operations

10 Smart Building Myths Busted

Posted on by abrahamwien18

May 6, 2014 by Lee O’Loughlin

View the original article here

Smart buildings are a no-brainer and more affordable than most building owners and investors realize.

Smart buildings have been proven to save energy, streamline facilities management and prevent expensive equipment failures. Yet, to many property owners and investors, the value of smart buildings remains a mystery. The fact is, in most buildings, we can demonstrate a strong business case for strategic investments in smart building systems and management technologies.

Not everyone is aware that the tremendous advantages of today’s affordable smart building management technologies easily justify the cost. The following are 10 myths about smart buildings, along with the facts:

Myth #10: Smart Building Technologies Are Expensive.

Myth Debunked: Smart building technology investments typically pay for themselves within one or two years by delivering energy savings and other operational efficiencies. One smart building management pilot program we worked on, for example, generated a positive return on investment within several months.

Myth #9: Smart Buildings are Only About Energy.

Myth Debunked: A smart building management system often can detect when a piece of equipment is close to failure and alert facilities personnel to fix the problem. Knowing the right time to repair or replace equipment extends machinery life, and reduces facility staff, operations and replacement costs. More dramatically, smart building management systems can prevent full-scale building system failures—potentially embarrassing to a Superbowl stadium host, but life-threatening in a hospital or laboratory.

Myth #8: Smart Buildings and Green Buildings are the Same Thing. Myth Debunked: Smart buildings maximize energy efficiency from building systems and ensure air quality, while a complete “green” sustainability program includes strategies beyond building automation systems. So, while “smart” and “green” features may overlap, they are not identical concepts. The Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) explains the difference in Bright Green Buildings: Convergence of Green and Intelligent Buildings, a comprehensive report authored with Frost and Sullivan.

Myth #7: Industrial Facilities or Laboratories Can’t Become Smart Buildings.

Myth Debunked:  All types of buildings—whether residential or commercial—can be built or retrofitted to become highly automated and smart. Even highly specialized facilities such as laboratories can be outfitted with smart building technologies.

Myth #6: Smart Buildings Can Only Be New Buildings.

Myth Debunked: Some of the smartest buildings in the world are not new at all, but have demonstrated the return on investment in smart technologies. The Empire State Building, for example, has exceeded projected energy savings for the second consecutive year following an extensive phased retrofit begun in 2009.

Myth #5: Smart Building Technologies are Not Interoperable.

Myth Debunked: In the past, building automation equipment and controls were designed as proprietary systems. However, affordable new technologies, such as wireless sensors, now make it possible to gather data from disparate systems produced by any manufacturer.

Myth #4: Smart Systems Don’t Make a Building More Attractive to Tenants.

Myth Debunked:  Anything that improves energy efficiency, reduces occupancy cost and improves productivity is valuable to tenants, as numerous studies and surveys attest. Tenants and their advisors increasingly expect smart building features such as zoned HVAC, sophisticated equipment maintenance alert systems, and advanced security systems. As reported in JLL’s October 2012 Global Sustainability Perspective, smart systems provide benefits for tenants—and tenants recognize the benefits.

Myth #3: Without a Municipal Smart Grid, a Building Can’t Really Be Smart.

Myth Debunked:  It’s true that smart buildings gain functionality when supported by advanced electrical grids installed by municipalities and their utility company partners. But even without a smart grid, owners and investors can draw a wide range of benefits from smart buildings and a smart building management system that can monitor entire property portfolios.

Myth #2: Smart Buildings Are Complicated to Operate.

Myth Debunked: Combined with a smart building management system, a smart building is often easier to operate and maintain than a building that lacks automated systems. A smart building management system can integrate work-order management applications; pull equipment repair and maintenance data into performance analytics; and pinpoint equipment issues to a degree not humanly possible. For example, a smart building management system can diagnose a programming problem that has been undetected for 15 years, enabling facility managers to resolve a recurring equipment malfunction.

Myth #1: Smart Buildings Are a No-Brainer.

Myth NOT Debunked: This myth isn’t a myth at all — it’s actually true. As affordable new technologies are adopted, tenants are beginning to expect smart building features—and owners and investors are beginning to realize the return on investment in smart systems.

Leo O’Loughlin is senior vice president of Energy and Sustainability Services at JLL, the global professional services and investment management firm offering specialized services to clients that own, occupy and invest in commercial real estate. With 20 years of energy and sustainability management expertise, Leo helps clients incorporate energy and sustainability concepts into operations and project management, reducing energy consumption, utility expense and carbon emissions. He specializes in creating and analyzing project structures for energy efficiency, central utility plant and energy services outsourcing programs, managing the multi-disciplinary development of energy infrastructure assets and retrofit projects. He also manages business development, commercial structuring, financial and technical analyses and implementation of energy-related projects. Previously, Leo was an executive at several leading California energy companies. He holds an MBA from San Diego State University and a BS in mechanical engineering from Purdue University.

Survey: Doctors Key in Promoting Positive Impacts of Healthy Building Design, Construction & Maintenance

Posted on by abrahamwien18

June 27, 2014
Original post here

The critical connection between a healthy building environment and patient health is often missed by the one group of professionals who may matter most – physicians, according to a new SmartMarket report by McGraw Hill Construction sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), United Technologies Corp. and other partners.

“It’s becoming clear from this initial research that doctors and other health professionals must engage with architects and the design community in a major way if we are to be successful in improving public health through design,” said AIA CEO Robert Ivy, FAIA. “We look forward to furthering that dialogue with physicians and to helping support additional research into this critical public health issue.”

The survey results were announced at the opening session American Institute of Architects Annual Convention.
The report, “The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings: The Market Drivers and Impact of Building Design on Occupant Health, Well-Being and Productivity,” finds that though 18 percent of homeowners say that doctors are their primary source for information on healthy home products and decisions, only 53 percent of pediatricians, 32 percent of family doctors/general practitioners and 40 percent of psychiatrists believe that buildings even impact patient health. Only 15 percent report receiving any information on this connection, but the results also reveal that a key challenge is not just getting information to them but gaining their attention in ways that would alter their perspective, with nearly a quarter (22 percent) reporting that more information would likely not change what they do today. You can access the full report.

The study suggests that getting more information to this group is essential to help create demand for more healthy building design and construction, given the limited understanding that physicians demonstrate of building health impacts. Physician awareness and recommendation of more fundamental healthy building design and construction practices that connect with the health risks of most concern to public health—lack of exercise, chronic stress, poor diet and obesity—could help create the market demand needed to drive investment, but only if physicians expand their engagement with these issues.

Today, the only issue the medical practitioners agree is a link between buildings and health is around mold and mildew, but that is only one of a plethora of factors in building decisions that could impact health.
“Most homeowners rely on family members and friends or colleagues to influence their choices of healthy products and practices, with very few seeking advice from builders, remodelers, contractors and architects who know most about how these decisions affect the occupant. As the construction industry increases its engagement in healthy building, this represents an opportunity for industry professionals to assist clients make decisions in order to positively impact their health,” said Harvey M. Bernstein, F.ASCE, LEED AP, vice president, Industry Insights and Alliances for McGraw Hill Construction.

The report also finds that, contrary to the position held by physicians, the general public is aware of the link between buildings and people’s health.
• 63 percent of homeowners believe products and practices they use at home affect their health, with the majority (50 percent) pointing to impact on allergies, followed by asthma/respiratory illnesses (32 percent) and headaches/migraines (30 percent).
• 90 percent of homeowners believe school buildings affect student health/productivity, and 95 percent believe hospital buildings and operations affect patient/staff health and productivity.
Human resource executives also recognize the link between buildings and health, with its top emphasis on spaces that encourage social interaction. Sixty-six percent of their companies consider spaces for social interaction when making leasing decisions today, and even more (75 percent) expect it will be considered in the future. Yet, the architect community is not as attuned to this need, with creating spaces for social integration being eighth in a list of key factors. This gap suggests the industry needs to be more sensitive to this issue given how the millennial and subsequent generations work, learn and interact and thus, improve their productivity.

The report reflects a landmark research project that is the first to span across five key stakeholders that influence the prevalence of healthy design and construction practices in buildings, including the physicians noted above, construction industry professionals in the residential and non-residential sectors, owner HR executives and homeowners. The breadth of the study is essential in critical gaps between stakeholder responses that are preventing the design and construction industry from fully capitalizing on the specific healthy building investments sought by other stakeholders.
The report reveals the increasing attention industry professionals and owners are placing on health in design and construction plans—as well as some of the needs the industry has to increase these efforts.

According to the study:
• All firms are reporting increases in addressing occupant health in design and construction decisions—59 percent of owners, with architects leading other players in adoption of healthy practices.
• Firms that are doing more green building work are also more attuned to health issues.
• Owners need more data and greater public awareness of the health impacts of products, practices and buildings holistically in order to support additional healthy building investments. Those are reported as the top drivers at 40 percent and 48 percent of owners, respectively.

“Green buildings have real, proven health benefits including improved employee productivity, lower health care costs and reduced absenteeism,” said John Mandyck, chief sustainability officer, UTC Building & Industrial Systems. “This study shows that human resource professionals and building owners see the benefit of investing in a healthier physical work environment — in fact, 66 percent of those who measured occupant well-being saw an improvement after moving to a green building.”

The report cites the need for further investigation into the specific benefits of different design, construction and product decisions, in order to overcome obstacles to investments in these areas that influence health and wellbeing.
The study is comprised of five separate market research surveys, all benchmarking at the 95 percent confidence level—(1) survey of architects, contractors and owners in nonresidential construction; (2) survey of residential builders, architects, remodelers and interior designers; (3) survey of U.S. homeowners; (4) survey of human resource executives at U.S. firms; and (5) survey of medical professionals, including general practitioners, pediatricians and psychologists/psychiatrists. Each survey captures the unique perspective of these stakeholders in terms of their awareness of healthy building impact, use of healthy building products and practices and drivers for them to prioritize health factors in future building decisions. More detailed findings on insights from all these groups are in the report.
“The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings: The Market Drivers and Impact of Building Design on Occupant Health, Well-Being and Productivity SmartMarket” Report was produced by McGraw Hill Construction in partnership with the American Institute of Architects and other premier research partners: United Technologies, CB Richard Ellis and the U.S. Green Building Council. Other support for the project was provided by the project’s two supporting research partners—the American Society of Interior Designers and Delos—and contributing partners Armstrong Ceilings Systems and Armstrong Commercial Flooring, Dewberry, Integral Group, Sloan Valve Company, Urban Land Institute, U.S. Green Building Council—Northern California Chapter, Webcor and the World Green Building Council.