The rationale for commissioning is pretty straightforward. Invest a modest amount of money to find things wrong with a building, fix those problems, and get the investment paid back in a short period of time.
Sounds logical. But top management often sees things differently. The executive viewpoint may be something like this: When we hired architects, engineers and contractors to build this facility, didn’t we pay them to do their jobs right? Now we have to pay someone else to fix things they did wrong? The annoyed glare that often accompanies those questions tells you that it’s a subject you better not bring up again.
In a perfect world, buildings would be, well, perfect. But the world isn’t perfect. And top managers who refuse to accept that are missing a solid investment. ROI on commissioning new buildings is nearly 25 percent, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. For existing buildings, return is more than 90 percent. (For more on commissioning existing buildings, see “It’s Payback Time.”)
Numbers alone won’t satisfy executives who want to know why work wasn’t done right the first time. That’s a legitimate question. But the fact is that a new building is, in a sense, a prototype. No two are alike. And the finished building works — perhaps surprisingly well, for such a complex “new product.” It’s just not perfect, which leaves a lot of room for profitable improvements.
Companies have third parties check things all the time, whether it’s quality control inspections or audits of the accounting department. Commissioning is analogous to those activities, not an acceptance of shoddy work.
The purpose of commissioning isn’t to make a building work. It’s to make it work better — and at a lower cost. Once top management understands that, a 25 percent return should sound more appealing.
Posted
12-29-2009 4:44 PM
by
Ed Sullivan