## 5 Comparative Analysis, Research Findings and Discussion
Building B08 was a public project with a built area of 1376.99 m\({}^{2}\), it was a new building with again a day care centre use, executed by a SME in a period of 18 months. Finally, building B09 was a renovation of a building that kept its use of specialized centre of attention for elderly people, the building was also a public project built in 18 months with a built area of 1238.67 m\({}^{2}\). Finally, the case study named as CS in the table is an extension project with educational use and a built area of 2438.80 m\({}^{2}\). As can be seen in Table 2, the building samples (B) were classified according to their size and complexity of the conditioning system. They were classified as small buildings those wit h a smaller floor area of 1000 m\({}^{2}\), medium buildings those with a floor area located between 1000 m\({}^{2}\) and 3000 m\({}^{2}\) and finally, were considered as large buildings those that exceed 3000 m\({}^{2}\). In addition, a classification was made based on the use since it has an impact on the construction ratio per m2. Examples of both new buildings (NB), extensions (E) and renovations (RV) were included, as well as distinguishing between Day Care Centre (DCC), Multifunctional (M), educational (E) and residential (R) buildings. The analysis of budget deviations allowed us to affirm that there is no clear relationship between the complexity of the building, its use and the budget deviation. However, it was possible to detect greater conflict s during the construction of buildings with complex conditioning systems. As can be seen in Table 2, the total average deviation of the nine examples analyzed was around 9.7%, being approximately 75% of this deviation due to architectural construction issues and 25% due to the facilities. However, the data obtained in the case study (Table 3) showed improvements in this regard, the case study where was implemented a combined application of BIM and Lean procedures in construction work showed a considerable reduction in budget deviation. This extra cost has been minimized with \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Budget** & **Bulfa Area** & **Ring** & **Typed** & **Type of** & **Budget** & **Definition** & **Hvac** & **Hvac** & **Hvac** \\
**0** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** & **tup-2** \\ \hline B01 & 4,011,357,818 & 458.00 & 837.75 & E & E & E & 709,74.68 & 0.199 & 649,410.33 & 0.81 & High \\ B02 & 512,563,508 & 518.61 & 992.24 & E & RV & 44,620.00 & 0.000 & 22,563.00 & 0.67 & Low \\ B02 & 799,647,601 & 401.14 & 150.08 & E & NS & 49,674.45 & 0.070 & 702,79.05 & 0.145 & High \\ B04 & 1,558,744 & 115.00 & 133.84 & DCC & NS & 140,301.19 & 0.055 & 24,871.22 & 0.07 & High \\ B05 & 2,212,465,630 & 133.80 & 135.67 & DCC & NS & 184,521.86 & 0.091 & 24,871.00 & 0.14 & High \\ B06 & 2,149,440,430 & 300.037 & 67.12 & JR & NS & 166,688.50 & 0.081 & 13,754.00 & 0.08 & Low \\ B07 & 1,558,492 & 173.99 & 1102.30 & DCC & NS & 10,535.51 & 0.086 & 12,754.00 & 0.12 & Low \\ B08 & 3,576,085 & 129.47 & 172.64 & DCC & NS & 18,525.55 & 0.086 & 12,754.00 & 0.15 & High \\ B09 & 3,576,085 & 129.47 & 172.64 & DCC & RV & 18,525.55 & 0.086 & 12,660.00 & 0.15 & High \\ C8 & 1,923,020,200 & 2468.80 & 784.13 & E & E & 24,942.17 & 0.013 & 13,671.98 & 0.80 & High \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative data analysis of nine projects of different public administrations and the case study. Data derived from the case study. respect to the rest of the projects included in Table 2, resulting in a budget deviation of 1.3%, of which 11% of the total percentage of cost overruns correspond to brickworks unit, 8% from the roof unit of the architecture chapter. However, data analysis shows that the highest percentage of deviation lies on the facilities chapter. Specifically, the highest percentage refers to HVAC with a 71% of cost overruns.