of briefing,
design and delivery.
It dovetails with
energy performance
certification, building
logbooks, green
leases, and corporate
social responsibility.
The Soft Landings Framework Australia and New Zealand | 031
Soft Landings
why bother?
Soft Landings:
Provides a unied vehicle for engaging with outcomes throughout the process of brieng, design and
delivery. It dovetails with energy performance certication, building logbooks, green leases, and corporate
social responsibility.
It can run alongside any procurement process. It helps design and building teams to appreciate how
buildings are used, managed and maintained.
It provides the best opportunity for producing low-carbon buildings that meet their design targets. It includes
ne-tuning in the early days of occupation and provides a natural route for post-occupancy evaluation.
It costs very little, well within the margin of competitive bids. During design and construction, Soft Landings
helps performance-related activities to be carried out more systematically. There is some extra work during the
three-year aftercare period, but the costs are modest in relation to the value added to the client’s building.
Most of all, Soft Landings creates virtuous circles for all and offers the best hope for truly integrated, robust
and sustainable design.
This document is an adaptation and revision of the original authored by the Usable Buildings Trust, the originator of Soft Landings Mark Way, and Roderic Bunn of BSRIA. For more information go to www.softlandings.org.au
The Soft Landings logo is reproduced under licence from BSRIA
9 781906 846442
ISBN 978-1-906846-44-2
