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?
I read with interest Howard McKew's January 2006 "Tomorrow's Engineer" column titled "D-B: The Misunderstood Project Delivery Process," (page 132). Basically, I agree with his statements, but I suggest that they don't go deep enough. Let me explain.
Trying to get the boss to invest in energy efficiency upgrades is often an uphill climb, but channeling such efforts through a quality management process may help level the field. By portraying energy waste as a "defect" requiring correction, some have used such methodologies (e.g., TQM, ISO 14001, Six Sigma) to secure superiors' support. Each process includes problem definition, measurement, analysis, and continuous improvement. All involve senior management personnel as part of a team approach.
The quest to have projects LEED®-accredited continues to grow each year. For some building owners, the goal is to simply reach "certified" status, while others strive for silver, gold, or platinum level certification. We are sailing uncharted waters in this process, so Engineered Systems magazine and I are going to help you stay the course. As a part of the new ES Blog, we are going online with a "Sustainable & Attainable" series to provide a practitioner's guide to energy and environmental achievement.