Content uploaded by Xiaoling Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xiaoling Zhang on Apr 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 15
Facilities Management
Edward Finch and Xiaoling Zhang
Abstract This chapter explores the discipline of facilities management and the
contribution that this emerging profession makes to securing sustainable building
performance. It argues that the realization of intended environmental improve-
ments depends pivotally on the behavior of users and the on going management of
the facility throughout its life. The chapter describes an alternative view of a
building’s evolution as seen through the eyes of the facilities manager. In doing so,
it highlights a much greater diversity of opportunities in sustainable building
design that extends well into the operational life. Learning scope: on successful
completion of this chapter, readers will be able to: (1) demonstrate the role of
facilities management in ensuring continued performance improvements with
respect to sustainable objectives; (2) explore buildings as a multilayered process
rather than a product; (3) explain how facilities managers consider sustainability
interventions at critical points within this layered life cycle; (4) examine how
whole life building economics impinges on sustainable decision making.
Keywords Facilities management Sustainable building design Sustainable
building technologies and management
E. Finch (&)
Schoolof the Built Environment, The University of Salford, Maxwell Building,
GreaterManchester, UK
e-mail: e.finch@salford.ac.uk
X. Zhang
Department of Public & Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, China
e-mail: zhangxiaoling1982@gmail.com
R. Yao (ed.), Design and Management of Sustainable Built Environments,
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4781-7_15, Springer-Verlag London 2013
305
15.1 Introduction
The concept of sustainable buildings continues to attract international attention in
the wake of growing environmental demands. Much of the focus has been on the
accommodation of sustainable principles in building design and the incorporation
of retrofit solutions in the subsequent building life cycle. A fixation with tech-
nological remedies can, however, overlook the fundamental role of the facilities
management team in ensuring the continued rectification and improvement of a
building’s performance. The idea of a sustainable building should not be one of
a ‘product’ but a ‘process’ subject to continuous improvement throughout its life.
Much has been discussed about the failure of many ‘sustainable’ buildings to
realize their energy saving potential. This failure in performance may arise at
handover or may be evident over time as a general deterioration in performance. In
this chapter, we consider ‘sustainable buildings’ as just that—buildings that
achieve high levels of performance, not just from day one, but throughout the
building’s life. To achieve this, facilities management (FM) plays an indispensable
part, tackling the complexities of people, process, and place. In this chapter, we
consider the type of sustainable technology that can be used to leverage energy
savings. The chapter discusses the vital importance of decision-making cycles that
reflect the life of the building and the systems within it. The layered concept of
building systems and the associated concepts of passive and active systems
highlight the staged involvement of the facilities management team.
The discipline of facilities management is a relatively new, yet largely mis-
understood profession. At the heart of this role is the capacity to integrate. In the
face of increasingly complex building systems, a greater diversity of user
involvement and an aversion for operational risk, facilities management must
attempt to resolve conflicts and identify synergies. It is perhaps no coincidence that
the Portuguese word ‘facilidade’ or the Spanish word ‘facilidad’—the translation
of ‘facilities’—means ‘ease’ or ‘easiness’. The idea of ‘ease-of-use’ is funda-
mental to the facilities management role. Yet, in the context of sustainability, with
the headstrong desire to embrace new technology, the management challenge of
making solutions accessible and appropriate is often overlooked.
The emergence of facilities management tells us something of its modern day
role in supporting sustainability issues. The unprecedented need for integration in
facilities today can be traced to the advent of two developments in the 1970s. The
first of these was the introduction of computers and IT equipment in the office
environment, which in turn presented challenges in relation to wiring, lighting,
acoustics, and territoriality. The second of these developments was the innovation
of systems furniture or ‘‘cubicles’’. While attempting to provide a technological
‘fix’ to the IT challenge, cubicles presented new questions of their own: not least
of which was who would take responsibility for procuring and managing such
environments? The need for an integrating professional led to the development of
the professional association ‘International Facility Management Association’ in
1981 that has since spawned other professional associations worldwide.
306 E. Finch and X. Zhang
15.2 Definition and Roles
The term ‘facilities management’ (FM) has been the subject of much debate since
its conception. Leaman (1992) suggests that ‘‘facilities management brings toge-
ther knowledge from design and knowledge from management in the context of
buildings in everyday use’’. He continues, remarking on the apparent differences
between designers and modern day facilities managers. ‘‘The management (FM
and Property Management) disciplines—which are less well-defined as disci-
plines, but include maintenance, administration and financial management—tend
to be much more short term, often day-to-day, in outlook. They deal with shorter
timescales, the project deadline, the end-of-year financial statement, the quarterly
report, the immediate crisis’’.
In opposition to this short-term position, Thompson (1990) argued for a more
strategic view of the discipline, arguing that ‘‘real facilities management is not
about construction, real estate, building operations maintenance, or office services.
It is about facility planning—where building design meets business objectives’’.
A recent definition of FM places less emphasis on the built asset, focussing
instead on the role of service provision in a support capacity. The European CEN
definition of facility management is expressed as: ‘the integration of processes
within an organisation to maintain and develop the agreed services which support
and improve the effectiveness of its primary activities’ (CEN EN 15221-1).
This definition makes no explicit reference to building operation. In so doing, it
appears to bypass the role of the built environment in determining service out-
comes. Moreover, it does not attempt to acknowledge the requisite skills of the
property professional in meeting these outcomes.
Perhaps the definition that has had the greatest longevity is that of the inter-
national facilities management association (IFMA): ‘Facility management is a
profession that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the
built environment by integrating people, place, process, and technology’ (Inter-
national Facility Management Association 2009).
Figure 15.1 shows this triumvirate view of FM, bringing together people, place,
and process. Technology provides both an enabler and a challenge in this context.
From a sociotechnical perspective, it is the combination of management skills and
suitable technology that dictate building and end-user performance.
In professional practice, it is often seen as sufficient to describe the role of FM
in terms of the scope of FM services provided. This can encompass an expansive
range of services, including security, cleaning, maintenance, catering, landscaping,
hygiene, health, and safety, all of which have a bearing on the sustainability
agenda. However, a definition that is framed in terms of work packages provides
no clarity as to the value adding proposition of FM. In contrast, the emphasis on
the ‘integrating’ role of FM identified in the IFMA definition captures the essence
of FM as a discipline. Innovations such as bundling of services, performance
measurement, and multitasking are illustrative of integration approaches.
15 Facilities Management 307
15.3 Energy Operation and Management
It is useful at this point to consider the economic impact of FM and maintenance
management. Yiu (2007) laments on the tendency to focus on design improve-
ments as a means of improving the environmental, and hence economic return of
buildings: ‘‘Most studies focus on new designs that encourage more efficient use of
natural resources, deliver pollution free and ecologically supportive urban land-
scape. When economic development is addressed, most focus on the increase of
property value by these new designs. Unfortunately, there is very little discussion
on the contribution of maintenance of existing buildings to sustainable develop-
ment and those exceptions focus on environmental issues only’’ Yiu (2007). In his
study of the Hong Kong residential market (using sensitivity analysis), it was
suggested that a 10 % reduction of housing depreciation could yield a 14 %
increase in gross domestic product (GDP) in a decade, while costing only about
2.3 % of GDP. Such figures resonate in other parts of the global property market
and reinforce the argument that FM has a key role to play in sustainability targets
and in delivering real financial returns.
15.3.1 Active Versus Passive Solutions to Building Operation
Sustainable technologies can be categorized under two broad headings: active and
passive design. Passive design refers to building design solutions which do not
require mechanical equipment for heating, cooling, ventilation, or daylighting.
Their environmental performance is instead, determined by the characteristics of
the building envelope (orientation, air permeability, exterior walls, doors, win-
dows, and roofing), which in turn determine solar loss and gain. By careful
specification of these design parameters, energy consumption and lifetime costs
can be significantly reduced. The alternative, active design, refers to the use of
artificial, mechanical, or electrical sustainable technology to control, heat, cool, or
Process
PlacePeople
Fig. 15.1 The facilities
management triumvirate
308 E. Finch and X. Zhang
light a space (supporting air conditioning, lighting, vertical transportation, pumps,
and fans among others) (Kibert 2008). A recent report published by Mikler et al.
(2008) has itemized the major passive sustainable elements that influence energy
consumption. These are summarized in Table 15.1.
Table 15.1 Passive design elements/technologies (adapted from Mikler et al. 2008)
Passive design elements/technologies Function category of the passive design
elements/technologies
Buffer spaces and double facades Passive heating
Passive ventilation
Orientation Passive heating
Passive ventilation
Building shape Passive heating
Passive ventilation
Space planning Passive heating
Passive ventilation
Passive daylighting
High-performance windows (clear, low-e) Passive heating
Window size and placement (window to wall
area ratio)
Passive heating
Passive ventilation
Passive cooling
Passive daylighting
Operable external shading Passive heating
Passive cooling
High-performance insulation Passive heating
Thermal mass Passive heating
Passive cooling
Minimized infiltration Passive heating
Strategic architectural features Passive ventilation
Passive daylighting
Openings to corridors and between otherwise
separated spaces
Passive ventilation
Central atria and lobbies Passive ventilation
Wind towers Passive ventilation
Nocturnal cooling Passive cooling
Stacked windows Passive cooling
Passive evaporative cooling Passive cooling
Earth-tempering ducts Passive cooling
Interior surface colors and finishes Passive daylighting
Light shelves Passive daylighting
Skylights and light tubes Passive daylighting
Clerestories Passive daylighting
15 Facilities Management 309
15.3.2 Layered Building Systems
The duality of passive versus active design conceals a more complex scenario in
relation to facility decision making. The layered building system model (Duffy
1974) further explains buildings as complex systems. This model expresses the
dynamics of buildings: seeing buildings as an ongoing process of evolution rather
than being a one-off event. The model is instructive in relation to the sustainability
agenda for several critical reasons:
•It identifies the opportunities for sustainable interventions within several life
cycles of differing periodicity;
•The building shell (skin and structure) itself is the most long lasting and
intractable element of the decision-making process;
•Enclosed within the building shell, are several building systems (services
(M&E), scenery, and settings), all of diminishing life cycle;
•Shorter life elements offer more frequent opportunity for change, while at the
same time highlighting their increased cost significance (as such elements may
be replaced several times throughout the life of a building).
This decision-making framework has profound implications for sustainable
building design, identifying as it does, the key role of FM. It also articulates the
‘softer’ elements of facilities that have an increasing significance in terms of
cooling and heating loads.
Figure 15.2 identifies the key layers of a building’s evolution expressed in
relation to decision-making junctures. Instead of a simple dichotomy between
‘new-build’ and ‘retrofit’, the diagram differentiates at a more granular level the
dynamics of a building. Each layer defines a discrete building life cycle that is
distinct from each neighboring layer. The layers range from the longest life cycle
corresponding to the building structure (25–75 years) to the innermost layer with a
lifecycle that is realized on a day-to-day basis (corresponding to the ‘set’).
The diminishing size of the layers from shell to set (Fig. 15.2) indicates the
declining opportunity to create a sustainable solution that satisfies internal
environmental requirements and at the same time obviates the need for a
Shell
Skin/structure
25-75 years
Services
M&E
15-20 years
Scenery
5-7 years
Set
Day-
to-day
Service
Level
SLA
1-4
years
Systems
3 years
Increased flexibility
Increased perman ence
Inherent energy costs Dynamic energy costs
Fig. 15.2 The layered decision cycles of buildings (Source Duffy 1974)
310 E. Finch and X. Zhang
technological intervention. The design principle of ‘getting it right first time’ is
uppermost in this approach, although the scarcity of newly build projects com-
pared to the existing stock of buildings in most developed countries may force the
decision maker to consider shorter life layers, particularly those post fitout
(scenery, systems, service level, and set). The layers can be described, in order of
decreasing life cycle as follows.
15.3.2.1 Shell
This layer’s life corresponds with that of the building itself, lasting for 50 years or
more. It incorporates both the structure of the building and the skin (cladding
system and facades). Key design decisions such as height, size, depth, and
orientation have intractable effects on the energy load imposed by the building.
Well-designed building shells obviate the need for technological remedies (active
systems), because they provide a stable, uniform, and near-optimal regime that
only requires fine tuning. Emphasis at this layer corresponds to ‘passive’ solutions
that do not require mechanical or electrical fixes.
15.3.2.2 Services (M&E)
The mechanical and electrical (M&E) services layer represents part of the problem
as well as part of the solution (or technological fix). Before the advent of energy
awareness, M&E services were used liberally to make up for the deficiencies in the
design of the building shell and skin. Modern solutions involving retrofits on a
10–15 year basis have to meet dual demands: satisfying human comfort conditions
while optimizing energy usage. M&E services can exacerbate the problem of
energy demand (e.g., heat gains and controls that are not localized). Decision
making at this level corresponds to the introduction of ‘active’ solutions.
15.3.2.3 Scenery
The fit-out stage of modern office environments involves the introduction of
internal elements such as ceilings, partitions, and finishes. Typically, this stage
corresponds to the point in time when a landlord would let out the facility. The
tenant fits out the facility to meet the specific needs of the organization. The
configuration of false ceilings, internal partitions, and choice of finishes can have a
significant impact on energy consumption. Partitions that obstruct ventilation,
disrupt cellular arrangements for air intake and exhaust diffusers, and prevent
zoning may reduce building efficiency. This problem can increase over time as the
original design intent of the M&E designer and structural designer fall into
obscurity. Partitions and ceiling voids also affect lighting efficiency as shown by
the early work of Ikemoto and Isomurai (1995).
15 Facilities Management 311
15.3.2.4 Systems
Information and communications technology (ICT) deployed in a building, typi-
cally undergo renewals every 3 years. Such systems embrace new generations of
computing technology, which present differing challenges in terms of thermal
load, temperature tolerance, noise, and lighting requirements.
15.3.2.5 Service (FM)
This layer is absent from the original conception of the layered model. However, it
is seen by the authors as a necessary addition, since the engineering of the service
level agreement (SLA) and performance specification has an increasingly
important impact on energy consumption. The duration of FM service contracts is
variable (either in-house or outsourced) but are typically 1–4 years in duration
with renewal options and allowances for change issues. The design of the SLAs in
relation to maintenance, cleaning, lighting, etc., will impact on:
•The longevity of components (e.g., run to failure versus planned maintenance);
•The sourcing of sustainable building products that can be effectively cleaned
and maintained;
•The facility’s hours of use, both for service providers (cleaning, maintenance,
and security among others) and for employees;
•The demand profile of the building and the level of tolerance for seasonal
fluctuations;
•The requirements for ‘always on’ IT equipment.
15.3.2.6 Set
This final internal layer is realized on a day-to-day basis. It represents the extreme
‘soft’ end of facilities management, with a close interaction with building users.
The set includes flexible items such as furniture, fittings, and equipment (FFE)
within the building. They may give rise to new, unanticipated challenges such as
additional design loads or new environmental requirements.
Figure 15.2 highlights how the inherent or baseline energy performance of the
building is prescribed once the location, structure, and skin of the building is
chosen (passive elements). This energy load might be described as the ‘inherent’
energy load. As we consider layers and systems of decreasing life cycle, their
design typically reflects a response to change issues, including seasonal changes in
external temperatures, daily fluctuations, changes in use, changes in occupancy,
and changes in thermal load brought about by new systems (e.g., heat gains
produced by computing systems).While this represents a rational approach to the
312 E. Finch and X. Zhang
design sequence, poor design decisions at the early stages of structure and services
leads to a very different outcome.
The short life cycle elements that should be in place to deal with specific
occupier needs are instead used to make up for the deficiencies of the original
design. Similarly, in relation to retrofit, intractable decisions relating to the original
building structure invariably necessitate a solution at the shorter life cycle end of
the spectrum. Instead of satisfying the fine-tuning required to achieve flexibility,
the shorter life cycle elements provide a costly remedy or ‘fix’ for an undesirable
inherent baseline load. This is echoed by the research findings of Zhang et al.
(2011a,b), which identified that passive design technologies are comparatively
inexpensive to apply as opposed to active design technologies.
15.3.3 Sustainable Energy Efficient Technologies
Increasing awareness of the environmental impact of building emissions has
triggered a plethora of technical solutions designed to reduce such levels. At the
industry level, facility managers seek to understand the impact of these sustainable
(or low carbon) technologies and the most effective means to implement and
manage them in the operational context. If managed properly, such low carbon
technologies form the basis of reduced costs and reduced carbon emissions while
providing a productive built environment. Built facilities can impact on the natural
environment in many ways over their entire life cycles. Yeang (1995) lists four
types of impact which built facilities have on global ecological systems and
resources:
•The spatial displacement and modification of natural ecosystems;
•The impacts resulting from human use of the built environment, and the ten-
dency for that use to spur further human development of the surrounding
ecosystems;
•The depletion of matter and energy resources from natural ecosystems during
the construction and use of the facility;
•The generation of waste output over the whole-life cycle of the facility that is
deposited in, and must be absorbed by, natural ecosystems.
To date, various sustainable technologies have been incorporated in building
designs as has been identified in previous studies (Glicksman et al. 2001; Parker
2004; DoE 2006). Zhang et al. (2011a,b) investigated how sustainable technologies
themselves may contribute to the competitiveness of real estate developers in China.
There are various ways in which building energy consumption can be reduced
and sustainability issues addressed. Such technologies can be classified using the
following six layers as discussed: shell (including skin or facade), services (M&E),
scenery, systems, service (FM), and set (see Table 15.2).
15 Facilities Management 313
Table 15.2 Sustainable elements/technologies/systems categorized using the building layered model (adapted from Zhang et al. 2011a,b)
Code Sustainable technologies/designs/materials Building
layer
Passive/Active design
strategy
Key references
GT
1
Transparent insulation systems Shell/skin Passive Wong et al. (2007)
GT
2
Atrium design Shell/skin Passive Sharples and Lash (2007)
GT
3
Smart windows/facades Shell/skin Passive Baetens et al. (2010), Kirby and Williams
(1991)
GT
4
Modular design, prefabricated concrete technology, and
flatpack design
Shell/skin Passive Tam (2009), Noguchi (2003)
GT
5
Innovative insulation materials Shell/skin Passive Papadopoulos and Giama (2007)
GT
6
Holistic/bioclimatic design Shell/skin Passive Lam et al. (2006)
GT
7
Structural insulation design Shell/skin Passive Goodhew and Griffiths (2005)
GT
8
Shading devices Services
(M&E)
Active and passive Guillemin and Molteni (2002)
GT
9
Solar energy powered generating systems Services
(M&E)
Active Ecotecture (2006)
GT
10
Solar energy heating technology Services
(M&E)
Passive Ecotecture (2006)
GT
11
Natural ventilation technology Services
(M&E)
Active U.S Department of Energy (2009)
GT
12
Environmentally friendly materials for HVAC systems Services
(M&E)
Passive UNEP (2003)
GT
13
Integration of natural lighting with artificial lighting
technology
Services
(M&E)
Active and Passive Ne’eman (1984)
GT
14
Ground source heat pump technology Services
(M&E)
Active Doherty et al. (2004)
GT
15
Personalized ventilation systems Scenery Passive Melikow et al. (2002)
GT
16
Unobstructed interiors and lighting efficiency Scenery Passive Hadwan and Carter (2006)
GT
17
Monitoring of trigeneration and combine heat and power
(CHCP) plant
Systems Active Cardona and Piacentino (2003)
(continued)
314 E. Finch and X. Zhang
Table 15.2 (continued)
Code Sustainable technologies/designs/materials Building
layer
Passive/Active design
strategy
Key references
GT
18
Remote condition monitoring Systems Active Yongpan and Zhang (2009)
GT
19
Ambient intelligence Systems Active Future Energy Solutions (2005)
GT
20
Smart home systems Systems Active U.S Department of Energy (2009)
GT
21
Load monitoring Services
(FM)
Active Norford and Leeb (1996)
GT
22
Occupancy modeling Services
(FM)
– Rabl and Rialhe (1992)
GT
23
Outsourcing and gain sharing Services
(FM)
– Fawkes (2007)
GT
24
Energy performance contracting Services
(FM)
– Davies and Chan (2001)
GT
25
Product-service systems for office furniture reuse Set Passive Besch (2005)
GT
26
Embodied energy of furniture and fittings Set Passive Treloar et al. (1999)
GT
27
Office ergonomics and efficiency Set Passive Brand (2008)
15 Facilities Management 315
15.4 Economic Appraisal
A key dilemma facing facilities managers is the conflict between capital costs and
operating costs. More specifically, facilities managers often inherit solutions that
have been selected on the basis of capital costs, neglecting the consequential
operational costs. As a result, running costs are high and the costs of remediation
are often higher. Buildings equipped with low carbon building technologies are
commonly considered to be more expensive than conventional buildings entailing
unjustifiable costs. Recent studies suggest that concern over the high costs of
sustainable elements/design/technologies remains the primary barrier to sustain-
able building adoption. In a study of 700 construction professionals who responded
to a survey by McGraw Hill (2008), over 80 % cited ‘‘higher first costs’’ as the
main obstacle to sustainable building adoption.
15.4.1 Life Cycle Costing
One of the most widely accepted methods used to evaluate the cost of sustainable
building features is life cycle costing. This technique allows the calculation of a
‘green premium’ cost from a life cycle perspective, which arises from the
increased construction cost (as opposed to extra design cost).The difference in life
cycle cost between a sustainable design and conventional design represents the
additional cost or savings that a sustainable building owner or resident can expect
over the lifetime of a facility.
Life cycle costing includes both capital and operational costs that occur during
the operational phase (e.g., utility costs, energy, water, maintenance, tax, and
insurance) as well as future costs (e.g., refurbishment, maintenance, disposal/
recycling of materials).
A life cycle cost study by Goldstein and Rosenblum in 2003 considered the
total development costs, interest payments, annual operating costs, and future
replacement costs, when modeling the 30 years of life cycle costs for 16 sus-
tainable projects and their conventionally constructed counterparts. On average,
the 16 case studies showed a small ‘‘green premium’’ (incremental cost) of 2.42 %
in total development costs, which were largely due to increased construction (as
opposed to design) costs.
The research findings were echoed in the conclusions of another report (Kats
2003), in which several dozen building representatives and architects were con-
tacted to assess the cost of 33 sustainable buildings from across the United States,
compared to conventional designs for the same buildings. The average premium
for these sustainable buildings is slightly less than 2 %, substantially lower than is
commonly perceived. It has been summarized from Kats (2003) that the majority
of cost premiums were a result of the increased architectural and engineering
design time needed to integrate sustainable building practices into projects.
316 E. Finch and X. Zhang
However, other research findings suggest an opposing view. For example, a
more comprehensive study by Matthiessen and Morris (2004) suggested that
location and climate are more important than the level of energy efficiency in
determining ultimate cost. The survey looked at more than 600 projects in the 19
US states and examined the impact of location and climate on cost.
15.4.2 Barriers
Despite the fact that sustainable technologies appear to have many advantages in
the building sector, both in terms of cost-benefit savings (economic return) and in
environmental benefit, it remains difficult to ensure that stakeholders in the con-
struction industry take suitable action. A recent review of sustainable building
activity found that only a very small proportion of England’s building stock can
claim to be sustainable (Williams and Lindsay 2005). The question arises as to
why this is so?
Based on a review of previous work, Zhang et al. (2011a,b) summarized 10
barriers to the adoption of sustainable technologies in buildings as presented in
Table 15.3. These barriers were previously identified in various studies (Tagaza
and Wilson 2004; Williams and Dair 2007; The Energy and Resources Institute
2006) using different categories. Granade et al. (2009) summarized three types of
barriers which hinder the implementation of energy efficiency technologies: (1)
structural; (2) behavioral; and (3) availability barriers. The Carbon Trust (2005)
also suggests a classification of these barriers into four main categories: financial
costs/benefits; hidden costs/benefits; real market failures; and behavioral/organi-
zational nonoptimalities.
The key barriers to sustainable adoption are further discussed below.
15.4.2.1 Higher Sustainable Appliance Design and Energy
Saving Material Costs
The financial cost is usually considered as the critical barrier for those stakeholders
who hesitate to invest in sustainable elements/technologies or not. A general per-
ception is that the cost of using environmentally sustainable features is significantly
higher than for traditional construction projects. Consistent with this point, in a 2009
joint survey of facility managers by the IFMA 2009, 63 % of respondents cited either
capital availability, payback period, or return on investment as the top barrier to
achieving energy efficiency for buildings. If additional construction costs do arise,
how can we mitigate this conflict of interest? Who is willing to pay this extra cost?
Some consumers, such as low-income households and small businesses, have lim-
ited access to credit, face high financing costs, and often have difficulty paying the
life cycle costs for applying sustainable elements/design/technologies (Brown et al.
2008).
15 Facilities Management 317
15.4.2.2 Insufficient Policy Implementation Efforts
Another challenge for the sustainable elements/design/technologies is inadequate
policy implementation efforts. It is generally understood that most project man-
agers on-site are risk averse: they are not willing to run the risk when there is
insufficient policy or regulation at hand. In this context, it is considered that the
guidance and commitments from the government can drive and motivate
contractors to adopt sustainable elements/design/technologies. For example, by
providing expedited permits, mandates and grant policies, density and tax incen-
tives, affordable housing bonuses, and public recognition, the developers can enjoy
benefits and mitigate barriers where sustainable housing projects are developed. It
is also clear that regulations that support inappropriate tariffs can restrict interest in
energy efficiency from the private sector.
Table 15.3 Summary of barriers influencing adoption of sustainable technologies (Zhang et al.
2011a,b)
Code Barriers Key references
BX
1
High perceived cost of sustainable design
and material investment
Williams and Dair (2007),
Tagaza and Wilson (2004)
BX
2
Insufficient policy implementation efforts Osmani and O’Reilly (2009)
BX
3
Technical difficulty during the
construction process
Tagaza and Wilson (2004)
BX
4
Risks involved arising from different
contact forms of project delivery and
changed site practices and behaviors
Tagaza and Wilson (2004)
BX
5
Lengthy planning and approval process
for new sustainable technologies and
recycled materials can be lengthy
Tagaza and Wilson (2004)
BX
6
Lack of knowledge and awareness to the
sustainable technologies
The Energy and Resources
Institute (2006)
BX
7
Lack of integrated efficiency for the
building regulations and byelaws
within the sustainable framework
The Energy and Resources
Institute (2006)
BX
8
Lack of motivation from customers’
demand
Osmani and O’Reilly (2009)
BX
9
Unfamiliarity with sustainable
technologies makes delays in the
design and construction process
Eisenberg et al. (2002),
Tagaza and Wilson (2004)
BX
10
Interests conflicts between various
stakeholders in using sustainable
measures
Williams and Dair (2007)
318 E. Finch and X. Zhang
15.4.2.3 Lack of Motivation from Demand Side
There is a lack of appreciation by customers’ demand side of the long-term cost
savings, which is particularly evident in the residential sector, where builders/
developers are slow to accept the associated social and environmental benefits of
sustainable building practices. Consumers play an important role in accepting
sustainable building technologies. They are not necessarily aware of energy
demand for either individual sustainable appliances or total use. They may not
regard energy efficiency or resource management as a high priority. It is obvious
that the lack of motivation from customers is commonplace in a climate where the
sustainable market is still in its infancy. This phenomenon can be described as
‘‘bounded rationality’’ according to Simon (1960), who argues that human beings
act and decide only partly on a rational basis. In this context, a culture of social
responsibility among buyers is increasingly sought.
15.5 Technologies and Management
Despite the apparent challenges of overcomplexity in modern buildings,
technology has a key role to play in supporting the FM objective of increased
environmental performance. Such tools furnish the facilities manager with much
needed data in order to reconcile the ‘hoped for’ building performance, with the
actual building performance. Among these technologies are:
•Computer-aided facilities management (CAFM);
•Building energy management systems;
•Automated identification (bar coding and radio-frequency tagging (RFID);
•Intelligent control systems;
•Intelligent buildings.
15.5.1 Computer-Aided Facilities Management
Computer-aided FM (CAFM) has undergone a revolution in the last two decades.
It emerged in the 1980s as a tool capable of linking graphical information (CAD)
with nongraphic information (databases). Being CAD-driven, it enabled the
facilities planner to attach information on fixed and movable assets such as lu-
minaires or furniture systems to spatial entities such as rooms, department
boundaries, or furniture systems (Teicholx 1995). The resulting integrated system
provided a significant planning, forecasting and reporting capability, allowing the
system to pass area information from the CAD environment to an inventory
(database) and the reciprocal passing of information from a database to allow the
15 Facilities Management 319
population of CAD floor plans. Added to this were various space planning and
optimization tools that yielded ‘stacking’ and ‘blocking’ plans that took account of
organizational requirements (e.g., proxemics) within spaces.
Modern day CAFM describes a much broader church of modular capabilities
that attempt to meet the demands of facilities managers and their customers. These
vary from being CAD-driven, others database driven and yet others driven by
parametric object-oriented models (Building Information Models). They also differ
in the level of decision maker intervention ranging from strategic decision support
systems (DSS) to automated real-time building management systems (BMS).
Advances in networking, web interfaces, and open systems, means that such
systems are amenable to many stakeholders, impacted by the FM role. Instead of
being a closed box accessible only to the FM professional, a far greater level of
transparency, and thus accountability and engagement is possible.
Some of the key capabilities of CAFM and the extended range of DSS are listed
in Table 15.4. The table qualifies the particular FM activity (categorized by
building layer) in relation to its potential impact on energy saving and sustain-
ability issues. Much of the current focus in the literature is on the ‘regulatory
systems’ that can be utilized in more sophisticated ‘intelligent buildings’.
However, Table 15.4 identifies major opportunities for sustainable operation that
arise much earlier in the decision-making process. As such, the tools to support
these layers, while not amenable to automation, offer a greater opportunity for
impact. Using an extreme example, a decision tool that enables the elimination of
an underutilized facility in a portfolio, can have a far greater effect than any
Table 15.4 Facilities management IT tools and techniques
Layer Facilities management responsibilities Decision/control tools
Site Long range and annual facility planning
Real estate acquisition and/or disposal
Strategic decision making e.g., Sustainable
transport policy; bio-climate, orientation
Decision support system (DSS)
Shell New construction and/or renovation Long-term budgeting
Decision support system (DSS)
Services Architectural and engineering planning
and design
Medium-term budgeting
Building information modeling (BIM)
Scenery Work specifications, installation and
space management
Short-term inventorizing
Computer-Aided Facilities Management
(CAFM)
Services
(FM)
Maintenance and operations
management
Helpdesk systems
Regulatory management system (e.g.,
Health and Safety)
Facilities management information systems
(FMIS)
Set Telecommunications integration,
security and general administrative
services
Building management systems
Regulatory (day to day) control systems
Intelligent buildings
Automated data capture
Sensors
Wireless systems
Data mining
320 E. Finch and X. Zhang
automated tool for regulating the energy performance of the building itself.
Similarly, the choice of location (site) of a facility can have a longstanding and far-
reaching consequence on travel plans of employees and consequent energy con-
sumption arising from car travel. The term ‘budgeting’ used in the table refers to
both ‘space budgeting’ and ‘financial budgeting’. These in turn can be viewed as
being directly linked to the ‘energy budget’. Thus, a reduction in space require-
ment directly impacts on the associated cleaning, maintenance and operational
costs, and associated sustainable impact.
Emergent features of modern day CAFM are: (1) interoperability; (2) incor-
poration of capabilities that are not CAD-driven; and (3) embracing of Building
Information Modeling (BIM) object modeling capability.
15.5.2 Building Information Modeling and Data Warehousing
The term building information model (BIM) is equivalent to the term Building
Product Model (Fisher 1997) and derives from the work of Charles Eastman at
Georgia Institute of Technology in the 1970s. It refers to a digital representation of
the building process, enabling the exchange of detailed information by means of an
interoperable data standard. While much of the development of this concept has
been in the construction domain, it is now starting to have a significant impact on
building operations.
In pursuance of improved energy performance of buildings, it is necessary to
continuously gage the building’s performance with that of previous measurement,
or against the original design. Such comparisons need to encompass the interests
of owners, operators, and building users. The phrase ‘continuous commissioning’
has been used (Liu 2003) to describe this activity. However, this has only recently
been possible with the advent of technologies such as data warehousing (DW). The
exact demands of the data sources including a multitude of sensors and manual
inputs related to maintenance, occupancy data, lighting, thermal comfort, and
energy metering, make excessive demands on conventional database driven
solutions. Added to this, is the volume of data now made available through
wireless building automation systems. Ahmed et al. (2010) described how the use
of ‘data warehousing’ provides a necessary advance from traditional use of dat-
abases to analyze building performance. In their research, they demonstrate the use
of the ‘energy building information model’ (eBIM) which allows the integration of
a BMS using the standardized building product and process modeling (Industry
Foundation Class). As a result, their system provides a data aggregation and
analysis tool, which could serve as a key DSS for FM processes. With the advent
of wireless building management systems and the wealth of data that is now
becoming available, such recent developments allow the concept of BIM to move
from being a design tool to one that is capable of enhancing FM decision making.
15 Facilities Management 321
15.5.3 Building Energy Management Systems
The term building energy management system (BEMS) describes a computer-
based control system installed in buildings that controls and monitors the build-
ing’s mechanical and electrical equipment such as ventilation, lighting, power
systems, fire systems, and security systems. The integration of these systems
allows the optimization of energy usage and comfort control. A BEMS consists of
software and hardware; the software program being configured in a hierarchical
manner can be proprietary, using such protocols as C-bus, Profibus. Increasingly,
these systems are able to integrate each of the FM systems using Internet protocols
and open standards. As such, they have become an invaluable tool in the facilities
manager’s armory in the battle against energy waste.
BEMS was first introduced in the 1970s, but have recently undergone a revo-
lution on several fronts. Most of these advances reflect those that have taken place
in the computer industry in general, related to the standardization of protocols, as
well as the enabling of web functionality. Added to these more universal devel-
opments are some key accomplishments in the BEMS arena which include
advances in:
•Intelligent building (IB) technology;
•intelligent control systems;
•sensor technology;
•the development of the concept of sentient environments;
•automated data capture.
Clarke et al. (2002) describe the concept of ‘predictive control’ which uses a
simulation model to supplement measured building data. Simulation models are
already used widely for the purposes of emulation, allowing BEMS operators to
fine-tune control systems, train BEMS operators, and imitate fault situations. Such
systems can also be used for fault-detection and diagnosis (FDD), enabling the
detecting and location of BEMS faults. The novel concept described by Clarke
et al. (2002) identifies a third application of simulation important to facilities
managers: encapsulation within a BEMS system in order to provide simulation
assisted control. The resulting system allows the FM to: (1) address cause and
effect scenarios; (2) adapt to the impact of changing building use; and (3) provide
better control through the calculation of interactions.
In a related study, Dounis and Caraiscos (2009) describe the use of a multi-
agent-based control system (MACS) enabling user’s preferences for thermal and
illuminance comfort, indoor air quality and energy conservation. The development
of such intelligent control systems represents a significant shift in the building
control paradigm, such that they are no longer ‘black boxes’, but are now ame-
nable to scrutiny by the FM team.
The explosion in the use of sensor technology presents many opportunities for
building operations monitoring. This coincides with a time in the evolution of
facilities management, where the procurement (contracting) process is starting to
322 E. Finch and X. Zhang
ask more exacting questions about building performance. As noted by Glazer and
Tolman (2008):‘The contracting process becomes the determinant of the perfor-
mance criteria, and delivery becomes a long-term fulfilment of these criteria’.In
essence, this statement identifies the increasing interaction between layers in the
decision-making process. In particular, the ‘services (FM)’ layer, which is engi-
neered around the Service Level Agreement, crucially depends on the feedback and
learning opportunity of ‘systems’ used in the building.
15.6 Conclusions
This chapter has attempted to articulate an alternative view of a building’s evo-
lution as seen through the eyes of the facilities manager. In doing so, it highlights a
much greater diversity of opportunities in sustainable building design which
extend well into the operational life. By dispensing with the binary categorization
of ‘new build’ or ‘retrofit’, a new set of intervention points become apparent. The
chapter has emphasized, through the layered description of building systems, how
the opportunities to exploit passive solutions at the early stage necessitate active
solutions which are often more complex and difficult to manage. Invariably, these
shorter life cycle elements involve greater complexity, greater FM involvement
and greater cost to the environment. The judicious use of tools and techniques
increasingly deployed by facilities managers can help in addressing both the
intractable and the tractable decisions associated with these differing life cycle
elements.
New developments in FM decision support tools present a major opportunity
for the FM practitioner. The ability to capture significant amounts of data through
wireless, open environments and through automated data capture could potentially
overwhelm the decision maker at each stage of the layered decision cycle.
However, it is envisaged that advances in data management (e.g., BIM, DW, and
intelligent sensors) will offer up analytical tools which address this data mining
challenge. Moreover, data will no longer be confined to simple ‘black box’ control
systems. Instead, such systems will enable the removal of many barriers to sus-
tainable technology adoption, both in terms of day-to-day performance and long-
term financial return.
References
Ahmed A, Ploennigs J, Menzel K, Cahill B (2010) Multi-dimensional building performance data
management for continuous commissioning. Adv Eng Inform 24:466–475
Baetens R, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A (2010) Properties, requirements and possibilities of smart
windows for dynamic daylight and solar energy control in buildings: a state-of-the-art review.
Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 94(2):87–105
15 Facilities Management 323
Besch K (2005) Product-service systems for office furniture: barriers and opportunities on the
European market. J Clean Prod 13(10–11):1083–1094
Brand JL (2008) Office ergonomics: a review of pertinent research and recent developments. Rev
Hum Factors Ergon 4:245–282
Brown MA, Chandler J, Lapsa MV, Sovacool BK (2008) Carbon lock-in: barriers to deploying
climate change mitigation technologies. ORNL/TM-2007/124:101–102 Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Tennessee
Carbon Trust (2005) The UK climate change programme: potential evolution for business and the
public sector. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk. Accessed 6 March 2010
Cardona E, Piacentino A (2003) A measurement methodology for monitoring a CHCP pilot plant
for an office building. Energy Build 35(9):919–925
Clarke J, Cockroft J, Conner SH, Hand JW, Kelly NJ, Moore R, O’Brien T, Strachan P (2002)
Simulation-assisted control in building energy management systems. Energy Build
34:933–940
Davies HA, Chan EKS (2001) Experience of energy performance contracting in Hong Kong.
Facilities 19(7–8):261–268
DoE (2006) Annual energy review 2006. US Department of Energy, Washington ftp://
ftp.eia.doe.gov/multifuel/038406.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2008
Dounis AI, Caraiscos C (2009) Advanced control systems engineering for energy and comfort
management in a building environment—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
13(6–7):1246–1261
Doherty PS, Al-Huthaili S, Riffat SB, Abodahab N (2004) Ground source heat pump-description
and preliminary results of the Eco House system. Appl Therm Eng 24(17–18):2627–2641
Duffy F (1974) Office design and organizations: 1. Theoretical basis. Environ Plan B Plan Des
1(1):105–118
Ecotecture (2006) Sunlight homes: home page, available from website: http://
www.sunlighthomes.com, Retrieved April 4 2007
Eisenberg D, Done R, Ishida L (2002) Breaking down the barriers: challenges and solutions to
code approval of green building. Research report by the Development Center for Appropriate
Technology. http://www.mrsc.org/artdocmisc/breaking_down_barriers.pdf. Accessed 4
March 2004
Fawkes S (2007) Outsourcing energy management: saving energy and carbon through partnering.
Gower Publishing Ltd., Farnham
Fisher M (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product? Harv Bus Rev 75(2):105–116
Future Energy Solutions (2005) Assessment of Methane Management and Recovery Options for
Livestock Manures and Slurries. Report for: Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Division,
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Available from website: http://
www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/.../docs/DEFRA_methane_mgt%20_rep.pdf
Glazer S, Tolman A (2008) The sense of sensing—from data to informed decisions for the built
environment. J Infrastruct Syst 14(1):4–14
Glicksman LR, Norford LK, Greden LV (2001) Energy conservation in Chinese residential
buildings: progress and opportunities in design and policy. Annu Rev Energy Environ
26:83–115
GoldStein J, Rosenblum J (2003) The costs and benefits of green affordable housing:
opportunities for action. Tellus Institute and Green CDCs Initiative
Goodhew S, Griffiths R (2005) Sustainable earth walls to meet the building regulations. Energy
Build 37(5):451–459
Granade HC, Creyts J, Derkach A, Farese P, Nyquist S, Ostrowski K (2009) Unlocking energy
efficiency in the U.S. economy. McKinsey Global Energy and Materials. http://
www.mckinsey.com/Client_Service/Electric_Power_and_Natural_Gas/Latest_thinking/
Unlocking_energy_efficiency_in_the_US_economy.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2009
Guillemin A, Molteni S (2002) An energy-efficient controller for shading devices self-adapting to
the user wishes. Build Environ 37(11):1091–1097
324 E. Finch and X. Zhang
Hadwan M, Carter D (2006) Light loss in complex heavily obstructed interiors: influence of
obstruction density, obstruction height and luminaire type. Lighting Res Technol 38(1):53–71
Ikemoto N, Isomurai M (1995) Illuminance calculation in a room containing fixtures. J Light
Visual Environ 19(2):2–40
International Facility Management Association (2009) Energy efficiency indicator summary
report. International Facility Management Association (IFMA) http://www.ifma.org/files/
resources/tools/EEIReport_09.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2011
Kats GH (2003) Green building costs and financial benefits. Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative for the State of California Sustainable Building Task force, California
Kibert CJ (2008) Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Wiley, Canada
Kirby SD, Williams SE (1991) New look at windows technologies: a look to the future. Oklahoma
Cooperative Extension Service. Local regulations. http://www.chinaeeb.gov.cn/lwa
Lam JC, Yang L, Liu J (2006) Development of passive design zones in China using bioclimatic
approach. Energy Convers Manage 47(6):746–762
Leaman A (1992) Is facilities management a profession? Facilities 10(10):18–20
Liu M (2003) Continuous commissioning of building energy systems. J Sol Energy Eng
25(3):275–282. doi:org/10.1115/1.1592538
Matthiessen LF, Morris P (2004) Costing green: a comprehensive cost database and budgeting
methodology. Davis Landon Adamson, Los Angeles. http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/
images/publications/USA/
2004%20Costing%20Green%20Comprehensive%20Cost%20Database.pdf. Accessed 11 July
2011
McGraw-Hill Construction (2008) Global green building trends: market growth and perspectives
from around the world. McGraw-Hill Construction, USA
Melikow AK, Cermak R, Majer M (2002) Personalized ventilation: evaluation of different air
terminal devices. Energ Buildings 34:829–836
Mikler V, Bicol A, Breisnes B, Labrie M (2008)Passive design toolkit: best practices.
Vancouver, Canada. http://www.vancouver.ca/sustainability/documents/PassiveDesign
ToolKit.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2011
Norford LK, Leeb SB (1996) Non-intrusive electrical load monitoring in commercial buildings
based on steady-state and transient load-detection algorithms. Energy Build 24(1):51–64
Noguchi M (2003) The effect of the quality-oriented production approach on the delivery of
prefabricated homes in Japan. J Hous Built Environ 18(4):1566–4910
Ne’eman E (1984) A comprehensive approach to the integration of daylight and electric light in
buildings. Energy Build 6(2):97–108
Osmani M, O’Reilly A (2009) Challenges facing housing developers to deliver zero carbon
homes in England. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. http://
www.waset.org/journals/waset/v53/v53-98.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011
Papadopoulos AM, Giama E (2007) Environmental performance evaluation of thermal insulation
materials and its impact on the building. Building Environ 42(5):2178–2187. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132306001120 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/journal/03601323.
Parker HW (2004) Underground space: good for sustainable development, and vice versa. World
Tunnel Congress, Proceedings, WTC, ITA, Singapore
Rabl A, Rialhe A (1992) Energy signature models for commercial buildings: test with measured
data and interpretation. Energy Build 19(2):143–154
Sharples S, Lash D (2007) Daylight in atrium buildings: a critical review. Archit Sci Rev
50:301–312
Simon HA (1960) The new science of management decision. Harper & Bros, New York
Tagaza E, Wilson JL (2004) Green buildings: drivers and barriers—lessons learned from five
Melbourne developments. Report prepared for Building Commission by University of
Melbourne and Business Outlook and Evaluation, Melbourne
Tam VWY (2009) Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australian and
Japanese construction industries. J Clean Prod 17(7):688–702
15 Facilities Management 325
Teicholx E (1995) Computer-aided facilities management and facility conditions assessment
software. Facilities 13(6):16–19
The Energy and Resources Institute (2006) In pursuit of sustainable development: mainstreaming
environment in the construction sector. In: Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, India
Habitat Center, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Thompson T (1990) The essence of facilities management. Facilities 8(8):8–12
Treloar GJ, McCoubrie A, Love PED, Iyer-Raniga U (1999) Embodied energy analysis of
fixtures, fittings and furniture in office buildings. Facilities 17(11):403–410
UNEP (2003) Sustainable building and construction: facts and figures. UNEP Indus Environ,
April–September, 5–8
Wong IL, Eames PC, Perera RS (2007) A review of transparent insulation systems and the
evaluation of payback period for building applications. Sol Energy 81(9):1058–1071
US Department of Energy (2009) Annual energy review 2008, 27 June 2009. Accessed 27 Nov
2009
Williams K, Dair C (2007) What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers
experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustain Dev
15(3):135–147
Williams K, Lindsay M (2005) Oxford institute for sustainable development working paper 5: the
extent and nature of sustainable building in England: an analysis of progress. Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford
Yeang K (1995) Designing with nature. McGraw Hill, New York
Yiu CY (2007) Building depreciation and sustainable development. J Build Apprais 3:97–103.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jba.2950072
Yongpan C, Xianmin M, Zhang J (2009) Development of monitoring system of building energy
consumption. In: International forum on computer science-technology and applications 2009,
IFCSTA ‘09, International Forum, 25–27 December
Zhang XL, Shen LY, Wu YZ (2011a) Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in
housing development: a China study. J Clean Prod 19(2–3):157–167
Zhang XL, Platten A, Shen LY (2011b) Green property development practice in China: costs and
barriers. Build Environ 46(11):2153–2160
326 E. Finch and X. Zhang
