The original University of Michigan regulatory advocacy enterprise was catalyst for persuading selected institutions, subject matter experts and education industry trade associations to participate in international codes and standards development (See ABOUT). With a spend running at about $300 billion the education facilities industry ought to be at the meetings where the standard of care was being discovered and promulgated.
In 2010 the need was especially acute in the square footage devoted to research; where a trend toward offshoring research — and a significant revenue source for large research universities — was gathering pace. Two years earlier that enterprise had already commented on the scope of the ISO/TC 276 Biotechnology committee (administered by the Deutsches Institut für Normung) to remove the facility component in the committee scope. Taking facility management out of a biotechnology standard was important because research square footage is expensive. Not all nations — and local safety enforcement authorities — have the same safety regulations that provides a level playing field for competitive market participants in biotechnology research. (See: ISO 276 Biotechnology).
In 2010 a new committee was formed — ISO/TC 267 Facility management — led by the BSI Group, and an internationally oriented subject matter experts from many countries who had extensive experience in designing, building, operating and maintaining the built environment for private industry. Why not convey the perspective and lessons learned from the private sector into the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States (see our monthly US Census Bureau coverage)? Collaboration with ANSI and the prospective US Technical Advisory Group administrator – the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) — was the first step.
This month, ISO TC 267 has released several new work products; one of which is noteworthy for its prospect of providing discipline to the facility management profession in the US education facilities industry:
From the document prospectus:
ISO 41001:2018 specifies the requirements for a facility management (FM) system when an organization:
a) needs to demonstrate effective and efficient delivery of FM that supports the objectives of the demand organization;
b) aims to consistently meet the needs of interested parties and applicable requirements;
c) aims to be sustainable in a globally-competitive environment.
The requirements specified in ISO 41001:2018 are non-sector specific and intended to be applicable to all organizations, or parts thereof, whether public or private sector, and regardless of the type, size and nature of the organization or geographical location.
All international standards are on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern time. We also host a monthly teleconference on all the international standards with which we are engaged (i.e. mark up exposure drafts of draft revisions to standards with data driven ideas). The next teleconference is scheduled for October 18th, 11 AM Eastern time. Feel free to click in with the login information at the upper right of our home page.
Category: Facility Asset Management
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
Learn more HERE:
*With all due respect to all the world’s standards developers: One must be mindful of the claim that “academia is involved”. In nearly all cases, academic faculty are aligned more closely with the Producer and General Interest stakeholder category rather than the User. In other words, many academic faculty (as subject matter experts with Ph.D’s) are funded by manufacturers, insurers, labor and the conformity/compliance interest — the stakeholders who are, by design, opposed to the user interest.
Most standards developers struggle to recruit and retain pure user interests — whom we call the final fiduciary — on their technical committees. As we explain in ABOUT, the fault does not lie with the standards developer — the fault lies with the education industry itself; the parabolic rise in the cost of education in the US being the proof.