Towards an energy management maturity model

Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Towards an energy management maturity model Pedro Antunes a, Paulo Carreira a,b,n, Miguel Mira da Silva b a b

INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol, 9, 1000-029 Lisboa, Portugal Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Doutor Aníbal Cavaco Silva, 2744-016 Porto Salvo, Portugal

H I G H L I G H T S


Real-world energy management activities are not aligned with the literature.
An Energy Management Maturity Model is proposed to overcome this alignment gap.
The completeness and relevance of proposed model are validated.

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 20 January 2014 Received in revised form 12 April 2014 Accepted 9 June 2014 Available online 2 July 2014

Energy management is becoming a priority as organizations strive to reduce energy costs, conform to regulatory requirements, and improve their corporate image. Despite the upsurge of interest in energy management standards, a gap persists between energy management literature and current implementation practices. This gap can be traced to the lack of an incremental improvement roadmap. In this paper we propose an Energy Management Maturity Model that can be used to guide organizations in their energy management implementation efforts to incrementally achieve compliance with energy management standards such as ISO 50001. The proposed maturity model is inspired on the Plan-DoCheck-Act cycle approach for continual improvement, and covers well-understood fundamental energy management activities common across energy management texts. The completeness of our proposal is then evaluated by establishing an ontology mapping against ISO 50001. & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Energy management Maturity model ISO 50001

1. Introduction Energy management has been defined as the systematic use of management and technology to improve an organization's energy performance (CarbonTrust, 2011) or, in academic research, as the control, monitoring and improvement activities for energy efficiency (Bunse et al., 2011). Regardless of definition, the topic has become of utmost importance for organizations worldwide, many of which are currently deploying energy management solutions to improve their energy use, to comply with legislation, energy standards and their requirements, and to enhance the organization's reputation among customers. By implementing energy management programs, organizations can save up to 20% on their energy bill, and can also achieve savings up to 5%–10%

n Corresponding author at: Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Doutor Aníbal Cavaco Silva, 2744-016 Porto Salvo, Portugal. Tel.: þ 351 21 310 0300. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Antunes), [email protected] (P. Carreira), [email protected] (M. Mira da Silva).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.011 0301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

with minimal investment, effectively cutting operational costs (CarbonTrust, 2011). Energy management and its associated practices vary greatly mainly because there is no well-understood energy management model, as evidenced by the disparity in the reviewed literature. As will be clear later, despite the existence of several guides to assist companies in implementing energy management activities (CarbonTrust, 2011; Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008), casestudies show that real-world implementations of energy management programs fail to cover the breadth of energy activities defined in these guides (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010). In summary, there is a gap between theory and real-world implementation practices of energy management that needs to be closed. This paper proposes and conducts a preliminary evaluation of an Energy Management Maturity Model, meant for energy managers in all kinds of organizations, that organizes the essential energy management activities across five maturity levels, therefore contributing to bridge the gap between theory and real-world practice. Overall, for an organization, an Energy Management Maturity Model will: (i) structure and improve the understanding

804

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

of energy management practices, (ii) provide a roadmap towards continuous improvement, (iii) provide an understanding of the steps required towards successful energy management, (iv) enable benchmarking the current energy practices against other organizations, and (v) guide investment efforts. According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Energy Management stands out as one of the top five areas that require the development and promotion of international standards. The adoption of a standard, such as the ISO 50001, increases energy efficiency by more than 20% in industrial facilities (Piñero, 2009). To further emphasize the relevance of this topic, a study made by Lawrence Berkeley National Labs about energy efficiency projects in the United States concluded that the total project spending in energy service companies, from 1990 to 2000, increased from US$500 million to US$2 billion (Van Gorp, 2004). Another study has identified that, out of the 3749 respondents, 85% state that energy management was very important to their organizations and 63% have actually invested in energy efficiency projects (IBE, 2012). Regarding legislation, for example, the EU has also established an energy improvement target of 20% by 2020 (Wesselink et al., 2010). Energy efficiency can be improved through investments in energy technologies and promoting energy management practices (Backlund et al., 2012). While energy management shares some common practices across the literature, there is still a great diversity in these practices: some activities are neglected while others are more common. For example, existing solutions for measurement, analysis and control of energy do not address all the requirements of energy management at the organization or process level because they do not adequately develop workforce awareness of the energy used in their business (Vikhorev et al., 2012). Some common energy management activities include ensuring management commitment, appointing individuals or teams responsible for energy management, defining energy policies and action plans, as well as reviewing implemented measures by management, or metering of energy use. In an analysis of the Swedish industrial energy efficiency programs (Thollander et al., 2007), energy audits allow a potential energy performance increase between 16 and 40% and an electricity savings potential between 20 and 60%, and have been identified as very important for the identification and implementation of cost-effective energy-efficiency opportunities (Shen et al., 2012). The approaches taken to implement such activities can vary greatly in terms of practices and technological sophistication: an organization might use energy-saving practices based on the experience of the facility manager and/or users, while another may employ a computerized Energy Management System, which is by definition a management system that provides a framework for managing and continually improving organizational policies, processes and procedures (Hipkiss, 2011). However, the use of these energy management systems is not a very commonly adopted practice (Molla et al., 2012). On one hand, the recently published ISO 50001 standard (ISO, 2011) enables organizations to establish energy management systems and processes necessary for energy performance improvement to reduce energy costs, greenhouse emissions and other environmental impacts. However, standards such as IS393 (SEAI, 2006), ANSI/MSE 2000 (ANSI, 2008), BS EN 16001 (BSi, 2009), and more recently ISO 50001 only define the requirements for organizations to establish, maintain, implement and improve energy management systems. These standards do not provide organizations with a model to assess their current situation against other organizations, except for a final certification, or allow them to plan their energy management implementation in an incremental way along an established improvement roadmap.

On the other hand, maturity models have been extensively studied and utilized in multiple engineering domains as an instrument for continuous improvement (Wendler, 2012). Following the success of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software (Paulk et al., 1993), there has been significant interest in this field across multiple areas, both from an academic and professional point of view. CMM has evolved into the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) with three separate models— CMMI-SVC, CMMI-DEV and CMMI-ACQ (CMMI Product Team, 2010b, 2010a; SEI, 2010), for providing services, product and service development, and product and service acquisition, respectively—that have been adopted by thousands of organizations worldwide. Maturity models can be used as a tool to assess the as-is situation of a company, derive and rank improvement measures, and control implementation progress (De Bruin et al., 2005). They consist of a sequence of maturity levels that represent a desired organizational evolution path, in which the initial maturity level represents a state that can be characterized by an organization having few capabilities in the chosen domain, while the highest maturity level represents a stage of total maturity (Becker et al., 2009). Maturity, in this case, can be defined as a metric to evaluate capabilities of an organization regarding a certain discipline. Advancing through this evolution path indicates that organizations are improving their capabilities step by step (Becker et al., 2010). According to a recent survey on maturity models, out of the 237 studied articles, only 3 efforts focused on the topic of sustainability (Wendler, 2012), showing that research regarding maturity models in the energy field is still at its inception. Up to now, no maturity model has been created specifically for energy management. However, maturity models have been created for Smart Grid implementation (SGMM Team, 2011) and for data center efficiency (Curry et al., 2012), which are related to this topic. Furthermore, the approach taken by international standards is different from the approach taken by maturity models. In order to reach compliance with a standard such as ISO 50001, organizations need to show evidence about every single defined requirement, in the form of a final certification. Maturity models have the same ultimate goal of process improvement but they establish several levels of organizational maturity as organizations increase their improvement efforts and implement the required processes at their own pace, providing them with an implementation roadmap not included in ISO standards. This paper starts by performing a literature review of several sources related to energy management (such as energy management systems, energy guides, and case studies), and also of sources related to maturity models. This literature review is then followed by a comparative analysis contrasting the current state of energy management in organizations, obtained from case studies, energy management guides and other energy management articles. This analysis then sustains the identification of a set of energy management activities that will be the basis for the proposed maturity model. The model is then evaluated for completeness by performing an ontology mapping to the requirements of ISO 50001 using Wand and Weber's method to identify ontological deficiencies.

2. Energy management The literature of interest identifying the significant activities in energy management comprises good practice guides for energy management, scientific articles, and texts covering energy management systems. The most relevant literature related to maturity models, some related to the topic of energy management, is also analyzed in this section.

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

2.1. Energy management guides Energy management guides have been published by several entities aiming at establishing a set of industry best practices. Two references that stand out are the energy management guide published by Carbon Trust in 2011 (CarbonTrust, 2011) and the Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) designed for small businesses (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008). The CarbonTrust guide prescribes the implementation of an energy management program, organized into the following steps: Initial review is the first step in which organizations assess their initial energy performance to understand how energy is being used and managed. This step will enable the understanding of how the core business and legislation requirements affect energy use. It requires benchmarking current energy performance by gathering and analyzing data. Senior management aims at engaging senior management in commitment the energy management process to ensure visibility across the organization, spurring the implementation of energy management and guaranteeing financial and human resources. Energy policy consists of establishing a firm basis for definition energy management aligned with the corporate vision. The energy policy must provide a clear definition of energy objectives and targets, ensure sufficient resources and the commitment to maintain an energy strategy. This step requires, among other, activities such as training staff, communicating and performing regular reviews. Energy strategy aims at equipping the organization with an definition instrument to achieve energy policy objectives. This strategy will define action plans and key activities to ensure that energy goals are met. The activities defined must support the energy policy, starting with organizational culture aspects, going through energy information, and ending on regulatory or financial aspects of investment and procurement. Management review reaffirms commitment by reviewing policies, objectives and action plans, redefining roles and responsibilities, and ensuring that systems and processes are being used.

The SEI guide also organizes the implementation of an energy management program according to five key steps: Commit is the step that ensures management commitment to the energy management program. This step is achieved by establishing the role of Energy Coordinator and creating an effective, manageable energy statement describing the program goals. Identify aims at discovering possible energy and cost savings based on the company's energy usage, the main areas of energy use, and energy bills. Plan describes an Energy Action Plan consisting of activities that set objectives and targets, assigning responsibilities for each objective.

805

Take consists of actual effort directed towards the impleaction mentation of the Energy Action Plan. Among other activities, this step consists of raising energy awareness inside the company and motivating staff to participate. Review aims at improving the energy management effort by continuously monitoring and comparing energy performance, undertaking a complete review of targets and progress towards achieving them. Both guides structure energy management practice according to five major steps. CarbonTrust starts with an initial review and then ensures management commitment, while the SEI guide starts with commitment. Both prescribe the identification of strategies and action plans, and some types of periodic review. Clearly, the approaches are extremely similar and, coarsely speaking, define the essential energy management activities. These approaches are in tune with the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle: they focus on the identification of the current situation of energy performance and establish a course of action, then implementing improvement measures, followed by the measurement of effectiveness, and finish with a review step to identify further improvement opportunities. This cycle has been adopted as the basis for several standards, good practice guides (such as ITIL) and maturity models. As such, the activities defined in these guides, which are extremely similar, provide organizations with a solid foundation for the continuous improvement of energy performance. 2.2. Scientific literature A limited number of scientific sources give an account of the activities that take place in the current energy management practice (Van Gorp, 2004; Dusi and Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010). Analyzing the few existing references, we find that many common activities are identified, but there are also some discrepancies between them. Table 1 presents the details that sustain this analysis. In addition, we have also found that several papers do not propose ‘essential’ energy management activities, such as the initial benchmarking of energy usage, defining objectives and targets, maintaining documentation, or planning for continuous improvement, among others. This validates our initial claim that essential energy management activities are still not well defined in the scientific literature. 2.3. Energy management systems Energy Management Systems (EMSs) are essential tools for energy management as they provide organizations with information that enables them to support better decisions, by monitoring and measuring energy consumption, modeling future energy consumption trends, and analyzing current costs. EMSs also enable organizations to automate several tasks, such as gathering meter and equipment status data and reporting key performance indicators regarding energy consumption to management. Without appropriate support by EMSs, organizations are not able to properly measure energy usage and monitor the effectiveness of their energy improvement measures. These systems can store massive quantities of data, and usually have two subsystems: alarming and data visualization (Seem, 2007). The functionalities of EMSs can be organized according to four main groups (Van Gorp, 2004): measurement and verification, energy use and cost analysis, benchmarking, and modeling and forecasting. Measurement and verification provides the ability to compare energy use before and after steps have been taken to address potential energy savings. Energy use and cost analysis enables

806

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Table 1 Comparison table of the energy management activities in all of the analyzed energy management texts, from good practice guides to case studies and other scientific articles (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008; CarbonTrust, 2011; Van Gorp, 2004; Dusi and Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010). Activities

SEI CarbonTrust Van Dusi Gorp and Schultz

Management commitment Create energy management roles Understand energy usage Benchmark current performance Identify opportunities Establish policy Define energy performance indicators Set objectives and targets Create action plan Assign responsibilities Prioritize investments Procurement Training Documentation Communicate results Allocate resources Regulatory compliance Metering, monitoring and analysis Management review Audit process Plan continuous improvement































Gonzalez et al.
















































































Coppinger




3. Maturity models






























The commitment of senior management appears as a crosscutting aspect required to ensure resources for promoting energy programs, and backing the creation of energy management roles. The communication of energy improvement results inside the organization as well as staff training is also considered relevant across most texts. Metering, monitoring and analysis is relevant across all the texts, and must be backed up by energy management systems. Overall, the functionalities of Energy Management Systems support activities of metering, monitoring and analysis, benchmarking, understanding energy usage, and assist in communicating the results of improvement actions, which can be framed into the Energy Strategy and Review steps prescribed by energy guides. The completeness and level of detail also varies across energy management texts. Some offer a more complete description of what are considered good energy management practices, such as the Carbon Trust guide. However, the analysis of case studies and scientific papers shows that organizations often do not follow all the activities in their implementation of energy efficiency programs, as evidenced by Table 1. Most importantly, no guide or paper explores how to implement energy management in an incremental way for all the activities.











organizations to analyze where and when energy is used, providing them a detailed breakdown of energy use and cost of equipment and processes, enabling organizations to better understand energy performance. Benchmarking gives organizations the ability to compare the energy consumption of their processes, buildings and equipment against each other and industry's best practices. The final functionality group, modeling and forecasting, enables organizations to create models of energy consumption according to different factors, allowing them to forecast how energy consumption will evolve. Organizations can then choose to take measures to correct that trend or to verify the success of energy management improvements. 2.4. Discussion Energy management activities are somewhat similar across energy management literature. Although there are no authoritative sources defining what are the essential energy management activities, all the analyzed literature points to the idea of performing initial reviews to understand how energy is being used and to establish a baseline of organizational energy performance. The creation of an energy policy and strategy is mostly established in good practice guides. Most texts also establish an action plan.

The main purpose of maturity models is to enable continuous improvement. Since the development of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1993 (Paulk et al., 1993), the popularity of maturity models has been increasing. Indeed, the adoption of maturity models has fuelled a great deal of academic interest (Becker et al., 2010) and their utilization is expected to continue increasing (Scott, 2007). Maturity models have helped organizations overcome the challenges of the need for cost cutting or quality improvement in the face of competitive pressure. They measure organizational maturity, which can be defined as a “measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization” (Lahrmann et al., 2011) of a specific domain based on defined rules, and have spread across several domains, from product development (CMMI Product Team, 2010a), services management (CMMI Product Team, 2010b) to data center energy efficiency (Curry et al., 2012) and other (Yin et al., 2011; Pereira and Mira da Silva, 2011). Maturity models typically define organizational maturity levels through a five-point Likert scale, with five being the highest level of maturity (De Bruin et al., 2005). They represent a theory of stage-based evolution, aiming at describing stages and maturation paths, as they are expected to disclose current and desirable maturity levels and to include improvement measures (Pöppelbuß and Röglinger, 2011). Moreover, maturity models are typically onedimensional, focusing either on process maturity, people capability or other objects maturity, with most maturity models focusing on a process perspective (Mettler and Rohner, 2009). Maturity levels refer to a set of processes that organizations must implement as part of a defined improvement path. As organizations rise in maturity level regarding a specific dimension of their activity, they will be operating more efficiently (Becker et al., 2010). Another important characteristic of maturity models is that they may have two types of representation: staged and continuous. According to the definition, a staged representation “(…)uses maturity levels to characterize the overall state of the organization's processes relative to the model as a whole” while the continuous approach “(…)uses capability levels to characterize the state of the organization's processes relative to an individual process area” (CMMI Product Team, 2010b). What this means in practice is that

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

807

efficiency measures, and (v) larger importance on addressing upfront costs instead of overhead energy costs. As previously mentioned, we can clearly see a gap between energy management efforts and implementation, which is supported by scientific literature. The energy efficiency gap, referring to the fact that energy improvement measures are not always implemented despite the need for increasing energy efficiency, is due to three categories of barriers: economic, behavioral and organizational (Rohdin et al., 2007). The first category (economic) describes barriers such as (i) hidden costs, which translates to collecting and analyzing information costs, (ii) limited access to capital, representing tight energy budgets that may affect the ability to invest in energy efficiency measures, and (iii) risk aversion, caused by fear of production disruption. Behavioral barriers refer to the lack of credibility and trust of information therefore impeding improvement efforts. Finally, factors such as organizational culture can be described as organizational barriers. There have been recent developments regarding energy management maturity models. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has reported some preliminary work on the Energy Management Maturity Model (O'Sullivan, 2012). Their research follows a different approach from our proposed model, as each process is assessed individually. Our model is based on a staged approach that provides a global vision of the main processes that an organization should implement for managing energy more efficiently.

organizations can decide which approach they want to take. Through the continuous approach, organizations choose the specific processes they want to improve upon, based on their business objectives, and improvement of independent process areas can happen at different rates. In the staged representation, the model provides a set of processes that establishes a defined proven path for improvement, which also facilitates benchmarking against other organizations. 3.1. Maturity model comparison Maturity Models can be compared according to a number of variables such as (i) its success, (ii) the approach (staged or continuous) taken by each model, (iii) the number of maturity levels the model uses, (iv) the scope or relevant area of application of each model, (v) the level of detail that the model provides regarding objectives and processes, and (vi) whether or not the maturity model has served as basis for other maturity models (Pereira and Mira da Silva, 2011). A comparison between several maturity models is depicted in Table 2, contrasting distinct proposals for maturity models according to these variables. Energy-related maturity models such as SGMM (SGMM Team, 2011) establish several requirements and activities that apply only to energy providers, while EMMM (O'Sullivan, 2012) does not have a staged representation and is still a work in progress that cannot be adequately studied. Thus, both analyzed energy related maturity models, SGMM and EMMM, are inadequate to serve as a basis for our Energy Management Maturity Model. Another maturity model, PMF for ITIL, establishes both representations but is focused on IT Services, and has a low level of detail with respect to the activities described. Moreover, it is unknown whether it has served as the basis for other maturity models. In contrast, CMMI-SVC addresses all the issues of PMF as it describes each process in a high level of detail, it is focused on services and is widely used across organizations. Therefore it can be used as a blueprint for a staged energy management maturity model, as we propose in this paper.

4. Proposal In this section we propose a maturity model for energy management which provides an easy-to-understand staged model that enables organizations to gradually adopt energy management practices, guiding them along a clearly defined roadmap and helping them reach compliance with energy management standards. Our Maturity Model is based on a representative set of welldefined and well-understood activities. However, as discussed previously, existing energy management guides share common activities but the implementation of energy management programs and efforts varies greatly. To obtain such a set of energy management activities we refer to the energy management literature analyzed in Section 2 as our basis. Table 3 details the activities on which our model is based, along with a mapping to the ones they were derived from. We will now detail the proposal for an Energy Management Maturity Model and its preliminary evaluation.

3.2. Opportunities for improvement Despite the fact that a large number of organizations are motivated to pursue energy efficiency and are informed in this matter, very few have the capabilities to actually implement energy efficiency measures or can actually demonstrate the results of their improvement actions (Chai and Yeo, 2012). Energy management efforts are frequently hindered by a number of factors (McKane et al., 2009) such as (i) lack of information, (ii) limited awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency measures, (iii) inadequate skills, (iv) cultural or financial constraints leading to investment in production capacity instead of energy

4.1. An energy management maturity model The energy management activities derived from the literature can be organized into five maturity levels following the

Table 2 Maturity model comparison of Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM), Energy Management Maturity Model (EMMM), CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) and Process Maturity Framework (PMF). Criteria

SGMM

EMMM

CMMI-SVC

PMF

Success Model representation Staged Continuous Number of maturity levels Staged Continuous Scope Detail Basis

Unknown

Unknown

High

Low

No Yes

No Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

N/A 0–5 Smart grid High Unknown

N/A 1–5 Energy management Unknown Unknown

1–5 0–3 Services High Unknown

1–5 1–5 IT Services Low Unknown

808

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Table 3 Mapping between the activities supporting our proposed energy management maturity model and the source activities from the analyzed literature (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008; CarbonTrust, 2011; Van Gorp, 2004; Dusi and Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010; CMMI Product Team, 2010b), and organized according to the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle.

Plan

Do

Check

Act

Proposed activity

Source activities

References

Ensure management commitment Establish energy management roles Assign responsibilities Energy review Benchmark current performance Identify improvement opportunities Establish energy policy Establish energy performance indicators Set objectives and targets Create action plan Check regulatory compliance

Management commitment Establish energy management roles SEI, CarbonTrust Understand energy usage Benchmark current performance Identify opportunities Establish policy Establish energy performance indicators Set objectives and targets Create action plan Regulatory compliance

SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, Coppinger SEI, CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, Coppinger SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Gonzalez et al., Coppinger CarbonTrust, Van Gorp SEI, CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al., Coppinger SEI, CarbonTrust CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al. SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVC CarbonTrust

Investment Procurement Training Communication Documentation

Prioritize investments Allocate resources Procurement Training Communicate results Documentation

SEI, CarbonTrust CarbonTrust CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVC SEI, CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVC SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVC

Metering, monitoring and analysis Program audit

Metering, monitoring and analysis Audit process

SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, Gonzalez et al., CMMI-SVC CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, Coppinger

Management review

Management review Plan continuous improvement

SEI, CarbonTrust CarbonTrust, Coppinger

Maturity

Maturity Level

Activities

1 - Initial stage 2 - Planning stage

Energy Management Maturity Model

Level 5 IMPROVEMENT

Level 4 MONITORING

Level 3 IMPLEMENTATION

Level 2 PLANNING

Level 1 INITIAL

Time

No defined activities Energy review Benchmark current performance Identify improvement opportunities Ensure management commitment Establish energy management roles Establish energy policy Set objectives and targets Establish energy performance indicators Create action plan Check regulatory compliance 3 - Implementation Investment stage Procurement Training Communication Documentation 4 - Monitoring stage Metering, monitoring and analysis Program audit 5 - Improvement stage Management review

Fig. 1. Proposed maturity model, with five levels of increasing maturity, representing the initial, planning, implementation, monitoring and improvement levels as depicted on the left side of the figure and an overview of the five levels of energy management, and their corresponding activities, as seen on the right side of the figure.

Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle framework on which most maturity models are based. In the five-level Energy Management Maturity Model shown in Fig. 1, the first maturity level, Initial, captures the starting stage of every organization. The next level, Planning, starts the cycle by grouping together activities that are considered as the first steps in energy management, when organizations merely understand their current situation and lay out improvement plans. The next level, Implementation, based on the ‘Do’ step, focuses on performing improvement measures. The following maturity level, Monitoring, aims for the ‘Check’ stage of the PDCA cycle. At this level, organizations engage in tracking the effectiveness of the measures implemented in

the previous level. Finally, the fifth maturity level, Improvement, is based on the ‘Act’ stage of the cycle, where organizations take action to continue further improvement or corrections. The activities that were included were the most relevant across the analyzed guides. However, our model was also inspired by CMMI, taking into account other activities that are deemed as good practice in CMMI. For example, CMMI process areas Work Planning, Supplier Agreement Management, Configuration Management, Measurement and Analysis and Organizational Training can be coarsely mapped to our ‘Create action plan’, ‘Procurement’, ‘Documentation’, ‘Metering, monitoring and analysis’ and ‘Training’ activities.

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

In particular, the maturity levels of our Energy Management Maturity Model and corresponding activities, shown in Fig. 1, are characterized as follows: Initial is characterized mostly by ad-hoc processes and efforts. Energy usage is not being monitored, senior management does not have defined policies or improvement goals, roles are not defined and energy efforts are not being regularly reviewed. In the Initial level of maturity, the success of energy management efforts depends on certain individuals and on their previous experience. Planning is the second maturity level that organizations can reach, representing a point where organizations are undertaking the first organizational efforts to understand energy usage: how is energy being consumed, how is it related to the core business, and how and what kind of external constraints, such as legislation, apply to energy efficiency. This is done by gathering and analyzing data to understand current energy performance in the organization, and creating a baseline for future comparison that will assist the identification of problematic areas where improvements can be made. The Planing level is defined by a number of activities such as:
An initial review, that uses measurement and monitoring data to (i) identify energy sources and assess past and present energy use, (ii) identify major areas of energy use by reviewing facilities, equipment, systems, processes and other factors that will play a part in energy use, (iii) create forecasts on future energy use and consumption and (iv) identify opportunities for improvement.
A commitment activity, where top management helps to define an energy policy and assign an energy manager role or team (Alam, 2012), promote energy management inside the organization, regularly review objectives and project status and provide the essential resources (human, financial, technological and others) to improve energy performance.
Laying out an Energy Policy, detailing the commitment to energy performance, ensuring the availability of the necessary resources, compliance with legislation, as well as regular and formal reviews. Energy Policy is a document that will also define goals, objectives, and performance indicators. An action plan is then created to establish how the organization

will achieve the proposed goals, and what actions are prioritized and assigned to individuals, with clear responsibilities, budgets and time. The Energy Policy also guides the organization in the procurement of energy related services, equipment and resources. Implementation is a maturity level that characterizes organizations where intentional action is being taken to overcome inefficiencies detected. The Implementation level defines activities required for the implementation of energy improvement measures, with procurement and investment also playing an important role. Without financial backing, projects and teams are unable to implement defined measures. Management needs to define an energy budget to ensure that efforts are not reduced or made impossible by direct competition against other internal departments. Energy procurement will invest these financial funds with suppliers that will ensure the achievement of policy goals. Training and communication are also important inside an organization at this point. Staff must be trained to understand energy management and acquire the required skills to understand the subject and work with energy management systems. Everyone inside the organization must also be aware of the benefits and goals of the proposed energy efficiency measures to promote user cooperation. Monitoring defines a maturity level where organizations actively and routinely collect, process and analyze energy data to ensure that the defined goals are met and to identify further improvement opportunities. Monitoring also provides management with reports on the success of energy management efforts. This assessment of measures taken is verified by the organizational program audit activity. Improvement is the final maturity level, where organizations ensure that taken measures are reviewed by senior management, and adjustments introduced in the previously defined energy policy, action plan roles, and objectives.

4.2. Implementation challenges Naturally, at each stage in the Energy Management Maturity Model, organizations face distinct challenges in their energy management efforts, as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Identified challenges across each maturity level that organizations face in energy management implementation efforts. Maturity level

Challenges

Initial Planning

N/A Getting top management approval and commitment Establishing relevant performance indicators Defining feasible and obtainable goals Staff support of energy policies Raising awareness of energy improvement Resources competition by other departments Ensuring systems can support data collection and analysis for established indicators Performing unbiased internal audits Providing necessary data to establish further improvement actions

Implementation

Monitoring Improvement

809

810

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

In the second maturity level, organizations must achieve management commitment and define goals and appropriate performance indicators. Without these, future energy management efforts will not be able to properly advance from the planning stages, as these steps will lay the foundation for improving performance, from ensuring financial resources and company awareness to establishing improvement goals and indicators, necessary for future measurement of performance. In the following maturity level, the awareness and support by the organization's staff is extremely important. Without this support, which has the underlying goal of changing organizational culture, energy improvement efforts will never be achieved. In the fourth maturity level, in order to measure the effectiveness of improvement efforts, energy management systems that are in place must support the collection of data and must be able to analyze it, so that results can be measured against previously defined goals and presented to top management. Finally, in the improvement maturity level, the management review activity cannot be properly executed without the necessary information. If senior management does not have access to complete information about energy performance, from previously defined goals and indicators to achieved results, they will not be able to define proper corrective measures.

5. Evaluation Our proposed Energy Management Maturity Model was evaluated for completeness and clarity by performing an ontology matching with the most recent energy management standard, ISO 50001. The quality of the correspondences of the mapping is then evaluated using the Wand and Weber method (Wand and Weber, 1993). 5.1. ISO 50001 The ISO 50001 standard (ISO, 2011) is the most recent energy management systems standard, also based on the Plan-Do-CheckAct (PDCA) continual improvement framework. ISO 50001 enables any kind of organization to improve energy performance, efficiency, use and consumption. Large organizations, from health care, aerospace, automotive and transportation product manufacturers, energy generation companies, and others have adopted continuous energy and quality improvement principles based on ISO 50001 (Ranky, 2012). Success stories concerning ISO 50001 abound. In a recent survey, it was mentioned that 75% of Turkish industrial organizations welcome ISO 50001 as the new energy management standard and 20% state that a standard is necessary for energy management (Ates and Durakbasa, 2012). Denmark, Sweden and Ireland are also transitioning towards ISO 50001 (Goldberg and Reinaud, 2012). Another case study has shown that the adoption of this standard has proved to increase energy use efficiency by 18.5% (Chiu et al., 2012). As of December 2012, ISO 50001 certification has only been achieved by approximately two thousand organizations, against roughly 300 thousand that have achieved ISO 14001 compliance, or approximately 1 million that have achieved ISO 9001 compliance. The number of ISO 50001 certifications, despite being several times smaller in comparison with the mentioned ISO standards, highlights the great growth potential for this international standard. ISO 50001 specifies several requirements (such as management commitment, effective monitoring, measurement and analysis of several variables and management review of the results) of an Energy Management System for organizations to develop and implement an energy policy, establish objectives, targets and

action plans. The six main requirements established in ISO 50001 are: Management whereby management displays commitresponsibility ment to energy management and supports continuous improvement in (i) creating an energy policy, (ii) appointing management roles, (iii) ensuring appropriate resources (human and financial), (iv) communicating the energy management importance to the organization, (v) defining energy objectives and targets and appropriate energy performance indicators, (vi) establishing a longterm plan for energy management, (vii) ensuring results are measured and reported and (viii) conducting management reviews. Energy policy that establishes how the organization will address energy management and improvement. Energy planning that establishes an energy review to analyze energy use, identifying problematic areas in terms of consumption and improvement opportunities and establishing an energy baseline for future comparison. The organization also needs to establish energy objectives and targets, as well as an action plan that defines how the targets will be achieved. Implementation consists of using the defined action plan and and operation providing training so that personnel has the necessary skills, communicating internally and externally about energy performance, and ensuring that proper documentation is created and maintained. Energy procurement and design of facilities and processes also need to take into account the energy policy and action plan. Checking effectiveness of action plans and significant energy uses that will determine energy performance by monitoring, metering and analysis of energy performance indicators. Management consists of periodic reviews of the energy review management system, resulting, if necessary, in changes to the energy policy, objectives and targets or allocation of resources.

5.2. ‘Mapping’ with ISO 50001 The mapping between our proposed maturity model and ISO 50001 aims at validating if the proposed model supports ISO standard activities. Regarding the Planning maturity level, the ISO ‘Energy review’ requirement defines the need to analyze and identify the areas of significant energy use and identify the opportunities to improve energy performance. This can be directly mapped to the activities ‘Energy review’ and ‘Identify improvement opportunities’ in our model, respectively. Requirement ‘Energy baseline’ states that this initial energy review will create a baseline for future comparison, which can be mapped to the activity ‘Benchmark current performance’. ISO 50001 also addresses the importance of management commitment which will be essential to a successful energy program. Requirement ‘Top management’ of ISO 50001 states that management needs to demonstrate commitment to the energy management program. This requirement is directly mapped to our activity ‘Ensure management commitment’. Assignment of responsibilities is also directly mapped.

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Requirement ‘Energy policy’ defines that an energy policy needs to get organizational commitment in order to improve energy performance by ensuring it is documented and regularly assessed to provide a framework for setting and reviewing energy targets. This is mapped to our ‘Establish energy policy’ activity. The definition of energy targets and energy management action plans comprehends establishing objectives at relevant functions, levels, processes or facilities, consistent with energy policy. This is captured in ISO 50001 by the ‘Energy objectives’; in our model, it is covered by the activities ‘Set objectives and targets’ and ‘Create action plan’. Monitoring and baselining appropriate indicators ‘Energy performance indicators’ is also directly mapped to our model as well as ‘Legal and other requirements’, which is subsumed by our activity ‘Regulatory compliance’. The Implementation maturity level defines the necessary activities for the support of energy efficiency measures. In ISO 50001, we find that the requirement ‘Design’ states that organizations must consider energy performance improvement opportunities in the design of new, modified or renovated facilities, equipment, systems and processes. Therefore this requirement can be mapped to our ‘Investment’ activity. Next, the requirement ‘Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy’ states that suppliers are evaluated based on energy performance, as defined in the activity ‘Procurement’ of our model. The requirement ‘Competence, training and awareness’ maps directly to our activity ‘Training’. However, this requirement in ISO 50001 also defines the awareness of energy policy, roles inside the organization and the benefits of energy performance, which together with requirement ‘Communication’, can be mapped to our ‘Communication’ activity. Finally, the ‘Documentation’ requirement can also be directly mapped. The Monitoring maturity level establishes activities for the evaluation of energy efficiency measures. Requirement ‘Monitoring, measurement and analysis’ is quite similar to the activity ‘Metering, monitoring and analysis’ in our model, and the ‘Internal audit of the EMS’ is focused on the review of the energy management system and its need to conform to energy objectives and targets, which greatly overlaps with our ‘Program audit’ activity. Finally, the Improvement Maturity Level is characterized by a management review, where current progress is evaluated and further continuous improvement is planned. This is done by evaluating the several artifacts, such as energy policy and monitoring data, by senior management, which is proposed in both on our model and ISO 50001. Management review, a requirement in ISO 50001, and, in our proposed model in the Improvement stage, is essential for the continuous improvement of energy performance, since it corresponds to the Act stage of the PDCA cycle. ISO 50001 ‘Management review’ requirement refers to regular top management review of several elements of the energy program, which is similar to our activity ‘Management review’, that describes the actions taken by to ensure further commitment to improvement.

5.3. Analysis using the Wand and Weber method To evaluate the mapping between our model and ISO 50001, regarding completeness and clarity, we will perform an analysis according to the Wand and Weber method (Wand and Weber, 1993). Wand and Weber define an ontological evaluation of the grammars method, where two sets of concepts are compared in order to identify four ontological deficiencies, as shown in Fig. 2: Incompleteness can every first set element be mapped to an element in the second set? If there is not a total mapping, it is considered incomplete.

811

Incompleteness

Redundancy

Excess

Overload

Fig. 2. Illustration of ontological deficiencies as proposed by Wand and Weber.

Redundancy are there elements in the first set mapped to more than one element in the second set? If so, the mapping is considered redundant. Excess is every element from the first set mapped to a second set element? The mapping is considered excessive if there are elements without a relationship. Overload is every element of the first set mapped only to one element in the second set? The mapping is considered overloaded if any element in the second set has more than one mapping to the first one.

The ontological evaluation of the mapping of our proposal to ISO 50001 is presented in Table 5. A first observation is that the mapping is complete, since every proposed activity can be mapped to an ISO 50001 requirement. For the next defined attribute, redundancy, there is one activity in the first model that is mapped to more than one activity in ISO 50001. As for excess, we have previously identified several ISO 50001 requirements that could not be mapped to our proposal, which are described in more detail in Section 6. Regarding overload, there are two ISO 50001 requirements that are mapped to more than one activity in our model. Regarding the four ontological deficiencies, using this method, our model can indeed be considered as complete, since every activity can be mapped to a requirement established in the standard. This evaluation, however, clashes with the knowledge that our model indeed does not fully cover ISO 50001, as explained in Section 6. For redundancy, there is only one activity in our model that is mapped to two different requirements. Excess is present in the proposed mapping. However, our model can also accommodate the missing activities. Finally, overload is not considered a problem since our model establishes ‘finer-grained’ activities by comparison with ISO's approach of grouping some requirements.

812

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Table 5 Mapping of the activities in the proposed maturity model and ISO 50001 requirements, and the corresponding evaluation according to the Wand and Weber method, regarding ontological deficiencies. Maturity model activities

ISO 50001 requirements

Wand and Weber ontological deficiencies

Planning Energy review Benchmark current performance Identify improvement opportunities Ensure management commitment Establish energy management roles Establish energy policy Set objectives and targets Establish energy performance indicators Create action plan Check regulatory compliance

Energy review Energy baseline Energy review Top management Management representative Energy policy Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans Energy performance indicators Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans Legal and other requirements

Overload Complete Overload Complete Complete Complete Overload Complete Overload Complete Complete Complete Overload Redundant/Overload

Documentation N/A

Design Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy Competence, training and awareness Communication Competence, training and awareness Documentation Operational control

Monitoring Metering, monitoring and analysis Program audit N/A N/A N/A

Monitoring, measurement and analysis Internal audit of the EnMS Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements Nonconformities, correction, corrective, and preventive action Control of records

Complete Complete Excess Excess Excess

Improvement Management review

Management review

Complete

Implementation Investment Procurement Training Communication

6. Discussion The staged approach of our proposed Energy Management Maturity Model is rooted on a clear set of activities that emerged from the best practices found in the literature, and organized taking into account the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle that focuses on continual improvement of processes and has been the underlying basis for several maturity models. As shown in Section 5.2, our proposed model can be mapped and covers almost entirely the most recent industry standard in energy management systems, ISO 50001. This mapping demonstrates that our model contains all the best practices in energy management. Despite the similarities, the requirement ‘Operational control’ in ISO 50001 states that the organization needs to identify and plan all operations related to energy use to guarantee that they are carried out according to policy. However, ‘Operational control’ is a missing activity from the proposed model but nevertheless is a valuable process in energy management and should be object of further study. Other requirements such as ‘Control of Records’ (which establishes the need to maintain documentation that expresses conformity to the ISO standard), ‘Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements’ and other general ISO requirements are not mapped to our model explicitly. Through our analysis of energy management texts, we did not find any mention to these activities, so they were not included in our model. Our model was established through the analysis of several texts, and therefore, is not an all-encompassing model, i.e., it does not feature every conceivable energy management activity. However, we learned that, despite our model being based on energy management texts, it is possible to achieve an almost complete mapping to ISO 50001, with the exception of three requirements, proving the proposed model is fairly complete. As a result, organizations can use our maturity model and rise through the

Complete Excess

maturity levels by implementing the proposed activities and, as they do so, they will be automatically working towards ISO 50001 compliance. Our work also addresses some of the previously identified barriers to energy efficiency in Section 3.2. For instance, the proposed model promotes (i) changes in organizational culture, ensuring organizations communicate the benefits of energy management measures to its employees, (ii) attempts to further minimize the effects of limited access to capital as the primary barrier of energy efficiency (Rohdin et al., 2007), and (iii) will also promote individual values by establishing key individuals as responsible for energy management inside organizations and ensuring management commitment to energy management programs. Therefore, it addresses the three previously identified kinds of barriers to energy efficiency but also promotes a long term strategy, that is considered the main driver to energy efficiency (Rohdin et al., 2007).

7. Conclusion An Energy Management Maturity Model will guide organizations in improving their energy management performance, leading to further energy performance improvements, that translate to economic gains, customer image improvement, and compliance with regulations. Maturity models have been used in distinct domains and are prevalent in the IT industry, enabling organizations to continually improve their processes. Expectably, energy management will benefit, as did other fields, from the adoption of maturity models to achieve continuous process improvement for enabling organizations to better manage their energy management practices. International standards, such as ISO 50001, are based on a strategy of defining a set of necessary requirements to achieve compliance, forcing organizations to comply with every single

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

defined practice—an all-or-nothing approach. Maturity models, in contrast, define a set of activities and establish several levels of maturity, by grouping these activities into specific levels. This approach is not only compatible with the final goal in international standards, but also alleviates the implementation of management practices by providing organizations with a well-defined incremental path for energy management. Despite the publication of energy management guides and standards by several entities, the gap between theory and realworld implementation still persists. To address these concerns, this paper proposes a Maturity Model for Energy Management that consists of several energy management activities, derived from energy management guides, case studies and scientific articles, organized into five maturity levels. The completeness was evaluated against ISO 50001, demonstrating that virtually every requirement of this industry standard is covered. Regarding policy implications and recommendations, the impact of our proposal is manifold. An Energy Management Maturity Model will enable organizations to pursue an incremental improvement path, providing them with a roadmap for achieving higher energy efficiency. Indeed, the proposed maturity model aims at streamlining the approach to energy management, making energy efficiency strategy more easily understood and implementable in a staged and gradual approach. Companies can base their activities in our model to adopt the concept of continuous improvement with respect to energy management, and can also be used as a framework for benchmarking and to share best practices. Our work also brings economic advantages by lowering the barrier to adoption of energy efficiency practices, promoting higher return on investment. The proposed model also promotes organizational planning and long term strategy towards energy management, as established in our defined second level of maturity, focused on establishing a basis of performance indicators, benchmarks, leadership roles and efficiency objectives. By extension, this work also improves environmental awareness and organizational culture regarding energy management and the use of energy management systems. Together with the literature analysis in this paper, our model brings to the table another instrument to address energy efficiency. In particular, the proposed model promotes efficiency through the adoption of several energy management activities, with implications in any organization that wishes to improve its energy performance, and contributes to energy policy by providing guidelines for managing energy consumption. Finally, this work is also a stepstone to further academic research as the analysis of several topics regarding energy management and the achieved results can guide further efforts in the energy management area.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank professor Carlos Silva and professor Niina Elkarma for their valuable comments. This work was supported by national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under project PEst-OE/EEI/LA0021/2013.

References Alam, S., 2012. Energy management practice: office building in Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 8 (7), 3792–3801. ANSI, 2008. ANSI/MSE 2000:2008 A Management System for Energy. Ates, S.A., Durakbasa, N.M., 2012. Evaluation of corporate energy management practices of energy intensive industries in Turkey. Energy 45 (1), 81–91.

813

Backlund, S., Thollander, P., Palm, J., Ottosson, M., 2012. Extending the energy efficiency gap. Energy Policy 51, 392–396. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, D.-W.I.J., 2009. Developing maturity models for IT management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1 (3), 213–222. Becker, J., et al., 2010. Maturity models in IS research. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010). BSi, 2009. BS EN 16001:2009. Energy Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use. Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating energy efficiency performance in production management—gap analysis between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6), 667–679. CarbonTrust, 2011. Energy management—a comprehensive guide to controlling energy use. Chai, K.-H., Yeo, C., 2012. Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems approach: a conceptual framework. Energy Policy 46, 460–472. Chiu, T.-Y., Lo, S.-L., Tsai, Y.-Y., 2012. Establishing an integration-energy-practice model for improving energy performance indicators in ISO 50001 energy management systems. Energies 5 (12), 5324–5339. CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2010a. CMMI for Development v1.3. Carnegie Mellon University. CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2010b. CMMI for Services v1.3. Carnegie Mellon University. Coppinger, S., 2010. Developing a corporate-wide strategic energy management program. In: 52nd IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1–8. Curry, E., Conway, G., Donnellan, B., Sheridan, C., Ellis, K., 2012. A maturity model for energy efficiency in mature data centres. In: SMARTGREENS. pp. 263–267. De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M., 2005. Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. Dusi, B., Schultz, R., 2012. Energy management and efficiency—a systems approach. In: 53rd IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1–8. Goldberg, A., Reinaud, J., 2012. Promoting energy management systems through energy efficiency programmes, incentives and support—lessons learnt from evaluations in Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. In: International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC). Gonzalez, A.J., Castrillón, R., Quispe, E.C., 2012. Energy efficiency improvement in the cement industry through energy management. In: 2012 IEEE-IAS/PCA 53rd Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1–13. Hipkiss, R., 2011. Energy management systems and energy saving projects. IBE, 2012. 2012 Energy Efficiency Indicator: Global Results. Technical Report, Institute for Building Efficiency. ISO, 2011. ISO 50001:2011 energy management systems standard—requirements with guidance for use. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Mettler, T., Winter, R., Wortmann, F., 2011. Inductive design of maturity models: applying the Rasch algorithm for design science research. In: Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research. Springer, pp. 176–191. McKane, A., Desai, D., Matteini, M., Meffert, W., Williams, R., Risser, R., 2009. Thinking Globally: How ISO 50001-energy Management can Make Industrial Energy Efficiency Standard Practice. Technical Report LBNL-3323E, LBNL. Mettler, T., Rohner, P., 2009. Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. ACM, p. 22. Molla, A., Ijab, M.T., Cooper, V., 2012. Information Systems Based Energy Management Practices at Telecom Acadia. Green IT Working Paper series. O'Sullivan, J., 2012. Energy Management Maturity Model (EM3)—A strategy to maximize the potential for energy savings through EnMS. Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V., 1993. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Softw. 10 (4), 18–27. Pereira, R., Mira da Silva, M., 2011. A maturity model for implementing itil v3 in practice. In: 2011 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW). IEEE, pp. 259–268. Piñero, E., 2009. ISO 50001: setting the standard for industrial energy management. Green Manufacturing News, pp. 21–24. Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M., 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. Ranky, P., 2012. Sustainable energy management and quality process models based on iso 50001: 2011 the international energy management standard. In: IEEE International Symposium Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST). IEEE, pp. 1–6. Rohdin, P., Thollander, P., Solding, P., 2007. Barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency in the Swedish foundry industry. Energy Policy 35 (1), 672–677. Scott, J.E., 2007. Mobility, business process management, software, sourcing and maturity model trends: propositions for the is organization of the future. Inf. Syst. Manag. 24 (2), 139–145. Software Engineering Institute, CMMI for Acquisition v1.3, Carnegie Mellon University, 2010. SEAI, 2006. I.S. 393:2005 Energy Management Systems Standard. Seem, J.E., 2007. Using intelligent data analysis to detect abnormal energy consumption in buildings. Energy Build. 39 (1), 52–58. SGMM Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2011. Smart Grid Maturity Model v1.2. Carnegie Mellon University. Shen, B., Price, L., Lu, H., 2012. Energy audit practices in China: national and local experiences and issues. Energy Policy 46, 346–358.

814

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy 73 (2014) 803–814

Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008. Energy management—a guide for small business. Thollander, P., Danestig, M., Rohdin, P., 2007. Energy policies for increased industrial energy efficiency: evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy 35 (11), 5774–5783. Van Gorp, J.C., 2004. Enterprising energy management. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2 (1), 59–63. Vikhorev, K., Greenough, R., Brown, N., 2012. An advanced energy management framework to promote energy awareness. J. Clean. Prod. 43, 103–112. Wand, Y., Weber, R., 1993. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf. Syst. J. 3 (4), 217–237, Wiley Online Library.

Wendler, R., 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. J. Inf. Software Technol. 54 (12), 1317–1339. Wesselink, B., Harmsen, R., Eichhammer, W., 2010. Energy Savings 2020—How to Triple the Impact of Energy Saving Policies in Europe. Yin, A., Figueiredo, S., da Silva, M., 2011. Scrum maturity model. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2011), Barcelona, Spain.