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
| Jun 21, 2013
AIA report: Greater collaboration, stiffer competition among top trends in architecture
A new 34-page report from AIA highlights key trends in the architecture marketplace and their impact on business and growth.
| Jun 20, 2013
Virtual meetings enhance design of University at Buffalo Medical School
HOK designers in New York, St. Louis and Atlanta are using virtual meetings with their University at Buffalo (UB) client team to improve the design process for UB’s new School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences on the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus.
| Jun 19, 2013
Architects upbeat about the construction market
Following the first reversal into negative territory in ten months in April, AIA's Architecture Billings Index bounced back in May, reaching 52.9.
| Jun 19, 2013
NSF Sustainability begins verifying EPDs that can be used for LEED V4
NSF Sustainability has verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for nylon carpet styles and colors manufactured by Mannington Commercial and for J+J Flooring Group’s Kinetex® flooring product and Invision brand modular styles that use eKo® backing.
| Jun 19, 2013
Florida is latest battleground over LEED standards centered on certified wood
A nationwide battle over forest certification standards continues to be played out nationally and in Florida with legislation passed this month.
| Jun 19, 2013
Construction site safety improved in 2011
On-the-job construction fatalities dropped from 802 in 2010 to 781 in 2011, and recordable injuries fell from 4.7 per 100 workers in 2008 to 3.9 per 100 in 2011, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
| Jun 19, 2013
New York City considers new construction standards for hospitals, multifamily buildings
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration has proposed new building codes for hospitals and multifamily dwellings in New York City to help them be more resilient in the event of severe weather resulting from climate change.
| Jun 18, 2013
Report: HVAC occupancy sensors could slash building energy demand by 18%
Researchers at the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conclude that significant energy savings can be achieved by varying ventilation levels based on the number of people in a given space.
| Jun 18, 2013
Turner report: Activity in urban markets driving construction cost increases
Turner Construction Company announced that the Second Quarter 2013 Turner Building Cost Index – which measures costs in the non-residential building construction market in the United States – has increased to a value of 859. This reflects a 1.18% increase from the First Quarter 2013 and 4.00% yearly increase from the Second Quarter 2012.
| Jun 17, 2013
First look: Austin to get first high-rise since 2003
Developer Cousins Properties broke ground on the 29-story Colorado Tower in downtown Austin, Texas, the city's first high-rise building since Cousins' completed the Frost Bank Tower a decade ago.