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.

Eceee 2013 r bull


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Eceee 2013 r bull

  1. 1. Are people the problem or thesolution: a critical look at the riseof the smart/intelligent buildingand the role of ICT enabledengagementRichard BullKate IrvineMartin RieserPaul Fleming
  2. 2.•Digital economy in energy &buildings•The digital economyexplored further•Links with publicengagement theory•An example from DMU•Final thoughts
  3. 3. The rise of the smart/intelligentbuilding (1) - definitions• The Intelligent BuildingInstitution in Washington: “onewhich integrates various systemsto effectively manage resourcesin a coordinated mode tomaximise: technical performance;investment and operating costsavings; flexibility” (ClementsCroombe 1997:396).• The European IntelligentBuilding Energy Group definedan intelligent building as one thatcreates an environment that‘maximises the effectiveness ofthe building’s occupants’.• CIBSE: six key attributes tointelligent buildings:1. Connectivity2. Holistic thinking3. Systems4. Social, economic,environmental values5. Convergence6. Ubiquitous networks /cities
  4. 4. The rise of the smart/intelligentbuilding (2) - critics• “An intelligent building has generally been defined in termsof its technologies, rather than in terms of the goals of theorganisations which occupy it” (Clements Croombe (1997:398).• Kroner (1997) echoed this same perspective . . . “designerscontinue to build essentially static buildings that arecentrally controlled systems, unable to be fine tuned byindividual users, and often produce environments ofmoderate quality that can leave a large percentage of theoccupants dissatisfied and sometimes even ill” (1997:385).
  5. 5. The rise of the smart/intelligentbuilding (3) user-feedbackIf ‘they’ have the rightinformation ‘they’ willchange behaviour . . . ?If ‘they’ have the rightinformation ‘they’ willchange behaviour . . . ?
  6. 6.
  7. 7. “Our electronic networks areenabling novel forms of collectiveaction, enabling the creation ofcollaborative groups that arelarger and more distributed thanany other time”Clay Shirky
  8. 8. “When citizens become involved inworking out a mutually acceptablesolution to a project or problem thataffects their community and theirpersonal lives, they mature intoresponsible democratic citizens andreaffirm democracy”Tom Webler et al
  9. 9. Parallels with the publicengagement/risk communicationliteratureFigure 3: Eight rungs on the ladder of citizenparticipation (Arnstein, 1969)Figure 4: The new e-ladder of participation (cited inFerro and Molinari (2010)
  10. 10. Where next?• Original conceptions of smart or intelligent buildings envisaged buildings thatwould take into account the preferences and experiences of the building-users, yet a techno-centric approach has tended to dominate.• Innovation is required not just in advanced controls but in affordable toolsthat offer increased engagement and participation so that building users cancollaborate, share knowledge and mitigate some of the errors inherent in thesolely technical approach. It may involve re-shaping the effectiveness of publicservices through changing the relationship between building energymanagers and building users.• Of course the obvious question is this – do building-users want greatercontrol of their buildings?• Further research is needed to substantiate whether these themes of co-creation and participation can be effectively applied within the builtenvironment and deliver on the promises contained in the literature.
  11. 11. Questions(e) @richbull(w)