Real Property – Best Management Practices

As a real property owner, can you answer the following questions?

  1. What is the Average Facility Condition Index – FCI?
  2.  What is the average cost of a Requirement relative to your Deferred Maintenance?
  3.  What is the average Requirement Cost per Square Foot?
  4.  What is the total Replacement Cost for your portfolio? Per Building?
  5.   What is the total Number of your building Assets?
  6.   What is the total Square Foot Area of your buildings?

Information-based decision support is critical to the efficient life-cycle management of the built environment.    How are you monitoring functionality, obsolescence, life safety, ADA, building codes, appearance, capacity, utilization, energy use, integrity …

These are just a sampling of basic data needed to better allocate your resources.

Federal Real Property Facility Managment

jobordercontracting.org

 

Life-cycle Management of the Built Environment – BIM – Current Status

BIM usage, despite reports to contrary, remains minimal among large building portfolio Owners.  That is to say that the “life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology” is not being practiced in an efficient, transparent, consistent manner by many, if any, public or private sector Owners.    The question is why?

Reason #1 – Most Owners don’t understand the basic tenants/requirements of life-cycle management.

Reason #2 – The lack of a robust BIM Ontology

Despite popular opinion, technology is NOT the issue.

 

BIM is in desperate need of a core glossary.   A core glossary a defining dictionary that enables definition of concepts, especially for newcomers to a language or field of study. It contains a small working vocabulary and definitions for important or frequently encountered concepts, usually including idioms or metaphors useful in a culture.

In a general sense, a glossary contains explanations of concepts elevant to a certain field of study or action. In this sense, the term is related to the notion of ontology.  

Automatic methods exist to a transform a glossary into an ontology or a computational lexicon.  Computational approaches to the automated extraction of glossaries start from domain terminology and extract one or more items (glosses) for each term of interest. Glosses can then be analyzed to extract  hypernyms of the defined term and other lexical and semantic relations.

References

  1. R. Navigli, P. Velardi. From Glossaries to Ontologies: Extracting Semantic Structure from Textual Definitions, Ontology Learning and Population: Bridging the Gap between Text and Knowledge (P. Buitelaar and P. Cimiano, Eds.), Series information for Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 2008, pp. 71-87.
  2. R. Navigli. Using Cycles and Quasi-Cycles to Disambiguate Dictionary Glosses, Proc. of 12th Conference of the European Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2009), Athens, Greece, March 30-April 3rd, 2009, pp. 594-602.
  3. J. Klavans and S. Muresan. Evaluation of the Definder System for Fully Automatic Glossary Construction. In Proc. of American Medical Informatics Association Symp., 2001, pp. 324–328.
  4. A. Fujii, T. Ishikawa. Utilizing the World Wide Web as an Encyclopedia: Extracting Term Descriptions from Semi-Structured Texts. In Proc. 38th Ann. Meeting Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, 2000, pp. 488–495.
  5. P. Velardi, R. Navigli, P. D’Amadio. Mining the Web to Create Specialized Glossaries, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(5), IEEE Press, 2008, pp. 18-25.

Construction Productivity must be Owner driven – BIM, IPD, JOC

One thing is clear, the construction sector (architecture, engineering, contractors, owners, operators, users, suppliers) has been lagging virtually all other business sectors for decades with respect to productivity improvement.

I believe that the cause is largely cultural, however, any major improvement must be driven by Owners,and/or mandated by governmental regulation.

My reasoning is simple, Owners pay the bills.  Thus as long as Owners remain satisfied with the status quo and/or remain “uneducated” with respect to proven business “best practices” and lean management processes, as well as supporting technologies, economic and environmental waste will continue to be rampant.

Currently, my outlook is somewhat pessimistic.  If one looks at  capability and knowledge specific to life-cycle  facility management from an industry perspective, most has originated with the government sector, followed by higher education, state government, healthcare, process-based industries, etc. etc.    Basically, Owners whose mission is dependent upon their built environment tend to create and follow life-cycle management practices. These are Owners that can’t adopt a “churn and burn”, or “run to failure” approach to facility management.  These sectors can’t easily pack up and move if their facilities and physical infrastructure fail.

That said, even government owners, for the most part, have failed in any sort of department or agency-wide adoption of standardized best practices.  This is true even for  “simple” areas such as facility repair, maintenance, and renovation.  Only the Air Force appears to come close to having any true adoption of robust, proven, best-practices in this regard, as well as associated training, etc., most notably with their SABER construction delivery structure.

In order to effect measurable productivity improvement in the “construction” sector, , I have put together a core requirements “checklist”.

1. Robust Ontology – Cost effective information management and information reuse can only be accomplished with a detailed set of terms, definitions, metrics, etc.  This aspect is also critical to improved strategic and tactical decision support mechanisms.

2. An understanding of life-cycle management of the built environment from a collaborative, best-practices, process perspective as well as associated supporting technologies.  Forget the traditional strategy-design-construction-demolish approach.

3. Commitment to a total cost of ownership perspective including both economic and environmental costs vs. our classic “first-cost” mentality.

4. “Trust but measure” – Owners MUST conduct their own internal cost estimating and associated capital planning and compare these to contractor estimates, with each party using the same  data architecture (examples: RSMeans, masterformat, uniformat, omniclass).

5. Adoption of collaborative construction delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery, IPD, and Job Order Contracting, JOC, in lieu of antagonistic and inefficient design-bid-built, or even design-build.

6. STOP reinventing the wheel.  Nothing noted here is “rocket science”.  Many, if not most, processes, procedures, and technologies are readily available for anyone who does a bit of basic research!!!   Also, stop with the focus upon BIM from a 3D visualization perspective!  3D tools are great, and add value, however, INFORMATION and PROCESS drive success.

 

BLM2

The Metrics of BIM – The Manage the Built Environment

As the old saying goes…”you can’t manage what you don’t measure”.

 

 

Here’s the beginning of a list of information requirements spanning various domains/competencies, technologies, etc.,
While an important component, the 3D component of BIM has been a very unfortunate distraction.  It appears that many/most have “gone to the weeds” and/or are “recreating the wheel” vs. working on core foundational needs such as the consistent use of appropriate terminology and the establishment of robust, scalable and repeatable business practices, methodologies, standards, metrics and benchmarks for facilities and physical infrastructure management.

It is common terminology that enables effective communication and transparency among the various decision makers, building managers, operators and technicians involved with facilities and physical infrastructure investment and management.

Here are examples of metrics associated with the life-cycle management of the built environment:

Annualized Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) per building per gross area = Rate per square foot

Annualized TCO per building/Current replacement value = Percent of Current Replacement Value (CRV)

Annualized TCO per building/Net assignable square feet = Cost rate per net assignable square feet per building

Annualized TCO per building/Non-assignable square feet = Cost rate per non-assignable square feet per building

Annualized TCO per building/Building Interior square feet = Cost rate per interior square foot per building

Churn Rate

Utilization Rate

AI (Adaptation Index) or PI (Programmatic Index) = PR (Program Requirements) /
CRV (Current Replacement Value)

Uptime or Downtime – Defined in percent, as amount of time asset is suitable for the program(s) served.

Facility Operating Gross Square Foot (GSF) Index (SAM Performance Indicator: APPA 2003)

Custodial Costs per square foot

Grounds Keeping Costs per square foot

Energy Costs per square foot

Energy Usage

Utility Costs per square foot

Waste Removal Costs per square foot

Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index (SAM Performance Indicator: APPA 2003)

Planned/Preventive Maintenance Costs per square foot

Emergency Maintenance Costs as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures.

Unscheduled/Unplanned Maintenance Costs as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures.

Repair costs (man hours and materials) as a percentage of Annual Operations Expenditures

FCI (Facility Condition Index) = DM (Deferred Maintenance) + CR (Capital Renewal)
/ CRV (Current Replacement Value)

Recapitalization Rate, Reinvestment Rate

Deferred Maintenance Backlog

Facilities Deterioration Rate

FCI (Facility Condition Index) = DM (Deferred Maintenance) + CR (Capital Renewal) /
CRV (Current Replacement Value)

AI (Adaptive Index) or PI (Programmatic Index) = PR (Program Requirements) /
CRV (Current Replacement Value)

FQI (Facility Quality Index) or Quality Index or Index = FCI (Facility Condition Index)+ AI (Adaptive Index)

BIMF - Building Information Management FrameworkVia http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software for the built environment – , …

BIM Requires IPD.

BIM requires some form of Integrated Project Delivery… Period.   Why you say?

Simple.  BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.  BIM therefore, requires the integration of multiple knowledge domains, stakeholders and supporting technologies… from strategic and capital planning, through design, construction, operations, utilization, repair, renovation, adaptation, maintenance, and deconstruction.

Efficient project delivery methods such as IPD and Job Order Contracting (JOC) are integral components of efficiently managing the built environment over time.  The help define the specialized framework needed to enable Owners, AEs, Contractors, Oversight Groups, and other Stakeholders share information and collaborate to enable the appropriate distribution of resources needed to optimize the physical and function conditions of the built environments.

BIG DATA = BIM
BIG DATA = BIM

Via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software supporting IPD, JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA and featuring and exclusive 400,000 line item enhancement of RSMeans cost data with modifiers and full descriptions as well as integrated visual esimating/QTO, and contract, project, and document management…. all in one application.

NIBS – Building Innovation 2013 Conference

I am writing this from Washington, D.C. while participating in the NIBS Building Innovation 2013 Conference.   The buildingSMART alliance conference is part of this gathering under the title “Integrating BIM: Moving the Industry Forward.”

BIM education and practice requires focus upon process and associated return-on-investment.   Robust communication and adoption of standard and/or “best practice” construction planning and delivery methods specific to efficient life-cycle management of the built environment are sorely needed.

It is amazing that Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and “IPD-lite”… the latter being Job Order Contracting and SABER which are forms of IPD specifically for renovation, repair, sustainability and minor new construction…  are not being brought to the forefront as critical aspects of BIM.    It is the construction planning and project delivery method that sets the tone of any project and ultimately dictate relationships and associated successes or failures.

Collaboration, transparency, and performance-based win-win relationships are necessary components of a BIM-based philosophy.  Yet, these and other critical aspects; including  defensible, accurate, and transparent cost estimating and standardized construction cost data architectures, are neither in  forefront of current thinking nor receiving an adequate allocation of resources.

 

Far too much emphasis continues to be place on the 3d visualization component aspect of BIM, IFC format pros and cons, and other “technology” areas.

 

Technology is NOT what is holding back BIM, it is the apparent lack of understanding of … and associated failure to adopt … facility life-cycle management processes… combined and what can only be described as a pervasive “not invented here” attitude.

Many of of our peers are reinventing the wheel over and over again at tremendous cost to all stakeholders…Owners, AEs, Contractors, Subs, Oversight Groups, Building Users, Building Product Manufacturers, …not to mention our Economy and our Environment, vs. sharing information and working toward common goals.

In Never Ends!

Just read the below.  Now granted I didn’t go read the article, but since when is the majority of the cost of building in its construction?  Last I new, at least in the commercial, education, healthcare, and government sectors, 70%-80% of a building’s costs are attributable to ongoing renovation, repair, operations, etc.

Virtual Construction

By Matt Stevens MBA Ph.D.

The excitement about virtual construction is justified, since the majority of the cost of any building is the actual construction. It is many times more than cost of the design. With wasted time of labor still around 30 percent however, it is logical and rational to start there in our quest for better project outcomes. Virtual design has its place, but the real opportunity is to increase productivity, safety and quality while constructing in real time. Read our 3 page article from DBIA’s Dateline Magazine