By Vanti
The vast amount of development that has taken place over the last 200 years has led us to believe that buildings can be disposable – we can knock up a skyscraper in a couple of years and knock it down a few decades later. By this time, the building will often be perceived to have run its course; the relatively antiquated cabling that runs through its veins and the ancient technology that has powered it for so long will be deemed unfit for purpose; the baked in approach to technology is often a contributing factor to the business case for demolition and rebuilding from scratch.
However, there now seems to be a greater appreciation for the idea that buildings should be created for the long-term, rather than just a few short decades. Key to this is the concept that building technology of the 21st century needs to be designed with much more flexibility at its core.
Rather than trying to invent devices, cabling or systems that will stay in place for the lifespan of buildings that are hopefully going to stand for 100 years or more, it’s important to take a more consumable approach, developing and deploying modular elements that can be interchanged and upgraded to futureproof the building as much as possible.
However, the implementation of this would require a fundamental shift in the way the construction industry works. The traditional approach taken with construction projects doesn’t consider technology until relatively late in its programmes of work, with integrators and fit out companies often only being brought on board when the development is significantly advanced.
This means Master Systems Integrators, who’d be able to provide the greatest value if they were involved at the design stage of the project, are left having to try and create great experiences with a set of partially installed systems that haven’t been selected to work together.
If technology was factored in much earlier in the process, it would be a lot easier for integrators to develop a complete solution that was as fundamental to the core of the building as stairwells or utility services.
Investors and developers are often against investing in Smart technology when they’ll simply be selling these on upon completion, in contrast with owner-occupiers who are likely to take a more long-term view. This can be counteracted to a degree by the use of open standards and protocols, which can significantly decrease costs in comparison with expensive proprietary systems.
Coupled with the increased benefits represented by integrated technology such as lower operational costs, and the corresponding higher price per square foot that the space can be marketed at, this can serve to convince developers that the investment required to make the building Smart is indeed worth it.
Regardless of whether the building is being developed for sale or for occupation, it still makes sense for integrators to move away from proprietary systems and embrace open source technology. The benefits of this are numerous, not least because they allow for a much greater deal of flexibility.
Open systems are usually more widely supported than their proprietary counterparts, which can result in faster developments, upgrades, and patches against vulnerabilities. Conversely, using proprietary systems is far riskier to building owners and occupiers; it can place companies at the mercy of the system developer’s pricing structure, or worse – if a provider shuts down, owners and occupiers can be left with no support and few options but to retain their data or move it elsewhere.
We also need to consider the relationship between the Smart building and the data it generates; this is not something that has had to have been previously considered, so is very much a new problem for a new age. As with the systems that power the building, information management should represent a move away from the traditional proprietary approach, with data that is specifically associated with the space being passed on from occupier to occupier.
It is therefore important to think about future tenants when creating these systems and developing them with an awareness that information is likely to change hands at some point. This requires data to be easily anonymised if it specifically references individuals or is tied into business systems.
Think of it like leaving your electricity meter behind when you move to a new house, but on a much bigger scale. It’s important for those invested in the Smart building agenda to work together to advance the development of standards in order to future proof buildings. The modular approach discussed would benefit hugely from the creation of a standardised framework that developers, consultants, and integrators could leverage to plan the implementation of their technology, but this is unlikely to happen without collaboration.
If those involved can recognise the benefit of moving from closed, proprietary systems and embracing the idea that flexible and open systems will help advance us all, we’ll make the leap to Intelligent buildings much more quickly.
