Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 1

Defining Performance Requirements to Assess the Suitability of Constructed Assets in Support of the Mission of the Organization Francoise Szigeti, Gerald Davis, Jack Dempsey, David Hammond, Dianne Davis, Marc Colombard-Prout and Orlando Catarina1 Abstract This paper illustrates how the ASTM/ANSI standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability are used for Strategic Portfolio and Asset Management. These standards include a methodology and tools that are used to (1) define what is required – Demand, (2) provide quantitative and qualitative information about the capability of a facility to meet client and user requirements – Supply, and (3) match the two to assess the suitability of a constructed asset to meet the stated requirements -- Suitability. The information captured can be linked to virtual building models and other information such as condition and service life, space utilization, etc., in a comprehensive “Suitability Stamp” for each facility or group of facilities. As a visual summary, the Suitability Stamp gives decision-makers an overview of the status of their properties – whether leased or owned -- in relation to the criticality of the mission, and of the issues they need to address and of the urgency of the risk for each facility. Decision-makers and users need such information in order to make choices, adjudicate trade-offs, and set priorities. Such information can be used to estimate cost-to-cure, set funding priorities, allocate budgets and rank projects. When assembled with context information for all the facilities used, this becomes part of a process to prepare a Strategic Management Facilities Plan and decide on a set of actions. In short, the Suitability Stamp presents the WHY (mission criticality) and summarizes the match between WHAT is required and HOW the support is provided. This is the essence of the Performance Based (PB) approach. This standard method applies to different occupancy types and in different cultures. This paper briefly present the methodology and reports on its application in two on-going projects, one in North America and one in France. 1. Introduction “The performance approach is, first and foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means. It is concerned with what a building is required to do, and not with prescribing how it is to be constructed” (Gibson, 1982). What does this mean? As one client executive remarked: “At the end of the day, we need to be able to verify that what we get, at move in and over the life cycle of the facility, is what we asked for and paid for”. So, the question is: “How do we define the functionality we require from facilities in support of the mission and operations of our organizations, at what level of quality/performance, and how do we measure whether they perform as we expect?” To implement a performance based approach and provide the necessary supporting information, it is crucial to define and describe explicitly the requirements of users and to use robust ways of verifying that the results have indeed been obtained. Being able to compare and match requirements to facilities is key. Otherwise, conformance of results to stated levels of required performance cannot be verified. On the other hand, facilities are not “good” or “bad”. They are “more” or “less” suitable. The ASTM standards include a methodology to: • link to the mission of the organization or the objectives of individuals, • create and use calibrated scales to define requirements (demand) on a wide range of topics and to assess the

capability of facilities (supply) to meet these stated requirements at a matching level, • define demand, • rate supply, • match demand to supply, and

1 F. I. Szigeti is vice-president, International Centre for Facilities (ICF); Gerald Davis, CFM, AIA, F-ASTM, F-IFMA, is president, International Centre for Facilities (ICF); J. J. Dempsey, PE, is Lieutenant Commander, U.S Coast Guard, serving at Head-quarters; D. Hammond, RLA, is a senior program manager, also at US Coast Guard Headquarters; D. Davis is director, AEC-InfoSystems, Inc.; M. Colombard-Prout is Laboratory Manager, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), France; and O. Catarina is Program Leader, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB)

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 2

• analyze the gaps. Calibrated scales are structured to provide comparable results, fast, reliably, and at a relatively low cost. They are not intended for detailed programming or in-depth technical investigations. The ASTM standards include a set of scales applicable to office work and other functions. (ASTM 2000; Davis et al. 1993a, 1993b, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c) These scales are explicit, comprehensive, transparent, and easy to use with little training. The results are expressed as qualitative descriptions and quantitative results that are auditable and congruent with ISO 9000. The scales help users state their requirements and include indicators of capability so that a process for measuring the product against stated requirements can be put in place, and the users can verify whether they get what they asked for. The results complement Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) and cross-reference to customer satisfaction surveys. The essence of this “functionality and serviceability” approach is to ascertain what level of functionality is required of each facility on each of a broad range of topics, and, separately, to use physical features of a facility as indicators of its level of capability, that is, how serviceable it is to meet each requirement. A comparison between those two levels provides information for a gap analysis and shows how suitable a facility or constructed asset is in response to a given set of requirements. For each topic, the approach uses a pair of scales, one for demand, to assess one topic of functionality, and one for supply, to assess one topic of serviceability. This is diagrammed in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a sample set of scales. Figure 3 shows the same set of scales with explanatory annotations.

Figure 1 - Matching demand and supply to prepare gap analysis.

Suitability9

7

5

3

1

9

7

5

3

1

Diagram by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis© 1993, 2003 International Centre

for Facilities, reproduced with permission

Required FunctionalityCalibrated tools

to define thelevels of functionality

and service liferequired by stakeholders

Rating of ServiceabilityCalibrated tools to measurethe actual or predicted levels

of capability to perform,of a whole building,

infrastructure, or a partthereof, and the

anticipated service life

0

9

Demand Supply

Questionnairefor Stakeholders

Questionnaireabout Assets

Compare

Standard demand andsupply scales are

different, but matched

Supply is more =Supply is less =Supply matches

demand =

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 3

Aspect: A.11. Image to Public and Occupants

Topic A.11.6. Identity outside building

User Requirement Scale Facility Rating Scale 9

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations require maximum exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be very easy for pedestrians or motorists to find and recognize, even for those unfamiliar with the locality

8

9

❍ Identity of building: The building is a well known landmark. The building and entrance are clearly visible and recognizable. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization’s identity is clearly recognizable, and readily visible from all directions. Direction signs are placed at main nearby transit stops. ❍ Quality of external signs: The building has special custom signage, e.g. stand-alone elements, special lighting, and full information. All signs are in as-new condition.

7

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations require above average exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be easy to find and recognize, even for those not very familiar with the locality.

6

7

❍ Identity of building: The building and building entry are clearly visible to passing motorists and pedestrians, and recognizable. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is well identified from all directions. Signage is adequate, and clearly visible on every approach to passing motorists and pedestrians. ❍ Quality of external signs: Building signage is appropriate and typical, e.g. street address, building name, principal occupant group(s). Signs have no visible deterioration.

5

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations require average exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be easy to find and recognize those familiar with the locality.

4

5

❍ Identity of building: The building and building entry are visible to passing motorists. The building is identifiable, and not easily confused with its neighbours. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is identified to a minimum level. Signage is generally visible to passing motorists and pedestrians. ❍ Quality of external signs: Building signage is appropriate and typical, e.g. street address, building name and, if appropriate, principal occupant group(s). Signs have no damage or major deterioration.

3

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations do not require much exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: Most visitors are regulars. Corporate image is not a high priority.

2

3

❍ Identity of building: The building is obscured by other buildings from some directions, and from people approaching along the street from one direction. The building is very similar and hardly distinguishable from adjacent buildings. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is not clearly identified. Signs are obscured from some directions or are in poor light. ❍ Quality of external signs: Signage is minimal or impaired, e.g. minimal information, weathered surfaces, partly damaged.

1

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations require that the office is obscure to the public, e.g. for security reasons. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: There is no requirement for visitors to find or identify the building.

1 ❍ Identity of building: The building is obscured by other buildings until

viewed from directly in front, or, the building is not distinguishable from adjacent buildings, e.g. facades are almost the same. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: There is no evidence of the organization’s identity on the exterior of the building. Signs are obscured, e.g. by vehicles or other buildings. Signs are very poorly located or hand to read, e.g. signs are too high on the building, too small, the lettering is too small or low in contract, or signs are in shadow. ❍ Quality of external signs: Signage is minimal or badly damaged, with incomplete information, e.g. no street number or building name.

0

❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Must not be visible to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFY-ING BUILDING: Building must not be identifiable.

0

❍ Identity of building: The building is not identifiable as a separate facility. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: There is nothing to indicate the identity of the organization. ❍ Quality of external signs: There are no external signs.

Exceptionally important. Important. Minor Importance.

MinimumThreshold Level = Not Applicable Lack Information Decision Postponed

NOTES Space for handwritten notes on Requirements or Ratings Figure 2 - Example of a pair of scales for one topic.

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 4

This is the eleventh aspect in the set of scales for functionality. In the aspect, “Image to public and occupants,” there are seven topics. This is the sixth.

Aspect: A.11. Image to Public and Occupants

The occupants use contents of this left-hand column Topic A.11.6. Identity outside building User Requirement Scale Facility Rating Scale as though it were a multiple-choice

question, to set the required level of functionality on this topic. They decide which of these statements comes closest to describing their requirement. These three features

9 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations require maximum exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be very easy for pedestrians or motorists to find and recognize, even for those unfamiliar with the locality

8

9

❍ Identity of building: The building is a well known landmark. The building and entrance are clearly visible and recognizable. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization’s identity is clearly recognizable, and readily visible from all directions. Direction signs are placed at main nearby transit stops. ❍ Quality of external signs: The building has special custom signage, e.g. stand-alone elements, special lighting, and full information. All signs are in as-new condition.

are indicators of serviceability. Taken together, (in combination) they indicate that the facility is capable of meeting the required level of functionality specified in the left column.

7 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations

require above average exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be easy to find and recognize, even for those not very familiar with the locality.

6

7

❍ Identity of building: The building and building entry are clearly visible to passing motorists and pedestrians, and recognizable. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is well identified from all directions. Signage is adequate, and clearly visible on every approach to passing motorists and pedestrians. ❍ Quality of external signs: Building signage is appropriate and typical, e.g. street address, building name, principal occupant group(s). Signs have no visible deterioration.

These two required functions, taken together, describe the functional requirements on this topic. They range from level 9 (most) to level 1 (least).

5 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations

require average exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: The address, building and signage must be easy to find and recognize those familiar with the locality.

4

5

❍ Identity of building: The building and building entry are visible to passing motorists. The building is identifiable, and not easily confused with its neighbours. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is identified to a minimum level. Signage is generally visible to passing motorists and pedestrians. ❍ Quality of external signs: Building signage is appropriate and typical, e.g. street address, building name and, if appropriate, principal occupant group(s). Signs have no damage or major deterioration.

This is the name of a function. The number of functions in a topic will vary from one topic to another. Most typical are two to five.

This is the name of a feature. The number of features in a topic

3 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations do

not require much exposure to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: Most visitors are regulars. Corporate image is not a high priority.

2

3

❍ Identity of building: The building is obscured by other buildings from some directions, and from people approaching along the street from one direction. The building is very similar and hardly distinguishable from adjacent buildings. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: The organization is not clearly identified. Signs are obscured from some directions or are in poor light. ❍ Quality of external signs: Signage is minimal or impaired, e.g. minimal information, weathered surfaces, partly damaged.

will vary from one topic to another. Most typical are two to five. If the actual requirement level or rating level is between level 3 and level 1, then the required or rating level would be 2.

1 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Operations

require that the office is obscure to the public, e.g. for security reasons. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: There is no requirement for visitors to find or identify the building.

1

❍ Identity of building: The building is obscured by other buildings until viewed from directly in front, or, the building is not distinguishable from adjacent buildings, e.g. facades are almost the same. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: There is no evidence of the organization’s identity on the exterior of the building. Signs are obscured, e.g. by vehicles or other buildings. Signs are very poorly located or hand to read, e.g. signs are too high on the building, too small, the lettering is too small or low in contract, or signs are in shadow. ❍ Quality of external signs: Signage is minimal or badly damaged, with incomplete information, e.g. no street number or building name.

To rate the serviceability of a facility, see which combination of features best describes what is physically present in the facility

0 ❍ PUBLIC EXPOSURE: Must not be

visible to the public. ❍ EASE OF LOCATING AND IDENTIFYING BUILDING: Building must not be identifiable.

0

❍ Identity of building: The building is not identifiable as a separate facility. ❍ Corporate identity and signage: There is nothing to indicate the identity of the organization. ❍ Quality of external signs: There are no external signs.

The minimum threshold level Exceptionally important. Important. Minor Importance. of serviceability may be the same as or Minimum Threshold Level = Not Applicable Lack Information Decision Postponed lower than the required level, depending on other options and possible tradeoffs. NOTES Space for handwritten notes on Requirements or Ratings

Figure 3 - Annotated example of a pair of scales for one topic.

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 5

Information about functionality has now been put together with other information in a comprehensive “Suitability Stamp” that gives decision-makers an overview of their real estate assets in relation to their requirements. It shows graphically which facilities are at risk and require urgent action, and which issues require attention. The ability to use computerized databases and virtual building models will, in time, allow all stakeholders access to the same information throughout the Life Cycle Management process. This Suitability Stamp and its underlying information make it easy to compare different facilities to the mission and requirements of the users, and, therefore, to make appropriate real estate decisions in a transparent and consistent manner. In short, the Suitability Stamp presents the WHY (mission criticality) and summarizes the match between the WHAT and the HOW. These can also be described as two languages, that of the client/user and that of the supplier as diagrammed in Figure 4. The Suitability Tamp and its application are diagrammed in Figure 5. Such a method applies to different occupancy types and in different cultures. The next section reports on one project to illustrate the methodology and its results.

Figure 4 – Performance based requirements: WHY, WHAT and HOW

2. Assessing the suitability of a portfolio of assets The primary focus of this example is the assessment of the functional suitability of major assets, as a component of the organization’s real estate Regional Strategic Plan. This is an organization with a number of property sites. The purpose of the project was to assist the organization to allocate resources objectively in enhancing mission capability. It answers the question, “Does the asset provide the required functionality, or more, or less?” Based on the methodology included in the ASTM/ANSI standards for Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, the authors and a team of information specialists have assembled a visual presentation of the major components of an asset and portfolio analysis as a “Suitability Stamp. This provides the organization with the information it needs, summarized in such a way that senior management can see at a glance which assets are “mission critical," and whether each asset is capable of supporting that mission. In this example, relevant information about major physical assets at one of these sites was collected and summarized. The main components of the suitability stamp, illustrated in Figure 5, relate the capability of the facilities to the requirements of a major user group, at a site with several buildings, and show how critical the facilities or zones are to its mission. Figure 6 summarizes the information available, or estimated, for 10 buildings and/or zones in a building. It shows how these facilities match requirements for five key sets of issues (identified with ** below) selected from the following: • **M = Importance to the Mission. Relative importance of each core asset for the mission of the organization.

1Serviceability Tools & Methods, ST&M, and BestFIT are Trademarks of Serviceability Tools & Methods, Inc., which operates under license from the International Centre for Facilities, Inc. © 1993, 2001, 2002 International Centre for Facilities, Inc.

WHYis it REQUIREDDescribe mission and purpose

WHATIS REQUIREDDefine ends and expected results in support of business OR other mission

CLIENTusers/customersunderstand

HOWCAN ONE OR MORE SOLUTIONS meet the requirements.Assess capability to perform.

SUPPLIERsupply chainparticipants understand and respond appropriately

Compare&

Match

Conceptual Framework: Two languages

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 6

• B = Building Codes and Regulations. Estimate of fit between the levels required and the actual situation: occupational safety and environmental health, fire and life safety, accessibility, seismic and blast resistance, etc.

• E = Environmental Protection. Estimate of fit between the levels required, and the actual situation. Environmental regulations, hazardous materials and waste, compliance, sustainability, life cycle analysis, etc.

• **S = Security. Estimate of fit between the levels required, and the actual situation. This would be based on actual assessments, such as Threat and Risk studies, including data about likelihood of natural hazards, such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc, crime and terrorism.

• **C= Condition and Service Life. Fit between the condition and anticipated remaining service life required to support the mission, and estimated budget risks.

• **F = Functionality. Assessment of fit between the functionality required for the mission, and the serviceability of the asset.

• **U = Utilization. Percent of space utilized, or over-utilized (over-crowding). • R = Real Property. Easements, in grants/out grants, title, metes and bounds, etc. • $ = Costs. Compared against budgets and benchmarks: First project and construction costs, or any of the

following separately or in combination: costs for Renovations/Repairs and Alterations (R&A), fit-up at move-in, or Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FFE), response to IT and Technology changes, etc., other costs such as Life Cycle Costs (LLC),

• L = Location. The Suitability Stamp of each asset is linked to its location on the site, via its GIS code. Figure 6 summarizes the functional suitability for the mission of the 10 major assets on the site and provides an overview of the gap analysis for F=functionality, as categories for action. The assets are ranked from best fit at left to greatest deficiency at right. The Functionality and Serviceability of each asset are classified in accordance with American National Standards contained in ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability. For each facility, a category for action is derived from comparing the functionality required for the mission, with the serviceability of the actual facilities. The authors developed functionality and serviceability profiles over a two weeks period on site during the summer of 2003. Each building houses several different functional facilities. Each facility or zone has its own serviceability profile. Figure 6 indicates that some facilities, such as for the Maintenance Shops in Buildings 3 and 4, more than meet requirements for functionality. At the same time, other facilities in Building 3, and some facilities in Buildings 1 and 4, are functionally deficient, and one facility in Building 3 is dysfunctional. 3. Performance Requirements as part of a Regional Strategic Plan: Right Facility, Right Time, Right Place, Right Cost Organizations with large portfolios are starting to create functionality requirements profiles for their operational groups in order to be able to compare the capability of the facilities to meet those requirements. (Szigeti and Davis, 2002, 2001a, 2001b)

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 7

Figure 5. Suitability in Response to Requirements Graphic Summary of Selected Issues for Use in Developing the Regional Strategic Plan

Notes:(1) Of the issues in the legend, only 5 are displayed in the SuitabilityStamps above. Each issue can be toggled to display or be hidden.Issues for which data is not yet available or lower priority have beentoggled “off” in the above diagram.(2) This diagram contains some data that has been partiallyvalidated. Other data has been estimated.(3) At this time, the data in the suitability stamp for each zone of abuilding is manually entered based on underlying reports. Some isalready embedded in the 3-D Virtual Model of the facilities. Weexpect that most or all will be embedded, and that the suitabilitystamps will be generated automatically from the model.(4) Condition is assessed relative to required remaining service life.(5) “Security” represents the fit between security required and theactual situation.(6) Importance for the mission is derived from the Business StrategicPlan.(7) Data on Functionality is derived from the gap analysis using theFunctionality-Serviceability tools and methods in ASTM Standards onWhole Building Functionality and Serviceability , and the categoriesfor action in Figure 2.

ID = Real Property Facility Number+ sub-codes as needed

LEGEND: STAMP FOR SUITABILITYIN RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENTS

Diagrams by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davisin collaboration with SHIP Technologies, Inc.© 2003 International Centre for Facilities, Inc.

S=Security

Redundant

ConsiderMitigated

DeficientUrgent

F=Functionality-Serviceability

Exceeds Need

ConsiderGood Fit

DeficientDysfunctional

R=Real PropertyFactors

Not Required

ImportantMinor

ExceptionalCritical

$=Total Costs ofOwnership

Minimal

ImportantMinor

ExceptionalCritical

U=Utilization

Underutilized

FullAppropriate

CrampedOverutilized

B=Building Codes

Exceeds Need

AdequateAppropriate

DeficientUrgent

C=Condition andService LifeExceeds Need

AdequateAppropriate

DeficientUrgent

E=Environmental

Not Required

ImportantMinor

ExceptionalCritical

M=MissionImportance

Critical

ImportantExceptional

MinorNot Required

Building 1

Building 4

Public Street

Building 2

Building 3

Bldg. 4.Offices

ID=

U

FC

MS

Appropriate

Important

ConsiderAdequate

Important

Bldg. 4.Maintenance

Shops ID=

Important

ExceedsNeedAdequate

Appropriate

ImportantFCU

MS

Bldg 3.Warehouse

ID=

FCU

MS

Important

ConsiderAdequate

Underutilized

Exceptional

Bldg 3.Office and Training

ID=Important

DeficientDeficient

Appropriate

ExceptionalFCU

MS

Bldg. 1.Electrical

Equipment Center ID=

Critical

ConsiderDeficient

Appropriate

ExceptionalFCU

MS

Bldg. 1.Electrical Support

Unit ID=

FCU

MS

Critical

DeficientDeficient

Full

Exceptional

Bldg. 1. FacilityEngineering

ID=Exceptional

DeficientAdequate

Full

ImportantFCU

MS

Bldg. 1Maint. Shops

ID=

FCU

MS

Important

ExceedsNeedAdequate

Full

Important

Bldg. 2.Control Center

ID=Critical

Good FitAdequate

Full

ExceptionalFCU

MS

Bldg. 2.Head Offices

ID=Exceptional

DeficientDeficient

Full

ExceptionalFCU

MS

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 8

Bldg 4 Maint. Shops

Bldg 3 Maint. Shops

Bldg 1 Hi-

Tech

Bldg 2 Ware-house

Bldg 3 Comp Server Center

Bldg 4 Office

Bldg 3 Office

Bldg 1 Office

Bldg 2 Office street side

Bldg 3 Facil Engr

Count of topics considered 14 13 14 14 10 43 24 30 43 31 Topics lack information, level cannot be set 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 1 12 3

Topics with sufficient info to rate 14 11 14 14 10 31 24 29 31 28

Topics with Significant Problems of fit Serviceability does not meet minimum threshold level

0 0 0 1 2 7 9 11 11 10

Exceptionally important topic, at least 2 levels below requirement, (and not in above count of missed threshold levels)

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 4

Important topic, and at least 3 levels below requirement (and not in above count of missed threshold levels)

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Minor importance topic, 4 or more levels below or above requirement (and not in above count of missed threshold levels)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Count of Topics with Significant Problems of Fit

0 0 0 2 2 9 9 12 13 16

Percent of topics without significant problems of fit. Formula is: Topics sufficient info - Topics problems of fit Topics sufficient info

100% 100% 100% 86% 80% 71% 63% 59% 58% 43%

Count of topics that exceed needs by more than one level

7 5 1 1

Percent of topics that exceed Need by more than 1 level

50% 45% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%

Category for action Blue Blue Green Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Orange Orange Red

Calibration Rules for Categories for Action on Functionality These rules may be adjusted, depending on objectives for managing the portfolio.

BLUE = Exceeds need. At least 90% of topics are in acceptable range. More than 20% of topics exceed required level of functionality. All meet required threshold levels.

GREEN = Good Fit for the functionality requirement profile. At least 90% of topics are in acceptable range. Less than 20% of topics exceed required level of functionality. All meet required threshold levels.

YELLOW = Adequate = At least 70% of topics are in acceptable range. May have some topics below threshold. ORANGE = Deficient = 50% to 70% of topics are in acceptable range. May have some topics below threshold. RED = Dysfunctional = Less than 50% of topics are in acceptable range. May have some topics below threshold.

Prepared by Françoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis. © 2003 International Centre for Facilities, Inc.

Figure 6. How suitable: asset “fit” calibrated according to action required

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 9

Str

ate

gic

Pla

nn

ing

Tact

ical

Execu

tio

n

Mission & Operational

Drivers

Scope & Scope & MissionMissionSWOTSWOT

LogLogAssm’tAssm’t

OpsOpsAssm’tAssm’t

Operational Planning

Resource & $ Management

Logistical Planning

Regional Strategic Planning

111 444

333

777

GapGapAnalysisAnalysis

BusinessBusinessCasesCases

555 666222

FIGURE 7 – Integrated Decision-Making Process (Dempsey and Hammond, 2002)

Tactical Execution Tactical Execution

Logistical Requirements

Logistical Capability

Strategic Goals

Missions

Public Demand

Tactical Execution Tactical Execution

Logistical Requirements

Logistical Capability

Strategic Goals

Missions

Public Demand

FIGURE 8 – Gap Analysis (Dempsey and Hammond, 2002)

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 10

Portfolio and asset management provides the link between business demands and real estate strategy. At the portfolio level, requirements for facilities are usually rolled up into the Strategic Real Estate Plan in support of the business plan for the enterprise. Requirements for facilities, needed by an enterprise, will normally be included in a portfolio management strategy. An asset management plan for a facility would include the specific requirements for that facility. A Statement of Requirements, in one form or another, is part of the contractual documentation for each specific procurement. The Suitability Stamp described above provides summary information from the gap analysis between the assessment of levels of operational requirements compared to the assessment of the levels of logistical capabilities. (Figures 7 and 8 above) In the example described above (See section 2), the process followed to create the Regional Strategic Plan has seven parts: (1) Strategic planning, (2) Scope & Mission – SWOT analysis, (3) Operational Assessment, (4) Logistical Assessment, (5) Gap Analysis, (6) Business Case Development, and (7) Execution Plan. Of particular interest for the subject matter discussed in this paper are steps 3, 4, and 5 in Figure 7 above. (Dempsey and Hammond, 2002) Step 3 is when the Performance Requirements for Operations are defined, Step 4 is when the capability of the logistical support is assessed, Step 5 is when the two are matched and the “gap” is analyzed. This process architecture provides a context to link strategic planning, represented by district and area regional strategic assessment, to localized funding execution strategies. When such steps are explicitly linked together, then the overall process can be deemed to be “performance based”. Solutions are not prescribed, on the contrary. This process focuses on objectives, goals and outcomes directly linked to the mission of each operational unit. 4. Linking to an object-based “Virtual Building Information Model In time, the organization expects that all results, and their underlying data, will become part of the virtual computer model of each significant asset at all the sites of this organization. The Building Information Model (BIM) is a geo-spatial database and becomes a single repository of your data. It is a living document and can be shared, updated, and utilized by anyone with access. Data stored in its geo-spatial context can be analyzed and relationships critical for decision making are self-evident. These models can also be manipulated for “gaming” scenarios with the real data utilized in these “what-if” scenarios. In these cases the models can act as “active agents” on the data. Then, anyone with access rights to the models will be able to call up any of this information, and have it graphically displayed, linked to the geographic location (GIS) of each physical asset in buildings and infrastructure. This will include each major facility, even each zone or room within a building. In North America, some large owner-occupier organizations are starting to assemble such a comprehensive database for each facility in their portfolio. Throughout the life cycle of a facility, many people, such as portfolio and facility managers, users, operations and maintenance staff, financial managers, and others, should be able to contribute to and access this pool of data, information, and knowledge. These kinds of data and information are still mostly contained in "silos," with many disconnects between the different phases of the life cycle of a facility. Too often the data are captured repeatedly, stored in incompatible formats, and are difficult to correlate and keep accurate. The use of computerized databases, virtual building models and the move to Web-based software applications and projects are steps toward the creation of a shared information base for the management of real estate assets. Once such shared databases exist, the value of evaluations and benchmarking exercises will increase because the information will be easier to retrieve when needed. The shared data and knowledge base will also make it easier to “close the loop” and relate the facilities delivered to the demands of the enterprise. 5. Defining and Assessing Quality Quality is described in ISO 9000 as the “totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs”. Quality is also defined as “fitness for purpose at a given cost.” The differences between Tiffany or Gucci quality and Wal-Mart or IKEA quality do not need to be explained. Both provide quality and value for money. Both are appropriate, depending on what the customer is looking for, for what purpose, and at what price. Quality therefore is not absolute but relative to the circumstance. It is the most appropriate result that can be obtained for the price one is willing to pay. In order to be able to evaluate and

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 11

compare different results or offerings, and verify whether the requirements have been satisfied, these must be stated as clearly as possible (Szigeti et al., 2003). Assessing customer perception and satisfaction, and evaluating the quality of the performance delivered by a facility in support of customer requirements are two complementary, but not identical, types of assessments. Consumer Reports published a series of items dealing with the ratings of health maintenance organizations. In one of the articles, the question of the quality of the ratings is posed and an important point is made. “Satisfaction measures are important. But, don’t confuse them with measures of medical quality…” (Consumer Reports, 2000). The key point is that measuring customer satisfaction is important and necessary, but that it is equally important to measure the actual quality and performance of the services and products delivered separately, whether it be medical care or facilities and services in support of the occupants and the enterprise. 6. The need for systematic evaluations against defined requirements Many enterprises, public and private, typically review the project file during commissioning and hand-over, and note whether the project was completed within budget and on schedule. Some also assess how well each new or remodeled facility meets the requirements of the business users who occupy it. Essential knowledge can be captured as part of a formal institutional memory of what works well, what works best, and what should not be repeated. There is an array of different methods and tools that can be used to capture this information. A number of tools have been catalogued by a group of researchers and practitioners based at the University of Victoria at Wellington, New Zealand (Baird et al., 1996), including the ones described in this paper. 7. Applicability to different occupancies The ASTM standard methodology for matching demand to supply can be used to create specific sets scales for any functions and any assets. Currently, the ASTM Standards include about 106 scales. These sets of scales have been used in a number of settings, including offices, retail, courts, labs, etc., primarily to assess the general aspects of the facilities, but not those zones that support unique functions. Scales also exist for Service Yards, Service Life and Condition and Compliance. (Davis et al, 2001, 2000a, 2000b) Scales are under development for other functions such as support for ships, air operations, housing, training and health. Others are planned. 8. Applicability to different cultures The ASTM standard methodology has been updated and proposed to ISO for international standardization. It is currently an ISO Committee Draft (CD21933-1). In the course of discussions within the ISO TC 59 SC3 WG 14, which is responsible for this document, it was generally agreed that sets of scales such as the ASTM standards need to be prepared in each different culture, and that, therefore, only the methodology would be standardized at the ISO level. Nonetheless, the ASTM scales were demonstrated in several countries. These demonstrations showed that the ASTM sets of scales can be used in other developed countries. About 15% of the scales were shown to require some edit. Some need to take into account differences in building practice and others need to take into account differences in work practices or other more culturally specific practices. The ASTM standard scales are being translated and adapted to the French context in collaboration with the Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB) under contract to the French Government. The objective of the project is to demonstrate the applicability of this set of tools to the evaluation of French public administrative facilities. A draft of the scales, in French, has been used, as a test, to ask a set of users to determine the level of their requirements and create the “functionality requirement profile” for that group. Their current space has been assessed. This group will move in the next two years and a new building is currently at the planning stage. The scales will be used to assess the design as it emerges. By comparing the profile of functionality requirements for the group to the “serviceability profile” of the design, adjustments can be made during the design stage, before the design is finalized. Once the French set of scales is stable, generic profiles will be created for different types of “office functional groups”. Other facilities will be assessed and matched to different profiles. So far, past experience has been validated. Less than 15% of the scales required substantive edits. Several kinds of edits were addressed: building practice; climate; legislation, codes and regulations; and socio-cultural elements. Some edits were also due to technology changes; therefore, a few scales needed to be updated. The methodology, on the other hand, was found to be simple, easy to use, and applicable.

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 12

9. What the future will bring In the preface to his recent book, Professor Charles Eastman writes: “We are coming to the end of an epoch. Architecture, civil engineering and building construction have relied upon paper based drawings as the primary working representation for over two millennia. However, within the next few decades, these practices will move to a new electronic digital representation.“ (Eastman, 1999) Computer environments will be needed to support the life cycle management of properties and provide the tools for integrating text, numbers, visuals, graphics and other data about: demand, supply, functionality, serviceability, suitability, quantities, qualities, and processes. An integrated model of the full life cycle of constructed assets is currently being prepared by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI), with a focus on Portfolio and Asset Management. It will incorporate information on client requirements from a performance based approach point of view to the delivery and use of constructed assets. By allowing all stakeholders access to an integrated database, instead of the current silos, interoperable computer applications will make it possible to manage requirements and track and measure performance, and to analyze gaps against requirements. References ASTM (2000). ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability, Compendium 2nd Edition. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). Baird G. et al. (1996). Building Evaluation Technique. Wellington, New Zealand: McGraw Hill. Consumer Reports (2000). Rating the Raters, August 31, 2000. Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. Davis, G. et al. (2003a). Serviceability Tools, Volume 6. “B” Scales for Office Buildings (excerpt from Volume 2) Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (2003b). Serviceability Tools, Volume 4. Requirement Scales for Office Buildings (excerpt from Volume 2 – Second edition) Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (2003c). Serviceability Tools, Volume 5. Rating Scales for Office Buildings (excerpt from Volume 2 – Second edition) Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (2001). Serviceability Tools, Volume 3. Portfolio and Asset Management: Scales for Setting Requirements and for Rating the Condition and Forecast of Service Life of a Facility — Repair and Alteration (R&A) Projects Ottawa, Canada: IFMA (International Facility Management Association). Davis, G. et al. (2000a). Serviceability Tools, Volume 7. Requirement Scales for Service Yard Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (2000b). Serviceability Tools, Volume 8 Rating Scales for Service Yard Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (1993a). Serviceability Tools Manuals, Volume 1. Methods for Setting Occupant Requirements and Rating Buildings Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities). Davis, G. et al. (1993b). Serviceability Tools Manuals, Volume 2. Scales for Setting Occupant Requirements and Rating Buildings Ottawa, Canada: ICF (International Centre for Facilities).

Performance requirements to assess suitability – #537- 2003-12-08 Page 13

Dempsey, J.J and Hammond, D. (2002). U.S. Coast Guard Regional Strategic Planning: Integrated Decision Making Using Object-Oriented Information Technology. Washington DC: U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of Civil Engineering, Shore Facilities Capital Asset Management Division. (Internal Document) Eastman, Charles M. (1999). Building Product Models: Computer Environments Supporting Design and Construction, Boca Raton, New York, Washington, D.C: CRC Press LLC. Gibson, E.J. (1982). CIB Report Publication 64, Working with the Performance Approach in Building. Rotterdam, Holland: CIB (International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction). Szigeti, F. et al. (2003). Case Studies: IFMA Proceedings -- Assessing Quality – The Successful Response To User Requirements. Toronto, Canada: World Work Place 2003, Houston, Texas: IFMA (International Facility Management Association). Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (2002). User Needs and Quality Assesssment. In Facility Management Journal (FMJ), January-February. Houston, Texas: IFMA (International Facility Management Association). Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (2001a). Appendix A -- Functionality and Serviceability Standards: Tools For Stating Functional Requirements and For Evaluating Facilities. In Federal Facilities Council, Learning From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Art Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation. FFC (Federal Facilities Council) Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (2001b). Matching People and their Facilities: Using the ASTM/ANSI Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability. In CIB World Building Congress 2001 Proceedings: Performance in Product and Practice, Rotterdam, Holland: CIB (International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction). Szigeti, F., Davis, G. and Hammond, D. (2004 in press). ASTM standard metholodogy and case study. In Preiser, W. F. E. and Vischer, J. C. (eds), Assessing Building Performance: Methods and Case Studies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth- Heinemann, an imprint of Elsevier Ltd,