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.

De rol van ICT en AV binnen organisaties

Communiceren is een essentieel onderdeel van (samen)werken en leren. Het zal duidelijk zijn dat de faciliteiten die dit mogelijk maken goed moeten functioneren. AV (audiovisuele) en ICT oplossingen dragen bij aan de creatie van informatie en de verbetering, versoepeling en versnelling van het communiceren. Hierdoor zijn organisaties in staat om sneller te schakelen en beter gefundeerde beslissingen nemen wat kan leiden tot een concurrentievoordeel.

In het licht van de huidige stand van de economie is het dus van belang een zo hoog mogelijk rendement te halen uit de ICT en AV omgeving tegen zo laag mogelijke kosten.

Dat de zorg om een adequate ICT omgeving binnen organisaties hoog op de agenda staat blijkt uit de rol van de CIO en de waarde die toegekend wordt aan de ICT performance scorecard waarbij een 5-tal aandachtsgebieden onderkend kunnen worden volgens Forrester research:

· De mate waarin investeringen bijdragen aan de organisatie doelstellingen,

· De ROI van ICT investeringen,

· Het ICT budget en het beheer hiervan (bijvoorbeeld transparantie, planbaarheid en juistheid),

· Operationele excellentie,

· Service level excellentie.

Deze 5 metrics zouden de kern moeten vormen van een ICT performance scorecard en om te zogen dat de performance op elke metric goed is moet de CIO begrijpen wat noodzakelijk is vanuit de business en hier op inspelen met de juiste services en op de juiste manier geleverd.

Wanneer echter gekeken wordt naar de zorg voor de AV omgeving binnen organisaties dan valt het op dat de verantwoordelijkheid voor AV binnen een organisatie in het algemeen op een veel lager niveau belegd is dan de verantwoordelijkheid voor ICT en dat het kennisniveau binnen de organisatie van AV vaak lager is dan dat van ICT. Het AV beheer vaak wordt gedaan door de leverancier, welke ook vaak een zeer grote stem heeft in de “noodzakelijke” functionaliteiten danwel de invulling hiervan. Hierbij is dus geen sprake van een gestructureerde AV performance scorecard maar meer van een ad-hoc aanpak

Overeenkomsten in het beheer van ICT en AV omgevingen

Vanuit een ideale situatie beschouwd zouden de beheerprocessen voor zowel de ICT omgeving als de AV omgeving identiek kunnen zijn. Hierbij kan voor het beheer van de AV infrastructuur dus net als binnen de ICT omgeving gebruik gemaakt worden van bijvoorbeeld ITIL (IT Infrastructure library) als set van best practices voor het beheer van de ICT infrastructuur. De 3 core volumes van ITIL beschrijven de onderstaande vijf aandachtsgebieden:

· Servicestrategie
ontwerpen, ontwikkelen en implementeren van servicemanagement als een strategisch middel;

· Serviceontwerp
ontwerpen en ontwikkelen van de services en bijbehorende processen op basis van de strategie;

· Servicetransitie
effectief omzetten van het serviceontwerp naar een nieuwe of gewijzigde service;

· Serviceproductie
regelen, coördineren en uitvoeren van de dagelijkse uitvoering van de processen;

· Continue Serviceverbetering
voortdurende de effectiviteit en efficiency van IT services verbeteren

In principe geldt dit voor een AV infrastructuur op dezelfde wijze als voor een ICT infrastructuur hoewel bepaalde aspecten wellicht minder zwaar aangezet zullen worden (bijvoorbeeld beveiligingsbeheer, uitgaande van een AV infrastructuur die niet geïntegreerd is met een ICT infrastructuur). Hierbij geldt dan ook dat toepassing van deze best practices in een AV infrastructuur zullen leiden tot lagere beheerkosten bij een AV infrastructuur die beter aansluit bij de wensen van de klant en tegen een hogere beschikbaarheid.

Uiteraard zijn een aantal van de processen binnen het AV beheer tot op zekere hoogte reeds aanwezig maar vaak niet geformaliseerd en in het algemeen minder volwassen dan in het ICT domein. Helaas ontbreekt in het algemeen de samenhang tussen de processen (in welke mate dan ook aanwezig) en de formele procesgang bij de uitvoering van de processen. Bij een formele implementatie van slechts enkele kernprocessen kan de kwaliteit van de AV dienstverlening binnen een organisatie eenvoudig verbeteren.

Een pragmatische aanpak, een logische stap

Indien de invoering op een pragmatische wijze wordt vormgegeven dan ligt het voor de hand gebruik te maken van de tools (denk aan bijvoorbeeld de helpdesk tool voor registratie van incidenten) en procesbeschrijvingen die reeds aanwezig zouden moeten zijn in het ICT domein. Vanuit zowel kostenaspect als gezicht naar de klant verdient het de aanbeveling hierbij zaken als de helpdesk te delen met ICT beheer.

Voor de klant schept dit duidelijkheid. Die hoeft het hoofd niet meer te breken over welk domein verantwoordelijk is in de keten (is de projector defect (AV) of ligt het aan mijn computer (ICT)). De klant kan eenvoudig 1 service nummer bellen en het incident wordt geregistreerd en opgelost. De kostenbesparing hierbij is inherent. Geen dubbele systemen en teams.

Integratie van 2 werelden

Integratie van het beheer van de ICT en de AV omgeving is een logische keuze, zelfs als het 2 volledig gescheiden omgevingen betreft. Dat het 2 gescheiden omgevingen betreft lijkt logisch als gekeken wordt naar de diensten die beide partijen leveren. Vanuit ICT worden diensten als messaging and Collaboration (waarin mail, sharepoint en office communicator) of Connectiviteit (draadloos of bedraad network toegang en mobiele netwerk toegang). AV daarentegen levert diensten als (video) conferencing en gebruik van presentatie/vergader ruimtes.

Als we echter iets beter kijken naar de 2 omgevingen is het de vraag in hoeverre of hoe lang deze nog volledig gescheiden blijven (weet u het nog, vroeger waren fax, printer, scanner en kopieerapparaat ook losse apparaten, beheerd door verschillende domeinen).

Er is sprake van een convergentie waarbij integratie mogelijk en vaak ook gewenst is tussen bijvoorbeeld:

· Videoconference systemen en pc gebaseerde conferentiesystemen (denk aan bijvoorbeeld Microsoft Office Communication Server),

· Integratie tussen een room reservation systeem en Microsoft Exchange/Outlook om ruimtes te reserveren.

· Smart boards en software voor collaboration waarbij je dezelfde software wilt gebruiken voor elke setting dus met of zonder display systeem of smartboard

Wanneer we nu ook eens kijken naar de ontwikkelingen in de markt dan lijkt de grens tussen beide domeinen snel te vervagen. Zowel HP als Cisco stappen in de videoconferencing markt en Cisco stapt nu ook in de markt voor digital signage met hun LCD panelen. Naast deze traditionele IT bedrijven zie je dat ook de traditionele AV bedrijven opschuiving in de ICT richting. Barco projectoren bijvoorbeeld zijn eigenlijk gewoon PC’s die op windows draaienmet een afwijkend scherm, te weten een stel lenzen.

En nu?

Dit is alles bij elkaar een aardige verandering in het diensten landschap en daar door combinatie van componenten uit twee domeinen nieuwe diensten gedefinieerd worden, wordt het ook zinvol het beheer van deze diensten onder te brengen in 1 domein. Het meest logisch hierbij is om het team dat de ICT omgeving ondersteund ook verantwoordelijk te maken voor de ondersteuning van de AV omgeving. Op zich is andersom ook een optie maar er zijn een aantal redenen die ervoor pleiten dat juist niet te doen. Deze zijn:

· Vanuit ICT zijn de beheerprocessen en tools in het algemeen al ingericht en beproefd in de praktijk

· Daar AV componenten meer en meer ICT componenten worden (netwerk projectors, video over IP, etc.) zal vanuit ICT beheer een integratieslag plaatsvinden waarbij de AV componenten in het ICT netwerk geplaatst worden

Op dit moment is dit al zonder meer mogelijk maar gezien de diversiteit binnen de AV wereld en de manier waarop de devices hier beheerd worden kan het zijn dat een tussenlaag mogelijk is die aan de ene kant kan communiceren met de AV componenten en aan de andere kant met de IT beheer tools.

Om dit te vereenvoudigen zal de AV industrie moeten zorgen dat hun devices bepaalde standaarden zoals SNMP gaan ondersteunen. Dan kunnen de devices direct en zonder tussenlaag beheerd worden

Tevens zullen organisaties moeten gaan nadenken over een duidelijke strategie over hun AV infrastructuur en hoe dit aan de ene kant te benutten en aan de andere kant te beheren en integreren. Het zal duidelijk zijn dat deze strategie niet gefocust zal zijn op het per direct vervangen van onderdelen die nog in het begin van hun economisch levensduur zijn. Dit zal immers een desinvestering zijn (tenzij de baten groter zijn dan de kosten van vervanging).

Hierbij kan het IT’s AVision™ model gebruikt worden zoals gedefinieerd door MII.

Dit model helpt organisaties bij het definiëren van:

· De communicatie behoefte en technische hulpmiddelen die hierbij nodig zijn

· De strategie ten aanzien van de geïntegreerde infrastructuur gebaseerd op de werkwijze van de organisatie en het beheer van de infrastructuur

· De stappen die genomen moeten worden om te komen tot een goed beheerde en geïntegreerde ICT/AV infrastructuur

En last but not least, de CIO moet zich voorbereiden op de integratie met de AV instrastructuur en het beheer van deze geïntegreerde infrastructuur. Dit houdt dus in dat naast de reeds aanwezige ICT kennis hij/zij ook zal moeten zorgen dat er voldoende kennis aanwezig is van de AV specifieke technologie. Zonder dit zal de CIO nooit de kwaliteit kunnen leveren die is afgesproken met de organisatie en is vastgelegd in SLA’s

Conclusie

Door ICT en AV te integreren krijgen organisaties:

· Meer keuze in hun communicatie mogelijkheden

· Nieuwe keuzes in hun communicatiemogelijkheden

Daarnaast kan door deze geïntegreerde omgeving te managen volgens 1 model (bijvoorbeeld ITIL) een aantal additionele voordelen behaald worden:

· Hogere klanttevredenheid

· Toegenomen beschikbaarheid

· Lagere kosten door een gestructureerde en pro-actieve aanpak

· Beter risico management

· Beter inzicht in de componenten van de infrastructuur, de relaties ertussen en de kosten ervan alsmede waar het zich bevindt in de economische levensduur

The crucial role of ICT and AV within organizations

The role of ICT and AV within organizations


Communicating is a crucial element in the process of working and learning. This implies in a clear way that all facilities enabling communication need to function extremely well. Communication is already pretty difficult so anything to avoid miscommunication can make a big difference. ICT and AV (Audiovisual) systems support the communication process and enable groups of individuals working together to make better and/or faster decisions. This can generate a competitive advantage which again shows the value of ICT and AV systems in this era


When looking at the current global economic situation it is important to get most out of your ICT and AV environment against the lowest possible costs for that level of quality required. Lowering the costs too much might undermine a smooth operation and can compromise the minimum level of quality needed.

Although ICT budgets are under pressure as well there is no doubt about the importance of the CIO within an enterprise environment. According to Forrester Research the CIO’s key to success is choosing a small number of metrics that are relevant to the business and have the most impact on business outcomes. The five metrics that meet the criteria for relevance and impact are

• Investment alignment to business strategy,
• Business value of IT investments,
• IT budget balance,
• Service level excellence,
• Operational excellence.
  

These five metrics should form the core of an ICT performance scorecard and in order to perform well on all items on the scorecard the CIO should understand the business needs and deliver on this with well managed services (and costs).

However, when looking at the AV environment within an organization it appears that this is perceived and valued totally different. Often there is no strong alignment with the business strategies nor an AV performance scorecard and the responsibilities for managing the operational and service level excellence is much lower on the ladder. Pretty often this is just a contract management role where knowledge of the AV concepts doesn’t seem to be a prerequisite. This in general leads to an ad-hoc approach instead of a well structured AV performance scorecard approach

Structures to support

When looking at AV as stated earlier support is often done by the AV supplier and is reactive in nature while IT support is often organized according to the best practices as described within the ITIL framework where we can use the ITIL v3 core volumes

• Service Strategy focuses on the identification of market opportunities for which services could be developed in order to meet a requirement on the part of internal or external customers. The output is a strategy for the design, implementation, maintenance and continual improvement of the service as an organizational capability and a strategic asset. Key areas of this volume are Service Portfolio Management and Financial Management.


• Service Design focuses on the activities that take place in order to develop the strategy into a design document which addresses all aspects of the proposed service, as well as the processes intended to support it. Key areas of this volume are Availability Management, Capacity Management, Continuity Management and Security Management.


• Service Transition focuses on the implementation of the output of the service design activities and the creation of a production service or modification of an existing service. There is an area of overlap between Service Transition and Service Operation. Key areas of this volume are Change Management, Release Management, Configuration Management and Service Knowledge Management.


• Service Operation focuses on the activities required to operate the services and maintain their functionality as defined in the Service Level Agreements with the customers. Key areas of this volume are Incident Management, Problem Management and Request Fulfillment. A new process added to this area is Event Management, which is concerned with normal and exception condition events. Events have been defined into three categories:
  o Informational events, which are logged
  o Warning events, also called alerts, where an event exceeds a specified threshold
  o Critical events, which typically will lead to the generation of Incidents


• Continual Service Improvement focuses on the ability to deliver continual improvement to the quality of the services that the ICT organization delivers to the business. Key areas of this volume are Service Reporting, Service Measurement and Service Level Management
  

In general these core volumes can be applied to the management of an AV infrastructure as well and this would lead to lower support costs while having an AV infrastructure that fits the needs better and operates more stable due to the pro-active nature of the ITIL processes. Within AV support some of these processes are there already (but not always as mature as within the ICT domain) but other in general are absent like incident management or life cycle management. This would strongly plead for using the ITIL best practices in AV management as well (and possibly even using the same set of management tools where possible since the IT department may already have e.g. an incident management registration tool).

Blending both worlds even further.

When looking at the services both parties provide we used to have some clear distinction. For example the IT department delivered services like messaging and collaboration or network connectivity (wired, wireless and mobile) while from an AV point of view services like (video)conferencing or presentation/meeting rooms were offered.

When looking at the convergence that is taking place right now we see transitions where projectors get network connected, traditional (video)conferencing/telepresence systems integrating with webcams and meeting room reservation systems being available from the IT messaging system.

As a result the boundaries between the services delivered by the IT department and AV management are getting fuzzy. When looking at the ICT messaging and collaboration service this in general includes platforms like exchange, Office Communication Server and Sharepoint.
Traditionally meeting room reservation systems are managed by the AV team, as well as (video)conferencing or digital signage/narrow casting.

With all convergence going on we see digital signage products based on sharepoint, meeting room reservation systems integrating with outlook/exchange and (video)conferencing solutions working nicely together with office communication server.

This fundamentally reshapes the traditional services landscape and it would make sense to have the AV components managed by the same team that already manages the ICT infrastructure. There are some good reasons to do it this way around and not the other:

• The ICT department most likely already has the support tools and processes in place
• Since AV components will be more and more ICT components (projectors on the network, video over IP, etc.) ICT needs to integrate this in their network anyhow and thus will have a strong say in the choices made
• AV components and their networked interactivity are becoming more and more complex so it would make sense to have the most technical group taking care of them
  

Next steps

The AV industry should ensure the devices they design and built will support standards like SNMP so they will be easier to manage without the need for a layer in between as is needed today.

On the other hand enterprises should think about a clear strategy on their AV environment and how to integrate this with the ICT environment. This obviously can be a long term strategy to avoid disinvestments by replacing components that are still in the middle or beginning of their economic lifecycle (unless replacement would deliver a cost benefit that is bigger than the disinvestment). This can be done according to the IT’s AVision model as defined by MII that will lead you through the steps necessary for your organization (steps in maturity are outlined below, note this is not the complete model)

Last but not least, the CIO should prepare for taking control of the AV components as well. This means he needs to make sure that the AV specific technology is understood so he can keep delivering on the expectations

Conclusion

By integrating your AV support and ICT support in 1 support model (preferably ITIL) and using 1 set of tools the costs of managing the integrated environment will go down while the support moves from reactive to proactive. This obvious will result in a situation where communication can migrate to more effective communication

IT’s AVision™

In a few steps to an integrated IT and AV environment

In general an IT environment is well structured and processes and tools are usually based upon the ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library) concepts. It would make sense to use the same approach to manage your AV environment to increase availability and save costs. MII can help you in a few steps to an integrated vision on managing your integrated IT and AV infrastructure and helps to define a path to the integrated environment using MII's unique IT’s AVision™ methodology. In a diagram it looks like the 4 steps as outlined below. It provides the vision with a growth path attached to it to avoid a disinvestment of the current environment(s)


No matter of the current stage of maturity of your AV environment the methodology can be applied to help you migrate from level 1 (completely stand alone) to level 4 (fully managed integrated environment) for all items and not just the obvious like projectors. These 4 levels are shown here.
If you like to know more about how MIIcan help you save money while increasing quality without desinvestments please contact MII (http://www.mii.nu/ or info@mii.nu )

IT/AV integration curve

The Evolution of AV Systems according to InfoComm International

The basic fact of technology convergence is the digitization of analog AV products and solutions. It is the least transforming aspect of the technology convergence process, and most manufacturers have adapted rather swiftly.

The deepest changes have come from the dissolution of the walls that compartmentalized technology silos, such as security, audiovisual, low-voltage applications (structured wiring), telephone systems, and IP telephony. These critical applications converge over the IT network for easier implementation and management.


Traditionally self-contained AV rooms are turned into nodes on organization-wide IT infrastructures.

Consequently, the systems they are outfitted with are required to be designed and configured to operate and be managed from the central IT backbone in order to integrate seamlessly with the overall communications infrastructure.

When reading this and turning this convergence into reality you can look at the integration curve as designed by MII (see picture)

By moving your AV infrastructure from stand alone components into a completely managed integrated environment you can increase availability of the total infrastructure against lower costs. It also give an organization new ways to communicate (content can be shared more easy since everything is integrated into 1 managed environment)


Doing so however requires some knowledge when designing. Not all equipment can be attached to a networked environment (your stand alone projector would not fit in). Also when managing this using your IT management environment some custom made adjustments might be needed. This asks for a strong collaboration between the group managing the IT environment and the group managing the AV environment. However it is worth makingthe investment and create a platform that gives you not just somenew opportunities or cost savings but a fundament for the near future as well