The first term I have chosen to post about is Master Plan. According ro greenriver.edu, they state that the Master Plan is updated every two years two reflect the companies and facilities funding decisions. After every two years, a major re-evaluation takes place and it is important to keep the Master Plan updated so they know if they have sufficient funds a particular project. I think the Master Plan is definiately a positive in advancement for facility design. The Master Plan may also be referred to as a mini blueprint in my opinion. If a company is up-to-date on its Master Plan, and funds are where they should be, then rennovations and design can easily take place without any problems and it may show a positive sign for the company as a whole that they are on the right track, doing positive things for their respective company.
The second term I chose was the 50% rule. According to staeblerappraisal.com, they talk about the 50% rule as a rule or statement made by FEMA that if damage from a fire, storm, etc. does not exceed 50% the building will be oreder for repair. If it is dtermined more than 50% of the building needs fixed then the building will most likely be ordered to be terminated. They continue ot go into detail about some controversy that may arrise if a company thinks damage does not exceed 50%, but they state that in the long run, FEMA’s decision usually stands firm.
I do not think the 50% rule is a positive advancement for facility design. I say this because I think it is just too controversial. Too many companies would argu that their building damage does not exceed 50%, and they have the right to do so, and some of the time they may be correct. I do not think it is fair to let FEMA decide the outcome of a companies building, as more people should be involved in the decision making process. I think there could be more and better options that would be more positive for future facility design advancement that could eliminate this sill rule.
