The Facility Technologist: A Call For Change

I was just reading a nice blog post/article from Tom Condon, RPA, FMA which has been published in the March 2009 issue of Today's Facility Manager. In a minute I will just lazy copy and paste the article (original can be found here) but before I do I like to point out that this is a great example why some technical parts (AV, security cameras etc) should be managed by IT. Tom sais Facility managers in general are not part of the building process early enough and this might be a fair comment but even if they are, are they capable of making the right decisions about stuff that needs to be on the IP network and that should talk to other components (eg the room reservation system that talks with the mail application (mostly MS Exchange), Camera's that should broadcast and be web viewable over the IP network (do they get the proper bandwidth to generate useable images/video streams) etc). So this might be a great call to involve the facility manager early in the process but to me it is even a bigger call to hand over stuff to IT (and have them early in the process as well). Then you have one single IP network with everything not just connected but also remote manageable and having the appropriate amount of bandwidth

Ok, here is the article (with is links at the end) with some highlights I put in there

All facility managers (fms) want technology in their buildings. Whether it’s in a small office buildout or a large skyscraper, technology is an increasingly critical tool for achieving the levels of performance that occupants now demand.

There are so many great technologies out there to help fms achieve their visions for the 21st century. And yet, the same fms who are technology enthusiasts are so often stymied by limitations that they inherited from the design and construction of their facilities. They would like to employ the most advanced technology, but find they are limited by what they have inherited. Consider the following examples:

One fm had a brand new facility and wanted to get Web access to her video surveillance cameras so she could view cameras from home at night and weekends—a great way to stay on top of what is happening. But she found that the video system in her brand new facility was analog only, and she’d have to replace the DVRs to get Web access, which was too costly to justify. The sad part? Web enabled DVRs would have cost only slightly more than the equipment that was installed. Unfortunately, the designer saw only the cost, not the extra functionality, and opted for the lowest cost option.

Another fm wanted to incorporate additional IP cameras to a digital video system, only to find there was not enough capacity on the security IP network. Ironically, a completely separate IP network was installed for the building automation system, but neither the security nor HVAC designers knew it. The combined capacity of the two networks was more than sufficient for what the fm wanted to do, but individually, they were too small. The end result was a costly replacement of switches on the security network, and the overall cost of the two networks was far more than what a single, efficient system would have been.

This scenario replays itself over and over again. But why are there so many disconnects between the technology needs of fms and the design of their facilities? One problem is that the fm is often not involved in the design until it is finished, and the building or buildout is already underway.

Sometimes the fm is not even involved until move in. This is a big mistake, as it assumes there is only one way to manage a facility. This approach fails to consider the fact that organizations are all different, and each one has special needs and uses for technology.In 21st century facility design, the fm should be involved as early as possible in the design of systems and the selection of products. No one will know which functionalities and attributes systems should have better than the fm.

Another big impediment to the implementation of facility technology is that the structure and process of traditional building design and construction has not kept pace with the evolution of technologies. In the traditional development process, an owner employs a team with an architect, engineers, and other designers, and the project is divided up among them. Each has a task that is viewed as distinct, with no need for each to work closely with the other designers. There is coordination at a macro level, where each individual design is incorporated in the overall design, but the individual designs are considered separate and distinct, and there is usually little collaboration.

This process has evolved over the last 100 years and reflects the 20th century paradigm in which each facility technology used its own individual hardware, cabling, and power. These systems never interacted in any way, and they operated on incompatible platforms, so there was no need for designers to work together. This is now an obsolete approach to designing a modern facility and the technologies that serve it.Today, facility technologies often use common hardware and cabling.

For example, access control, digital video, HVAC controls, and visitor management can all operate on the same IP network and can all share the same hardware using a virtualized server design. (Right now, I am sitting in a facility where VoIP, HVAC controls, access control, and digital video all reside on a single IP network that cost less than if these systems used their own individual infrastructures.) Not only can this approach cost significantly less than if each of these systems used its own cabling and individual servers, it is also easier to manage and secure a single system.

But it is impossible to create a comprehensive facility technology design with the fractured and disjointed approach that is now considered the standard. In a facility that seeks to employ cutting-edge technologies, there needs to be a single point of contact for the overall design. The technology designer (TD) advises consultants on which systems to select, the design of the building network and data center, and the ways that building systems will interact with each other in the completed building.

This person must be knowledgeable in all of the different technologies—and their latest advances—used in modern facilities. Just as important, the TD must also be able to understand the different perspectives of the traditional groups that are involved in design, construction, and management: operations (including facility and property management), security, IT, and A/E/C. This ability is referred to as being “quad lingual” in and around tech circles, and it is one of the key factors in the success or failure of complex facility technology projects.Here is an example of how this works. Right now, my firm is working on a one million square foot building. The owners wanted to ensure they would have the most advanced facility technologies, so they tapped us to make their wish list a reality. This is an insurance policy against the fate that so many facilities suffer, finding that they are constrained by technology limitations based solely on the use of an outdated design paradigm.

Changing the design process is not easy, and adding a TD to the team may be a stretch for more traditional professionals accustomed to doing things the 20th century way. But they will need to adapt to this new approach eventually; better to do it now and become an early adopter, rather than doing it later and becoming a casualty of advancing technology.

Condon, a Facility Technologist and former facility manager, is a contributing author for BOMI Institute’s revised Technologies in Facility Management textbook. He works for System Development Integration, a Chicago, IL-based firm committed to improving the performance, quality, and reliability of client business through technology.

Past Facility Technologist columns can be found here. To chat about this topic and others in real time, visit FacilityBlog.