The document discusses the rise of smart and intelligent buildings and the role of information and communication technologies (ICT) in enabling user engagement. It defines smart buildings as those that integrate systems to effectively manage resources and maximize technical performance, costs savings, and flexibility. However, critics argue that buildings are often designed with a techno-centric focus rather than prioritizing user goals. The document suggests that innovation is needed in tools that offer increased user participation and collaboration in building management. It questions whether providing users with more information will change their behaviors and if users want greater control of their buildings. Further research is needed to apply themes of co-creation and participation within the built environment.

1. 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
Richard Bull
Kate Irvine
Martin Rieser
Paul Fleming

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/09/shard-hacking-group-sneak-building
CONTENTS
•Digital economy in energy &
buildings
•The digital economy
explored further
•Links with public
engagement theory
•An example from DMU
•Final thoughts

3. The rise of the smart/intelligent
building (1) - definitions
• The Intelligent Building
Institution in Washington: “one
which integrates various systems
to effectively manage resources
in a coordinated mode to
maximise: technical performance;
investment and operating cost
savings; flexibility” (Clements
Croombe 1997:396).
• The European Intelligent
Building Energy Group defined
an intelligent building as one that
creates an environment that
‘maximises the effectiveness of
the building’s occupants’.
• CIBSE: six key attributes to
intelligent buildings:
1. Connectivity
2. Holistic thinking
3. Systems
4. Social, economic,
environmental values
5. Convergence
6. Ubiquitous networks /
cities

4. The rise of the smart/intelligent
building (2) - critics
• “An intelligent building has generally been defined in terms
of its technologies, rather than in terms of the goals of the
organisations which occupy it” (Clements Croombe (1997:398).
• Kroner (1997) echoed this same perspective . . . “designers
continue to build essentially static buildings that are
centrally controlled systems, unable to be fine tuned by
individual users, and often produce environments of
moderate quality that can leave a large percentage of the
occupants dissatisfied and sometimes even ill” (1997:385).

6. The rise of the smart/intelligent
building (3) user-feedback
If ‘they’ have the right
information ‘they’ will
change behaviour . . . ?
If ‘they’ have the right
information ‘they’ will
change behaviour . . . ?

7. http://www.previewnetworks.com/blo
g/social-media-stay-10/

8. “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

9. “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

10. Parallels with the public
engagement/risk communication
literatureFigure 3: Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen
participation (Arnstein, 1969)
Figure 4: The new e-ladder of participation (cited in
Ferro and Molinari (2010)

12. Where next?
• Original conceptions of smart or intelligent buildings envisaged buildings that
would 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 tools
that offer increased engagement and participation so that building users can
collaborate, share knowledge and mitigate some of the errors inherent in the
solely technical approach. It may involve re-shaping the effectiveness of public
services through changing the relationship between building energy
managers and building users.
• Of course the obvious question is this – do building-users want greater
control of their buildings?
• Further research is needed to substantiate whether these themes of co-
creation and participation can be effectively applied within the built
environment and deliver on the promises contained in the literature.

13. Questions
(e) rbull@dmu.ac.uk
(t) @richbull
(w) greenview.dmu.ac.uk