Tweet
Source: http://www.continuitycentral.com/feature0631.html
Applying IT strategy to protecting people
On a day-to-day level communicable diseases can have a significant impact on operations. In a pandemic outbreak the impact will be a real threat to business continuity. In this article Hillary Spicer explains how similar thinking to IT system protection can be used to reduce building occupants? exposure to communicable diseases.
External (and internal) threats to IT systems are well recognised by risk management professionals and chief information officers. Extensive resources are devoted to dealing with such threats. Firewalls and sophisticated software to detect and prevent viruses, spyware, malware, Trojans and intrusion are inevitably used. A great deal of effort is devoted to implementing policies which will minimise the risk to companies? critical systems from being compromised. We do this because we recognise the potentially crippling effect of compromised IT systems.
Real versus metaphoric viruses
There are external and internal threats which compromise another of our assets; our people - and their health, motivation, productivity and absenteeism. What?s more, in real but extreme circumstances, they threaten our employees? ability to continue business operations.
In this instance, we are not talking about metaphoric computer viruses but the real thing ? real viruses and other harmful biological organisms. These already impact business operations and performance but this impact is largely invisible because it is not tracked and no one is accountable for addressing the problem. In the current scenario, the impact is ?merely? debilitating and is largely a business operations matter, but in the not-too-distant future it could well become a business continuity and risk management threat.
An illustration
Have you ever been on a plane trip and caught a cold or worse? It is generally accepted that you have a 20 percent chance of catching an infection on a plane, with the primary culprit being the aircraft?s air conditioning and heating system, which re-circulates the cabin air. To illustrate this point, airlines have stopped serving nuts in the aircraft cabin because it was discovered that microscopic nut particles were finding their way into the air conditioning system, thus re-circulating them to all passengers. Doesn?t sound a problem for most but if you are allergic to nuts and prone to anaphylactic shock, it can be a fatal issue.
This principle holds in a large commercial office. The air handling system, which is used to heat and cool air, re-circulates up to 90 percent of the air in the building, with pressure to re-circulate more and more internal air in order to save energy costs. Some building engineers do install carbon dioxide (CO2) meters in order to make sure that the CO2 level is not high enough to impact the health of inhabitants. Other than this, there is limited understanding of the impact on employee health and performance.
How many times have you heard people say that an infection ?swept through the office?? Employees exacerbate this problem because it is considered admirable to come to work when sick. This behaviour may reflect a personal sacrifice and an admirable personal trait, but when you consider the propensity for that sickness to spread throughout the office, it is in reality counter-productive.
The office building?s ?Internet? for spreading viruses
The standard office system for handling the circulation (and re-circulation) and treatment of air is ideal for transmitting viruses, bacteria and other harmful organisms to everyone in the company. It is also ideal for cultivating, multiplying and then distributing some of these harmful organisms. Moisture condenses on the heat exchange coils of air conditioning units. Bacteria and spores passing through the system adhere to the internal surfaces. The dark moist environment is ideal for cultivation of the organisms, some of which can then be released in greater quantities into the re-circulating air.
This was recognised by The Brooking Institute which, after 9/11, was asked to identify potential terrorist targets for US Homeland Security. They concluded that the air intake systems of most buildings are ?an Achilles' heel for this nation?. They recognised that the building?s a/c and ducts are very effective highways for delivering harmful organisms to thousands of individuals.
Cultivating organisms on the heat exchange coils
Below is a photograph of a contact plate which had been pressed against the biofilm on the heat exchange coils in an office building air handling system. The contact plate contains a medium which is designed to culture bio-organisms and is commonly used to detect the presence and type of bacteria and mould spores. This photograph was taken after 7 days.
So, we have inadvertently created a very efficient distribution system for infectious diseases and for materials (including mould spores) which cause illness due to asthma and allergic reactions.
This carries a significant cost (see the section at the end of the article on this hidden cost) but may not be considered a ?risk management? issue in the sense of interrupting business continuity.
However, we are all aware of the potential risks (both to life and to business continuity) associated with pandemics or bioterror attacks. This same air distribution system would be equally efficient in spreading the pandemic or bioterror organisms ? ensuring that (almost) all employees would be susceptible to the threat. The anticipated response to a pandemic or bioterror threat is to shut down the air handling system. This is a response akin to ?shutting the barn door after the horse has gone?. By the time you detect that there is something wrong, it?s too late.
The threat of spreading mould spores throughout the building is another potentially serious outcome. The presence of mould in buildings, together with the serious health threat that it can pose, has led to some ruinous damage awards in the United States. Toxic mould claims are being litigated in the USA in the same way as asbestos was in the UK in the 1980s with the average commercial settlement being around $1 million.
While that may be less likely in the UK, a series of toxic mould claims ending in the designation of a large office building as having ?sick building syndrome? would seriously disrupt operations.
What about filters?
Yes, all air handling systems have filters but they are primarily designed to protect the air handling equipment rather than filter out materials harmful to humans. These filters only eliminate about 1 percent of indoor pollutants and simply allow bacteria, viruses and spores to pass through easily. Even the installation of the finest filters (for example, a HEPA C filter) are ineffectual against viruses because they measure .027 micron against the capability of HEPA to only intercept microbials down to 0.3 microns. In any event, HEPA C filters are impractical, since the energy used to force the air through the filter would make it very expensive in terms of a significant extra energy overhead (to say nothing of the cost of installing upgraded equipment to make the required air pressure possible).
A ?firewall? for microbiological threats
Fortunately, there is a relatively simple solution resulting from new ways of applying an old and proven technology. Moreover, as an insurance policy against virtually any biological and pandemic risk, it also increases profitability and provides a healthy ROI even if neither of these threats materialise.
Niels Ryberg Finsen discovered ultraviolet C light waves that are present between visible light (UVA & UVB) and X-Rays. He proved that UVC destroyed ALL viruses, bacteria and mould regardless of strain and for this he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904. One result is that UVC light has been widely used in sewage treatment plants for the last 50 years. So, why not apply it to air handling systems to provide a ?firewall? for harmful organisms?
This is more difficult than applying the technology to water purification because the air in a building air handling system is moving at about 2.5 metres/second and until recently, the UVC germicidal waves generated were not strong enough to kill the pathogens in a single pass. Also, the air coming from an air conditioning system is, by definition, cold and again the germicidal properties of UVC drop off with colder temperatures. It wasn?t until about 14 years ago that a company in California, Steril Aire, developed a UVC system that overcame these problems. The way this system works is illustrated below.
Figure 1: The UVC ?Firewall? Preventing Transmission of Infectious Diseases
Figure 2: The UVC Lighting Arrays
These drawings illustrate how the pathogens that are generated by a cough are killed by the UVC light, which is a powerful germicide that has the added benefit of being effective regardless of the strain of virus or bacteria. This is very important as each year a new strain of influenza requires a new vaccine to be developed, UVC doesn?t work like this: it will be effective against any strain of flu. This provides the firewall in the air handling system and prevents the pathogens from being circulated (and re-circulated) throughout the building. Surfaces, filters and cooling coils inside the air handling system are also disinfected by the UVC lighting arrays installed at strategic points within the system.
This would apply equally to viruses resulting from a pandemic or bioterror attack, whether the source was inside or outside the building.
I have to emphasise that, though implementation of UVC is extremely effective for those in the office building in a pandemic or bioterror attack, it is not a complete solution. There are other components of a total solution that must be considered in protecting employees when *outside* of the building.
Why isn?t UVC widely used?
That?s a good question, given the impact of the UVC solution on profitability through employee health, productivity, reduction in absenteeism and reductions in energy cost which we have already discussed.
The answer is that there is no logical function within the typical organisation that is accountable for fixing the issues identified above. The building engineers are responsible for the air handling system but are only measured on its operating status and effectiveness and, other than very basic and imprecise criteria, not on the quality of the end product delivered to building inhabitants ? the air. Human resource management would probably be a logical candidate for accountability for employee health, productivity and absenteeism but are not aware of the connection between those factors and building air handling systems.
Risk management: a responsibility and an opportunity
While accountability for the current debilitating effects induced by the re-circulation of building air may be hard to pin down, the responsibility for responding to a pandemic or bioterror attack rests squarely with the Risk management or business continuity professionals.
Just as you would have no hesitation in recommending the installation of an IT firewall and anti-virus precautions (should IT have neglected their responsibilities in this area), the installation of a similar type of barrier to the pathogens contained in bioterror or pandemic threats seems an obvious step.
Moreover, since the installation is simple, the cost is comparatively small and the ROI is exceptional, it?s a recommendation that is likely to bring a round of applause rather than a round of groans. In fact, a chief executive would probably welcome an opportunity to significantly improve profitability this easily, while gaining kudos for providing employees with a healthier work environment and reducing exposure to business interruption.
Throughout this article, we have referred to the impact that the current design of the air handling system has on employees and the business. This comes at a significant cost. While it is difficult to forecast exact numbers for any specific building and occupants, numerous studies and ?before and after? comparisons provide very conservative minimums. These include a 10 percent reduction in absenteeism (20-30 percent is closer to the average impact experienced), a 10 percent reduction in energy costs (due to the elimination of the biofilm on the heat exchange coils) and reduction in maintenance costs for keeping heat exchange coils clean. This does not take into account other intangible benefits such as corporate image, employee health, staff morale and the increase in productivity for employees who would otherwise become sick but still come to work.
The effectiveness of UVC: a visual demonstration
The photographs below are contact plates that were pressed against the heat exchange coils in the air handling system of an operating room in a UK hospital. After five days, the contact plate on the left (before the installation of UVC) shows a ?healthy? growth of organisms. By contrast, after five days, the contact plate on the right (after the installation of UVC) shows no visible growth.
As an example of the potential return, we recently modeled a solution for a building in London housing 5,000 people. The initial outlay was ?83K for 5,000 people (or about ?17 per employee) and the predicted savings by reducing the absenteeism by 10 percent (half of what we think would have really occurred) was ?854K (or about ?171 per employee). Adding the savings from increased energy efficiency and reduced maintenance costs (cleaning of heat exchange coils) makes it an even more attractive investment.
That type of payback, together with the protection from disaster due to a pandemic or bioterror attack, makes this a very attractive option.
Author: Hillary Spicer is managing director ? E-CO - www.e-co.uk.com
Applying IT strategy to protecting people
On a day-to-day level communicable diseases can have a significant impact on operations. In a pandemic outbreak the impact will be a real threat to business continuity. In this article Hillary Spicer explains how similar thinking to IT system protection can be used to reduce building occupants? exposure to communicable diseases.
External (and internal) threats to IT systems are well recognised by risk management professionals and chief information officers. Extensive resources are devoted to dealing with such threats. Firewalls and sophisticated software to detect and prevent viruses, spyware, malware, Trojans and intrusion are inevitably used. A great deal of effort is devoted to implementing policies which will minimise the risk to companies? critical systems from being compromised. We do this because we recognise the potentially crippling effect of compromised IT systems.
Real versus metaphoric viruses
There are external and internal threats which compromise another of our assets; our people - and their health, motivation, productivity and absenteeism. What?s more, in real but extreme circumstances, they threaten our employees? ability to continue business operations.
In this instance, we are not talking about metaphoric computer viruses but the real thing ? real viruses and other harmful biological organisms. These already impact business operations and performance but this impact is largely invisible because it is not tracked and no one is accountable for addressing the problem. In the current scenario, the impact is ?merely? debilitating and is largely a business operations matter, but in the not-too-distant future it could well become a business continuity and risk management threat.
An illustration
Have you ever been on a plane trip and caught a cold or worse? It is generally accepted that you have a 20 percent chance of catching an infection on a plane, with the primary culprit being the aircraft?s air conditioning and heating system, which re-circulates the cabin air. To illustrate this point, airlines have stopped serving nuts in the aircraft cabin because it was discovered that microscopic nut particles were finding their way into the air conditioning system, thus re-circulating them to all passengers. Doesn?t sound a problem for most but if you are allergic to nuts and prone to anaphylactic shock, it can be a fatal issue.
This principle holds in a large commercial office. The air handling system, which is used to heat and cool air, re-circulates up to 90 percent of the air in the building, with pressure to re-circulate more and more internal air in order to save energy costs. Some building engineers do install carbon dioxide (CO2) meters in order to make sure that the CO2 level is not high enough to impact the health of inhabitants. Other than this, there is limited understanding of the impact on employee health and performance.
How many times have you heard people say that an infection ?swept through the office?? Employees exacerbate this problem because it is considered admirable to come to work when sick. This behaviour may reflect a personal sacrifice and an admirable personal trait, but when you consider the propensity for that sickness to spread throughout the office, it is in reality counter-productive.
The office building?s ?Internet? for spreading viruses
The standard office system for handling the circulation (and re-circulation) and treatment of air is ideal for transmitting viruses, bacteria and other harmful organisms to everyone in the company. It is also ideal for cultivating, multiplying and then distributing some of these harmful organisms. Moisture condenses on the heat exchange coils of air conditioning units. Bacteria and spores passing through the system adhere to the internal surfaces. The dark moist environment is ideal for cultivation of the organisms, some of which can then be released in greater quantities into the re-circulating air.
This was recognised by The Brooking Institute which, after 9/11, was asked to identify potential terrorist targets for US Homeland Security. They concluded that the air intake systems of most buildings are ?an Achilles' heel for this nation?. They recognised that the building?s a/c and ducts are very effective highways for delivering harmful organisms to thousands of individuals.
Cultivating organisms on the heat exchange coils
Below is a photograph of a contact plate which had been pressed against the biofilm on the heat exchange coils in an office building air handling system. The contact plate contains a medium which is designed to culture bio-organisms and is commonly used to detect the presence and type of bacteria and mould spores. This photograph was taken after 7 days.
So, we have inadvertently created a very efficient distribution system for infectious diseases and for materials (including mould spores) which cause illness due to asthma and allergic reactions.
This carries a significant cost (see the section at the end of the article on this hidden cost) but may not be considered a ?risk management? issue in the sense of interrupting business continuity.
However, we are all aware of the potential risks (both to life and to business continuity) associated with pandemics or bioterror attacks. This same air distribution system would be equally efficient in spreading the pandemic or bioterror organisms ? ensuring that (almost) all employees would be susceptible to the threat. The anticipated response to a pandemic or bioterror threat is to shut down the air handling system. This is a response akin to ?shutting the barn door after the horse has gone?. By the time you detect that there is something wrong, it?s too late.
The threat of spreading mould spores throughout the building is another potentially serious outcome. The presence of mould in buildings, together with the serious health threat that it can pose, has led to some ruinous damage awards in the United States. Toxic mould claims are being litigated in the USA in the same way as asbestos was in the UK in the 1980s with the average commercial settlement being around $1 million.
While that may be less likely in the UK, a series of toxic mould claims ending in the designation of a large office building as having ?sick building syndrome? would seriously disrupt operations.
What about filters?
Yes, all air handling systems have filters but they are primarily designed to protect the air handling equipment rather than filter out materials harmful to humans. These filters only eliminate about 1 percent of indoor pollutants and simply allow bacteria, viruses and spores to pass through easily. Even the installation of the finest filters (for example, a HEPA C filter) are ineffectual against viruses because they measure .027 micron against the capability of HEPA to only intercept microbials down to 0.3 microns. In any event, HEPA C filters are impractical, since the energy used to force the air through the filter would make it very expensive in terms of a significant extra energy overhead (to say nothing of the cost of installing upgraded equipment to make the required air pressure possible).
A ?firewall? for microbiological threats
Fortunately, there is a relatively simple solution resulting from new ways of applying an old and proven technology. Moreover, as an insurance policy against virtually any biological and pandemic risk, it also increases profitability and provides a healthy ROI even if neither of these threats materialise.
Niels Ryberg Finsen discovered ultraviolet C light waves that are present between visible light (UVA & UVB) and X-Rays. He proved that UVC destroyed ALL viruses, bacteria and mould regardless of strain and for this he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904. One result is that UVC light has been widely used in sewage treatment plants for the last 50 years. So, why not apply it to air handling systems to provide a ?firewall? for harmful organisms?
This is more difficult than applying the technology to water purification because the air in a building air handling system is moving at about 2.5 metres/second and until recently, the UVC germicidal waves generated were not strong enough to kill the pathogens in a single pass. Also, the air coming from an air conditioning system is, by definition, cold and again the germicidal properties of UVC drop off with colder temperatures. It wasn?t until about 14 years ago that a company in California, Steril Aire, developed a UVC system that overcame these problems. The way this system works is illustrated below.
Figure 1: The UVC ?Firewall? Preventing Transmission of Infectious Diseases
Figure 2: The UVC Lighting Arrays
These drawings illustrate how the pathogens that are generated by a cough are killed by the UVC light, which is a powerful germicide that has the added benefit of being effective regardless of the strain of virus or bacteria. This is very important as each year a new strain of influenza requires a new vaccine to be developed, UVC doesn?t work like this: it will be effective against any strain of flu. This provides the firewall in the air handling system and prevents the pathogens from being circulated (and re-circulated) throughout the building. Surfaces, filters and cooling coils inside the air handling system are also disinfected by the UVC lighting arrays installed at strategic points within the system.
This would apply equally to viruses resulting from a pandemic or bioterror attack, whether the source was inside or outside the building.
I have to emphasise that, though implementation of UVC is extremely effective for those in the office building in a pandemic or bioterror attack, it is not a complete solution. There are other components of a total solution that must be considered in protecting employees when *outside* of the building.
Why isn?t UVC widely used?
That?s a good question, given the impact of the UVC solution on profitability through employee health, productivity, reduction in absenteeism and reductions in energy cost which we have already discussed.
The answer is that there is no logical function within the typical organisation that is accountable for fixing the issues identified above. The building engineers are responsible for the air handling system but are only measured on its operating status and effectiveness and, other than very basic and imprecise criteria, not on the quality of the end product delivered to building inhabitants ? the air. Human resource management would probably be a logical candidate for accountability for employee health, productivity and absenteeism but are not aware of the connection between those factors and building air handling systems.
Risk management: a responsibility and an opportunity
While accountability for the current debilitating effects induced by the re-circulation of building air may be hard to pin down, the responsibility for responding to a pandemic or bioterror attack rests squarely with the Risk management or business continuity professionals.
Just as you would have no hesitation in recommending the installation of an IT firewall and anti-virus precautions (should IT have neglected their responsibilities in this area), the installation of a similar type of barrier to the pathogens contained in bioterror or pandemic threats seems an obvious step.
Moreover, since the installation is simple, the cost is comparatively small and the ROI is exceptional, it?s a recommendation that is likely to bring a round of applause rather than a round of groans. In fact, a chief executive would probably welcome an opportunity to significantly improve profitability this easily, while gaining kudos for providing employees with a healthier work environment and reducing exposure to business interruption.
Throughout this article, we have referred to the impact that the current design of the air handling system has on employees and the business. This comes at a significant cost. While it is difficult to forecast exact numbers for any specific building and occupants, numerous studies and ?before and after? comparisons provide very conservative minimums. These include a 10 percent reduction in absenteeism (20-30 percent is closer to the average impact experienced), a 10 percent reduction in energy costs (due to the elimination of the biofilm on the heat exchange coils) and reduction in maintenance costs for keeping heat exchange coils clean. This does not take into account other intangible benefits such as corporate image, employee health, staff morale and the increase in productivity for employees who would otherwise become sick but still come to work.
The effectiveness of UVC: a visual demonstration
The photographs below are contact plates that were pressed against the heat exchange coils in the air handling system of an operating room in a UK hospital. After five days, the contact plate on the left (before the installation of UVC) shows a ?healthy? growth of organisms. By contrast, after five days, the contact plate on the right (after the installation of UVC) shows no visible growth.
As an example of the potential return, we recently modeled a solution for a building in London housing 5,000 people. The initial outlay was ?83K for 5,000 people (or about ?17 per employee) and the predicted savings by reducing the absenteeism by 10 percent (half of what we think would have really occurred) was ?854K (or about ?171 per employee). Adding the savings from increased energy efficiency and reduced maintenance costs (cleaning of heat exchange coils) makes it an even more attractive investment.
That type of payback, together with the protection from disaster due to a pandemic or bioterror attack, makes this a very attractive option.
Author: Hillary Spicer is managing director ? E-CO - www.e-co.uk.com