The traditional approach to capital planning is to visit every system in every building and record observed deficiencies. Recorded deficiencies are prioritized, cost estimated and placed in a “job jar", where they wait for funding. This approach is expensive because every system is given equal attention, reducing the frequency of inspections. Also, the information is static, with deficiencies staying the same even though the building continues to age.

With VisionFM’s approach to capital planning, each building is comprised of building systems which are further divided into sub-sections to account for differences in materials and age. For example, a roof (building system) is divided into sub-sections for each roof surface. Each system is defined with its own life cycle which estimates its service life and restoration requirements over time.

The illustration below displays a life cycle curve for a system. Starting with a condition index of 100 when a system is new, it degrades over time as it moves through its maintenance life (period when only general maintenance is required), and its service life (period when component replacement is required to maintain the system), ending at a point where replacement is required.

The benefit to tracking systems on a life cycle curve is that the systems can move along that curve as surveys are performed and renewal work is completed. For example, you may have an air conditioner that is ten years old, but due to proper maintenance the asset is performing like new. The air conditioner can be moved up the life cycle curve, thereby raising its condition index and extending its remaining service life.

VisionFM helps to focus the efforts of your survey team where they will be most effective. At specific times in a systems life cycle, VisionFM will suggest that a survey be performed. The detail within the survey will increase as the system ages, starting with a condition rating (visual inspection) to a condition sampling (distress survey) and finally to a condition deficiency (detailed deficiency list). The result is surveyors only inspecting systems that require updated information and surveyors spending more time on systems likely to require renewal.

Features

• Define building systems by age and value.
• Multiple inspection processes: direct rating, distress sampling and deficiency.
• System condition drives the inspection approach and frequency.
• Application continually adjusts for aging building systems.
• Intensity of the inspection increases as system ages.
• Adjust the frequency of inspections by building system.
• Customize distress inspection questions and responses by building system.
• Organize system renewal costs by CI value and renewal priority.
• Assign renewal estimates to projects in the VisionFM project module.
• System generates a 25 year capital forecast based on aging systems and inflation.
• Record your estimated capital budget to compare to multiple renewal scenarios.
• View the resulting FCI (Facilities Condition Index) based on what-if funding scenarios.
• Attach documents and photographs to surveys.

Benefits

• Efficient use of inspection spending.
• Standardized inspection process ensures an objective, consistent condition assessment.
• Better justification of capital budgets.
• Fewer unexpected capital demands.
• Develop a 25 year capital renewal plan that is corporate wide or by building.
• Establish the required reinvestment rate to replace components as they reach the end of their life expectancy.
• Compare your expected funding level to that required to maintain system quality at the status-quo and to improve the systems to near-new.
• Adjust the renewal plan as changes in conditions are recorded with future surveys.