FOCUS M&E
HYBRID OPERATIONS Tom Absalom, Managing Director of -CA discusses the delivery of M E services that support the operation
of hybrid working
“We will, and must, see people back in
the oŠ ice.” This was the statement
made by the Prime Minister when addressing
the conservative party conference in October
2021. The reason given? “A productive workforce
needs the spur that only comes with face-to-face
meetings and water cooler gossip.”
Many of us would agree, if not entirely then in
part, with the sentiment of the Prime Minister and
this is evidenced by the many organisations that are
planning or implementing their return to the o£ ice
strategy. Few organisations, in our experience, are
instructing their sta£ to remain working from home,
or encouraging a full return to the o£ ice. Most are
opting for the hybrid model, and it is here that our
collective FM and engineering challenge begins.
We have guidance tools such as SFG30 to assist in
dealing with mothballing and minimal occupancy
buildings. Full workforce occupancy is generally the
basis of building systems design and operation, even
with diversity allowances considered, they are made
with full occupancy as the purpose. Very little is
written around the support or guidance for operating
somewhere in between. The options for hybrid work
patterns are infinite and we have seen first-hand a
broad range considered and/or implemented by our
client base, some of which we are sure will change
and be refined further.
FLEXIBLE CONSIDERATIONS
If one of the major attributes of the hybrid
working model is flexibility then taking occupancy
34 NOVEMBER 2021
measurement to room or workstation level allows
the building services to be optimised, controlling
specific zones/rooms in terms of ventilation,
lighting and heating, and cooling. The technology
exists to design a flexible workplace in this way
but clearly there are cost implications to have that
inherent flexibility designed in at the construction
phase. Once the building infrastructure is capable
of automatic adjustment against sta£ utilisation,
building occupants become the basis from which
the operation and service is measured, not on a
sq.m basis and assumed occupancy rates for a given
floorplate.
The “smart o£ ice” might adjust to these working
patterns but what to do about the vast majority
of commercial o£ ice space that is legacy and
conventional in design and control? It is possible
to improve matters in these areas as well, by giving
consideration to smaller working areas where there
is a higher degree of certainty in terms of utilisation
so that the infrastructure can be adjusted to control
zones.
This approach works well when carrying out
a review of the traditional o£ ice workplace and
determining what it now needs to achieve for the
organisation. We are seeing a trend in the conversion
of traditional o£ ice space to provide more
collaborative areas which again can have its services
optimised to support the space more e£ iciently.
ORIGINAL DESIGN
From an FM and engineering perspective the place
to start is with a review of the original design intent,
which will provide data in terms of the achievable
levels of flexibility and zoning. We must therefore
review the systems and operating parameters of
the buildings we operate - an activity we undertake
via our in-house design and consultancy division.
The aim is to create a new operating philosophy for
the building that considers the revised occupancy
patterns. In most instances the base-build systems
are not designed, or capable, of providing, the
granularity of operation that is now required to fully
optimise a building against varying usage.
If we do not undertake this building services
analysis and look to reconfigure the infrastructure
within the building then the ongoing operational
cost for the commercial o£ ice and its associated
carbon footprint will remain almost constant even
though its productivity has been reduced. We know
that this productivity has moved, most typically
to homes, but this then results in an associated
increase in energy consumption in domestic settings.
Some employees may consider a heat pump is
money well-spent for that garden o£ ice, when home
central heating systems are being operated 24 hours
per day. Clearly there are some huge environmental
benefits to a reduced commute, but it is highly likely
that an employee working a hybrid work pattern
would have a higher kWh consumption rate due to
their hybrid working environments than previously,
and that is something we must collectively, as an
industry, work to mitigate.
Employee commutes are assessed under Scope 3
of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting in the UK, but
currently emissions due to home working are not
specifically addressed. Although it is likely this will
be changed in the future, as it stands currently, a
working pattern which includes increased remote
working may assist an organisation’s reported
journey to net zero, even if that is not in the spirit of
the scheme.
There are a broad range of considerations to
consider as we progress into the “new normal,” but it
would be neither correct or fair to write on this topic
without acknowledging those in the FM and building
services sectors who, throughout the pandemic,
have had to continue to go into workplaces.
The role they play o• en means being a frontline
service delivered on site. Our maintenance teams
supporting the NHS, the science and technology
sector and data centre industries and our project
delivery teams working in the same arenas had to
attend work every day of the pandemic and find
ways to do so whilst keeping everyone as safe as
possible. This was the case for JCA and also applies
to the millions of others for whom working from
home, and then returning to the o£ ice, was never
even an option.