Home
About us
order now
guarantees
how it works
prices
faq
guarantees
win 1000
contact us
Win 1000$

Free essays

You Save
 
     
 

The Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management Part 2 Essay Sample

← The Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities ManagementThe Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management Part 3 →

3.15 BIM in Facility Operation

BIM in the modern facility management and property development has been said to be very essential in that it tends to bridge the loss of information associated with handling a project from design team to construction team and to the operator or the owner of a building. In their investigation, Kaner, Sacks, Kassian and Quitt (2008) indicated that this bridging is usually through allowing each of the identified group to add to and at the same time reference back to every information which they acquire during the period in which they make contributions, to the model. As a consequence, Goedert and Meadati (2008) identifies that this yields significant benefits to the owner or the operator of the project. Tse, Wong and Wong (2005)gave an instance in which he indicates that an owner of a modern building might find evidence of a leak in his or her building. Instead of seeking to explore the physical building, the owner may turn to the BIM model and identify that a water valve is located in the suspect location. Additionally, the owner of the building could have the specific size of the water valve, number of the part, as well as, any other information ever researched in the past in the BIM model pending adequate computing power.

In his research study, Succar (2009) identified that dynamic information of a modern day building such as measurement of a sensor, as well as, control signals from the systems of the building can also be incorporated in the BIM in an effort towards supporting the analysis of building operations, in addition to, maintenance.

3.1 6 BIM and Building Design

Following its integration into the modern day facility management and project development, Goedert and Meadati (2008) identified that architects and engineers were provided with a platform to expand their experience in the industry. Foremost, for a significant range of design firms, the BIM software provided a better way of designing architectural structures.  Modern buildings have been acknowledged as of complexity nature and the preparation of documents for these buildings using two dimensional CAD drawings is extremely challenging. However, after the integration of BIM, it followed that major advances in managing information have been achieved.  Moreover, Vanlande, Nicolle and Cruz (2008) asserted that the ability of BIM to generate realistic three dimensional views and even walk through in an easy manner has made visualization of buildings a free byproduct. As a result, this does no only provide an invaluable guidance to the designer of a building but it is significantly ideal in enabling communicating a design to the clients, as well.

Still in the context of building design, it has been acknowledges by researchers in the field of architecture that the integration of BIM has ensured support for a variety of forms of building analysis. To be precise, With integration of BIM has come the integration with energy analysis programs and this has resulted into the provision of fundamental information in the early stages of the designing process and consequently, a guide for decisions on building materials, as well as, mechanical systems has been provided.

3.17 Integration of BIM and Impacts on Construction

While the benefits emerged by the integration of BIM during the modern construction stage are less obvious, Succar (2009) indicates that they are to a large extent compelling. Foremost, Succar (2009) identified in his research study that the ability of the BIM tools to track construction stages is an invaluable aspect in the coordination of construction. Especially for general contractors, the use of BIM tools for coordinating space, in addition to, schedules are essentially effective especially for large modern projects on sites in urban locations where staging areas are often at a premium.

In his attempt to explore the benefits that BIM renders to the construction phase of a modern day building or a modern day project, Goedert and Meadati (2008) identified that BIM entails tools for clash detection. These tools are very essential as they provide a platform for identifying layout errors in advance. As a result, the architects are able to make cost effective resolutions and adopt less expensive change orders.

3.18 BIM and Preventive Maintenance

Vanlande, Nicolle and Cruz (2008) identified that information regarding building mechanical equipment stored in BIM models is central to the cr45eation of database necessary for ongoing preventive maintenance unlike the case with the older model. Isikdag and Underwood (2001) further explained this where he mentions that the building equipment that usually require regular upkeep and inspection, especially those related to the heating processes, life safety systems and ventilation and air conditioning, are of particular essentiality. In addition to this, Succar (2009) indicated that information regarding electrical and air distribution systems, which usually undergo periodic modification is often assumed to be integral to facility managers. Therefore, BIM has improved the state of preventive maintenance in the modern day facility management and project development.

3.19 Integration of BIM and Life Cycle Management

Vanlande, Nicolle and Cruz (2008) established that the recent emphasis on sustainability brought about by the integration of BIM has led to a situation where the profile of building life cycle management has been significantly raised. It has been identified that responsible operators and owners have come to a realization that this makes sense not only economically but also ecologically. In their research, Kaner, Sacks, Kassian and Quitt (2008) established that the integration of BIM has played an improving role in the life cycle management of the modern day facility management and project development since it has provided value in the management of relevant data regarding the current or the contemporary times building conditions and at the same time facilitate the analysis of the existing alternatives. In a research conducted in order to establish the effectiveness attached to the integration of BIM in life cycle management of a building, Kaner, Sacks, Kassian and Quitt (2008) came to a conclusion that some professionals in building designs are continuously embedding data on life expectancy, as well as, replacement costs in BIM models. This has in turn enabled the owners and operators to entail an understanding of the benefits especially in investing in the systems and materials that may seemingly cost more initially but have a better payback over the life of their buildings.

3.20 Building Automation Systems

Integration of BIM into the modern day facility management and project development has enabled building automation systems, which have in turn led to the providence of real time monitoring, as well as, control of sophisticated mechanical systems used in the contemporary world buildings. Through experience, it has been revealed that effective operations of a building are critical towards the achievement potential savings of energy. While work is still in its very early stages considering the idea to integrate BIM was recently adopted, it has followed that the integration between building automation systems and BIM will provide a myriad of benefits especially for technical buildings, which include laboratories and hospitals.

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This section of the dissertation will serve to demonstrate the manner in which the data was analyzed and then present the results for the research. The researcher had decided to distribute 20 questionnaires for this particular research study. However, 13 questionnaires were resubmitted. This led to a65% rate of response. To be precise, 7 (70%) submitted back the filed questionnaires.

Figure 5:Developers who Resubmitted Questionnaires

4.2 Data Analysis for Each Section

4.2.1 Concepts of Building Information Management

In the first section of the questionnaire, there were three questions designed to establish the perceived effectiveness of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development. The first question pertained to the three dimension capability while the second question regarded the total time spent at project meetings  when trying to describe ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and the ‘what’ of the project. The third question in this section involved a look at the prior construction experience or deep understanding on how the building components are brought together.

Question 1: What are the benefits attached to the 3D capability of the BIM model?

For this particular question, a mean score of 3.04 and a standard deviation of 0.976 were attained. Besides, 10 respondents chose 5, which represented the 3D capability of the new model as playing a fundamental role in producing the modern structures. These are clear demonstrations that most developers believed that the modern system is more adequate and thus effective. However, 3 respondents chose 3 representing that they were less convinced of 3D as providing any additional or distinguished touch to the new approach.

Question 2: Has the total time taken at project meetings when trying to describe ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and the ‘what’ of the project reduced?

This particular question warranted a yes or no answer. Inferring from the research questionnaire, 9 respondents indicated a yes while 4 respondents indicated a no. As a percentage, the yes answer received 69.2% of the responses while the no answer received a 30.8% response.

       Figure 6: Reduction of total time taken at project meetings

Does the new approach require one to have prior construction experience or deep understanding on how the building components are brought together?

Again, this particular question necessitated a yes or no answer. From the questionnaire, it is evident that the majority of the respondents claimed that it was not necessarily to have prior construction experience or deep understanding on how the building components are brought together with the new approach. 10 of the respondents chose yes while 3 choose no.

      Figure 7: Prior Knowledge and Understanding

4.2.2 Cost Estimation

This section of the questionnaire was intended to explore the perceived effectiveness of the new model based on production of the cost estimation by comparing the new model with the traditional practice. This section was characterized by the time taken for producing the cost estimates, the effect of the cost estimate production period on decision making and the costs involved in producing the estimates.

Question 3: What is the difference between the new approach and the traditional approaches in producing cost estimates?

From the responses given for this particular question, a mean score of 3.84 and a standard deviation of 0.234 were achieved. Both the mean score and the standard deviation clearly derive a situation where the study respondents perceived that the amount of time taken to reproduce the cost estimation has greatly reduced. A mean score of 3.84 implies that most of the respondents were of the idea that the time has significantly reduced. In addition to this, it can be assumed to imply that only a few individuals perceive that nothing has changed since then with regard to the reduction of time. Similarly, a standard deviation of 0.234 derives that most of the respondents were of the opinion that the time taken has chiefly reduced. Given these stances, it is clear that the developers believe that the e effectiveness of Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development has been immense.

Question 4: What do you think are the effects of the cost estimate production period on decision making?

In this question, most of the respondents indicated that there was indeed a very significant effect that the production time of the cost estimates had on the decision making. 9 of the research respondents indicated that there was a direct effect while 4 of them indicated that though there was an effect, it was neither direct nor prevalent.

The mean score for this particular question was 3.453 while the standard deviation was a 0.342. Just like in the previous question, the mean score and the standard deviation in this case lead to an inference that most research respondents were of the opinion that the amount of time taken affects the process of decision making in the industry. Inferring from the filled research questionnaires, most respondents (9) indicated that the decisions made in the context of the traditional approach were affecting the effectiveness of the entire industry. According to the respondents, cost estimation is an integral feature in the industry, and decisions cannot be made without it being available. Therefore, due to the amount of time taken, it follows that the process of decision making had to be slow, as well.

     Figure 8: Effects of the cost estimate production period on decision making?

Question 5: Which approach do you think that entailed more costs in producing the estimates and why?

11 of the research respondents ticked the traditional approach as the one in which more costs in producing the cost estimates were consumed. This was equivalent to a means score of 3.432 and a standard deviation of 0.237. The mean score denotes that more respondents thought that the issue of costs was successfully contained in the new approach as opposed to the old approach. Additionally, the standard deviation implies that the traditional approach was inferior when related to the modern approach in terms of costs incurred during the cost estimation production. In other words, the old practice involved more costs in producing the cost estimates that it is with the current practice.

4.2.3 Involvement of Facility Management

The questions under this particular section are aimed at establishing whether the facility management is involved before or after a property has been developed. The questions that sought to explore this concerned the nature of Modern and traditional Construction and Sustainable Property Development and application of the facility management on the same.

Question 6: Did the traditional Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management?

For this question, 12 respondents indicated that the traditional Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management. This accounts for 92.3% of the entire quantity of responses. This confirms that the old practice did not encompass the use of facility management, and perhaps, this confirms the effectiveness attached to the new model.

Question 7: When facility management applied in Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management?

These questions featured a before or after response. This is particularly due to the nature of the underlying question. As it was evident, most of the respondents indicated that the facility management was applied before. 11 related that they thought that the modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management required the facility management approach to be applied before in order to deliver the best result. However, 2 of the respondents replied that the facility management was applied after. This brings forth the applicability of the mean and standard deviation. As such, a mean of 2.456 and a standard deviation of 0.327 were achieved. The mean and the standard deviation in this case means that the majority of respondents applied the facility management in the Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management before.

4.2.4 Importance of Integration of Facilities Management and Building Information Management (Bim) In Property Management

This particular part of the question is aimed at exploring the prevalent benefits of integration of facilities management and building information management (BIM) in property management. To do this, the researcher had designed several questions. These questions pertained to comparing between the modern property management and the older property management, the challenges and the difficulties that the integration of facilities management and building information management solved, the costs saved due to the introduction of the integrated facilities and the change in experience in property management.

Question 8: What are the most significant differences between the old property management and the present day property management?

Figure 9: Most significant differences between the old property management and the present day property management

The mean score in this particular question was achieved as 3.494 while the standard deviation was at 0.375. This is a clear indication that most of the respondents related a significant number of differences. To be precise, from the questionnaire, most of the respondents thought that the new approach was the one presenting more benefits to the industry than the old approach. A mean of 3.494 implies that though there are those respondents that perceived the new model as entailing negligible difference with the old model, they at least recognized that there was indeed a difference. This can also be captured by the 0.375 standard deviation.

Question 9: What difficulties and challenges did the integration of facilities management and building information management solve?

This particular question required the respondents to relate the difficulties with the ones from the older practice that were successfully solved following the introduction of the new model into the industry. Following the analysis of the responses drawn from the questionnaire, a mean score of 2.213 and a standard deviation of 0.218 were derived. Such a mean score depicts that there were indeed several differences that were solved following the introduction of the new approach, which were prevalent with the older approach. Further, the standard deviation achieved is an indication that the difference between the number of respondents who perceived as limited problems solved, and those who believed that there were significant problems solved was indeed immense. The standard deviation is in favor of the new model as the one that has changed the course of undertaking.

Question 10: Has the new model led to saving of costs?

In the questionnaire, this question was a Yes or a No answer. The respondents were supposed to state whether the new model has led to a situation where the costs are saved in relation to the older model. Drawing from the responses, it follows that most respondents choose yes indicating that there were indeed cost saving attributes attached to the new model. Justification for this can be inferred from the 8 respondents who choose yes and the 5 who thought otherwise. 61.5% choose Yes while 38.5% choose no. This is a clear indication that the new model was adequate enough or was effective in the context of saving costs.

     Figure 10: Cost saving attributes

4.2.4 Factors Required for Optimizing the Integration of Strategic Facilities Management into Full Property Development Framework

This particular section is aimed at exploring the factors that act as the chief determinants for the optimization of the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework. To determine the effectiveness of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development, these factors had to be taken into account. The more the factors, the more the complex the process of optimizing the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework is, and this restricts the effectives being explored. To achieve the objectives underlain in this section, there were several questions entailed. These pertained to the precise factors required for optimizing the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework, what it means not to integrate any of the factors, whether any of the factors were considered considering the older model.

Question 11: What change in experience has Facility management brought?

This question is aimed at exploring the extent of change following the adoption of the new model in the industry. Most respondents conferred that the experience that they had with regard to the older model is indeed inferior in relation to the experience that the new model has put them. For this question, a mean score of 2.764 was derived while a standard deviation of 0.312 was attained. The men in this case clearly indicate that most respondents were of the perceptions that the new approach has placed them in a capacity to showcase their skills, and this has immensely changed the experience. On the other hand, such a standard deviation as the one achieved defines that the difference in thought between those who thought that the experience has not changed and those who thought that the experience has changed greatly is huge. To be clearer on this, the standard deviation implies that more respondents are of the opinion that the construction and development experience that they were put through by the older experience is inferior when compared to the experience that the new approach puts them through.

Question 12: What are the factors required for optimizing the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework?

This question required the respondents to indicate the factors that played the most significant role in the optimizing the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework. Identifying these factors was integral as it would derive the factors that distinguish the old and the new models. For this question, 10 respondents indicated that there were more than three factors that contributed to this. On the other hand, 2 respondents filled only two factors while 1 did not fill any. In terms of percentage, it follows that 76.9% believed that several factors were required for the optimization purposes. On the other hand, 15.3% thought that there were only few factors while 7.7% of the respondents thought that optimization of the integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework just occurred naturally, and there was no any factor required. In terms of the mean score, following the analysis of the responses, 3.098 was achieved while a standard deviation of 0.216 was attained. A mean score of 3.098 means that most of the respondents are the ones who gave a positive response, which was oriented towards achieving the objectives of the research. Also, the mean score achieved indicates that the there was an immense difference in perceptions regarding the issue of factors. Of course, the difference is prevalent considering the number of the respondents who provided a positive response.

Question 13: What does it mean not to integrate any of the factors?

This question is aimed at exploring the importance of the identified factors as they pertain to the new model. Where not including one of the factors would necessarily give rise to dramatic effects, it means that the new approach is factor dependent and should be comprehensive in its attributes. For this question, most respondents indicated that for the new practice, it is a must that all the factors be considered in order to draw the best outcomes. 9 of the respondents indicated that failure to include all the factors would not lead to an optimized integration of strategic facilities management into full property development framework. However, 4 of these perceived that there was no effect. According to these, there are other factors that are incorporated but play almost a negligible role in an attempt to optimize the model. In this regard, they argued that the new model is just a matter of technological integration, and less progression is ensured by the approach. Therefore, the new model is not much different with the older model.

Question 14: Were any of these factors considered in the older model?

This question necessitated the respondents to fill in a yes or a no answer. A majority of the study respondents indicated that the factors were not considered. 11 indicated a no while only 2 indicted a yes. Analyzing this, it followed that a mean score of 3.093 and a standard deviation of 0.342 was achieved. This shows that the older model did not entail the consideration of these factors.

Figure 11:  Importance of integration of facilities management and building information management (BIM) in property management

4.2.5 Challenges of Successful Implementation of Facilities Management Strategies

This section of the questionnaire intended to explore the effectiveness of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development based on the challenges towards a successful implementation. The questions that sought to establish this related to; development of the inception stage of property development project and the development of the completion stage of the same.

Question 15: Does the incorporation of facility management significantly develop the inception stage of property development project?

This question sought to discover whether or not facility management improved the inception stage of the property development of a project. This question required the respondents to state a yes or no response. Inferring from the responses in the questionnaire, 6 respondents indicated that the integration did not do any good to the inception stage. On the other hand, 7 indicated that the incorporation of facility management significantly improved and simplified the process. Translating this into a percentage, it follows that 46.2% stated yes while 53.8% perceived otherwise.

Question 16: Does the incorporation of facility management significantly develop the completion stage of property development project?

This question also warranted a yes or a no answer. It aimed to establish whether or not the incorporation of facility management did cause improvements to the completion stage of property development project. From the questionnaire, 6 respondents indicated that the integration did not do any good to the completion stage of the project development. The rest 7 respondents indicated that the incorporation of facility management significantly improved and simplified the process. Translating this into a percentage, 46.2% stated yes, and 53.8% stated no.

      Figure 12: The stage improved by the Facility Management integration

4.2.5 Role of BIM in modern FM and property development

This particular section of the questionnaire sought to explore the role or the impact of BIM in the modern facility management and property development. To do this, there were several questions relating to construction management, facility operation, building design, construction, preventive maintenance, life cycle management and automation systems respectively.

Question 17: What improvements has BIM surfaced to the construction management?

From the questionnaire, a mean score of 3.776 and a standard deviation of 0.3234 were attained. With this mean, it means that most respondents believe that there have been great deals of improvements that have been made to the construction management following the integration of BIM. Further, with such a standard deviation, it means that the difference in perceptions regarding the level of improvements made to the construction management perceived by the study respondents was not that that widespread. In other words, all the respondents were of the opinion that BIM played a key role in improving construction management of the modern day building development.

Question 18: What have been the benefits of deploying BIM to the facility operations?

The results of the responses from the questionnaires were similar to the results of the previous question under this particular section. From the questionnaire, a mean score of 3.634 and a standard deviation of 0.229 were attained. The means derived implies that most respondents were of the opinion that there have been several benefits to the facility operations following the integration of BIM. In addition to this, with such a level of standard deviation, it implies that the distinctiveness in perceptions regarding the benefits of BIM to facility operations perceived by the participants was not prevalent. To be more precise, nearly all the respondents believed that BIM surfaced immense benefits to the facility operations of the modern day project development and facility management.

Question 19: What is the extent of change that integration of BIM has had on building design?

After analyzing the results of the responses from the questionnaire, a mean of 3.8956 and a standard deviation of 0.7678 were established. With these results, it means that the findings for this question can be mapped to the results of the previous questions in this section. As such, the mean implies that most of the respondents believed that the extent of change that BIM has brought to the building design has been immense. Further, the standard deviation indicates that the distinctiveness in answers that the respondents gave was not very big. It implies that most of the respondents were of the view that there has been much change. In other words, it means that the number of respondents who believed that there have been significant changes was more than the number of respondents who believed that there were minimal or no changes.

Has integration of BIM led to a better experience in construction and preventive maintenance?

For this particular question, the respondents were supposed to indicate a yes or a no answer. From the analysis, it was established that most respondents (11) indicated a yes while very few (2) indicated a no answer. This translates to a 84.7% for a yes answer and a 15.3% for a no answer. This implies that most respondents believe that a better experience in construction and preventive maintenance has been surfaced following the integration of BIM.

Figure 13: Change in experience

Question 20: What are the improvements that you perceive as the integration of BIM has emerged for the modern life cycle management?

For this particular question, the respondents were required to list the number of improvements that they believed that BIM has brought to life cycle management. A mean 0f 3.596 and a standard deviation of 3.198 were achieved. The mean achieved implies that the biggest part of the research respondents listed a number of improvements. Additionally, the standard deviation indicates that the difference between the respondents who filled very little improvements and those who filled several improvements was significantly high. As such, there were more respondents who filled a range of improvements as opposed to those who filled little or no improvements.

Question 21: Do you think that allowing automation systems by BIM has been essential to the modern facility management and project development?

For this research question, the respondents were also required to fill a yes or a no answer. From the analysis, it was established that most respondents (9) indicated a yes while very few (4) indicated a no answer. This translates to 69.2% for a yes answer and a 30.8% for a no answer. This implies that most respondents believe that allowing automation systems by BIM has been essential to the modern facility management and project development.

Figure 14: BIM and systems automation

4.3 Discussion

4.3.1 Concepts of Building Information Management

This section entailed establishing the effectiveness of Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development based on the most essential concepts. The first concept that was accessed was the 3D capability. As it is evident in the data analysis, it follows that the most respondents perceived that the 3D capability was a key to effectiveness attached to this model. A possible explanation of this perception is that the 3D capability has led to focus on space management. As a result of this, rework necessary to make card file delivery from project construction document useful in facility management, which was largely prevalent with the traditional approach, has been mitigated to greater extents This finding is consistent with the findings of the research conducted by Lieb (2009) in which it was established that with the new model, accuracy has been achieved such that reworks are no longer necessary.

Besides, 3D attributes have provided unified digital respiratory of all structures under construction and all the underlying components. In addition to this, the 3D capability has enabled the developers to have a clear view, and this has eluded the users who Lieb (2009) identifies as bot schooled in interpreting 2 dimensional drawings for buildings as it was with the older model. Moreover, the respondents may have indicated that the 3D capability of the new model was delivering favorable outcomes due to the fact that with it, an infinite range of data component to the model has been achieved. The 3D capability has led to a situation where it has become extremely easy to track information like room number, calculation of area, reference URLs among several other attributes. This context thus justifies the position of most of the research respondents that the 3D capability of the new model is very essential, and this is a clear implication that the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development has been successful.

However, there were some few respondents who indicated that the 3D capability did no deliver any desirable outcomes to the new model. The most admissible reason for this is that application of Building Information Management is particularly complex, and a casual user may face significant challenges when dealing with it. This view is consistent with the view advanced by Van Nederveen and Tolman (1992) where it is indicated that more complex savvy and technological aspects may be hard to understand, and it may take a considerable time before fully understanding them. Being a complex technology, the 3D attribute may be a challenge to some users. This confirms and explains why some respondents felt that the new model has not been effective. They may have had difficulties in using the 3D component of the new model, and this resulted in the dismissal.

A further notable observation as it was derived pertained to the time consumption when attempting to define ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and the ‘what’ of the project. From the data analysis section, it is clear that most respondents perceived that the time taken in this case had reduced in an immense manner. As they related, the previous model used in the industry involved a lot of human efforts and a great deal of paper work. As a result of this, time taken to specify the “whos” and the “whats” at the project meetings was significant. This particular finding is consistent with the claim advanced by Van Nederveen and Tolman (1992) that the previous model involved a manual way of specifying the “whos” and the “whats” in project meetings took approximately 40% of the entire time with 20% of the time being used up in the process of explaining the rationale of decision made and a further 30% spent in the process of evaluating the goals in an efforts towards ensuring that the stakeholders are sure of meeting the project requirements. However, since the introduction of the new model, which was dignified due to the integration of facilities management, this time consumption was reduced and this resulted into the entire process taking a lesser time. Again, this justifies the position of most of the respondents that the new model was successful.

While this is so, the stance of the respondents who disapproved the effectiveness based on the reduction of the time taken cannot be overlooked. There is a possibility that these respondents are the ones who faced challenges in attempting to use the new model and thus revamped to using the old method. In this regard, they cannot understand the manner in which the new model reduces the time taken and this becomes the basis of dismissing the new approach.

With regard to whether or not the new approach requires one to have prior construction experience or deep understanding on how the building components are brought together, the data analysis section established that most employees believed that it was necessary. To explain these perceptions, the case of 3 Dimension attribute of the new model is used. As a matter of fact, it is a necessity that one seeks an understanding and experience with 3D before applying it. It has been argued that the 2D capability of the older model is entirely different from the 3D capability adopted by the new model. This does not necessarily means that a developer has to attain a new understanding and experience with 3D. Rather, while the two models were differentiated, there are notions or concepts of the new model that necessitates one to be accustomed with the older model. Therefore, inadequate prior knowledge and understanding means that a developer will be faced with immense difficulties in trying to apply the new model. While this is so, a small number of respondents indicated that there is no need for prior knowledge. Attempting to explain this stance, there may be a belief on the part of some respondents that since it is an entire change in practice (using the older and the new models); it means that the experience and the understanding of the older model is insignificant and unusable considering the new model. However, this idea is flawed considering the above discussed context. Therefore, based on the idea of prior knowledge and understanding, it can be said that the new model is effective due to its integration of some of the concepts of the older model. In other words, the value attached to the older concept has been acknowledged and integrated into the new model.

4.3.2 Cost Estimation

Cost estimation was also used in an effort towards deriving how effectiveness the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management in Modern Construction and Sustainable Property Development has been. To do this, the older model was first compared with the new one considering the process of producing the cost estimations. On this, most respondents indicated that the new model is superior. A possible explanation for this stand is that the new integrated model has essentially allowed both material, as well as, assembly quantities to be extracted and fed in a direct manner to the database of the new system. Most respondents indicated that, with the older model, cost estimation took a significant time (Nuesse 2012). However, this attribute has been eliminated with the integration of facility management. As it has been established in this case, facility management has taken n into consideration the effect that the loss of time has on the whole process. Eastman and Teicholz, et al. (2011) indicated that where the materials are extracted and fed into the database immediately, it follows that the process of decision making is made more quickly, and the entire process is simplified. Citing the data analysis, it is indicated that only a few respondents saw the new model as having very minimal differences with the older model. With regard to this, it follows that all the respondents at least recognized that there were indeed ideal differences, and this was a mark of the new model being more successful than the older method. This view corresponds to the findings of the research conducted by Bakker and Blom (2009) in which it was indicated that the new model in which facility management has been integrated is very efficient in that it contributes hugely in reducing the time taken from extraction of raw materials to the finished project.

Besides the general differences, there was the issue of producing the cost estimates. Most respondents indicated that the time taken to produce the cost estimates with the new model is much more reduced in relation to the time taken with the older model. As it has been established earlier, the extraction of raw materials and the feeding of those materials to the database are done immediately. As soon as the entire process has been recorded in the database, the party involved in working out on the cost estimate production embarks on the process. This is particularly different with regard to the older process where each process required quite a significant time. Before the entire process was recorded, immense amounts of time had already been taken. Therefore, based on these parameters, it follows that the new model in which facility management has been integrated is more effective.

Besides the time taken in producing the cost estimates, there is the issue of decision making. Most respondents in this regard perceived that there due to the speeded process of producing cost estimates, it follows that the process of decision making has been quicker and more accurate. According to Eastman and Teicholz, et al. (2011), cost estimates are the key to decision making. There is no way that decisions regarding a project can be made without having a clear profile of the costs to be involved. Therefore, with the older model, this had to take time and this delayed the completion of the project. However, with the new model, due to the reduced cost estimation production time, the process of decision making is quicker and thus accurate and superior decisions in relation to the older model.

With regard to the model that involved more costs in producing the cost estimates, most respondents indicated that the older method or approach consumed a lot of costs. This can be explained citing the long processes involved. As it has been identified earlier in the text, the older model where facility management had not been integrated involved a step by step process in order to complete. Completing these processes involved different parties, and this means that a great deal of costs was incurred. This, therefore, contributed greatly towards the entire cost of developing a project. However, after the integration of the facility management the costs were eliminated. The processes with the older model were eliminated since once the materials were extracted; they were fed directly to the system, and this led to cost reduction. This justifies the position that the new model is effective in the context of costs incurred in the production of cost estimates.

4.3.3 Involvement of Facility Management

The very first question in this section sought to identify whether rot not the traditional Construction and Sustainable Property Development entail facility management. A majority of the respondents indicated that there old practice did not entail the use of facility management. The response of these respondents that the old model was manual in its attributes and that facility management was integrated after the industry was not able to sustain the underlying difficulties further. This is a clear indication that facility management is a new concept which was aimed at eliminated the problems that were being experienced with the use of the older model. Taking this context into consideration, it is worthwhile to assert that the new model is more effective. This finding align to the idea advanced by Liu and Akinci (2009) that the new model in which facility management has been integrated has been far reaching in terms of the benefits, which could not be realized using the older model.

Further, it was established that the application of the facility management was used before the process.  According to Liu and Akinci (2009), to ensure successful Construction and Sustainable Property Development, there is a need to establish and implement strategies before initiating the process. Lauffer (2010) established the rationale for this indicating that when strategies are set in place, it follows that a person will be able to be guided through the whole process of construction and development of a project. This provides a justification of the response the respondents made. This means that the integration of facility management was very effective as it guided through the whole process. The old model did not entail this, and this means that the practitioners acted to their best dispensation. 

Order Plagiarism Free The Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management Part 2 Essay

Related essays

  1. The Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management Part 3
  2. Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
  3. The Analysis of the Strategic Integration of Facilities Management
  4. Globalization and the Transformation of Terrorism
 
     
 

Log in

order now
LifeTime Discounts
Advantages:
Total privacy
Plagiarism-free papers
Free cover page
Free references
300 words per page
Different citation styles
order now