SPACE PLANNING & INTERIORS
REDUCING THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE GAP
Geoff Prudence, Chair of the Facilities Management Group of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers(CIBSE) discusses the role of the FM in closing the gap.
New buildings consume on average between 1.6 times the amount of energy their designers intended according to CarbonBuzz, the RIBA/ CIBSE benchmarking platform for tracking energy use in projects from design to operation. The difference between predicted energy at design stage and the actual energy used by a building, as recorded by its utility meters, is known as the performance gap.
Evidence for a performance gap has been increasing. As far back as 20 years ago CIBSE first highlighted its existence in the findings of the PROBE studies (Post Occupancy Review of Building Engineering) in Building Services Journal. More recently the UK government has acknowledged the performance gap through its £8 million funding of Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme, which sets out to examine the in-use performance of 23 recently completed non-domestic buildings against the designers’ original objectives.
As someone with experience gained from working in the Facilities Management (FM) sector for many years it is my opinion that the existence of a performance gap is, in part at least, because there is no one to champion a building’s in-use energy performance from the initial design concept through to construction completion and its subsequent handover. Yet the champion’s role is perfectly suited to the skills and experience of facilities managers. And since FMs are the people charged with running a building throughout its life - from its handover to eventual demolition – it stands to reason that they will
56 | TOMORROW’S FM
have a vested interest in being guardian of its energy performance during its realisation.
With an FM’s input into design, decision making would be better informed – particularly if the FM has experience of end users’ needs. Their involvement should facilitate a smoother design process that will result in a building that is easier to commission and consequently it should be more economic to run, operate effectively and to keep maintained, all of which will be to the benefit of the occupier.
In terms of reducing the performance gap, perhaps the most useful knowledge an FM can bring to the designer’s attention is a realistic assessment of in-use building energy. Arup’s report: The Performance Gap: Causes and Solutions 2013, cites an example of a typical consultant’s office where over two-thirds of electricity consumed is from unregulated energy such as small power, IT and server energy along with energy used by catering. Such a high proportion of unregulated energy clearly indicates the critical role an FM has in managing the energy performance of the building in- use. It also serves to illustrate why the FM needs to communicate effectively with the design team so that they can understand the energy demands of a particular business and why FMs should be involved in design discussions.
This performance gap created by inaccurate or incomplete design stage assessment of operational energy use is often made wider still by ‘value engineering’ as the design progresses. An FM’s involvement in
value engineering exercises would ensure someone was present to champion building energy efficiency measures during this exercise. With guidance such as CIBSE Guide M Maintenance, Operation and Management, FMs have the tools they need to create a business case to show what best practice looks like and also to demonstrate why it is better to invest in the design and operation rather than slash costs and see what happens.
To put their knowledge to good use, where possible, I urge FMs to seek early involvement in a scheme’s design. Too many FM’s wait to be asked for their input to a design, or worse, adopt a “we get what we are given” attitude. This is the wrong approach. FM’s know which management strategies they will be implementing to get the most out of a building so why not push for these to be integrated into the design rather than work around what they’ve been landed with on handover? And, where they are appointed later, they should impress upon the client the value and longer term cost benefit of being engaged in the commissioning and handover of the building so that understand the building that they will have the responsibility to operate.
FMs can also bring practical experience to the design discussions. They know it will be their responsibility to services and replace building services plant over the lifetime of a building. Instances where a pipe-strainer cannot be accessed for cleaning or an air handling unit cannot be replaced because it has been shoe-horned into a difficult to access corner of a plantroom are, unfortunately, still too common.
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70