Care should be taken to avoid a totally purist approach to drafting the Performance Specification which could leave proponents second-guessing what is wanted or acceptable. Such an approach may leave to chance (and therefore error) more detailed aspects which are seen as absolutely non-negotiable by the program ministry or SIO but which have been deliberately omitted because they are seen as inputs. This might apply, for instance, to certain aspects of the brief for the building, fixed equipment or certain furniture.
Pragmatic compromises can be made as to the balance between the inputs, intermediate and final outputs, and the parameters and standards specified. In moving away from outputs, the project team needs to consider whether the change in emphasis materially compromises risk transfer; stifles creative thinking; limits future changes; or potentially affects value for money.
For example, it would be acceptable to state that whiteboards are required in each meeting room. It would not be appropriate to prescribe that the whiteboards must be replaced every three years, as it is the responsibility of the proponent to determine the quality and replacement cycles in line with their approach to whole-life costs. Moreover, whiteboards may not be needed at all in future, given the increasing use of new technology.
In this example, it is better to take the 'input' approach for whiteboards in the Performance Specification rather than have to include them later. It is not an issue that will significantly affect risk transfer and can therefore be included.