Miles Ryan, P.E., writes a monthly column in Engineered Systems Magazine on Building Commissioning. Read November’s column below:

Our firm recently hired a new employee. He was new to the field of commissioning. In prep for an upcoming, company-wide meeting, we were asked to each bring one piece of advice for him. I apparently thought way too hard about this assignment, because it spiraled into this article.

Traits Needed to be Effective

I believe the best commissioning providers have the following three traits:

• Curiosity
• The ability to think critically
• Attention to detail

It certainly helps to have some education and/or experience related to buildings as well. But if you have those three traits listed above, you can make impacts starting day one.

We knew our new hire had those three traits. He was a known quantity; someone I personally had worked with for over five years at one of the buildings we are involved with. So, my best piece of advice had to be something that would allow him to put those traits to good use.

My Best Advice

My best advice is this: For everything you encounter, whether it be a situation, a certain mechanical system, a sequence of operation, or some workflow process during a construction project, approach it with the following series of questions:

• Question 1: How does this work?
• Question 2: Does that make sense?
• Question 3: But, what if……?

Repeat Question 3 as many times as necessary until you have exhausted all “what if” scenarios you can think of. If anything doesn’t check out, then add it to the list of concerns you need to bring to the project team and hopefully it will spark a collaborative discussion that will further improve the end product for the client. If everything checks out, it is still a success because you probably thought about something you never had before and you learned something along the way.

Applications

This three-question process provides a thorough vetting process for everything you are involved in. And project teams need it!

Complex Items

Take for instance something excessively complicated, like a sequence of operation for a central chilled water plant. How many people glaze over that part of the design? The answer is basically everyone, it is too intimidating. But if you take a breath, and go through it section-by-section, and apply the three-question process above along the way, you will get through it. And there is a great chance you will catch something big early on that will save some major headaches down the road for the team. Having been someone who has had to write very complicated sequences of operation at times myself, there is nothing I would want more than to have someone do this level of review for me.

Simple Items

But this approach should not be saved for the big stuff. I apply it everywhere. Take for example a sump pump, a sewage ejector pump or a condensate return pump. They all basically operate the same way. I have seen a version of the following sequence of operation in designs from probably a half dozen design firms:

• The pump will operate off its on-board controller. The BAS will monitor the status of the pump and generate an alarm if status is proven.

Question 1: How does this work? A sump pump operates off an internal float switch controller. When water level in the receiver gets too high, the pump turns on to expel water until the level drops to a lower level. When the pump turns on, status will prove. Proven pump status will be read by the BAS, which will then generate an alarm.

Question 2: Does that make sense? The operation of the sump pump makes sense, but why would we alarm if the pump turns on and its status proves? Is its operation really an alarm scenario? Isn’t the pump expected to be needed at times under normal circumstances?

Question 3: But, what if…the pump doesn’t turn on when it is supposed to? Well, then the water level will get really high and bad things can happen. In such instances, the pump controller itself may generate either a pump failure alarm or high level alarm. Maybe it is one of those alarm contacts, and not pump status, which should be monitored by the BAS.

How is it that this sequence gets specified incorrectly, so often? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe part of it is that no one is paying attention to the “little stuff.” Reviewing a project design is a huge task, and basically everyone involved in it could comprehend that alarming when pump status proves in this pumping application makes no sense. But no one is taking the time to be curious, think critically and pay attention to the details on the “little stuff.” Applying the three-question process over and over again will bring value to the project, sometimes in the least expected areas.

Repetitive Items

And I don’t just apply this three-question process the first time I encounter something, I do it every time. I certainly know how a VAV box needs to operate for various applications, but nearly every design firm and temperature controls contractor out there has a different sequence of operation. Some of them blatantly make no sense, but no one would appreciate me merely saying “this sequence isn’t like what we typically see.” If I am going to be providing a recommendation for improvement, I better back it up with some critical thinking, pointing out exactly the areas of concern. So, I apply the three-question process above and think through every aspect of the sequence so I can convincingly list out my concerns when I approach the team.

Conclusion

For those of you mentoring others new to commissioning, I hope this gets you thinking about what your best advice would be. It is a fascinating job, but it can be overwhelming. Being grounded in a process for how to approach the various tasks we encounter can provide inherent direction which will result in bringing value to the project team, regardless of one’s experience in the topic at hand.