An engineer, an architect and a lawyer set about
discussing the origins of the earth one evening, pondering what
professional qualifications the Creator might first have applied toward
the task. The engineer, speaking first, said "engineering was
definitely involved. Just look at how all the different
systems--hydraulics, air movement, structural elements of the
land--obviously the work of an engineer."
"Perhaps," said the architect, "but look at how
aesthetically pleasing everything was put together. The trees, the
prairies, the great, beautiful oceans. It would have taken the
designing eye of the architect to create such beauty out of chaos."
"Ah, most certainly," agreed the lawyer. "But who do you think created the chaos?"
There have been many occasions when I've walked
with facility operators through the mechanical areas of a brand new
state-of-the-art aquatics center and gotten the distinct impression
that, had they heard that joke, the systems operators would have given
the designer enough credit for having created the chaos without any
need for the lawyers' input.
"Why did they use this kind of system?" the
operator might sneer. "What were they thinking of when they put this
here?" I'll hear them mutter. "Whose bright idea was this
configuration?" they snicker.
|
Key Issues
- Strategies for input during design process.
- Methods of prioritizing design decisions.
- Today's role and future expectations of automation in aquatic facility management.
- How to have input during construction process.
- Where to spend capital funds for greatest value.
- Operator issues during design.
- Common obstacles and solutions to project development.
- Trends in facility operations.
|
I don't take offense because I understand and
appreciate their perspective. Often, the operator is introduced to a
brand new state-of-the-art aquatic facility at poolside, with all the
modern amenities the industry has to offer, only to discover
maintenance and operational systems that are not what he might hope
for. If the operator's response to that is merely adversarial, then no
one wins--not the owner and certainly not the operator.
If, on the other hand, the operator takes a
higher, professional approach by doing the best with what is available
while preparing solid, positive arguments for more sophisticated
systems in the future, he or she will reveal the qualities of a true
operations professional.
The Design Process--Sizzle Sells!
Getting a contemporary aquatic facility from
dream to construction is a long trip during which many alternate routes
are considered. The trip usually begins when a group of planners or a
private ownership team proposes a concept for the new facility. There
is a very rough idea of what they want and some estimates of the money
available to finance the project. It is the designer's job to mold that
rough information into a very specific facility design.
Beginning as much as a year or two in advance of
construction, the design consultant begins accumulating information
that will help form the design. Beginning with what the owners think
they want, the designer also investigates the needs of the community or
other potential users of the facility.
Through detailed study, information including
potential revenue, operating expenses, site selection and construction
costs is compiled to give the owners a better understanding of the
economic viability of the intended project.
With that information in hand, several schemes
are usually presented to the owners, each representing different
possible solutions to their requirements. Inevitably, this process
leads to a finished product that represents a series of compromises,
some affecting the patron-oriented amenities and some affecting the
systems operational side.
It is said, though, that the "sizzle sells the
steak," and that is certainly true in the case of aquatics facilities.
Though a pie-in-the-sky proposal might include all the latest high-tech
pumping and filtering systems one could imagine, when it comes time to
shaving dollars off construction costs, the current rivers, spiral
slides, wet-playground amenities or the 50 meter pool configuration are
going to remain in the plans long after the Super XYZ automation system has been downgraded.
Indeed, the sizzle sells, and that is true, not
only in the eyes of the potential users, but in those of the owners and
financiers as well. No one is going to decide to build or finance a
project because of its elaborate mechanical systems. They will decide
based on the services and programs the facility provides the public,
and the capital investment budget available to provide those services.
As a result, a design that originally calls for
an automated fill funnel for the pool might get downgraded to a manual
unit, with retrofit potential built in for later consideration.
Similarly, a manual backwash system might be substituted for an
automatic system. The world's premier filter room is of particular
interest to you; but when it comes to selling the facility, it's going
to be the fun, not the filtering, that draws the crowd.
Operator Assistance
Is there no place in the design process, then,
for the operator's input? Absolutely. In fact, designers who fail to
explore the past experiences and observations of professional pool
operators are not taking advantage of an extremely valuable information
source.
There are many critical issues involved in pool
design where operators can have valuable knowledge. For example, they
might have specific knowledge about the source water chemistry. If it
has a lot of mineral content or has an extremely high or low pH level,
these are issues that will effect the appropriateness of certain kinds
of chemical balancing systems. In many areas, water chemistry dictates
that CO2, for example, may not be appropriate.
Operators can also be helpful in evaluating the
capabilities and limitations of the maintenance staff, which will also
affect the kinds of systems selected for the facility. Are staff
members intuitive and knowledgeable about the procedures they conduct?
Do they understand how changes in chemistry will affect the water
quality? Or do they perform better under conditions that call for
clear-cut step-by-step procedures?
Operators need to be honest about their own
experience as well. Just as there are different types of cars for
different driver demands, so too are there different designing and
engineering solutions for various skill levels and performance
expectations for aquatic facility operators. A knowledgeable and
dedicated pool operator can tweak any system to operate at the most
efficient levels possible. He/she can make anything work. If that level
of experience and dedication is lacking, however, a different, more
autonomous kind of system might be indicated. Conversely, if the
operator is extremely control oriented, if he/she prefers hands-on
manual control and tends to constantly override automated procedures,
then designing a costly high-tech automated system is a waste of money.
Operator availability is another factor that will
affect design decisions. How much time will the operations staff have
to accommodate the needs of the facility? Will the operator be stopping
by once a week to backwash the pool and check the chemistry levels, or
will there be on-site personnel, constantly evaluating water quality
and systems performance?
Operators will also likely have site-specific
knowledge concerning attendance patterns and weather conditions that
designers should take into account. What demand levels will be placed
on the facility? Will there be a heavy bather load, or light? Will
weather changes affect the water quality?
All these issues will determine what level of
automation, what level of technology and sophistication will be
required to maintain clean, clear water. And all are issues that
operators with past experience will have valuable insights and
judgments to assist the designer in making the appropriate
recommendations.
Personal preference aren't insignificant issues,
either. If an operator has had prior experience with certain systems,
and managed them successfully, it is reasonable to suggest continuing
with similar systems, if appropriate.
There are all kinds of facility requirements and
all kinds of operators maintaining the facilities. The design team's
strategy is to develop the mechanical system most efficiently tailored
to the needs of the facility and the qualifications of the operator.
And the operator can certainly provide valuable insights to help
achieve that goal.
Pick Your Battles
No matter how convincingly you argue your case,
though, you aren't going to win every battle. As stated previously,
design is influenced primarily by programming and service features, and
the capital investment budget. The owner wants to get the most
patron-oriented options for the dollar. Naturally, the operator wants
to get a facility that is easy to operate. In the tug of war for
dollars between those two, patron-oriented features are going to win
more often than not.
So pick your battles. In the compromises that
characterize the design process, decisions are usually categorized
according to their level of requirement. Some things are absolutely
required. Others are of obvious benefit, though not critical to the
facility, while still other amenities fall into a "bonus" category: If
the money's still there after fulfilling other needs, these things
would be nice to have.
Operators should apply those same critical
judgments when determining what is important to them. Is the type of
filtration system of tantamount importance? Some people swear by
diatomaceous earth because of water quality, others by sand because of
ease of operation. What is a priority to you?
Others have strong opinions about pool coatings.
Should the tank be surfaced with paint, plaster, colored concrete, or
tile? This is an issue that operators frequently second guess, and one
for which many issues enter into choosing one over the other. But if
you feel strongly about the benefits of one, place it on your critical
list and let your opinions be known.
Be heard, not hard
The important thing is to voice your opinions in
a meaningful, productive way. The biggest challenge operators face in
the design process is simply being heard and getting involved. In many
cases--especially with new facilities--operators are not brought into
the organization until a month or two prior to opening. Obviously, most
of the system design decisions have already been made at this point.
The professional operator benefits from the understanding that the
priorities do focus on the patron-oriented, revenue-producing
amenities, and compromises undoubtedly had to be made in the operating
systems. Negative comments and asides at this point are non-productive
and will only create an adversarial role between operator and owner.
It has been my experience, however, than when the
opportunity exists--and frequently this opportunity occurs in
remodeling and updating projects-ownership and design teams have
welcomed the opinions of operators with open arms. That is the way it
should be. Facility design undoubtedly benefits when it is achieved
with the valuable input of operations professionals. After all, you can
have the most wonderfully designed and engineered facility in the
world; but if the operators don't or won't take advantage of the
systems in the way in which they were designed to be used, it is a
frustration and a failure for everyone involved.
By participating in the design process in a
meaningful, constructive way, operators can contribute to a facility
design that is truly designed from the pits up, and will consequently
make everyone happy: owners, users, and operators.
For questions or comments, Scot Hunsaker can be reached at:
314-894-1245
314-894-0109 (fax)