The document discusses the Owner's Project Requirements (OPR) process, which the University of Texas System has adopted as a best practice. The OPR documents a project's needs, functional requirements, goals, and performance criteria. It provides details to guide the project team and acts as a reference throughout the project. Developing a thorough OPR involves identifying stakeholders, resolving scope issues, and establishing institutional standards. The process requires inclusive workshops to document what, why, and how questions over multiple sessions. Revisions should be minimal and require a formal approval process. The OPR aims to improve overall project definition and management of cost, schedule, and other constraints.

1. the Owner’s
Project
Requirements
Carol Warkoczewski, AIA, MSOLE
OWNER, SYNERGY BUILDERS
Building leaders, teams, projects, and organizations.

2. SO
WHAT’S
THE
PROBLEM?
To Know Your “Space”…

3. …you Need to
Know Your
Requirements
To better manage project
constraints:
Cost
Scope
Schedule

4. PROJECT
INFLUENCE & PROJECT
CONTROL COST & SCHEDULE
IMPACT
Pre‐Project
Planning Pre‐Design Design Construction

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:
TO IMPROVE OVERALL
PROJECT DEFINITION
This document is referred to as the OPR
UT System has introduced the Owner’s
Project Requirements (OPR) to its core
project delivery processes.
UT Austin is adopting it as a new best
practice.

6. DETAILS PROJECT’S…
Needs
Functional requirements
INCLUDES PROJECT…
Goals
Measurable
performance criteria
Supporting information

7. What?
Why? How? etc... CDs
DDs
Schematic Design
Facility Program
Basis of Design
Owner’s Project Requirements
Statement of Need
IDEAL Project Delivery Process
Timeline

8. Project definition is
documented and approved
by executives
Project needs are assessed
to establish a basis for
execution
The OPR becomes a basic
project execution reference
& briefing document
The project team provides
assistance, guidance,
review & support
throughout the project

10. OPR DESIGN WAS
INITIALLY
CRAFTED FROM
ASHRAE Guidelines
The University of Wisconsin ‐ Madison
Department of Engineering, Professional
Development
Charles Dorgan, PE, PhD, CxAP

11. Resolved lingering scope
definition issues
Identified unknown key
stakeholders & issues
Technical stakeholders became
more vested in the project
Emergence of institutional
standards

12. End users
Executives
Institutional planners
Governing board
Maintenance staff
Neighboring constituents
Occupants
Technical staff
etc…

13. 1. Acoustical, Structural, and Vibration 11. Landscaping and Exterior Design
2. Adaptability for Future Changes or 12. Occupant Spatial Requirements
Expansion 13. Operations & Maintenance,
3. Aesthetics, Quality of Materials, and Tolerances, Waste, and
Historically Significant Interior Spaces Warranties
4. Commissioning Process, Scope, and 14. Other Codes, Standards, and
Training Requirements Accessibility
5. Community or Other Stakeholder 15. Security
Requirements 16. Telecommunications, IT, and
6. Constructability, Construction Audio/visual (A/V)
Considerations, and Schedules 17. Utilities and Building
7. Energy Efficiency, Environmental Infrastructure (Electrical and
Sustainability Goals, and Benchmarking Plumbing)
8. Equipment (including HVAC and 18. Project Prioritization
Elevators) and System Maintainability 19. Project Schedule, Budget, and
9. Fire Safety and Life Safety Funding
10. Health, Hygiene, Indoor Environment, 20. Project Limitations, Challenges,
and Environmental Health and Safety or Issues

14. Next…
Essential Ingredients:
• All together, around a table
• Document what’s and why’s
• Facilitated
• Four‐hour sessions (2‐4)
• Inclusive
• Process for no‐consensus items

16. Revisions may be necessary
Keep revisions to a minimum
(think Strategic Plan)
Use a formal change approval
process
Primary reasons for revisions
Assumptions / constraints are
invalidated or change
Requirements cannot be met
Project scope changes

17. Eleanor Roosevelt

18. Carol Warkoczewski, AIA, MSOLE
Owner, Synergy Builders
Austin, Texas
carol@SynergyBuilders.com
(512) 263‐5521