BIM for FM – The Evolution of Facility Management

The evolution of facility management.

Driven by economic and environmental pressures, facilities management (FM) will…. more rapidly align itself with the core mission, encompass more  services, use global  standards,  embrace flexibility and continuity,   focus upon life-cycle sustainability,   maintain and end user/client   focus,   improve supply   chain synchronicity,   achieve a life-cycle   / total cost of ownership perspective,   and employ better capital/risk/performance reporting and metrics for management and continuous improvement.

Integrating robust FM processes, especially the following five (5) areas, each with its support technology backbone, will centralize and standardize building INFORMATION and link with a core BIM  (Building Information Modeling) system.

Capital Planning and Management (CPMS) – Multi-year capital planning, decision support, and physical/functional conditions management will enable owners to better reinvest available funds based upon organizational mission requirements.
Computerized Maintenance Management (CMMS) – Maintenance and inventory of “moveable” equipment systems will allow for more efficient, timely, and less costly minor repair and maintenance.
Space Planning (CAFM) – Space planning and utilization management systems will assure maximum space utilization, mitigate waste, and help to limit carbon impacts.
Construction Delivery Methods (IPD, JOC, DB) – Efficient construction delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery for new construction and Job Order Contracting for faculty renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction will become the norm, driving collaboration, transparency, quality, and performance.
Building Automation Systems (BAS) – Electronic data gathering and system/equipment monitoring and management systems, including GIS will provide real-time feedback on site, building, system, and equipment location, operation, and performance, providing the ability to more rapidly adapt to change.

The importance of BIM is actually “BIM for FM”, with building Owners leading the charge.
BIM for FM will not replace the above processes or technologies.
On the contrary, the above domain specific, rich information systems will support a central repository of reusable, standardized information (BIM).
Cloud technology and standards such as COBIE, UFC, Uniformat, MasterFormat, etc., with enrich these domain specific knowledge centers feed a rich information repository to enable more efficient building life-cycle management.

Exciting time for us all!

via – Premier cost estimating and project management software for efficient construction project delivery.

High Performance Building – Definition is Evolving …. Just like BIM

Below is a recent IFMA sponsored article addressing the definition of a high performance building.

With the operational costs of buildings 60% t0 80% of the life-cycle cost of a building (the remainder of costs going to design, acquisition/procurement, construction, disposal), greater focus is needed upon “best-practices”, robust business / facility management processes,  and supporting technologies. BIM, with the “I”, information, portion the most significant aspect, holds great promise in being a central repository for enabling more efficient life-cycle building management.   The key is that BIM is a repository, and/or portal, drawing information from a variety of domain specific business process and applications, such as CMMS, CPMS, JOC, IPD, CAFM, etc. etc.etc.

Far too much fanfare is being giving to new building construction, LEED, etc, whereas the bulk of energy/carbon and dollar savings will come from the application of high performance building management to existing facilities.

It is indeed time for the AECOM / AEC / FM industry to strategically address the built environment from a systems perspective.  Failure to do so will be “politics as usual” vs. the collaborative approach we all will need to engage in to succeed.


Defining High Performance Buildings for Operations and Maintenance

Angela Lewis, David Riley, Abbas Elmualim


Most practicing facility managers, engineers and building owners, as well as academics and researchers of the built environment have heard of the term high performance building.  Some may even be designing, constructing or working in or researching high performance buildings.  However, what a high performance building is, especially for operations and maintenance, is still being debated and defined.  The aim of this research paper is to synthesize current literature about high performance buildings, with a specific focus on operations and maintenance.  In doing so, the paper seeks to further define what a high performance building is, while also hypothesizing that to overcome current challenges to achieve successful operation and maintenance of a high performance building will require practitioners and researchers to collaborate to solve the challenges necessary to successfully operate and maintain high performance buildings.  The paper concludes that systems-thinking, for both building systems (heating, ventilating and air-conditioning, lighting and others) and organizational systems, is necessary to achieving successful high performance building operation.

BAS: Building automation system
BIM: Building information model
CAFM: Computer aided facility management system
CMMS: Computerized maintenance management system
FDD: Fault detection diagnostics
HPB: High performance building
HVAC: Heating, ventilating and air conditioning
IWMS: Integrated work management system
O&M: Operations and maintenance


The operational phase of a commercial building is significantly longer than the design and construction phase of a project.  The lifecycle cost of the operational life of a building is about 60 to 85 percent of the total lifecycle cost, where as the design and construction is about five to ten percent. Acquisition, renewal and disposal costs are between five and 35 percent of the total life cycle cost (Christian and Pandeya 1997).  When employee salaries and benefits are included in the lifecycle cost, design and construction costs make up only one percent of the lifecycle cost.  Operations and maintenance make up 11 percent and employee salaries and benefits make up 88 percent of the lifecycle cost (NIBS 1998).

As the operational phase of a building is longer and more cost intensive, the focus of this research paper is to define what a high performance building is for the operations and maintenance phase of commercial buildings.  To date, much of the research work within high performance buildings has focused on design and construction.  In order to meet many energy efficiency and sustainability goals, there is a great need to define how current definitions apply to and can inform operations and maintenance of commercial buildings.  Within this paper, operations is defined as services necessary to keep equipment and systems operating as designed or at a level that meets the operational goals of the facility management team.  Maintenance services are defined as services that help restore equipment or systems to design conditions or to conditions that have been determined to be sufficient for the given project scope.  The building systems and equipment focused on within this paper are heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, building automation systems (BAS), lighting, renewable energy technologies and software that support these systems, such as computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), computer aided facility management systems (CAFM) and energy analytics software.  To operate a high performance building requires proactive management processes for energy and maintenance.

Within the United States, high performance buildings are a topic of interest to industry, academics, the research community and government. The goal of this paper is to help synthesize current literature and discussions with industry members and researchers from the fields of engineering (HVAC and control systems) and facility management (maintenance management, energy management and IT) to further define high performance building operations and maintenance.  The paper first seeks to further define what a high performance building is, and then discusses how to apply the definition through a discussion of technologies, processes and skills needed to operate and maintain high performance buildings.  The paper concludes with a discussion of systems thinking, a strategy which the authors hypothesize is important for successful high performance building operation and maintenance.

Defining a High Performance Building

Within both research and industry, the terms high performance building, green building, sustainable buildings, and intelligent buildings are used.  Although many would argue that many of these terms are still being defined or refined, this paper suggests that these terms are interrelated.  The relationship between these terms is very important to defining high performance building operations and maintenance.

To demonstrate the interrelations and support further refinement of the definitions of high performance, green, sustainable and intelligent buildings definitions from several industry, government and research sources are synthesized below.

As defined by the United States Energy Independence and Security Act 2007, a high performance building is:
“A building that integrates and optimizes on a lifecycle basis all major high performance attributes, including energy [and water] conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational considerations” (Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 401 PL 110-140).

The definition of an intelligent building is similar to the definition of a high performance building.  However, intelligent buildings emphasize the need for integration and application of technology.  As stated by Elmualim (2009) there is a myriad of definitions for intelligent buildings, none of which are scientific.  In an absence of such a scientific definition, six (ALwaer and Clements-Croome 2010; CABA 2008; Elmualim 2009; Finley et al 1991; Himanen 2004; Robathan 1996) were compared and contrasted to define an intelligent building within this paper, resulting in the following definition: An intelligent building is a building that integrates people, process and technology in an efficient and sustainable manner through the use of high levels of integrated technology, including but not limited to HVAC, plumbing, electrical, renewable energy systems and sources, information technology, control systems and management software to provide a safe, healthy and productive environment for building occupants that adapts quickly to change at the lowest possible lifecycle cost.

Comparing and contrasting the three definitions for green buildings (CABA 2008; US EPA 2010; LEED Reference Guide 2001), the definitions for green and intelligent buildings are more similar to each other than each is to the definition of a high performance building.  Synthesizing the definition from the three sources, a green building is a building that is designed, constructed and operated to minimize environmental impacts and maximize resource efficiency while also balancing cultural and community sensitivity.

CABA (2008) suggest that the concepts of intelligent and green buildings should converge.  CABA suggests that the convergence of green and intelligent building concepts should be called bright green. Within the convergence, topics that are both green and intelligent (bright green) include: energy management, asset management, space utilization, integrated design, sustainability, renewable energy, indoor environmental quality and green building purchasing structures (CABA 2008).

As the term sustainability has also been used within many discussions of HPB, intelligent and green, it is also important to define sustainability here.  Many built environment researchers, industry practitioners and professional organization use the definition or a variation on the definition commonly recognized as the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987) as the definition for sustainability: “development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  As some may argue that this definition is more philosophical than practical, within industry this definition has often applied considering the triple bottom line, balancing environmental, economic and social goals (Hodges 2009; Lewis et al 2009).

Reviewing the definitions of high performance, intelligent, sustainability and green buildings, there are many similarities. The authors hypothesize that these definitions will continue to be debated and refined by researchers and practitioners. It is also hypothesized that facility managers and building owners will use different variations on the definitions, depending on goals and priorities.  In order to apply definitions and theoretical concepts, it is important to emphasize that successful operations and maintenance of a HPB requires integration and knowledge about HPB technologies, processes that support HPB and people with skills to effectively utilize HPB technologies.  Thus, technologies, tools, processes and skills necessary for high performance building operation and maintenance are discussed below.

High Performance Building Technologies

High performance buildings have more complex mechanical, lighting and control systems, many which are far from common place within the industry.  Some of the heating ventilating and air conditioning systems (HVAC) within HPB include, but are not limited to: radiant heating and cooling, dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS), chilled beams and advanced control sequences programmed in building automation systems (BAS).  Advanced control strategies include, but are not limited to morning warm-up, fault detection diagnostics, the use of thermal mass for heating or cooling and demand response.  Additionally, HPB are more likely have software to monitor and benchmark energy efficiency and operational performance.  Thus, the number of meters and sensors linked to BAS is often greater than a non-HPB.

Lighting systems often included within HPB include, but are not limited to automated lighting control, such as motion sensor lighting, integration of daylighting and electronic lighting, automated shading, and light emitting diodes (LEDs).

Renewable energy technologies are also common to HPB, including solar, wind and geothermal systems.  Solar systems include photovoltaic arrays and solar thermal systems.  Photovoltaic arrays can be connected to inverters to invert direct current (DC) from the photovoltaic arrays to alternating current (AC), which is used for most commercial building applications.  Alternately, a less common application is to connect photovoltaic panels to a battery bank or devices that use DC current, such as LEDs or DC powered kitchen appliances.

Sophisticated technologies often found within HPB can cause some challenges to building operators and facility managers.  Challenges can occur when building operators, technicians and facility managers have not had the opportunity to learn about HPB technologies, especially what makes HPB technologies unique.

  • There are many new technologies that design and consulting engineers, contractors and facility managers are not familiar with.  Often, it is challenging to find the time and/or resources necessary to understand the benefits of the technologies, how they work and the cost of implementing them.
  • Many industry members seek out demonstration or pilot projects to determine the risk of designing, installing, operating or managing new technologies in an effort to reduce risk. Although there is general interest to support many new technologies, risk is often a barrier, as most designers, contractors and owners generally do not want to be the first to design, install, manage or operate a new technology.
  • The design, installation and operation of many HPBs require a systems-thinking and integrated approach.  However, neither systems-thinking nor integration are currently standard industry practice (McCaffer 2010).
  • The industry lacks a feedback loop for facility managers and building operators to communicate what systems and equipment worked as designed and where further improvement is necessary (McCaffer 2010; Arditi and Nawakorawit 1999).  A feedback loop for HPB is especially important as many HPB technologies are not standard practice and there are many, often conflicting opinions about what systems and equipment should be used in HPB.

High Performance Building Processes

The installation of highly energy efficient equipment and systems is only the foundation for achieving efficient high performance operation.  The processes used to operate and maintain buildings have an even larger cost and environmental impact than the design and construction process.  In fact, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) suggests that a building with good operations and maintenance practices that is poorly designed will often out perform a well-designed building with poor operations and maintenance practices (ASHRAE 2009).  HPB processes should include, but are not limited to the use of benchmarking for decision making, retro and/or re-commissioning, the use of proactive maintenance techniques, the use of rating and certification systems, systems thinking and balancing comfort and energy efficiency.

Benchmarking is the process of comparing measurements against a standard, average or best in the business with the purpose of improvement and movement towards best practices.  Benchmarking must be stakeholder driven and focus on improvement, rather than the status quo.  Benchmarking can be done once or continually (Atkin and Brooks 2000; Wireman 2004; Stapenhust 2009).  However, greater benefits are likely to result from continual benchmarking.  Although benchmarking is not a new practice to the facility management and building operations community, the use of benchmarking to set improvement goals is not currently standard industry practice.  Benchmarking can be used to help in decision making and meet sustainability goals. More specifically, benchmarking is beneficial because it can be used to (NREL 2003):

  • Determine how well a building is performing
  • Set targets for improvement
  • Facilitate assessment of property value
  • Gain recognition

Commissioning is the process of verifying that a building and its systems and equipment are operating according to the owner’s project requirements.  Retro-commissioning is the process of commissioning a facility that was not previously commissioned (ASHRAE Guideline 0 2005). Re-commissioning is the process of commissioning a building that had been commissioned before (ASHRAE Guideline 0 2005) .  Retro-commissioning and re-commissioning are important in order to keep buildings operating efficiently.  Over time, building functions change, equipment wears and sensors drift out of calibration.  The benefits of retro- and re-commissioning are well documented in both the research and trade literature.  For example, Claridge et al. (1996) finds that building energy consumption can be decreased by as much as 50 percent through retro-commissioning.  Mills et al. (2005) find that “commissioning is one of the most cost-effective means of improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings.”

Maintenance is the day-to-day activities required to preserve, retain or restore equipment and systems to the original condition or to a condition that the equipment can be effectively used for this intended purpose (APPA 2002; FMpedia 2010; WBDG 2009; Moubray 1997).  Proactive maintenance includes preventive, predictive and reliability-centered maintenance.  Preventive maintenance is a form of maintenance scheduled over time (Ring 2008; ASHRAE 2003).  The main function of preventive maintenance is to keep equipment running reliably and safely, not to increase efficiency (Ring 2008). The principal objectives of preventive maintenance are durability, reliability, efficiency and safety (ASHRAE 1991).  Predictive maintenance is form of maintenance based on equipment condition. Predictive maintenance uses non-destructive testing, chemical analysis, vibration and noise monitoring and visual inspection to determine equipment conditions and access when maintenance should be performed (ASHRAE 1991).  The philosophy of reliability centered maintenance combines preventive and predictive maintenance by balancing cost and the impact of equipment downtime on the facility using relationships about equipment failure rates (Moubray 1997).

Maintenance is a very important, but often overlooked part of HPB.  For example, Wood (2005) claims that building maintenance is under researched.  Maintenance is needed to keep equipment operating efficiently.  Without maintenance, overtime belts begin to slip, filters are filled with particulates, equipment begins to vibrate and bearings need greasing – all of these have the potential to decrease energy efficiency, while increasing utility costs.  In many cases, maintenance is one of the first costs to be cut from a facility manager’s budget because building owners and financial decision makers often do not understand the benefits of maintenance (Pugh 2010).

Although basic economic theory states the value of a dollar (unit of currency) today is greater than the value of the same dollar (unit of currency) tomorrow, there can be significant cost savings from investing in proactive maintenance.  Table 1 summarizes the annual cost savings (US dollars) for proactive maintenance practices in units of US dollars per horsepower.

Table 1: Cost Savings for Use of Proactive Maintenance, Compared to Reactive Maintenance (Piotrowski 2001)

  Cost [$/HP] Savings [$/HP]
Reactive $18/HP —-
Preventive $13/HP $5/HP
Predictive $9/HP $9/HP
Reliability Centered $/HP $12/HP

It is suggested that successful operation of a HPB requires proactive maintenance management practices.  To date, there is a great need for more maintenance related research to advance proactive maintenance management practices.  For example, Wood (2005) claims that building maintenance is under-researched.

Building rating and certification systems for existing buildings, such as the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings Operation and Maintenance (LEED –EBOM), Green Globes Continual Improvement Assessment for Existing Buildings, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) BuildingEQ or the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Building Environmental Standards (BOMA BESt) can also help to inform HPB process improvements.  Many rating and certification systems have a checklist or set of credits or points that can be used to help set goals.  Setting goals and working to achieve a certification or rating can help to hold teams accountable to meet the goals set, while also providing opportunities for recognition.

Systems-thinking is a process of understanding how the parts of an organization or building fit together to make a whole.  Systems-thinking at the organizational level is the integration and understanding of the people that make up the organization, as well as the values, structure, processes, policies, regulations and supervision within an organization (El-Homsi and Slutsky 2010).  As stated by El-Homsi and Slutsky (2010), systems-thinking requires goal setting, development, incentives, communication, reviews, rewards and accountability.

Systems- thinking, when applied to building systems is the understanding of how all the components of a larger system interact with each other to meet the needs of the building occupant.  For example, using a systems thinking approach, when a technician is dispatched to respond to an occupant’s complaint that a room is too cold, the technician will consider how the adjustment made to the diffuser or damper within the terminal box will impact the entire cooling system, often including the chillers and the cooling towers.  As a second, more broad example, systems-thinking is also necessary during major equipment and system replacements and upgrades – if more efficient lamps are installed in an office area, the cooling load will be reduced, which will reduce the load on the chiller.  Depending on the operational parameters of the chiller, reduction of the amount of heat generated from the more efficient lamps and other factors, the chiller controls may need to be readjusted so that the chiller operates efficiently under new space conditions.

Finally, the function of the building, such as occupant comfort and providing a productive, safe and healthy indoor environment cannot be scarified to save energy or achieve sustainability goals.  Tom (2008) finds that keeping a building at a comfortable temperature and relative humidity is important for occupant satisfaction.  To keep building occupants comfortable while operating equipment efficiently requires a balance between energy consumption and comfort.  Although many facility managers measure energy, it is often more difficult to measure comfort.  Comfort is difficult to measure because it is subjective and depends on individual perceptions (Tom 2008).  To determine if building occupants are comfortable, two basic approaches can be used:

  • Monitor the number of comfort complaints (hot/cold calls) logged for the building or certain areas of a building
  • Perform a comfort survey of all building occupants

As shown, there are many different management processes that are used to keep a HPB operating efficiently.  Although many of these processes are documented within industry and research literature, implementing these and other HPB processes within an existing facility management organization can be challenging.  Some reasons process implementation is difficult include:

  • Facility management departments are often large and perform a diverse number of tasks to support the primary functions of the organization.
  • If it is necessary to adopt a new or refine an existing policy or procedure, employees of an organization can be resistant to change, as there can be a mind-set of “we’ve always don tit this way.”  Overcoming the challenge requires effective change management strategies and diplomacy.  Additionally, members of the facility management team must be educated about the reasons and value of the change.
  • Less research has been done within the areas of operations and maintenance of existing buildings, compared to the design and construction of buildings.  Therefore, there are fewer industry standards that facility managers can use as a foundation to create organizational specific standards and polices.
  • Existing job functions may need to be rewritten to accommodate new policies and procedures.

Tools to Manage High Performance Building Processes

Software is needed to manage the data and information necessary to make decisions about how to operate and maintain a high performance building.  Software used and discussed within this paper includes computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), computer aided facility management systems (CAFM), integrated work management systems (IWMS), enterprise resource systems (ERP), building automation systems (BAS), energy information systems and energy analytics software.  Elmualim (2009) suggests that intelligent building management [software] is about having a common user interface and integration. A common user interface and integration are key parts of HPB software because they support systems-thinking.  As previously discussed, a HPB cannot be operated or maintained without considering both the impact of decisions on the entire organization and the impact on the technical systems.  A common interface allows data from multiple sources to be viewed from one screen.  Interoperability is the process that supports the concept of viewing data from many sources from one interface.  The topic of interoperability will be discussed in later in the paper.

There are two platforms for O&M management software, local server-based and software as a service (SaaS).  Local server-based software requires that the software be located on servers at the facility. Local server-based software provides facility managers with the opportunity to customize and configure the software to meet specific organizational needs.  It also requires in-house staff or contracted staff to maintain the software and perform any necessary upgrades.  Software as a service can eliminate the need for in-house staff to maintain and upgrade the software, as the software is maintained and upgraded by the service provider.  However, opportunities for configuration and customization may be less available, as the SaaS model is generally has a standardized Internet-based user interface.

Within the United States market, there are three basic types of software for asset, space and maintenance management: computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), computer-aided facility management (CAFM) and integrated workplace management systems (IWMS).    The core function of a computerized maintenance management system is to manage information related to maintenance, including but not limited to work orders, asset histories, parts inventories, maintenance personnel management and the calculation of maintenance metrics.  The core function of a computer-aided facility management system is primarily space management, used to identify and manage assets.  An integrated workplace management system combines the functionality of both a CAFM and a CMMS, and sometimes may also include functionality more commonly associated with an enterprise resource planning system (ERP).  An ERP can be used across an entire organization to manage all types of information, including human resources, procurement and the functions of CAFM and CMMS.

Although IWMS, CAFM and CMMS software are becoming more commonly used (Sapp 2008), successfully implementing these systems can be challenging.  Berger (2009) found that more than 50 percent of CMMS implementations fail – or are underutilized.  Lewis (2010) found that part of the reason for underutilization was a lack of understanding of the importance of accurate asset inventories and maintenance records.  As a result, the most commonly used CMMS modules were those that did not require asset data to be populated into the system, including the work order generator, work order tracking and the storage of maintenance records.

A building automation system (BAS) is a control system that uses digital control (analog and binary signals) to monitor, control and manage mechanical (HVAC) and electrical systems within buildings.  The core function of a BAS is to maintain indoor environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity) within a building during specified hours of operation.  A BAS also monitors equipment performance and failures, and can provide notifications of unsatisfactory operating conditions in the form of alarms to the building operator.  There are several other acronyms that are also used to describe and define a BAS, including energy management system (EMS) and energy management and control system (EMCS).
Although not the primary function, a BAS can also be used to monitor, trend and benchmark building energy consumption.  In order for a BAS to be used as an energy performance monitoring or benchmarking tool, sub-meters and equipment and system level sensors must be installed, a server to store trend data must be available and a report generator must be configured (Lewis 2010).

Three other products that can be used for energy performance monitoring and benchmarking are enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, energy analytics software and energy information systems.  These three products are similar to each other as they all aggregate data from meters, sub-meters and sensors to quantify building energy consumption in units that are useful to the end user and often use a dashboard to displays the information electrically. Specific information to include and how to display the information on the dashboard are currently being debated (Shadpour 2010).  These products can range from free and publically available, such as Portfolio Manager ENERGY STAR (Roskoski et al 2009) to very complex and potentially expensive, such as a customized application integrated with the ERP for the entire organization.

Interoperability and Integration

Interoperability and integration are key needs for true implementation HPB O&M technologies and practices.  Interoperability is the ability to manage and communicate electronic data between different software products and systems (Gallaher et al 2004).  Integration is the synchronization of two or more electronic products or systems.  The lack of interoperability and integration within current software is illustrated by Gallaher et al (2004): $10.5 billion (US dollars) is lost annually due to inoperability of software within the operations phase of buildings.  The use of building information modeling (BIM) promises to part of the solution to reducing interoperability and integration challenges for facility management.  Building information modeling is a structured dataset that describes a building (NBIM 2007), the data within a BIM often includes a three-dimensional computer model and a database (Fallon 2008).
There are currently many efforts underway regarding BIM and interoperability that show promise to help reduce the annual loss reported by Gallaher et al (2004).  A full review of these efforts is beyond the scope of this paper.  Readers interested in BIM are encouraged to view the buildingSMARTalliance website:

People: Skills Needed to Operate and Maintain High Performance Buildings

Trained facility managers, building operators and technicians are a critical part of HPB O&M.  Without properly trained staff, it will be difficult for the energy efficiency or HPB goals of any building to be met.  Facility managers and technicians must be knowledgeable of the technologies and processes previously discussed.  From a management approach using systems-thinking, facility managers must understand how HPB knowledge aligns with the core competencies of facility management.  The International Facility Management Association (IFMA) currently defines nine facility management core competencies (IFMA 2010):

  • Operations and maintenance
  • Real estate
  • Human and environmental factors
  • Planning and project management
  • Leadership and management
  • Finance
  • Quality assessment and innovation
  • Communication
  • Technology

The most recent IFMA Global Job Task Analysis determined that two additional core competencies should be added: environmental stewardship and sustainability and human and environmental emergency preparedness and business continuity.  From the list of competencies, there are many ways HPB O&M impact the daily responsibilities of facility managers.

The specific skill set of building operators and technicians is less clearly defined.  Similarly to facility managers, building operators and technicians are often required to have a very diverse skill set.  One example that summarizes this brief skill set of technicians is the North American Technician Excellence (NATE) Knowledge Areas of Technician Excellence (KATE) (NATE 2010).  This list of knowledge areas was determined through a job task analysis and defines core installation and core services areas.  Core installation and core service areas are generally categorized as air-side systems and fuel source (oil or gas) and refrigeration.

Two areas that are under defined within the NATE KATE is building automation system (BAS) and systems-thinking skills for operators and technicians, especially for medium and large commercial buildings.  A recently completed National Science Foundation (NSF) report, “Current Situation and Trends in Buildings and Facility Operations” (Ehrlich et al 2010) finds that there are few formal training and educational opportunities BAS technicians.  Although a few programs exist through community colleges and trade union apprenticeship programs, the most common form of training for BAS technicians is on-the-job training.  On-the-job training is necessary, and an important part of all jobs.  However, as technologies in buildings become more automated, Ehrlich et al. conclude that on-the-job training will not be sufficient to meet the needs of technicians who will operate and maintain HPB.  On-the-job training does not provide sufficient opportunity to gain an understanding of how systems work or general problem solving skills.

Defining a Systems-Thinking Approach to HPB

To truly operate and maintain a high performance building requires the synthesis of people, process and technology using a systems-thinking approach.  As demonstrated from the discussion above, this requires the extraction of knowledge from multiple areas of expertise, including but not limited to HVAC and control systems, energy and maintenance management, software and IT systems and competencies of managers and technicians.  In order to achieve the goals set by both government and private organizations, it will be necessary to transition from commonly used silo-thinking to systems-thinking.  This will require both researchers and industry practitioners to use non-traditional communication paths.  For researchers, especially academic researchers, this may mean an increased breadth of a research project to use a more holistic approach that includes analysis of the impacts of the technicians on the people and processes – not just the technologies.  For industry practitioners, this may mean a more diverse understanding foundational knowledge of multiple subsets within his/her discipline and/or determining how to more effectively share industry challenges with researchers who often have the skills necessary to solve complex problems and time to focus on research projects.


The purpose of this article was to define and synthesize what a HPB is for O&M.  In order for HPB technologies to truly be high performance requires the implementation proactive practices, especially for energy and maintenance management.  Finally, maintaining and operating a HPB requires properly trained personnel, including facility managers, building operators and technicians.  In doing so, the authors sought to provide insight about interdependencies and relationships between technologies, processes and people necessary for high performance building operations and maintenance.  In order to operate and maintain a HPB will require systems-thinking.  Systems-thinking must be applied to building systems (HVAC, lighting, etc) and to organizational processes (such as maintenance management, technician training and strategic planning).

It is through an integrated, systems-thinking approach that lifecycle costs of operation and maintenance and environmental emissions will be reduced and resource consumption as a result of building operation decreases.  As the result of the synthesis completed for this paper, the following areas of future research are recommended:

  • Data management and metric standardization for energy performance and benchmarking
  • Maintenance management process development and data management strategies
  • Interoperability schemas and use cases for building information modeling
  • Effective training methods for HPB technologies and processes


Paul Ehrlich and Jeffery Seewald of the Building Intelligence Group for helping to inform the thinking that helped develop the foundation for this article.  This article is part of a larger research project, A Framework for Improving Building Operating Decisions.  Funding that supported the foundational stages the research was provided from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, an ASHRAE Graduate Student Grant-In Aid Award and the Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence at The Pennsylvania State University.


ALWaer, H.; D.J. Clements-Croome. (2010). “Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings.” Building and Environment 45(2010): 799-807.

APPA (2002), Maintenance Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities, Alexandria, VA.

Arditi, D. and Nawakorawit, M, (1999), “Issues in building maintenance: property managers’
perspective”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 117-32.

ASHRAE (2009), The Decision-Maker’s Guide to Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings, Atlanta, GA, ASHRAE.

ASHRAE (2005), ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 The Commissioning Process, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE (2003), HVAC Design Manual for Hospitals and Clinics, Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE (1991), ASHRAE Terminology of HVAC&R, American Society of Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

Atkin, B. and A. Brooks (2000), Total Facilities Management, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Berger, D. (2009). “2009 CMMS/EAM Review: Power Up a Winner,” available at:

Brundtland, (1987), Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development.  Clays Ltd., Bungay, Suffok, Great Britain.

CABA, (2008),  Bright Green Buildings Convergence of Green and Intelligent Buildings, available at:

Christian, J. and A. Pandeya, (1997), Cost predictions of facilities. Journal of Management in Engineering 13(1):52-61.

Claridge, D., M. Liu, et al. (1996), Implementation of Continuous Commissioning in the Texas LoanSTAR Program: Can you Achieve 150% of Estimated Retrofit Savings?: Revisited, Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study (August).

Ehrlich, P.; J. Seewald; A. Lewis; R. Kupritz, (2010), Current Situation and Trends In Buildings and Facility Operations, Research Supporting National Science Foundation Project “Educating Technicians for Building Automation and Sustainability,” Grant No. 0802595.

El-Homsi, A.; J. Slutsky, (2010), Corporate Sigma Optimizing the Health of Your Company with Systems Thinking.  CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Elmualim, A., (2009), Application of computer-aided facilities management (CAFM) for intelligent buildings operation.  Facilities 27(11/12): 421-428.

Fallon, K., (2008), Interoperability: Critical to Achieving BIM Benefits, by K. Fallon.

Finley, M.R.; Karakura, A. and Nbogni, R., (1991),“Survey of intelligent building concepts,” IEEE Communication Magazine.

FMpedia, (2010), IFMA Foundation. Definition of maintenance, available at:, (accessed February 18, 2010).
Gallaher, M.P.; A.C. O’Conner; J.L. Dettbarn Jr. and L.T. Gilday, (2004),  Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the US Capital Facilities Industry,  National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Himanen, M., (2004), “The intelligence of intelligent buildings,” in Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.), Intelligent Buildings: Design, Management and Operation, Thomas Telford, London.

Hodges, C., (2009),  Getting Started. IFMA Foundation Sustainability How-To Guide Series. available at: (accessed June 2, 2010).

IFMA (2010), International Facility Management Competency Areas. available at: (accessed July 7, 2010).

LEED Reference Guide, (2001), Version 2.0, United States Green Building Council.

Lewis, A., (2010), Designing for Energy Efficient Operations and Maintenance, Engineered Systems, August 2010.

Lewis, A., (2010), Quantifying Energy Performance beyond the Use of Energy Bills
FMJ, October 2010.

Lewis, A.; K. Cacciloa; R.B. Dennill, (2009), Sustainability in the Food Service Environment, IFMA Foundation Sustainability How-To Guide Series, available at: (Accessed July 9, 2010).

Mills, E., N. Bourassa, et al. (2005), “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commissioning.” HPAC Engineering, October 2005.

McCaffer, R., (2010),  Innovation: Imagination and Knowledge.  Sixth International Conference in Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction.  Keynote. University Park, PA June 9 -11, 2010.

Moubray, J. (1997), Reliability-centered maintenance. Second edition. Industrial Press, Inc., New York.

NATE (2010). North American Technician Excellence, Knowledge Areas of Technician Excellence, available at: (Accessed July 11, 2010).

NREL, (2003), High Performance Commercial Building Systems – PIER Building Energy Performance Program, Final Program Presentation.

NBIM, (2007), National BIM Standard, National Institute of Building Sciences.

NIBS, (1998), Excellence in Facility Management. National Institute of Building Sciences,
Facility Maintenance and Operations Committee, 5350-1.

Piotrowski, J., (2001), Pro-Active Maintenance for Pumps, Archives, February 2001, (Accessed August 21, 2008).

Pugh, R. (2010), Operations, Maintenance and Commissioning.  First Thursdays Seminar, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Webinar July 1, 2010.

Robathan, P. (1996). Building Performance. Facilities Management Theory and Practice. K. Alexander. London, E & FN Spon.

Ring, P. (2008), “Maintenance in Moderation is the Most Efficient Method.” Tradeline Inc. (January).

Roskoski, M.; L. Gilmer; G. Hughel. (2009), IFMA Foundation Sustainability How-To Guide Series, EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager,

Sapp, D. (2008), “Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS),” available at (accessed August 29, 2008).

Shadpour, F., (2010), Facilities Dashboards: What Do You Want to See?, Forum #6.  ASHRAE Annual Conference, June 26- 30, 2010, Albuquerque, NM.

Stapenhust, T., (2009), The Benchmarking Book, Oxford Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tom, S., (2008), “Managing Energy and Comfort.” ASHRAE Journal 50(6): 18-20,22,24,26.

US EPA, (2010), Basic Information, Definition of Green Building, available at:

Wireman, T., (2004), Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management. New York, Industrial Press

WBDG, (2009), Whole Building Design Guide, Facilities Operations & Maintenance, available at: (accessed February 18, 2010).

Wood, B., (2005).  “Innovative building maintenance.” Conference Proceedings of The Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, 4-8 July 2005 Brisbane, Australia, pp 601-7.

About the Authors

Angela Lewis, PE, LEED AP, is a PhD Candidate at the University of Reading within the Department of Construction Management and Engineering.  Lewis is also a Facility Management Consultant/High Performance Buildings Engineer with the Building Intelligence Group.

David is an Associate Professor at Penn State in the Department of Architectural Engineering specializing in green building methods and sustainable technologies.  David earned his PhD in Architectural Engineering from Penn State.  David currently leads a research program focused on the integration of mechanical and electrical energy systems with distributed renewable energy sources.  His research areas include the integration of green building technologies and high performance design process modeling.  As the Director of Penn State Center for Sustainability, he develops programs that engage students in the pursuit of sustainability challenges on the Penn State campus as well as external communities.

Abbas is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Reading and Coordinator of the Sustainable Design, Construction and FM research group.  He has a PhD in Sustainability and Renewable Energy from the University of Reading.  Currently Dr. Elmualim leads several industry funded collaborative projects.  Abbas’s research focuses on the development of integrative approaches to design, construction and facilities management. He is particularly interested in sustainability and digital technologies from a broad socio-technical systems perspective. The research approach seeks to combine engineering research methodologies with those derived from the social sciences.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

ISSN: 2150-3303


Why BIM should be renamed BIMM – The Value of BIM

BIM should should have been can BIMM – Building Information Modeling and Management. The emphasis upon 3D is silly, and the focus upon 3D replacing 2D is equally misdirected.

Products like Revit and Archicad are only relatively small components of a BIM solution.  BIM is a process embedded within and support by digital technology that enables more efficient cradle-to-grave management of the built environment.

Owners, contractors, A/E’s, oversight groups, and communities will all benefit from BIM relative to the management and usage of the built environment.

As many say, the “I” in BIM is the critical aspect.  Defensible, accessible, transparent, accurate and re-usable information is the true value of BIM.

Sustainability and Federal Government Facilties – A Candid Survey of Federal Executives – GBC and Deloitte – September 2010

Federal agencies and public companies share sustainability challenges, however, JOC / Job Order Contracting provides an efficient Construction Delivery Method to deploy associated renovation, renovation projects for existing buildings.


Many respondents believe the level of  effort and resources put towards sustainability by their agency is lacking.  Over half  of  them call the sustainability effort “inadequate.” 

Many of  the roadblocks to sustainability are strategic or cultural.”

A majority (54 percent) of  respondents anticipate the level of  effort put towards sustainability will remain constant.”


Executive Summary

 Federal executives surveyed have taken significant steps to “go green” in their personal lives.  A strong majority (81percent) say they now turn off  lights when not in use.  Almost as many print less, turn off  electronics, use more energy efficient products, or recycle. 
 Federal executives believe they have a responsibility to promote sustainability in their agency as well.  Nine in ten of  those surveyed agree with the idea that they have such a responsibility.  Nearly as many of  them say that they have personally taken action to promote sustainability. 
 Respondents almost universally agree that it is important that their agency implements sustainable practices.  Over 95 percent call it very or somewhat important.  When presented with a list of  three elements of  sustainability and asked to rank their importance, most viewed all three as critical.
 While a “sense of  obligation” is the top reason for going green on a personal level, it ranks fourth among reasons agencies make changes.  Agencies’ moves towards sustainability tend to result from different motivators including fulfilling a mandate or reducing costs.
 Almost all respondents believe it is important to increase sustainability, but most report their agency has taken few actions
to do so.  In fact, on average, those surveyed know of  less than three things their agency has done
Many respondents believe the level of  effort and resources put towards sustainability by their agency is lacking.  Over half 
of  them call the sustainability effort “inadequate.”
  In contrast, four percent say the effort has been “excessive.”  
 Many of  the roadblocks to sustainability are strategic or cultural.  Over a quarter say that sustainability is not an agency
priority, or that there is a lack of  coordination.  Almost as many claim there is a lack of  involvement, enthusiasm, and engagement in “going green” among agency employees.
 Respondents recognize ways in which their agencies could become more sustainable.  Almost 60 percent say that better
education, training, and engagement can help their agency implement more sustainable practices.
A majority (54 percent) of  respondents anticipate the level of  effort put towards sustainability will remain constant.  A significant portion (39 percent) anticipate their agency will be more dedicated to sustainability in the future, while almost
none expect that their agency will be less committed to it.  
 Almost all federal executives (86 percent) say that a primary force driving them to be more sustainable is a sense of 
obligation.  Many also behave more sustainably to save money, while far fewer do so to follow a trend, or because of  social


Reasons for Agency Action to Increase Sustainability

Executive Order 13514

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans

Most Important Sustainability Related Goals

AEC Myth #147 – Construction Estimating is More Art than Science

Efficient, accurate construction cost estimating is a very detailed profession that is highly dependent upon robust process, definitions, cost databases, terminology / taxonomy, technology, collaboration, and experience.

Granted the AEC industry in the US suffers from cultural issues and lags other sectors in the efficient adoption and deployment of technology, but this will change due to the altered worldwide environmental and economic landscape.

The evolution and convergence of Building Information Modeling (BIM), more efficient construction delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Job Order Contracting (JOC), Capital Planning and Management Systems (CPMS), Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS), and Computer-aid Facility Management (CAFM), will drive a more collaborative, productive,Architecuture, Engineering, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance industry.


Green BIM Report 2010While the BIM vendors continue to focus upon Architects as the primary target market, it’s clear that the true value of BIM is in life-cycle facility management, or the owner market.

Driving market factors will be education and knowledge as to how BIM delivers better facility management capabilities, higher ROI, and the comprehensive applicatin of BIM to operations, maintenance, renovation, and repair.

With existing buildings the major market, and the associated drive toward sustainability, BIM can play a significant role.  Will it?

Construction delivery methods, particulary Job Order Contracting / JOC will be equally important for sustainability,  repair, and renovation, as will Integrated Project Delivery / IPD for new construction.     These processes will and their supporting technologies will improve transparency, collaboration, quality, and overall project timelines.

BIM Deployment Plan from Revit / Autodesk

BIM Strategy

The Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan – tools and guidance for building industry professionals interested in implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) – is a reasonable framework for those beginning to investigate BIM, however, it lacks requisite depth relative to 4d, 5d BIM as well as contruction delivery methodology.  

A comprehensive BIM strategy from an owner perspective (and, in my opinion contractor and A/E’s as well as other stakeholders), should include capital planning and management (lifecycle costing, capital renewal, physical/functional conditions management), operations and maintenance (repair, maintenance, minor renovations-preventive, routine, maintenace), space planning/management, and integration of efficient construction devlivery methodsy (JOC – Job Order Contracting for facility repair/maintenance, IPD – Integrated Project Delivery for new construction, etc.), and associated reference cost data, standard definitions/metrics/taxonomy, ….

Tools offered in the Autodesk BIM deploym,ent plan are intended to provide a practical framework for AEC stakeholders, and can be used by individual organizations on specific projects. The BIM Deployment Plan includes:

  • BIM support materials for owners, architects, engineers, and contractors
  • Templates to streamline multi-discipline communications
  • Recommendations for roles and responsibilities
  • Best business process examples
  • Software suggestions for an effective BIM environment


Definitions of Terms Used in This Document

As-Built Model Model

—The final model that shows how a building was actually delivered and assembled. Sometimes referred to as the Record Model.

Building Information Modeling (BIM)—An integrated process aimed at providing coordinated, reliable information about a building project throughout different project phases—from design through construction and into operations.  BIM gives architects, engineers, builders, and owners a clear overall vision of the project—to help them make better decisions faster, improve quality, and increase profitability of the project. 
Clash Detection — The process of checking for clashes and interferences in the design of one or more BIM models.


Collaborative Project Management — A software solution that enables effective management of and collaboration on all project related communication, information, and business processes across the plan, build, and operate phases of the building lifecycle. The most common processes include collaborative documentation, design, bid, construction, cost, and operations management.  (Examples of software include Project Estimator for JOC construction delivery).     Coordination Model—A model created from two or more models, used to show the relationship of multiple building disciplines such as architectural, civil, structural, and MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing).

Core Collaboration Team —The group of people – which should include someone from each party working on the project, such as the owner, architect, contractor, subconsultants, suppliers, and trade contractors—responsible for completing a BIM Deployment Plan, creating the document management file folder structure and permission levels in the collaborative project management system, and enforcing the action plan set out in that document throughout design and construction of the project.
Design Intent Model —The model used to communicate the design intent of a building.
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) —A neutral and open file format structure developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) to enable interoperability between modeling software systems.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)—A project delivery process (similar to JOC for facility repair, renovation, and sustainabilty)  that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices to collaboratively harness the talents and insights of all participants in order to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency throughout all phases of design, fabrication, and construction (AIA,  Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide , 2007, available at
Model Integrator—A tool used to combine and/or link design files from different software platforms.
Model Manager(s)—The project team member(s) responsible for managing the collaboration and sharing of electronic files during the project. Model managers are also responsible for maintaining the integrity of BIM models, which can include gathering, linking, and uploading updated models.
Parametric —The relationships among and between all elements of a model that enable coordination and change management. These relationships are created either automatically by the software or manually by users as they work.
Project System Administrator (PSA) —The person who administers, and sets up folders for, the collaborative project management system. Responsible for managing and creating new user accounts, as well as contact and company information. 

Attention Facility Owners – BIM and Facility Management / FM

The true benefits of BIM are in facility life-cycle management.

While clash detection and pretty pictures are nice, BIM can and will transform the AEC industry by providing a desperately needed robust and transparent process for monitoring and managing the built environment.

As a result of my recently working with NIBS/WBDB/BIM LIBRARY, I became aware of the below survey for Facility Owners, and Facility Operations and Maintenance Professionals (O&M professionals, facility engineers, …) developed by a University of New Mexico graduate student.

Please take time to complete the survey.

The survey consists of a two (2) part questionnaire, beginning with an initial set questions on your facility characteristics and how you currently access information and perform O&M activities.
Then, after watching a short video titled  “View of the Future for Facilities Management”, a set of questions that assess the benefits and impact of BIM on your current work practices will follow.

Because we value your time and input, the survey is designed to be completed in about 5 minutes, including watching the video.

The survey is located on the website The direct link:

Please forward this survey on to other Facilities Owners and Organizations, as the intent is to collect a comprehensive set of survey data to encourage owner’s implementation of BIM.
Please note that your name and your facility will not be identified with any of the results.

If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact Francisco Forns-Samso at 505-340-8471, or by email at
Thank you for your support.

Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE): Means and Methods | – A Must Read for BIM and Facility Managmenthe National Institute of Building Sciences

Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE): Means and Methods

by E. William East, PE, PhD – Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S Army, Corps of Engineers and Nicholas Nisbet MA (Cantab) DipArch (UNL) – AEC3


Designers and contractors facing a COBie2 specification for the first time may think that they have a lot to swallow, however, the information required in COBie2 is no different from the information already required by design and construction contracts. This information is provided cumulatively during the design, construction, commissioning and handover phases. The information includes room lists and area measurements, material and product schedules, construction submittal requirements, construction submittals, equipment lists, warranty guarantors, and replacement parts providers is included in several different places within current contracts. The objective of COBie2 is not to change the type of information that is required, just to standardize the format of that information to save you, and the buildings’ owners and occupants, having to rekey this information multiple times.


The human readable format for COBie2 information is a conventional spreadsheet, provided in Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (Spreadsheet XML 2003) format on the WBDG Website. COBie2 also allows the exchange of facility management data using the buildingSMART Industry Foundation Class (IFC) open standard (or ifcXML equivalent). Translators between IFC-Express, ifcXML, to and from the COBie2 spreadsheet areavailable free-of-charge without technical support.


The objective of a contracted information exchange is to transform existing, wasteful paper or e-paper deliverables, into a deliverables that contains the same information, but in a new reusable format. The COBie2 specification (DOC), provides a vendor-neutral, non-agency specific, open standard specification clause for use within the existing contract specification. This specification requires the delivery of COBie2 data in the Spreadsheet XML 2003 format at each appropriate stage of the project’s life-cycle. The COBie2 specification should be implemented, not as a stand-alone or BIM-based specification, but within the context of the existing specifications (link to my JBIM article on performance based delivery of building information). The table below shows when COBie2 data should be specified and the general content of each of the deliverables.

Table 1. Expected Scope of COBie2 Deliverables

Phase Required COBie2 Information
Architectural Programming
  • Contact details
  • Facility naming
  • Space and room data sheets
  • Space layouts
  • Space zoning
Early Design updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Floors
  • Space finishes
  • Zoning and space allocations
  • Architectural product schedules
Coordinated Design updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing product schedules
  • Building Systems
  • Product data (SPie defines minimum product templates)
  • Design document register
  • Indicative sizes for spaces (optional)
Construction Documents updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Submittal document register
  • Assignment of component to systems
  • Connections between components (optional)
Construction Mobilization updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Updated submittal document register
Construction 60% Complete updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Manufacturer contact information for all approved submittals
  • Model and Serial numbers on all installed products/equipment
  • Components identified by tag or bar codes, as appropriate
  • Installed product data (SPie defines minimum product templates)
Beneficial Occupancy updated previous phase information, as needed and

  • Updated space function and room area measurements
  • Warranty, parts, and handover documents
  • Operation and maintenance documentation
  • Installed product data (SPie defines minimum product templates)
Fiscal Completion updated previous phase information, as needed


There is no one best way to create COBie2 deliverables.

The decision about how you supply or consume COBie2 is largely based upon your firm’s current software stack. In many cases, the delivery of COBie2 content is already contracted out to others, in those cases the requirement for the delivery of COBie2 information falls across multiple contracted parties. As with all design related information, the lead Architect/Engineer firm is responsible to coordinate the compilation of all COBie2 information into a single COBie2 deliverable file when the deliverable is required during design. In the case of construction related information, the prime contractor is responsible for the delivery of a single COBie2 deliverable file when the deliverable is required during construction.

COBie2 may be created using one of three methods: (1) use of COBie2 compliant software, (2) development of custom transformations of existing data into a COBie2 compliant file, and/or (3) direct use of the COBie2 spreadsheet format. In most cases, it can be expected that a combination of these methods will need to be used to correctly meet the deliverable requirement.

COBie2 and IFC Compliant Software

When using COBie2 compliant software users should initially be reminded that the use of such software, alone will be insufficient to produce a correct COBie2 deliverable file. Often COBie2 deliverables require manual configuration of the Building Information Model software at the start of the project. Because of these configuration requirements, points of contact are listed for COBie2 technical support for all products tested against the COBie2 specifications.

Commercial software vendors have demonstrated two approaches to creating COBie2 files. The first approach is to produce a file that complies with the buildingSMART international’s Facility Management Handover Model View Definition (MVD) specification for Industry Foundation Class (IFC) Building Information Model (BIM) files. There is no technical difference between FM Handover MVD file and the COBie2 formats, however, to ensure compliance with COBie2 contract language the project team must deliver the COBie2 formatted files. This requires the project team to translate the vendors IFC file into a COBie2 formatted file. Users should check with vendors about any available utility for translations. A free, no warranty or tech support tool may assist if vendor tools are not provided.

The alternative approach is to use applications capable of producing a file in the COBie2 Spreadsheet format. Vendors directly producing the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet version of the COBie2 file may be required to open the file in Excel in order to save the file as an Excel 2003 XML file format in lieu of the direct Excel spreadsheet format.

The table below identifies vendors who have competed in COBie2 Challenges. Only the most recent COBie2 event that the company’s product has participated in has been identified. Follow the links on the product name to view the results provided from the event listed. If the company has participated in multiple events, then previous results will be found at the bottom of that product’s page.

Participants Event and Method
Company Product Country Market Event Producer Consumer Method
Bentley Architecture US Design Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
DDS DDS-CADD Norway MEP Design Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
Graphisoft ArchiCAD Hungary Design Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
FaME FaME Germany FM Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
Granlund RYHTI Finland FM Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
Onuma OPS US Multiple Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet
Onuma OPS US Multiple Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet
SMB Morada Germany FM Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet
TMA TMA US FM Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet
Vizelia Facility Online France FM Dec 2009 X FM MVD IFC
Tokmo Tokmo US Construction Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet
Tokmo Tokmo US Construction Dec 2009 X Spreadsheet

Based on the Dec 2009 COBie2 Challenge virtually all software produced through the FM Handover MVD will require some minimal manual adjustment to ensure compliance with the COBie2 format. Since software that direct consumes FM Handover IFC files is not responsible to produce specified COBie2 deliverables, such software has been demonstrated to be a point where multiple types of FM Handover IFC Files can be consolidated to create a proper COBie2 deliverable.

Custom Transformations to COBie2 Format

The majority of COBie2 information is already contained in the large number of software tools and documents supporting the facility life-cycle. For example Applications that produce or consume room and equipment lists are well on their way to produce the vast majority of the required content of any COBie2 file. These sources may often be “coaxed” into yielding information that can be transformed into COBie2 compliant information. Where existing software systems provide spreadsheet exporting capabilities, such spreadsheet information may reorganized by hand or custom computer software to create COBie2 information. The COBie2 spreadsheet has been designed to encourage the use of cut-and-paste, particularly column by column from other reports, as long as the unique naming of Components, Product Types etc is consistent. Users may also find the use of the Filter and Sort commands can rapidly highlight rows needing attention.

Direct authoring in the COBie2 Spreadsheet

Designers and contractors may want to directly interact with the COBie2 spreadsheet information. Use of the COBie2 spreadsheet is a very effective method for designers to check the accuracy of their file prior to submitting the deliverable. Based on the December 2009 COBie2 Challenge designers could be expected to manually enter space zones, building service systems, and complete the information about authorship. Designers can also be expected to need to manually verify that unique names for spaces, equipment types, and specific equipment are identified in the COBie2 file. These manual updates are expected since some BIM software is currently non-compliant with COBie2 requirements in these areas.


Regardless of the method use to create COBie2 files, the supplier of the file should run COBie2 checking software against the expected deliverable. Some owners may require that the COBie2 checking software report accompany the deliverable of COBie2 data. The checking file will identify all significant errors that would keep the COBie2 file from being accepted. The current version of the COBie2 checker may be found here.


Just as with construction scheduling services, some companies will determine to include COBie2 capabilities within their own firms, other firms will simply contract the requirement for the delivery of COBie2 information to commissioning consultants. There have been a number of consultants who have participated in the COBie2 events who may be able to assist you. This list of consultants is provided without any warranty of any time. Users needing such services are suggested to contact all firms prior to making a decision about which firm to engage.

Vendor Consulting Services
Company Country Market Event Producer Consumer Primary Methodology
AEC InfoSystems US All Dec 2009 X X IFC
AEC3 UK All Dec 2009 X X IFC or Spreadsheet
PSI US FM July 2009 X X Spreadsheet
Woolpert US All Mar 2009 X X Spreadsheet

If you are a software service provided and would like to be identified in the table above, you will need to (1) be an active participant in buildingSMART alliance or the National Institute of Building Sciences and (2) participate in a minimum of one future COBie2 Challenge events, or host a COBie2 Challenge of your own at a major public conference or trade show. Please contact Dominique Fernandez at NIBS to discuss your firm’s participation.


There are a number of software companies who participated in COBie1 Challenges but did not participate in COBie2 Challenges. These vendors are listed in the table below along with the results of their previous Challenge results pages. Use of this software is not recommended for the purposes of complying with the COBie2 specification since the COBie1 format was explicitly NOT adopted internationally. COBie1 formatted files will not yield to manual checking and no automated transformation and checking of COBie1 files is provided. If you use one of these systems, you may want to consider contacting these firms to inquire about the firm’s plans to comply with the COBie2 requirements.

Company and/or Product Market Segment Tested
AutoDesk Revit Design July 2008 IFC Coordination View
AutoDesk Revit Design July 2008 COBie1 Spreadsheet
MicroMain CMMS March 2009 COBie1 Spreadsheet
Nemetscheck VectorWorks Design March 2009 IFC Coordination View
ProjectBluePrint CAFM July 2008 COBie1 Spreadsheet

via bSa Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE): Means and Methods | The National Institute of Building Sciences.