Potts, K and Wall, M (2002) Managing the commissioning of building services. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), pp. 336-344. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The commissioning of building services is very much the Cinderella' activity in the construction cycle, many complaints are heard but few praises sung. This paper examines the current process of commissioning building services within the traditional procurement route. A literature review is presented followed by the results of a two-stage structured survey from a broad spectrum of participants. A best practice flow chart for managing the commissioning process is presented, tested and confirmed, identifying an auditable chain of responsibilities in the commissioning process. Key conclusions include the need to recognize that the commissioning process requires planning and managing from the earliest possible stage; the need to appoint a commissioning manager preferable someone in-house, or a member of the design team; the need for better end-user documentation and training; the requirement for a more formalized approach and the requirement for clarification on the terms of engagement for the services designer.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best practice model; building services; commissioning |
| Index terms: | commissioning, design team, literature review, complaint, documentation, survey, manager, best practice, traditional procurement, designer, building service |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, completion, professional development, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, professional practice, business, profession, data collection methods, practitioner, engineering systems |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here