In 2009, we met with Senior Facility Managers of four U.S. national laboratories to discuss a major limitation in the way they summarized their capital needs. As with most large organizations, they expressed capital needs in terms of deferred maintenance projects—things that needed to be fixed as determined by condition assessment (inspection or prescribed schedule). To put these needs in perspective, they computed a facility condition index (FCI), which is the ratio of deferred maintenance (D.M) costs to the replacement value of a building or portfolio.
Several years later, following the acquisition of Whitestone Research by CBRE Inc., it quickly became clear that major healthcare organizations around the world oftentimes employ a similar FCI based approach to their capital planning and prioritization decisions.
FACILITY CONDITION INDEX BREAKDOWN
According to a well-known scale developed initially for educational facilities in 1991, a facility is considered in poor condition if its FCI exceeds 90%. The shortcomings of the FCI approach are well-known, as results are not easily compared with alternative condition assessment approaches, and it does not contemplate methodologies for determining replacement values. These choices can become highly political for an organization that uses, as many do, the FCI as a key policy metric.
The basic concern of the laboratory facility managers was that the FCI did not represent the true condition of the facility in terms of safety, security, mission relevance, and other criteria that actually guide their decisions. FCI is also not a forecast or leading indicator that demonstrates consequences of alternative actions. These concerns led to a series of small projects that would eventually define a new approach to summarizing facility condition and prioritizing capital expenditures.
The new method, Risk Scanning, meets three requirements identified in our original meeting. The process must not rely on expensive inspections, must incorporate multiple (customizable) criteria, and the outcomes must be expressed as a simple monetary value.
This approach has universal applicability for laboratories and for large, corporate occupiers. In addition, we have found this approach to be particularly relevant for healthcare organizations today, given the extraordinary economic and regulatory pressures that have become a reality for the industry.
RISK SCANNING
Risk Scanning assumes that buildings or other assets can be reduced to an inventory of components (roof, HVAC equipment, plumbing fixtures, etc.). Each component has a “survivor” curve that relates its age to the likelihood of its failure in the future, little different than an actuarial calculation for an insurance policy. And each component, should it fail, could have consequences for the building operation. Below, Figure 1 illustrates how this data could be used as a simple sort by probability of failure, consequence of failure, or replacement cost.
A more useful view of this data combines knowledge of the probability of failure and the potential consequences as the Risk Facility Managers implicitly consider when scheduling repairs. For example, a new light bulb in a closet would be low risk (low likelihood of failure, low impact on safety, security, mission, etc.), while a roof or electrical panel, far beyond their expected service life would be a high risk. Individual component risk ratings can be aggregated into risk maps by building, consequence type, or aggregated at the portfolio level.
Another example is a risk scan of a data center built in 1980, as shown in Figure 2. Risk is summarized by three consequences or threats of failure – mission, productivity and safety. The “Loss Intensity” is the measure (low, medium, high) of the impact of failure. Each cell in the tables is the sum of the replacement value of each component. For instance, in the first table there are high risk (red) components with replacement values totaling $374,210.
Figure 2: Dashboard showing risk by consequence
One way to represent overall risk is to sum across the individual tables in Figure 2, by risk category (red = high, yellow = moderate, green = low) to produce a single risk column, as shown in Figure 3. This shows that the costs to replace components rated high risk in 2015 for any reason (mission, productivity, or safety) were $2,349,315. Note that some components are high risk for multiple reasons.
The calculation of the column can be modified for different purposes. The ratings from the dashboard could be weighted to reflect management priorities. The likelihood of failure, and consequent migration of risk ratings, could be estimated for a range of years, as shown for the period 2015-2019.
COMPARING THE FCI WITH RISK SCANNING
The data center example provides a useful comparison of the output from a simple condition assessment with the additional data provided by Risk Scanning.
A conventional facility condition assessment using a life cycle cost model indicated that 75 components had exceeded their service life. The costs of replacing these would be $4,771,159. Considering this amount to be deferred maintenance (D.M.), the FCI would be 5% (given $100 million replacement value). This would be summarized as a building in “fair” condition.
A Risk Scan of the component inventory indicates that 13 components are at high risk, and the costs of replacing these would be $2,349,315. This is less than half the costs of replacements by a simple service life-assessment. An FCI based on high risk components would be 2.2%, indicating a building in “good” condition.
In this case, with the additional information provided by Risk Scanning, the facility would be considered in better condition than with the simple condition assessment. Moreover, the risk scan would provide a rating for all components—including those not yet considered as deferred maintenance—as a basis for anticipating future needs and prioritization.
CONCLUSION
The Risk Scanning approach uses well-known risk analytics applied to pre-existing facility data to provide a richer view of facility condition more consistent with actual management decision making. In practice, limited funding is directed to those repairs and replacements that address corporate priorities, such as safety, security, and mission achievement. For healthcare systems, this approach can provide critical insight for decision-making about capital deployment where actionable criteria are not established or where data is limited.
About the Authors
Peter Lufkin is Senior Managing Director and Luca Romani is Senior Analyst with CBRE Whitestone.
Related Stories
| May 20, 2014
Using fire-rated glass in exterior applications
Fire-rated glazing and framing assemblies are just as beneficial on building exteriors as they are on the inside. But knowing how to select the correct fire-rated glass for exterior applications can be confusing. SPONSORED CONTENT
| May 20, 2014
World's best new skyscrapers: Renzo Piano's The Shard, China's 'doughnut hotel' voted to Emporis list
Eight other high-rise projects were named Emporis Skyscraper Award winners, including DC Tower 1 by Dominique Perrault Architecture and Tour Carpe Diem by Robert A.M. Stern.
| May 19, 2014
What can architects learn from nature’s 3.8 billion years of experience?
In a new report, HOK and Biomimicry 3.8 partnered to study how lessons from the temperate broadleaf forest biome, which houses many of the world’s largest population centers, can inform the design of the built environment.
| May 19, 2014
Why e-commerce won't kill 'bricks and mortar' retail sector
Despite emerging structural challenges and newly-announced store closings, such as those of Radio Shack and Office Depot, the U.S. retail sector has continued on its solid recovery.
| May 16, 2014
BoA, USGBC to offer $25,000 grants for green affordable housing projects
The Affordable Green Neighborhoods Grant Program will offer 14 grants to developers of affordable housing in North America who are committed to building sustainable communities through the LEED for Neighborhood Development program.
| May 16, 2014
HED expands leadership in San Diego
Neville Willsmore, Thomas Christian join leadership team for Harley Ellis Devereaux.
| May 16, 2014
Toyo Ito leads petition to scrap Zaha Hadid's 2020 Olympic Stadium project
Ito and other Japanese architects cite excessive costs, massive size, and the project's potentially negative impact on surrounding public spaces as reasons for nixing Hadid's plan.
| May 15, 2014
Paints, coatings, and sealants: 10 new ways to seal the deal
Color-shifting finishes, dry-erase surfaces, and stain-blocking paints are highlighted in this round up of new offerings in paints, coatings, sealants, and finishes.
| May 15, 2014
Biking to work up by 60 percent, according to Census Bureau report
Many U.S. cities are seeing an increase in bicycle commuters, according to new a U.S. Census Bureau report. While bicyclists still account for just 0.6% of all commuters, some of the nation's largest cities have more than doubled their rates since 2000.
| May 15, 2014
'Virtually indestructible': Utah architect applies thin-shell dome concept for safer schools
At $94 a square foot and "virtually indestructible," some school districts in Utah are opting to build concrete dome schools in lieu of traditional structures.