Conventional benchmarking studies are ineffective on most projects. They can’t account for the variety of functions and space types that drive the building’s outcomes. Conventional benchmarking only works when there are near-identical, near-by, recent whole-building comparables. In most cases these studies are broad, dollar per square foot measures of a few major building elements. These studies lack reliability, are easily tampered with, and give a false sense of accuracy and precision.
Catalyst equips users with impartial benchmarking. This process is key to more reliably predicting and steering to more certain and known outcomes. Catalyst benchmarking is considered “high definition” because of the many predicted-to-actual data points that is assesses. This video illustrates the Catalyst approach to benchmarking.
Figure 1 illustrates an early benchmarking study for a critical access hospital. This figure shows the gross building area and construction cost predictions – base on four comparative models. The first: the “market average” or Baseline returns a relatively wide range of variation. This prediction is based on about 30 attributes. The second is a Benchmark model based on a BOMA Class B standard project; third: a BOMA Class A Benchmark; and, forth: a Class High A Benchmark. The greater the number of completed, real-world projects that a company records, the greater the knowledge basis for predicting and steering current project outcomes.
Figure 1 – Benchmark Variation – Total Cost
High definition benchmarking extends to the functions (i.e. exams, operating, rooms, classrooms, etc.), and to building system elements (foundations, floor structure, exterior walls, etc.). Figure 2, for example, examines both the design proportions as well as the unit costs at a system element level. These are all normalized to the same year and location as the proposed project.
To learn more about Baseline and Benchmark capabilities, please visit Basis of Results page.