|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| 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 21
4
CONDITION ASSESSMENT AS A MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT TOOL
The committee recommends that much greater use of formal-
ized condition assessment should be adopted to protect public
assets from wastage. Several federal and state agencies have
undertaken condition assessment programs that can serve as
models and teach useful lessons for improving the effectiveness
of maintenance and repair (M&R) activity. The committee's
review of these programs is the basis for the following
suggestions on scope, diagnostic interpretation, and effective use
of condition assessment as a maintenance management tool.
SCOPE AND INITIAL SURVEY
The scope of condition assessment may be limited to the iden-
tification of one specific condition in a building or it may be a
planned comprehensive evaluation of the building. The depth or
level of detailed assessment can vary as well. Comprehensive
assessment programs that address entire buildings and multiple
buildings may be simple, visual, walk-through-type assessments,
or they may be in-depth studies, using a variety of technical
diagnostic techniques. In general, the scope of condition
assessments must be designed to meet the information
requirements of the property owner or manager. The cost of data
collection and analysis and the time required to develop large
amounts of data can be high. The only way to control costs and
time of condition assessment is to clearly and definitively outline
the scope of the effort.
The early detection of potential problems is important in
preventing deterioration, possible damage to adjacent materials
t6 Refer to Appendixes C, D, and E; see also State of North
Carolina (1988) and APPA (1986~.
21
OCR for page 22
or systems, and failure of components and should thus be a pri-
mary objective in designing the condition assessment program.
During condition assessment, systems and materials are inspected
for outright signs of deterioration, failure, or more subtle
symptoms that conditions are not normal. The standards and
procedures that are the basis for assessments may often combine
into checklists that prompt and assist inspectors in the iden-
tification process. The assessment process should be standardized
and performed regularly by individuals trained to recognize and
identify the symptoms of problems. Such symptoms are often
subtle and meaningless to building users or even building
managers who may not understand the significance of telltale
staining, buckling of materials, or minor cracking.
Poor design decisions and faulty construction can create
problems soon after a building is placed in service. This happens
most frequently at the interfaces between components, especially
different systems, or components by different manufacturers or
suppliers. The implications of such interfaces may not be fully
anticipated or understood during the design phase. Later, during
construction, problems in compatibility or dimensioning may be
exacerbated due to "field engineering" solutions. The condition
assessment should direct particular attention to these interfaces.
DIAGNOSTIC INTERPRETATION
Following the survey to identify symptoms of problems or
deficiencies, the next step in condition assessment is to perform
a diagnostic analysis to determine if there is, in fact, a problem,
the nature and extent of the problem, and options for corrective
action. The successful analysis will require technical knowledge
of the systems involved, most frequently the materials used in
construction and maintenance. Interpretation may range from
straightforward moisture problems caused by leaks to complex
interpretation of risks associated with toxic materials, mechanical
or electrical system performance, intelligent control systems,
structural loading, or fire safety. Such knowledge may be gained
initially through experience and training in the building trades
or through university education.
Predictions or estimates of the remaining useful life of a
component must often be made. Funding decisions must often be
made based on which problems are most severe. Inspectors may
be asked to indicate which components may fail first and which
can be expected to continue to function--perhaps at a reduced
level--for some period of time. Effective condition assessments
depend on such predictions, which then become the basis for
establishing the repair component of M&R budgets.
22
OCR for page 23
The diagnostic analysis should be based on- logical, standard-
ized, professionally developed procedures to ensure that identi-
fied deficiencies are efficiently and correctly evaluated. Faulty
analysis or unsubstantiated speculation can be costly and danger
ous.
EFFECTIVE USE OF CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Because condition assessment involves field surveys, accumu-
lation and use of substantial amounts of data, and trained per-
sonnel, the exercise can be costly. Care must be taken to assure
that the assessment program is cost effective in reducing backlog
and in minimizing costs of ownership.
Control of costs is achieved through proper planning and
control of the scope of the assessment. Decisions must be made
on what aspects of the building are to be inspected and to what
level of detail the evaluation will be undertaken. For example,
will inspectors be required to examine every space or system? If
inspecting electrical systems, will pane} covers be removed? Will
there be circuit testing? Answers to such questions depend on
the specific needs of each property owner or agency.
One approach to reaching these answers is "filtering." Filter-
ing generally means applying selective criteria to larger numbers
of buildings to determine if some should be inspected earlier than
(or to the exclusion of) others. For example, the assessment may
initially include only older buildings, buildings of a certain
construction type, or a small number of buildings selected to be
representative of the total inventory. Filtering may be applied
to systems as well, such as when an owner is upgrading telecom-
munications or data processing in all buildings.
Standardization of the inspection and diagnostic analysis is
one of the most important means of controlling costs of a condi-
tion assessment program. Fixed checklists or guidelines are the
basis for such standardization and will assure that data collected
are consistent from one building to another and can be summar-
ized or "rolled up" to represent the larger numbers of buildings
in a total inventory. Standardization improves data reliability
and allows flaws, gaps, or inconsistencies in the data collection
process to be detected more easily. More standardized assessment
programs also may become more useful to the entire community
of building owners or managers as a basis for statistical analysis
and subsequent development of better management models for
building systems maintenance.
The condition assessment team should be given target esti-
mates of levels of anticipated problems, time required for
inspection, number of buildings to be inspected, symptom of
23
OCR for page 24
checklists, and standards to be applied in identifying symptoms.
Assessments may be conducted by dedicated teams, including
architects, engineers, inspectors, other consultants, students, or
others trained for the job, depending on the requirements of the
program.
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT
Standardization of condition assessment procedures and quali-
fications of the teams responsible for condition assessment will
be achieved more rapidly if definite guidelines are developed.
Federal agencies, as owners and users of large inventories of
buildings, would benefit from the development of such guide-
lines, and the committee recommends that these agencies sponsor
this development. The agencies should work together--and with
state and local governments and private sector owners--to assure
that the data bases ultimately resulting from their effort are of
the broadest possible use.
Examples of programs already in operation may serve as use-
ful models~for this work. The State of Florida, for example,
requires condition assessments of state buildings at least every
3 years, and the state's Department of General Services has
established a computer-based inventory system to support the
program.
References
Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA) et al.,
The Decaying American Camous: A Tickine Time Bomb,
Alexandria, Va., APPA, 1986.
State of North Carolina, FacilitY Condition Evaluation and
Maintenance Planning Program, DSA Group of N.C., Inc., for the
State Construction Office, Department of Administration,
Raleigh, N.C., 2nd draft report, May 20, 1988.
24
Representative terms from entire chapter:
assessment programs
