Smart Building Integration: The Commissioning Gap

The Handover Reality

^{Practical completion marks the transition from construction to operations. Contractors hand over. Tenants move in.

For smart building technologies, this moment often exposes a fundamental gap: individual systems work, but they don't work together.

The access control system functions. The lifts operate. The BMS runs. Each contractor has tested their scope. But the visitor who badges at the lobby turnstile doesn't get a lift called to their floor. The after-hours access that should disarm the security zone doesn't. The lighting override that should trigger extended HVAC runtime has no effect.

These aren't equipment defects. They're integration gaps—sitting at contract boundaries where no single contractor has clear ownership, and where compressed construction programs leave issues unresolved.

We see this on almost every project we review after handover. The building reaches practical completion. The integration doesn't.}

Why Integration Falls Through the Gaps

^{The problem is often structural.}^{Fragmented contracts.}^{Separate contractors deliver BMS, security, lighting, AV, vertical transport, and metering. Each is responsible for their system. Integration points sit between contracts—where accountability is weakest.}^{Specifications that assume rather than define.}^{Design documentation describes integration intent without specifying who delivers it, how it's tested, or what acceptance looks like. "Access control shall interface with destination lift control" doesn't define protocols, middleware responsibility, or testing criteria.}^{No integration owner.}^{Individual contractors commission their equipment. But end-to-end integration—verifying that systems exchange data correctly and user journeys function as designed—often has no clear owner. It falls between everyone's scope.
‍}^{Practical completion pressure.}^{Projects have commercial pressure to reach certification. Integration issues that don't prevent handover get deferred—with vague commitments to "resolve during tuning" that rarely materialise.}

‍

What Gets Handed Over

^{At practical completion, buildings routinely inherit integration deficiencies we've seen repeatedly.}^{Access and lifts.}^{Credentials work at turnstiles but don't trigger lift calls. Visitor credentials don't propagate from reception to lift systems. After-hours lift access requires manual workarounds.}^{Access and security.}^{After-hours entry doesn't disarm zones correctly. CCTV doesn't call up on access events. Security modes don't cascade across systems.}^{BMS and lighting.}^{Occupancy data doesn't flow between systems. After-hours overrides don't extend HVAC. Schedules aren't synchronised.}^{Base building and tenant.}^{Tenant credentials don't synchronise with base building. Landlord and tenant BMS operate as islands. The "seamless experience" promised to tenants doesn't exist.}^{Metering and analytics.}^{Data doesn't flow to head-end systems. Gaps exist from day one. Analytics platforms have nothing to analyse.}

The Operational Burden

^{Facilities teams and tenants absorb the consequences for years.}^{Workarounds become normal.}^{Security manually calls lifts for visitors. Reception phones tenants because notifications don't work. Facilities staff adjust schedules manually because systems don't talk. These workarounds consume time and become embedded in operations.}^{Contractor finger-pointing.}^{When issues emerge, each contractor points elsewhere. The lift contractor says credentials aren't sent correctly. Access control says the lift system doesn't respond. Without clear integration ownership, diagnosis becomes expensive and protracted.}^{Defects that don't close.}^{Integration items land on defects lists but require multiple contractors to coordinate. Responsibility is disputed. Items linger until defects liability expires—unresolved.}^{Tenant experience suffers.}^{Premium buildings with premium rents should deliver seamless experiences. When integration doesn't work, tenant confidence erodes. Technology becomes a frustration rather than an amenity.}

Getting Involved Early Makes the Difference

^{Most integration problems are preventable—but only if addressed during design and construction, not after handover.}^{During design development.}^{An experienced smart building advisor reviews specifications for integration gaps and ambiguities. We've seen countless projects where integration was described in general terms but never detailed—protocols undefined, middleware unassigned, testing unspecified. Identifying these gaps during design costs a fraction of resolving them post-handover.}^{During procurement.}^{Integration scope needs explicit assignment in tender documentation. Which contractor owns the middleware? Who commissions end-to-end functionality? What are the acceptance criteria? Without clear contractual allocation, integration falls between the gaps by default.}^{During construction.}^{Independent oversight during commissioning verifies integration before practical completion—not after. Witnessing scenario-based testing, identifying gaps while contractors are still mobilised, and requiring resolution before certification prevents issues transferring to operations.}^{At practical completion.}^{Integration verification should be a condition of handover—not an afterthought. We've worked with clients to define integration acceptance criteria that contractors must demonstrate before certification proceeds.

The cost of early advisory involvement is modest compared to the operational burden of inherited integration failures. A few days of specialist input during design can prevent years of workarounds, complaints, and contractor disputes.}

Practical Steps for Building Owners

^{Engage smart building advisory early.}^{Don't wait until systems are installed to think about integration. Involve specialists during design to review specifications, identify gaps, and ensure integration is explicitly scoped and assigned.}^{Specify integration outcomes, not just systems.}^{Define what integrated functionality looks like—visitor arrives and receives lift call automatically, after-hours access disarms correct zones, tenant credentials work across base building and tenancy. Make outcomes contractually required.}^{Assign integration responsibility clearly.}^{Someone must own the spaces between systems—whether a principal contractor obligation, a specialist integrator, or an owner's representative. Ambiguity guarantees gaps.}^{Require scenario-based testing.}^{Specify integrated functional testing based on real operational workflows—not just component verification. These scenarios reveal integration failures that individual system testing cannot.}^{Budget for post-occupancy tuning.}^{Accept that some issues only emerge during actual operation. Build contractor obligations for integration support into contracts beyond practical completion.}

How Datafied Helps

^{We've sat in handover meetings where integration doesn't work. We've helped facilities teams diagnose problems they inherited. We've spent months coordinating contractors to resolve issues that should have been addressed before practical completion.

That experience is why we advocate for early involvement.

We work with developers, owners, and project teams during design and construction—reviewing specifications for integration gaps, ensuring commissioning requirements are explicit, and providing independent oversight during testing. Our goal is to prevent integration failures from reaching operations, not remediate them afterwards.

For buildings already in operation, we diagnose inherited integration deficiencies, specify remediation, and coordinate resolution. But prevention is always more effective—and far less expensive—than cure.}^{Planning a smart building project? Dealing with integration issues post-handover? Get in touch.}