The document discusses a research project called Gooddee2ds that explored a participatory approach to developing a web application to help building users reduce energy consumption. A user group consisting of lay and expert building users from Leicester City Council provided input over 18 months. Findings showed that the user group approach helped foster knowledge sharing and relationships. However, attitudes towards smartphone and social media use varied depending on job roles and needs. The recommendations emphasize tailoring solutions to different user contexts and ensuring trust and security.

1. Dr Richard Bull
Dr. Graeme Stuart
Dave Everitt + M
Lemon & P Fleming
Digitally Engaging and Empowering
Employees for Energy Demand
Reduction: A New Approach for the
Next Generation?

2. The challenge of energy in non-domestic
buildings
• Approx 40% energy consumption/35% CO2
• More complex – in terms of building
type/agency/control/ethics/organizational culture
• UK and EU Policy context – Energy and
Performance Buildings Directive (2008) putting faith in
Building Performance Certificates (EPCs & DECs)
• Increasing research and interest in digital economy
and ICT based solutions, e.g visualisation of data and
SMART/Intelligent Buildings

3. Digital economy is more than just controls &
dashboards . . .
“Our electronic
networks are enabling
novel forms of collective
action, enabling the
creation of collaborative
groups that are larger
and more distributed
than any other time”
Clay Shirky

4. “When citizens become
involved in working out
a mutually acceptable
solution to a project or
problem that affects
their community and
their personal lives, they
mature into responsible
democratic citizens and
reaffirm democracy”
Tom Webler et al
. . . & behaviour change is more
than information provision . . .

5. Gooddee2ds: Research context and
methodology
• 18 months funding from the UK Engineering and Physical
Science Research Council - Digital Economy ‘Research in the
Wild’ (The ‘wild’ was Leicester City Council)
• Aim of Gooddee2ds: to explore a participatory approach to the
development of a web-application to help building-users reduce
energy consumption in non-domestic buildings.
• Approach:
• 5 meetings with a user-group of ‘lay & expert’ building users
• Issued with iPhones
• Development of an ICT-based ‘reporting tool’ based on user-input to
encourage participation.
• Ongoing monthly meetings with users.
• Findings from this paper are based on a focus-group with the
user-group (with insights from recent interviews)

6. The
user-group.
Note to self. The
formation of this group
was not easy!
Note to self. E.g. The formation
of this group was not easy!

9. The Gooddee2ds responsive webapp

10. Research findings (1): user-group
approach
• Putting faces to names
• We don’t have a lot of contact with other city council departments
about this kind of thing. What I actually find quite useful here is the
fact that if we can report something we get a named person who will
become responsible for it, and also as part of this user group . . . I’ve
met them now. (M4)
• Knowledge sharing
• The library assistant (F1) for example said she hoped to “find out more
about how this energy, power and everything is worked out . . . and to
look at how we can reduce wastage”.
• This was echoed by the energy services team leader (M5): Having a
group that shares knowledge is always important . . . there isn’t one
good way of doing a particular thing, and therefore sharing what’s
around the table is the whole idea.
• “But with the user group as a whole I think there wasn’t a problem
having the different age groups because I think that helped us get the
understanding of different people’s views, so that was a good thing I
suppose” (R003)

11. Research findings (2a): social media &
smart-phone use
• User-group had limited knowledge of social media
• Usage affected by roles, and the type and size of
buildings in which they work, some felt that whilst they
may engage with the forthcoming Gooddeeds app they
would not use their smartphones to do so. For example:
• I probably won’t use the phone. If I’ve got the website up, then I
might well use it, but it’s not that big a building. I don’t carry my
phone around with me when I’m in the building. If I have something
I want to report on it . . . I’ll go and use the computer. (M4)
• I’ve never been very active on the phone for using these things. I
would say I was more active on the computer. Most probably it’s
the nature of my work. I’m mainly around the desk, therefore more
likely to use that. (M5)

12. • Many participants were desk-bound with access to a
computer and less need of smart phone technology.
• Some did however appreciate the ability to take
photographs and then send and receive via email or
social media. For example,
• “I must admit I have sent some photographs through
Gmail and things like that to contractors”. (M2)
• “I take a photo on my phone and I’ll send it by email to
people. The good thing for me with this is that I don’t
have to go to the site now”. (M3)
Research findings (2b): social media &
smart-phone use

13. Conclusions: implications for energy
and non-domestic buildings
• The user-group all expressed benefits of meeting people - ‘putting
faces to names’.
• But divided over the benefits and opportunities of smartphones &
social media– variations due to job role and background.
• All seemed cautious about the public nature of social media and the
potential for complaints and abuse.
• ‘No- one size fits all’ solution within a diverse portfolio of building
types, functions and sizes.
• Organisational and cultural barriers – especially in local authorities.
• Cost cutting/redundancies
• A focus on delivering core services and value for money
• Increased sub-contracting of facilities management and separating energy services &
property managament.

14. Recommendations
1. Conducting monthly user-groups can play a key role in engaging employees
and connecting them to the environmental aspects of their workspaces and
other users.
2. Membership should include all parties involved in the building (that is, those
with formal responsibilities and those without) and be conducted at a time and
place convenient to all.
3. Building users are more concerned with comfort, rather than ‘energy’ –
users experience comfort (and discomfort) in multiple ways within a single
building. Solutions and applications must factor in these variations and be ‘fit
for purpose’.
4. Applications and solutions should be available on both personal computer
and mobile devices to accommodate different patterns.
5. Trust and security issues are a concern for organisations. Bespoke social
media applications may be preferable to Twitter and Facebook in order to
ensure security.

15. Questions . . .(& further reading)
• Bull, R., Irvine, K., Rieser, M., Fleming, P (2013). Are people the problem or the
solution? A critical look at the rise of the smart/intelligent building and the role of
ICT enabled engagement. ECEEE Summer Study Conference Proceedings
2013, pp. 1135-1145; 5A-079-13
• Stuart, G., Wilson, C., Bull, R. and Irvine, K. (2013) Designing live energy
performance feedback for public buildings in Leicester. ECEEE Summer Study
Proceedings, 3-257-13
• Bull, R., Brown N., & Faruk, F. (2011) Findings from the DUALL Project: lessons
in engaging building users in energy reduction in a UK University. ECEEE 2011
Summer Study: Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon society.
• Bull, R., J. Petts, et al. (2008). "Social Learning from Public Engagement:
Dreaming the impossible?" Journal of Environmental Management and Planning
51(5): 703-718.
• Contact: rbull@dmu.ac.uk
• Twitter: @richbull
• http://greenview.dmu.ac.uk/good-deeds