APPENDIX D
ISSUES ADDRESSED BY A BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE COST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A building life-cycle cost management system could be useful in addressing a number of issues raised in decision making at legislative, administrative, and technical levels. The following list represents the committee's suggestions of these issues that a life-cycle cost management system might be designed to address.

Legislative Level

  1. Justification of budget requests. Legislators are faced with a variety of competing demands and those that "make the case" in a clear, properly supported manner are likely to receive more favorable consideration.

  2. Effects of reduced capital or maintenance funding. Legislators may ask what the short-and long-term effects are of less funds, perhaps even zero capital budget, and should be able to get answers to questions related to deterioration of service, extra maintenance, early replacement costs, and effects on users.

  3. Effects of deferring work or lowering service standards. The frequent consequence of reduced funding is deferral of maintenance and rehabilitation, or lowering the standards of acceptable service; a management system should forecast the effects of such decisions.

  4. Effects of budget request on future status of the portfolio. If a program funding request is not approved, will the average building service conditions deteriorate? Alternatively, what level of funding is required to keep the portfolio in its present condition or to reduce a backlog of deferred maintenance?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 53
Pay Now or Pay Later: Controlling Cost of Ownership from Design Throughout the Service Life of Public Buildings APPENDIX D ISSUES ADDRESSED BY A BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE COST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A building life-cycle cost management system could be useful in addressing a number of issues raised in decision making at legislative, administrative, and technical levels. The following list represents the committee's suggestions of these issues that a life-cycle cost management system might be designed to address. Legislative Level Justification of budget requests. Legislators are faced with a variety of competing demands and those that "make the case" in a clear, properly supported manner are likely to receive more favorable consideration. Effects of reduced capital or maintenance funding. Legislators may ask what the short-and long-term effects are of less funds, perhaps even zero capital budget, and should be able to get answers to questions related to deterioration of service, extra maintenance, early replacement costs, and effects on users. Effects of deferring work or lowering service standards. The frequent consequence of reduced funding is deferral of maintenance and rehabilitation, or lowering the standards of acceptable service; a management system should forecast the effects of such decisions. Effects of budget request on future status of the portfolio. If a program funding request is not approved, will the average building service conditions deteriorate? Alternatively, what level of funding is required to keep the portfolio in its present condition or to reduce a backlog of deferred maintenance?

OCR for page 53
Pay Now or Pay Later: Controlling Cost of Ownership from Design Throughout the Service Life of Public Buildings Effects of increased utilization and occupancy. How will service conditions and operating and maintenance costs be affected? Administrative Level Priority programming of improvements. Enhanced justification for capital and operating budget requests. Summary condition assessment of the current portfolio. Objective aggregate measures, with graphical and tabular displays, based on inventory measurements. Response to legislative inquiries. Quantitative estimation of effects of alternate budget levels. Management planning. Quantitative assessment of effects of deferring maintenance or rehabilitation, future status of portfolio under alternate funding scenarios, and manpower requirements. Interface of facility management and overall agency management. Budget coordination and justification, procurement planning, and staffing logistics. Technical Level Portfolio condition and operations performance data. On-line monitoring of operations and maintenance activities and facility condition. Projected maintenance planning. Forecasting response to use and occupancy, condition survey, routine practices, and external factors (e.g., energy prices). Service standards. Assessing criteria for minimum service, maximum loading or use, and maximum distress. Purchasing and retrofit decisions. Consequences of new materials and products, bulk purchasing, and replacement by retrofit versus attrition.