Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Deeper Levels of Occupant Engagement to Ensure Energy Savings and Productivity/Health Improvements

Presentation at the 8/26/2015 Kansas City Energy Summit: From Benchmarking to Retrofits. The productivity/health benefits resulting from sustainable improvements to facilities and their operations typically outweigh the associated building operational savings, often substantially. Research has also demonstrated a correlation between energy/operational performance and productivity/health – improving one often improves the other. All else being equal, when a high performance facility’s design and operations is aligned with occupant needs, it’s more likely to have comfortable, satisfied and healthy occupants. Such occupants are more likely to embrace sustainable building and policy improvements, and less likely to act in their own interest to meet their needs at the expense of building operations. But true alignment of design, operations and/or behavior based programs (including specific energy conservation measures) with occupant needs and behaviors requires a deeper level of occupant engagement than we often see. The presenter, referencing case studies, will discuss the what and how of specific occupant engagement methods (from surveys to participant observation) that can be performed as part of the benchmarking process to help ensure any improvements made are best aligned with a specific facility’s occupant population

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Deeper Levels of Occupant Engagement to Ensure Energy Savings and Productivity/Health Improvements

  1. 1. MARCEL HARMON, PhD, PE, LEED‐AP O+M  senior associate applied anthropologist Deeper Levels of Occupant Engagement to Ensure Energy Savings & Productivity/Health Improvements Photo Rights:
  2. 2. SYNOPSIS SETTING THE STAGE: Facility performance and occupant satisfaction, productivity and health often have  significant room for improvement, with the latter having a greater financial impact  than the former. Both are typically correlated with one another and are dependent  largely on how well building design/operations is aligned with occupant needs.  COST OF MISALIGNMENT: Examples of the cost of misalignment and why it occurs. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT: Overview of an alignment methodology, focusing on occupant engagement methods.
  3. 3. SETTING THE STAGE The Senate Hearing Got a Little Chilly‐senate‐hearing‐got‐a‐little‐chilly_news
  4. 4. 50% ‐ 80% The percentage of high performance  buildings with actual energy consumption  meeting/exceeding predicted consumption. Sources:  Burman, E., D. Mumovic, and J. Kimpian. 2014. Towards measurement and verification of  energy performance under the framework of the European directive for energy  performance of buildings. Energy: 77(1):153–163. Carbon Trust. Closing the Gap – Lessons Learned on Realising the Potential of Low Carbon  Building Design. Carbon Trust, London.  Pegg, A. C., M. Kolokotroni. 2007. Post‐Occupancy Performance of Five Low‐Energy Schools in  the UK . ASHRAE Transactions, 113 (Part 2). Turner, C. and M. Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings.  Report Prepared by New Buildings Institute for the U.S. Green Building Council. SETTING THE STAGE
  5. 5. 11%  Percentage of buildings* where 80% or  more of the occupants were satisfied  with their thermal comfort. *Results of over 34,000 survey responses to air quality and thermal comfort questions in 215  buildings in US, Canada, and Finland. Source:  Huizenga, C., S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus and E. Arens . 2006. Air Quality and Thermal  Comfort in Office Buildings: Results of a Large Indoor Environmental Quality Survey.  Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, Volume III, 393‐397.  SETTING THE STAGE
  6. 6. Sources:  Cotts, D.G., The Facility Management Handbook, Second Edition, 1999 Sapp, D. Facilities Operations & Maintenance. Updated by the Facilities O&M Committee.  Last updated: 11‐09‐2011.  92% 6%2% Life Cycle Costs of a Facility Salaries of Occupants Costs of O&M Original Design & Construction SETTING THE STAGE
  7. 7. $300‐$600/sf: Average annual  cost for personnel $20/sf: Average annual  cost for facilities $2.50/sf: Average annual  cost for energy Source: Hodges, C. P. IFMA’s How‐To Guide Highlight: Getting Started on the Path to Sustainable  Facility Management. IFMA’s World Workplace 2010 Conference & Expo.‐ content/uploads/2012/09/IFMAs‐How‐To‐Guide‐Highlight‐Getting‐Started‐on‐the‐Path‐to‐ Sustainable‐Facility‐Management.pdf.  SETTING THE STAGE
  8. 8. SETTING THE STAGE Correlation of  Building  Performance  w/ Occupant  Experience: Comparison of  EUI Ratios to  Temperature  Responses
  10. 10. • Being cold is the # 1 complaint. • Personal space heaters  used to gain control over  space temperature.  • Additional electrical load  estimated at $14,000 ‐ $26,600  annually. Space Heater Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Brooklyn, NY  COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  11. 11. • Thermal comfort conflicts: Estimated to equate to an  annual loss of $69,000 in productivity. Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Brooklyn, NY  COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  12. 12. Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post Office & Courthouse  50%+ of courthouse  side occupants  experienced occupancy  sensor problems & lack  personal lighting control Spending an average of  5 minutes per day  dealing with occupancy  sensor issues Wasted Time: Costing  $120,000+ Lack of Personal  Control: Costing  $900,000+ COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  13. 13. ECM Estimated  Total  Implementation  Costs $9,167,000 ECM Estimated  Annual Energy  Savings $872,000 ECM Estimated  Annual  Productivity  Savings $3,570,000 Simple Payback  (Energy Only) 10.5 yrs Simple Payback  (Energy +  Productivity) 2.1 yrs Conrad Duberstein U.S.  Courthouse and Post Office’s  Energy Conservation  Measure (ECM) Total Cost  and Estimated Payback Photo Rights: Cervin Robinson, Richard McElhiney Architects LLC COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  14. 14. New Mexico Elementary School Personal Control, Occupant Inertia & Ease of Blind Control Access COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  15. 15. COST OF MISALIGNMENT Solar tube dome Solar tube diffuser in classroom with dampers closed. All others in classroom were open. “One of my lights [Solar tubes] keep[s] rotating and that is a big distraction in the classroom.” System complexity misaligned with owner capabilities, resources & training
  16. 16. 16.0 36.1 45.4 35.5 31.8 32.1 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Design (energy model) Actual 2012‐ 2013 Average Building Target Finder 75 Rating Peer Group Baseline Low Peer Group Baseline High EUI COST OF MISALIGNMENT Actual compared to Design, Target Finder & Peer Group
  17. 17. View Access vs. No View Access • Up to 25% Good Quality Daylighting  vs. No Daylighting • Up to 20%: math • Up to 26%: reading Reducing Background Noise • Up to 10% (memory; accuracy) Reducing Thermal Discomfort • Up to 10% IAQ Improvements • 5%+ Reduction in Sick Days Personal Environmental Control • 7.1% Lighting • 1.8% Ventilation • 1.2% Temperature Sources Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. (2003). Windows and offices: a study of student  performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission:  Sacramento, California. Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into  the Relationship Between Daylight and Human Performance. Report submitted  to Pacific Gas and Electric. http://www.h‐m‐  Sykes, D. M. (2004). Productivity: How Acoustics Affect Workers’ Performance In  Offices & Open Areas. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from Office Sound Masking  Solutions, by Speech Privacy Systems.  Seppänen, O., W. J. Fisk, and Q. H. Lei. 2006. Effect of Temperature on Task  Performance in Office Environment. Publication No. LBNL‐60946. Lawrence  Berkeley National Laboratory , Berkeley, CA. Wargocki, P. and O. Seppänen,  editors. 2006. Indoor Climate and Productivity  in Offices, Guidebook No. 6. Rehva (Federation of European Heating and Air‐ Conditioning Associations), Brussels, Belgium. Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, “Apparently Size Doesn’t Matter: Two Illinois  School Districts Show Successful IAQ Management.” School Health Watch,  Summer 2003.‐ summer_HSC‐newsletter.pdf. Also see: US Environmental Protection Agency.  “IAQ Tools for Schools,” December 2000 (Second Edition). Available at:  Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman, 2003. The Costs and  Financial Benefits of Green Building: A Report to California’s Sustainable  Building Task Force.  COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  18. 18. Good Quality Daylighting  vs. No Daylighting • 0%+ to 40% increase in sales Certified green buildings vs.  conventional code‐compliant  unrated office buildings • Building sale prices increase up to 30% • Rent price rates increase up to 25% • Occupancy rates increase up to 23% Plug Loads • Account for up to 50%+  electricity consumed Supply Chain • Up to 80% of a retailer’s  carbon footprint Sources Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Skylighting and Retail Sales. An  investigation into the relationship between daylight and human  performance.  Detailed Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Fair  Oaks , CA. http://h‐m‐ Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. (2003). Daylight and Retail Sales: Technical  Report. California Energy Commission: Sacramento, California. http://h‐ m‐‐5_Daylgt_Retail_2.3.7.pdf . Boyce, P. (2004). Reviews of Technical Reports on Daylight and  Productivity. Lighting Research Center, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute.  World Green Building Council (2013). The Business Case for Green  Building: A Review of the Costs and Benefits for Developers, Investors  and Occupants. n_Building_Report_WEB_2013‐04‐11.pdf.  NREL (2013). How‐To Guides for Plug and Process Load Reduction ‐ For  Office.  NREL (2013). How‐To Guides for Plug and Process Load Reduction ‐ For  Retail.  Ceres (2010). The 21st Century Corporation: The Ceres Roadmap to  Sustainability.‐roadmap‐ to‐sustainability‐2010 COST OF MISALIGNMENT
  20. 20. EAM MODEL: For Building & Occupant Alignment Evaluate Background Data (HR & Building) Engage Bldg Population (Interview, Observe, & Survey)  Facility Evaluation (Space Measurements & FTPs;  O&M Engagement) Align Social (Behavior Nudging,  Organization Policy  Modifications) Physical (Facility, O&M Modifications) Monitor Metrics (Energy and Water; Survey  Results; Productivity and  Health) Evaluation Plan (Frequency; Records and  Engagement) Address Issues © Copyright 2011 M.E. GROUP, Inc. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  22. 22. 14% 43% 16% 41% 6% 74% 9% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Hot & Cold Variation Cool/Cold Warm/Hot Comfortable Hot & Cold Variation Cool/Cold Warm/Hot Comfortable Men's Responses Women's Responses Survey responses – percentage of each gender’s responses IMPROVING ALIGNMENT Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, Brooklyn, NY  Surveys provide part of the picture; in this case inequity
  23. 23. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 # Approximate location of small group activities plus  the # of students engaged in those activities. Teacher/Staff: “Our limitations on space impact almost every aspect of our programming  and potential for any flexibility in scheduling and grouping.  In addition, our limited space  makes community gatherings a challenge.” Interviews & observations provide more
  24. 24. Context • Understanding the facility, O&M  and occupants in their natural  environment: • Go to the occupants and O&M • Observe daily activities where they  normally occur • Interview occupants and O&M while  they are working IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  25. 25. Context • Discover details and intricacies of occupant behavior,  O&M processes, and interactions among  occupants/O&M and with the facility itself. • What people say they do and what they actually do  are often two different things. • Helps to jog occupant and O&M memory. • Helps you embrace occupant perspective  (and let go of your own). Image from  Portigal Consulting Presentation,  2010. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  26. 26. Observations: Things to look for when  conducting formal and impromptu observations – Physical work space details – Work flow, including intentions, tasks and sequences – Tools/equipment/supplies used – locations, commonly  vs. rarely used, etc. – Validation or non‐validation of design elements IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  27. 27. Calm your chattering monkey mind Interviews: Keys to Listening • Focus. Give the interviewee all of your attention;  acknowledge what they’re communicating IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  29. 29. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT Technology Indoor Environment Quality Maintenance & IT IssuesMaintenance & IT Issues Improve/Maintain AestheticsImprove/Maintain Aesthetics Improve PlaygroundImprove Playground Organization Mission Technology Infrastructure Inadequacy Space Size & Flexibility Thermal DiscomfortThermal Discomfort Collaboration & Small GroupCollaboration & Small Group Poor Indoor Air QualityPoor Indoor Air Quality Lack of Temp ControlLack of Temp Control Glare or Brightness Problems Desire/ Appreciation for Operable Windows Desire/Appreciation for Daylighting Dislike Fluorescent Lighting Other Lighting Control Issues Audibility & Noise Issues & Desired Changes Plumbing Issues & Desired Changes Need Additional Restrooms Improving Athletic Fields/FacilitiesImproving Athletic Fields/Facilities Improving Traffic Flow & Parking Improving Traffic Flow & Parking Lack of StorageLack of Storage Class Size (# of Students)Class Size (# of Students) Wayfinding Problems Health ConcernsHealth Concerns Desire for Multi- Levels of Lighting Additional Training Needed More Communication Amongst Stakeholders More Communication Amongst Stakeholders Concern W/ Direction Being TakenConcern W/ Direction Being Taken Like Small School/ Community Feel Like Small School/ Community Feel Approval of Direction Being TakenApproval of Direction Being Taken Student Centered Technology Not Only Answer Safety & Security Concerns
  30. 30. New Mexico High School IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  32. 32. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT Rank PEM Description Initial  Capital  Cost Annual  Labor/  Service  Cost Energy  Savings Maintenance  Savings Satisfaction,  Productivity &  Health  Benefits Water  Savings Time to  Implement Disruption  of Facilities Desire  Among Key  Stakeholders Payback 1 Resetting and  Recalibrating  Thermostat  Temperature  Setpoints ☺ ☺☺☺ 2 Evaluate Work  Order Process ☺ ☺☺☺ 3 Develop Formal  Plan for Storage  and Disposal ☺ ☺☺ 4 Renew  Maintenance  Contract $$ $$ ☺☺ ☺☺☺ 5 Add (1)  Maintenance Staff  Position $$ $$ ☺ ☺☺☺ 6 Relocate Smart  Boards $ ☺ ☺☺☺ 7 Training $ $ ☺☺ ☺ Missouri School District Performance Enhancement Measure (PEM) Matrix
  33. 33. EAM MODEL: For Building & Occupant Alignment Evaluate Background Data (HR & Building) Engage Bldg Population (Interview, Observe, & Survey)  Facility Evaluation (Space Measurements & FTPs;  O&M Engagement) Align Social (Behavior Nudging,  Organization Policy  Modifications) Physical (Facility, O&M Modifications) Monitor Metrics (Energy and Water; Survey  Results; Productivity and  Health) Evaluation Plan (Frequency; Records and  Engagement) Address Issues © Copyright 2011 M.E. GROUP, Inc. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT
  34. 34. IMPROVING ALIGNMENT POE L1 POE L3 POE L2 • Brief occupant survey • Energy bill analysis • Field Interviews • Walk‐through • Ethnography + more extensive surveys • Diagnostic monitoring • Detailed economic analysis • Development of PEMs • Project development review • Implementation management • Focus groups/workshops • Post implementation verification
  35. 35. Questions?