Are you ready for the Government strategy on BIM?

October 18, 2011 by 1 Comment

There has been much comment, speculation and debate recently about the Government BIM strategy and all that it implies and demands. I was at the launch in London and just looking at the crowd who turned up and reading some of the name badges you could tell that on the surface at least, we as UK Plc are beginning to take this thing called Building Information Modelling (BIM) seriously.

My question therefore is not about paying BIM lip service, but are we actually ready as a nation to grab hold of this new process and way of working and make best use of it?

In the past we have come up with some revolutionary ideas, inventions etc, and have all but given them away, or allowed other countries to become world leaders in lets face it, “our” technology.
BIM may not be ours, but that does not stop us being the best in the world at it. Look West and you will see the US has a two year jump start over the rest of us. Look East and you will see nations such as Germany, Russia and China already gaining pace and I do not think they will hand the baton to us if we just ask nicely.
 

So are we really ready? Are you really ready? Not your nation, your company – you?
Answers on a postcard please….

Filed under BIM, Government, Strategy, Technology Tagged with

Integrated working – is it the right time again?

September 7, 2011 by Leave a comment

For those of us who remember back to the early 1990s, the current drive of the Government’s construction strategy to get better value from construction by reforming procurement may seem like a case of history repeating itself (see The Latham Report “Constructing the Team”, 1994).

What is interesting to note is that both reports followed severe recessions in the construction sector which had themselves followed relatively long periods of growth in construction output. Of course this might be no more than coincidence, or it may be an attempt to embed some much-needed structural changes at a time when the industry is experiencing a buyer’s market, so that when times improve there is less tendency for the industry to revert to type.

I welcome the kinds of change that are now mooted: involving suppliers at the time they can add value to a project, which generally means earlier than usual; clients focusing on specifying output performance and designers/contractors working together to develop integrated solutions; supply chains engaged on serial orders that will encourage research and innovation.

We need more fundamental changes

I believe, however, that this will need a wider set of more fundamental changes to be put in place than just exhorting traditionally separate disciplines to work together. There are a number of hidden drivers that I suspect will also have to be tackled for this change to be effective.

These include the fragmentary nature of the client, the underlying power of the finance and insurance industries, and the tendency to think short-term.

A fragmented client comes from devolution of budgets, which itself promotes budgetary responsibility, but which also means that more organisations become occasional clients and don’t have the chance to develop the skills to deal with a sophisticated and confusing industry.

Finance and insurance underpin many of the choices made by developers and designers in terms of the technical standards they build into their schemes – no landlord wants to be left holding a difficult-to-let office block because the permitted floor loadings are outside the norm, irrespective of whether this capacity is ever needed. Manufacturers may feel the need to offer warranties to give their customers a safety net – difficult to achieve when a technology is new and may be favoured from an energy efficiency point of view.

Short term thinking is natural, but is often the enemy of good decision-making. It drives lower capital expenditure at the expense of higher operational costs. This may come from governments not seeing beyond the next election, or officials not seeing beyond their current posting, or organisations behaving as though they were not going to be around for more than a few years. Which is all understandable, but not really defensible. We have tools to help make good, long-term decisions – such as life-cycle costing – all we need to do is not be afraid to use them.

Integrated working for all supporting stakeholders

In my view, the desire for more integrated working must not be restricted to the primary members of the construction industry, but must also extend to all the supporting stakeholders and really engage with the operators and maintainers of buildings and infrastructure – a distinction which is unnecessarily perpetuated by the separation of CAPEX and OPEX budgets inside client organisations.

So, is it the right time for integrated working?

Filed under Construction, Cost efficiency, Performance, Recession Tagged with

Taking lighting to task

September 1, 2011 by Leave a comment

For many years the conventional method of interior lighting for workplaces was by ‘general illumination’. As lighting was not expensive to purchase, install or operate, the principle was to provide illumination over the whole floor area with a high degree of uniformity. This enabled plants or furniture to be subsequently positioned anywhere in the space and easily moved without recourse to changing the lighting array.

Council House 2 - Offices. Spot the five sources of light....

 However for the past decade UK lighting codes and standards have recommended not ‘general’ but ‘task’ lighting. The significance of this change has either been ignored or gone largely un-noticed as the illumination values were basically the same. The new concept recognised that the main critical visual task is only carried out over a small part of the total floor area. The rest of the space is used for circulation, storage, filing and similar activities all of which are less demanding in terms of illumination. Lighting the whole area to the highest illumination required can use about a third more energy than matching the illumination to the different activities.

Energy costs are continuing to rise and therefore providing the right amount of light only where it is needed is beneficial both economically and environmentally. Also variation in illumination can make the space visually more interesting than overall uniformity. Normally the reason for still providing ‘general’ illumination is because the building is a speculative development and there is no client to determine the furniture layout, or simply that the layout has not been decided yet. I think potential tenants need to be aware that for lighting to be visually efficient the equipment should be electrically efficient and the lighting design should suit the activities across the space. Providing light where and when it is not needed is inefficient regardless of lumens per watt performance of the luminaires.  

Recommended illumination levels in the past were based upon the need to determine detail in the visual task, together with the amount of contrast critical nature of the work and the importance of colour discrimination. Recently there have been massive changes to how we read the written word with print on paper largely being replaced by self-illuminated screens of computers, tablets, telephones, information signs, cash registers, etc. At the same time there has been the move towards ‘hot desking’. No longer does a space have a constant lighting need. The visual task performed at any point will depend upon the occupant at any one time. Does this mean we should revert to general illumination?

Or does the lighting of our buildings require a fundamental rethink so it is more appropriate to today’s sometimes conflicting needs of energy conservation, use of electronic media devices and flexible occupancy of spaces?   Modern lamps have long lives and therefore lighting is only infrequently changed. Installations over twenty years old are not uncommon, a time span when most other electrical equipment will have been replaced several times. 

Filed under Building Regs, Cost efficiency, Energy, Lighting, Sustainability Tagged with

BIM – are we really the trailing edge?

July 5, 2011 by 7 Comments

Hello and welcome to my series of BIM posts. BSRIA have kindly invited me as a guest author, and I’d very much like to hear your views.

But first…an introduction. I am Gary Ross and I’m an Associate Director at Capita Symonds, working in their Building Services section. I cover five offices, driving BIM and smart working across them, as well as linking in with my multi-discipline counterparts across our business.  Most recently I worked for Autodesk, the developers of Revit MEP, and it is here that my passion now lies.

Are we really that far behind? Image Courtesy of Capita Symonds

‘Tail end Charlies’

I’ll go into what Revit means to Capita in a later post, but first I’d like to challenge the view that the Building Services industry are seen by many as the trailing edge of the construction industry – the “tail end Charlies” if you will. With any new technology we seem to be the last to pick it up, the least successful and the slowest to respond to change.

Why are building services behind the times?

Perhaps we don’t promote ourselves as an industry very well? A quick search of the new government Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy Paper reveals just one mention of the term ‘building services’.  Or is it that we really are behind the times generally? Is it just that the technology for Building Services actually lags behind the tools that our counterparts can use months or years earlier?

Do you think it’s a fair representation?

Is it just a case of disciplines bashing disciplines or is it a fair cop? If people say we are behind, are they over egging it for some reason or are they normally being reasonable?

How do you think we can go about improving our image?

Is it just a case of shouting louder? Do we have to radically change our ways or are there just a few tweaks needed?

Filed under BIM Tagged with ,

Measuring happiness: what do your customers value?

June 10, 2011 by Leave a comment

Competitive tender is the norm in our building and construction world. Awarding a contract to the lowest price bidder may seem to be both the easiest and fairest way. However, there are adverse side effects to this practice. The most obvious issue is that the whole industry becomes far too cost-focused. Everybody is trying to be more productive whilst delivering the job at the lowest cost, and as a result they are sometimes cutting corners without considering the long-term impact of this attitude, including on their customers.

Customer satisfaction is widely known as being crucial to a company’s success, and can impact the following areas within a company:

  • Driving market share
  • Customer retention ratings
  • Stock price
  • Process improvement

Customer satisfaction surveys can provide a useful wake-up call if you are not really satisfying your customers, and also provide a good way forward for process improvement. Surveys can establish areas for development in a company and help you to stay ahead of the competition (techniques include the Likert scale, and tools like the ACSI, below).

Competitive Advantage

Recent research studies show an important relationship between customer satisfaction and economic performance (Fornell et al., 2006). Firms that receive positive customer feedback are likely to improve the level and stability of their net cash flows, and even benefit from high return with low risk.

Customer satisfaction, as measured by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), can be correlated to the market value of equity. It has therefore been suggested that securities research needs pay closer attention to customer satisfaction and the strength of customer relationships. From a corporate CEO perspective, it is clear that the cost of managing customer relationships and the cash flows they produce is fundamental to value creation.

Customer Value Models

Achieving higher customer satisfaction may require more resources and incur higher costs. So, it’s important to invest well. With data from a carefully designed customer satisfaction survey, we can develop a Customer Value Model for our customers and find out what services or produces they most value.  For example, should you invest in hiring more engineers or instead invest in new technologies? Customer Value Models can help a company focus on the highest value areas, and hopefully benefit from the bigger financial return.

Example:

A client has asked for a quick response on a service request. A.) Your engineer could spend a few days preparing a thorough quotation whilst the customer is waiting. B.) Alternatively the engineer could respond with a basic quote and deliver the service with a short lead time.

You know your customers – your Customer Value Model indicates that they place a high value on quick results. Go with B.) and as a result the client will feel you listened to their needs, and your company will be the winner.

Yes, it can be that simple! Do you have a model in place – and when’s the last time you measured your customer satisfaction? Are they happy?

The next question is how can you put a proper process in place to work things out?

References

[1] Claes Fornell, Sunil Mithas, Forrest V. Morgeson III, & M.S. Krishnan (2006), “Customer Satisfaction and Stock Prices: High Returns, Low Risk,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 70 (January 2006), 3-14

To view this article you will need to register with CFI (http://www.cfigroup.com/resources/articles.asp)

[2] Claes Fornell, Donald C. Cook Professor of Business Administration and Director of the National Quality Research Centre

Filed under Cost efficiency, Customer Satisfaction Tagged with

Sustainable Housing – defining zero carbon

June 1, 2011 by 2 Comments

In the last budget on 23rd March, the UK government, quite discretely, changed the definition of zero carbon.  The 2011 budget changed the requirements from having to balance all the regulated loads plus an allowance for cooking and appliances, to simply balancing the emissions from the regulated loads only.  In essence this is just the heating, hot water and lighting loads.   There appears to be a split in opinion on this issue, with some for the change arguing that it is a more realistic target for the construction industry to meet, while the other camp argue that the new definition isn’t really zero carbon.

I have been involved in a project that has just completed the construction of a Code 6 vicarage.  Level 6 of the code for sustainable homes requires the building to meet “zero carbon”.  The new definition is effectively the requirement for Code 5 in the 2009 version of the Code for sustainable homes on the dwelling emission front.  With the old definition, there was no way out of producing a small power station for a house.  In the vicarage the south facing roof was covered in around 8 kWp of photovoltaic panels. The cost of these panels still significant, even with the feed-in-tariffs it is going to put a lot of people off the thought of installing them, and even thinking about going for Code 6.

2016 is still the target date for all new homes to be zero carbon, and built to Code 6 standards.  The pressure to meet this target is probably behind the change in the definition of zero carbon.  With this new definition, it is feasible to build a dwelling with minimal generating capacity, and so reducing the cost.  I’m sure the Passivhaus approach will come more into the frame – a more fabric first approach.  Reducing heat loss (or gain for summer months) simply makes sense.

Even with the definition of zero carbon changing, making it cheaper to build to Code 6, it will still be difficult.  Whether using the Passivhaus approach or not, the correct site is even more important than ever.  The Code for Sustainable Homes includes other issues, not just energy, that needs to be taken into account.  Things like ecology, cycle storage, water use and the lifetime homes standards have rarely stopped a house from being built in the past, but this may happen once Code 6 becomes the mandatory standard.

Filed under Energy, Sustainability, Zero Carbon Tagged with

Wasted light

May 11, 2011 by Leave a comment

Part of the efforts to improve the energy efficiency of buildings is to set air tightness requirements. At the same time natural ventilation is being considered as a viable option to mechanical air conditioning.

There is a parallel with lighting where the use of daylight has benefits for both energy consumption and occupant well-being. The past age of cheap electricity however encouraged architecture to ignore daylight and to assume electric lighting to be available at all times. This magnanimous use of light continues today, demonstrated by the national press regularly showing large office blocks with all their lights blazing long after the workers have gone home.

This presents two opportunities to save energy. The first is to optimise the use of lighting controls coupled with the education of building users and occupants. If people do not understand the need to switch off when vacating a space then it is likely that any lighting controls installed will change this behaviour.

The second aspect is the amount of now expensively produced electric light that simply goes out the window. After dark this loss could be reduced by blinds provided they are drawn. Perhaps there is a photochromic sensitive glass that becomes opaque and highly reflecting when there is an absence of daylight.

So how about a campaign for “light-tight” buildings? Something to consider for the 2013 edition of Part L?

Richard Forster is a Lighting Expert with over 40 years experience in lighting, both as an engineer and consultant. As a well-respected author and lecturer, his wealth of knowledge is continually used by BSRIA.

Filed under Electricity, Energy, Lighting

District heating is on the move

April 21, 2011 by 3 Comments

Last November at the BSRIA Briefing, I shared my thoughts about how CHP and Energy Supply Contracting models can possibly contribute to building a low carbon community. CHP is a low carbon technology but is only suitable for a larger scale site with a good base load to have better efficiency. ESCOs using the Energy Supply Contracting model can avoid a client’s upfront cost on implementation. However, no matter how good the solution and technology is, capital is always the barrier. Recently, I came across two pieces of news that I would like to share with you. It looks to me things are now moving.

First, the Scottish government announced in March a new £2.5 million District Heating Loan Fund. Registered social authorities, SMEs and ESCOs can apply for funding. The fund will offer loans of up to £400,000 to support low carbon and renewable district heating in Scotland.

Second, Leicester City Council is going to extend the current district heating network across the City of Leicester. The Council signed a 25-year contract with an ESCO to maintain and operate the plant. The ESCO will be responsible for part of the capital investment and there is additional funding from the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP). It is predicted that the project will help the Council to reduce at least 10% of their carbon footprint.

It seems funding is coming and district heating is on the move. Are you aware of this move?

As an aside I noticed National Grid runs a program called Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR). Under this scheme, National Grid buys electricity power from privately owned generating facilities. The need for STOR is because at certain times of the day, the National Grid needs reserve power in the form of either generation or demand reduction to be able to deal with actual demand being greater than forecasted demand.

The question is, how will STOR influence large scale CHP in the future?…

Filed under CHP, Heating

BIM debate heats up

December 9, 2010 by 1 Comment

Some of us at BSRIA have been talking enthusiastically about Building Information Modelling (BIM) for a while now…industry is asking for change (see BIM 2010 below), and the IGT now proposes to do something about it.

Mandating BIM

You may have read in the press about the launch of the Innovation and Growth Team’s report by Paul Morrell. If you’re a supporter of BIM you may be pleased to note:

“Recommendation 3.11.  That the industry should work, through a collective forum, to identify when the use of BIM is appropriate (in terms of the type or scale of the project), what the barriers to its more widespread take-up are, and how these barriers might be surpassed, leading to an outline protocol for future ways of working.

Recommendation 6.14  That Government should mandate the use of Building Information Modelling for central Government projects with a value greater than £50 million.” [My italics]

Ask the audience

BSRIA (alongside other organisers and sponsors) ran BIM 2010 on 2nd November at the Barbican London – by all accounts a successful gathering of c100 people, with high profile speakers including Paul Morrell. Everyone had the chance to discuss and vote on key issues (BSRIA has published speaker presentations and PDF of the results).

Most delegates familiar with BIM were aged 41-50 (40%), and the least familiar were the youngest delegates (under 30s). The 51+ delegates were more strongly split, with 25% ‘strongly agreeing’, and 46% ‘strongly disagreeing’ about being familiar with BIM.

Here’s what they said about mandating BIM:The audience seemed less sure about whether BIM should be required in submissions to building regs and other statutory duties: 12% strongly agreed, 34% agreed, but 35% were neutral.

Show me the money. 58% felt that it was ‘very likely’ that their organisation would invest in BIM. 15% also agreed, and 17% were neutral. There was a minority who felt that they were unlikely 5% or very unlikely 5% to invest. 46% of delegates also strongly agreed that ‘my organisation would find BIM training valuable’.

Uncertainties over the BIM model

56% delegates agreed that ‘current contracts are not easily translatable for BIM‘, with 38% ‘agreeing’ that ‘uncertainties over ownership of the model will limit the uptake of BIM’ – only 4% ‘strongly disagreed’ with this statement. In answer to the question ‘who should own the model?‘, most believed this should be the client, closely followed by the team. Most delegates agreed 41% or strongly agreed 39% that to influence greater uptake from clients it is important that BIM delivers electronic O&M manuals. 57% also strongly agreed or agreed 30% that we need more good UK case studies to influence greater uptake from clients.

We’ve also published charts in the Process and Operational Efficiency Group via the MBE Knowledge Transfer Network (you may need to register with the site, but it’s free membership).

Filed under BIM Tagged with

Making CHP ‘do-able’

November 10, 2010 by 3 Comments

Front view of a CHP unit

The Government’s set a target for the UK to generate 15.5 GWe from combined heat and power (CHP) by 2020. Today, only 5.5 GWe is generated from CHP. So, how do we deal with this target shortfall in CHP?

The planning department has, in recent years, relaxed their policy on approving CHP plant projects. On the other hand, they try to insist on new building design incorporating CHP.  Of course, nobody likes to be coerced like this. But what is more important is that arguably this approach is not effective. For example, design engineers sometimes find it difficult to justify using CHP instead of the traditional boiler. It is seen to be too costly to build the CHP where the return on carbon reduction will be so little.

There is nothing inherently wrong with CHP, but rather in how we apply it. This large kit, even with better efficiency, is not suitable for a building-by-building application. We need to think at a community scale. It works perfectly well in district heating, or even a small community with several buildings. The key is to have more buildings where the load profile requires a constant energy demand.

CHP is more costly than traditional boilers. When it comes in a larger scale, the capital investment will probably be rejected by your finance director. But, does that really have to be the end of the story?

A happy ending with Energy Supply Contracting?

Perhaps, if you haven’t already done so, you should consider Energy Supply Contracting (which is also called Contract Energy Management in the UK). The service providers (ESCOs) provide low carbon energy to the clients, and the advantage of this business model is that it can allow the end user to enjoy low carbon energy without any upfront cost.

More thoughts on this particular model to follow – but what do you think? Can you tell me about any good or bad experiences with this?

Filed under CHP, Communities, Energy, Heating

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.