They’re designed as places where large numbers of mainly young people can get together, socialise, dance and have fun.  They’re also supposed to meet fire safety regulations and provide a safe environment, but nightclubs can be anything but safe.

OVERFULL VENUES AND THE USE OF PYROTECHNICS: A GOOD IDEA?
Earlier this year the Kiss nightclub in Santa Maria, Brazil was engulfed by fire when a flare set off by a band playing at the venue set fire to soundproofing in the ceiling. Making things worse, the burning soundproofing then generated toxic fumes, including cyanide, turning the club into a gas chamber. Some 240 young people died.
Initial investigations found that the club was operating under an expired safety licence and there were too many people in the venue. On top of that, apart from having a pyrotechnic display indoors, fire extinguishers weren’t working properly. It was also a huge embarrassment for Brazil, which is hosting the next FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games.
It was tragically similar to another nightclub fire 10 years earlier, this time in Rhode Island, New Jersey. This happened at The Station nightclub and again was started when pyrotechnics set fire to flammable soundproofing material in the walls and ceiling.
The fire, as with the Brazilian inferno, took hold in minutes and killed 100 people. A further 230 people were injured. Once again, exits were flooded with people trying to escape – most ignoring alternative exits to head for the one exit they knew: the entrance at which they had arrived.
Again, a contributing factor was that the club was full beyond its authorised capacity. A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation found that a sprinkler system would have contained the fire. The nightclub was supposed to have had one; it didn’t.
The venue’s two owners and the band’s manager, who was responsible for setting off the pyrotechnic, were imprisoned – although all three have now been released – while new sprinkler requirements and fire code provisions enacted as a result remain in place in Rhode Island and across the United States.
It may be obvious, but indoor pyrotechnics are rarely a good idea. In December 2009, the same idiocy at a nightclub in Perm, Russia left over 150 dead.

THE WORLD’S WORST NIGHTCLUB FIRES
The Station fire was the deadliest in the USA since a 1977 fire in Southgate, Kentucky claimed 165 lives. More on that fire later. However, the worst nightclub fire – internationally and in the USA – happened during World War II at the Cocoanut Grove in Boston when 492 people died.
It was 1942 and a young US soldier had taken his date to the nightclub. Seeking some privacy he removed the light bulb on their table, but, when it was reconnected by a member of staff who had to light a match to see better, he accidentally set fire to decorative palm fronds, which rapidly led to flashover. Nearly 500 people died.
It remains the world’s worst nightclub fire and, apart from a lack of fire exits and other safety features, the enormous loss of life was greatly exacerbated by fire and toxic fumes spreading unchecked to upper levels of the club. The lessons learned formed the basis of new fire laws, the creation of several national fire safety organisations – and helped influence building safety in many other jurisdictions internationally.
The Top 10 deadliest nightclub incidents are:

1.
Cocoanut Gove, USA, 1942
Deaths: 492

2.
Dance hall, Luoyang, China, 2000
Deaths: 309

3.
Kiss, Brazil, 2013
Deaths: 239

4.
Rhythm Club, Natchez, Mississippi, USA, 1940
Deaths: 207

5.
Cromagnon Republic Club, Argentina, 2004
Deaths: 194

6.
Beverly Hills Supper Club, Kentucky, USA, 1977
Deaths: 165

7.
Ozone Disco Club, Quezon City, Philippines, 1996
Deaths: 160

8.
Lame Horse, Perm, Russia, 2009
Deaths: 154

9.
Club Cinq, France, 1970
Deaths: 143

10.
Station nightclub, Rhode Island, USA, 2003
Deaths: 100

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO 
Of course, fires in nightclubs – as anywhere – can have a variety of ignition sources, usually something insignificant – a dropped cigarette or faulty wiring. The French nightclub tragedy, for example (number nine on the list) was started by a carelessly discarded match. However, a common thread running through all of these fires was how quickly each one of them took hold and spread, giving little time for people to escape.
After many of them, different lessons were learned and incorporated into new or updated fire regulations. However, one nightclub fire stands out as a prime example of everything bad: bad building design, bad fire safety procedures, and bad enforcement – a perfect storm of small deficiencies that, together, added up to a recipe for disaster. It should still provide lessons for today’s architects, fire safety specialists and building managers.
The 1977 fire (number six on the list) was at the Beverly Hills Supper Club in Southgate, Kentucky, which began from a spark from faulty wiring. That small and insignificant fault left 165 people dead.
As with the Kiss and Station disasters, the venue was hugely overcrowded. The total occupancy of the venue was estimated at some 2750 people, which under Kentucky law required some 28 exits. The club only had 16 exits.
In addition, not only were many of those exits not clearly marked, but because of the building’s poor design, they could not be easily accessed. Some exits could only be reached by passing through several different areas. Many victims were found in dead-end corridors, having become disorientated and lost.
A governor’s report into the fire called the club’s wiring an “electrician’s nightmare” and cited multiple code violations. Another report was also scathing, suggesting that the wiring could not ever have been properly inspected. That lack of inspection also seems to have extended to the regulatory authorities, with the local fire department being accused of knowing about the venue’s fire safety failings, but not ordering any remedial work.
There were other code violations, there was no sprinkler system, no audible and automatic fire alarm, and several doors were locked. The perfect storm was completed by poor building design. It had inadequate roof support and was built using flammable materials. However, of particular importance, it lacked firewalls or any form of containment. The fire was able to draw in oxygen in abundant supply and spread unchecked, with devastating effect.
Today, it is internal curtain walling that provides the fire safety design solution, allowing a large internal space such as a nightclub to be segmented into separate and discreet areas, so that if a fire does happen, it can be contained within one place – therefore allowing everyone to escape.

Brookfield Johnson Controls received a Silver Award for reducing water use in Western Australia by 26 percent through the Water Corporation’s Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP) program.
Technology, water reuse strategies, education in efficient water management and water wastage reduction strategies enabled Brookfield Johnson Controls to implement a range of innovations including:

• increased use of harvested stormwater
• more efficient cooling systems
• more efficient water usage strategies
• a six-month maintenance programme on minor plumbing plant and equipment; and
• building induction training.

Brookfield Johnson Controls’ wider energy conservation drive has delivered expenditure savings of 8 percent on electricity, 25 percent on gas and 6 percent on water this year alone. Statutory Water Corporation meter readings have shown water consumption for the Perth District Courts building has fallen from 23,313 kL per annum to 17,169 kL per annum since 2009.
The Water Corporation’s WEMP program helps businesses using more than 20 million litres of scheme water per year to reduce water use. More than 344 businesses saved 7.9 billion litres of water in 2011/2012 - more than 3,500 Olympic swimming pools. Water Minister, Terry Redman notes that businesses involved in the WEMP program not only save huge amounts of water, but also demonstrate their commitment to the environment and the sustainable use of water.
“To save 7.9 billion litres of scheme water in one year is an outstanding result, with the changes made through the program saving 18.5 billion litres over four years,” Minister Redman comments. “This has also saved these businesses around $16 million in water and wastewater charges, proving that being water efficient saves water and money.”
The minister presented Platinum Awards (more than 50 percent improvement in water efficiency) to 14 businesses and Gold Awards (35 to 50 percent improvement) to 35 businesses. A total of 37 businesses will receive Silver Awards (25 to 35 percent improvement) and 71 will receive Bronze Awards (10 to 25 percent improvement).

The Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating (AIRAH) has launched a Solar Cooling Special Technical Group (STG). AIRAH CEO, Phil Wilkinson says the aims of the AIRAH Solar Cooling STG are to be an advocate of solar cooling, to develop industry practitioner skills, to provide a hub for solar cooling information sharing and to encourage better communication between stakeholders.
“By developing skills and capacity in the use of solar cooling technology, the AIRAH Solar Cooling STG will help enable the HVAC industry to access new business opportunities in the renewable energy industry,” Wilkinson states.
Dr Stephen White from CSIRO Energy Technology adds that the AIRAH Solar Cooling STG will address barriers to the development of a vibrant solar air-conditioning industry across Australia. He says the STG has a number of tasks it will implement in order to achieve its goal of growing skills and capacity building.
These initiatives include developing a comprehensive web portal; holding a regular conference to share information and recognise project excellence; delivering quality solar cooling training; preparing an industry roadmap; submitting responses to government public consultation processes; contributing to solar cooling standard development; and supporting AIRAH’s Dennis Joseph Award for the innovative use of solar energy in HVAC&R.
“The AIRAH Solar Cooling STG will develop a work plan to promote a level playing field for HVAC-based solutions in the renewable industry,” White says. “The STG will also disseminate the latest technical information on solar cooling – taking advantage of standards, guides and tools.”

Maintenance departments are facing difficult times. High automation creates high complexity and just-in-time production drastically reduces buffers and inventory levels. At the same time, the importance of efficiency is being stressed and maintenance budgets are being cut.
Some companies respond to these challenges by outsourcing maintenance services. When asked for reasons most name costs, while others cite ‘tradition’ and ‘gut feeling’. Are there better ways to define the goals that guide companies to decide whether a service is made or bought? And, on a broader notion, are ‘make’ and ‘buy’ the only possible sourcing alternatives?
Sourcing maintenance services is different from sourcing products. Services are immaterial in nature, which leads to high complexity and incomplete contracts. These, in turn, cause high uncertainty for all parties during the provision of a service. Not only lacking information about type, scope and duration of the service, but also about the timing of demand, this is especially apparent in the case of breakdown maintenance. In addition, services rely heavily on the coordination of knowledge between the client and service provider.
The maintenance process needs to access both, firm-specific and object-specific knowledge, underlining the importance of knowledge management. Lastly, the relationship between transaction partners demands consideration. Due to high requirements for equipment availability, the creation of a trusting relationship between client and service provider is desirable.

FOUR MAINTENANCE SOURCING ALTERNATIVES
What are the options a company can choose from when deciding how maintenance demands can be satisfied? If a company owns and completes all activities necessary for the provision of a service, it chooses ‘make’. The second well-known option is ‘buy’, meaning that the company does not use any of its resources to provide the service.
But, what if a company provides the same service in-house that it also sources from outside? For example, fast food restaurants of the same brand are sometimes run by a franchisee (buy) and others by the company itself (make) (Bradach, 1997), and a company may use independent sales agents (buy) and employees (make) to service the same territory (Dutta, 1995). These cases can be labelled ‘concurrent sourcing’ and constitute a third sourcing alternative.
When one company buys services from the other they usually do not share common goals for the transaction at hand. One is trying to optimise its effectiveness and efficiency, the other its earnings. What happens, however, if two or more companies jointly source from a third party or jointly provide maintenance services, as found in the airline industry? They could do so to gain power in contract negotiations or to increase the productivity of their maintenance departments by sharing resources and knowledge. This ‘cooperation’ emerges between businesses sharing common values and goals. The partners engage in long-term, trusting relationships.

ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND SCOPE
As with any other management decision, suitable criteria need to be derived at the beginning of the decision-making process. Taking a step back, the problem becomes one of setting the boundaries of a firm. These boundaries define which activities are completed inside the company and which ones are bought from outside. The strategic management literature offers valuable insight into how boundaries can be delineated.
The first concepts are economies of scale and scope. The former arises from bulk purchasing rebates and an efficiency increase through higher output (Viner, 1932). The efficiency may increase because of a greater division of labour or specialised equipment. Economies of scope are due to synergies gained from simultaneous production of several goods using the same inputs and equipment. The resulting productivity increase leads to lower average costs.
Economies of scale and scope suggest in-house provision in order to profit from productivity gains. To make sure that productivity remains high, no additional capacity can be held for peak demands in maintenance services. The first criterion ensures that any temporary peak demands for maintenance resources, such as personnel, tools or spares, are dealt with economically.

TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS
The second input stems from transaction cost economics (TCE): a company engages in an activity because it can minimise the sum of production and transaction costs (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975). When two companies use division of labour to productively create products or services, coordination is needed. It ensures that the divided tasks are performed in a way that the required result will follow (Voigt, 2010).
In markets, prices fulfil this task. In companies, management use commands to coordinate the production process. However, this coordination is costly. In markets, using prices comes with search, information and contractual costs. In firms, management costs arise from solving motivational problems through administration, organisation and performance measurement.
In other words, transaction costs occur in order to avoid opportunistic behaviour that could arise from the division of labour and a lack of transparency. TCE is in favour of in-house provision, if only a small number of suppliers exist, transaction specific investment is required and uncertainty about behaviour and environmental factors is immanent.
In contrast, if the same transaction is conducted frequently and credible safeguards against opportunism are in place, companies will choose narrow boundaries, even if uncertainty and the need for transaction specific investment exist. To mitigate the risk stemming from opportunistic behaviour, knowing the capabilities of a third-party provider exactly before a job is assigned is advisable. Another criterion will be to keep transaction partners at arm’s length by ensuring that no investments are made that tie the company too closely to another company, for example an outsourcing provider.

A RESOURCE-BASED VIEW
The resource-based view (RBV) of a firm points out the importance of strategic resources. A resource is strategic if it enables a company to create value, is rare, is not imitable and is non-substitutionable (Barney, 1991). It, thus, can create a sustainable competitive advantage, especially if the firm controls more than one strategic resource.
To gain this advantage, a company must learn how to deploy and how to manage its stock of unique resources. Only if a given activity and the company’s strategic resources are interdependent does the RBV advocate wide boundaries and internal provision to guarantee high utilisation of its unique resources. In turn, this also means that activities will no longer be performed in-house if they are not linked to those resources.
The production system can be seen as a strategic resource in this context. Hence, ensuring high equipment availability can lead to a competitive advantage for the company. The management of strategic resources is complex, however. Thus, it is critical to have complete transparency about cost and actual performance at all times, so that the management of different activities remains feasible.

A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW
In the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm, knowledge is the main strategic resource (Grant, 1996). The knowledge of a company, inherent in its processes and routines, generates a sustainable competitive advantage because competitors cannot imitate it. Management is, therefore, responsible for making the most of the firm’s knowledge resources and for constantly growing them through innovation.
The KBV supports wide boundaries since transfer and conservation of knowledge is easier within a company than across markets. If a leap in technology is likely or the required knowledge is completely codifiable, however, then narrow boundaries will result.

ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE AND NEW TECHNOLOGY
The two last sourcing criteria are as follows: first, access to firm-specific knowledge about the flaws of a company’s machines – underlining that general knowledge about the machine type may be insufficient and that the maintenance crew needs to know, for example, the history of failures as well.
Second, the importance of having access to up-to-date knowledge and maintenance technology in order to keep the equipment running at desired performance levels.
These are certainly not all the criteria that can be derived from these four theoretical lenses. In the empirical study underlying this research, however, they proved to be the most important ones.

SOURCING ALTERNATIVES’ PROS AND CONS
How do the four sourcing alternatives perform in the light of these criteria? The advantages of ‘make’ are high equipment availability through quick response time, high availability of firm-specific knowledge and no investment being needed that would tie the company to a service provider. It is, however, less able to cope with demand fluctuation, cannot easily provide access to up-to-date knowledge and transparency about costs is difficult to obtain.
The option ‘buy’ proves best in dealing with demand fluctuation and cost transparency, but is weak in ensuring availability and ease of determining the service provider’s qualifications.
While concurrent sourcing can combine firm-specific knowledge with the access to up-to-date industry knowledge and technology, it falls short in the ability to screen the service provider’s qualifications as well as other alternatives can. It manages the possible risks of opportunistic behaviour quite well, however, because the switch to solely make or buy is rather easy.
Cooperation is chosen because of its advantage in coping with demand fluctuation by using the resources of two or more partners, and because the long-term relationship creates trust and allows exact judgement of the service provider’s qualifications. The weaknesses are a lack of cost and performance transparency and the necessity to invest in a partnership with a specific partner.

WEIGHTING THE CRITERIA
Selecting a suitable sourcing option has now become a problem of weighing the criteria. To be able to do so, 1043 companies of the mechanical engineering and chemical industries in Germany were surveyed, of which 230 participated.
Industry experts reckon that the mechanical engineering industry tends to buy maintenance services, since it is generally more open and flexible due to its small size. In addition, its equipment is less interlinked and the market demands high efficiency.
The chemical industry, however, favours make. Equipment availability is most important since stoppages lead to long repair times, accidents or impacts on the environment. Moreover, maintenance teams require high knowledge of the production process and the equipment is highly interlinked and automated. The mindset of this industry also tends to be more conservative and its decisions are quite often based on tradition.
The companies also differ in size: 75 percent of the chemical companies employ up to 265 people, whereas this number is 122 in the mechanical industry. The median annual maintenance budgets are €60,000 for mechanical engineering and €300,000 for chemical companies. Eighty-seven percent of chemical companies claim that maintenance is very important, in comparison to 76 percent in mechanical engineering.
When asked about the sourcing of their maintenance services, most companies use make and buy at the same time and hardly anyone chooses cooperation (see figure 1). If a company chooses buy, it typically uses the services of three to seven providers. Three-quarters of the companies also use the services of the original equipment manufacturers.
If they were to change sourcing options, firms with a maintenance budget of less than €20,000 a year would typically take less than three months to do so. Companies with a budget exceeding €1.4 million would take considerably longer: one-third could make the switch within seven to 12 months; another third would take longer than a year. Only 10 percent of the mechanical engineering and 26 percent of the chemical companies, however, did switch between sourcing options in the past 10 years.
More than 90 percent of the respondents accepted the proposed criteria. They ranked firm-specific knowledge and equipment availability as the most important criteria, followed by transparency of costs and performance (see figure 2). The least important criteria were access to up-to-date knowledge and compensating peak demands.
The ascribed weights do not differ significantly between industries, size of workforce, value creation steps, maintenance budgets or the chosen forms of maintenance organisation. They do differ, however, between companies that attribute great importance to their maintenance services and those that do not. If maintenance plays an important role in a company, dealing with peak demands and access to up-to-date knowledge and technology are significantly more important. They also differ in times of economic downturn: transparency and dealing with peak demands become the most important considerations, and the weight of equipment availability decreases considerably.
Using these criteria and the proposed characteristics of the four sourcing options, 51 percent of mechanical engineering companies would choose concurrent sourcing, over make (40 percent), buy (five percent) and cooperate (four percent). Fifty-five percent of chemical companies prefer make over concurrent sourcing (43 percent) and cooperate (three percent). No company would choose to buy.
In comparison to their actual sourcing strategy, a different sourcing option is proposed for more than half the companies. By means of the interactive decision-making tool on www.stefan-gassner.de/maintenance companies can find out how their maintenance sourcing would differ using the outlined criteria and characteristics of the sourcing alternatives.

References:
Barney, J (1991). ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’. Journal of Management, 17(1), S. 99-120.
Bradach, J L (1997). ‘Using the Plural Form in the Management of Restaurant Chains’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), S. 276-303.
Coase, R H (1937). ‘The Nature of the Firm’. Economica, 4(16), S. 386-405.
Dutta, S, Bergen, M, Heide, J B and John, G (1995). ‘Understanding Dual Distribution: The Case of Reps and House Accounts’. Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, 11(1), S. 189-204.
Viner, J (1932). ‘Cost curves and supply curves’. Journal of Economics, 3(1), S. 23-46.
Voigt, K-I and Piekenbrock, D (2010). ‘Division of Labour’. http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/55213/arbeitsteilung-v3.html
Williamson, O E (1975). ‘Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organisation’. New York: The Free Press.

Dr Stefan Gassner is a senior consultant at Grosvenor Management Consulting, Sydney. He recently completed his Ph.D. at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, researching the procurement of maintenance services in production networks, and has developed a framework to show how companies can jointly make procurement decisions. 

To further reduce its environmental footprint CBRE, is focusing on both the external and the internal operations of its tenancies. One office in particular, located at 151 Pirie Street in Adelaide, is seeing good results following a recent lighting retrofit and collaboration efforts with the building owner, and won a state CitySwitch Award late last year. The CitySwitch South Australia Awards judging panel praised the team at CBRE for using low-cost solutions to produce “easy-to-use, effective opportunities in energy efficiency”.

OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED
The work at our Adelaide office is supported by CBRE’s national monitoring of the ongoing performance of all 28 offices around Australia. We have comprehensive energy reduction programs in place to support our behavioural change campaigns and modification to day-to-day business operations.
In 2010, we rolled out our national ‘Toward a Greener Tomorrow’ program, which is a baseline sustainability survey of our existing facilities and sustainable practices across the region. In 2011, we built on this existing data and conducted NABERS Energy ratings and energy audits across all of our major offices. These audits reviewed existing lighting and power infrastructure, and identified opportunities to achieve energy efficiency improvements. During the last 12 months, CBRE has taken major steps to improve the energy efficiency of several offices across Australia.
CBRE’s Adelaide office was already a high performer with a five-and-a-half-star NABERS Energy tenancy rating (without GreenPower). We were, however, in search of more space to accommodate a growing company. Ideally, we wanted a more flexible and open working environment to ensure better interaction between departments and our lease was soon to expire, so we decided to move. It was also a priority for us to move to a high-performing base building that had green credentials and an improved indoor environment.
So, at the end of 2011, we moved to the four-star Green Star, five-star NABERS Energy rated 151 Pirie Street building – Adelaide’s first Green Star – Office Design v1 rated building. While built to be a high performing building, by this stage the fitout was already seven years old. And, with technology moving so quickly, and systems becoming quickly superseded, it’s an ongoing challenge to keep up.
Following the move, future proofing and maintaining the NABERS component of our building’s performance was one of our top priorities. In order to keep up with technology and optimise our energy efficiency, we undertook a review of the lighting and lighting control system within the new office, as this is one of the major energy consumption areas within a tenancy space.

LIGHTING INITIATIVES’ OUTCOMES
Lighting was a key focus and as a first step we installed occupancy sensors in all meeting rooms, with energy savings predicted at around 150 kWh (kilowatts per hour) per annum. We also instigated an LED upgrade within the ground floor foyer and the lift foyers. Although part of base building operations, as we are the building manager as well as the tenant, we were in a position to work closely with the owner to optimise the energy efficiency of this space.
We also worked with our night cleaners to ensure that all lights are switched off as soon as they finish cleaning the tenancy – this is a simple, zero cost action that makes a big difference. Other initiatives included resetting our thermostat in the server room from 22 to 25 degrees Celsius, ensuring further energy savings of approximately 1400 kWh per annum and the introduction of a swipe card system on our main printer.
The relocation to new premises involved an increase in floor area of 194 square metres or 25 percent. As a result, our energy consumption for the Adelaide office increased over the last 12 months by 24,100 kWh and our costs increased by $7952; however, the NABERS rating is still five stars.
In the future, we are aiming to replace halogen downlights in the hallways of the base building and replace the large incandescents in the tenancy foyer and the kitchen with LEDs or remove them. In addition, we plan to evaluate the economics of modifying the tenancy luminaires with single lamp (T5) fittings.

INSIGHTS GAINED
The advice I would give others considering a lighting upgrade is:

1. Ensure you have a benchmark. Without a benchmark of performance, you cannot effectively monitor and, therefore, manage energy use. Thus, as a first step, undertaking a NABERS rating should be considered.
2. Assess tenancy lighting levels. Check if the building owner has obtained a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate for the tenancy. As part of the Commercial Building Disclosure scheme, this assessment of a tenancy’s lighting levels (compared to watts per square metre best practice) will help with the assessment of the scope of a lighting upgrade.
3. Ensure the lighting upgrade is design-led. It’s important to ensure any lighting upgrade is design-led, not technology-led and complies with the relevant standards and codes.
4. Check if the project is eligible for one of the number of government grants that are on offer – the more informed you are, the better.

OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES
As CBRE manages the 151 Pirie Street building, we also took the opportunity to make improvements to base building emissions and energy consumption. One of the key projects we advocated for, and implemented on behalf of the building owner was the installation of 36-kilowatt photovoltaic panels (PV) on the roof, which generate over 52,000 kilowatt hours of zero emission electricity for the base building. This has resulted in a contribution of 10 percent of the total base building electricity load.
In addition, an issue was identified with solar gain to one façade and a strategy developed with the cleaning contractor whereby the cleaners now automatically lower blinds to one face at the end of each day. Not only does this provide more comfortable conditions, but, by avoiding the 5am to 8am heat gain, it also assists in lowering the base building cooling load without any capital cost.
Our Sustainable IT program has also enhanced energy efficiency, while also reducing paper waste, enabling greater connectivity and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. During the last year, we reviewed our auto-hibernation settings, decreasing the inactive time before a laptop or PC hibernates, which has resulted in significantly lower energy use.
Furthermore, all new laptops are now pre-programmed to optimal energy saver settings prior to distribution to staff. New energy-saving multifunction devices offices with ‘Follow Me’ printing capability have been rolled out and, in the new Sydney workplace, we are introducing video-conferencing facilities to reduce the need to travel between cities and enhance collaboration.
At an infrastructure level, CBRE has undertaken a server virtualisation program and rationalised server rooms as part of various office moves. The renewal of ageing services to server rooms is expected to show energy saving benefits over the next 12 months.
We are constantly looking for opportunities to get to a five-and-a-half NABERS Energy rating. That’s our immediate goal.

David Low is CBRE’s South Australian sustainability manager.

The winners of our Apr-May 2013 competition are:

1. Adam Adkin, facilities management consultant at WT Partnership
2. Chris Jordan, national facilities manager at Simplot Australia
3. Lachlan Black, acting executive manager planning and environment at Kyogle Council
4. Michael Giuliano, building manager at Dalgety Square Property Services
5. Rod Blackmore, building services manager at Sydney Entertainment Centre
6. Kalai Appulingam, facilities management at DTZ
7. Adrina Petrosian of New Horizons
8. Kate Dalton-Aram, HR and administrative services consultant at The BPAY Group
9. Sam Costello, manager of systems strategy and delivery, facilities management at The University of New South Wales
10. Wayne Foenander, facilities manager at St Leonards College

They have won a Flo monitor arm and iPad mount in either silver or white, courtesy of Colebrook Bosson Saunders and Facility Management.
The Flo monitor stand offers a range and ease of movement that sets it apart. The monitor stand features award-winning aesthetic design and functionality, and delivers smooth, dynamic movement through patented Flo Spring Technology. In addition, its unique head design provides an unrivalled degree of flexibility for tablets and touch screens.
Further distinctive features of the Flo monitor stand are the weight gauge, which reduces installation time and provides consistent performance, and an integrated three-point cable management system. For more information on the Flo monitor arm and iPad mount see the product description here.

With the growing proliferation of mobile devices and bring-your-own-device (BYOD), mobile device management (MDM) is currently one of the hottest growth areas in the enterprise space, according to Ilan Rubin, managing director of Wavelink.
“IDC estimates that the global mobile worker population will approach 1.2 billion in 2013. Organisations will have to face up to the challenge of how to secure and manage the billions of mobile devices used by workers while effectively protecting the entire mobile enterprise,” Rubin warns.
He adds that while BYOD can mean reduced hardware costs to an organisation, as users pay for their own devices, these are often outweighed by greater costs of managing a range of disparate devices. Rubin recommends implementing a cost-effective, automated MDM platform as this not only ensures a more secure environment, but also reduces additional management costs.
He recommends a MDM solution that covers management of all elements in a mobile device’s life cycle from initial configuration and provisioning to monitoring and security through to decommissioning at the end of life.

In Australia, the community views graffiti vandalism as one of the top two neighbourhood problems. While it is difficult to estimate the total cost of the problem, the cost to Western Australian state government agencies, local councils, infrastructure owners, business and private property owners is thought to be in excess of $30 million.
This estimate is likely to be a conservative one, given that graffiti vandalism, like other forms of criminal damage, is not always reported to police. In addition, the cost of graffiti is not only financial. Indirect costs to society, such as environmental harm, fear for safety, reduced civic pride and a decline in property value, also have a significant impact on communities.

METHODS OF REMOVAL
Best practice graffiti reduction, nationally and internationally, recognises that an effective approach to graffiti reduction needs to incorporate a variety of interventions including prevention, education, removal, community engagement and sanctions. The recently developed Tough on Graffiti Strategy 2011-2015 addresses these varied interventions.
The prevalent nature of graffiti vandalism has made it a complex problem to fully combat. Rapid removal is one strategy that is being implemented to address this. The term ‘rapid removal’ refers to the process in which graffiti is removed within a relatively short period of time, generally 24 to 48 hours, following detection.
The effectiveness of this initiative is based around the premise that rapid removal can counteract motivation for graffiti vandalism by limiting exposure time of the work and, consequently, recognition from peers. It is recommended that rapid removal of graffiti is carried out in combination with other prevention activities, such as appropriate landscape design, effective lighting and other designing out crime methods.
Methods of removal are different according to the surface type and may include:

• Brick, render, limestone and natural surfaces:
  • A number of specific graffiti removal products are available from retail outlets.
  • A household product that may be effective is a cold caustic oven cleaner. Spray the oven cleaner onto the damaged area and leave for six to eight hours, scrub the surface with a hard scrubbing brush and wash off with water. It is important to wear gloves and safety glasses for protection when using oven cleans. Do not use caustics on or near aluminium.
  • Liquid laundry detergent or methylated spirits may be effective for marker damage.

• Painted surfaces:
  • Repainting a painted surface is often the most effective method of removing graffiti, as it does not affect the existing paint finish.
  • When repainting a surface, the matched colour should always be used. Experience shows that the use of a contrasting colour may attract further graffiti as the patch will provide a ‘frame’ for the vandal’s work.

• Fibro-cement (‘super-six’) fences:
  • Painting out graffiti damage is recommended as this type of surface is porous.
  • Painting out an entire sheet or sheets of fencing will help achieve a more uniform appearance and prevent the fence from appearing patchy.
  • Try paint that is asbestos grey or polished grey in colour for a close colour match.

GRAFFITI PREVENTION THROUGH DESIGNING OUT CRIME
‘Designing out crime’ is a crime prevention strategy that aims to reduce the opportunity for crime through the design and management of the built and landscaped environments. It is commonly referred to as crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).
It suggests that opportunities for crime can be reduced by maximising opportunities for natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement and natural access control. Evidence shows that by applying CPTED principles and techniques in planning of locations there is a significant reduction in the incidence of crime.
CPTED principles can be applied in preventing graffiti vandalism by changing the design of or treating the graffiti target, for example:

• choose surfaces that are difficult to apply paint or markers to, such as rough/uneven surfaces, non-porous materials, or use hedging plants or creeping vegetation to cover walls
• minimise natural ladders that provide easy access to upper-level targets
• locate signs at a height that makes them difficult for offenders to reach
• anti-graffiti coatings can be applied to most walls and structure types to make cleaning graffiti faster and easier
• secure outdoor rubbish bins in such a manner that they cannot be used to access roofs and other elevated areas
• maximise the chances that offenders will be seen or caught
• use permeable or semi-permeable fencing instead of solid walls
• strategically locate windows to allow natural surveillance
• install signage to identify the asset use and provide possible witnesses with a point of contact
• increase lighting and surveillance to increase the perceived risk of detection
• use design to create ownership of space so that offenders are more likely to be seen and reported or challenged
• place a hedge, fibrous material wall or dense vegetation, especially those with thorns or spikes immediately in front of a target
• maintain vegetation to ensure adequate surveillance
• use securely placed lighting with a recommended visibility range of 15 metres, removing concealed areas for offenders
• consider CCTV (closed-circuit television) for high risk areas, or areas that do not allow for natural surveillance, and
• place legal artwork on a graffiti hotspot to deter offending in high risk areas.

With the recent release of AS1851–2012, it is prudent to reflect on the web of legislative and regulatory requirements that facilities managers face today. In the tenant/landlord relationship scenario, ensuring robust facilities compliance across properties can be seen to be even more onerous. Success in this aspect of facilities management can be achieved through a staged process of data gathering, contractor engagement, consistent reporting and continual review.

1. BUILDING INFORMATION ACCURACY
At the forefront of facilities compliance is building information accuracy. Each building’s characteristics and its requisite maintenance requirements must be known. Depending on the jurisdiction, the maintenance strategy employed for each building may change and specialist advice may be required to cement those requirements. For tenants, an accurate interpretation of the maintenance and repair provisions in their leases should be obtained to cover off on the general scope of responsibility.

2. CONTRACTOR QUALITY
The next step towards compliance is the engagement of appropriate contractors, which will need to complete the requisite, prescribed tasks. Many standards make reference to the requirement to employ ‘suitably qualified’ contractors. This is certainly the case with fire protection, air-conditioning and electrical contractors. While the ability to complete a job is important, we are only as good as the contractors we have on the ground, so contractor quality is also a key factor in selection and retention.
While these initial steps are more or less common sense, they must be tackled thoroughly to ensure the success of the overall compliance strategy.

3. TRACKING PERFORMANCE
Step three involves setting the prescribed tasks to be undertaken, their frequency and also the method of tracking and reporting of activities. The contractors will be able to provide specific guidance on the first of these two; however, the third will require careful thought. For a multi-site and multi-jurisdictional situation, the single best solution for tracking contractor performance is by implementing an online, web-based reporting and contractor compliance system.
This system must be capable of providing reports on test completions and should be able to display completed logbook sheets if possible. This functionality allows the facilities team to remotely view and access site-specific information from anywhere and also allows high level performance monitoring. There are service providers in this field that provide an end-to-end solution, including logbooks, online reporting tools and customer support.
The contractors who will employ this system on your behalf must be trained in its use. Further, compliance with that system must serve as a clear, measurable, and non-negotiable key performance indicator (KPI) in their contracts. Frankly, the contractor’s performance must be based on their performance as tracked by that system. Should the system indicate that the contractor has missed a task, the facilities manager should not pay for that task.

4. CONSISTENT REPORTING
The penultimate step in the road to achieving facilities compliance excellence is consistent, frequent reporting of tasks completed. Given that the contractor is being judged on its performance in completing specific tasks, and that those tasks by virtue grant building compliance, a structured reporting schedule should be developed by the facilities team to both maintain control of the servicing and to apply consistency in the overall review of compliance.
Unless a contractor is monitored in this way, the facilities team will have no knowledge of how compliant its buildings are from a testing perspective and it will not be able to gauge whether it is keeping them up to code.

5. CONTINUAL REVIEW
Finally, it must be ensured that the sites’ compliance is continually reviewed. Has a standard changed? Do tests need to be amended to suit new conditions or equipment? Has a refurbishment been undertaken? These reviews need to occur frequently. There are multiple online alert subscription services that a facilities team can subscribe to; however, maintaining a close relationship with your contractors will ensure that they keep you abreast of any important developments.
By tackling the steps above, you will be well on your way to feeling confident that your premises – wherever they are – remain compliant and safe.

Owned by AMP Capital Investors and Brookfield Office Properties, NAB House is an A-grade commercial office tower featuring 29 levels of office accommodation, ground floor banking, a café and a basement car park for 219 vehicles. Between 2008 and 2011, a major upgrade program was undertaken, including central plant upgrades, a new on-floor air distribution system, a new building management control system and architectural upgrades, while maintaining full occupancy. The building achieved a five-star NABERS Energy rating in 2011 and achieved another five-star rating in July 2012.
In mid-2012, an LED lighting upgrade of the building’s two fire stairs was undertaken. The existing emergency lighting in the fire stairs was twin (18-watt and a mixture of 32-watt and 36-watt) fluorescent tube lighting with magnetic ballasts that were operating 24 hours a day and had no controls. The retrofit, for which enLighten Australia was awarded the supply and install contract, resulted in the replacement of the existing 184 fluorescent fittings (368 tubes) within the fire stairs with 184 emergency Chamaeleon lights, which produced the same light output levels. A combination of 10 chip ceiling and wall mounted emergency Chamaeleon fittings were used. The capital cost was $58,515 including installation.
Fire stair meter data supplied by the building management indicated an average 81 percent reduction in lighting electricity usage across sub-metered lighting circuit covering fire stairs one and two. The pre-installation consumption figure of 4587 kilowatts per hour (for May 2012) was reduced to 910 kilowatts per hour following the installation of the new lights.
The LED retrofit project ROI is projected as 3.3 years, inclusive of electricity and maintenance savings. Maintenance savings were calculated using conservative estimates for maintenance access, lamp and control component replacement costs, disposal costs and emergency battery costs.