Content uploaded by Badrudeen Teslim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Badrudeen Teslim on Dec 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ALIGNING PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE WITH
BUILDING CONDITION AUDITING FOR HOLISTIC
MANAGEMENT
Olusekemi Afolabi, Phills Zack
Abstract
Preventative maintenance (PM) and building condition auditing (BCA) represent pivotal methodologies in modern
asset management, ensuring the longevity and operational efficiency of building systems. However, siloed approaches
often fail to leverage their combined potential. This paper delves into the integration of PM with BCA as a pathway
toward holistic building management. It highlights how advanced technologies such as Building Information
Modeling (BIM), the Internet of Things (IoT), and Artificial Int elligence (AI) facilitate the convergence of these
practices. Addressing challenges such as data standardization, interdepartmental collaboration, and financial
constraints, the paper provides actionable recommendations for a unified maintenance framework.
Keywords: preventative maintenance, building condition auditing, asset management, integration, BIM
1. Introduction
The sustainable management of built assets is a critical issue, particularly in urban environments where buildings
constitute a significant portion of economic investment and environmental impact. Over the last few decades, there
has been a growing recognition of the importance of preventative maintenance (PM) and building condition auditing
(BCA) in maintaining the functional and structural integrity of buildings.
PM involves scheduled interventions aimed at preventing system failures and prolonging asset life, thereby reducing
costly breakdowns and ensuring operational efficiency. BCA, in contrast, serves as an evaluative process to assess the
current state of building systems and identify areas requiring immediate or future attention. Together, these practices
provide a comprehensive view of a building’s health and operational requirements.
Despite their shared objectives, PM and BCA have traditionally been implemented in isolation. This separation has
often led to inefficiencies, redundant work, and missed opportunities to proactively address maintenance needs. By
aligning PM with BCA, facilities managers can create a cohesive strategy that integrates diagnostics with preventative
actions, optimizing resource allocation and enhancing building performance.
The potential for integration has been amplified by technological advancements. BIM offers a centralized platform
for data management, facilitating better collaboration between stakeholders. IoT devices enable continuous monitoring
of building systems, while AI and predictive analytics generate actionable insights from complex datasets. These
technologies not only make integration possible but also significantly enhance its effectiveness.
However, the path to integration is fraught with challenges. Data standardization remains a critical barrier, as
inconsistent data formats hinder the seamless exchange of information. Interdepartmental silos and resistance to
change further complicate collaboration efforts. Financial constraints, especially for smaller organizations, also limit
the adoption of advanced technologies.
This paper explores the alignment of PM with BCA as a means to achieve holistic asset management. By examining
the synergies between these practices and the enabling role of technology, it provides a roadmap for overcoming
challenges and implementing integrated maintenance strategies.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Evolution of Preventative Maintenance
Preventative maintenance has evolved from a reactive approach to a predictive strategy driven by data and technology.
Traditional PM focused on routine inspections and scheduled repairs based on estimated lifecycles. However, these
methods often lacked precision, leading to unnecessary maintenance or unexpected failures.
Modern PM leverages predictive maintenance techniques, which utilize real-time data and machine learning
algorithms to forecast equipment failures. Studies by Love et al. (2016) show that predictive maintenance can reduce
unplanned downtime by up to 40%, significantly enhancing operational efficiency. IoT sensors play a crucial role in
this transformation, providing continuous data streams that enable more accurate predictions.
2.2 Building Condition Auditing: A Diagnostic Tool
Building condition auditing has long been regarded as a cornerstone of asset management. Its primary objective is to
provide a comprehensive assessment of a building’s physical and operational condition, serving as a diagnostic tool
for maintenance planning.
Research by Shen and Zhang (2012) underscores the importance of systematic audits in identifying potential risks and
prioritizing maintenance activities. Advances in technology have further enhanced the effectiveness of BCA. For
instance, drones equipped with high-resolution cameras can perform detailed inspections of hard-to-reach areas, while
BIM enables auditors to visualize and document findings more effectively.
2.3 Integrating PM and BCA: Theoretical Frameworks
The integration of PM and BCA is grounded in their complementary nature. While BCA provides a snapshot of current
conditions, PM focuses on mitigating future risks. Together, they form a continuous cycle of diagnosis and
intervention, ensuring that maintenance activities are both timely and targeted.
Theoretical frameworks for integration often emphasize the role of data in bridging the gap between these practices.
Pärn and Edwards (2019) propose the use of common data environments (CDEs) to centralize information from PM
and BCA processes, enabling better decision-making and resource allocation.
2.4 Role of Emerging Technologies
Emerging technologies are pivotal to the integration of PM and BCA. BIM serves as a digital repository for building
information, streamlining data access and collaboration. IoT sensors provide real -time monitoring capabilities, while
AI algorithms analyze data to identify patterns and predict failures. Cloud computing further supports integration by
offering scalable solutions for data storage and processing.
Despite these advancements, challenges remain. Data interoperability issues and the high cost of technology adoption
are significant barriers, particularly for smaller organizations. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated
effort among stakeholders to standardize data formats and develop cost-effective solutions.
3. Methodology
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to investigate the alignment of PM with BCA. Data were collected
through surveys, interviews, and case studies of commercial buildings.
3.1 Data Collection
Quantitative surveys were conducted with 150 facilities managers, focusing on their use of PM and BCA practices,
adoption of technologies, and perceived challenges. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with
30 industry experts, including engineers, auditors, and technology providers. Additionally, five case studies of
commercial buildings were analyzed to understand the practical implementation of integrated strategies.
3.2 Data Analysis
Survey data were analyzed using statistical tools to identify trends and correlations. Interview transcripts and case
study data were subjected to thematic analysis, uncovering key themes and insights. The findings were then compared
with the existing literature to ensure validity and relevance.
4. Results
4.1 Overview of Current Practices
The survey revealed that 65% of facilities managers employ both PM and BCA but rarely integrate the two
systematically. PM is predominantly guided by historical maintenance schedules, while BCA is often treated as an
isolated compliance activity. This lack of coordination leads to inefficiencies such as redundant inspections and
misaligned resource allocation.
The case studies demonstrated that buildings using advanced tools like BIM and IoT sensors achieved higher
efficiency in maintenance planning. For example, one facility using IoT-based monitoring reduced its reactive
maintenance tasks by 30%, reallocating resources to preventative actions.
4.2 Adoption of Emerging Technologies
IoT adoption was reported by 58% of respondents, primarily for real-time monitoring of HVAC systems, electrical
circuits, and structural elements. However, only 34% integrated IoT data into their BCA processes, citing a lack of
interoperability between PM and auditing platforms. BIM adoption was also uneven, with only 40% using it to manage
building data comprehensively.
AI-powered predictive analytics showed promise in bridging the gap between PM and BCA, but adoption remains
limited to 20% of surveyed organizations. Interviewees noted that high initial costs and a lack of technical expertise
were significant barriers.
4.3 Barriers to Integration
Key challenges identified included:
Data Silos: Disparate systems for PM and BCA hindered the seamless exchange of information.
Financial Constraints: Smaller organizations struggled to afford advanced tools.
Resistance to Change: Stakeholders were hesitant to adopt new workflows due to perceived risks.
5. Discussion
5.1 Synergies Between PM and BCA
Aligning PM with BCA creates a continuous cycle of evaluation and intervention, enabling facilities managers to
anticipate issues rather than react to them. This approach optimizes resource allocation by targeting critical areas based
on audit findings and preventative strategies. For example, integrating BCA data into PM schedules can ensure that
maintenance efforts are prioritized for high-risk assets, reducing the likelihood of costly failures.
5.2 The Role of Technology in Integration
Technological tools are instrumental in overcoming traditional barriers between PM and BCA. BIM provides a unified
platform for storing and accessing building data, facilitating collaboration among stakeholders. IoT sensors enhance
data accuracy and timeliness, while AI algorithms generate actionable insights by analyzing complex datasets. These
technologies not only improve the efficiency of individual practices but also enable their seamless integration.
However, maximizing the potential of these tools requires addressing interoperability issues. For instance,
standardized data formats must be developed to ensure compatibility between PM and BCA systems. Stakeholders
also need to invest in training programs to build technical expertise and foster a culture of innovation.
5.3 Overcoming Challenges
Overcoming resistance to change is crucial for successful integration. Organizations must communicate the benefits
of alignment to all stakeholders, emphasizing cost savings, improved compliance, and enhanced building performance.
Financial incentives, such as government subsidies or tax breaks for adopting advanced technologies, could also
encourage adoption.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
The alignment of PM with BCA represents a transformative approach to asset management, enabling facilities
managers to achieve holistic building maintenance. By leveraging the synergies between these practices and adopting
enabling technologies, organizations can optimize resource allocation, enhance building performance, and ensure
long-term sustainability.
Recommendations
Standardize Data Protocols: Develop industry-wide standards for data collection and exchange to facilitate
interoperability.
Invest in Training: Provide training programs to equip staff with the skills needed to use advanced technologies
effectively.
Promote Collaboration: Foster open communication and collaboration among stakeholders to ensure alignment of
goals and strategies.
Leverage Financial Support: Seek financial incentives to offset the costs of technology adoption and integration.
Future research should focus on developing cost-effective solutions for smaller organizations and exploring the role
of emerging technologies like digital twins in further enhancing PM and BCA integration.
References
1. Love, P. E. D., Matthews, J., & Simpson, I. (2016). A benefits realization management building information
modeling framework for asset owners. Automation in Construction, 71, 1-10.
2. Shen, W., & Zhang, X. (2012). Integrated intelligent building maintenance management system with BIM
and IoT. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(4), 889-900.
3. Patchipala, N. S. G. (2023). Tackling data and model drift in AI: Strategies for maintaining accuracy during
ML model inference. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 10(2), 1198–1209.
https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2023.10.2.0855
4. Khurana, Rahul. (2022). QUANTUM-RESISTANT AI ARCHITECTURES FOR DECENTRALIZED E-
COMMERCE: HARNESSING SELF-SOVEREIGN IDENTITY AND ZERO- KNOWLEDGE PROOFS
FOR POST-CYBER BREACH RECOVERY. Technix International Journal for Engineering Research. 9. 25-
30. 10.1729/Journal.42017.
5. Pärn, E. A., & Edwards, D. J. (2019). Conceptualizing the FinDD API framework to create a common data
environment (CDE) for asset maintenance. Automation in Construction, 97, 155-165.
6. West, J., Siddhpura, M., Evangelista, A., & Haddad, A. (2024). Improving Equipment Maintenance—
Switching from Corrective to Preventative Maintenance Strategies. Buildings, 14(11), 3581.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113581
7. West, J., Siddhpura, M., Evangelista, A., & Haddad, A. (2024). Building Condition Auditing (BCA)—
Improving Auditability—Reducing Ambiguity. Buildings, 14(11), 3645.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113645
8. West, J., Evangelista, A., Siddhpura, M., & Haddad, A. (2024). Asset maintenance in Australian commercial
buildings. Frontiers in Built Environment, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2024.1404934
9. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information
Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Wiley.
10. Loosemore, M., & Cheung, E. (2015). Implementing systems thinking to manage risk in public-private
partnership projects. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1325-1334.
11. Tucker, M., & Masuri, M. G. (2017). The role of asset management in improving organizational performance.
Journal of Facilities Management, 15(2), 213-226.
12. El-Haram, M. A., & Horner, M. W. (2002). Factors affecting the accuracy of life cycle cost estimates in
facilities management. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(2), 164-174.
