Buildings that think may improve energy efficiency, but are facilities managers ready for the increase in technology that this will create? We examine the concept of intelligent buildings and find it still evolving
The idea of equating intelligence with an inanimate object like a building is contradictory at best – and positively crazy at worst. Nevertheless, since its introduction in the early 1980s, the term 'intelligent building' has stuck. And as this concept has evolved, so has the role of the facilities manager.

In 1997, commentator Martin Pawley wrote in the German magazine Telepolis: 'One sure sign that the recession is over is the way the term 'intelligent buildings' has made a comeback. It first came into vogue in the early 1980s when magazines started publishing drawings of buildings that looked like circuit diagrams. Buildings with brains seemed unstoppable after that.'

This reference to buildings as circuit diagrams epitomises the early concept of an intelligent building, where a sophisticated building management system (BMS) would provide integrated control of all of the building's services, making them work together in response to change. This concept still forms an important component of the way intelligent buildings are perceived.

'Those outside the construction industry often wonder how an assembly of inanimate building materials can be intelligent – even with people in it,' observes Donald Coggan, an independent 'intelligent building' consultant . 'Industry insiders, especially developers and owners, see buildings stuffed with the latest technology as being intelligent. Both are wrong and both are right.'

There are certainly advantages to stuffing a building with the latest technology. For example, in an 'obtuse' building the lighting will be turned on at the beginning of the working day and will stay on at the same level, regardless of whether there is anybody in the space or how much daylight is coming through the windows.

A more intelligent approach will use photocells to measure the overall light levels and dim the electric lighting if there is plenty of natural daylight. It might also detect whether anybody is there and turn the lights off if necesssary.

As the building's IQ increases, this level of integration becomes more complex and it starts to 'think' about more variables. If there is a lot of daylight coming in through the windows, there will also be an increase in temperature because of the solar heat gains. This will make the air conditioning work harder and use more energy – as well as causing glare on the computer screens.

The system may therefore calculate that it is more sensible to close the automatic blinds to reduce solar heat gains, even though this means turning the lighting back up. Building control systems can now do this and can even track the sun as it moves around the building to anticipate the likely changes within the space. Chiswick Park, a new office development in London which will be completed in 2004, is encorporating such technology (The Facilities Business, November 2000). Here a computerised weather station on the roof of each building will automate blinds dropping over windows at the exact angle to screen the sun's rays.

This is pretty high powered stuff that is just starting to be used in buildings, and currently only in the more prestigious projects. But even in an everyday office building, there is certainly going to be pressure to look at how energy is used and how it can be controlled – especially as the climate change levy focuses people's attention.

Clients are bemused by building management systems,they just want on/off and are not bothered about the rest

Frank Holland

'Many big energy users haven't got a clue what the climate change levy is going to cost them, and they're in for a shock,' suggests Anthony Wilson of consulting engineer Oscar Faber. 'They are going to have to start looking very closely at the complete energy balance of the building.'

Much can be achieved through fairly obvious measures, such as making sure the performance of the air conditioning is matched to the actual cooling or heating requirement in the conditioned spaces. That sounds fairly obvious but it's surprising how many buildings do not provide even that level of intelligence.

Part of the problem is that many energy managers, facilities managers and maintenance staff are scared by the complexity of the controls and are more comfortable with something simpler. 'Clients are bemused by building management systems, generally they just want on/off and are not bothered about the rest,' notes Frank Holland of Mitie Engineering.

There was a similar phenomenon with domestic central heating controls. Manufacturers started to produce digital controllers that seemed to require a degree in electronic engineering to program them and offered far more sophistication than the average household required. As a result, many manufacturers have reverted to the old-fashioned time clock that most people and installers understand.

But unlike a simple, domestic central heating system, the complexity of integrated building services for a large building requires a complex level of control – especially if that control is to ensure optimum use of energy.

Even when efficient plant is specified, it needs to be carefully controlled, as John Hunter of Sulzer Infra points out: 'To increase efficiency of cooling plant, for example, you have to look at things like variable condensing temperature and variable speed pumping on the chilled water circuits. More can be achieved through the control than it can through the original selection of the equipment.'

The answer is to conceal the intelligence of the system behind a 'dumb' front end and many controls companies are concentrating on becoming more user-friendly. The obvious parallel is the switch from MS-DOS, which required some basic programming ability and looked complex, to MS Windows, which is more complex than DOS but is easier to use.

So this is the first level of the intelligent building, covering the building systems. It treats the building as an overhead and focuses mainly on energy efficiency, improved maintenance and making the building more reliable. As well as managing the building's performance, it incorporates factors such as using the minimum amount of space, reducing the speed and cost of relocation and accurately providing access to the right people.

Level 2 looks at what contribution the building makes to the performance of the occupants

Nevertheless, this level of building intelligence is seen as the least important by some commentators. 'These are hygiene factors in many ways and are not really important,' comments Alan Kell, executive director of the European Intelligent Building Group and managing director of consultancy i&i. 'The management has now come to expect these improvements from the facilities manager,' he adds.

Beyond the building systems level, Kell identifies two higher levels; managing buildings to support the business (level 2); and managing buildings as part of the business process (level 3).

Level 2 looks at what contribution the building makes to the performance of the occupants; enabling them to do their jobs better. It addresses criteria such as the link between comfort and productivity and also examines how responsive the building is to change and how it can accommodate new ways of working.

'These ways of working and using space include hotelling, or the hotel-office where you just have to book equipment and space, managed by a concierge,' says Luigi Mangano, president of architectural consultancy DEGW.

He continues: 'Also hot desks, where workplaces are shared by more people when unused; mobile or nomadic work, implying the use of portable computers and technology that can be 'unhooked' from the workplace; home-working, etc. These and many other examples are now part of the new 'lexicon of the office habitat'.'

Such a radical approach to space management has provided a new and more dynamic role for the facilities management team. 'In organisations that look at the use of space in different ways, the facilities people have become pro-active players in looking at how the company works and performs,' suggests Kell.

As new ways of working and the advances in information technology impinge on the way the space is used, so there is more scope to manage the space as an asset rather than an overhead. Equally, there is an opportunity to take a fresh look at the whole portfolio of buildings within the organisation. With the versatility that information technology brings, does the organisation really need the same configuration of buildings? Can it dispense with some or lease them to third parties to create a new revenue stream? At the same time, flexibility of workspaces requires an IT infrastructure that allows staff to sit at any desk, log into the network and be up and running as quickly as possible. The IT domain is a crucial interface for the facilities manager and he or she will have to be able to manage this effectively.

Thus the role of facilities manager is evolving to become a mixture of hotel manager and business development manager, with a fair bit of IT management thrown in for good measure. As Peter McLennan of The Bartlett School comments: 'Where does that leave the facilities manager? Perhaps we are looking at a new definition, maybe a 'corporate infrastructure manager'.'