Healthcare facilities managers point out bottlenecks to attaining sustainability
There are three important – and interrelated – perceptions that create bottlenecks in developing more cost- and energy-efficient healthcare facilities. According to a survey of 20 major North American metropolitan areas, they are:
- Apprehensions about performance of new technology
- Buying decisions based on first cost
- Proliferation of green washing by manufacturers and service providers
These three issues are linked in the minds of buyers and specifiers and education is needed in order to change behavior, according to the International Facilities Management Association (IFMA).
The survey was conducted as part of the “Economics, Efficiency, Energy, and Environment: Making the 4Es Work Together in Healthcare” seminar series conducted throughout 2010-2011 by the Corporate Realty, Design & Management Institute in partnership with the IFMA Healthcare Council (now the Healthcare Institute of IFMA), www.ifma-hc.org
Among the key findings:
- Lack of confidence in installing or specifying new technology
- Lowest first cost still dominates purchasing decisions - except in Cleveland
- Green washing plagues industry and 85% of survey participants says it’s becoming more prevalent
- Far too many facilities managers lack the fundamental financial knowledge needed to overcome first cost issues with life cycle cost analysis
- Most FMs feel healthcare still lags other industries in implementing sustainable solutions—except in Midwest cities
- More than 90% of facilities managers polled forecast that their energy costs will rise 4% or higher
- Reliability of infrastructure is a top concern in most cities, although five cities cite regulatory pressures as the major issue
- Management is lacking and 68% report that the next step is to appoint a Sustainability Manager
There is plenty of skepticism about energy saving technology among healthcare facilities managers. The top concern, cited by 78% of survey participants, was that the product or service “may not deliver projected performance.” More than 85% of those surveyed say green washing is more prevalent today than it was two years ago. Only 4% think it is less of a factor than it was two years ago.
In these days of economic challenges, first cost is the most important factor in the final selection of equipment and materials, according to 80% of survey respondents. Fewer than 15% say they select products or equipment based on durability and expected life of the item. Cleveland, Chicago, and Denver were the only cities where more than one third of respondents used durability or sustainable features as their selection criteria. It’s significant to note, however, that some of the medical centers where the IFMA “Economics, Efficiency, Energy, and Environment” seminars were held displayed how long-term thinking was paying big dividends in energy savings and waste reduction.
Two survey questions tested attendees’ financial knowledge—a prerequisite for presenting life cycle cost analysis. Over 60% incorrectly answered both questions. The answers to the questions reveal the impact that design and operations has on a hospital’s financial health. Given a 4% total margin, saving $1 in energy equals $25 in revenue, and for the average sized hospital in the U.S. that translates to an additional $7.2 million in revenue.
More than 50% of healthcare facilities managers think the healthcare field is performing worse than other industries in achieving sustainability. The one exception was the Midwest region, where most participants believe their industry is as sustainable if not more so than other regions. Appointing a sustainability manager was considered the most important step in retooling a hospital for sustainability. Nearly 70% thought this would produce better results than creating a committee or relying on participation in Energy Star or LEED.
The survey results can be downloaded at www.squarefootage.net |
