"Of course I want a powerful BMS. A sophisticated fire system is important too. I even accept that the security, smoke and lighting systems have to be advanced so I can get the functions I need. But why is it so complicated to manage them all? With computers surely the idea is to make life easier, not more complex?"
Conversations like this are all too frequent in the building services industry. Many users of building systems are frustrated that, as the capabilities of systems rise, so they are becoming ever more complex to operate. The integration of building systems has long been promised as the means to easier site management but it has consistently failed to materialise.
Some users have delayed major investment decisions because no clear direction has emerged whilst others have attempted to 'double-guess' the next technological leap and purchased regardless, often with costly consequences. Why are so many users in this situation, attempting to operate increasingly complex systems for building services?
Part of the problem lies with the incredibly rapid way in which the whole 'systems revolution' has taken place. Distributed control and monitoring systems as we know them have only existed for about ten years. Yet within this time frame they have largely superseded analogue controls and simple monitoring systems to become the preferred technology for building management in medium to large buildings. In parallel to their use for hvac, distributed systems have also been developed and applied to the whole spectrum of environmental functions.
To the credit of the manufacturers, almost every facet of a building can now be closely regulated, from lift management and access control to individual valves and fan speed on air conditioning terminals. The manufacturers of these systems have usually worked in isolation from one another, partly because they emerged from traditionally separate industries, but also to maintain their own market position and competitive edge.
The result is that there are now almost as many network architectures, system structures and communications protocols as there are manufacturers to promote them! In an attempt to simplify this situation, fixed function links using hard-wired interlocks and custom made system-to-system interfaces have sometimes been developed, creating partial integration between different systems. These have been limited in scope, difficult to replicate and generally designed on a one-off basis for a particular project. Moreover, the use of such techniques rarely simplifies the overall operation.
Display systems are normally designed by manufacturers for use on their own equipment and information from other systems is rarely displayed in an appropriate manner. Because of this, users generally have to accept a range of different display packages for a single site. Each of these has it's own array of unique functions and features with no commonality of operation. Piecemeal integration of systems has therefore been a mixed blessing.
For users who want to combine operational simplicity with system sophistication, is there a way forward?
The notion of standardisation for intelligent systems has come to be regarded as the best method of simplification for building systems. Several low-level communications standards have been proposed including BatiBus and EIB (both of European origin) and Echelon and BacNet (from the US). In principle each of the proposed standards will provide a communications bus which would carry signals between intelligent sensors, actuators and main controllers. This would allow equipment from different manufacturers to be linked on a single low-level network. Unfortunately, because each standard has different merits it is highly unlikely that a single industry-wide standard will ever emerge. The situation is complicated further because building systems require a high-level network to allow communications between main controllers. inevitably, several standards will emerge at this level also.
Some commentators are sceptical of this whole standardisation process anyway, claiming that whilst electrical compatibility may be achieved using standards, true harmonisation (involving the use of the same communications message formats) is unlikely via this route. Manufacturers are hesitant to release system expertise for perfectly valid commercial reasons and understandably resist the move towards complete integration.
Moreover, systems manufacturers may not be able to fund the development costs of subscribing to all, or indeed any of the proposed standards. A key selling point for standardisation is a theoretical reduction in installation costs and in the costs of manufacturing common system components. Some of this cost saving may be passed on to the user but the overall result will be a continuation of a number of alternative systems, some conforming to standards and others remaining independent.
Users may get cheaper systems, and certainly there are advantages for the installer and manufacturer but the fundamental problem of operational complexity cannot be resolved by this approach.
If standardisation will fail to make systems easier to operate, what other mechanisms are available? One suggestion has been to develop display systems which co-exist in the same operating system, such as 'Windows' from Microsoft.
Several building systems manufacturers now have Windows-based display packages but even though they share the same computer environment, they are still dedicated to individual systems and must be learned and used independently. This seemingly promising concept is unlikely to make system management any easier, and so should not be suggested as a final solution for the user.
Another idea is to reduce the complexity of the display systems themselves. Packages operating with a single system now exist to allow uses total control over the presentation and function of their displays. By tailoring the displays to user specifications, simplicity of operation has certainly been achieved. However, this does not solve the problem of harmonising a variety of different systems.
What is required is a logical combination of two approaches. Given the enormous processing power of current PCs it is possible for a single user-defined display system to manage an entire building, whether this contains one system or many. This not only makes displays simpler and systems easier to operate but also preserves the independence of the systems integrators and manufacturers. Capabilities of systems would continue to increase but the level of complexity presented to the user could remain appropriate.
The process of ever-more complicated display systems can be reversed. To be successful in the eyes of the user, building systems must employ technology to simplify operation rather than add further complexity.