Improving Organizational Productivity with Building Automation Systems. CABA IIBC Webinar 10 July 2015

Transcription

1 Improving Organizational Productivity with Building Automation Systems CABA IIBC Webinar 10 July 2015

2 About CABA CABA accelerates growth in the connected home and intelligent buildings sectors. The Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) is an international not-for profit industry association dedicated to the advancement of connected home and building technologies. The organization is supported by an international membership of over 400 organizations involved in the design, manufacturing, installation and retailing of products relating to the Internet of Things for connected homes and intelligent buildings Continental Automated Buildings Association. All rights reserved.

3 CABA Board of Directors 3 Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) 1173 Cyrville Road, Suite 210, Ottawa, ON K1J 7S6 Toll free: CABA (2222) CABA@CABA.org Continental Automated Buildings Association. All rights reserved.

4 About this Project» The CABA Intelligent & Integrated Buildings Council (IIBC) has commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to lead study a groundbreaking research initiative on Improving Organizational Productivity with Building Automation Systems.» This is a collaborative research project which is broken down into 3 phases.» This is a large $150,000 - $200,000 research project that you will be able to join for only $15k Continental Automated Buildings Association. All rights reserved.

5 Pressures on natural resources Climate change and the environment Growing health care pressures Increasingly complex security challenges Changing sense of communities Economic growth and sustainability National Research Council Canada since 1916 $894.4Million budget Over 3,500 employees Global reach work with firms from North America and elsewhere Unique multidisciplinary approach Activities span the full range of technology sectors 5

6 NRC s unique value proposition Working with industry to realize market opportunities timely solutions to complex multidisciplinary problems develop and validate technology shorten time to market speed technology adoption Unique research infrastructure & associated expertise Trusted 3 rd party analysis and evaluation 6

7 Enhancing Organizational Productivity What is it? How do buildings affect it? How do we measure it? CABA and WGBC reports 7

8 What is Organizational Productivity? Output $ / Input $ Multiple KPIs on both sides of the equation Salaries Recruiting Training Energy Raw Materials Machinery Computers $ HVAC, Lighting Real Estate Customer Support... Task Design & Performance Process Design Management Practices... $ Employee Behaviour Marketing $ Competition Economic conditions... Revenue $ 8

9 The Cost of Work People cost more than buildings by all estimates Staff 82% 3% Maintenance & Operations Equipment & Training 10% 5% Building & Furnishings Brill, M., Weidemann, S., & BOSTI Associates. (2001). Disproving myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International. 9

10 Paths to BAS Benefits Lower energy costs, reduced maintenance, flexibility BAS Improved organizational productivity Better environmental conditions & greater responsiveness Healthier, happier, more effective people 10

11 NRC s Track Record on Organizational Productivity Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments: laboratory and field investigations linked workstation design, physical conditions, and job satisfaction Lighting Controls: a series of laboratory and field investigations of individual dimming control of workstation lighting: energy savings and occupant benefits Green Buildings Post-occupancy Evaluation: energy savings and occupant benefits Example results on following slides 11

12 Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments 12

13 Environmental Conditions for Value Enhancement Charles, K. E., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Marquardt, C. J. G., & Geerts, J. (2006). Satisfaction with ventilation in openplan offices: COPE field findings. In E. de Oliveira Fernandes, M. Gameiro da Silva & J. Rosado Pinto (Eds.), Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006: Creating a healthy indoor environment for people (Vol. 2, pp ). Lisboa, Portugal: International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate. 13

14 Environmental Conditions for Cost Reducers Direct-indirect lighting with individual control: Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Arsenault, C. D. (2010). Lighting and office renovation effects on employee and organizational well-being (NRC-IRC Research Report RR-306). Ottawa, ON: NRC Institute for Research in Construction 14

15 Environmental Conditions for Value Enhancement Veitch, J. A., Stokkermans, M. G. M., & Newsham, Guy R. (2013). Linking lighting appraisals to work behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 45(2),

16 Post-occupancy Evaluation of Green Buildings Green vs. conventional office buildings (N=24) crosssectional study Four sources of data from each building: On-line questionnaire: environmental satisfaction, job satisfaction, health, absenteeism, environmental attitudes, commuting patterns (N=2545) On-site measurements of physical environment (N=974) Interview with building manager: operational issues Energy data: whole building, sub-systems (if available) Newsham, G. R., Birt, B. J., Arsenault, C. D., Thompson, A. J. L., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S.,... Burns, G. J. (2013). Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research & Information, 41(4), doi: /

17 Green vs Conventional Example Result 17

18 Green Buildings POE Results Outcome Ranks Sum of Ranks Z p Mean Rating Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Green Conv. OES Sat_VT Workplace Image Sleep Quality at Night Affect Balance Green buildings score more highly on: aesthetic appearance, view; size of personal workspace; noise from HVAC systems; ventilation & temperature; preferred change in thermal conditions; frequency of thermal adaptive behaviours; workplace image; sleep quality at night (lower scores are better); positive mood; visual and physical discomfort frequency Conventional buildings were not better on any outcome 18

19 Tracking BAS Effects: The BAS-Organizational Productivity Scorecard Building Organizational Productivity Label Per Building Current Score This Month % of Our Target Value Environmental Satisfaction 6 70% Job Satisfaction % Health Ratings 7 55% Staff Commitment 4 50% Absenteeism (absence days per 100 employees) 10 10% Business Unit Performance 5 55% Customer Satisfaction 5 Financial Outcomes 5 Environmental Conditions 8 70% Average particulate count (µg m -3 ) 6 Average ventilation rate (air changes per hour) 6 Average temperature ( C) 22 Average articulation index.5 Energy Use (kwhr/m 2 ) % Lighting 65 Heating, Cooling and Ventilation 105 Water 15 IT 13 Plug loads 50 Responsiveness % Number of complaints (monthly) 3 Average response time (days) 2 Industry Norm Organizations choose categories depending on their priorities Enables ongoing monitoring of benefits and fine-tuning systems 19

20 Next Steps Transform the intelligent integrated buildings industry by demonstrating intelligent building technologies produce organizational productivity gains in addition to energy savings Demonstrate these gains are realized via improvements in indoor environment conditions, and monetize them to show they have value equivalent to other corporate programs 20

21 Phased approach Phase 1 (cost & duration typical of CABA boutique projects) Better building choices: enable decision-makers to evaluate benefits Productivity metrics and building-level benchmark tool Phase 2 (~1 year) Define building characteristics: smart building {BIQ}, green building, granular control, personal control, lighting type, etc. Productivity metrics in terms of building characteristics, one vertical Phase 3 (~2 years) Define physical conditions, mechanisms, and functionality: enabling specifications and partners to monetize specific upgrades Productivity metrics in terms of building functionality & environmental conditions, one vertical 21

22 Phase 1: Better building choices Based on CABA White Paper scorecard Improving Organizational Productivity with Building Automation Systems Enable decision-makers to: benchmark their building against others on multiple organizational productivity metrics evaluate benefits of building choices (e.g. advanced BAS) Quantify and value relatively Partners can monetize with case-specific knowledge Method: Synthesis of existing data 22

23 Phase 1: Approach to valuing Simple example of an organizational productivity metric: Energy Studies show green buildings, on average, save 25% Building owner can apply building specific costs to estimate the building specific value, with the expectation of this average benefit 23

24 Phase 1: Approach to valuing More challenging example of an organizational productivity metric: Absenteeism Extract benchmark data from the literature Days/person/yr study buildings within the vertical other vertical-specific buildings other buildings 24

25 Phase 1: Approach to valuing Project provides paths of equivalent value for reduced absenteeism For example: 1 day/yr/person can be achieved with: Upgraded BAS, or Workplace flu shots Subsidized gym memberships Attendance bonuses, etc. Absenteeism, like energy, has a known context-specific multiplier obtainable from a number of sources, which partners can apply And so on, for other organizational productivity metrics Analogy is to energy savings and equivalent number of cars taken off the road 25

26 Phase 1: Approach to valuing Impacts are not independent and not strictly additive Project provides averages for planning purposes Project partners, or their consultants, can use project data and guidance to make decisions, and go to monetization on their side at their discretion 26

27 Phase 2: Productivity defined by building characteristics Focus on a particular industry (e.g. financial) Partners provide data Correlate rich data set Phase 1 metrics (multiple metrics from the same set of buildings) Building characteristics (e.g. green, BIQ, ) Organizational productivity metrics defined in terms of building characteristics Results in a more granular decision-making tool than Phase 1, increased accuracy and ability to monetize 27

28 Phase 3: Productivity defined by environmental conditions Partners choose target vertical(s) Multiple buildings evaluated to NRC protocol Detailed on-site physical measurements Lighting (levels, spectrum, etc.), IAQ (VOC, CO2, etc.), noise, etc. On-site technology & functionality (BAS type, integration level, etc.) Primary data for metrics of interest Productivity metrics in terms of building functionality & environmental conditions, key vertical(s) Defines mechanisms by which better systems lead to organizational productivity gains Basis for spec writing, design targets, and manufacturer differentiation Possible monetization at a granular level (e.g. DALI) 28

29 Summary Proposed CABA project provides a validated framework to estimate economic benefit of investments in smart building technologies Balance of reduced costs and increased value of outputs Basis for corporate decision-making Basis for product specification and differentiation Never been done before Transformational for the industry Express interest by contacting CABA to participate in Phase 1 of this approved boutique research project 29

30 Partnership Phase 1 Phase 1 Seeking at least 10 partners each contributing $15k Project scope will depend on the total participation Phases run in series, so sponsors only get the work they pay for, and they have the chance to upgrade before the next phase starts

31 Next steps Technical questions may be addressed to NRC: Dr. Jennifer Veitch, Dr. Alexandra Thompson, Expressions of interest should be addressed to Greg Walker, Research Director at CABA, by July 31 Telephone x227 31

32 Thank you Trevor R. T. Nightingale, Ph.D. Program Lead, High-performance Buildings Tel:

33 Selected Bibliography Available from NRC Charles, K. E., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Marquardt, C. J. G., & Geerts, J. (2006). Satisfaction with ventilation in open-plan offices: COPE field findings. In E. de Oliveira Fernandes, M. Gameiro da Silva & J. Rosado Pinto (Eds.), Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006: Creating a healthy indoor environment for people (Vol. 2, pp ). Lisboa, Portugal: International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Galasiu, A. D., Newsham, G. R., Suvagau, C., & Sander, D. M. (2007). Energy saving lighting control systems for open-plan offices: a field study. Leukos, 4(1), Leder, S., Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S., & Charles, K. E. (2015). Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: a new analysis. Building Research & Information, in press. doi: / Newsham, G. R., & Birt, B. J. (2010). Demand-responsive lighting - A field study. Leukos, 6(3), Newsham, G. R., Birt, B. J., Arsenault, C. D., Thompson, A. J. L., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S.,... Burns, G. J. (2013). Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research & Information, 41(4), doi: / Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Birt, B. J. (2009). Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but... Energy and Buildings, 41(8), Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., & Charles, K. E. (2008). Risk factors for dissatisfaction with the indoor environment in open-plan offices: An analysis of COPE field study data. Indoor Air, 18(4), Thompson, A. J. L., Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2014). Improving organizational productivity with building automation systems Ottawa, ON: Continental Automated Buildings Association. Retrieved from Veitch, J. A., Charles, K. E., Farley, K. M. J., & Newsham, G. R. (2007). A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Arsenault, C. D. (2010). Lighting and office renovation effects on employee and organizational well-being (NRC-IRC RR-306). Ottawa, ON: NRC Institute for Research in Construction. Veitch, J. A., Stokkermans, M. G. M., & Newsham, G. R. (2013). Linking lighting appraisals to work behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 45(2), doi: /