This page provides more detail relating to BAI’s approach to building asset management. The value, risk and organizational issues discussed in this series of documents reflect the BAI Model and are embedded in the BAI analytics tools – the BAI Engine and the BAI Readiness Assessment Tool.
Why should an organization implement Building Asset Management? This document describes Building Asset Management (BAM) in more detail, contrasts it with the traditionally, functional approach to facility management, and discusses the organizational and technology changes needed for BAM to be successful.
Building owners invest in building assets through maintenance, refurbishment and replacement in order to ensure business continuity. In other words, the reason they spend money is to reduce risk. But how much attention do Facility Management organizations devote to risk management compared to managing activities and budgets? How much expertise do they have in managing risk? And do the techniques they use really manage risk or just give the illusion of doing so?
This paper describes a proven building asset risk management scheme called Asset Risk Coding. It shows how a simple yet robust building asset risk management methodology, built on solid design criteria, can be implemented and maintained, Asset Risk Coding yields a host of benefits from capital budgeting to risk communication to formulating a broad asset risk management strategy. The paper has been revised to include more details about the method, better explain the link to strategy and to incorporate a discussion of risk matrices. It also discusses some of the concerns FM organizations need to consider when using scoring techniques to manage risk.
Here’s a more detailed overview (2 pages) describing the BAI approach to Building Asset Management, including the role of the BAI Model and the BAI Engine.
Here’s a quick (one-page) description of FM value assessments performed by BAI using our proprietary tool.
Here are links to two articles published on LinkedIn about FM value delivery gaps. The first is about the use of asset-level information and the value it can bring. The second is about how internal policies limit the value delivered by energy management programs. Both illustrate how a focus on assets, coupled with a willingness to think differently, can unlock value.