|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 42
3
Condition Assessments
To effectively manage its facilities portfolio, an organization must establish
meaningful baseline data about the size and physical condition of its facilities.
This information is used to estimate short- and long-range maintenance and re-
pair needs. Many organizations with facilities portfolios have established system-
atic condition assessment programs to provide this baseline management infor-
mation. A relatively small number of organizations uses these data as part of an
integrated capital assets management program.
Condition assessments and a capital assets management program are key
components of an effective maintenance and repair program. Tasks 2 and 3 of the
committee's charge were to investigate the role of technology in performing au-
tomated condition assessments and to identify the staff capabilities necessary to
perform condition assessments and develop maintenance and repair budgets. This
chapter reviews the components of condition assessments and capital assets man-
agement programs; describes the use of condition assessments by federal agen-
cies; reviews technologies for automating condition assessments; identifies the
staffing implications for performing automated condition assessments; and iden-
tifies issues related to condition assessment programs as they are currently imple-
mented by federal agencies.
COMPONENTS OF A CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND
CAPITAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A condition assessment has been defined as the "process of systematically
evaluating an organization' s capital assets in order to project repair, renewal, or
replacement needs that will preserve their ability to support the mission or activi-
ties they were assigned to serve" (Rugless, 1993~. Condition assessment programs
42
OCR for page 43
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
43
generally begin with inspections of individual facilities by trained personnel who
can determine the physical condition and functional performance of facilities, as
well as maintenance and repair deficiencies. Building systems, components, and
materials are inspected for outright signs of deterioration or failure, as well as for
more subtle symptoms indicating abnormal conditions (NRC, 19901.
Information gathered from inspections can be used to (1) estimate the need
for maintenance and repair, (2) develop cost estimates and funding priorities for
various projects, and (3) generate and prioritize work orders. Facility condition
assessments can also be used to: evaluate deferred maintenance and funding re-
quirements; plan a deferred maintenance reduction program; compare conditions
between facilities; establish baselines for setting goals and tracking progress; pro-
vide accurate and supportable information for planning and justifying budgets;
facilitate the establishment of funding priorities; and develop budget and funding
analyses and strategies (AME, 19911.
Studies by the National Research Council, the Federal Facilities Council,
and the GAO have reported that condition assessment programs are used by some
federal agencies to identify and document maintenance and repair backlogs or
deferred maintenance. Increasingly, computer software programs and other tech-
nologies are being used to support the gathering and analysis of condition assess-
ment data as part of a capital assets management program (CAMP). "Together, a
condition assessment survey and capital assets management program (CAS/
CAMP) can provide a process for establishing condition standards, and inspect-
ing, recording, reporting, prioritizing, and managing the maintenance and repair
of buildings and infrastructure." They can also be used as a "tool to construct cost
reports, develop priorities, and create life cycle analyses as well as provide the
ability to construct a wide variety of ad hoc reports" (Rugless, 19931.
A GAS/CAMP, as defined by the authoring committee, incorporates four
key components:
.
a standardized, documented inspection process that provides accurate,
consistent, and repeatable results
a detailed, ongoing inspection of real property assets, including facilities,
infrastructure, and large, in-place equipment that is validated at predeter-
mined intervals
· standardized cost data based on an industry-accepted cost estimating sys-
tem to determine repair and replacement costs
a user-friendly information management system or process that prioritizes
current and anticipated maintenance and repair requirements to maximize
the utilization of resources (labor and dollar) and return on investment
(ROI)i and minimize the cost of irreversible loss of service lifer and total
penalty cost.3
iThe ROT calculation "stems basically from comparing the extended life of the component or sys-
tem that is being repaired or replaced to the remaining life of the existing item should no repair be
OCR for page 44
44
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Condition Assessment Surveys
The CAS provides the evaluation criteria for inspecting each facility and is
intended to ensure consistency among inspectors, assets, inspection intervals, and
geographical locations. Data collection can be standardized through automated
checklists and/or written guidelines to ensure that data are consistent from one
facility to another; data can also be "rolled up" to represent larger numbers of
buildings. Standardized inspection processes range from macrolevel assessments
of facility systems for organizations with work-order systems in place to detailed
microlevel inspections of individual buildings that identify deficiencies and can
be used for managing daily work orders. A standardized inspection process with
uniform deficiency standards and inspection methods can enable a facilities pro-
gram manager to compare and prioritize inspection data from different facilities,
equipment, infrastructure systems, locations, and inspectors.
Standardization of inspection data is important because "human inspectors
make subjective judgments, and their measurements and ratings are highly vari-
able", whereas automated systems are less subjective and more consistent
(Sanford and McNeil, 1997~. In an effort to provide for greater consistency and
objectivity, some organizations have developed standards or guidelines for in-
spections that may or may not be automated. The U.S. Army's Construction En-
gineering Research Laboratories, for instance, has developed standardized condi-
tion indexes for inspections. "Utilizing sampling techniques, inspectors view the
building at the component level looking for which, if any, of 20 'generic' dis-
tresses and their severities are present. Point values are assigned to each distress
type/severity/density combination found. These are summed, corrected, and sub-
tracted from 100 to obtain a Building Component Condition Index" (Uzarski and
Burley, 1997~.
Standardized checklists cannot, in and of themselves, provide for consis-
tency in condition assessments across facility inventories. Buildings and their
component systems are complex, and the identification of the causes of building
deficiencies requires that inspectors be trained to recognize the root causes of
deficiencies, not just the visual manifestations of problems. For example, peeling
paint on a wall or ceiling may be caused by poor quality paint or may indicate a
much more serious problem, such as a leaking roof. Inspectors should be trained
to recognize these differences, to develop alternative courses of corrective action,
made." To calculate the ROI, the repair cost is amortized over the lengthened life of the component or
system and compared to the amortized cost of replacing the item earlier if the repairs are not made. If
a repair would greatly lengthen the remaining life of the component, a favorable ROI is likely to result
(Rugless, 1993).
2Cost of irreversible loss of service life can be defined as the cost associated with the loss of
remaining service life if repairs are deferred.
3Total penalty cost can be defined as the total cost of deferred repairs.
OCR for page 45
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
45
to cost out the alternatives, and to determine the cost effectiveness of making a
repair in the short term, the long term, or not at ally
Capital Assets Management Programs
The CAMP, in contrast to the CAS, is a systematic approach to scheduling
and budgeting current and anticipated deficiencies that maximizes the ROI and
preserves the value of the physical asset. The prioritization process incorporates
both quantitative data (the condition of the inspection item or overall system,
irreversible loss of service life cost, and total penalty cost) and qualitative data
(importance of building function and mission). As parameters change, the data
can be revised or updated because the CAMP is a "living document."
The CAMP, combined with the knowledge of trained inspectors and facili-
ties program managers, can also be the basis for making repair-versus-replace
decisions, identifying maintenance and repairs that can be deferred without loss
of investment, and projecting long-range capital renewal requirements. The
CAMP can provide a standardized, cost-effective, convenient approach to:
· establishing a systematic and economical method for periodically updat-
ing asset conditions
. . . . . ~
· mln~mlz~ng surprise failures of equipment or systems
· determining critical maintenance requirements for physical assets
· optimizing operations and maintenance dollars to maximize the ROI for
large assets
· developing sound, defensible budgets based on an organization's goals
and objectives rather than on the physical condition of facilities alone
· providing a consistent methodology for comparing requests from facility
managers
· allocating maintenance and repair dollars among competing requirements
or organizations
The application of a GAS/CAMP by federal facilities program managers can
be broken down into four broad categories:
CAS as a tool for identifying and validating deferred maintenance backlog
CAS as a means of evaluating the condition of physical assets and their
maintenance against projected life cycles
GAS/CAMP as a process for identifying, prioritizing, and managing the
asset portfolio
· CAMP as a decision-making tool for trade-off analyses for allocating
resources
4In some circumstances, it may not be cost effective to make early inspections and repairs but only
to make corrections when needed. For instance, using remote control video cameras to inspect the
interior condition of miles of underground pipes may be more expensive and less cost effective than
simply replacing a pipe once it breaks, depending on where the pipe is located, the type of business
disruptions, and the personal or real property damage the breakage causes.
OCR for page 46
46
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Together, the GAS/CAMP would help facilities program managers identify, pri-
oritize, and manage the overall condition of their physical inventories and pro-
vide a sound, defensible tool for articulating the "business case" for investing
resources in infrastructure.
GAS/CAMP covers a wide range of methodologies, levels of detail, auto-
mated support systems, and budgeting objectives. Although many systems and
software programs are already available, the industry is still in the development
stage. Few standards have been established, and the technology is changing rap-
idly. An internal organizational evaluation to determine the objectives and report-
ing requirements of the facilities management program is essential for federal
program managers when choosing an appropriate system.
USE OF CONDITION ASSESSMENTS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
Condition assessment survey programs were first used by federal agencies,
including the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command, the U.S. Navy, the U.S.
Army, and the U.S. Department of Energy, in the 1960s and mid-1970s. These
programs were mostly focused on identifying backlogs of maintenance and repair
or deferred maintenance and projecting future funding requirements for facilities
and infrastructures.5
In the 1980s, more sophisticated inspection and engineering management
programs were developed, such as the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Re-
search Laboratories' suite of engineered management systems (EMS), including
PAVER, RAILER, BRIDGER, ROOFER, GRIPER, and others. These computer-
ized systems use condition assessment and prediction techniques to develop an-
nual and long-range work plans based on timely maintenance and repair using
specified policies and strategies. The EMS programs are designed to provide ob-
jective, repeatable methods for inspections and evaluations, work histories of fa-
cilities, information for real property updates, the consequences of decision alter-
natives, and quick access to engineering technology. All of these systems,
however, were designed for individual infrastructure elements or building com-
ponents, not for complete buildings. Thus, PAVER focuses on pavement man-
agement, RAILER on railroad tracks, BRIDGER on bridges, ROOFER on roofs,
and GRIPER on underground gas pipes. The committee did not have adequate
information to determine whether or under what circumstances the EMS pro-
grams are cost effective.
In the early 1990s, the DOE, and later the DoD, undertook expansive pro-
grams to develop and implement standardized CAS programs across their entire
infrastructures. Both departments focused on developing comprehensive pro-
cesses that included detailed inspection standards, inspector training programs,
Representative programs include the Strategic Air Command's Pavement Condition Index, the
U.S. Army's IFS-1, and the U.S. Navy's Annual Inspection Summary.
OCR for page 47
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
47
automated data collection devices, and the ability to aggregate information at
multiple levels based on location and organization.
The DOE's CAS was "initially conceived in 1990 as an industry-based sys-
tem of standards to develop deficiency-based capital maintenance and repair costs
for use in managing DOE real property assets." The DOE developed basic stan-
dards and automated systems, field implementation and maintenance, and en-
hancement and field support (USACIR,1996~. DOE's goals for the program were
to "have available for all of the field offices and contractors, a system that was
simple and easy to use; achieved results that were as accurate and timely as
possible; and reportLed] results consistently from site to site and across programs"
(Earl, 1997~. CAS manuals were developed outlining deficiency standards and
inspection methods systematically. Nationally recognized, geographically adjust-
able cost algorithms were used, as well as an automated system of cost collection,
to integrate and summarize building level detail to a site-wide level. The use of
state-of-the-art tools by inspectors, such as bar coding and hand-held computers,
was encouraged (Earl, 1997~. However, the initial concept of "rolling up" the
data to produce a headquarters-level report was dropped early in the program,
which left DOE operations offices and their secretarial offices on their own in
deciding the type of CAS system they would employ. Since 1990, the DOE sys-
tem has been revised, the software upgraded, and functional improvements made
(USACIR, 1996~.
In the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1992, funds were provided
for the implementation of a pilot test program to conduct comprehensive mainte-
nance surveys, referred to collectively as the condition assessment survey, at se-
lected DoD installations. The pilot test of the surveys was completed in 1995.
The pilot information system could calculate costs for repairs and replacements
and rate facilities on a condition index scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). This
computerized system could also determine the time frame for repairs based on a
facility's ROI. However, DoD projected the cost of implementing the system
across all services would be about $715 million, and service officials reported
that the system's information management system was labor intensive and ex-
pensive to maintain. For these reasons, the system was never deployed (GAO,
1997~.
The Air Force Commanders' Facility Assessment (CFA) program was initi-
ated in 1992. The CFA is "designed to link facility condition to mission require-
ments to ensure that resources for maintenance, repair, and minor construction
are allocated to the most critical mission needs of field commanders" (GAO,
1997~. The assessments are intended to help commanders stratify their mainte-
nance and repair and military construction requirements for real property. Under
this program, field commanders can identify recurring (day-to-day requirements)
and nonrecurring requirements. Nonrecurring requirements are classified as Lev-
els I, II, or III. Level I (unsatisfactory) facilities have deficiencies that cause
frequent mission interruptions, accelerate the deterioration of the facility, result
OCR for page 48
48
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
in high life-cycle maintenance costs, curtail or eliminate some operations, or de-
grade livability and workplace conditions. Level II (degraded) facilities have de-
ficiencies that impair mission support, reduce the effectiveness of the workforce,
or accelerate the deterioration of the facility. Level III (adequate) facilities are in
good enough condition that they do not impair accomplishment of the mission,
although they may have some minor deficiencies. The program provides condi-
tion data for Air Force facilities for fiscal years 1993 and 1995. Improvements in
the program and enhancements to the software are under way (GAO, 1997~.
The U.S. Army began using its Installation Status Report (ISR) system in
1995 to "assist installations in articulating their infrastructure needs to the DA
[Department of the Army] and to allow the DA to develop funding requests for
Congress" (O'Hare et al., 1997~. The ISR established department-wide standards
for each type of building on Army installations. Based on annual inspections,
estimates of funding to sustain and/or renovate facilities based on national aver-
ages for military construction were developed. The ISR also calculates the fund-
ing needed for new construction to ensure that each installation has the facilities
necessary to fulfilling its mission (O'Hare et al., 1997~. The data for fiscal years
1995 and 1996 on the status of installations are grouped into five broad areas:
mission facilities, strategic mobility facilities, housing facilities, community fa-
cilities, and installation support. The ISR also includes ratings indicating whether
the Army has enough facilities and whether existing facilities meet Army stan-
dards (GAO, 1997~. Refinements to this program are planned.
A new EMS being deployed by the Army's Construction Engineering Re-
search Laboratories, called BUILDER, is designed for owners of large numbers
of buildings for managing building assets, both individually and in groups, in-
cluding the development of long-range maintenance and repair plans. BUILDER
"combines inventory, inspection, condition assessment, condition prediction, and
M&R [maintenance and repair] planning features in a Windows™ software en-
vironment" (Uzarski and Burley, 1997~. The BUILDER system incorporates a
variety of technologies and methods, including an inventory of major building
components, video imaging, checklist-style inspections, presentation graphics,
and an interface to geographical information systems. Field experience with the
BUILDER system will be used to evaluate its utility, accuracy, and cost effec-
tiveness.
Another development in condition assessment practices, known as reliabil-
ity centered maintenance (RCM), is "real-time" monitoring of building and
equipment conditions based on concepts developed in the airline industry in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. RCM has been used extensively in the aircraft, space,
defense, and nuclear industries where functional failures can result in loss of
life, have national security implications, and/or have extreme environmental
impacts (NASA, 1996~. The primary purpose of a traditional RCM program is to
ensure safety at any cost; cost effectiveness is a secondary goal. A rigorous
RCM analysis based on a detailed failure modes and effects analysis is used to
OCR for page 49
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
49
determine appropriate maintenance for each identified failure mode and its con-
sequences. RCM decisions are based on maintenance requirements derived from
sound technical and economic justifications (NASA, 1996~. An RCM program
may not be the most practical or cost-effective approach for all facility mainte-
nance programs.
The version of RCM being used by NASA is not, strictly speaking, a condi-
tion assessment process. RCM, "as defined and applied to facilities maintenance
by NASA, is the integration of reactive maintenance (run-to-failure or break-
down maintenance), preventive (interval-based) maintenance, PT&I [predictive
testing and inspection] (condition-based) and proactive maintenance. RCM ap-
plies these four techniques in combination where each is most appropriate based
upon the consequences of equipment failure and its impact on organization, mis-
sion, safety, environment, and Life-Cycle Cost (LCC)" (NASA, 1996~. The com-
bination of techniques is intended to ensure the reliability of equipment and build-
ing components and minimize maintenance costs. The U.S. State Department,
and possibly other federal agencies, are evaluating NASA's version of RCM as
part of their comprehensive maintenance strategies.
ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY
Recent organizational downsizing has prompted facilities program managers
to look to technology to provide facility-related data for decision making. Task 2
of the committee's charge was to investigate the role of technology in performing
automated condition assessments. The committee reviewed (1) technologies that
can support the collection and analysis of data for condition assessments and
(2) technologies that could automate the condition assessment process itself.
Collection and Analysis of Data
With advancements in computer technology, pen-based data collection de-
vices are now available that can guide inspectors through the inspection process,
validate data in real time, and save time and eliminate errors as inspection data
are uploaded to host systems.6 Although these devices have a number of advan-
tages, they also have some drawbacks: the average cost per unit is more than
$2,000; they can be difficult to read in bright light; they can be cumbersome to
use around mechanical and electrical equipment; they are susceptible to damage
from falls and hard knocks; and they can be difficult to transport into tight spaces
or up to rooftops.7
6Pen-based data collection devices have been used by DOE and DoD for both CASs and facility
inventories.
7DoD inspectors used this system as part of the "Fence-to-Fence" CAS at 12 DoD Installations and
the Facility Management System at Fort Riley, Kansas.
OCR for page 50
so
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Another device, a bar code scanner, provides a relatively low-cost method of
standardizing and uploading the data collection process but does not have the
flexibility to adjust to unique situations or conditions. Bar code scanners typically
have wand-type recording units that scan various condition codes carried by in-
spectors on cards or in booklets. The units are relatively durable in the field and
are an inexpensive means to capture data as long as the inspection process is
simple and does not require substantial data entry.
Recent developments include the integration of geographical information
systems with video and inspection data through a mix of digital camera, auto-
mated data collection devices and Global Positioning System technologies to pro-
vide an integrated data process for assessing the condition of a system.8
Testing and Instrumentation
With testing and instrumentation, facilities program managers can monitor
the overall condition of their key assets. The committee identified two types of
testing that could be useful for federal facilities managers: real-time monitoring
and systematic inspection.
NASA has an ongoing program of real-time monitoring, the RCM program,
to manage the condition of physical assets, primarily machinery. Real-time
monitoring, in the form of predictive testing and inspection, uses primarily non-
intrusive testing techniques, visual inspection, and performance data to assess the
condition of machinery. NASA now schedules maintenance only when it is war-
ranted by the condition of the equipment rather than on a predetermined schedule.
Continuing analysis allows NASA to plan and schedule maintenance or repairs to
prevent catastrophic or functional failures and, at the same time, to optimize its
resources (NASA, 1996~. NASA also uses predictive technologies for monitoring
the condition of critical building components, but not as extensively. The DOE
now uses third parties for proactive system monitoring and instrumentation as
part of their overall asset management programs. The committee did not identify
any other federal agencies that use real-time monitoring to manage the condition
of their physical assets.
Systematic inspections based on testing and instrumentation equipment as a
means of monitoring the condition of individual systems are widely used by in-
dustry. Examples of technologies used in the private sector are listed in Table 3-1.
A number of nondestructive evaluation methods9 for determining the condi-
tion of infrastructure, particularly of bridges and pavements, are available and in
use in limited applications. "Nondestructive evaluation can be performed using a
The University of Arkansas Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center and the North Carolina De-
partment of Transportation use similar systems.
Nondestructive evaluation involves the "use of tests to examine an object or material to detect
imperfections, determine properties, or assess quality without changing its usefulness" (McGraw-Hill
Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1997).
OCR for page 51
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
TABLE 3-1 Technologies Widely Used in the Private Sector
51
Type of Inspection
Time Interval
Thermographic analysis of electrical panels
Eddy current analysis for chillers
Roof moisture analysis
2 to 5 year intervals
5 to 8 year intervals
5 to 10 year intervals
wide range of technologies that include a simple visual survey to photographic
methods to noncontact sensors" (Uddin and Najafi, 1997~. These techniques are
"most commonly used to evaluate the extent of damage discovered in a more
traditional inspection, although some types of NDE [nondestructive evaluation]
techniques can be used in place of visual inspection" (Sanford and McNeil, 1997~.
Some of these technologies include radar for evaluating structural integrity,
delamination, layer delineation, voids, and moisture damage; and, infrared ther-
mography for measuring temperature, detecting leaks, delamination, defective
areas, and for stress mapping. "Acoustic and ultrasonic testing and laser tech-
nologies are being used for detecting cracking and defects, . . . faulting of trans-
verse joints, and surface texture and displacement measurements" (Uddin and
Najafi, 1997~.
Data Management Systems
In recent years, computer-aided facility management systems (CAFM) and
computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS), which are similar, but
not necessarily congruent, have advanced. CAFMs and CMMSs are used in a
wide range of applications, from facility and space planning to preventive main-
tenance and parts inventories to budgeting and project management. As these
systems continue to mature, vendors are offering a wide range of hardware and
software products and services, as well as tools to produce and manage informa-
tion. Few standards have been established for these systems, however, and the
technologies are changing rapidly. Federal program managers must first evaluate
their agency's needs and objectives and reporting requirements before choosing a
computerized system.
Decision Support
The increase in the availability of computer systems has provided one of the
most attainable and useful technological advances for facilities program manag-
ers. Current decision-support technologies offer a wide array of facility analysis
tools with the capability to project maintenance and repair requirements, deter-
mine life cycle costs, and prioritize needs.
OCR for page 52
52
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published in-
formation on a number of standard practices that can provide facilities program
managers with automated analysis tools to determine benefit-to-cost and savings-
to-investment ratios, internal rate of return, and net benefits for infrastructure
investments (ASTM, 1992~. In addition, a number of multiple-attribute decision-
making methods have been developed and automated for use in evaluating facil-
ity maintenance and repair requirements based on multiple criteria.l° These
decision-support tools have been used for quite some time for the evaluation of
weapons platforms, software systems, and research and development projects and
could also provide facilities program managers with defensible methodologies
for evaluating and prioritizing maintenance and repair requirements.
Intelligent Buildings
In 1988, the Building Research Board of the National Research Council un-
dertook a study entitled Electronically Enhanced Office Buildings to provide guid-
ance to project administrators, building owners, chief executive officers, and fa-
cility planners about incorporating modern electronic technology in new or
renovated buildings (NRC, 1988~. "Smart" or "intelligent" buildings were made
possible by the convergent evolution of communication, control, and computer
technologies that had the potential to create highly efficient, automated buildings
that could be monitored for energy, environmental, and life safety parameters and
which could then respond to either remote or preprogrammed control. These in-
telligent building systems are governed by straightforward feedback and control
logic, which predated by many years the technologies that could implement them
economically. However, the energy crisis of the 1970s and the resultant national
focus on energy efficiency provided an economic motive for reducing building
energy costs and ultimately led to the development and deployment of the neces-
sary technologies. Today's intelligent buildings integrate sensor and monitoring
devices, data transmission capability by means of telephone lines, fiber optic
cable, or satellite uplinks, computers for data management and decision making,
and microprocessor control devices. Most of the control decisions are pre-
programmed and require little, if any, operator intervention. However, the con-
cern that the realization of these buildings would fall far short of their potential
has still not been fully addressed (Teicholz and Ikeda, 1995~. Although the num-
ber of existing buildings that now offer one or more of these features has in-
creased, the potential of these technologies has not been fully realized. In light of
this, the committee attempted to determine if intelligent building technologies
could be used for the monitoring, diagnosis, and management of potential main-
tenance problems, i.e., automated condition assessments.
I°Current applications include Fort Riley's facility management decision support system and
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport's capital asset prioritization system.
OCR for page 53
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
53
Building Diagnostics
The concept of building diagnostics was defined in a previous NRC study
(1985) as: a set of practices that are used to assess the current performance capa-
bility of a building and to predict its likely performance in the future.
The essential elements of a building diagnostics program are:
· knowledge of what to measure
· appropriate instruments and other measurement tools
· expertise to interpret the results
· a capability for predicting the future condition of the building
Ideally, a building diagnostics program would enable a facilities program man-
ager to devise corrective procedures when the future condition is likely to be
undesirable. Although all components of a building and its systems could be in-
cluded in a building diagnostics program, as a practical matter, the process is
particularly well suited to the components and systems with high consequences
of failure.
Automated Condition Assessments
The idea of linking building diagnostics with the monitoring and control
capabilities inherent in intelligent buildings is very appealing. Building diagnos-
tics deal with the measurement and interpretation of data and the relationship of
those data to expected building performance. Technology for monitoring, telem-
etry, processing, and control, as well as the capability to integrate these technolo-
gies, is well developed, if not fully mature, and is already deployed in many
buildings. Automating the condition assessment process for high-consequence
systems through intelligent building technologies would appear to be a small
step. However, at the present time, such systems are not widely used (Smith,
1998).
Microprocessor technology has made it possible for manufacturers to include
intelligent controllers on various types of mechanical equipment, such as heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning systems, chillers, and boilers. Enabling these
systems to communicate and share data with each other is a matter of systems
integration. The capability for them to work together is referred to as inter-
operability. Integration can occur at both the equipment level (unified control of
the various devices) and the information level (the ability to access and process
data from intelligent equipment). One of the chief impediments to full inter-
operability has been the lack of a unified standard or protocol for communica-
tions between individual devices. The BACnet™ communication protocol for
building operating systems is an attempt to overcome this impediment (ASHRAE,
1994) and could be an important step toward full and open systems integration.
OCR for page 54
54
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Open systems integration is also a requirement for automated condition assess-
ment systems. A simplified diagram of an automated condition assessment pro-
cess is shown in Figure 3-1.
Beyond the "traditional" control of building mechanical systems, existing
sensor and microprocessor technologies also have the potential to monitor and
manage a range of environmental parameters that are difficult to inspect and mea-
sure during routine site visits and condition assessments. For example, interior
building moisture levels behind walls and bulkheads may indicate that conditions
are favorable to the growth of micro-organisms associated with Sick Building
Syndrome and other adverse health effects. Sensor nets could be installed at the
time of construction (or major renovations) to monitor and report on moisture
levels and bring potential problem areas to the attention of facility managers long
before they become serious. The same technology could also be used to monitor
the integrity of the roof system.
Although there are numerous possible applications of currently available in-
telligent building technologies for monitoring and assessing buildings and their
systems, proactive building diagnostic systems have not been widely deployed.
The primary reason appears to be that economic paybacks to justify the initial
cost of the systems themselves have not been well documented (Clear, 1998;
Smith, 1998; Teicholz, 1998~. Unlike process industries where automation and
monitoring can be shown to have direct and quantifiable beneficial effects on the
FIGURE 3-1 Logic and activity flow of an automated condition assessment process.
OCR for page 55
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
55
process, financial practices in the real estate industry do not always account for
total life-cycle costs, which makes it difficult to justify the cost of automated
systems (Petze, 1996~. Unless a building owner is committed to reducing the life-
cycle cost of a building and maintaining it at a high performance level, he is not
likely to install these expensive systems.
The availability of a technology does not ensure its deployment. The tech-
nology must also be reliable and affordable and must clearly demonstrate benefits
over existing methods. At this time, none of these three conditions can be met
unequivocally for proactive building diagnostic systems. Although individual
system components with acceptable reliability exist, sufficient experience with
the components integrated into an automated condition assessment system does
not. Affordability is a relative term, the absolute values of which can only be
determined in application. Although the benefits of an automated system are as-
sumed to include timely reporting (and avoidance) of problem conditions with
associated long-term cost savings (as well as potential direct savings over exist-
ing condition assessment practices), data to support this assumption are not readily
available.
Automating the condition assessment process offers the federal facilities pro-
gram manager the potential for cost savings, improved building performance, and
a means of coping with reduced staffing levels. The data to test these assumptions
could be obtained either by designing and installing several systems in new fed-
eral buildings or by studying and evaluating buildings that already have them in
the private sector. The federal government's responsibility for the long-term
stewardship of buildings and facilities supports this kind of leadership role in
deploying new building technologies and accepting higher first costs to reduce
life-cycle costs.
Personnel Implications
Automated condition assessment processes will require different skills than
are typically found in facility management and maintenance organizations. Intel-
ligent buildings with building automation systems require facilities personnel to
be familiar with a broad range of computer applications (graphics, databases, and
spreadsheets) as well as hardware (personal computers and microprocessors).
Personnel involved in automated condition assessments would be expected to
have similar computer skills. Increasing the level of building sophistication will
require staff to maintain and update the software systems and will require con-
tinuous training for operations and maintenance personnel. Although automated
processes may require fewer personnel (or in turn be driven by them), the cost of
highly trained, computer-literate facility technicians necessary to maintain these
systems may offset any apparent savings attributable to downsizing. Therefore,
decisions regarding the automation of monitoring and assessment processes
should be based on a full life-cycle and building performance analysis.
OCR for page 56
56
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
ISSUES RELATED TO CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
The use of condition assessments by federal agencies is increasing. Attempts
to catalog maintenance and repair deficiencies have evolved to include computer-
ized programs with automated checklists linking condition assessment data to
agency mission and improving facility management. NASA's condition assess-
ment practices involve a sophisticated mix of regular inspections and predictive
testing and instrumentation, as well as computerized programs. Federal agencies
with condition assessment programs have generally developed them indepen-
dently to meet their specific needs within resource constraints. Consequently, the
level of sophistication varies widely.
Based on the information available to the committee, condition assessment
programs, as currently practiced in federal agencies, are labor intensive, expen-
sive to maintain, and time consuming. In theory, CASs provide excellent infor-
mation as a basis for facilities management practices and maintenance and repair
budget requests. In practice, the data are usually not provided in a time frame or
format that is useful for cost-effective facilities management.
Cost of Data Collection
A database containing the numbers, ages, and sizes of buildings and similar
"inventory" characteristics requires that data be gathered only once and updated
when major changes occur, such as the acquisition of a new facility, the comple-
tion of a major addition, or the demolition of a building. The cost of establishing
a database will depend on the number of facilities in the inventory. Once estab-
lished, the maintenance of this type of database costs relatively little. In contrast,
data related to the condition of buildings and their components must be gathered
and updated on a regular basis to be useful. Condition-related data are usually
gathered through inspections by trained personnel, often a team of several spe-
cialists. Facilities may be inspected on a two to five year cycle. Because of the
personnel, equipment, data entry, and time involved in inspecting large inventories
of buildings, the cost of data collection is high. For most agencies and organiza-
tions, "tradeoffs occur between the amount of data collected, the frequency at
which it is collected, the quality of the data, and the cost of the entire process,
including data entry and storage" (Sanford and McNeil, 1997~.
Type and Volume of Data Collected
The federal agency condition assessment programs reviewed by the commit-
tee were designed to be comprehensive. Besides inspecting critical building com-
ponents and systems, such as roofs, plumbing, electrical, and fire safety systems,
agencies also collect data on more cosmetic deficiencies, such as broken door
locks, and torn or worn carpeting. Having a team of inspectors identify both sys-
tem and cosmetic deficiencies involves more time, resources, and data entry, and,
OCR for page 57
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
57
therefore, higher costs than having them identify only critical component defi-
ciencies. Including cosmetic deficiencies in a condition assessment program
makes it more labor intensive and data intensive and, therefore, more expensive.
More important, perhaps, the information collected becomes less timely, more diffi-
cult to analyze, and, consequently, less useful for ongoing facilities management.
Timeliness of Data
Current practices take so long to gather and analyze condition assessments
that the information loses its value in the budget development process. Even one
of the most sophisticated condition assessment programs, the Air Force's Com-
manders' Facility Assessment, has reported difficulties in keeping the data timely;
in other agencies, the information is three to five years out of date. In a budget
cycle that begins two years before the actual fiscal year, the information compiled
through condition assessment programs loses much of its value for the develop-
ment and justification of maintenance and repair budget requests.
REFERENCES
AME (Applied Management Engineering). 1991. Managing the Facilities Portfolio: A Practical Ap-
proach to Institutional Facility Renewal and Deferred Maintenance. Washington, D.C.: National
Association of College and University Business Officers.
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers). 1994.
BACnet - A Data Communication Protocol for Building Automation and Control Networks.
Document SPC-135P-031. Atlanta, Gal: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1992. Standards on Building Economics. Phila-
delphia, Pa:. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Claar, C. 1998. Personal communication from Charles Claar, Director of Research, International Fa-
cility Managers' Association, Houston, Texas to Richard Little, Director of Board on Infrastruc-
ture and the Constructed Environment, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. June 6,
1998.
Earl, R. W. 1997. The Condition Assessment Survey: A Case Study for Application to Public Sector
Organizations. Pp. 277-286 in Infrastructure Condition Assessment: Art, Science, and Practice.
Mitsuru Saito, ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
GAO (General Accounting Office). 1997. Defense Infrastructure: Demolition of Unneeded Buildings
Can Help Avoid Operating Costs. Report to the Chair, Subcommittee on Military Installations
and Facilities, Committee on National Security, U.S. House of Representatives. NSIAD-97-
125. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. 1997. "Nondestructive Testing," 8th ea., vol.
12, pp. 32-37. Chicago, Ill.: Lakeside Press.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 1996. Reliability Centered Maintenance
Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment. Washington, D.C.: NASA.
NRC (National Research Council).1985. Building Diagnostics, A Conceptual Framework. Building
Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1988. Electronically Enhanced Office Buildings. Building Research Board, National Research
Council. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.
OCR for page 58
58
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
NRC. 1990. Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings.
Building Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
O'Hara, T. E., J.L. Kays, and J.V. Farr. 1997. Installation status report. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems 3(2): 87-92.
Petze, J. D. 1996. Investing in Facility Automation - Improving Comfort, Air Quality, Building Man-
agement and the Bottom Line. Manchester, N.H.: Teletrol Systems, Inc.
Rugless, J. 1993. Condition assessment surveys. Facilities Engineering Journal 21(3): 11-13.
Sanford, K. and S. McNeil. 1997. Data Modeling for Improved Condition Assessment. Pp. 287-296
in Infrastructure Condition Assessment: Art, Science, and Practice. Mitsuru Saito, ed. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Smith, T. 1998. Personal communication from Thomas Smith, Eastern Regional Manager, Teletrol
Systems, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, to Richard Little, Director of Board on Infrastruc-
ture and the Constructed Environment, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. June 6,
1998.
Teicholz, E. and T. Ikeda. 1995. Facility Management Technology Lessons from the U.S. and Japan.
Engineering and Management Press. Norcross, Gal: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Teicholz, E. 1998. Personal communication from Eric Teicholz, President, Graphic Systems, Inc.,
Cambridge, Massachusetts to Richard Little, Director of Board on Infrastructure and the Con-
structed Environment, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. June 6, 1998.
Uddin, W. and F. Najafi. 1997. Deterioration Mechanisms and Non-Destructive Evaluation for Infra-
structure Life-Cycle Analysis. Pp. 524-533 in Infrastructure Condition Assessment: Art, Sci-
ence, and Practice. Mitsuru Saito, ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
USACIR (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1996. The Potential for Out-
come-Oriented Performance Management to Improve Intergovernmental Delivery of Public
Works Programs. SR-21. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations.
Uzarski, D.R., and L.A. Burley. 1997. Assessing Building Condition by the Use of Condition In-
dexes. Pp. 365-374 in Infrastructure Condition Assessment: Art, Science, and Practice. Mitsuru
Saito, ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
condition assessments
