In this time of great change and industry renaissance, it is important to try to identify key harbingers that we must watch to better understand how our IT-connected future may unfold.
My May, 2006 column introduced the concept of decommissioning as a process for thoughtfully and systematically preparing for partial renovation of an existing building - something that happens more frequently than the construction of new buildings.
The run-up in fuel prices following Hurricane Katrina pressured utilities to pass along to ratepayers the high costs they incurred to provide power and natural gas during the winter.
The commissioning engineer's role continues to grow as building owners continue to look for more and more technical support due to apparent concerns owners have with the design and building process.
In the April issue of AutomatedBuildings.com, Anto Budiardjo and I wrote an article titled "Building Automation Renaissance: How to Survive and Prosper From Building-IT Convergence"
Opportunity knocks when least expected, but only those who are prepared will reap its benefits. One example is the recent reversal of natural gas and oil prices.
The missus and I enjoy the movies, but we find ourselves watching fewer and fewer of them in the movie theater. Why? Well, the inappropriate talking, the prices, and the having your seatback kicked by some unrepentant kid haven't helped. Heck, if I could find a used theater-quality popcorn popper and then retrofit our sofa with a cupholder, we might never leave the house.
As with last month, I'd like to introduce a new commissioning term, which isn't exactly mainstream in the commercial and institutional building industry. This time, the word of the month is decommissioning. Although a rigorous process of decommissioning has been standard operating procedure for a number of years at the Pentagon Renovation Program, I have otherwise only heard of it with respect to nuclear power plants, naval vessels, and some industrial installations.
Although it is generally understood that the documents prepared by the architect and engineer are not used to describe the means and methods of construction, referring to these documents as "construction documents" can imply otherwise. This is why it is good to have a clear understanding that the "contract documents" are the documents that include the drawings and specifications that communicate the design intent of the architects and engineers. The actual construction procedures, means, and methods are the responsibility of the contractor(s).
Have you every stopped to add up the hours it takes a contractor to pull together the O&M manuals to be submitted to a building owner at the end of a construction project? Have you ever stopped to ask a building operator how convenient those O&M manuals are to use?