We have resumed our regularly scheduled weekly open agenda teleconferences — a practice begun in 2014 — during which time we sort through the “stream” of public commenting opportunities available to the education industry. As we explain in our ABOUT, participation in consensus and open source standards development provides an opportunity to discover leading practice and to reduce the cost of education by reducing redundancy and destructive competition. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences from your computer, tablet or smartphone with the login information below:
You can also dial in using your phone. United States : +1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 718-914-669
We generally review comments on proposals submitted by other user interests as individuals or trade associations, or draft proposals and comments of our own.
We especially encourage user-interest subject matter experts affiliated with the many education industry trade associations to “click in”, mark up and submit comments on the codes and standards we track every day in order to make campuses safer, simpler, lower-cost and longer-lasting (See ABOUT). Subscribers to our mailing list will have access to a detailed agenda and high priority content. Please email email@example.com for a detailed agenda.
Next open agenda teleconference: September 26th. Note that we meet daily on specific policy, management and technical standards more or less on a daily basis at 11 AM Eastern time. See CALENDAR.
Harvard University Art Museum | In the Sierras, Lake Tahoe | Albert Bierstadt
The flooding conditions from Hurricane Florence inspire a revisit of backflow prevention; an unseen technology that assures a safe drinking water supply by keeping water running in one direction by maintaining pressure differences. Analogous to the way we want electrical current to run in one direction, failure of backflow prevention technology poses a near-instantaneous health risk for the contamination of potable water supplies with foul water. In the most obvious case, a toilet flush cistern and its water supply must be isolated from the toilet bowl. In a less obvious case, but at greater scale, a damaged backflow prevention technology at a university research building can contaminate an host-community potable water supply.
As dangerous as the failure of backflow technology may seem; its application, operations and maintenance can be overdone; notably by manufacturers, compliance and labor interests. As we explain elsewhere on this blog, safety in one technology can be so overdone, that it poses a risk to other elements in campus infrastructure. Facility managers are effectively risk managers because they must continually triage their operations and maintenance obligations.
The American Water Works Association is one of the first names in ANSI accredited non-profit trade associations that develop backflow prevention consensus documents that are referenced in local and state building codes; and also in education facility design guidelines and construction specifications. There are other ANSI accredited standards developers in the backflow prevention technology space — the IAPMO Group and ASSE International — for example. We will cover them independently as their documents signal evolve; holding forth on the safety and sustainability perspective of the user-interest in the education facilities industry.
In 2013 the original University of Michigan codes and standards advocacy enterprise began advocating the user-interest at the local, state and national level because, like most large research universities it had a complicated interdependency with the host city water supply system within which its own was nested; made even more complicated by a large hospital and research enterprises where scientific materials presented elevated risk to the potable water users on the perimeter community.
Two standards, which are referenced deep in state building codes, were given scrutiny by internal experts with a balanced view of the competing requirements of safety and economy:
AWWA C510-17 Double Check Valve Backflow Prevention Assembly. This standard describes the double check-valve backflow prevention assembly for potable water applications. The purpose of this standard is to provide the minimum requirements for double check-valve backflow prevention assemblies for potable water applications,including materials, general and detailed design, workmanship, and shipping and delivery.
AWWA C511-07 Reduced-Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly. This standard describes the reduced-pressure principle backflow prevention assembly. A complete [RPZ] assembly consists of a mechanical, independently operating, hydraulically dependent relief valve located between two independently operating, internally loaded check valves that are located between two tightly closing resilient-seated shutoff valves with four properly placed resilient-seated test cocks
Its proposals sought performance specifications for, a) backflow lubricants (so that the units were less likely to break during maintenance operations) and and require replacement during maintenance, b) clarification about where reduced pressure zone (RPZ) valves are required.
Since the July 2016 organization (see ABOUT) AWWA has revised both standards; one of which — AWWA C511 — seems to have responded to our proposal for clarification about where RPZ’s are required. We will continue following these documents specifically, and the AWWA, IAPMO and ASSE suite generally. The AWWA standards landing page is linked below:
All standards developing technical committees welcome data-driven proposals at any point in their revision cycle. Our next water safety standards teleconference is scheduled for October 12th, 11 AM. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Category: Water Safety, Plumbing, Mechanical
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Richard Robben, Steve Snyder, Larry Spielvogel
Update on the build-out of these “cities-within-cities” which,
when observed as a network, constitute a sovereign nation.
The value of construction put in place in July 2018 by the US education industry proceeded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $71.6 billion, 2.1 percent (±5.9 percent) above the revised June estimate of $70.1 billion. (This number does not include renovation and new construction in university-affiliated health care delivery enterprises). The complete report is available at the link below:
At this rate, the US education facilities industry (which includes colleges, universities, technical/vocational and K-12 schools, most university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises, etc.) is the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States. Overall — including construction, energy, custodial services, furnishings, security. etc., — the non-instructional spend plus the construction spend of the US education facilities is approximately $300 billion per year. Cash throughput at this scale draws comparisons with the $223 billion annual revenue of Berkshire-Hathaway (a Fortune #2 corporation) and the $304 billion national gross domestic product of Denmark.
The next (August) report will be released on October 1st. We encourage the education facilities industry to contribute to the accuracy of these monthly reports by responding the US Census Bureau’s data gathering contractors.
All federal agency activity is on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Agenda teleconference — every Wednesday, 11:00 – 11:30 AM Eastern Time. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences by clicking here.
Many college and universities have hundreds of free-standing emergency generators which use diesel fuel so this TIA may be of interest to personnel who are charged with budgeting, operating and maintaining emergency generators. These experts are welcomed to “click in” any day at 11 AM to formulate a response to the TIA. In any case, we will refer this commenting opportunity to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (E&H) maintains a database of campus power outages and meets online 4 times per month.
One of the standing study questions on the technical agenda of the E&H Committee is the following:
Given that the size of many campus power systems is larger than many municipal and cooperative power grids, how much of the technical discipline in IEEE 1366 – Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices — which is incorporated by reference into many state utility regulations — be conveyed into the planning, design operation and maintenance of campus power systems? Should it, or should it not be? Given that losses on large campus power distribution systems run on the order of $100,000 to $1,000,000 per minute, can parts of IEEE 1366 be or should another IEEE standard be developed?
Category: Electrical, Facility Asset Management
Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert Arno, Neal Dowling, Jim Harvey
In previous public input, we have advanced the following concepts:
• Identify the concept of “ingress illumination” which would provide an illuminated ingress path for first responders traveling toward a hazard or accident
• Clarify that in district energy systems — common in large research university campuses — that a utility source of power that is identified as independent by the Authority Having Jurisdiction — may be used to supply power to emergency and standby systems supplying illumination, fire pumps, critical operations power systems and the like. The use of utility source of power for such use is already permitted; we only recommended wordsmithing the paragraph in Section A.5.1.3 for additional clarity.
Both public inputs were rejected in the 2016 revision (NFPA 110 2016 Public Input Issue 13-12). Although we missed the leading edge of the 2019 revision cycle for NFPA 110 and NFPA 111, we intend to continue advocating for these concepts — and other concepts essential for the power reliability of the emergent #SmartCampus — in other related NFPA documents and in the IEEE suite of consensus standards for electrical power systems.
The conceptual framework for how fire safety documents (developed by the NFPA) and electrical power engineering documents (developed by the IEEE) is on the standing agenda of theIEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (IEEE E&H) which meets online 4 times monthly. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences to prepare original public input or to comment upon the public input of others with the login information available on the top menu tab of the IEEE E&H website.
ICC staff is now working with volunteer technical committee members to prepare public comments for the Public Comment Hearings next month. The Group A Codes have hundreds of proposals to act upon so it is wise for ICC staff prepare these comments in order for them to be fairly balloted by volunteer technical committee members at the Group A Code Hearings next month.
University-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises are a significant revenue source to large research universities. At some universities the revenue from these enterprises is more than half the annual revenue, running into the billions. So for the moment Standards Michigan follows, but does not assertively advocate in the ICC codes and standards dealing with healthcare facilities. There is effective user-interest representation already provided by several trade associations; the American Society of Healthcare Engineers among them. But we do follow the action and also collaborate more extensively with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee.
We leave the door open to discuss these or any other standards issues every day at 11 AM. Login information is at the top right of our home page now. We set aside an hour per month to round up all the healthcare facility safety and sustainability concepts in all the standards suites. The next block of time set aside for that is on September 21st, 11 AM.
We encourage user-interest subject matter experts on the direct payroll of a school district, college or university to communicate with ICC staff to contribute to the next revision of the International Building Code healthcare facility sections. Colleges and universities in the Richmond Virginia region should find it relatively easy to attend.
The International Code Council has received all comments on its proposed changes to Group A codes which includes healthcare facility safety and sustainability concepts for the 2021 International Building Code. Breakout committees are now sorting through the public comments and preparing them for the Group A Public Comment Hearings, October 24-31, 2018 in Richmond Virginia. See: Complete 2018 Group A Schedule. We encourage students, faculty and facility management professionals in the Richmond Virginia area to attend the ICC 2018 Group A Code Hearings October 21 – 31 in Richmond Virginia. (LEARN MORE)
We participate as an observer in the healthcare committee with an eye toward how new proposals with effect design, construction, operation and maintenance of education and university-affiliated healthcare facilities. The record of our work and attention to concepts in play is reported routinely on this site and always on the agenda of our weekly open agenda teleconferences. At the moment there is not much for public stakeholders to do until the Public Comment monograph is released to the public on August 31st. We will be participating in the ICC breakout committee meetings until then.
On August 31st, 11:00 AM we will host a breakout teleconference of our own to sort through all the safety and sustainability issues in play as a result of the public comments. Anyone is welcomed to join this teleconference with the login information in the link below:
Generally speaking, the healthcare facilities affiliated with large research universities are built to the same standard as healthcare facilities everywhere else. We only point out that there are two differences — unique to university-affiliated healthcare systems — that might be brought to bear upon the development of the next revision of the IBC:
University-affiliated healthcare enterprises tend to be the destination for patients that need specialized care. The destination of last resort, so to say, because those enterprises have physicians engaged in leading-edge therapies, and therefore a different (typically, higher) risk profile than most healthcare enterprises.
Essential utility supplies — water, power, telecommunications, etc. — can be complicated by the character of the utilities of the host municipality serving the perimeter of the campus; essentially a city-within-a-city.
All other safety and sustainability concepts are the same, as an examination of the redlines linked above should reveal.
Because the Group A Hearings is such an large undertaking, breakout committees administered by ICC staff have been preparing public input for presentation at the hearings. Several months of work by the healthcare committee is linked below:
The International Code Council released the 2018 Report of the Committee Action Hearings on the 2018 Editions of the Group A International Codes. The 313 page monograph linked below contains the results of the balloting of all Group A codes:
Public comments are due July 16th. These concepts will eventually be incorporated by reference into state building codes and thereby affect #TotalCostofOwnership. We encourage architects, engineers, education facility managers, shop foremen and front line tradespersons to set up a (free) cdpAccess account at THIS LINK to begin commenting on the monograph. Ahead of the July 16th deadline we have set aside a time slot — next Thursday, July 12th, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM Eastern time — to explain our comments on all the proposed changes to the 2018 IBC for the 2021 edition. Anyone is welcomed to join this teleconference with the login information below:
Of course, the ICC develops many other consensus documents — it is hard upon the 2019 Group B codes — so we keep the entire ICC suite on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern Time. Click here to log in.
Category: Architectural, Healthcare Facilities
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben
The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 70-suite which covers fire safety of electrical systems within buildings and the
IEEE suite of electrical power recommended practices for electrical shock safety at all voltage levels from utilization systems within buildings
2018 is an active year for NFPA-70 and IEEE Power Engineering and Industrial Applications Societies because of the coincidence of milestones in the National Electrical Code and the National Electrical Safety Code. Technical experts are also engaged in lively leading practice discovery discussion about power-over-ethernet circuits.
The next meeting of SCC-18 is on September 19th; 1 PM Eastern time; open only to its officers. The IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee meets online 4 times per month and is open to the public. Its next meeting will be held at the Industrial Applications Society meet on September 24th; 9 AM Pacific time. Login information is available in the link below:
We have responded to the IEEE NESC and the NFPA 70E deadlines with about fifty new proposals. These proposals will be on theagenda of the next online meeting of Standards Coordinating Committee 18 — the IEEE committee charged with developing and correlatingIEEE and NFPA electrotechnology safety standards as described below. Learn more HERE
We work closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee, which meets 4 times monthly in American and European time zones. The next meetings are August 14th. All IEEE and NFPA consensus documents are on the standing agenda of our own Open Door teleconferences every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern time. Click HERE to log in.
Posted March 17, 2018
The emergent #SmartCampus is fundamentally an electrotechnical transformation.
Subject matter experts met this week in Washington, DC to discuss
coordination of IEEE and NFPA codes and standards
The IEEE Standards Association oversees the development of one of the largest and fastest moving suite of technical and business consensus documents in the world; on the same order of magnitude as the codes and standards developed by the National Fire Protection Associati0n. Of particular interest at the beginning of a new National Electrical Code revision cycle* is the work of SCC-18 — the committee charged with harmonizing documents developed by two distinct technical cultures — the culture of electrotechnological experts and the culture of fire safety experts. Each culture has its own history and perspective on safety and sustainability.
From the SCC-18 committee prospectus:
SCC-18 is the committee is responsible for reviewing and coordinating the instructions of the IEEE technical committees to establish the IEEE position of IEEE representatives to National Fire Protection Association Standards Committees and coordinating between IEEE Societies and Technical Committees to establish the IEEE position on all matters regarding toxicity and fire hazard assessment and to represent the IEEE on these matters with the National Fire Protection Association.
Only in the United States are the rules for electrical safety managed by an organization dominated by fire safety professionals — much of this owed to the original hazards posed by electricity in the 1800’s but also owed to governmental requirements to finance the participation of public compliance and enforcement professionals. The dominance of fire safety professionals in the development of electrotechnology is not present to the same degree in other nations (coordinated by the International Electrotechnical Commission) as it is in the United States.
With the gathering pace of the Internet of Things zietgeist, and an imminent AC to DC (power-over-ethernet) transformation of building premise power chains the work of SCC-18 is critical because not only do electrical power professionals have to continue reconcile the competing requirements of safety and sustainability with the fire safety community but now they have to deal with another perspective from telecommunications professionals charged with growing the Internet of Things.
SCC-18 meets in person two times yearly to establish IEEE positions on the 2020 National Electrical Code First Revisions ballot. The next meeting will take place March 12-13, 2018 from 8 am to 5 pm ET. The meetings will take place at:
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
1300 North 17th Street | Suite 900
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Information on hotels and travel information can be found at:
All subject matter experts and other stakeholders are welcomed to attend as guests. The draft meeting agenda is linked below. It contains the responses of all 2020 National Electrical Code technical committees to public input submitted on behalf of (and endorsed by) the IEEE:
Insofar as safety and sustainability concepts for the education facilities is concerned, Standards Michigan will continue its collaboration and coordination of its advocacy work with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets 4 times monthly in the Americas and Europe.
Colleagues: Christel Hunter, Mario Spina, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben, Robert Arno, Kane Howard
*The National Electrical Code (NEC) — developed by the National Fire Protection Association is revised every three years. The 2020 NEC is now under development. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) — developed by the IEEE — is revised every five years. The 2022 NESC is now under development
The American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers(ASHRAE) has released a new batch of candidate revisions to ASHRAE 135 Building Automation & Control Networks. The purpose of ASHRAE 135 is to define data communication services and protocols for computer equipment used for monitoring and control of HVAC&R and other building systems and to define, in addition, an abstract, object-oriented representation of information communicated between such equipment, thereby facilitating the application and use of digital control technology in buildings.
ASHRAE 135 development presents a solid example of an optimal firmware consensus process for the emergent #SmartCampus; in our view. You may access the redline in the link below:
Comments are due October 1st. You may comment directly on the ASHRAE Online Standards Actions & Public Review Drafts web page. We will coordinate our comments with user stakeholders in the education industry during our monthly Mechanical Engineering Codes and Standards teleconference this Thursday, August 30th, 11 AM. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences with the credentials below:
The proposed revisions in Addendum bj are focused on the following:
135-2016bj-1. Introduce BACnet Secure Connect Datalink Layer Option
135-2016bj-2. Introduce BACnet/SC in the Network Layer Specifications
135-2016bj-3. Add new Annex YY for the BACnet Secure Connect Datalink Layer Option
135-2016bj-4. Extend the Network Port Object Type for BACnet/SC
135-2016bj-5. Add and Extend ASN.1 Types for BACnet/SC
135-2016bj-6. New Error Codes for BACnet/SC
135-2016bj-7. Interoperability Specification Extensions for BACnet/SC
ASHRAE 135 development presents a solid example of an optimal firmware consensus process for the emergent #SmartCampus; in our view. You may access the redline in the link below:
Comments are due July 16th. You may comment directly on the ASHRAE Online Standards Actions & Public Review Drafts web page. We will coordinate our comments with user stakeholders in the education industry during our standing Open Door teleconferences every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern Time. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences with the credential in this link: (Weekly Open Door Teleconference Login)
Colleagues: David Anderson, Larry Spielvogel, Richard Robben
From our archive on a related ASHRAE standard:
Posted February 12, 2018
The American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers(ASHRAE) released its Fourth Public Review Draft of ASHRAE 135 Building Automation & Control Networks. The purpose of ASHRAE 135 is to define data communication services and protocols for computer equipment used for monitoring and control of HVAC&R and other building systems and to define, in addition, an abstract, object-oriented representation of information communicated between such equipment, thereby facilitating the application and use of digital control technology in buildings.
The proposed revisions are focused on ways for BACnet devices to map analog values onto multiple Binary Value, Binary Output, or Binary Lighting Output objects. A common use case is in lighting applications, where a level, identified by a numeric value, sets the appropriate values of multiple binary outputs (on or off). Support of this new object type is excluded from all data sharing BIBBs for life safety and access control. You may access the redline in the link below:
Comments are due February 19th. You may comment directly on the ASHRAE Online Standards Actions & Public Review Drafts web page. We will coordinate our comments with user stakeholders in the education industry during our standing Open Door teleconferences every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern Time. Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences with the credential in this link: (Weekly Open Door Teleconference Login)
ASCE/EWRI 56: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Water Utilities. These water utility guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons.
ASCE/EWRI 57: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Wastewater/Stormwater Utilities. These wastewater/stormwater utilities guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons. Additional requirements and security equipment may be necessary to defend against threats with greater capabilities.
Comment Deadline: October 29, 2018
We encourage direct engagement by education industry leaders, their engineering consultants, or municipal water management experts to participate in the development of these standards through the ASCE standards portal:
You will need to set up an access account. You may also communicate directly with the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston, VA 20191. Contact: James Neckel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Our monthly breakout teleconference for campus water management standards is scheduled for October 19th, 11 AM Eastern time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Scope: These water utility guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons.
Project Need: Guidelines for physical security for facilities used in potable water source, treatment, and distribution systems.
Stakeholders: Utility staff.
This document (and supplement) is 134 pages long. Access to draft changes are restricted to stakeholders with approved login credentials.
Comments are due July 2, 2018. Because many research universities have healthcare delivery campuses, district energy and fire protection systems that are dependent upon water supply and wastewater security — with complex interdependencies upon the municipal and/or utility systems — we regard this guideline as a priority and an opportunity to contribute to setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of those systems owned and operated by education facility industry operations and maintenance units.
You are encouraged to visit the ASCE Standards Public Comment Page and/or communicate directly with the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston, VA 20191. Contact: James Neckel (email@example.com)
Click on image
All ASCE consensus documents are on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences — every Wednesday, 11:00 AM Eastern time — to which everyone is welcomed. CLICK HERE to log in. We hope to collaborate with workpoint experts such as tradespersons, shop foremen, design engineers and front-line campus security experts in district energy and healthcare delivery systems for specific technical recommendations.
Category: Civil Engineering, Water, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, James R. Harvey
The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) is the United States Technical Advisory Group Administratorfor thefirst global standard for health care administration; developed by International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 304 (Click here: ISO/TC 304). The creation of this standard was initiated by UTMB and, if this document is incorporated by reference into public law, or adopted by the private sector as a performance benchmark, it will have significant effect upon health care enterprises in every industry in the US — not the least among them the healthcare delivery enterprises in the US education industry.
The core committee met July 13th at NSF International Headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. A summary of the activity at that meeting will be posted here soon. This standard will be on the agenda or our monthly international standards teleconference, October 18th, 11 AM. See Live Link information at the top of our homepage.
For information about participating contact Lee Webster (firstname.lastname@example.org).
ISO TC 304 Participation Map | Click on image for more details
March 28, 2018
We have received an update from S. Lee Webster, the global Secretariat for this emergent document:
The next meeting of the various working groups will be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, May 21-25, 2018. Contact Lee Webster for information about how to attend (email@example.com). Ahead of the May meetings, we will be scheduling a live Q&A with Lee during one of our weekly Open Door teleconferences.
Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos (Click on image)
“With more than $360 billion spent annually on health care administration in the U.S., reducing costs and streamlining administrative processes in health care is a critical national priority,” said S. Joe Bhatia, president and chief executive officer of ANSI, the U.S. member body to ISO. “The newly formed ISO TC 304 shows great promise in tackling inefficiencies in health care administration worldwide, and ANSI proudly supports UTMB’s leadership role as acting secretariat on behalf of the United States.”
It is rare for a US educational institution to assume leadership at this scale. As an Accredited Standards Developer the UTMB will oversee the creation of standards and technical reports that define effective, interoperable, and comparable healthcare administration practices and metrics among healthcare entities. These practices and metrics will be limited to staff and operational management of healthcare facilities. Excerpts from the standardization project identify the rationale:
Rationale 1: Establishing healthcare administrative standards will reduce the cost of providing healthcare through the widespread adoption of interoperable metrics and practices.
Rationale 2: Reducing the cost of healthcare will make these services more affordable and thereby provide an opportunity for greater access to society.
Rationale 3: Improving the administrative and managerial performance of healthcare entities results in better healthcare outcomes for patients.
Rationale 4: Although numerous standards exist for the laboratory protocols, clinical services and patient care functions of healthcare organizations, there are scant standards that address administrative functions or these standards are specific to a particular healthcare entity.
Rationale 5: Standardizing Healthcare administrative metrics will create apple-to-apple comparisons of organizations performance that will better educate consumers and drive process improvement activities
Rationale 6: Rural and underserved communities will have access to effective practices that offer a roadmap to improve their own quality of healthcare services they receive.
Rationale 7: Positive support have been received from other ASD and members of the healthcare technical community
Rationale 8: Standards will complement standards developing efforts of existing ANSI and ISO standards developing committees.
Rationale 9: The healthcare community and its stakeholders are highly receptive to standardization and certification and will adopt approaches from these sources readily.
Those practices and metrics that directly affect patient care and medical research are outside the scope of this standards effort. Clinical performance and patient safety and satisfaction standards will not be pursued by this ASD body. ISO 304 will also not address 1) the management or administration of organizations that practice dentistry, 2) the production and use of medical devices or instruments, and 3) the capture and analysis of clinical medical information or procedures. More detailed information is available in the documents linked below:
Facility managers in university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises who would like to participate in developing the US position are encouraged to contact Lee Webster Lee Webster (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Contact: Lee Webster (email@example.com), Mike Anthony (firstname.lastname@example.org), Richard Robben (email@example.com), James Harvey (firstname.lastname@example.org), Christine Fischer (email@example.com)
Category: Medical Research & Health Care, Management, Finance & Administration, International
University of Iowa Art Campus during the Iowa Flood of 2008
NFPA Standard 1600 — Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity/Continuity of Operations Programs — is deep into its 2019 revision cycle. The original University of Michigan standards advocacy enterprise began advocating in this document in 2007 and achieved some changes specific to the education facilities industry in the 2010 revision. The reconstructed enterprise (see ABOUT) now resumes its attention to NFPA 1600 as the development of asset management standards for non-normal enterprise operations gathers pace.
From the document prospectus:
This standard shall establish a common set of criteria for all hazards disaster/emergency management and business continuity programs, hereinafter referred to as “the program. The Emergency Management and Business Continuity community comprises many different entities, including the government at distinct levels (e.g., federal, state/provincial, territorial, tribal, indigenous, and local levels); commercial business and industry; not-for-profit and nongovernmental organizations; and individual citizens. Each of these entities has its own focus, unique mission and responsibilities, varied resources and capabilities, and operating principles and procedures.
The Second Draft Report Posting Date is August 2nd and the public will have an opportunity to prepare an appeal — the NFPA NITMAM process — until August 30th. All NITMAMs will be posted on October 11th. We will cover them here if any will affect education facility disaster management.
A fair question to ask is: How do we make sense of the growing number of consensus documents devoted to asset management during non-normal operation? There is also a global template for management of organizations charged with this activity being developed by ISO/TC 292 of the International Organization for Standardization.
All NFPA standards are on the standing agenda of our daily teleconferences. Anyone is welcomed to join with the login information at the top right of our home page.
Issue: [13-58] and [18-151]
Category: Public Safety, Facility Asset Management
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Robert G. Arno, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben