5 

LIFE CYCLE COSTING AND COST-EFFECTIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS 

AJ Stevens 
LIFE CYCLE COSTING 

Introduction 
According to Ruegg and Marshall 1 economic optimisation is the process whereby 
economic analysis is applied to determine the most economically efficient or cost-effective 
choice among alternatives. Moreover, the attainment of optimum economic efficiency 
reflects a fundamental goal of the majority of investors. Whereas traditional economic 
evaluation methods offer varying de�rees of proficiency in determinini optimum 
investment desirability, they fail to identify and evaluate the explicit relationships between 
capital costs and operating expenses. These inadequacies are especially relevant when 
viewed from the perspective of property investment evaluation. Recognising the intimate 
links between imtial acquisition costs and subsequent running costs is fundamental to 
establishing the most cost-effective property development solution. Llfe Cycle Costing 
(LCC) represents a financial assessment technique whereby these issues are addressed. 
LCC as a general management technique i�not new. The pr�cess is acknowledged as a weU established evaluation concept. Robinson and Blanchard remark that proven general 
business principles4 which have been used in industry and commerce for years, underpin themethod. Marshall notes that LCC has traditionally been used by the United States 
government for large projects and currently most U.S. government agencies are required to 
employ formal life cycle evaluation methods. Notwithstanding the perceived benefits, 
widespread application of LCC is not �versa!. The resistance to implernentini LCC is 
recognised by Ashworth and Au-Yeung who reveal that, although the Royal Institution of 
Chartered Surveyors (Quantity Surveyors' Division) has consistently supported the use of 
the technique in practice, there appears to be a reluctance on the/art of United Kingdom 
practitioners to implement LCC services. According to Norman the primary causes for 
this limited application may be attributed to the following: 

(')(ii)

(iii) 

A lack of reliable data, 
A perception that, because it is essentially a forecasting system, LCC delivers 
questionable conclusions and is therefore inappropriate for decision-making, 
and 
The precise nature of LCC computations removes the scope for managerial 
discretion. 

Various terms are applied to identify the technique of LCC. These include costs-in-use, 
terotechn?}ogy, engineering eco�mics and cost Bgnefit studies. Although �ijhors such as Blanchard , Ruegg and Marshall , Hanagan et al. , and Dell'isola and Kirk accept LCC 
as a valid method of 

11
nsuring design efficiency optimisation, the approach has its

detractors. Lenard r2 al. challenge the merits of the procedure employed to evaluate �3 
cycle costs. Drake is more emphatic in his objections, while Grover and Grover 
emphasise the consistency problems in LCC appraisals. 

Definition 

Although employed in the decision-making process in a number of industries, LCC is 
examined in this paper specifically in terms of its relevance to property development 
evaluation. LCC as applied to building activity is the term employed to portray a financial 
appraisal technique that permits comparative evaluation of building projects and/or 
components/�-ystems constituting the physical asset. The life cycle cost of an asset 



6 

subsequent running costs and final disposal costs or income. 

Whilst authors such as Kerr and Capper14 and Bejrum and HaugenlS refer to income 
considerations, the LCC technigue is generally promoted as a cost con

1�t reflecting the cost consequences of design deC1Sions. For instance, Ruegg and Marshall identify LCC as 
a method used to evaluate alternatives which compete primarily on the basis of ffSts. A 
similar interpretation is advanced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors . They 
introduce LCC as a technique that takes into account the total costs that a project imposes 
upon a client during the whole of its life. Within these stringent definitions, emphasis is 
clearly placed on cost-effectiveness and income benefits are specifically excluded from the 
computation procedure. 

In essence LCC may be defined as 

A financial appraisal technique that permits valid comparative evaluations of available 
alternative possibilities based on time-phased costs over a specific investment period in 
order to arrive at the optimum cost-effective solution.' 

LCC functions 

Although many basic design decisions are subject to outside influences such as town 
planning regulations, and are not candidates for life cycle costing, the majority have 
multiple options each with its own economic consequence. Unless these alternatives are 
clearly defined, incorrect decisions may be made by the failure to recognise possible 
substitutes. Even if several alternatives are considered, ineffective selections may result as 
a consequence of not having considered the best solution. A poor alternative will inevitably 
appear the best selection if compared with alternatives that are even worse. 

An LCC study _provides a framework for selecting the optimum alternative from among 
mutually exclusive options which may differ with respect to both initial and running costs. 
The technique facilitates the comparison of all relevant costs by converting them to equal 
terms at common points in time. LCC employed at the inception stage of a development 
may be used as a technique for determinin� whether or not to build, or for evaluating 
alternative building developments on the basis of initial, operating and maintenance costs 
over the economic life of the project. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TIIE IBCHNIQUE 

Implementation process 

LCC represents a logical method of evaluating developments with respect to the design of 
complete buildings or elements or to the choice of individual components or materials. The 
implementation process is divided into the following stages: 

(i) Establishing the life cycle: The determined life cycle applicable to all options is
established in consultation with the investor in order to ensure that the time scale is
compatible with investment objectives. Within the established overall life cycle study
period, differing life cycles appear for the various components and elements constituting
the asset.

(ii) Determination of available alternatives: To ensure that the best options are selected,
all suitable alternatives relating to design solutions and materials and forms of construction
are identified.



7 

(iii) Estimation of total costs applicable to the available alternatives: The estimated current
value cash flow for the determined life cycle applicable to each element or component
includes capital costs, running costs, mamtenance costs, repair and replacement costs,
alteration costs, finance charges and residual costs or revenues. The total cost commitment
for the overall life cycle comprises the sum of the life cycle costs of the individual elements
and components.

(iv) Time-phasing costs to date of occurrence: Because estimated prices represent present
day costs they are time-phased to the anticipated dates on which they are expected to
occur. The time-phasing process incorporates price changes caused by inflation, changed
working conditions, etc.

(v) Selection of discount rate: The selection of an appropriate or interest rate to convert
the time-phased costs to future or present value equivalents, enables alternatives to be
compared on an equitable basis at a common point in time.

(vi) Adjustments for income tax charges and depreciation allowances: The financial
implications of income tax charges affecting both the discount rate and cash flow are
computed. The financial relief precipitated by depreciation allowances is reflected as a
reduction in life cycle costs.

(vii) Sensitivity analyses: This issue refers to testing the sensitivity of the analyses to the
effects of changes to interest rates, life cycles or estimated costs.

Computation procedures 

Three traditional methods employed in LCC studies are illustrated. All provide for cash 
flows, regardless of when they are incurred, to be converted to equal terms at common 
points in time. The methods are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Equivalent Present Value Method: Alternatives are evaluated in terms of 
their total single payment present worth. 

Equivalent Annual Value Method: Alternatives are evaluated in terms of 
their equivalent annual value costs. 

Equivalent Future Value Method: Alternatives are evaluated in terms of 
their total single payment future worth. 

These methods, -which are fully interchangeable, represent alternative means of presenting 
precisely the same information in a standard format. 

Cost data reflecting current values are time-phased to represent actual costs as at the date 
of commitment. The prediction of future recurring or replacement costs must account for 
increases due to the following: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

Inflation. 

Differences in working conditions and scale of operations. Replacement will 
not necessarily be on the same scale as the original operation and may be 
executed under more trying or difficult circumstances. 

Costs of demolishing and removing existing work as well as the protection of 
remaining structures and finishings while the work is in progress. 

Costs of disturbances to and/or by the occupiers during building operations. 



8 

Notwithstanding cost considerations representing the primary basis for comparative 
purposes, all options must be capable of fulfilling stipulated functional objectives. Apart 
from meeting acceetable technical standards and cost-effective qualities, a further criterion 
affectin� the decision is the irreducible factor. An irreducible factor is one that has no 
alternatives and, as such, outweighs any cost considerations. 

In the application of LCC analyses a number of issues are relevant to its successful 
implementation. These include income tax implications, tax depreciation allowances, the 
impact of inflation and financing considerations. These issues are individually examined in 
terms of their impact on LCC studies. 

INCOME TAX IMPLICATIONS 

General 

The financial implications of income tax charges and tax depreciation allowances are 
investi�ated only insofar as they directly affect LCC studies. Whilst LCC is concerned 
primarily with costs, certain expenditures do cultivate tax implications with respect to 
mcome benefits. Therefore, apart from examining the effects of income tax on expenses, 
the indirect impact of tax on revenue is clarified. 

Three tax issues are identified. These are the: 

0 (ii) 

(iii) 

Effects of income tax on the interest rate; 
Indirect tax effects on revenue that results from expenditure commitments; 
and 
Financial implications of tax depreciation allowances. 

The effects of income tax on the interest rate 

Income ta"{ charges are equivalent to reductions in interest rates employed to transpose 
time-phased costs to present or future value sums. These adjustments to the applied 
interest rate result in delivering smaller future value sums and larger present value sums. 

The indirect tax effects on revenue 

Wben expenditure is classified as deductible for tax purposes, it realises a saving in income 
tax payable. Because LCC studies reflect only expenses, the financial relief created by tax 
permissible expenditures is treated as a reduction in life cycle costs. TI1e value of the tax 
charge reduction, which is e�uivalent to a decrease in expenses, is dependent upon the 
payment amount and the apphed tax rate. In the example illustrated in table 1 the 
R2 000.00 expense is eq_uivalent to an after-tax charge of Rl 200.00. In mathematical terms 
the tax relief value precrpitated by permissible expenditure is the 'payment amount x [1 - t]' 
and the actual worth of a R2 000.00 cost cmmmtment (assuming 40% income tax) would 
read: 

After-tax cost = A [1 - t] 
= 2 000.00 [1 -.40] 
= Rl 200.00 

Wben expenditure represents a capital cost, it is not permitted as a deduction for tax 
purposes. S�ch charges derive no tax relief benefit and the full costs are included in the 
LCC analysis. 



Table 1 Tax implications of expenditure of a revenue nature 

Gross annual income 
Annual operating expence 
Redecoration 
Net income before tax 
Income tax - 40 
Net income after tax 

Project A 

Rl0 000.00 
3 000.00 
__Q,00 
7000.00 
UQQ.00 

R4200.00 

After-tax income difference occasioned by cost 
of redecoration = Rl 200.00 

ProjectB 

Rl0 000.00 
3000.00 
2.000.00 
5 000.00 
2..00!.1.00 

R 3  000.00 

9 

In computing the present or future value equivalents for non-tax-deductible expenditure, 
effective after-tax interest rates are used m the equations to transpose data to their 
ultimate destination. If charges are designated as deductible for tax purposes, the benefits 
derived from the tax relief permutations are accommodated by multiplying the relevant 
equations by [1- t]. 

The implications of tax depreciation allowances 

Annual depreciation allowances represent positive cash flows and are processed as revenue 
streams that reduce life cycle costs. Because depreciation amounts are not cash outlays, but 
bookkee.Ping expenses that reduce taxable income, the method of accounting for the tax 
i�lications on these allowances differs from the procedure adopted in accommodating tax 
relief values attributed to operating costs. The primary distinction relates to the tax relief 
equation. 

Tax depreciation allowances reduce the amount of tax payable and increase the after-tax 
income from an investment. In order to give a proper account for the financial implications 
of depreciation amounts, they are offset agamst the costs of the depreciated asset. For 
instance, the example in table 2 illustrates that the R3 000.00 depreciation allotment 
creates a Rl 200.00 increase in after-tax cash flow, and effectively rel?resents a reduction of 
Rl 200.00 in the cost of the asset. In mathematical terms the deprecration amount is offset 
against the cost of the asset by the equation 'Depreciation amount x t' and accordingly R3 
000.00 x 't' = Rl 200.00. 

Table 2 Tax depreciation allowances 

Gross annual income 
Annual operating expenses 
Tax depreciation allowance 
Taxable income 
Income tax - 40% 
Net income after tax 

Project A 

Rl0 000.00 
3000.00 
_Q,_QQ 

7000.00 
12 800.00 

R4200.00 

After-tax income difference occasioned 
by tax depreciation allowances = Rl 200.00 

Project B 

Rl0 000.00 
3 000.00 
3..00Q,OO 
6000.00 
liQQ.00 

R5 400.00 



10 

FINANCING COSTS 

General 

Althou�h the subject of financing capital purchases is ignored by most of the literature 
pertaimng to LCC studies, the issue remains a crucial factor in capital investment decisions. 
The logic supporting the contention that financing provisions are intrinsic components of
the evaluation process is not unanimously accepted. For instance, Langston · maintains 
that borrowed money considerations should P<r excluded from LCC computations. This 
viewpoint is not reflected by Flanagan et al . They argue that if the cost is financed 
through borrowing, explicit account needs to be taken of the resultant interest payments. 

Borrowed money interest charges are tax deductible expenses that decrease taxable income 
and result in lower income tax payments. In contrast, loan capital repayments do not 
qualify as deductions for tax purposes and the total value of such amounts is reflected as an 
expense in the cash flow profile. In terms of LCC analyses, the computation complexities 
associated with interest and redemption repayments are largely dependent upon the 
financing arrangements. Two primary financing methods are pertment. The first method 
provides for interest-only payments for the life of the loan and capital redemption at the 
conclusion of the loan penod. The second procedure assumes a constant payment pattern 
in which interest and redemption amounts vary in value as the repayment cycle progresses. 
The method provides for the systematic reduction of borrowed capital to zero value at the 
conclusion of the loan term. 

Interest-only mortgage loans 

In terms of financial accountability, the interest-only type loan represents the less complex 
system. Interest charges are reflected as a series of tax deductible uniform payments. When 
loan repayment schedules do not correspond with the project life, the computed values are 
transposed to dates that match either the start or end of the determined overall life cycle. 

Although the debt capital repayment amount at the end of the loan period reduces the 
after-tax cash flow, it does not constitute a tax deductible expense, and the tax relief factor 
is not applicable. If the capital repayment date and life cycle evaluation point do not 
correspond, the outstanding debt amount is converted to the appropriate present or future 
value position. 

Amortising mortgage loans 

Because typical mortgage type loans reflect uniform payment amounts comprising varying 
proportions of interest and· capital redemption payments, they are more difficult to 
accommodate in LCC analyses. In a constant value redemption instalment schedule, 
interest charges initially constitute the major portion of each payment. Over time the 
interest apportionment is gradually reduced until a stage is reached when the position is 
reversed and the capital redemption portion establishes the dominant component. Because 
of lack of uniformity with respect to interest and redemption elements, uniform payment 
amortising type loans are best accounted for by developing separate cash flow schedules for 
the two components. Each payment amount is individually transposed to present or future 
value equivalents by employing the after-tax single payment amount formula. 

While borrowing decreases immediate equity capital needs and postpones capital injection 
to the future, it does incur additional expenses m the form of interest charges. A problem 
associated with incorporating financing costs into LCC studies relates to the prospect of 
double accountini, Because all discounted cash flow techniques implicitly account for the 
repayment of capital, care must be taken to ensure that capital cash flows are not included 
more than once. 



11 

Table 3 Borrowing and cash flow profiles 

Year 0 1 2 3 

Cash inflow 
� � 

0 

Cash outflow Ry Ry 
Net cash outflow 0 Ry Ry Ry 

Rx 1 = Amount borrowed from lender 
Rx� = Amount paid for asset On this instance equals borrowing) 
Ry = Interest and redemption payments to lender 

A typical cash flow profile initiated by loan capital repayments is highlighted in table 3. An 
asset, purchased entirely by loan monies to the value of Rx, is repaid over a period of three 
years. Because the initial cash inflow is balanced by the initial cash outflow, the LCC cost 
commitment schedule conforms to the pattern of 'nil' payments in year zero followed by 
uniform payments for years one to three inclusive. 

INFLATION AND LCC STUDIES 

General 

The estimated cash flow amounts in an LCC study reflect current prices which are time­
phased to their anticipated payment dates. Either constant rand or actual rand values are 
adopted as the medium:ili'r reflecting price changes caused by inflationary pressures. 
Although Flanagan et al. indicate a preference for accommodating the influence of 
inflation through the use of inflation-free interest rates, whereby cash flows are expressed 
in real or constant rand terms, the approach is not favoured in this paper. The actual rand 
methodology is preferred primarily because it obviates the complications created by 
projects displaying a mixture of inflation resistant and inflation dominated cash flows. 

In the recommended approach current prices are time-phased to their anticipated payment 
dates. The projected payment amounts are then converted to equivalent present or Mure 
worths at after-tax interest rates. 

FURTHER LCC ISSUES 

General 

While many authors endorse the concept of life cycle costing there are those who remain 
suspicious of its value as a cost appraisal measure. Although some of the criticisms are well 
founded, others originate primarily as a result of the failure to appreciate fully the concept 
of LCC, The more relevant problems and benefits associated with LCC studies are 
examined in the following paragraphs. 

Understanding the interaction between capital and running costs 

Misunderstanding of the interaction between capital and running costs frequently promotes 
unfounded criticisms of the LCC technique. For instance, the belief that lower running 
costs are necessarily the product of increased capital expenditure results is a common 
misconception. Larger capital budgets will not ensure that lower Mure maintenance and 
operating costs result. Many poor design decisions generate increases in both initial cost 
commitments and future running expenses. If a true interpretation of the relationship 



12 

between initial capital costs and future running expenditure is to be ascertained, alternative 
options must be defined and compared on an eqmvalent basis. 

The issue similarly promotes problems with regard to the acquisition of sufficient capital to 
implement the most economic proposal. When inadequate funds are allocated to a 
particular project it is often difficult to convince clients of the long-term advantages that 
can result from increasing capital budgets. 

Investor objectives 

One of the advantages of LCC is that it forces users to define investment objectives and to 
make implicit design decisions more explicit. The implementation of a systematic analytical 
procedure has the effect of separating subjective and objective considerations and of 
simplifying the evaluation of alternative design solutions. Notwithstanding these benefits, 
failure to identify investor objectives properly, frequently promotes negative attitudes 
towards the LCC concept as a resul�pf conflict between management intentions and 
evaluation criteria. According to Stone short-term developers are concerned with future 
costs only insofar as they anticipate the purchaser will take note of them. Whereas 
purchasers are intimately concerned with maintenance charges, the developer/seller is 
primarily concerned with the difference between building costs and sellin� price. If the 
distinctive forces that motivate individual investors are not clearly recognised, the LCC 
study will not necessarily be compatible with investor requirements. 

Uncertainty in forecasting 

Because the application of LCC in the construction industry is associated with the 
evaluation of long-term durable assets, forecasting is fundamental to its existence. LCC 
study assumptions include forecasts of future inflation rates, discount rates, lives of 
buildings and their component parts, income tax rates, and residual or salvage values. 
These assumptions are not unique to LCC analyses and extend to other capital investment 
evaluation procedures. 

Forecasting introduces the problem of uncertainty which materialises irrespective of 
whether predictions are concerned with estimates of initial costs or forecasts of future 
running costs. The degree of uncertainty is dependent upon the reliability of available 
information and the time over which forecasts have to be made. For instance, although a 
reasonable degree of accuracy may be accomplished in estimating initial costs, difficulties 
may arise in accurately forecasting the future replacement costs of the same components 
because of uncertainty as to the extent of the disturbance factor in the alteration 
operations. In this regard the importance of sound professional judgement should not be 
underrated. 

While it is acknowledged that there is always a measure of uncertainty as to the accuracy of 
predictions, modem risk analysis techniques have provided limited relief to the problem. 
Furthermore, predictions and assumptions are not unique to LCC studies. These 
deficiencies extend to all dynamic investment evaluation procedures that assess projects on 
the basis of their investment lives. It is argued that there are distinct benefits to be derived 
from the technique. Because it demands rational predictions, implicit assumptions are 
made explicit and objectively quantified. If no consideration is given to predicting future 
conditions it is comparable with the unrealistic presumption that current cJrcumstances will 
proceed unchanged into the future. 

Changes in interest rates 

One of the main problems of LCC relates to the accuracy in forecasting changes in interest 
rates. Market-related interest rates employed in LCC analyses comprise interest and 
inflation components. Although the values attributed to these interest rates are dictated to 



13 

a lar&e extent by inflation pressures, because they frequently fluctuate in sympathy with 
inflation, movements in real interest rates tend to remain stable. The financial implications 
of interest rate changes are therefore not always as substantial as market movements 
indicate. 

Obsolescence and durability 

A number of factors are relevant to predictions in expected life cycles and these vary for 
different clients, buildings and their component parts. The economically productive time 
scale for a building is not necessarily the same as its probable ph:ysical life. Because it is 
possible to influence physical life to a certain extent by exercismg care in component 
specification and material selection, or by implementing positive maintenance 
programmes, this cost may be quantified in economic terms. However, the ability to predict 
realistically costs associated with functional or economic obsolescence is questionable. 
Depending upon the extent of depreciation, obsolescence rectification ranges from minor 
works or renovation through to modernisation or complete redesign and construction 
programmes. 
Although theoretically such charges can be related to failure of similar buildings, the 
unique nature of individual developments invariably ensures that the information is of 
limited value. 

Assessment of income, indirect and intangible costs 

LCC is an economic appraisal process capable of reaching conclusions based on cost 
considerations alone. Because their effects on total costs are difficult to measure, not all 
cost consequences can be costed directly. For example, an increase in initial costs 
introduced to enhance the appearance of a building may in the long term result in a higher 
occupancy rate, or greater contentment of the inhabitants. Costs and returns of this nature 
are difficult to measure in monetary terms alone. In addition, there are aspects such as 
prestige that are impossible to quantify and as such do not forrqfart of the LCC study. 
These issues are addressed by Flanagan, Norman and Robinson� . They have developed 
an LCC framework that permits the value of int�ble benefits and costs to be quantified 
and subtracted from the total costs of each option in order to identify the least cost 
alternative. 

A further problem area is the exclusion of the effects of design decisions on revenue cash 
flow projections. Although revenue fluctuations may be measured in terms of reducing 
costs as a result of design modifications, the exclusion of any form of investment 
desirability evaluation from LCC studies does represent a distinct limitation of the 
technique. 

Cost data 

A major problem in South Africa is the virtual absence of suitable reliable cost data in the 
right form and detail to undertake studies of the nature envisaged. If LCC is to be 
introduced on a national scale, concerted efforts will have to be made for the collection of 
relevant cost information on an ongoing basis. The United States is probably the leader in 
the field of obtaining data in a suitable form for use in LCC analyses. Although restricted 
availability of appropriate �ormation has been experienced in the United Kingdom, 
according to Flanagan et al. the data problem is becoming less severe with many clients 
and consultant organisations building up extensive and well-designed data bases. 



14 

CONCLUSION 

The technique of LCC embodies well-founded economic concepts whereby the cost 
implications of design decisions are analysed. The greatest strength and appeal of the 
approach is undoubtedly its suitability as a cost control measure that facilitates the 
financial comparison of design options. Whereas most other cost estimating procedures 
restrict the assessments to initial costs alone, the technique of LCC accommodates the 
long-term view with respect to the total cost of building ownership by establishing a 
mechanism whereby the relationships between initial and operating costs are effectively 
analysed. 

REFERENCES 

1. Rosalie T. Ruegg and Harold E. Marshall, 1990. Building Economics, Theory and 
Practice, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,  pp.3-15.

2. J.R.W. Robinson, 1988. 'Life Cycle Costing in Buildings : A Practical 
Approach, The Professional Builder, Vol.6, No.5, October,  p.7.

3. Benjamin S. Blanchard, 1978. Design and Manage to Life Cycle Cost, Portland, Oregon : 
M/ A Press,  p.1.

4. Harold E. 1987. Marshall, 'Building Economics in the United States', 
Construction Management and Economics, Volume Five, Special Issue,  London: E. & F.N. 
Spon Ltd., p.43. 

5. Alan Ashworth and Peter Au-Yeung, The Evaluation of Life Cycle Costing as a Practicel
Tool During Building Design, CIB, Copenhagen, Fourth International Symposium on 
Building Economics, Vol.A, 1987, p.83. 

6.  George Norman, 1987. Editorial Comment, Construction Management and Economics, 
Volume Five, Special Issue,  London: E. & F.N. Spon Ltd., p.51.

7. Benjamin S. Blanchard, Design and Manage to Life Cycle Cost.

8. Rosalie T. Ruegg and Harold E. Marshall, Building Economics, Theory and Practice,

9. Roger Flanagan, George Norman, Justin Meadows and Graham Robinson, 1989. Life 
Cycle Costing, Theory and Practice, London : BSP Professional Books.

10. Alphonse J. Dell'isola and Stephen J. Kirk, 1981. Life Cycle Costing for Design 
Professionals, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

11. D. Lenard, C. Roberts, C. Langston and P. Smith, 1988. 'The Life Cycle Cost 
Fallacy', The Building Economist, June, pp.11-13.

12. B. E Drake, 1977.  'An Objection to Terotechnology', Quality and Total Cost in 
Buildings and Services Design, London: The Construction Press, pp.95-97.

13. Richard J. Grover and Christine S. Grover, 1981. Consistency Problems in Life 
Cycle Cost Appraisals, CIB, Copenhagen, Fourth International Symposium on Building 
Economics, Vol. A, pp.17-30. 



15 

14. Derek Kerr and Graham Capper,1984. A Cost Be� Approach to Design Optimisation, 
CIB, Ottawa, Third International Symposium on Building Economics, Vol.2,  pp.114-121.

15. Hakan Bejrwn and Tore Haugen,1990. Long Range Property Management Decisions and 
Life Cycle Decision Support Systems, CIB, Sydney, Building Economics and 
Construction Management, Vol.3,  pp.11-22.

16.  Rosalie Ruegg and Harold E. Marsball,Building &onomics, Theory and Practice, p.16.

17.  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1986. A Guide to Life Cycle Costing for 
Construction,London : Surveyors Publications, p.1.

18. Craig A Lan�ton, 1990. The Measurement of Life costs - A New Approach, CIB, 
Sydney, Building Economics and Construction Management, Vol.2, p.142.

19. Roger Flanagan, George Norman, Justin Meadows and Graham Robinson, Life Cycle 
Costing, Theory and Practice, p.51.

20. Ibid., p.55.

21. P.A Stone,1980. Building Design Evaluation - Costs in Use, 3rd ed., London : E. & F.N. 
Spon Ltd., p.7.

22. R. Flanagan, G. Norman and G.D. Robinson, 1987. Using a Life Cycle Cost in 
Practice, Building Cost Modelling and Computers, edited by P.S. Brandon, London : E. 
& F.N. Spon Ltd., pp. 587-600.

23. Roger Flanagan, George Norman, Justin Meadows and Graham Robinson, Life Cycle 
Costing, Theory and Practice, p.viii.