The Recognition of Building Security Code During Design and Construction Phase - Essay Example

Running Head: THE RECOGNITION OF BUILDING SECURITY CODE DURING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction A fundamental principle of architectural design is that buildings have to be designed and constructed in ways that protect individuals and property from human threats, such as terrorism and burglary, and natural threats, such as floods, earthquakes and hurricanes (Wang et al., 2013; Dimuma, 2012). At the building’s design phase, most decisions regarding the security performance of the building are made based on underlying building security codes. The construction phase depicts the actualization stage, where the physical security design is integrated to a construction project to create a facility in compliance with the codes (Mbamali & Okotiem, 2012; O'Neill, Rueda & Savage, 2009). These security building codes do not exist independently. They are superimposed on the building codes, which seek to attain total quality and integrity of buildings. A key benefit is that they are effective in promoting effective security performance of buildings (APA, 2005). Despite the evidence showing wide recognition of the codes in national construction industry during the design and construction phase, they are not implemented fully due to three major limitations, namely lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, availability of the standards but enforced by the relative authorities and lack of cooperation between professional in the field. The result is failure of the buildings to meet total quality and integrity security-wise. This signifies a major limitation with the codes. This essay shows that despite the fact that building security codes are recognised during the design and construction phase, their effective application is affected by the three stated limitations. Background analysis Lack of independent security building codes Lack of existence of independent security codes remains a critical challenge in security management. Indeed, despite the fact that global security building standards are not currently available, national governments have formulated their own building standards based on quality management system (QMS). Hence, to a considerable extent, security management has superimposed on the QMS of buildings to attain integrated quality and security management (Dimuma, 2012; Wang et al., 2013). The building standards vary from one country to the other depending on the stages of development of their building and construction industries (Pheng and Shiua, 2000). As a result, there is no standard template to work on in different countries. A key implication is that it is essentially more difficult to format the building standards based on one standard or model (Pheng and Shiua, 2000; Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2006). Hence, it is convenient to integrated security management as a subset of quality management systems since ISO 9000 standards offer the global template that make it achievable. This implies that QMS certification to ISO standards today prevail in the construction industry. Several countries have established national building standards where QMS has been on focus to ensure total quality of the buildings. For instance, in Australia, the Building Code of Australia (BCA) has been developed to encourage QMS in the building and construction industry. BCA provides detailed guidelines and technical specifications for the industry such as design standards, installation and product standards, including installation of physical security components such as aluminium security doors or grills (AS 5039-2008) and fences and gates (AS/NZS 2311:2009) (Pheng and Shiua, 2000). Security in total quality management Since security is a human need, it fits within the description of quality. A promoted perspective (based on the ISO 8402 definition of quality development unit) within the building industry is that quality refers to the totality of a built environment’s features and properties to bear the capacity to satisfy implied and stated needs, including physical security features (Baharum et al., 2009). A body of researches has reached a conclusion that quality is the single-most constraint in the ability of a construction project to possess the implied and stated security needs. ISO 900 standards have been encouraged in the construction industry globally as means to ensuring total quality of integrity of the built environment. Indeed, some nationals such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia have demanded that all contractors be certified to ISO 9000 requirements in order to qualify to carry out the construction projects (Pheng and Shiua, 2000). Significance of the codes Building designers can optimize the deployment of security counter measures during the design phase, which enables them to provide safe and secure built environments (O'Neill, Rueda & Savage, 2009). According to APA (2005), an enormous opportunity exists for architects and designers to come up with new grounds for addressing security using the Security building codes and planning principles. The standards provide a means to reemphasizing planning principles and strategies. Indeed, some developed nations such as Australia, the United States and United Kingdom have legislated Building Codes or Standards that ensure total integrity of the built environment. Evolution of security management has therefore become a mandate of national governments (Bubshait and Al-Atiq, 1999; Kraus et al., 2008). However, the division between security management and QMS indicates that enormous synergy and benefits can be yielded by integrating security management with QMS, since both management systems are integral to the total quality or total integrity of a building. Rather than operating two separate management systems, synergy is achievable when security management and QMS are integrated (Kraus et al., 2008; Pheng and Shiua, 2000). Limitations of the code Despite the fact that the stated or implied building security codes or standards are recognised in national construction industry during the design and construction phase, they are not implemented fully. The result is failure of the buildings to meet total quality and integrity security-wise. As stated by Adenuga (2012), building failure occurs when a building or its components are not effective or reliable in accomplishing or executing their principal functions. In this case, since the principle function of the built environment would be security, it is critical to argue that failure to implement the QMS, standards or codes during the design or construction phase leads to failure of the buildings to meet total quality or integrity of the buildings. Effective application of the codes is affected by three key issues, namely lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, availability of the standards but enforced by the relative authorities and lack of cooperation between professional in the field. Lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge Lack of knowledge on the part of architects contributes immensely to nonconformity with the security standards. In a review of architects’ views on the cause of buildings failure in Nigeria, Amadi et al. (2012) found that the failure of building to meet quality are attributed to lack of knowledge on the part of the architects about the building security codes in addition to negligence on the part of other professionals in the construction industry to assign various specialized roles to oversee compliance to standards. Amadi et al. (2012) further indicated that failure on the part of architects to construct based on the specifications and plans determined during the design phases also contribute to failures in security performance of built environments. A recent study of the defects of the built environment in the Malaysian construction industry by Ali and Wen (2011) revealed that the biggest contributor to poor workmanship in promoting the integrity, security inclusive, of the built environment was lack of knowledge on the part of professionals in the industry, including the architects. The researchers singled out insufficient knowledge of the set out standards in the building industry as contributing to poor workmanship and nonconformity with the regulatory standards. The findings are consistent with analysis from an earlier research by Wai Kiong and Sui Pheng (2005), which indicated that lack of knowledge contributed to at least 29 percent of the defects in integrity of the building. Within the same perspective, Othman (2013) surveyed the challenges faced in ensuring the integrity of mega projects in developing countries and stated that improperly defined rules, procedure and standards as well as shortage of architects with sufficient knowledge to review contingencies inhibited the efforts to ensure total integrity of the built environment. With this outlook, it can be argued that lack of sufficient architecture engineers with knowledge of the security codes limits the extent to which a built environment can respond to the security needs. The logic is that with insufficient knowledge, a high likelihood of ineffective review of the contingencies exists. Nevertheless, lack of knowledge cannot be entirely blamed for lack of adherence to the building security codes during the design and construction phases. In fact, although the architects may be aware of the codes, other factors contribute to nonconformity with these codes. In a recent study that assessed professionals in the UK building and construction industry to determine their awareness of the significance of the application of the appropriate performance standards, Sarhan and Fox (2013) concluded that although the professionals are aware of the significance of using process and performance measures that ensure the total quality of the buildings, it has not been widely and properly implemented across the industry. The study further indicated application of last Planner System (LPS) among the architects with further indications that the tool has not been used for continuous improvement of the buildings to ensure integrity during the operational phase. Failure to comply with the security codes also contributes to construction of buildings using to substandard and defective materials. A longitudinal study of 225 building failures by Wardhana and Hadiprono (2003) in the United States between 1989 and 2009 showed that majority of buildings fail because of failure by the architects to comply with the building security code during design and construction phase. The researchers further established that although architects have realised the significance of collecting information. The study showed that most architects are reluctant to share failure because of legal reasons. Due to this, except for those security codes published, few repositories of buildings that have failed are found (Yates & Lockley, 2002). Chong & Low (2006) established that decisions by building designers affect the long-term quality and lifecycle of buildings. Further, Oloyode and Omoogun (2010) explained that the Nigerian national government set up rules and regulations to uphold a sense of safety and security of buildings to ensure that players in the industry abide by the accepted standards. The researchers however concluded that despite emphasis on the codes, lack of political will to enforce the standards has contributed significantly to lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge of the standards. In turn, this has contributed to failure of buildings in Nigeria to cut out crime opportunities or to protect occupants from likely disasters. Based on these divergent perspectives, it is critical to observe that rather than just argue on the basis of “lack of knowledge,” their decision to comply with or to overlook the building security codes can affect the security performance of a building. Lack of cooperation between professional in the field Lack of cooperation between professionals in the construction industry contributes to noncompliance with the security standards. In a study by Adenuga (2012) to investigate the involvement of professions in the incidences of building failures in Nigeria, the researcher concluded that more than 50 percent of the building failures result from multiple human factors, with the main ones being failure to comply with the building security standards and lack of proper supervision leading to design faults and use of substandard material during the construction phase. According to Adenuga (2012), mere involvement of competent security professions capable of handling planning and design of a construction project does not exclusively guarantee success of the built environment unless there is effective co-operation of the professionals through supervision. Adenuga (2012) illustrated that the qualified professionals should be able to supervise and promote teamwork at every stage of the work. O'Neill, Rueda and Savage (2009) supported the remarks in suggesting that when architects consult with security professionals during the design phase effective implementation of optimal security measures is possible while at the same time the aesthetics of the built environment are taken care off. APA (2005) shared a similar perspective in discussing that architects and planners should cooperate throughout the design and construction phase of the construction project in order to meet the set of criteria within the context of the areas the building is situated. APA (2005) stated that when the engineers, architects and planners are involved in the decision-making processes, they can effectively implement the security measures. A similar perspective is promoted by Bakar at al. (2012) in his review of management of construction firms in Malaysia and reasons why they fail to reach their objectives of ensuring the quality of buildings by enforcing relevant standards. Bakar et al. (2012) commented that effective management plays a critical role in ensuring cooperation of the professionals, since it is management-intensive and since many decisions have to be taken at some point during the construction phase at the site. In explaining the risks associated with non-cooperation of the construction professionals, Dimuma (2010) took the perspective that since many contractors tend to cut corners to maximise profits, once a building design is approved by the relevant local authorities, they alter the designs with informing corresponding professionals of the change. By altering the designs, it can be argued that the contractors may decide to eliminate the approved security structures in order to cut costs. The outcome is that despite existence of the building security standards, they will not be implemented to a building during the construction phase. Availability of the standards but empowered by relative authorities Despite the availability of national standards and codes that promote total quality of buildings, including security, lack of consistency in the way they are enforced contributes significantly to non-compliance during the design and construction phase. In a nine-month longitudinal study that surveyed 74 buildings, Chong and Low (2006) established that architects and designers need to consolidate regional standards and codes as well as develop in-house database through the application of existing codes and standards without which compliance across the industry would be difficult. According to an analysis by Ali and Wen (2011), most construction projects are drawn together with the administrative system. In this case, a category of security standards and guidelines are enforced by many architects to ensure construction projects are consistent with the set out standards. Based on Ali and Wen’s (2011) perspective, it is easy to conclude that although the standards are available, application by relative authorities leads to inconsistencies in the ways in which they are enforced. Inconsistency contributes to lack of proper adherence to the building security code during the design and construction phase as it leads to confusion. In addition, it creates loopholes in the security code. According to Oloyode and Omoogun (2010), efforts to suppress the media from advocating for awareness of the codes by Nigerian politicians has contributed to lack of enforcement of the building codes by the appropriate enforcement authorities, mainly the Town Planning Officials. It is critical to argue that since the relevant authorities face political criticisms for upholding certain standards that do not align with the interests of some politicians, the officials lack the will and power to monitor architects in their efforts to implement security codes during the design and construction phase. Dimuma’s (2010) study of the Nigerian construction industry attributed the nonconformity with the codes to ineffectiveness of the relevant authorities to enforce the standards despite the availability of the standards. According to the researcher, despite the fact that completed drawings are submitted to the Town Planning Authority (TPA) in municipal offices for approval, the department lacks qualified personnel who have the integrity and expertise to approve the drawings for implementation during the design phase. In this case, failure on the part of the relevant authorities to check whether the drawings have incorporated the security needs required by the security building codes is a major factor leading to noncompliance with the existing standards. Dimuma (2010) further explained that the authorities in most states also lack enough staff with the expertise to oversee the building projects in various jurisdictions. This means that shortage of staff to carry out supervision of the construction phase inhibits the capability of relevant authorities to enforce the security standards. This leads to the failure of the built environment to have effective security performance during the operation phase. Recommendations A range of studies have suggested recommendations to counter the three key issues: lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, availability of the standards but enforced by the relative authorities and lack of cooperation between professional in the field. Amadi et al. (2012) explained that professionals should be engaged in the construction project from the design stage to the ultimate operation phase. The researchers further suggested that a range of regulatory bodies in the building and construction industry should ensure that only qualified and registered architects engage in the construction of buildings to minimize the potential of failure in security performance. Oloyode and Omoogun (2010) stated that the security building code should be enforced across the industry and throughout the nations by the necessary authority as well as oversee future constructions to ensure they comply with the codes. Manufacturers of building materials and physical security tools should also be inspected to ensure that they comply with the Code. According to Amadi et al. (2012), when all professionals in a construction project work harmoniously as a team, it will go a long way intro restoring sanity in the project by ensuring cooperation across all the phases of the building projects. The researchers noted that cooperation of the professionals can bridge the gap related to lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, which is an underlying cause of the failure of built environment to perform effectively security-wise. Ali and Wen (2011) suggested that among the most effective measures that can counter lack of cooperation among the building professionals is encouraging proper communication during the design and construction phase. The researchers posited that professions involved in the project should communicate effectively to encourage harmony and consistency to ensure that the building meets the integrity test for security, utility and aesthetic aspects. According to Yi & Chan (2013), proper construction management is essential since the capability of the construction managers to lead the way in monitoring how the construction complies with the security standards during the construction phase plays an integral role in ensuring conformity with the code. Yi & Chan (2013) further suggested that lack of knowledge on the part of the professionals can be resolved through strict supervision and training to equip them with the security codes. Conclusion Despite the fact that building security code are recognised during the design and construction phase, its effective application is affected by three key issues, namely lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, availability of the standards but enforced by the relative authorities and lack of cooperation between professional in the field. In the first case, failure to integrate effective physical security features are attributed to lack of knowledge on the part of the architects on the building security codes. In the second case, lack of cooperation between professionals in the construction industry contributes to noncompliance with the security standards since mere involvement of competent security professions capable of handling planning and design of a construction project does not guarantee success of the build environment, unless there is effective co-operation of the professionals through supervision. In the third case, despite the availability of national standards and codes that promote total quality of buildings, including security, lack of consistency in the way they are enforced contributes significantly to non-compliance during the design and construction phase. Inconsistency contributes to lack of proper adherence to the building security code during the design and construction phase as it leads to confusion. In addition, it creates loopholes in the security code. Nevertheless, the three cannot be entirely blamed for lack of adherence to the building security codes. This is since improperly defined rules, procedure and standards as well as shortage of architects with sufficient knowledge to review contingencies that inhibit the efforts to ensure total integrity of the built environment. References Adenuga, O. (2012). Professionals in the Built Environment and The Incidence Of Building Collapse In Nigeria. An International Journal 4(2), 461-473 Ali, A. & Wen, K. (2011). Building Defects: Possible Solution for Poor Construction Workmanship. Journal of Building Performance 2(1), 59-69 Amadi, A., Eze, C., Igwe, C., Okunla, I. & Okoye, N. (2012). Architect’s and Geologist’s View on the Causes of Building Failures in Nigeria. Modern Applied Science, 6(3), 31-38 APA (2005). Policy Guide on Security. American Planners Association. Retrieved: Bakar, A., Tabassu, A., Razak, A. & Yusof, M. (2012). Key Factors Contributing to Growth of Construction Companies: A Malaysian Experience. World Applied Sciences Journal 19 (9): 1295-1304, Bubshait, A. & Al-Atiq, T. (1999). ISO 9000 Quality standards in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering 15(6), 41-46 Chong, W. & Low, S. (2006). Latent Building Defects: Causes and Design Strategies to Prevent Them. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20(3), 213-221 Dimuma, K. (2010). Incessant Incidents of Building Collapse in Nigeria: A Challenge to Stakeholders. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering 10(4), 75-84 Kraus, K., Martikainen, O. & Reda, R. (2008). Security Management Process for Video Surveillance Systems in Heterogeneous Communication Networks. Retrieved: Mbamali, I. & Okotiem, A. 2012. An Assessment of the Threats and Opportunities of Globalization on Building Practice in Nigeria. American International Journal of Contemporary Research 2(4), 143-150 Oloyode, A. & Omoogun, C. (2010). Tackling Causes of Frequent Building Collapse in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development 3(3), 127-132 O'Neill, D., Rueda, R. & Savage, J. (2009). Security Design for Sustainable Buildings and Campuses. Applied Risk Management Othman, A. (2013). Challenges of mega construction projects in developing countries. An International Journal 5(1) 730-745 Petrovic-Lazarevic, A. (2006). ISO 14001- Improving The Construction Industry's Competitiveness. Monash University Working Paper 44/06 Pheng, L. & Shiua, S. (2000). The maintenance of construction safety: riding on ISO 9000 quality management systems. Journal of Quality in Maintenance, 6(1), 28-44 Sarhan, A. & Fox, A. (2013). Performance Measurement in the UK Construction Industry and its Role in Supporting the Application of Lean Construction Concepts. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 13 (1) 23-35 Wang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Yung, P. & Jun, G. (2013). Engagement of Facilities Management in Design Stage through BIM: Framework and a Case Study. Advances in Civil Engineering, Volume 2013, Article ID 189105, 8 pages Wai Kiong, C., and Sui Pheng, L. (2006). Latent building defects: Causes and design strategies to prevent them. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(3), 213-221. Wardhana, K. & Hadiprono, F. (2003). Study of Recent Building Failures in the United States. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 17(3), 151-158 Yates, J. & Lockley, E. (2002). Documenting and Analyzing Construction Failures. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1(8), 8-17 Yi, W. & Chan, A. (2013). Critical Review of Labor Productivity Research in Construction Journals. Journal of Management in Engineering Read More

Security in total quality management Since security is a human need, it fits within the description of quality. A promoted perspective (based on the ISO 8402 definition of quality development unit) within the building industry is that quality refers to the totality of a built environment’s features and properties to bear the capacity to satisfy implied and stated needs, including physical security features (Baharum et al., 2009). A body of researches has reached a conclusion that quality is the single-most constraint in the ability of a construction project to possess the implied and stated security needs.

ISO 900 standards have been encouraged in the construction industry globally as means to ensuring total quality of integrity of the built environment. Indeed, some nationals such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia have demanded that all contractors be certified to ISO 9000 requirements in order to qualify to carry out the construction projects (Pheng and Shiua, 2000). Significance of the codes Building designers can optimize the deployment of security counter measures during the design phase, which enables them to provide safe and secure built environments (O'Neill, Rueda & Savage, 2009).

According to APA (2005), an enormous opportunity exists for architects and designers to come up with new grounds for addressing security using the Security building codes and planning principles. The standards provide a means to reemphasizing planning principles and strategies. Indeed, some developed nations such as Australia, the United States and United Kingdom have legislated Building Codes or Standards that ensure total integrity of the built environment. Evolution of security management has therefore become a mandate of national governments (Bubshait and Al-Atiq, 1999; Kraus et al., 2008). However, the division between security management and QMS indicates that enormous synergy and benefits can be yielded by integrating security management with QMS, since both management systems are integral to the total quality or total integrity of a building.

Rather than operating two separate management systems, synergy is achievable when security management and QMS are integrated (Kraus et al., 2008; Pheng and Shiua, 2000). Limitations of the code Despite the fact that the stated or implied building security codes or standards are recognised in national construction industry during the design and construction phase, they are not implemented fully. The result is failure of the buildings to meet total quality and integrity security-wise. As stated by Adenuga (2012), building failure occurs when a building or its components are not effective or reliable in accomplishing or executing their principal functions.

In this case, since the principle function of the built environment would be security, it is critical to argue that failure to implement the QMS, standards or codes during the design or construction phase leads to failure of the buildings to meet total quality or integrity of the buildings. Effective application of the codes is affected by three key issues, namely lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge, availability of the standards but enforced by the relative authorities and lack of cooperation between professional in the field.

Lack of architecture engineers’ knowledge Lack of knowledge on the part of architects contributes immensely to nonconformity with the security standards. In a review of architects’ views on the cause of buildings failure in Nigeria, Amadi et al. (2012) found that the failure of building to meet quality are attributed to lack of knowledge on the part of the architects about the building security codes in addition to negligence on the part of other professionals in the construction industry to assign various specialized roles to oversee compliance to standards.

Amadi et al. (2012) further indicated that failure on the part of architects to construct based on the specifications and plans determined during the design phases also contribute to failures in security performance of built environments.

Read More