The embodied carbon within the façade increased compared with initial projections.
An effective master plan gives the client clarity, understanding and tools for improvement.. A Design to Value master plan is not simply a design, or a set of drawings or visuals for a site.It is a means to understand current processes and activities, and plan for their development in what may be a changing and unpredictable environment, with multiple stakeholders and agendas..
The very process of creating such a plan – gathering all the relevant information and data and presenting it back to clients in a structured way – is in itself a highly productive exercise, allowing people to pull back from the detail of day-to-day operations, and take a more holistic view of what they are doing.Many activities, processes and sites develop organically over time, meaning that the big picture can become confused or even lost altogether.Agreeing what needs to be done can be a challenge in itself, as it can be hard even to know where to start.. Design to Value master planning is a highly collaborative process, customised to the client’s specific situation and requirements, which aims to create sufficient understanding from which to decide what, how and when to improve – and why.
And given that the constant in every project is uncertainty and change, it must always allow for multiple variables, both known and unknown..Importantly, effective master planning also allows the client to explain simply – and sell – their issues, requirements and planning to other (senior) internal stakeholders, demonstrating clearly how to move from a present state to potential future states, and the benefits of doing so.. Bryden Wood’s master planning process.
Our approach to master planning is collaborative, and iterative.
Collaborative because there is usually no one person who understands every element of the situation (we bring together the right people to combine their knowledge and experience).It would be too costly to be attractive to utilities companies and plant owners.
It would be too risky because of the typical levels of cost uncertainty in nuclear projects.It would take too long and be too disruptive to do the required refurbishments.
It would be too risky because of the typical levels of programme uncertainty in these types of projects.It would be impossible to review and approve the design to ensure the required quality for these types of highly regulated buildings.