The latest generation of building automation systems is delivering on the technology’s many promises

— By James Piper, P.E.

Interoperability has long offered facilities the promise of improved performance and reduced operating costs. Most maintenance and engineering managers — particularly those overseeing large, complex facilities and multiple independent building automation systems — agree that a single user interface providing access to all building systems and building data is the ideal method of managing building operations.

Integrating these once-independent functions into a comprehensive, interoperable system would help managers make their facilities’ operations more efficient and flexible, necessities in today’s rapidly changing business environment.

Unfortunately, here is where the agreement on interoperability ends. Some managers believe interoperability is nothing more than a dream, an appealing concept that is not possible now and will not be in the near future.

Others believe that interoperability, while still in its infancy, is here now and is fully operable, as long as managers specify the right system equipment and architecture.

Adding to the confusion is the widespread promotion of interoperability by equipment and system manufacturers — as long as managers buy and install a particular manufacturer’s hardware and software. This view promotes the belief that interoperability is to facility management what plug-and-play is to the PC industry. Buy the right hardware — theirs — plug it in, and a facility has interoperability.

What’s real?
The reality of the situation is that none of these various views of the state of interoperability are entirely accurate. Managers who believe interoperability is only a dream most likely have never seen a facility where an interoperable system is operating.

Those who feel that it is fully mature technology have never tried to design or install an interoperable system in a facility. And those who feel that interoperability is achievable only by limiting themselves to a single vendor fail to take advantage of one of the most important benefits of interoperability — vendor independence.

Interoperability is a developing technology, and while standards exist for its implementation, it is not plug-and-play. Using it requires a thorough understanding of its capabilities and limitations. Systems must be carefully planned, designed, installed, commissioned, maintained and upgraded if they are to be successful.

Interoperability has moved from the talking stage to implementation only within the past few years. The entire field of interoperability is still hindered by promises that are overly optimistic.

But manufacturers are introducing more components and devices that adhere to the standards, expanding system capabilities and, more importantly, options for managers. As a result, the number of facilities using the technology is growing. And increasing demand for interoperable systems, in turn, is causing manufacturers to take a deeper interest in developing products for interoperable systems.

Deregulation
One factor that has the potential to accelerate system implementation is the deregulation of electricity and gas utilities. In a deregulated market, managers are called upon to closely manage their facilities’ electrical loads in order to gain the most economic benefit.

Interoperable systems offer the potential of providing electricity use information as it occurs, which is critical information under a real-time pricing operation.

By tracking these loads across the site or across multiple sites, interoperable systems can be programmed to automatically take action to control and shape their load profiles to best suit facility needs while taking advantage of price breaks for electricity.

The manufacturer’s role
One of the most important advances in helping manufacturers of interoperable systems is the development and acceptance of standards. They allow manufacturers to invest in product and component development, knowing that as long as they conform to published standards, the item will operate successfully in any system that also meets the standard and will not suddenly become obsolete. As a result, manufacturers have developed new products and components, expanding the availability and capabilities of standard-compatible interoperable components.

Certification procedures also have helped. For example, LonMark has established a comprehensive testing and certification process for manufacturers to verify that their products are in compliance with LonMark standards. Products and components must pass the certification process before they can be labeled as meeting the standard. Certification assures manufacturers from a variety of industries, as well as their customers, that the products can function in an interoperable system.

BACnet, the other widely accepted standard for interoperability, has taken a slightly different approach. The open consensus-based standard was developed by a joint effort on the part of engineers, system users, manufacturers, trade associations and government, so any one company does not own it.

The BACnet Manufacturers Association has been formed to assist users and design professionals. Besides conducting educational programs and promotional activities, the association is developing testing procedures to ensure that systems and components adhere to the BACnet standard.

Barriers to interoperability
Although varying degrees of interoperable systems have been installed in thousands of buildings, interoperability has been slow to catch on. Thousands of facilities have upgraded independent systems to interoperable ones, but many more have not.

While the benefits of interoperability are widely understood, many maintenance and engineering managers don’t fully understand how to achieve them. They do not know what is available for use today, or even to whom to turn for information. As a result, they have adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

Interoperability is here and functioning. What managers must do is actively seek out information from manufacturers, trade associations, engineering firms and peers in facilities that already have installed the systems. BACnet and LonMark have implemented demonstration programs in facilities that managers can visit to better understand interoperability, how it is implemented and how it functions. With this information, they can begin the process of transforming their independent systems into interoperable systems.

Cost is another barrier to the implementation of interoperable systems. They have a higher first cost than independent systems, typically 10-15 percent higher.

In some cases, particularly new construction, the first cost for interoperable systems actually may be lower due to the ability of interoperable system to use a single cabling infrastructure throughout the facility. But the perception remains that the benefits of interoperable systems come with a much higher price than those from independent systems.

While first costs are one consideration in installing independent or interoperable systems, the total cost of ownership over the life of the system will have a much greater impact on the economics of the installation. In nearly every application, interoperable systems will have a much lower total cost of ownership, or life-cycle cost. Lower training costs, more competition between vendors, a single user interface, and increased efficiency of operation help increase the benefits and lower the cost of ownership of interoperable systems.

The future of interoperability
Interoperability is a tool of efficiency. Its design goal is to replace different, incompatible systems from different manufacturers with one system that shares a common communication infrastructure, system data and command capabilities. But interoperable systems are more.

Their impact on the day-to-day operation of a facility is greater than the sum of their parts. Interoperability will give operators capabilities impossible to achieve with independent systems, capabilities that reduce operating costs while enhancing building performance. And as more managers begin to take advantage of interoperability, demand for the systems will grow.

Interoperability is still in its infancy, still trying to demonstrate its potential and value. Despite its newness, however, interoperability is ready for use today. The foundation for system development and growth is already in place. Systems will continue to be refined, building on the capabilities of today’s systems. This continuing development raises several questions.

• When is it the best time to buy into interoperability?
  
• Should managers invest in systems today or wait for further refinement?
  
• If a building automation system is purchased today, will it be compatible with future changes?
  

The answers to these questions must be investigated on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as how large the potential benefit of interoperability is to a facility will impact the decision-making process. But in nearly every case, the cost of waiting for future developments more than offsets any risks in installing the systems today.

Putting off buying into interoperability only means that its benefits will be delayed. In a highly competitive marketplace, delaying improvements increases the risk that an organization will get left behind by the competition.

James Piper is a facilities management consultant with more than 20 years of experience.