星空传媒

The importance of the facilities manager in ensuring a building鈥檚 services are used to their optimum cannot be overstated. Which is why the findings of a recent industry survey on the use of building logbooks make rather worrying reading.

Carried out by London South Bank University and Zutec UK (an online building information system provider), the survey found that only half of facilities managers use building logbooks. Its second key finding was that 70% of building services designers and contractors feel that regulatory mechanisms do not ensure logbooks are available in relevant buildings.

The survey quizzed professionals in the building services and construction sectors, both the design and contracting fields, as well as FMs and building owners about logbooks and internet-based information systems. There were 81 responses from the first category and 61 from the latter.

Responses were pretty mixed, but some significant differences in the approach of designers and contractors, as opposed to that of the facilities managers, were clear.

Although knowledge about the requirement for building logbooks under Part L is widespread among designers and contractors, only 81% of FMs and building owners know that logbooks are required under Part L2 Work in Existing 星空传媒s.

More than half of designers and contractors stated that fewer than 25% of their clients stipulate the provision of logbooks when undertaking works. One designer/contractor said: 鈥淭hey [the clients] either are not aware, or prefer to remain oblivious to the requirement.鈥�

With 70% of designers and contractors saying that existing regulations are not ensuring that building logbooks are in place, the DCLG might take note of a couple of respondents鈥� more constructive comments, such as: 鈥淭he regulations are there but who will police them? Most owners will see them as another cost and try to ignore the requirements. We need a mindset by owners to see the benefits and robust enforcement of the regulations by 星空传媒 Control.鈥�

Another respondent said: 鈥淭he content isn鈥檛 mandatory from an FM perspective. To comply with Part L it needs to be provided but who is mandated to keep it up to date?鈥�

Difference of opinion

So, other than a lack of enforcement, why are logbooks not fulfilling their potential? Well, the situation probably is not helped by facilities managers having a lower opinion of their usefulness than designers and contractors.

Figure 1, left, shows the average perceived usefulness of logbooks for a number of functions. Each function is assessed by users and non-users among facilities managers, as well as by designers and contractors.

You can see that designers and contractors have a generally higher opinion of logbooks than facilities managers, with FM users of logbooks having lower opinions of their usefulness for key functions such as 鈥渕onitoring building energy performance鈥� and 鈥渦nderstanding how a building is meant to work鈥�.

Perversely, some FMs are using logbooks to manage environmental and health & safety risk for which the logbook was not designed and finding them quite useful; indeed some rate them five out of five for these activities.

When usefulness is compared against who writes building logbooks, the evidence shows that the least useful logbooks are written by contractors, followed by those developed in-house by FMs, with specialist authors developing the most useful examples.

Too little too late?

It is not surprising that contractors write the least useful logbooks. Results from designers and contractors state that more than half of logbooks are not initiated until construction (the contractors鈥� input) has begun, which goes against the ethos that the logbook should be an explanation of the design and how it is intended to work.

The situation is made worse by the fact that only 72% of the designer and contractor sample understand that logbooks are supposed to be an accessible manual on how to operate the building to its design intent.

The 鈥渁ccessible manual鈥� aspect of logbooks raises the issue of access to building information in general. Figure 2 indicates some correlation between the amount of building information held in electronic format and the ease of access to relevant up-to-date information.

It is clear that, as the percentage of paper documents increases, so the problems of information access also increase. With this in mind, the survey also asked for opinions about the potential advantages of internet-based building information systems.

Clearly, remote access is seen as the greatest benefit with little difference in opinions between designers and contractors, and FMs and building owners, except when it comes to retaining information. Comments from a number of designers and contractors expressed the view that clients are concerned about the security of their information, but it seems that FMs are more concerned with ensuring that their building information does not get mislaid.

Some facilities managers said a contributing factor to the loss of information is that paper drawings etc are not returned to storage after being used on jobs. When asked: 鈥淚s electronic internet-accessible storage potentially the most useful way of storing building logbooks and operation & maintenance manuals?鈥�, 76% agreed that it is.

星空传媒 logbooks have been required by the 星空传媒 Regulations since 2002, yet there is still a lack of knowledge about this requirement or what they are meant to achieve. Significant numbers of FMs don鈥檛 use them or don鈥檛 find them as useful as they should be. In terms of regulatory compliance this may not matter, as it appears that building control departments don鈥檛 keep a close eye on logbooks either.

In terms of increasing energy efficiency through the proper operation of buildings, however, the books are essential. It鈥檚 a problem that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.

By Rob Liddiard, Phil Jones and Tony Day of London South Bank University. Read the full report on the CIBSE energy performance group website at www.cibse.org/energyperformance