Challenges and opportunities for intelligent buildings in the 21st Century

Intelligent buildings should be sustainable, healthy, technologically aware, meet the needs of occupants and business, and should be flexible and adaptable to deal with change. This means the processes of design, construction, commissioning and facilities management including post occupancy evaluation are all equally important. Buildings comprise many systems devised by many people and yet the relationship between buildings and people can only work satisfactorily if there is integrated team with a holistic vision. The address will discuss some trends in the design and management of intelligent buildings for this century.

Application of computer-aided facilities management (CAFM) for intelligent buildings operation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the concepts of intelligent buildings (IBs), and the opportunities offered by the application of computer-aided facilities management (CAFM) systems. Design/methodology/approach – In this paper definitions of IBs are investigated, particularly definitions that are embracing open standards for effective operational change, using a questionnaire survey. The survey further investigated the extension of CAFM to IBs concepts and the opportunities that such integrated systems will provide to facilities management (FM) professionals. Findings – The results showed variation in the understanding of the concept of IBs and the application of CAFM. The survey showed that 46 per cent of respondents use a CAFM system with a majority agreeing on the potential of CAFM in delivery of effective facilities. Research limitations/implications – The questionnaire survey results are limited to the views of the respondents within the context of FM in the UK. Practical implications – Following on the many definitions of an IB does not necessarily lead to technologies of equipment that conform to an open standard. This open standard and documentation of systems produced by vendors is the key to integrating CAFM with other building management systems (BMS) and further harnessing the application of CAFM for IBs. Originality/value – The paper gives experience-based suggestions for both demand and supply sides of the service procurement to gain the feasible benefits and avoid the currently hindering obstacles, as the paper provides insight to the current and future tools for the mobile aspects of FM. The findings are relevant for service providers and operators as well.

Exposing the myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating initial cost, maintenance and staffing costs of office buildings

In an attempt to focus clients' minds on the importance of considering the construction and maintenance costs of a commercial office building (both as a factor in staff productivity and as a fraction of lifetime staff costs) there is an often-quoted ratio of costs of 1:5:200, where for every one pound spent on construction cost, five are spent on maintenance and building operating costs and 200 on staffing and business operating costs. This seems to stem from a paper published by the Royal Academy of Engineering, in which no data is given and no derivation or defence of the ratio appears. The accompanying belief that higher quality design and construction increases staff productivity, and simultaneously reduces maintenance costs, how ever laudable, appears unsupported by research, and carries all the hallmarks of an "urban myth". In tracking down data about real buildings, a more realistic ratio appears to depend on a huge variety of variables, as well as the definition of the number of "lifetime" years. The ill-defined origins of the original ratio (1:5:200) describing these variables have made replication impossible. However, by using published sources of data, we have found that for three office buildings, a more realistic ratio is 1:0.4:12. As there is nothing in the public domain about what comprised the original research that gave rise to 1:5:200, it is not possible to make a true comparison between these new calculations and the originals. Clients and construction professionals stand to be misled because the popularity and widespread use of the wrong ratio appears to be mis-informing important investment and policy decisions.