by Robert A. Keady Jr., CEM, CSDM, FMP — Today, it is not uncommon for Facility Management (FM) and Owner Organizations (hereinafter referred to as organizations) to have an incomplete concept of equipment inventories; their importance, use and how to maintain them. Even among the best, facility managers often differ about what comprises an equipment inventory and how to create, develop, establish and maintain one. Last issue, I presented Part 1 of this article and focused on inventory types and management, comparison of inventory types, and some component identification systems. In Part 2, I’ll cover relevant standards and inventory maintenance.
To improve the efficiency, cost savings, flexibility, regulatory compliance, safety, and communications across an organization, it has been shown that an object-based componentlevel or complete inventory based on industry standards should be used. To determine which industry standard meets these requirements and is recommended, an evaluation of the standards is provided in this article.
Industry Standards to Evaluate MasterFormat™
|
|
MasterFormat, which is also the basis for most of Table 22 of OmniClass (discussed later in this article) is an industry standard for work results maintained by the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC). There are many corporations, software packages, and organizations that use MasterFormat for equipment identification. MasterFormat is an organizational framework based on work results, which are essentially the end results of construction processes, defined as “the permanent or temporary aspects of construction projects achieved through the application of a particular skill or trade to construction resources.”
For example (Figure 1), a metal rail, communication conduit, and pipe plumbing can all have the same object “galvanized pipe” in common. How the galvanized pipe is installed is expressed as the work result object “metal rail.” MasterFormat breaks down that information into a hierarchical system. MasterFormat has been expanded to 50 divisions that cover different trade disciplines and areas of design and construction. Because it is systems based, MasterFormat should not be used to classify components, though it may be useful for classifying the systems in which components may be used.
UNIFORMAT II™
UNIFORMAT II is another commonly used industry standard maintained by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). This should not be confused with UniFormat™ by CSI and CSC.
|
|
“UniFormat, a publication of CSI and CSC, is the Uniform Classification System for organizing preliminary construction information into a standard order or sequence on the basis of functional elements. Functional elements, often referred to as systems or assemblies, are major components common to most buildings that usually perform a given function regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used.” Source: UniFormat, Construction Specification Institute, www.csinet.org.
“1. Scope (of UNIFORMAT II) 1.1 This standard establishes a classification of building elements and related sitework. Elements, as defined here, are major components common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. The classification serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the feasibility, planning, and design stages of buildings. Using UNIFORMAT II ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of building projects over time and from project to project. It also enhances reporting at all stages in construction from feasibility and planning through the preparation of working documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal.
|
|
1.2 This classification applies to buildings and related site work. It excludes specialized process equipment related to a building’s functional use but does include furnishings and equipment.” Source: ASTM E1557-05e1 Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework UNIFORMAT II, “Scope”, American Society for Testing and Materials, http:// www.astm.org/Standards/E1557.htm. UNIFORMAT II has four levels or hierarchy and is designed as an identification and construction system for cost estimations. UNIFORMAT II is a combination of elements, products, and a systems approach to classification that creates problems in an equipment identification system. An example of the Levels used in UNIFORMAT II is as follows (Figure 2): In Figure 3, the component “door” is listed. An object-based system probably should include the difference between an interior, exterior, or fire-rated door due to the difference in construction and design. But the material or finish should be an attribute of the door. Otherwise, the system would have to include all of the possible different materials used in making doors in the database: stone, slate, marble, wood, metal, etc. Example B also shows the Solar Energy Supply, Wind Energy System and Air Supported Structures, which are systems and not components.
Products are shown that are based on their system instead of the actual design of the product. While some leeway must be given, a pump shouldn’t be classified by how it is used. Most waste pumps are ejectors or rotary pumps and by classifying a product by its use, UNIFORMAT II has now erroneously combined two different types of pump designs with different required maintenance.
This same concept applies to a fan motor. It is actually just an electric motor that is used in multiple configurations; it’s the same type of motor that would be used to power a pump. The fan would be classified by its design; centrifugal, axial, and other unique identifiers. The identification of a fan by return (RFAN) or supply (SFAN) also does not make sense since it is the same fan. Rather, its location in the ductwork or the direction it is pointing determines whether it is used for return or supply ventilation.
|
|
UNSPSC™
United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC) is an international standard that is very extensive and very close to being an object-based code. There are some components that are directly defined within a systems-based approach, but the practice is not extensive. This is a good and well-thought-out code. The only reason that this code is not recommended is that it does not have sufficient product codes or any relationship with the building elements and work results needed for new construction or operation of a facility. The code is products and services only. This article stresses the importance of using a code that architects, design teams, construction, estimation, and facility operations teams can all use to capture and track components from cradle to grave.
OmniClass™
OmniClass is designed as a freely available faceted classification system for the construction industry. It is developed by consensus and with the participation of many organizations, firms, individuals, and agencies from the United States and Canada. The consensus basis of the system is important because it allows all organizations to contribute to the improvement and development of the standard. Therefore, if the code is missing something an organization needs to identify, they can submit the recommendation to the OmniClass Development Committee for the next draft.
“OmniClass (or OCCS) is useful for many applications, from organizing library materials, product literature, and project information, to providing a classification structure for electronic databases. It incorporates other extant systems currently in use as the basis of many of its Tables MasterFormat for work results, UniFormat for elements, and EPIC (Electronic Product Information Cooperation) for structuring products.” Source: OmniClass, Construction Specification Institute, www. omniclass.org.
|
|
Figure 4 shows an example of the OmniClass Table 23 Products. This standard shows a more accurate object-based approach to the identification of components. Note: OmniClass Table 23 is in revision because CSI/CSC recognized that some of the objects within the table were developed using a system-based approach and they are in the process of trying to improve the table. OmniClass also has an important distinction from other standards in that it is a combination of multiple standards in a single object-based approach. For example: OmniClass also includes CSI/CSC UniFormat as the basis for Table 21 and MasterFormat as the basis for Table 22 (Figure 5 on page 23). OmniClass allows the following type of object-based approach to componentlevel identification: Figure 6 (page 23) illustrates how the object for the system “Condensate Return” can be added to the object for a ball valve.
Another important factor in deciding which industry standard to use is the adoption of the standard by industry and the possible longevity of the standard. OmniClass is the backbone standard for the National Building Information Modeling Standard™ (NBIMS) which is a standard under the buildingSMARTalliance™ and the backbone standard for Construction Operations Building Information Exchange™ (COBIE) which is also a standard for NBIMS and the Whole Building Design Guide under the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). An important distinction must be made at this point. The identification of components is not necessarily the same as the naming schema of the component. Identification of the component is important to the data and language transfers required in database communication and development of metrics. The naming schema can be different and is based upon an organization’s process and could easily have no relation to the type of object in question. VLV-0001-DC000 could be a naming schema. The OmniClass-defined numbers, system name, and product name are the component identification aspects.
While naming schema and component identification are separate concepts, it can be important to use industry standards as part of the naming schema. A common example of this is equipment that is labeled after blueprint acronyms; such as AHU for air handling unit. The advantage of using an industry standard, instead of a self-generated system, is the reduced costs to the organization. Most engineers, architects, operations, and maintenance personnel do not have to be trained that AHU represents an air handling unit on a set of prints.
|
|
Along this line of reasoning, the Inter- Agency Federal Asset Classification Team (IFACT) project intends to improve Omni- Class and the United States National CAD Standard and create a cross-reference database that will improve equipment asset object identification, tracking, and asset information management. The IFACT project is an example of enhancing an industry code to meet an organization’s requirements and, thereby, benefit everyone. The intent of the asset identification project is to create a reference-mapping database that pairs an equipment/asset acronym based on United States National CAD Standard with a digital code and description of the asset, based on OmniClass. The United States National CAD Standard was picked for the project because it is an established industry standard for construction, and it has an approved abbreviation section commonly found in software packages.
A goal of the IFACT project is to enhance the standards to such an extent that the information from a Building Information Model (BIM), COBIE, Auto- CAD or other such digital format could be seamlessly downloaded and converted in any database or software package to allow facility managers and organizations the ability to immediately operate the facility effectively.
OmniClass is the standard an organization should be using to identify component-level inventory to minimize, if not eliminate, the additional costs related to inventories noted in this article. If an organization also uses a combination of OmniClass and the National CAD Standard for a naming schema, they will reduce costs to their organization even further.
Maintaining an Inventory
Once the organization has a component inventory, there must be a process implemented to maintain that inventory. A paper-based inventory is very costly to maintain and update because it does not allow an organization to extract data easily for metrics or import to other software systems. Computer-based software packages, commonly referred to as Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) or Strategic Asset Management System (SAMS), are the preferred method to manage inventories.
Some of the CMMS packages support COBIE and NBIMS by incorporating the ability to capture and maintain component-level inventories from cradle to grave. CMMS software solutions range in cost from cheap and simple for small organizations, to very expensive ones that efficiently manage all aspects of assets and portfolios.
As shown by this article, having a component- level inventory can yield significant savings to an organization by improving communications between construction and operations reducing exposure to fines and improving safety, operations and maintenance performance. There are many processes, methods, and frequencies at which to maintain and update inventories. Instead of an analysis of all of the different options this article will recommend the best general practices.
The best practice to maintain an accurate inventory is to first have and then enforce a process. It is important to use multiple approaches to maintain the data. First, the facility managers and their personnel should update the information whenever there is a repair or change, so deviations can be determined and related to performance evaluations. Then, through the scope of work in contracts, organizations must ensure that all projects, renovations, or construction use and supply the component-level data in a digital format consistent with the industry standards. The COBIE standard is a perfect standard to use to facilitate this exact function. COBIE is designed to update the inventories from changes made by projects or renovations. It is very important to ensure the turnover of these deliverables by the contractor. Finally, ensure that the software package used to maintain inventories is compliant with the OmniClass, United States National CAD Standard, COBIE, and NBIMS, such that they can easily import and export the information.
Conclusion
This article has shown that an objectbased component-level inventory using industry standards is the most effective and cost-efficient means to capture and maintain an organizations equipment inventory. By using the methods outlined in this article, an organization can reduce wasted manpower, energy usage, and contract costs. Moreover, they can improve regulatory compliance, emergency response, safety, and the operation and maintenance of their facility.
An inaccurate equipment inventory has a significant negative financial impact on any organization. What most organizations do not realize is that they are paying the cost for not ensuring that equipment inventories for their facilities are accurate and up-to-date. This is especially distressing considering that fixing the problem is not that difficult. The idea that “inventory is a maintenance function” is an outdated and costly mistake.
Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) noted in its CIFE Technical Report #TR171 that, in interviewing FM and owner organizations, only a small percentage incorporated O&M data from models.
For an organization to determine the effectiveness of their facilities, it must request an equipment inventory from the facility manager. The length of time it takes to get the results determines whether the inventory is in a paper or digital format, how readily accessible it is to the facilities team, and demonstrates management’s knowledge and familiarity with the inventory.
The quality of the inventory is directly related to how a facility is maintained and how its manager answers three key questions: Does the inventory match up with the O&M contracts? Is the organization exposed to the problems defined in this article? Does the organization support facility management efforts?
Robert A. Keady Jr., CEM, CSDM, FMP, is energy
manager and building management specialist for
the U.S. General Services Administration. Keady
also is Chairman of OmniClass Table 23, and developer
and project manager of the IFACT project. He
has more than 20 years’ experience in operations,
maintenance, facilities management, energy
management, training, emergency planning, and
electronics in both the private and public sectors.
Keady’s experience ranges from the United States
Navy to the commercial retail industry.