Using the ASTM/ANSI Standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability 1 for major asset and portfolio decisions

Transcription

1 507 Using the ASTM/ANSI Standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability 1 Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis International Center for Facilities 440 Laurier Ave. West, Suite 200, Ottawa, ON K1R 7X6 Canada info@icf-cebe.com Abstract This paper reports on the use of the ASTM/ANSI standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability to prepare a profile of functional requirements for a major organization and its five main groups, a rating profile of the capability of the building they are currently occupying to meet those requirements, and to assess the match between the profiles. The building is on a long-term lease managed by the US Government Services Administration (GSA). GSA used the results from these profiles and comparison in deciding whether to buy the building or move out. ASTM/ANSI standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability provides the tools to capture actionable, customer defined needs, and match them to indicators of capability expressed as ranges of performance on different topics. The ASTM standards can also be used to compare the capabilities of several facilities, or the functional requirements of several groups. There is a lot to be learned from doing Needs Analyses and Building Evaluations. But to be useful for asset and portfolio management, Building Evaluations need to be linked to Customer Functional Needs on one hand and Customer Satisfaction on the other, as part of a comprehensive system of measurements. The use of these standards in project processes such as those of GSA is diagrammed and described. Keywords: functionality; indicators of capability; serviceability; suitability; user requirements; workplaces. Overview of the Functionality-and-Serviceability Approach The F&S approach helps facility managers to better meet functional and financial goals, avoid or reduce cost overruns, ease communication, and support value engineering. The Functionality-and-Serviceability (F&STM) approach should be used by a facility manager to: Deliver facilities that more closely meet the functional needs and financial goals of tenants. Avoid or reduce cost overruns from project budgets due to late recognition of required features in a project. Ease communication with occupants, and encourage collaboration. Identify surplus capability that is a safe target for cost cuts, while helping to avoid cuts that reduce functionality, as can happen during a value-engineering review that lacks information about minimum threshold levels for functionality and serviceability. As diagrammed in Figure 1 on the next page, the F&S approach uses standard, calibrated multiple-choice questionnaires to define the levels of functionality and service life required by stakeholders. A different but matched set of standard, calibrated multiple-choice questionnaires is used to measure the levels of capability to perform, and service life, of a Proceedings of the CIB W Global Symposium Copyright 2002 by CIB and CABER

2 508 design, a building, or infrastructure. The two sets of levels are compared to determine if the capability is the same, or more or less, than is required. Cost is low. Cost is low for using the F&S approach to avoid or reduce later change orders and cost overruns. For a typical 50,000 sq.ft. or 100,000 sq.ft office building, a basic rating profile can be done by a knowledgeable property manager in about three or four hours, or by an outside consultant for a few thousand dollars. For a consultant to apply an organization s requirement profile is about a quarter to half more work than doing a rating. Demand Suitability Supply Required Functionality Calibrated tools to define the levels of functionality and service life required by stakeholders Diagram by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis 0 Compare Supply is more = Supply is less = Supply matches demand = Standard demand and supply scales are different, but matched Rating of Serviceability Calibrated tools to measure the levels of capability to perform, of a design, a building, or infrastructure, and the anticipated service life 1993, 2001, 2002 International Centre for Facilities Figure 1. Core elements of the Functionality/Serviceability approach Use the F&S approach as part of Feasibility Study, and for management of a portfolio of property. Manage and measure functionality during design. A portfolio management group would use the F&S approach as part of the Feasibility Study phase, when deciding on a course of action about a tenant that requires new or replacement facilities, or a building that requires a comprehensive refit. The F&S approach is also being used for strategic management of a portfolio, by comparing the capability of major buildings in the portfolio against the typical requirement profiles of occupants. At several milestones of a capital project, the design should be rated and compared against the required functionality profile. This will provide early warning of shortfalls that might require changes that later would be costly. It can also save cost by identifying instances where the design calls for a higher level of functionality than has been specified.

3 509 Select best value among rental proposals. Asset Managers and Project Managers likely lead use of F&S approach. Update requirement and rating profiles at major changes and milestones. When comparing rental proposals, ratings of the facilities on offer can show which provides best value to the occupants, in support of their organization s mission. If an offer is for renovation or remodeling of an existing building, or for new construction, the designs can be rated and compared to other such offers, or to existing facilities. At the start of a project, and during the Feasibility Study, it is likely that Asset Managers in a Portfolio Management group will be the responsible lead in applying the F&S approach. During the Program Development phase, it is likely that a project manager from will be responsible. Requirement and rating profiles should be updated when there is a change of occupants or a change of mission of the occupants, or when a lease is about to expire, or otherwise on a regular cycle, e.g. after five years. The Case Study Example 2 Overview Report provided by GSA as aid to the Divisions. In the 1960 s, GSA had rented approximately 121,000 m2 (1,300,000 sq.ft.) in a large building in the National Capital Region. In 2001, the Building housed five operating divisions (Divisions) of a large government department. In 2001, the functionality requirements for office facilities were ascertained for each of the Divisions, using the American National Standard classifications for whole building functionality and serviceability. Five reports were prepared. Division can compare functionality requirements to facilities it now occupies. A report for each Division sets out what level of workplace functionality that Division needs so that its workplaces will support, enhance, and not impede, achievement of the Division s strategy and the functioning of its staff. It gives a numeric level of functionality on each of about 100 topics. These standard classifications enable managers of each Division, and their staff who work in the Building, to measure the fitness for purpose of their facilities. With the standards, they can numerically link functionality requirements to the business strategy of their Division, can measure the functional capability of facilities provided, and can verify that those facilities match the stated requirements. Building did not meet Division s functionality requirement. When the rating of serviceability of the Building was compared to the functionality Requirement of the Divisions, it was clear that the Building was not suitable for them. This study provided information on the physical changes that would be needed, but not the cost, to make the building suitable for them.

4 510 GSA used report in deciding about the building. GSA also used the findings from this study in making decisions about the future use of the building, for which GSA s lease will expire in Compare functionality requirements to those of other agencies and of the private sector. Because these classification tools, and the methods for using them, are American National Standards, the Divisions were also able to compare their requirement levels to those of other government agencies, and to relevant organisations in the private sector. Functionality requirement levels of Divisions mostly similar to each other. Functionality requirements respond to new needs: Support anticipated information technology. Attract and retain high quality staff to replace retirees. The overall functionality requirements of all the Divisions were found to be very similar, in this study. For example, compared to the average levels of all the Divisions, the barcharts of one Division show 6 significant differences out of about 100 topics. The functionality requirements for this Division, as for the other Divisions, is noticeably more demanding than comparable government offices would have called for a few years ago, in these respects: Infrastructure to support anticipated information technology: The requirement profiles support much greater volumes of data use at the workstation, and much higher expected data transfer rates between workstations, servers, and networks, than in the past. Attract and retain high quality staff to replace the large proportion of the government workforce becoming eligible for retirement in the next few years: The requirement profiles call for a more functional and attractive physical setting of work than has traditionally been offered in government, and support a high-quality image for government work. In this example, the Division had higher requirement levels than other Divisions for some security, image, and operating topics. The 6 topics on the list below are there because of needs particularly important: Support for informal meetings and interaction. Protection around the building. Identity outside the building. Telecom center/situation room for managing in emergencies. Bicycle racks for staff. Special cleaning. The report also noted the need to take into account differences between stated present policy of the Division, and what management expects will be policy in future years, for instance on some security needs, and on use of an emergency situation room.

5 511 The Division had many significant differences from the requirements of a generic corporate headquarters. Most differences from private sector are caused by the kind of work this Division does. On about a quarter of the topics, this Division s requirement levels are significantly different from the Generic Requirement Profile for a Corporate HQ, as developed by the International Centre for Facilities. These differences are not surprising, considering the types of work the Division s people do, and their relationship to various sectors of the American public and to the world. For instance, Generic Corporate HQ has significantly higher requirements on 16 functional areas, including: Rates of change and churn in its facilities. Freedom from disruption during change and realignment of facilities. Security, e.g. separation between secure areas and general work areas. Public circulation and wayfinding, particularly for visitors. Janitor facilities and ease of cleaning. Energy conservation and energy management. On 7 topics, Generic Corporate HQ has significantly lower requirements. Functional areas of significant difference include: Security and protection around the building and site. Image of public spaces within the building. Availability of food service in the building. Cleanliness and cleaning of exterior and public areas, toilets and washrooms, and special zones, such as computer spaces and food service areas. Use the overall requirement profile to get a quick indication if a facility would be suitable for offices of this Division. The report presented a single, overall profile of levels for offices of the Division. Management can use it when deciding if a facility which the Division would consider occupying would be suitable. For instance, this profile can be provided to GSA, or to a rental agent, to screen properties on offer for rental. Then it can be used to describe and compare specific changes that would be needed to make a property fully suitable for the Division, and to rank those changes in order of importance for the Division s operations. This knowledge is particularly useful when negotiating with a potential landlord. Some requirements must be met for the whole building, so are higher levels than many in the Division would expect. Some requirement levels for one of the Division s occupant groups affect what will be provided for all the others. For instance, some of the occupants may require a large, secure loading dock area, while others have only minimal need. Because the loading dock area serves all occupants of a building, the requirement of a few can only be met by a facility from which all will benefit. Some requirements could be met on a zone-by-zone basis. In some other instances, where an occupant group's requirement is higher than the overall level set for the Division, the group could be accommodated in a zone of the building with this higher level.

6 512 The Division can compare functional requirements to the proposed designs of future facilities. The Division can use this requirement profile to assess how well the design for a proposed new facility will meet its functional needs. Similarly, private sector corporations, and other government agencies, have used their requirement profile to consider how well an architect s design proposal meets their needs, to audit the functionality of a design, and to select among design-bid proposals in which design and price are combined in each proposal. How suitable is a facility, or inventory for its intended purpose? Suitability of a facility = how well serviceability, condition and remaining service life meet requirements. A facility that is being assessed should be classified into categories from A to D according to how suitable it is for a specified occupant group or function, which can be the current or future occupants. This is determined by comparing the requirement profile, or profiles, of the occupant group(s) or function(s) to a composite classification of serviceability, condition and remaining service life, from A to D. (Refer to Figure 3 for details and an example.) Categories are as follows: A = OK at present. B = Thresholds and/or 10% to 30% of topics miss significantly. C = Serious problems, but not immediate. D = Immediate action needed, e.g. for health or safety. In dealing with an inventory, it is likely that a generic or typical profile, or a set of requirement profiles will be use as benchmarks. A first scan of an inventory can be very low cost. A quick scan of all major facilities in each regional portfolio is recommended. This might include all buildings or tenancies of size that is larger than a certain limit. (e.g. larger than 50,000 sq.ft. or 100,000 sq.ft.) The first time the inventory is classified this way, the data can be gathered by interviewing building managers and their outsource operations providers. This should cost, on average, a fraction of a cent per square foot. When classifying an inventory for the first time, it is usually not necessary to rate on all topics. A short list of the most important topics, typically half or less, will likely be sufficient. For the first scan, if requirement profiles for occupants are not yet available, facilities can be compared to generic requirement profiles for comparable organizations, having similar work functions. Then, the profiles can be updated at milestone events, such as a change in occupants, or a change in lease, or if a major renovation or remodel is planned.

7 513 How the Functionality-and-Serviceability approach fits into the Life Cycle of Facilities Profiles of facilities in the portfolio The F&S approach can be used at several specific points in the life cycle of a facility. Just when, and to what purpose, depends on whether the facility is leased or owned, on whether or not there will be a prospectus-level project, and how the facility fits into the Local Portfolio Plan. Figure 5 is the Diagram: Life Cycle of Facilities: Processes Asset Management Plans At the end of this report are three diagrams. Figure 4, Life Cycle of Facilities: Three Main Phases, gives an overview of the life cycle. Figure 6 goes into more detail. In Figure 5, the diagram that is titled, Life Cycle of Facilities: Processes, each task in which use of the F&S approach is appropriate is indicated by italics. The text in italics at left in this section repeats words in italics from Figure 5. The text in this column, below, summarizes appropriate use of the F&S approach at that time in the Life Cycle. This is more inclusive than what has been a typical Asset Business Plan. For instance, the Asset Management Plan should include a serviceability rating that expresses the capability of the facility to meet the functionality requirements of any tenant. In addition, the Asset Management Plan should include the functionality requirement profile of the present occupants, and a graph showing the fit (or lack of fit) between the two. Often, levels on only selected topics will be included in an Asset Management Plan, e.g. about half the total list of topics. The Asset Management Plan should include not only the Building Evaluation Report or Building Engineering Report (BER), but also a translation into levels on the scales of Condition and Remaining Service Life (C&RSL). (These are new scales, now being prepared for standardization by the International Centre for Facilities.) This task typically takes less than half a day for someone knowledgeable about the facility, such as the person who prepared the BER, or the building manager. Then, this profile of Condition and Remaining Service Life can be compared graphically with the C&RSL requirement profile for the facility, that implements the overall portfolio management plan. The proposed fiscal year of any indicated remedial action should be indicated. (Refer also to Figure 3 for an example of a portfolio-level recap of this information.

8 514 Overall Portfolio Management Plan The strategy for portfolio operations is summed up in the Overall Portfolio Management Plan. It is the framework within which individual Asset Management Plans are created and carried out. It takes into account both the Serviceability profiles of facilities in the portfolio, and the business strategy of operating units, translated into the overall real estate strategy. 3 The Requirement Scale for Condition and Remaining Service Life can be used by portfolio managers to set the target levels for major assets, and by asset managers to compare against ratings of actual condition and remaining service life. Compare, then Strategic Programming Shortfalls and surpluses of capability are easily and quickly recognizable when using the F&S approach. As diagrammed in Figure 1, above, it permits direct comparison between what is required, against what is provided, or what is proposed in a design. A summary of significant differences can be graphed to facilitate management decisions. Functional Programming in the Macro Statement of Requirements Each Feasibility Study should include a functionality requirement profile. If the prospective occupants of a facility are known, their functionality requirement profile should be ascertained, either by the occupants or by the real estate organization. If the prospective occupants are not known, then one of the organization s prototypical profiles can be used, or one of the generic profiles created by the International Centre for Facilities. If existing facilities are to be altered or repaired, then the serviceability rating profile of those facilities should be included in the Feasibility Study. If a design for changed or new facilities already exists, it should be rated and its serviceability rating profile should be included. These profiles should be compared to the functionality requirement profile. Technical Programming in the Micro Statement of Requirements Technical programming produces the Micro Statement of Requirements, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. Functionality requirement profile(s) should be a core component of Technical Programming. The functionality requirement profile(s) should be confirmed, because in the intervening period, often a few years, occupant mission and project requirements may have evolved. Until this point, it is likely that requirement levels will have been determined on only a portion of the topics. For a major project, the requirement levels on all remaining topics should be determined. In the process diagrammed in Figure 5 and Figure 6, Program Development System (PDS), and therefore Technical Programming is often carried out by the design Architect- Engineer if one has been selected, or by a separate professional services consultant. Interviews with executives for a PDS will likely provide sufficient information so that no additional executive

9 515 interviews will be required for the functionality requirement profile, or at most only a few executive interviews. However, at the PDS phase, at least an additional three group interviews are recommended for each functionality requirement profile, particularly if there are many topics on which functionality requirement levels had not previously been set. If a bridging process will be followed, with a designbuilder being selected at the completion of design development, then the above process is usually still appropriate. However, if a fully integrated design-build process will be followed, with design intent being provided by the design-build team, then the technical programming typically needs to be further developed, and to include much information otherwise left until Programming for Fitup (see below). Programming for Design or for Fit-up If the design Architect-Engineer team did not prepare the Micro Statement of Requirements, then one of its initial tasks is design programming, in which it confirms the requirements of the project to the client. For a rental project, or a remodel of existing facilities, this may be the immediate predecessor of space planning and definition of all unit spaces. In this task, the existing functionality requirement profile should be a vital reference document, because the resultant design will be compared against it, to ensure compliance. Compare with Statement of Requirements When the procedure calls for three design options as the product of the Design Intent phase, the serviceability of each option should be rated and compared to the functionality requirement profile(s) in the Statement of Requirements. Normally, this objective ranking of relative functionality of the design options takes only a day or two. It is also vital because it can uncover latent issues that if not resolved would cause major functionality, cost or time problems later during the project, or after completion. Usually these are design issues, but sometimes they show that the implications of a particular tenant requirement, or of an organizational constraint or site constraint, had been inadequately understood. A second serviceability rating should be conducted at completion of design development, and before the start of construction drawings and specifications. When compared with the functionality requirement profile(s) in the Statement of Requirements, it should show that any significant shortfalls have been corrected since the rating at end of the Design Intent phase. It is strongly recommended that the Architect-Engineer (A-E) team conduct its own serviceability ratings from time to time during the design phases, so that surprises are avoided when the client rates the design. Some wise project managers even require that the A-E team provide their serviceability rating(s) of the design at each presentation milestone. This speeds the project, and further protects against surprises.

10 516 Integrated Process of Design and Construction In a fully integrated design-build process, Design Intent is provided by the design-build team. Under government rules the design-build team usually cannot be chosen to prepare the Micro Statement of Requirements. Therefore the technical programming typically needs to be developed more completely than for a design-bid-build process. In this case, it should include much information otherwise left until Programming for Fit-up. If a design-builder is selected at the completion of design development, and also if template drawings and specifications are provided to the design team, then the above process is usually still appropriate. Both are a form of the Bridging Process, discussed above. When a special purpose facility is being designed, for which the design team members have little experience, and for which template drawings and specifications are not available, then it is particularly important that the PDS include more detailed information that in Design-Bid-Build would be left until Programming for Fit-up. It is then strongly recommended that the full list of topics be used for the functionality requirement profile. Commissioning and Compare to Requirements A Facility Management organization seeks to ensure that major new construction and renovation projects support client organization missions, meet functional and financial goals, and meet its standards for quality work environments. It is important to know if the functionality and service life requirements were met. The F&S approach allows the Facility Management organization to measure this achievement on every project, objectively and consistently. Furthermore, it is of the greatest importance to its tenants / customers. Therefore, after move-in and as part of the shakedown phase of commissioning, a serviceability rating with fine-tuned text profile should be obtained on each newly-completed facility. If a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is conducted, the report from this rating may be included POE package.

11 517 Update Functionality Requirement and Serviceability Ratings. Compare Over time, as occupant mission and objectives evolve, their functionality requirement levels change. Typically, these changes are only one or two levels up or down, and occupants work around any deficiencies between what is necessary due to changes in mission, and the existing facility. However, occupant satisfaction may decline. At the same time, the facility ages, and its serviceability and condition levels decline, often most obviously in the roof, the mechanical systems and the finish materials on walls and floors. Again, these changes are often only one or two levels up or down, but occupant satisfaction may decline some more, because of the physical deficiencies. It is therefore recommended that the serviceability ratings of all major facilities be reviewed and updated periodically. Doing it after about five years since the last rating may be appropriate for an office building, but whatever the occupant functions, the elapsed time should depend on the level of wear and tear to which a facility is subjected. If a major refit, remodel or rehabilitation occurs, then the facility should be rated as part of commissioning, as noted above. Proposals for Major Repairs and Alterations As noted earlier, each Feasibility Study should include a comparison between the functionality requirement profile(s) and the serviceability rating profile(s). This comparison is needed for the Feasibility Study for a proposed Repair or Alteration project in the same way as for a new tenant requirement. End Notes: 1. ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, Second Edition, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, ISBN ASTM Stock Number WBDG2000. pp This paper is based in part on work by TEAG-The Environmental Analysis Group, under contract to the US Government Services Administration. This work is included here with permission from TEAG. 3. Strategy and Space: managing corporate real estate and facilities for corporate advantage, by Martha A. O Mara, The Free Press, 1999, ISBN

12 518 Figure 2. List of Functionality/Serviceability Topics Letters alongside a topic number and name indicate the topic was selected as most important for one group. The left column of 54 F s indicate which topics were selected by the group that provides facilities to the components of a large organization. The next column, of 54 P s, nearest to the topic number and title, indicates topics selected by a unit with a people priority to attract and retain high quality staff in the changing labor market of the next decade or two. A total of 36 topics are in both selections, and 34 are in only one selection, so the total of topics in one or the other selection, or in both, is 70. A. GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL EFFECTIVENESS A.1 Support for Office Work P A.1.1 Photocopying and office printers A.1.2 Training rooms, general A.1.3 Training rooms for computer skills A.1.4 Interview rooms F A.1.5 Storage and floor loading F A.1.6 Shipping and receiving A.2 Meetings and Group Effectiveness F P A.2.1 Meeting and conference rooms F P A.2.2 Informal meetings and interaction F P A.2.3 Group layout and territory P A.2.4 Group workrooms A.3 Sound and Visual Environment F P A.3.1 Privacy and speech intelligibility F P A.3.2 Distraction and disturbance F A.3.3 Vibration P A.3.4 Lighting and glare F P A.3.5 Adjustment of lighting by occupants P A.3.6 Distant and outside views A.4 Thermal Environment and Indoor Air F P A.4.1 Temperature and humidity F P A.4.2 Indoor air quality F P A.4.3 Ventilation air (supply) P A.4.4 Local adjustment by occupants P A.4.5 Ventilation with openable windows A.5 Typical Office Information Technology F P A.5.1 Office computers and related equipment F P A.5.2 Power at workplace F A.5.3 Building power F P A.5.4 Telecommunications core F P A.5.5 Cable plant F A.5.6 Cooling A.6 Change and Churn by Occupants F P A.6.1 Disruption due to physical change F A.6.2 Illumination, HVAC and sprinklers F P A.6.3 Minor changes to layout A.6.4 Partition wall relocations A.6.5 Lead time for facilities group A.7 Layout and Building Features P A.7.1 Influence of HVAC on layout P A.7.2 Influence of sound and visual features on layout A.7.3 Influence of building loss features on space needs A.8 Protection of Occupant Assets F P A.8.1 Control of access from building public zone to occupant reception zone F P A.8.2 Interior zones of security A.8.3 Vaults and secure rooms F A.8.4 Security of cleaning service systems A.8.5 Security of maintenance service systems A.8.6 Security of renovations outside active hours A.8.7 Systems for secure garbage F P A.8.8 Security of key and card control systems A.9 Facility Protection F A.9.1 Protection around building F P A.9.2 Protection from unauthorized access to site and parking P A.9.3 Protective surveillance of site P A.9.4 Perimeter of building A.9.5 Public zone of building P A.9.6 Facility protection services A.10 Work Outside Normal Hours or Conditions F P A.10.1 Operation outside normal hours F A.10.2 Support after-hours P A.10.3 Temporary loss of external services A.10.4 Continuity of work (during breakdowns) A.11 Image to Public and Occupants (E 1667) F A.11.1 Exterior appearance F P A.11.2 Public lobby of building F P A.11.3 Public spaces within building F P A.11.4 Appearance and spaciousness of office spaces F P A.11.5 Finishes and materials in office spaces A.11.6 Identity outside building F P A.11.7 Neighborhood and site A.11.8 Historic significance A.12 Amenities to Attract and Retain Staff F P A.12.1 Food A.12.2 Shops P A.12.3 Day care F P A.12.4 Exercise room A.12.5 Bicycle racks for staff P A.12.6 Seating away from work areas A.13 Special Facilities and Technologies F P A.13.1 Group or shared conference centre P A.13.2 Video teleconference facilities A.13.3 Simultaneous translation A.13.4 Satellite and microwave links F A.13.5 Mainframe computer centre A.13.6 Telecommunications centre A.14 Location, Access and Wayfinding F P A.14.1 Public transportation (urban sites) A.14.2 Staff visits to other offices F P A.14.3 Vehicular entry and parking P A.14.4 Wayfinding to building and lobby F P A.14.5 Capacity of internal movement systems F P A.14.6 Public circulation and wayfinding in building B. THE PROPERTY AND ITS MANAGEMENT B.1 Structure, Envelope and Grounds F B.1.1 Typical office floors B.1.2 External walls and projections F B.1.3 External windows and doors B.1.4 Roof B.1.5 Basement F B.1.6 Grounds B.2 Manageability B.2.1 Reliability of external supply B.2.2 Anticipated remaining service life B.2.3 Ease of operation B.2.4 Ease of maintenance B.2.5 Ease of cleaning B.2.6 Janitors facilities F P B.2.7 Energy consumption F B.2.8 Energy management and controls B.3 Management of Operations and Maintenance F B.3.1 Strategy and program for operations and maintenance B.3.2 Competences of in-house staff F P B.3.3 Occupant satisfaction B.3.4 Information on unit costs and consumption B.4 Cleanliness F P B.4.1 Exterior and public areas F P B.4.2 Office areas (interior) F P B.4.3 Toilets and washrooms F B.4.4 Special cleaning P B.4.5 Waste disposal for building

13 519 Site 7 Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Count of Topics considered Topics for which information is lacking, so level cannot be set Topics with sufficient information to be able to rate Site 2 Topics with Significant Problems of Fit Serviceability or condition does not meet threshold level Exceptionally important topic, and at least 2 levels below requirement Important topic, and at least 3 levels below requirement Minor importance topic, 4 or more levels below or above requirement Count of Topics with Significant Problems of Fit Topics with Priority Issues Issues identified for immediate action, e.g. health & safety Serious problems require action, eg: to prevent serious deterioration. Not immediate Count of Topics with Priority Issues Category for action Percent of topics without problems or priority issues. Formula is: = Topics with sufficient info Topics Problems of Fit Topics with Priority Issues Topics with sufficient info 96% 94% 89% 83% 76% 74% 71% 60% 58% 51% 71% Category for action A A B B B B B C C C D Calibration Rules for Categories for Action A = OK at present. Close fit for the functionality requirement profile. B = Threshold(s) and/or 10% to 30% of topics miss significantly. C = Serious problems, but not immediate. D = Immediate action needed, e.g. for health or safety. Percent of topics without problems of fit is greater than 90%, meets all threshold levels, and there are no problems of degradation nor "immediate" issues. Miss one or more threshold level(s) and/or significant problems of fit on 10 to 30 percent of topics, but there are no problems of degradation nor "immediate" issues. Need action to protect the asset from serious deterioration, and/or significant problems of fit with more than 30% of topics, but there are no "immediate" issues. Percent of fit is less than 70% and/or need action to protect the asset from serious deterioration or failure. May not meet some threshold levels. There are no "immediate" issues. There is one or more issues identified for immediate consideration, e.g. health or safety. When all the "D" topics are remedied, then the site will be re-categorized as an A or a B or a C. Figure 3. Example of Categories for Action on a Portfolio of Facilities

14 520 Diagrams of process over the life cycle Below, in Figures 4, 5 and 6, are diagrams which illustrate the life cycle of facilities, and the main phases and processes by which they are managed. Figure 4 is an introductory summary diagram. Figure 5 is more detailed, and has been discussed in the preceding pages. Figure 6 contains the most details, and is intended for use when considering the tasks that comprise each process. Figure 4. Life Cycle of Facilities: Three Main Phases

15 521 Figure 5. Life Cycle of Facilities: Processes Figure 6. Main Tasks in the Life Cycle of Facilities