A strategic view of space requires considering its entire lifecycle, where the initial investment is not an endpoint, but a first step.
Normally, a building’s opening is celebrated as the end of a project. However, this impression rarely aligns with reality: the actual use of the built environment reveals that the completed work is barely the beginning of a more complex process that unfolds over time, often in unexpected ways. A strategic view of space requires considering its entire lifecycle, where the initial investment is not the endpoint, but rather a first step. It is the beginning of a commitment to efficiency, performance, and adaptability.
In this context, the Facility Manager (FM) plays a decisive role: harmonizing the quality of the original design with a seamless operation that, over time, protects organizational resources and ensures the workspace remains relevant. Managing the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) does not just mean cutting expenses; it also involves making smart decisions that allow the space to evolve while maintaining its functionality and purpose.
Various analyses have demonstrated an inverse relationship between an asset’s initial cost and its maintenance cost: a building with a low capital expenditure (CapEx) can lock an owner into high operating expenses (OpEx) for the rest of its useful life. Thus, while CapEx accounts for only 20% to 30% of a building’s total cost, the remaining 70% to 80% is allocated to maintenance and adaptations.
Therefore, a building’s true life does not begin with its opening; it begins with occupancy. That is when the forces of physical deterioration and functional obsolescence appear. Managing these processes requires a holistic vision from the FM: seeing it not as an intervention on an inert system, but as a dynamic performance adjustment aimed at satisfying the changing needs of occupants and organizational goals.
The Building as a Transforming System
Buildings are not static entities, neither in their use nor in their physical structure. On the contrary, change is inevitable and manifests through two types of influences: exogenous factors linked to the economic context or market pressures, and endogenous factors derived from user needs and natural wear and tear. Even if the original design did not account for flexibility, reality will eventually force transformations.
To understand this dynamic, one must consider that a building is not a monolithic unit, but a set of layers that evolve at different paces, generating internal tensions. A design that does not anticipate change quickly becomes a barrier to productivity, leading to what is known as “technical or functional obsolescence” due to technical limitations, premature failures, and changing trends.
Stewart Brand demonstrated that buildings are not static objects, but complex systems composed of layers operating at different speeds. A building’s efficiency depends on recognizing these tempos of transformation, which forces the decoupling of layers during design to facilitate maintenance and renovation.
To illustrate this logic, Brand proposes the “Six S’s” model:
- Site: The geographical context of the building. It is permanent and does not change over time.
- Structure: Its useful life ranges between 30 and 300 years. It is the most difficult and expensive layer to modify.
- Skin: The exterior envelope changes approximately every 20 years, influenced by aesthetic and thermal efficiency demands.
- Services: This includes electrical, plumbing, HVAC, sprinkler systems, elevators, and escalators. All of these wear out every 7 to 15 years and are usually the first to become technically obsolete.
- Space Plan (Layout): The interior layout can change every few years, especially in office buildings due to tenant turnover or organizational shifts.
- Stuff (Daily Use Items): Furniture, electronic equipment, etc., are constantly replaced due to wear and tear or aesthetic and functional decisions.
To these layers, we must add the occupants, whose expectations and needs change constantly.
Recognizing these tempos is essential. For instance, smart systems and IoT infrastructures evolve much faster than the building’s envelope. If these layers are rigidly integrated—to the point where intervening in one system affects the structure—the building loses strategic value and its maintenance becomes more expensive.
Workspaces must be understood as infrastructures capable of evolving to preserve their value throughout their lifecycle. In this scenario, the FM does not just step in to repair deterioration, but to manage the asset’s adaptability, allowing it to respond to new work models and technological advancements without losing its primary utility.
When Design Ignores the Passage of Time
When a design focuses solely on “day one” and omits the temporal dimension, the operational and financial consequences can be significant. This lack of foresight usually translates into hidden costs.
A rigid design, envisioned for a specific use without considering future scenarios, may require extensive interventions to adapt to new market demands such as hybrid work or technological changes. In many cases, these buildings stop meeting user needs long before their physical structure degrades, accelerating their obsolescence. In contrast, flexible and adaptable buildings extend their useful life and reduce operating costs.
On the other hand, when maintenance is not integrated from the design phase, preventive tasks tend to be postponed due to their technical complexity or cost, which can lead to critical failures, business disruptions, and more expensive emergency repairs. Similarly, prioritizing a lower initial cost at the expense of long-term energy efficiency typically results in significantly higher operating expenses.
In this sense, the absence of a design strategy oriented toward operability creates a gap between expected and actual performance, directly impacting workspace quality, productivity, and occupant well-being.
Because of this, integrating the FM right from the design stage is an absolute necessity. Once the building is up and running, correcting design errors is usually too late or financially unviable.
How to Design with the Future in Mind
The conclusion is clear: the true efficiency of a workspace is measured by its ability to evolve without losing value. A project’s success should not be evaluated by the image of its opening day, but by its performance over time, when it must respond to technological shifts, economic cycles, and organizational transformations.
Designing with the future in mind means adopting principles focused on operability, ensuring that the building can function safely, efficiently, and profitably from day one of handover and throughout its entire lifecycle. This involves:
- Anticipating Future Change: Designing structures and systems that allow for future expansions or adaptations.
- Prioritizing Flexibility: Utilizing modular construction solutions that facilitate space reconfiguration without generating waste.
- Integrating FM from the Start: Ensuring that systems are maintainable and that operational information is useful and accessible.
- Incorporating Digital Tools: Maintaining an updated digital model (such as BIM) to support asset management and facilitate decision-making.
Ultimately, a building that cannot learn or adapt is a building that begins to lose value from the day it is handed over. True sustainability is not limited to initial efficiency; it lies in the infrastructure’s capacity to remain useful, relevant, and efficient over decades.
Designing with this perspective is not just a technical decision, but a strategic one: it is what allows a building to maintain its value over time, instead of beginning to lose it the moment the keys are turned over.
