Ofis binalarının eskimelerini geciktirecek yöntemler: Gerekli fiziksel değişikliğin boyutu

Ways to prevent office buildings from getting obsolete: The extent of physical work required

Özet

Ofis binaları, işletmelerin rekabetsel avantajlarını koruyabilmelerini sağlayan en önemli firma kaynaklarından biridir. Etkin ve efektif bina işletmesi/yönetimi, işletmeler için yüksek verimde çalışan personel, dolayısıyla minimum maliyet ve maksimum kazanç demektir. Ofis binaları, minimum 50-60 yıllık bir süre için inşa edilirler. İlk 15-20 yıllık süre kapsamında ise tasarlandıkları fonksi-yona hizmet vermeleri beklenir. Ancak, teknolojik gelişmelerdeki hızlı değişim sebebiyle, günümüzde 20, 10, hatta beş yıllık ofis binaları dahi eskime tehlikesi ile karşı karşıya kalabilmektedirler. Ofis binalarının fonksiyonel eskimeden korunması, değişim ve yeniliklere uyumu, organizasyonel bazda işletmelerin de öngörülebilir ve azaltılabilir yüksek maliyetlerden korunmalarını sağlar. Ofis binalarının temel görevi olan organizasyon çalışanlarını işletmenin amaçları doğrultusunda destek-leme görevini en iyi şekilde yerine getirebilmesi ancak, değişim ve yeniliklere uyumlu olacak şekilde işletilmesi ile mümkündür. Tüm bunlar göz önüne alındığında işletmelerin sahip oldukları yada kiraladıkları binalarının, işletmenin başarısında çok önemli bir rol oynadığı görülmektedir. Bu sebeple, bu çalışmada, çeşitli firmaların zamanla binalarında yaşadıkları problemlere ilişkin alternatif çözümlerin neler olabileceği araştırılmış ve her bir alternatif için gerekli fiziksel değişiklikler yaşa bağlı olarak tanımlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları toplamda fiziksel değişiklik gereksiniminin boyutunun ofise dönüştürme kararı için en yüksek, renovasyon kararı için ise en düşük olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, binaların yaşları ilerledikçe fiziksel değişiklik iş gruplarından restorasyon türü işlere gereksinimlerinin sabit kaldığı, yeni inşaat türü işlere gereksinimlerinin azaldığı, bina dışı işlere gereksinimlerinin ise arttığı gözlenmiştir.

Abstract

In today’s work environment, the competitiveness of an organization is directly related with how effectively and efficiently a business manages its resources. Corporate real estate assets (land and buildings used for workspace, infrastructure and investment) are termed as the fifth resource, after the traditional resources people, technology, information and capital (Joroff et al., 1993). In addition, for many organizations, facilities-related costs are second only to the cost of labor (salaries) (McGregor & Then, 1999). Although these two characteristics should convince the companies that judicious management of their real estate assets is a major factor -especially if they are seeking to maintain a competitive advantage-, expenditures on these buildings are generally regarded as a ‘sunk’ business cost, which cannot be avoided. The prevailing view is that the level of management associated with controlling facilities-related costs is not sufficiently demanding or sophisticated enough to necessitate the skills of a specialist or the attention of the business’s senior executives (McGregor & Then, 1999). However, the companies that want to preserve their competitive edge in the market are beginning to see the importance of treating their corporate real estate as an asset. They recognize that facilities are the infrastructure that supports the people in the organization in their endeavors to achieve business goals. In other words, they are well aware that facilities are the tools which people in the business have at their disposal to carry out their tasks. Failure to accomplish facilitating these business goals imposes heavy burdens on the organization and its users. These burdens may include lost productivity of people and activities housed in and served by the facility, increased operating costs to overcome the mismatch of needs and facility capability, or increased worker absenteeism and health care costs related to on-the-job stress (Iselin & Le-mer, 1993). Furthermore, the goals of users or owners may change, leading to requirements different from those the facility was initially intended to fulfill. Many of the technologies of modern facilities, as well as the activities they shelter and support, have changed substantially in recent decades and are continuing to change. These changes lead to rising expectations about the services and amenities a facility should provide. Rising expectations can effectively shorten the useful life of a facility and are the essential characteristics of obsolescence. Accommodating rising expectations is often costly, but failing to accommodate change is costly as well. Obsolete facilities can impose heavy burdens on their owners and users (Iselin & Lemer, 1993). Office buildings are typically designed to last for at least 50 – 60 years, and in their initial 15 – 20 years they are expected to serve to the original function they are designed for. Yet, due to the rapid changes in technological advances, office buildings that are 20, 10, even five years old today can be subject to obsolescence. Even new buildings, under certain circumstances, are being renovated to meet the needs of the market before they become inadequate or ineffective due to obsolescence, or turn out to be redundant due to a change in demand for their services. Thus, in today’s world, it is reasonable to consider almost any property not categorized as part of the market’s new-construction stock as an “older building” that is eligible for renovation and/or adaptive reuse. Office buildings are one of the major assets of companies enabling them to maintain their competitive advantage. Successful and effective facility management of corporate assets means highly efficient personnel, which translates into minimum cost and maximum profit. Preventing office buildings from getting obsolete, adaptability to change and emerging technologies protects organizations from foreseeable and excessive costs. All of these facts demonstrate the indisputably important role that facilities play in corporate success. Thus, in this study, the alternative solutions to the problems that corporate buildings encounter in time are identified and the extent of physical work required for each of these alternatives are analyzed through numerous cases in relation to their age categories. Results indicate that the overall extent of physical work required is the highest for adaptive reuse –to office, and the lowest for renovation. Addi-tionally, the extent of physical work required remains constant for restoration work, decreases for new construction work, and increases for out-of-the-building work as the building ages.