In practice, the extent of the role of the commissioning engineer is often far wider than most people realise.
They are generally also expected to get a 'system up and running' and to fault-find installation errors also. Added to this is often determination of fire zones, allocation of device descriptions on addressable systems and writing cause and effect programmes.
In theory, the BS commissioning recommendations cover none of the above and the expectation is that the commissioning engineer arrives to just test and inspect a fully working system that has been properly designed and installed and these disciplines properly certificated. It is always a battle with the installer as to what 'commissioning' means. There is the British Standard interpretation and then the system designer's and the system installer's interpretation!
Whilst going about his various duties the commissioning engineer can normally very quickly ascertain a good idea of the standard of design and installation but he certainly does not have time, and it is not at all practical, for him/her to check every part of the installation and certainly most of what is not 'on show'. Even if the commissioning engineer has time to stick his head above a ceiling tile and check that fire alarm system cables are properly run and clipped in the ceiling void in one or two places this still isn't any indication that they have been in the remaining 99.9% of the system.
If there is going to be such a thing as an 'installation certificate' surely it is this that must take precedence in confirming the standard of the installation rather than the system commissioning certificate. Surely most people's interpretation of the word commissioning means something more along the lines of ' ensuring a system is working correctly' rather than ensuring the 'system is built properly'?
