Whether a project is going to be LEED®
certified or not, system training is critical to long term (e.g., sustainable)
building management success, so who are we kidding as we specify the contractor
shall provide system training as part of the competitively bid construction
job? If you read my column last month on O&M manuals, you will know how I
feel about this flawed specification process and that we need to implement a 21st
century solution to these O&M documents.
The same can be said for ensuring the O&M staffs
receive adequate training on the systems they will be responsible for over the
life of these systems. Analogous to my favorite example, the automobile, if you
invest $15,000 in a new vehicle or even much more for this vehicle, don’t you
have to be trained to drive? Doesn’t it take studying the rulebook, practicing
your driving, and then taking a test to get a driver’s license before you are
allowed to drive your new vehicle? Would you let anyone drive your car knowing
they don’t have the training and experience to operate the car? After all, you
just spent $15,000 of your own money. So why would a building owner allow a
person or persons to operate and maintain their HVAC investment which could
have cost the owner millions of dollars to have furnished and installed?
The Cost Of Training
Contract specifications may or may not
go into much detail on how system training will be implemented. Somehow, we
find this will be adequate just as long as you don’t expect to be the one
required to provide this training. After all, who is going to make the time to
provide training, participate in the training, and/or pay the real price for
training? Don’t you think it is much better to imply it will get done, and then
you can say, “Well, I specified training but it’s somebody else’s
responsibility to make this happen.
I believe the problem relative to
inadequate training starts with the building owner or building program
committee. It is their responsibility to ensure funds are made available for a
comprehensive training program, just as they are responsible for ensuring that
there will be an adequate O&M budget to sustain the building operation and
to not to use all the building program funds up in “first cost.”
Lately, I have been seeing more text on
training within a specification, but there is no business plan embedded into
the building program and/or real commitment by the owner, design team, or
contractor to achieve the specification goals.
The solution to this education dilemma is to fund third-party system training
early in the design phase, just like commissioning is now being funded and
implemented at that time. Once schematics design is completed and the building
systems are known per the basis of design, then a third-party educator should
sit down with the building owner and outline a training agenda, suggested
budget, and suggested timeline to educate the staff.
Starting with the teacher and classes, I’ve made some
quick reference bullet lists for educator/class details, lists of
systems/training classes, and a training timeline through the design, construction,
and warranty phases.
Educator and Class:
• Name and resume
• Attendee sheet
• Class time (e.g., one hour)
• Class handouts
• Test and answers
• Videotape (yes/no)
Budget:
• Cost for educator(s)
• Cost for preparation and classes
• Follow-up educator time
List Of Systems/Training Classes:
System 1 (sample):
• Basis of design
& design criteria
• Single line flow
diagram & sequence of operation
• Equipment
performance curves
Operation scenarios:
• Seasonal startup
& shutdown
• Emergency
condition(s)
• Troubleshooting
checklist
• PM workorder
• Trending data
Training Timeline:
Design phase:
• Introduction to
basis of design
• Introduction to
“________ system” (primary heating, etc.)
• Introduction to
operating budget-energy (from building system simulation software)
• Introduction to
operating budget-labor
Construction Phase:
• Participate in
commissioning meetings
• Equipment training
• System training
• Participate in
system start-ups
• Participate in
system demonstrations
•Participation in
system trending
Warranty Phase:
• Ten month
meeting with commissioning engineer and educator
In closing, the question needs to be asked, “Who is best
qualified to provide the system training?” My suggestion is the equipment
manufacturers are the best qualified to provide equipment training on their
equipment and be prepared to participate in system training classes. When it
comes to system training, it could be the design engineer or the commissioning
engineer, because both will have a grasp of the overall system performance and
interaction but most important is which of these individuals will be able to
educate and not simply teach. This person (or persons) should be a good
communicator, well organized with the preparation of lesson plans, and
classroom material handouts.
Call me crazy but if you don’t think third-party system
training needs to be a separate building program activity, let me introduce you
to my four-year-old grandson. He’s anxious to try driving someone’s new car.
For more on third-party training, go to my “Sustainable & Attainable” blog
at www.esmagazine.com.
One More Thing
To continue on with my suggestion that system training be a
provided by a third-party educator and not be imbedded in a competitive bid set
of contract documents where training requirements are sprinkled through the 16
divisions of the contract specifications. It’s important to note that you can
assume these specification section requirements addressing system training have
not been coordinated by the design team and/or the specification writer.
ES 