CAPÍTULO III O TRAS DEDUCCIONES
Artículo 61. Deducción por inversiones en activos no corrientes nuevos
Most heritage projects experience some kind of difficulty in regard to meeting financial and time targets. In the interviews with the OGH stakeholders, questions were asked to target these issues and the interview objectives were discussed with each of the identified stakeholders to get their views on these problems. Table 5.4
shows the stakeholders interviewed in the OGH case study. The remainder of this section presents the OGH stakeholders’ views on the topics investigated in the interviews.
Table 5.4: OGH case study stakeholder interviews
Case Study Interviews Total Project Owner Project Manager Super- intendant Heritage/ Architect Engineer Quantity Surveyor Builder OGH
√
√
0
√/0
0
0
√
4
Gona Barracks√
√
√
0/√
√
0
√
6
Anzac Square√
√
√
0/√
√
√
√
7+1
Differences in managing/designing heritage building projects and conventional building projects
It is not only heritage building projects that run over time and over budget: most conventional building projects also experience these difficulties. Managing a project to run within its scope is challenging in most construction-based projects (Zwikael and Smyrk 2011).
The following comments made by the OGH stakeholder [R4] revealed the view on the differences between heritage building projects and conventional building projects:
a) Pre-planning – “Heritage projects require considerably greater level of pre-
planning and consultation. Sufficient timeframe should be allocated during this period”.
b) Stakeholder management – “There are a greater number of stakeholders in heritage projects. In fact stakeholder management is one of the key requirements”.
c) Community consultation – “Owned by the public, community consultation is also one of the key aspects in delivering these projects. Programming this activity into the program is critical”.
d) Risks – “Due to age of these building, it is very difficult to assess what one comes across the building during the construction stage. The construction risks are considerably higher. It is not uncommon to have a contingency of 20–40%”.
e) Media and political interest – Heritage projects “attract considerable interest from media as well as from political arenas”.
Conventional building projects are mostly run in line with “what the client wants” [R1], while heritage building projects have to follow the Burra Charter outlining good practice for heritage places.
Conventional building projects are also believed to take “the short term view” [R1] while heritage projects consider the “long term community interest” [R1, R3 and R4]. One main difference between conventional building projects and heritage projects is that “you can make mistakes” [R1] in conventional building projects but in heritage projects there is no place for mistakes and the stakeholders must be
“prudent, careful, responsible and very proper” [R1].
Furthermore, different trades are involved in conventional and heritage projects, and sourcing materials is different [R2]. Meeting the BCA requirements for conventional projects and heritage projects is also different [R2].
Limitations of current policies and procedures for heritage building projects Meeting the requirements of heritage legislation can sometimes be time consuming, but when dealing with heritage projects the concept of time can be considered differently: “what is two months in two hundred years?” [R1]. Due to the limitations, “there are more about people to think in conservation way, to have more
general understanding of procedures and it is about too many people who carry out this processes do not understand very well” [R1]. Moreover, “a heritage classification of the building whether it is local, state or national listed limits the design” [R2].
“It is very hard to determine the scope” [R4], as the amount of investigation of the
building is not adequate and “non-destructive investigation prior to tender
especially in relation to termite infestation could be insufficient. Differences in meeting the requirements of the BCA were noted, highlighting the need for adjustments to the BCA or a “separate code is needed” [R2]. Also “finding
strategies to meet Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is a challenge” [R2] for
heritage building projects.
Causes of project delays
In relation to project delays, common problems emerge from project to project. One of the OGH stakeholders [R1] highlighted: “Bad process of planning as significance
of place is not well understood” (usually the approval of the proposed project is
revised two to five times or more); “doing work in a wrong order as work that has
been completed has been damaged because of the late work” (further causing new
rework); “having unsuitable deadline” (e.g. political interests); and “building
investigation challenges” (only visual inspection was allowed prior to the scope
definition). At the end, “It is all about the latent condition” [R2].
Different stakeholders and the project delivery
When multiple stakeholders are involved in the project, it is ideal to have a “team
environment where everyone heading towards the same outcome regardless of the political, financial and other goals” [R2]. The stakeholders can be grouped as: “owners – passionate and have understanding; consultants – clear thinking, technical and historical knowledge experience; community – looking after the place to keep it significant – individuals and organisations such as the National Trust; regulators – ultimate protection; trades – knowledge that needs to be passed along”
[R1]. Understanding the role of the different groups enables the project to be led and maintained in a desirable way. However, managing different stakeholders with different interest/influence on the project is difficult especially when project attracts considerable interest from media as well as political arenas.
Specialists and subcontractors on the project
The subcontractor could be already allocated by the heritage consultant, or “the
builder has to ensure the subcontractor for the specific work” [R3]; “there are specific trades that are now difficult to find. In OGH, it was difficult to find a tradesperson for the re-roofing component. Stone mason is another trade difficult to procure” [R4]. Therefore, sourcing of traditional trades to do the specific work can
sometimes be difficult as “knowledge has not been passed along” [R3 and R4]. Moreover, “very few understand to do it in a proper way” [R1].
Heritage project components
Among the policies and procedures, scope definition, tender documentation, decision making, managing within time, lack of information on the building and managing the multiple stakeholders as the various heritage project components, the OGH stakeholders identified the scope definition as the most difficult component [R1, R2, R3 and R4], followed by the media for the tender documentation, and the lack of information on the building. “The request for the information on the project has
become an almost daily procedure” [R2]; because the project documentation is not
detailed enough, the requests for information “take the considerable time of the
project” [R3]. Furthermore, one of the stakeholders [R4] stated that:
“I would consider defining the scope would be the most difficult component of
the project. Having the right team of heritage architects, experienced engineers in this area would be critical in delivering the project successfully.”
“Managing the time is another major risk item and needs to be appropriately
programmed into the timeframe incorporating consultation, stakeholder management, risks etc.”
Project contingency
Based on their experience, the respondents stated that the project contingency
“should be a minimum 30%” [R1 and R2]: “It is quite normal to have 20 to 40% contingency on projects of this nature” [R4]. The discovery of latent conditions is
likely to happen: “The contingency should be based on the areas of risk and the
unknowns and estimated by a quantity surveyor with experience in this area” [R4].
An appropriate amount of contingency would ensure that any further work could be covered to ensure the project quality. Owners have an “influence in getting a good
result” [R1] by allocating the suitable amount for the contingency fund: “It is not difficult convince the project owner as long as it has been assessed properly” [R4].
Dilapidation survey - October 2007
A survey was conducted in 2007 “to capture the existing conditions and defects prior to removal of fabric”; it was intended that the survey would be “a reference point to match existing fabric where required once removed” Kane Construction (2007, p.2). The archived photo-documentation from the dilapidation survey, including external elevations, courtyard and external landscaping, showed the condition of the building before adaptation.
Building Exterior/ Interior
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show photo-documentation of the building condition (exterior and interior).
Figure 5.6: Photo-documentation of the building condition - interior 2