Feature
be “ set up to function correctly ” within the system and include all the necessary controls . Similarly , a chiller would be supplied “ complete with controls ”. All supplied units , generally , are delivered with the control programming already uploaded . The question then is , who in fact owns that programming and who carries out the programming for these units ?
The more complex a system becomes , the more likely it is that a professional building management system technician will need to be appointed to do the setup and make the entire system function correctly by tying in each piece of equipment into a central controller or BMS . When it is assumed that everything is ready when it gets to site , more often than not , no time is allocated to programming needs , testing , and ensuring each separate piece of equipment works correctly .
Perhaps a deeper discussion is required here between consultants , specifiers , controller / BMS suppliers and technicians and I welcome your feedback on this . Open protocol has perhaps created a void where there is misalignment or fragmented roles around who is ‘ supposed to ’ fulfil certain functions within the control environment . Does each party know where their role starts and ends in the cycle ? This is not always clear .
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Open protocol has created the environment for mixing and matching of controllers as required to complete a system . This has also led to what can perhaps be classed as an ‘ unmaintainable ’ system because working on each system requires multiple tool sets if this mix and match strategy is applied in a plant installation .
Each of the controller brands , having their own interpretations , essentially means that there is a different programming and maintenance tool set that the technicians need to know to be able to apply to configure , or if they need to do any additions to a system . This is true for maintenance and any service work to clean up the data tables and so on .
For this reason , it is recommended that specifiers consider selecting a common control family across the entire building or asset . This will also prevent multiple tool sets having to be learned by the maintenance staff or facility managers .
SUPPLIER DIFFERENTIATION It would be fair to state that most major manufacturers produce good products . The failure on control products is really around failure of implementing correct design and engineering methodologies , indicating that controllers , no matter what brand , do perform their intended functions correctly based in accordance with the manufacturer ’ s guidelines of use .
In a competitive environment such as this , controller manufacturers tend to specialise in certain industries where they can perfect their product offering rather than try and be all things to all people . In order to differentiate brands from one another that service the same sector , several factors should be considered .
These include detailed local technical support and local backup , locally available training in the local language and in the correct local time zone . Further factors to consider are the availability in stock holding and the ability to respond timeously to any client needs .
It is also an important consideration to select a supplier that has multiple system integrators . Locally represented manufacturers that handle import , distribution , training , and technical support are also recommended as preferred suppliers as there is recourse with the manufacturer should anything happen to go wrong – system integrators that also import , fall short on this , leading to the potential for client lock-in that has historically proven to be unfavourable .
TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS AND ESSENTIAL INCLUSION By now everyone would know we are already in the fourth industrial revolution ( 4IR ) and technology continues to improve in all spheres of the built environment , be this on the IT side ,
32
RACA Journal I September 2021 www . hvacronline . co . za