A peer review is a valuable tool in the design process of any project, including Vertical Transportation systems such as lifts and escalators. Sometimes buildings are installed with Vertical Transportation systems that do not meet the requirements or expectations of their intended use. This may include a Vertical Transportation system that is unreliable, unsafe, or non-compliant, therefore exposing the owner of the plant to litigation. This has led to the state of New South Wales making it law to have a design practitioner involved at the design stage of the project.
It is important that Vertical Transportation systems are designed to be fit for purpose, as they play a critical role in ensuring the safety and accessibility of buildings for all users. If a Vertical Transportation system is not fit for purpose, it may pose a risk to users and may be subject to repair, modification, or even replacement.
With an in-depth knowledge of all things concerning Vertical Transportation, TLC can identify any potential problems early on or risks that may not have been apparent to the original design team. Identifying any areas where the design may be incomplete, incorrect, or inadequate is an important part of our peer review process.
Our review will ensure that all necessary components and features are included, that the design is accurate and consistent, and that it meets the requirements and expectations of the project. If any issues or deficiencies are identified, we shall recommend alternatives or improvements to address these issues and ensure that the design is fit for its intended purpose.
Some of our key objectives when performing a Vertical Transportation peer review include but are not limited to:
Improved Quality and Fit for Purpose
Ensuring that the design adheres to all relevant laws, regulations, and industry standards, such as building codes, safety codes, and performance standards. Identify any areas where the design may be incomplete, incorrect, or inadequate and recommend alternatives or improvements.
Review the design to ensure that it is appropriate for the intended use, that it is safe and reliable, and that it can be implemented within the constraints of the project.
Enhanced Safety and Compliance
Identify potential safety or compliance issues in the design and provide recommendations for addressing them. This can help reduce the risk of accidents and injuries associated with the use of the Vertical Transportation system or any litigation.
Increased Efficiency
Identify opportunities for improving the efficiency of the design, such as by reducing energy consumption or increasing the speed of the system. This can be achieved through various means, such as using energy-efficient motors, optimising the control system, or installing energy-saving lighting and other equipment.
Investigate opportunities for increasing the speed of the system. This can be done through various means, such as using a high-speed motor, optimising the control system, or improving the design of the system to reduce travel time.
Explore the possibility of increasing the load capacity of the system. This can improve efficiency by reducing wait times and increasing the number of users that can be served in a given time period.
What a peer review is
An independent technical read of work someone else has produced: a specification, a design, a condition report, a scope of works, a traffic study, a recommendation to replace or modernise. The question is not whether we would have written it the same way. It is whether it is technically sound, whether it says what it needs to say, and whether the conclusions follow from the evidence in it.
When it is worth commissioning
- A large recommendation is on the table and the committee or board wants a second opinion before committing.
- A report has arrived from the party who will also carry out the work it recommends.
- Two advisers disagree and somebody has to decide.
- A specification is about to go to tender and the owner wants to know it will produce comparable prices.
- A claim, a dispute or a legal matter turns on a technical document.
- An internal team has produced good work and would like it checked by someone outside the building.
How we report
We say where we agree as readily as where we do not, and we are specific about which. A review that finds nothing wrong is a legitimate and useful outcome, and we will not manufacture criticism to justify a fee. Where we do disagree, we set out what the document says, why we take a different view, what the practical consequence is, and what we would recommend instead.
We also distinguish between three different kinds of finding, because they carry very different weight: something that is technically incorrect, something that is defensible but which we would have done differently, and something that is simply missing.
What we look at
For a specification: whether it can be priced by more than one supplier, whether the outcome is defined well enough to be tested at handover, and what it says about ongoing maintainability and diagnostic access. For a condition report: whether the findings are supported by what was actually inspected and measured, and whether the recommendations follow. For a traffic or sizing study: whether the assumptions about population and demand are stated, reasonable and consistent with how the building is used. For a modernisation or replacement recommendation: whether the alternatives were genuinely examined, and whether the do-nothing case was costed honestly.
What you receive
A written review that can be circulated to a committee or attached to a decision paper, structured so the reader can see at a glance what was checked, what stands and what does not. Where the matter may end up in a dispute, it is written with that in mind.