"The trouble with design…"

You have to feel a bit sorry for the facilities manager. When a building is being designed, they are usually nowhere to be seen. Either they are not visible to the design team - too far down the food chain for their views to be solicited - or they haven't yet been appointed to run a building that doesn't exist. Only a minority get a chance to influence the design process, and just a few of those know the right ways to exert that influence. And on top of that, they don't always speak the design lingo.

It's a pity, because the one thing that designers need now more than ever - particularly given Building Regulations' increasing focus on operational performance - is an insight into how new buildings will be run.

BSRIA believes that many operational problems with buildings can be alleviated simply by ensuring that building designers are more in tune with the needs of the people who end up operating buildings. Conversely, buildings might achieve their intended energy efficiencies if their operators better understood the original intent of the designers.

BSRIA also believes manufacturers have a part to play. After all, elements such as building management systems (BMS), variable speed drives and combined heat and power can bring about major reductions in energy use - but if they aren't operated correctly, they can easily increase energy consumption - the opposite of the design intention.

A recent Carbon Trust-funded project, Building Bridges between FM and Design, has enabled BSRIA to get feedback from building operators on how designers and contractors can do things better and vice versa.

How the project took form

The first part of this project involved drafting a questionnaire and piloting it with members of BSRIA's Energy and Sustainability Network. The questionnaire went online in December 2005 and within a couple of weeks more than 100 responses had been received.

The results were interesting. For example, 39% of respondents weren't aware of the energy saving benefits of variable-speed drives. Worryingly, even some of those people who had them in their buildings weren't aware of their benefits.

Considering that the respondents to the questionnaire were probably at the more knowledgeable end of the facilities management spectrum, this shows that the industry needs a lot of education.

Controls are very often over-specified and only used to a fraction of their capability. They are too complex for the building user to understand

The second part of the project involved an all-day seminar, which was attended by a cross-section of the industry.

Aside from giving designers, manufacturers and facilities managers a chance to meet and share views, the Building Bridges event presented some practical ideas that have the potential to save energy.

The first of these involves controls - the double-edged sword of facilities management. Designed and installed appropriately, they can help the facilities manager maintain optimal running of complex HVAC and lighting systems, while being simple, flexible and manageable in responding to changing needs. However, controls that are poorly specified, over-complex and badly commissioned will rapidly cause more problems than they set out to solve.

Although many survey respondents reported that their controls were OK, a significant number reported that their controls were either poor or very poor. Even if they could get access to the controls, they were often not very intuitive to use.

This result correlated with 57% of respondents who reported that heating and cooling plant ran simultaneously. Where occupants want control over their environment, they often have no control over the HVAC systems; and when controls are provided, occupants often don't understand them.

Facilities managers generally don't like the idea of delegating control of environmental systems to building occupants. The reasons for this are many and varied, but most problems boil down to a conflict between occupants wanting to be a little warmer or cooler, and facilities managers driven by a desire to maintain a specific set-point.

When facilities managers were asked what changes they would like to see in the way controls are specified, they had three main requests:

• Control systems should be kept simple, and the industry should adopt a standard configuration
• Controls should be capable of manual override for short periods of time or within a range of set points
• Control systems should be less complicated and more intuitive to use.

As one respondent said: "Controls are very often over-specified and then only utilised to a fraction of their capability. They are too complex for the building user to understand."

O&M manuals often appear to be thrown together with no thought to how they will be used

O&M manuals

The handover information that comes with a new building is not always easy to use.

Most of the respondents to the BSRIA questionnaire reported dissatisfaction with operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals. This underperformance was reflected in BSRIA's 2005 key performance indicators, where the delivery of O&M manuals was still regarded as being one of the poorest aspects of service by the construction industry.

The views of many facilities managers were summed up by a comment from one survey respondent: "O&M manuals often appear to be thrown together with no thought to how they will be used. Too often, quantity is favoured over quality."

The O&M manual is only the tip of the iceberg. There are also problems with building logbooks, which are now required for new buildings but are not always kept up to date. Record drawings are often little more than freehand mark-ups of the construction drawings. Some buildings also have a user manual for building occupants, who need to know how to turn the heating down or who to call when the lights are flickering.

The BSRIA survey showed that the specification for both O&M manuals and logbooks should address the requirements for each handover item, referencing published standards where necessary. Delivery dates should be set, allowing sufficient time for the designer and client to review the information. There should also be penalties for non-delivery, said respondents. For example, part of the construction costs could be withheld until a complete set of record drawings have been delivered and approved.

Inevitably, you gets what you pay for. When you buys a cheap electrical appliance, you shouldn't be surprised if it comes with a generic, badly-translated manual.

In a year when tighter Building Regulations and the Energy in Buildings Performance Directive are introduced, designers and facilities specialists should be asking: is this state of affairs still acceptable in the 21st century construction industry?