THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN SPACE PLANNING
Douglas C. Heinen
U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories
Computer Aided Facility Management (CAFM) typically consists of budgeting and accounting, property management, facility design, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and operations and maintenance. Computer Aided Space Planning (CASP) is generally described as a smaller part of that big picture and it incorporates some of these areas. Space planning is in the middle of the facility delivery process and is impacted by the process omnidirectionally.
Space Planning Defined
Space planning is probably easier to define by what it is not. Space planning is not strategic planning. It is based on or in agreement (theoretically) with the organizations strategic and operational plan. Space planning is not master planning. It does, however, impact master planners by defining “those four walls.” Space planning is not facility management—but it is very closely associated with this function. Space planning is not merely “picking out furniture, carpet, and wall colors.” It is coordinating the users functional needs with the various disciplines and services (engineers, telecommunication, furniture manufacturers, etc.) to provide an efficient and mission responsive environment.
Space planning takes information and develops it into a three-dimensional reality called a workstation,workspace, and workplace; these are within those “four walls,” a building. The workplace is the larger entity—generally thought of as a place of employment; still in relation to a facility, meaning 4 walls. The workspace is a group of workstations in an organization that provide similar functional capabilities; e.g., the planning section of an office has a workspace (or area). The workstation is the individually controlled allotment of space in the workplace for a specific functional task to be performed.
Space planning considers work station (spatial) requirements, organizational structure, power requirements, telecommunications, mechanical requirements
(cooling and heating), acoustics, lighting, personal requirements, accessibility, toilet facilities, preferences.
The Facility Delivery Process
In order to present the facility delivery process in a different way, I have devised LIFE of a Project.
Womb to cradle |
Birth of a Project—some have a longer gestation period than others . . . |
Infant |
Project goes through hurdles of justifying its importance and need. Begin to look at strategic plans of the organization requesting the need. Basic costs and sizes are exposed for public scrutiny. |
Toddler |
Project begins to have dollars attached to it. Organizations and installations begin to look at the master plans to “fit it” in. Funding gets locked in for design and construction. |
Child |
Project enters the design arena having had program analysts, planners, and an assortment of other players review the justification and need. Trimming of the budget or tightening of the belt has caused some changing of this baby . . . not to mention the original idea was to house 400 personnel, now it is up to 455. |
Teenager |
Project enters construction. And like any teenager, they change their mind, not when its convenient but rather when it can be costly. |
Adult |
Project reaches adulthood and the users move—in and begin a relationship with the new facility. They too go through some growing pains and rearrange how they operate; compromise. |
Older people |
After several years of life, maintenance and repair, a face lift via a major reorganization is planned. Remodel considerations are checked, analyzed, evaluated, and implemented. |
Grave |
Alas, the Project that was so full of life just a short 55 years ago has become obsolete and must be destroyed. But wait, is there any historic significance to this project? If not, when it is removed from the face of the earth, how do we handle the asbestos ceilings, floor tiles, and insulation? And underground oil storage tanks? |
In summary, a project that starts with the idea that Group X needs space for its 200 people and similar equipment will go through this process. Unfortunately, the early questions that ask about how much space is required for Group X is often are not detailed enough but ends up as gospel throughout the process. For
example, 200 people times 165 sq. ft. per person = 33,000 sq. ft. An installation commander can be shown two empty two story barracks facilities that equal 34,000 sq ft. Group X is then given the barracks and must “remodel to suit.”
The issues for the space planners include 1) how the organization functions were neglected - i.e., they need 90 persons to be on one floor, virtually in one room due to the nature of their work and they have a massive records holding area that has critical climate control and fire suppression requirements and 2) 165 sq. ft. is a gross planning number; implementation of a furniture and office layout (in some cases) will get each individual a workstation of about 72 sq. ft.; this is based on the need for circulation, toilets, common use spaces (conference rooms), etc.
Keep in mind, an interior designer (not DECORATOR), architect, or programming consultant will incorporate several data gathering techniques such as a survey, interviews, observation, etc. to collect specific user information on how a person or organization functions. This should be the first step in this process PRIOR to funding and resources commitments.
How the computer can be used as a tool
How can some of Group X’s misfortune be headed off? A CAFM system is usually built around a CAD system. Depending on the needs and requirements of the organization, how large or small your system is can vary. The important attributes of a CAFM system are determined by your needs but typically include some database capability, CAD, and ease of system management.
Implementing a CAFM/CASP system needs to be much more than automating an organization’s current processes, you must look at a re-engineering. What does this involve? It implies several paths and steps out of just space planning into the other trades like master planning and maintenance planning.
An organization is made up of people tasked to do a specific job. No one knows what it takes for them to do their job in regards to FF&E. Whether the facility user is supervisory or a desk jockey, they each require different information to make a decision about their space. Therefore, a CAFM system requires several databases or at best, read only access to several databases. Then a facility user can make a decision based on the amount and type of information they require, not what a CAFM system tells them.
An article entitled “Reengineering Work: Don’t automate, Obliterate” by Michael Hammer appeared in the Harvard Business Review, July-August 1990. The following are some highlights from the article.
-
Users as operators—This principle simply states that those who use the output of a process also perform the process. In this case, the output is functioning workstations. Consequently, it implies that the user should have direct input into the decision making process. Note that this is often a management issue, not an automation issue.
-
Doers as decision makers—This principle implies that FM staff that perform work and generate data should be the ones to control the decision making function. This contrasts with hierarchical management techniques that have people gather data while other people organize it and still others make decisions based on that data. A CAFM system can provide equal access and should have built-in quality controls.
-
Treat dispersed resources as centralized—By establishing standards and telecommunication networks, you can maintain centralized behavior with no redundancy. Centralized CAFM systems often result in data redundancy and increased bureaucracy. For example, at an installation level, an installation design guide (IDG) should exist. The standards set forth in that document drive the appearance and often operational effectiveness of a facility. A tenant user in a facility has criteria that they need to be fully operational. What standards or criteria is in the IDG that may drive some issues for the tenant user. Set back limitations, energy conservation requirements, etc.
-
Capture information once—As a continued step to the decentralization integration concept, if standards are in place and the database is set up well, sharing of information can eliminate data redundancy, data entry errors, and overhead. For example, if personnel information is in the system and users have varying degrees of access (you may not need access to one’s salary or personal history to make a facility related decision), you could query as required and base your decisions on the information you need.
So if you are implementing a CAFM system, you would like it to be able to handle the entire process or give you access to the multiple databases. If the ID/A/programmer wants to develop a survey to determine spatial needs, you need to evaluate how the important information gets translated. Who determines what is important? Based on experience, you will have expert advice from the design agent as well as the commander. Capture the information once but then put it in a form or place where it can be useful information. That is the data gathering step. From this step, moving into a CAD type of environment will be appropriate. This looks at gross placement of personnel in a facility (workplace)—interior master planning—organizational issues, and work flow.
Then, actual workstation layouts can be addressed—again based on information previously gathered. This is also where the quality checks can be applied. This is the level of detail that is required for each agency on an installation. Maintenance, management, and access of data is key. Integrating the variety of tools that are out on the market should come out of this meeting today.