BIM (Building Information Modeling) is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology. 3D visualization vendors have marketed BIM poorly. Their focus has generally been upon 3D modeling and associated visual objects vs. the collection and use of valuable and enabling INFORMATION. Sure 3D visualization is a great tool, and a useful component of BIM, however, it’s not even the most important aspect.
Many, if not most organizations will require significant “change management” in order to successfully implement life-cycle management / BIM. Owners, AEs, Contractors, Oversight Groups, Business Product Manufacturers, and Software Vendors will need to adopt a better understanding of several, currently disparate knowledge domains / competencies and technologies and work towards efficient, transparent information sharing and collaboration among all area, professionals, and stakeholders.
Cloud computing / social media, BIM, and other ‘disruptive technologies’ combined with market demands driven but altered environmental and economic global landscapes will likely help to drive change, however, timing is uncertain.
There is a serious hole in the Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Owner Sectors’ level of understanding of building performance and legacy beliefs and process simply don’t work. – adaptation of work by Melanie Thompson of Get Sust!
We must initiate a wider discussion on what constitutes an appropriate, progressive life-cycle management of the built environment.
“We are moving from the era of ‘talking about deployment’ to the era of ‘deployment’ – over the next few decades there will be billions spent on energy-efficiency retrofit projects and it is crucial for policies to be underpinned by reliable technical data and strong evidence of the benefits that can be achieved.” – Bob Lowe, Deputy Director of University College London’s Energy Institute
The effectiveness and efficiency of this deployment will be dependent upon people asking the right questions. Efficient project delivery methods such as Job Order Contracting – JOC, a form of Integrated Project Development – IPD, that specifically targets renovation, repair, sustainability and minor new construction will be integral to successful BIM or life-cycle management based solutions. Collaboration and longer term relationships are primary components of JOC and equally central to BIM processes.
“… We are in a war-like situation and therefore have to accept a two-stage process: do the best we can with what we’ve got, plus keep on researching.” – Jim Skea, Chair – Sustainable Energy, Imperial College of London
Behaviors across all AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner) professions, building users, and oversight groups must change. Ad-hoc, inefficient, and adversarial construction delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build represent a serious impediment to efficient use of resources. Additionally, life-cycle management must be addressed on portfolio and local levels within the context specific buildings (or structures), inclusive of type, activity, and utilization. For this we need a fundamental shift in approach, applying the proven as well as yet to be developed methodologies and tools developed.
The impacts of social media and social sciences will expand exponentially. ” Conventional building researchers are ‘positivistic’ (measuring and monitoring objects and systems) while the social scientists, who inhabit a world of case studies and qualitative data, are ‘interpretivist’. Interpretivist research include studies of:
occupants and their engagement with technologies;
technologies and policy mechanisms in-use (implementation); and
changes in business models, supply chains, the distribution of risk and responsibility, professional identities, the division of labor and so on.
BIM is the life-cycle modeling and management of the built environment supported by digital technology. Forget the 3D visualization distraction for a moment and let’s focus on the important component of the BIM acronym; the “I” for information.
As we all know from a quote commonly attributed to Peter Drucker… and I paraphrase ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure’. Most, if not all failures to implement BIM and/or facility life-cycle management are likely traceable to the fundamental failure to gather the requisite accurate and transparent information required in order to make informed decisions. (Note: I use the terms “facility” or “facilities” to include any built structure.)
First, a few clarifications and items to help frame this discussion:
BIM definition: “BIM is the life-cycle modeling and management of the built environment supported by digital technology.”
While BIM can be applied to any situation, the focus of this discussion is upon – multi-facility portfolios, with extensive capital reinvestment, renovation, repair, maintenance, and sustainability requirements/projects.
We are all faced with a significantly altered economic and environmental landscape: more to do, limited capital/cost cuts, more accountability and transparency, and the need to reduce our “carbon footprint”.
Success in today’s world requires moving from a reactionary and needs-satisfaction mode to longer term strategies with associated options. This is a major shift in thinking for many, but especially for our business or “for-profit sectors”.
Robust, proven processes with associated accurate transparent, and actionable information in support of fact-based decision-marking are drivers for success.
Creation of a business-based capital reinvestment and asset management framework and decision-making capability are central requirements.
Accurate, timely information is required for sound decision-making.
Decisions regarding reinvestment into the built should be made in concert with the attainment and support of an organization’s mission.
Technology is a tool to enable lower cost implementation of strategies and processes. Technology’s role is to assure consistent, cost-efficient application of embedded business process, enabling faster deployment, automation of routine or complex mathematical processes, and associated decision-making and reporting capabilities.
BIM’s SLOW START
Okay, so know let’s look a bit more about why BIM is not fully understood, nor being rapidly accepted across the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner, Operations/Facility Management sector(s).
Many, if not most organizations lack robust, consistent, and transparent planning policies and overall life-cycle management processes.
Existing processes and construction delivery methods are largely antagonistic and outdated, with divergent goals for involved parties.
Stove-piped mandates with many players, and unused or misunderstood information.
Lack of clear direction and leadership focus, process management, and desired, quantitative outcomes.
Lack of appropriate tools to assist the life-cycle management process, inclusive of appropriate data validation and standardization.
The appropriate use of consultants, especially in the areas of “change management”.
Lack of understanding and adopting of newer and more efficient construction delivery methods (Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, Job Order Contracting – JOC), contracts, and supporting technology tools.
All aspects of BIM/faclity life-cycle managment, it’s organization, purpose, policies, assumptions, mandates, methods and scope must be discussed, agreed upon, and re-evaluated on a continuous, cyclical basis. It’s important that process ownership resides with everyone in the organization with appropriate expertise applied and shared from multiple knowledge-domains. Furthermore, that direct involvement and support of decision-makers and appropriate involvement of consultants and/or outsourcing is available.
BIM/life-cycle facility management requires fundamental changes in business practices. Unfortuantely, change management is a tremendous chasm to bridge, and achieving any significant success using internal resource only is unlikely. Just a few of the areas associated with implementing a BIM strategy are shown below.
Anticipated outcomes must be linked to ALL decisions in terms of anticipated financial, functional and/or conditional improvements.
Proprietary (e.g., Excel) and COTS tools for are used for various aspects of facility life-cycle management – strategic planning, capital planning and management/financial modeling, construction delivery, maintenance management, spaces planning/untilization, building automation/security, project management, etc. Relatively limited effort, focus, associated or investment is typically applied in consideration of integrating and rationalizing these various systems in terms of the validation and standardization of information across multiple knowledge domains. The piecemeal/ad-hoc approach is a symptom of process and cultural issues with an organization and/or lack of attention to change management. For example, a common “excuse” relative to this issue of integrating disparate technologies and processes is that the involved technology is” incompatible”. In today’s world, virtually any technology using current technology can communicate with another. The real issues reside in the people and process that create the information. The inherent “fear of change” and traditional lack of collaboration among various professional discipline are the fundamental issues to be address. A good example is the continued use of proprietary spreadsheets for cost estimating and other somewhat complex domains. The use of spreadsheets is well beyond their technologies ability. Spreadsheets are single user and non-collaborative, have no concept of hierarchy, nor full audit capability. In short, spreadsheets are inefficient and costly to maintain at best, and are costly relative to information reuse or updating. Spreadsheet use cost estimating and cost control for facility portfolios is unfortunately both pervasive and untenable.
Similarly CAD-centric visualization tools, such as Revit and AutoCad [from Autodesk], SketchUp (graphical design), Archicad, Bentley, etc. are excellent data visualization tools however, should not be confused as a turnkey BIM life-cycle management solutions. Relational database centric systems offer enhances data management, however, do not afford the flexibility of spreadsheets. Newer cloud-based technologies and associated offer higher degrees of collaboration, transparency, and flexibility.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Any attempt at life-cycle facility management – BIM will have little or no value unless based upon a collaborative evaluation of current and planned operations, conditions, and priorities. The objective of BIM is to cost-effectivey meet infrastructure requirements in support of an organizations mission, and to mitigate any preventative and unplanned disruptions to operations and/or compromises the financial position of the organization. This includes an asset management decision support capability the bases capital reinvestment upon financial and functional returns. All projects compete for organizational resources and objective criteria must be established to enable maximum utilization of these finite resources. Informed, goal focused decision support capability is a definitive source of opportunity for efficiency/productivity gains.
Cost awareness across the organization is an important starting point. Everyone in an organization must realize that capital reinvestment decisions are inter-related and impact long term operational expenses.
While uncertainty will certainly be present to some extent, virtually any facility life-cycle project or task can be modeled for decision-makers, and modeled over several timelines… 5 yr, 10yr, 50yr. etc. The mindset that performance and process improvement is ongoing vs. static must be adopted. This accounts for associate organizational “growth” or “shrinkage”, trends, regulatory impacts, etc. The overall goal is to maximize any ability to adapt, renew, renovate, recycle, reuse, and/or grow/shrink physical resources.
WHO IS INVOLVED?
“Everyone impacted by decisions made” is the short answer, including but not limited to Owners, Architects, Planners, Contractors, Sub-Contractors, Business Product Manufacturers, Technology Providers, Consultants, Building Users, Oversight Groups. From an Owner perspective, involved parties would include; Senior Management/HQ, Local Management, Planners, Capital Planners, Finance, Procurement, Project Managers, Building Users,
So, assuming one proceeds down the BIM life-cycle facility path, what are the reasonable expectations? First, it’s important to understand that a phased approach is likely the best approach. Think of BIM as a large pie, one that you are going to put together a piece at a time. That said, you need the to be aware of the list of ingredients and how and when to put the ingredients together.
Secondly, BIM / life-cycle facility management is verb, a process, not a one time thing… like a project. It’s primary gold is to improve upon the efficiency of impacts of the built environment, helping decision-makers compare and better select among available capital reinvestment alternatives. All decisions should consider space, equipments, physical and functional conditions, current construction cost estimates and operational cost estimates over defined periods of time. An ROI, Return-on-Investment business analysis is mandatory for all projects, inclusive of due consideration of any associated potential risks to the organization’s mission. So called , “lean practices” are an important objective, as are simple to use decision support and monitoring tools such as “dashboards” and associated key performance indicators (KPIs).
Ongoing facility portfolio reassessment based on a routine and consistently conducted functional and physcial facility assessments associated with appropriate standardized and well vetted reference cost databases, cost models, and other tools such as GIS and BAS.
Efficient facility construction, renovation, repair, and sustainability process management methods such as IPD [integrated project delivery] and JOC [Job Order Contracting], which involve all stakeholders collaboratively from project concept and design, through construction and warranty periods are core components of BIM/facility-life cycle management.
Thus in summary, anyone involved in BIM, particularly owners would do well to establish clear leadership and organizational ownership of the associated business processes at all levels in the organization ( local, regional, and HQ) as well as defined inter-relationships and expectations of all collaborative partners (Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Consultants, Technology Providers, etc.). Organizations also must
clearly articulate all associated business processes and workflows, and mandate their use, as well as the fact that all decisions must be outcome-based. Full training and support must be available as all levels, including access to all requisite tools, software, information, etc.
Yesterday (6/19/2012), the National Academies Federal Facility Council hosted a timely, and potentially watermark event “Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities“.
It is my hope that this event and those similar to it be expanded as much as possible to assist all real property owners, architects, contractors, subcontractors, building product manufactures, oversight groups, and the community truly practice facility life-cycle management, referred to more recently as BIM (building information modeling / management).
Key Topics / Take Aways:
Identify and advance technologies, processes, and management practices that improve the performance of federal facilities over their entire life-cycle, from planning to disposal.
Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal Facilities
-Facility risks to Organizational Mission
-Potential to quantify
-Ability to predict outcomes vs. investment
-The “how” of measuring investment successes
1. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.
2. Requirements for facility life-cycle management, efficient repair/maintenance/sustainability, BIM
3. Inventory of Built Environment
4. Physical and Functional Condition of Assets (Portfolio, Site, Building/Area, System, Sub-system, Component Levels)
5. Expected Life-cycle and Deterioration Rates for Physical Assets
6. Ranking of Facilities/Built Environment relative to Organizational Mission
7. Associated Capital Reinvestment Requirements and Ability to run multi-year “What-if ” scenario analyses
Strategic approaches for investing in facilities maintenance and repair to achieve beneficial outcomes and to mitigate risks. Such approaches should do the following:
• Identify and prioritize the outcomes to be achieved through maintenance and repair investments and link those outcomes to achievement of agencies’ missions and other public policy objectives.
• Provide a systematic approach to performance measurement, analysis, and feedback.
• Provide for greater transparency and credibility in budget development, decision making, and budget execution.
• Identify and prioritize the beneficial outcomes that are to be achieved through maintenance and repair investments, preferably in the form of a 5- to 10-year plan agreed on by all levels of the organization.
• Establish a risk-based process for prioritizing annual maintenance and repair activities in the field and at the headquarters level.
• Establish standard methods for gathering and updating data to provide credible, empirical information for decision support, to measure outcomes from investments in maintenance and repair, and to track and improve the results.
Vehicles for Change—
• Portfolio-based facilities management (aka asset management)
•Technology (tools, knowledge, risk)
• Recognition of impacts of facilities on people, environment, mission (i.e., prioritizing)
• Changing of the Guard
Best Practices … Partial Listing
• Identification of better performing contractors or service providers
• GIS mapping tools
• Facility condition assessments – surveys, vendors, frequencies, costs
• Maintenance management systems
• Predictive maintenance tools
• Organizational structures
• Budget call process
• Master Planning processes
• Improve relationships with the facility end users and foster a “One Community”
• Energy management
Component-section (a.k.a. section): The basic “management unit.” Buildings are a collection of components grouped into systems. Sections define the component by material or equipment type and age.
Condition Survey Inspection (a.k.a. Condition Survey; Inspection): The gathering of data for a given component-section for the primary purpose of condition assessment.
Condition Assessment: The analysis of condition survey inspection data.
Component Section Condition Index (CSCI): An engineering – based condition assessment outcome metric (0 – 100 scale) and part of the Building Condition Index (BCI) series.
Condition Survey Inspection Objectives
1. Determine Condition (i.e. CSCI) of Component-Section
2. Determine Roll-Up Condition of System, Building, etc.
3. Provide a Condition History
4. Compute Deterioration Rates
5. Calibrate/Re-calibrate Condition Prediction Model Curves
6. Compute/Re-compute Remaining Maintenance Life
7. Determine Broad Scope of Work for Planning Purposes
8. Quantify/refine Work Needs (incl root cause analysis, if needed)
9. Establish when Cost Effective to Replace (vs. Repair)
10. Compute/Re-compute Remaining Service Life
11. QC/QA (Post-work Assessment)
Condition Survey Inspection Types
Deficiency: The “traditional” inspection discussed previously.
Distress Survey: The identification of distress types (i.e. crack, damage, etc.), severity (low, medium, high) and density (percentage) present. Data directly used in the calculation of the CSCI. No estimate of cost or priority.
Distress Survey with Quantities: Same as distress survey except that distress quantities are measured or counted. The resulting density is more accurate than a distress survey, thus the CSCI is more precise.
Direct Rating: A one-step process that combines inspection and condition assessment. An alphanumeric rating (three categories, three subcategories each) is assigned to the component-section by the inspector. Rating is directly correlated to a CSCI value, but is less accurate than a CSCI derived from a distress survey. Quick, but no record of what’s wrong.
About The Federal Facilities Council
The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) was established at the National Academies in 1953 as the Federal Construction Council. The mission of the FFC is to identify and advance technologies, processes, and management practices that improve the performance of federal facilities over their life-cycles, from programming to disposal. The FFC is sponsored and funded by more than 20 federal agencies with responsibilities for and mutual issues related to all aspects of facilities design, construction, operations, renewal, and management.
The FFC fulfills its mission by networking and by sharing information among its sponsoring federal agencies and by leveraging its resources to conduct policy and technical studies, conferences, forums, and workshops on topics of mutual interest. The activities to be undertaken in any given calendar year are approved by a committee composed of senior representatives from each of the sponsor agencies.
Much of the work of the FFC is carried out by its 5 standing committees, each of which meets quarterly. The majority of meetings include presentations by guest speakers from the federal community, academia, and the private sector and these presentations are open to the public. The presentation slides are posted on the Events page of this website. If you would like to automatically receive notices of new reports or upcoming events, please subscribe to the FFC listserv.
Within the National Academies, the FFC operates under the auspices of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE) of the National Research Council. The BICE provides oversight and guidance for FFC activities and serves as a link between the sponsoring federal agencies and other elements of the building community, both national and international.
via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier software for efficient construction project delivery – renovation, repair, sustainability – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, IPD, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA …
Read the below. Several arguments can be made as to why BIM is not gaining any real traction –
– Lack of confidence that BIM as an ongoing program will succeed.
– Costs are considered too high
– Too technical
– Anticipated loss of control
– Limited understanding of all BIM-related knowledge domains and associted technologies
– No preceived personal benefit
– Human resource problems
For BIM take hold… “big BIM” that is ( efficient facility life-cycle management supported by digital technology), will require a virtual CULTURAL REVOLUTION across the Architecture, Engineering, Owners, Operations (AECOO) sector (s). Collaboration, transparency, productivity, accuracy, and associated robust business process will become common place. The catalyst for this chagne is already upon us, and the below article provides some excellent insight on the topic.
Want to build a business? You need an IT ecosystem. (Source GIGAOM.COM)
By Mark Thiele
Just thirty years ago, innovation in almost any category was measured in years, but today it’s measured in weeks or months. If you were to focus on information technology specifically you could even argue that change can occur in days — and that cycle will continue to accelerate.
But adapting and innovating in IT requires that you have a platform strategy that allows for heterogeneous adoption of technology at each layer of infrastructure. You also need simplified, cost-effective, real-time access to a wide range of partners and solution providers, otherwise known as your technology ecosystem. This group of providers will be a veritable marketplace of vendors that are proprietary and open source, but whom together create a combination of technologies and services that allow the buyer to mix and match for any solution requirement.
The technology ecosystem has always been important. Even in the days when a minority of companies had a single mainframe, you still needed parts, skills, power, data centers, tools, and ideas, etc. But that ecosystem was smaller and moved more slowly. The technology ecosystems of the 60s through the 90s tended to change over months or years, and our systems from then were more likely to be from a small handful of vendors. This simplified provider environment reduced dependence on an ecosystem of otherwise unrelated partners and vendors, but guaranteed your dependence on the one.
That was then, this is now.
The difference today, and going forward, is that technology is rapidly moving to a much more agile adoption, development, operating and use model. Buyers today can identify and use cloud-based infrastructureor obtain a few licenses of a Software-as-a-Service delivered application in a matter of hours. Aside from cloud-based services, there are virtual platforms, appliances, internally developed applications and myriad customer devices that all need to interact, but can change almost overnight.
Some would argue that the sheer complexity of the ecosystem today screams for CIOs to try to create homogenous infrastructure environments. However, the very fact that we’re making IT solutions more portable and readily adaptable means that we must plan for the ability to support multi-vendor solutions at any layer of the technical infrastructure, from the CPU, through to platform as a service.
The rapid delivery of new solutions means that companies will no longer wait patiently for “their” provider to catch up to major innovation leaps. The only way to stay in front of your competition is to grease the technical infrastructure skids with strong management platforms and clear adoption, ownership, and orchestration strategies.
Many software, cloud, and hardware providers in today’s market would argue that they offer a strong ecosystem of partners, but I think the future ecosystem will be as open as possible and also offer the customer access to a wide variety of cloud, network and other services within the confines of a single data center.
Think of your IT ecosystem as the local shops near your downtown flat, easy to access and well understood. However, if you’re downtown ecosystem was like the technology ecosystem you would have five coffee shops, three butchers, six shoe stores and so on from which to select goods and services. .
The open ecosystem
An open ecosystem allows for you to select the technology or service provider you like when the opportunity presents itself. It’s an environment where the customer has broad access to vendors and services related to any portion of the infrastructure stack, including wide area networking services and the data center capacity.
Under the old way of building IT, managers built it once, built it to last, and then got fired when it didn’t last. The new IT calls for managers to build it fast, possibly fail fast, and then build it again.
An open ecosystem means that in most cases you shouldn’t be spending years putting in a new technology architecture or solution. If it’s that complex or limited in its ability to adapt new technology you should be using a partner’s infrastructure such as an IaaS or PaaS provider solution.
There are also many options for building private cloud infrastructure, especially for larger businesses, but the focus should be on making it as open as possible. If you can’t taste test an application or new platform environment in a matter of days or weeks, you’re doing something wrong. Openness also helps if you need to move your work, because you want to have as many destinations to choose from as you can.
Many providers under one roof.
But even among open ecosystems there are important differences to be aware of. Ideally you will find an open ecosystem with a large number of different network, cloud, software and hardware providers under one umbrella. This allows the customer to make decisions around adoption of new technology quickly and efficiently. So instead of providing access to one or two bandwidth providers, the ideal ecosystem provides access to big and small players, and can play them against each other to get the best price and services for customers. In reality bringing together the combined customer and supplier community creates greater opportunities for both sides, in effect, a win-win.
It shouldn’t stop with bandwidth, either. An ecosystem should have not only the option of different hardware, and support services, but also different cloud service providers. If a customer wants to get cloud computing from a vendor, the ecosystem provider should invite that provider in. And if someone wants to build their own cloud, the ecosystem provider and data center provider should have an array of choices available for a customer to choose from.
The ideal delivery platform for this ecosystem is a data center provider who can create an environment that supports the needs of enterprise computing, while also lowering the costs and barriers to entry for ecosystem partners. This is an environment that removes all your risks associated with disaster avoidance, regulatory concerns, capacity and security. That location should have access to national freeways and airports as well as local government support that will help facilitate worker relocation and education, while also providing considerations for your hardware taxation risks.
It’s tough to find one place where all the above are available to the customer, but they are out there. Having these resources readily available is like having a Home Depot and a Lowes move in next to your house the day before you start a big home project. No matter what tool or resource you need, it’s all right there, immediately available, with competition, quantity and variety.
In this environment building a business that requires IT – or rethinking your existing IT doesn’t seem so daunting: With all these resources available, you virtually eliminate the risk of being forced into a “pragmatic” (read: bad but necessary) decision. You are free to experiment once, twice, three times, and then put it into production, without most of the historical baggage like “high network costs”, “no skilled staff” or a data center that is “out of capacity,” which have traditionally driven IT decisions.
So the increasing complexity and speed at which IT is moving doesn’t have to be something to worry about, instead look at it as an opportunity to roll with the technological changes without becoming too invested in a closed ecosystem.
Mark Thiele is executive VP of Data Center Tech at Switch, the operator of the SuperNAP data center in Las Vegas. Thiele blogs at SwitchScribe and at Data Center Pulse, where is also president and founder. .He can be found on Twitter at @mthiele10.
First and foremost BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology. While the industry is currently fixated upon 3D visualization tools, aka Revit, Archicad, Bentely… they only represent components of a BIM solution.
Construction cost estimating, and facility life-cycle cost estimating are critical components of any facility design, project delivery, repair, renovation, sustainability, or planning function.
Here’s a list of BIM Construction Cost Estimating Requirements:
1. Collaboration – involvement of all stakeholders – Owners, AE’s, Contractors, Oversight Groups, Community …
2. Transparency – Appropriate access to cost information, and associated comparison to published independent third-party costs such as RSMeans Cost Data.
3. Consistent Format and Terminology – Use of a standard set of terms and data architectures such as Uniformat, Masterformat, Omniclass.
4. Metrics and Benchmarks – Time, Accuracy, Cost
5. Proper allowances for local conditions – geographic, weather, productivity of labor, …
6. Appropriate level of technology to assure productivity, collaboration, security, audit trail.
7. Robust Process – The application of a robust process and business “best-practices” with a focus upon continuous improvement.
8. Appropriate knowledge of all “levels” of construction cost estimating and their potential accuracy – Square Foot / Conceptual / Building Level Construction Cost Estimating, Assembly / System Level Construction Cost Estimating, Unit Line Item Construction Cost Estimating.
9. Knowledge of the impact of the Construction Cost Delivery Method upon construction costs and life-cycle costs – Design-Bid-Build, CM@Risk, Design-Build, Job Order Contracting, Integrated Project Delivery
10. Fundamental understanding of Total Cost of Ownership and Facility Life-cycle Management – Physical and functional conditions, Operations, Sustainability, Renovation, Repair, Efficient Project Delivery Methods ( IPD-Integrated Project Delivey, JOC – Job Order Contracting )
What is the Green Building Certification System? What is Federal government’s role in using sound science and peer-reviewed studies to evaluate and implement advanced building technologies?
Congress has set statutory goals for improvements in performance – from reducing energy and water intensity across the Federal government’s real property inventory relative pursuing net-zero energy buildings…. but is any project truly being made?
Executive Orders in two successive Administrations also have been issued to accomplish sustainability targets, but is anything truly being done in a productive manner?
The GSA is chartered to lead high performance building efforts including Congressionally-mandated review of green building certification systems.
As the GSA’s success is measured in how well it aids other agencies in their effectiveness, it must address all core aspects of sustainability initiatives including: efficient project delivery methods (integrated project delivery – IPD and job order contracting – JOC), capital planning and management, and the disposal of Federal assets.
Congress created the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings – OFHPGB (Chartered in December 2007 under Section 436 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) ) to enable and enhance Federal leadership in the field of large scale sustainable real property portfolio policy, management and operations.
Goals established in 2007 include:
Energy managers to complete annual comprehensive energy and water evaluations for approximately 25 percent of covered facilities, with each facility evaluated at least once every 4 years;
30 percent of hot water demand in new Federal buildings and major renovations be met with solar hot water equipment provided it is life-cycle cost effective;
Agencies use energy-efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs in Federal buildings;
Sustainable design principles to be applied to new Federal buildings and major renovations of Federal buildings;
Aggressive fossil fuel-generated energy reductions for new Federal buildings and major renovations of Federal buildings, phased-in through 2030, and
Agencies reduce total energy consumption per gross square foot in their new and existing Federal buildings by 30 percent from a FY2003 baseline by FY2015.
In 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance which added the following:
Reduce potable water intensity by 26 percent in FY2020 compared to FY2007;
Reduce industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water use 2 percent annually, leading to a 20 percent reduction by FY2020 compared to FY2010;
Ensure all new Federal buildings entering the design phase in 2020 or later be designed to achieve net zero energy by 2030, and
Have at least 15 percent of existing buildings and leases meet the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015 with continued progress towards 100 percent.
To this date one might argue that little has been done. For example the GSA and most, if not all other Federal Government non-DOD Departement and Agencies don’t even have a standardized job order contracting (JOC) program to enable efficient implementation of sustainability projects.
The DOD however, especially the Air Force has full documented and working JOC programs (called SABER in the Air Force), and the Army has made some progress as well.
Thus in summary, the GSA is still in the mode of “Putting the tools together”, to allow the Federal government to make strides in achieving the aggressive performance goals set by Congress and pursued by the Administration.
The question however is, do we have the time to wait?
Let’s face it, LEED is a great marketing tool, but NOT the solution. “Kudos” to LEED for building awareness and addressing the need to focus upon sustainability of the built environment!
That said, high performance buildings should not cost significantly more that “typical construction”. The paperwork and methods involved in LEED add superfluous costs and will not necessarily yield optimal results. I have entered far too many LEED certified buildings with massive glass multi-story areas and other clearly “non-sustainable” items. There should be little to no cost premium for a sustainable building. Even now, studies show that a 2% premium is all that is required. I would further argue that no premium is really need should basic standards be a requirement and market efficiencies take hold. Also, over the life-cycle of a building, a sustainable, high-performance building will win on ROI every time as only 10%-20% of life-cycle cost go into construction, vs. operations, maintenance, etc.
Efficient ongoing life-cycle management of facilities is the key to sustainability. It is probable that many, if not most LEED buildings constructed are no longer meeting their design goals. Why? They are simply not being monitored maintained on a proactive life-cycle basis. Why not? The culture of our industry and awareness of the true meaning of BIM need dramatic if/not disruptive change and improvement.
BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by technology… not pretty 3D pictures that don’t link to value knowledge domains. Further, collaboration is the key to BIM, and collaboration is dictated by AEC delivery methods. Traditional delivery methods such as design-bid-build (DBB) and even attempts at improving it such as design-build (DB) and construction manager at risk (CMAR) are flawed as they inevitably pit some of the key parties involved against one another.
Integrated project delivery (IPD) and job order contracting (JOC), the latter “IPD-lite” specifically for renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor construction projects, are critical to BIM and to altering the inefficient and adversarial processes that dominant our industry today.
BIM is the life-cycle management of facilities supported by digital technology – NIBS. That said, BIM is critical to sustainability/green as is collaboration and cloud computing.
As BIM, Green/Sustainability, and Cloud Computing are considered “new” and not necessarily “mainstream”.. and all three are “hot topics”, it’s not surprising that some organizations are engaging in BIM-washing, Green-washing, and Cloud Computing-washing.
These issues are extremely important, thus worthy of discourse.
Here’s an informal poll relative to Green-washing. The question, asked on Linked-In was “Labels + Certificates = Sustainability. Yes. No. Or?” The question and responses bring to mind “LEED”… a great marketing tool perhaps, but it’s value remains uncertain, especially when considering long-term/life-cycle aspects. Also what due labels really mean… who polices product labels? Is bamboo really green if you consider it is transported halfway around the world. Is mercury-based lighting sustainable? Oh and yes…. the Prius and other vehicles have the nasty little batter disposal problem to deals with…
CLOUD COMPUTING WASHING
Cloud computing is NOT taking legacy applications and moving them to the cloud via a virtual server. Cloud computing consists of three tier technology.
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS).
Cloud computing is viewed as a means to break down traditional data and process stovepipes. Cloud computing encompasses four different deployment models, and in these preliminary stages of cloud development, organizations are free to determine which model best serves their needs. The four models, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), include: (1) private clouds, for the use of a single agency; (2) community clouds, shared by multiple agencies; (3) public clouds, largely for the public’s use and benefit; and (4) hybrid clouds, facilitating the sharing of data and utilities across two or more unique clouds of any type.
(Peter Mell and Tim Grance, Nat’l Inst. of Standards and Tech., The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing – 2009)
Cloud computing will enable collaborative, secure, and transparent applications and the rapid deployment of robust business process.. both so sorely needed in the AECOO sector (architecture, engineering, construction, owner, operator).
Ok folks. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. 3D visualization is NOT BIM !!! The integration all aspects and processes of facility life-cycle management is BIM. Will all this occur in Revt, Archcad, or some IWMS system… absolutely NOT! Cloud computing, however, integrated with existng knowledge-domains such as CPMS, Construction Project Delivery (IPD, JOC), CMMS, CAFM, GIS, BAS, …. now that’s BIM!
Reduction of federal building energy footprint is an important initiative.
Focus must shift to the renovation, repair, and sustainability of existing buildings and associated efficient project delivery methods. BIM and Cloud computing can integrate the currently disparate processes associated with facility capital planning, management, renovation, and maintenance…. and make enable the widespread use of efficient project delivery methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD) and job order contracting (JOC).
The focus on BIM as 3D visualization and design is a distraction we can no longer afford.
BIM is the life-cycle management of facilities supported by digital technology. It is the use of robust business processes and standardized taxonomies and metrics.
The tools to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment are readily available. Products and services manufactured here in the United States, the use of which would also help our economy.
The High-Performance Buildings Caucus was started in 2007 with a goal to make a real difference in our economy and environment. Last year, the “Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act” was introduce to piece of legislation ensure that people working on federal buildings are properly trained to do the work their job requires. This bill was signed into law at the end of 2010, however, the General Administration Services (GSA) is lagging in its proper implementation. Knowledge of life-cycle facility management is critical to reaching the goals of efficient facility life-cycle management.
The High Performance Federal Buildings Act is intended to require analysis of the full life-cycle costs for buildings. It also requires regulations for the use of energy and water in federal buildings to reflect the most current codes and standards. The Act will reduce energy footprint speed compliance with mandated standards.
It is very important to use of life-cycle cost analysis on any construction, alteration or acquisition of a building. Facility condition assessments and commissioning are also key elements in this regard that must be addressed in a standardized manner.
via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier software for efficient project delivery, cost estimating, and project management – JOC, SABER, IPD, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, IDIQ, POCA, BOA.