- Email: [email protected]
Exploring Energy Modelling in Architecture Logics of Investment and Risk
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
8th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, SEB-16, 11-13 September 2016, Turin, ITALY
Exploring energy modelling in architecture logics of investment and risk
Sonja Oliveiraa*, Elena Marcoa, Bill Gethinga and Craig Robertsonb a
Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of the West of England, UK b Allford Hall Monaghan Morris Architects, London, EC1V 9HL, UK
Abstract This paper examines the ways architects negotiate new early stage design energy modelling tools in their design practice. Energy modelling tools have traditionally mostly been used by building services engineers with their engagement often occurring at late stages in design to largely verify and validate already established ideas. Recently, however, with a growing international energy agenda and development of new modelling technologies there has been a greater need for broadening use particularly with architects early in design. Yet despite the broadening of use, and increased importance placed on building performance, few studies account for the ways new groups of users such as architects negotiate use of new energy modelling tools in their design practice. Research on the topic of energy modelling has tended to focus on addressing improvements within a particular professional domain or in enhancing features within tools and providing better analysis parameters. The data draws on semi structured interviews and focus group sessions with 26 participants across 4 large international architecture firms in the UK. Preliminary findings indicate differing organizational principles as well as team identities and project assumptions on the ways energy modelling contributes or detracts from fulfilling overall project needs. The implications of the findings are twofold. First, the analysis provides an initial overview of how early stage design energy modelling is considered in design in architecture practice in the UK. Second, the paper provides an understanding of how architects negotiate meaning on energy in design. There are also implications for energy policy development in the context of the built environment particularly concerning building performance. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). © 2017 The Authors. Published by International. Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. Peer-review under responsibility of KES Keywords: architecture, building performance, design practice, energy modelling, institutional logics
* [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.008
62
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
1.Introduction Building services engineers have traditionally fulfilled the role of energy analysis in building design with emphasis often placed on verifying established simulation models at late stages of design. Recently, however, leading architecture firms in the UK are adopting energy modelling technology within their design practice. Application of energy modelling at early stages of design has been promoted and advocated by government construction policy [1]; international professional institutions [2,3] and academic literature [4]. Broadening use of energy modelling to new user groups at early stages of design and architects in particular is viewed as a key way to enable improved analysis and prediction of building performance [5]. Although studies have accounted for other building professionals such as building surveyors [6], widening the use of energy modelling technology in architects’ design practice are largely unexamined and poorly understood. Research in energy modelling in buildings has been focusing on analyzing and improving the technical accuracy of modelling tools [7]. In addition, there are few examples of qualitative analysis that accounts for the cultural and social context technology adoption and implementation is situated within. There is a critical need to better understand the ways architects engage with energy modelling and the approaches they draw on to negotiate and justify particular views. The purpose of the paper is to examine how architects approach use of energy modelling in their design practice. The analysis draws on an institutional logics theoretical framework in order to reflect upon the principles, identities and assumptions within particular approaches to new technology adoption. Institutional logics is a helpful analytical lens as its premise is in understanding how actors negotiate meanings in complex organizational contexts with overlapping industry, organizational and social demands [8]. The following section discusses and reviews research on energy modelling in building design followed by the theoretical framework and empirical setting. The methods discuss the approach to data collection and analysis, whilst the findings provide an overview of key insights. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of key contributions and areas for further research.
2.Literature review Energy modelling discussions are generally situated within a broader literature that examines building performance specifically related to prediction, assessment and management of energy in buildings. In particular growing attention has been developing for some time on the issue of the ’performance gap’ and the need for simplifying and widening the use of tools amongst diverse building professionals at early stages of design. Early work by Tucker [9] proposes a simplified method whereby considerations of energy and environment can be integrated into each project from the very start of the design process. Balcomb [10] suggests building simulation tools need to be user friendly and also produce effective results quickly in order to be useful in building design. More recently Bleil de Souza and Tucker [11] suggest that the development of tools need to be informed by users. Their custom based framework is argued to allow software developers flexibility in approach often hindered by statistical analysis. De Wilde [7] reviews approaches to explaining reasons for the performance gap between predicted and measured energy performance. He identifies three types of gap, and suggests a reduction in the performance gap could be achieved through a number of measures. These measures include enabling a combinative approach that incorporates validation and verification, improved data collection for predictions, better forecasting and change of industry practice [7]. Crawley et al. [12] review a report, which compares and contrasts 20 energy simulation programs in terms of their features and capabilities, and identify the benefits and challenges of these programs. Zhao and Magoules [13] similarly review the applicability of recent developments in simulation models, and suggest further improvement is required to better predict energy consumption in buildings. Most studies emphasize the need for developing a template, standard or protocol as a way of standardizing current approaches. For other scholars, issues lie in the growing diversity and number of modelling tools. A number of recent literature reviews point to a need for cohesion between the multiple approaches whether related to prediction, assessment or management of building energy performance [14,15]. Fumo [15] for instance, highlights the need for an up-to-date review that takes account of the “basics of building energy estimation”. His review collates various
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
models developed for whole building simulation and suggests a classification system is required. Li and Wen [16] similarly provide a summary on the application of building energy modelling methods in optimal control for a single building and multiple buildings. Different model-based and model-free optimization methods for building energy system operations are reviewed and compared technically. A stream of discussions highlights the need for bespoke solutions for site specific problems or situations. Pisello et al [17] suggest modelling techniques need to not only be specific to a building but also take account of larger urban contexts. They conduct a simulation exercise which takes account of the urban context revealing that buildings “can mutually impact the energy dynamics of other buildings and that this effect varies by climatological context and by season” (37). Ham and Golparvar-Fard [18] suggest new methodologies based on collecting actual energy data. They test and “validate” their model on what are seen as typical ‘residential and instructional buildings’. Scholarship that focuses on the generation of new tools highlights the need for a change in the way in which tools are configured. Crawley et al [12] argue that building energy performance simulation tools have the capability to evaluate a wide range of responses to external stimulus and could be developed to allow for overheating prediction as well as broader evaluation of alternative technologies. Korolija [19] proposes the development of a regression model based tool that enables the selection of HVAC systems for office buildings. Most research is focused on proposing new or improved modelling tools with a view of tools as objectified technical conceptions. Discussions have largely overlooked how diverse design professions engage with various tools and the effects tools may have on conceptions of energy performance or the design process. Energy modelling is largely discussed in isolation of other design parameters, construction issues or the process overall. The design process and design activities are viewed by some as distinct and separate from energy modelling [20]. According to Hetherington et al [21] the architectural design approach is guided by a view of a building as composed of objects, whilst an energy modelling view is that of a building comprised of thermal zones. Others approach the historical separation of activities as an opportunity for architects [22]. Tupper et al. [22] call for a deployment of energy modelling use by diverse users particularly architects. Their study suggests diverse use of the technology could enable a broader array of decisions [22]. Although there are few empirical accounts of architects’ use of energy modelling technology, recent studies begin to account for how leading firms develop knowledge on types and range of tool parameters [22, 23]. Naboni [23] maps key modelling tools promoted by leading architecture practices. Naboni’s [23] study identifies two main categories of ways in which modelling technology is promoted by large international architecture firms. The first category is described as ‘semi-digital designs’ perceived to be developed “according to the architect’s knowledge of sustainability, experience and sensitivity to climatic contexts and human factors” (5). The second category ‘fully digital designs’ are argued to be “driven by environmental data” (5). For some leading practices, use of energy modelling technology is argued to bring about new internal working arrangements and structures as well as new design methods. Mahdavi [24] highlights architects’ skepticism towards the potential of energy modelling to provide decision support as well as lack of practical simulation ‘know-how’. In addition, his study reflects upon the perceived disconnect between the simulation process and the architectural design process. Weytjens and Verbeeck [25] review six energy modelling tools including ECOTECT, IES/VE – Sketch-Up, Energy10, eQuest, HEED, and Design Builder highlighting the level of user-friendliness to architecture practice. According to Weytjens and Verbeeck [25] most of the tools reviewed did not show adequate applicability of ease and user friendliness in most architects’ decision-making processes. Their study concludes that the main limitations of tool features relate to poor communication and visualization of the output results. Most research analyzing architects’ approaches to energy modelling does not rely on qualitative empirical data, basing discussion on objective reviews and comparison of tool features. In addition, there is a paucity of theoretical discussion or consideration, viewing technology and tools largely through objective technical lens. The following section outlines the theoretical framing of this study reflecting upon the value of an institutional logics and work approach to exploring use of energy modelling in architects’ design practice.
63
64
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
3.Theoretical framework One theoretical domain that has been concerned with how actors negotiate meaning on technology adoption, become taken-for-granted and infused with value has been institutional theory. Actors is a term commonly used in institutional theory and more widely in social sciences viewed as organizations or individuals who exercise forms of agency [26]. Meyer [27] discusses different theoretical approaches to the term from a realist one where an actor represents self-interest to a phenomenological one where actors are viewed as constructed entities. The primary concern of institutional theory has been in examining how understandings on an issue develop, become infused with value and ultimately institutionalized [26]. Scholars have initially examined how these institutionalized understanding influence actors by invoking stability. More recently the focus has been on how actors influence institutionalized understandings [28]. Actors are now viewed as able to maintain particular understandings, transform them as well as contribute towards their creation. These activities of creating, maintaining and transforming institutions are termed institutional work [28]. Activities are viewed to be and guided by institutional logics [26]. Broadly, two schools of thought consider institutional work in diverse settings. One set of views focus in examining how institutions are maintained, created or disrupted, while another set of views group activities under mainly political, cultural or technical clusters. Both streams highlight the role of activities and actors and the fact that all types of work consist of ”legitimacy seeking behaviour and integrity maintenance” [28:74]. Actions are viewed as ‘situated and intelligent’ and are pursued by a diverse range of actors engaged in creation, maintenance and/or disruption work. Actors are viewed as organizations which share the same meaning system regarding their practices as they interact more “frequently and fatefully” with each other than with other actors and are clustered within an ‘organizational field’ [29]. This study draws on concepts of institutional work and logics in order to analyse the approaches architects draw on in their experience of energy modelling implementation and adoption. Organizations comprise of a variety of user groups that often have different goals and assumptions, and draw upon different organizing principles, identities and assumptions (“logics”) for appropriate practice. The concept of institutional logics enables a contextualization of users’ engagement with technology within organizational and societal institutions [30]. Institutional theory is a helpful theoretical lens well suited for studying approaches across practices [8]. Institutional logics are defined as “organizing principles that govern the selection of technologies, define what kinds of actors are authorized to make claims, shape and constrain the behavioral possibilities of actors, and specify criteria of effectiveness and efficiency” [31]. The concept of institutional logics enables the analysis of broader institutions’ link (at the organizational and societal levels) to individual practices [31, 32]. Initially logics were mainly seen to occur at societal levels. Friedland and Alford [32] argued that societal context and more significantly society moderated the decisions, actions and behaviours of actors at multiple levels. From that initial conception of logics as societal orders at family, religion, or market levels, recent research has developed views of logics examined at professional, firm [33] and industry levels [34]. Organizations can be institutionally plural, and individuals can draw on different—sometimes consistent and sometimes contradictory—institutional logics [34]. Although institutional work and logics research on use of technology in architecture contexts is limited, there is a developing interest in digital practice in related design domains. In their study of the use of CATIA, a computeraided design tool commonly used for aerospace applications, Yoo et al [35] examine how architecture practice Frank Gehry, approached using the tool differently with different suppliers across four projects. Similar aspects of CATIA resulted in different practices depending on the institutional logics that guided the action. Tumbas et al [36] study informs research on digital innovation, and emphasizes that organizational actors make sense of technologies in their local context. They argue that actors trigger organizational change by combining distinct practices from various institutional logics and incorporating them into their own profession.
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
4.Empirical setting and research methods The study focuses on the implementation and experience of a recently developed energy modelling tool Sefaira across 4 UK architecture award winning firms. According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC[37] Sefaira offers ‘computer simulation of building energy use given a description of its architecture, lighting and mechanical systems, occupancy and use, and local weather— is a powerful tool for architects and mechanical engineers.’ Although used in the US since 2010, application in UK architecture firms has been more recent. The interest in Sefaira in particular has been as it has seen rapid adoption and is viewed by industry discussions and policy as one of the leading energy modelling tools in the field. The cases (Studio A, F, S and W) were chosen as they were all in the process of recent implementation and were viewed as leading in the field of environmental design and thinking in architecture. Data collection and sampling strategy The research methods draw on a qualitative multiple case comparative analysis design in order to explore how actors in different settings approach a similar issue. In the comparison of the cases the main unit of analysis would be ‘evaluation of energy modelling technology adoption’ rather than the organizations observed [38]. Overall 26 participants took part in interviews and focus groups. Whereas quantitative sampling techniques tend to rely on statistical probability theory, qualitative sampling is mainly based on strategic or theoretical sampling principles. This research applies a strategic type of sampling where the size of the sample in term of how representative it is, becomes less of a consideration [39]. Rather the key question for this research was whether the sample could provide accurate enough data, with the right focus to enable the research to answer the research question. Before conducting interviews and focus groups the composition and number of interviewees was decided. The idea was to gain access to firms that had recently started using energy modelling tools in their practice (in this instance Sefaira). Interviewees included assistant architects, project architects, associates, architectural technologists and divisional directors. By speaking to a range of architect roles, broader insights into effects of energy modelling on design practice were gained. This reduced the data being biased to a particular type of architect role. Data collection commenced in April 2015 with data analysis and literature reviewing overlapping data collection activities. To date 14 interviews and two focus group sessions with 5 and 7 participants have taken place. Within Studio ‘A’ 7 participants were interviewed whilst Studio ‘S’ involved 4 interviews and one focus group with 5 participants. Studio ‘F’ involved 3 participants whilst Studio W involved one focus group with 7 participants. Apart from setting the activities in a wider frame, interviews and focus group sessions helped the researchers fully grasp the perceptions of the individuals taking part in the activity. Interviews and focus groups conducted by the first author were semi-structured and addressed the following themes: the role and background of participant within the organization, learning approaches to using the modelling tools, reasons for using the tool and methods for sharing ‘modelling’ knowledge with client and building services engineer. Interviews and focus group sessions lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Data analysis Once all the data had been collected the analysis focused on rereading the data to gain an understanding of key issues and developments. The data was then analysed thematically and arranged in descriptive and analytic categories [40]. A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned reasoning within the data set [40]. Three Initial descriptive categories included:1) Organization, 2) Learning methods and 3) Energy relationships (see Table 1). Within the categories further subthemes were examined including: hierarchical loops, motivational blockages, client dependence, existing design drivers, uncertain effects. In a second phase, data were re-coded drawing on institutional logics using dimensions identified by Tumbas et al [36] and illustrated in Table 2.
65
66
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70 Table 1: Categories
Overview of initial descriptive coding key categories Coding examples
Organization Emphasis on: hierarchical loops, existing work structures
“It seems senior managers in some teams see this as a distraction…taking away from project time..and the programme…so junior staff are in the hands of senior managers (Studio S Participant 5)”
Learning methods Emphasis on: motivational blockages, uncertain effects
“My view is that I think a lot of people ... it's not that they can't be bothered, but they feel like somebody else will deal with the problem” (Studio A Participant 2) “I'm an architect and it's useful to have this information at my fingertips, but I regard it as a sort of an indication which gives some insight to what the consultant in the future will say” (Studio F Participant 2)
Energy relationships Emphasis on: client dependence, professional boundaries
Within the categories further subthemes were examined including: hierarchical loops, motivational blockages, client dependence, existing design drivers, uncertain effects. In a second phase, data were re-coded drawing on institutional logics using dimensions identified by Tumbas et al [36] and illustrated in Table 2. Table 2:
Institutional logics characteristics (adapted from study by Tumbas et al [36] on logics’ characteristics Dimensions Characteristics Principles
organizing principles that guide activities
Assumptions
understanding how a goal can be reached by particular means
Identities
enactment of selected scripts
Domain of application
key area of activity
5.Findings Across the four firms there are at times overlapping approaches to how architects discussed learning the tool, sharing outputs and using the knowledge and information gained. Two key logics emerged related to learning and sharing: The Logic of Investment and Logic of Risk (see Table 3). The logics were found to guide particular views and legitimate certain institutional work actions. Table 3: Overview of key logics and their ‘institutional work’ characteristics Dimensions Logics of investment Logics of risk Principles Assumptions Identities Institutional work
Personal interest and team compliance Acknowledgment of perceived benefits Personal need
Project value and opportunity
Advocating personal interests and need, Recognizing environmental moral value,Supporting project benefits
Identifying particular needs and resources, Justifying status quo,Verifying professional role and boundaries
Justification and post rationalization Project need
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
Advocating personal need, recognizing societal value and supporting project benefits within Logic of Investment For many learning a new technology was perceived as easy and intuitive. Learning was described as motivated by a personal rather than organizational interest viewed as a process of trial and error and largely for the benefit of the project. Although many projects’ use of energy modelling were described as dependent on client engagement and interest participants often discussed learning from a moral individual perspective. Many participants viewed investment of time as client dependant rather than organizational. “…I'm interested in passive measures as a starting point and good fabric, good wall fabric, wall build up, rather than sticking renewables on top, so kind of getting the basic principles right, but I think it…probably depends on how much the client engages as well and what they want as well…” (Studio F Participant 1) In addition to discussing learning as easy, most participants reflected upon apparent benefits and value of the tool. In Studio A, Participant 3 viewed the technology as ‘good because (the project) was in the early stages “and the remit, our remit was to create a building that was no-nonsense and functional”. Despite reflecting upon apparent lack of knowledge on environmental principles, Participant 5 noted the potential ‘usefulness’ of the technology. “…I don't think so…I understand the basics of energy consumptions in buildings, but I don't understand the details, so it's quite useful in that sense…” (Studio A Participant 5) Although the technology was discussed as being beneficial and useful, many participants seemed uncertain how it could be applied effectively in their project. For Participant 2 in Studio A, the technology was “not a game changer” as “it doesn't change the way that you think about what a sensible move is to make in design in terms of energy efficiency. Similarly, in Studio S the technology was viewed as not changing the approach but mainly viewed as providing justification for established working methods. “…Not necessarily, no 'cos I had already had a basic understanding of how it all worked, so not necessarily did it change my approach, or understanding; it was a very useful tool to prove the thinking behind what we were trying to do…(Studio S Participant 7)” Participants also discussed lack of opportunity to implement ongoing use of the technology. In Studios A and W participants noted the difficulties of ‘going back’ in time as the technology could only be applied at early stages. Participant 23 in Studio W discussed how the firm had spent a lot of time investing in ways to implement the technology usefully, changing protocols and work processes across projects. However, as some projects ‘lasted several years’ by the time another one came along whereby the tool could be used the knowledge was ‘out of date’ Participant 5 observed how the technology had never been fully implemented in projects, although there was awareness of benefit and value as the building design was too complex or ‘had moved on substantially’ to be able to be analyzed. Existing workflows were also viewed as established and needing investment of resource and time to adapt to new methods in order for the tools to effectively embed. Some of those design drivers are described as obstructing or preventing a scientific environmental approach. Existing workflows were described to determine a particular design view or approach. Participant 3 in Studio S described a project where window placements had been determined prior to any energy analysis taking place “…so the technology didn't exactly have as much effect as it could have done because (we) implemented the thinking before we used it, so it was post-justification“. Similarly in Studio A Participant 6 discussed the project being “constrained by (the) planning application, so we already had 40 per cent glazing ratio and windows and specific places, we could move them a bit, but not a huge amount” noting how using the technology regardless of output would have little or no effect on the design. For many participants issues of established workflows were closely related to project roles. Although an interest and potential benefit in using the technology had been largely noted, participants often reflected upon ‘others dealing with the issue’. “My view is that I think a lot of people ... it's not that they can't be bothered, but they feel like somebody else will deal with the problem” (Studio A Participant 2)
Identifying resource, justifying status quo and verifying professional boundaries within Logic of risk Future proofing and delivering ahead was viewed by many as a key benefit of applying early stage energy modelling in architecture. Enabling and communicating design decisions through the use of the technology was discussed by a large number of participants. However, for many outputs of the modelling were viewed as a potential
67
68
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
‘liability’ risk to architects’ relationship with other design team members and the client. Many participants viewed their role as needing to embrace ‘future thinking’ and ‘future proofing’ in order to maintain their position in an ever evolving industry. Participant 1 in Studio A noted how architects did not necessarily need more knowledge but needed to understand numeric information and to prepare for future legislation. Participant 6 in Studio A discussed his involvement in a large infrastructure London project looking at delivery in 2020 and appreciating need to future proof and think ahead. Participant 2 in studio F viewed the technology as another method of communication ultimately adding value to the design outcome: “It gives you another, I guess, tool in your toolbox to be able to carry out high level, early assessments and also communicate to design team members and the client why certain early design decisions might have an energy impact and why it might be more or less favourable to push the design in certain directions” Organizational value and benefits are also viewed through project constraints and challenges. The technology for Participant 2 in Studio S is viewed as “producing pictures and reports that are client friendly, making people aware of the design constraints”. The educational and marketing value of the technology was often reflected upon through a professional lens of risk. “You have a fee for early stage energy modelling and you can ... let's say you have a developer, or a client that isn't the end user, quite often hard to justify spending money on sustainability, but if you maybe teach people about you could sell buildings for more, therefore that's the justification for ... it can be marketed as green buildings, or low carbon usage. I think there's going to be a growing market for those sort of buildings” Although value, opportunity and benefits were frequently highlighted, participants also discussed potential risks and liabilities. Many participants discussed not being able to share information with building services engineers early in the design process. “We still get M&E engineers who still do their drawings by hand in 2D and then they are only prepared to put it into BIM at the very end because it takes too much time to put it in, so there are still problems there I think because for it to work, the whole point is you're meant to merge models the whole time, whereas we would find that the M&E engineers would just want to sort of drop it in right at the end, so that it doesn't waste their time…” Across all firms, discussions often reflected upon issues of risk in terms of sharing of outputs and information. For many risks outweighed investment potentials, viewing beneficial value of the tool as largely isolated from the process. Exceptions include Studio W where the tool was interpreted as beneficial to select typologies and certain projects within a firm. 6.Discussion The discussions and observations across the 4 firms display a sense of professional reluctance and uncertainty. For many the tool was viewed as beneficial and valuable, worthy of investment in time and resource, however, the perceived constraints of embedding within existing workflows, sharing and applying knowledge effectively across design teams was intertwined with notions of risk. For some participants, professional boundaries and roles of architects were locked within contractual responsibilities, client interests and notions of project liabilities. Although most participants viewed the value of energy modelling as intrinsic to supporting better building design, the practical issues of how best to share and communicate outputs gained, were often seen as ‘professionally’ entrenched stumbling blocks. Participants’ discussions were often conflicted and contradictory particularly related to perceptions of effectiveness and application. Whilst reflecting upon perceived usefulness many would note difficulties in how to effectively apply and interpret modelling outcomes. For most participants their remit of workload and workflow was viewed as bounded by their organizational or project domain. Established project and firm workflows were seen to determine how, if and when the technology was ‘learnt’, applied and shared. In addition, organizational hierarchies, structures and ways of shaping project teams were viewed as determining the possibilities of use. The institutional logics analytical lens allows for an examination into the principles, identities and assumptions participants draw on to justify particular decisions or views. Across the firms two logics reflected particular approaches and views with an emphasis placed on reasons for investing effort and time whilst depending on other
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
interests and opportunities. Scholars who have studied how new technologies are used in design organizations suggest particular characteristics of institutional logics guide innovation behavior of users [35]. Tumbas et al [36] suggest organizational actors trigger organizational change by combining distinct practices from various institutional logics and incorporating them into their own profession. The findings in this paper suggest logics continue to overlap and contradict – further analysis is needed to understand how participants employ diverse logics to maintain or resist a particular approach. In addition, an extended analysis is required to determine the extent by which particular logics are emphasized in certain firms and whether a dominance of a particular set of institutional work activities enables wider use and greater effect. Institutional work activities within different logics are often found to contribute towards logics being maintained [41]. Also as examined by Oliveira [41] responses to conflicting logics’ components are driven primarily by the logics’ legitimacy source; an issue that has not been fully explored within this paper.
7.Conclusion There is a relevant and important need for further empirical analysis and theoretical insight that develops a body of research engaged in studying energy analysis from multiple perspectives. The research carried out for this paper shows a potential way of studying energy modelling and analysis that takes into consideration the institutional logics, actors and activities involved. The identified logics although conflicting and contradictory allow participants to reach decisions and legitimate actions when implementing new technologies. In the longer term, more integrated contributions are needed, including a consideration of energy issues against other design and construction concerns as well as an analysis of various personal, organizational and project demands. In addition, further work is required to better understand the ways particular organizations manage use of energy modelling within and across teams and in particular how particular architect roles adapt, transform or reject implementation. The implication of this study is in the analysis of architects approaches and views, perceived as bound by established structures of management and deeply embedded project workflows. Initial insights suggest challenges lie within particular perceived established organizational hierarchies and structures. Much remains to be explored about the way in which organizations within the built environment within the UK and internationally navigate complex technological design environments. The contribution in this paper is in reflecting upon some of the organizational difficulties and social challenges architects encounter and negotiate within a conflicting and contradictory institutional environment.
References [1] HMGovernment. (2011). "Skills for a green economy: a report on evidence", I. a. s. Department for Business, (ed.). London. [2] AIA. (2012). American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2012. An Architect’s Guide to Integrating Energy Modeling in the Design Process. [3] Sullivan, L. (2012). The RIBA Guide to Sustainability in Practice. London, United Kingdom. [4] Eastman, C., Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., and Sacks, R. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors: John Wiley & Sons. [5] ZeroCarbonHub. (2014). Closing the gap between design and as built performance end of term report, Zero Carbon Hub [6] Littlewood, J. and Geens, A. (2002) A new multidisciplinary professional for the UK''s 21st century homes. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 2 (1/2/3). pp. 267-278. [7] De Wilde, P. (2014). "The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation." Automation in Construction, 41, 40-49. [8] Thornton, P., Jones, C., and Kury, K. (2005). " Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing." Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 23, 125-170. [9]Tucker, S. (2004). A simplified method of building thermal assessment (Doctoral dissertation, University of East London). [10] Balcomb, J.D. ed., (1992) Passive Solar Buildings, The MIT press, Massachusetts. [11] Bleil De Souza, C. and Tucker, S. (2015) Thermal simulation software outputs: a conceptual data model of information presentation for building design decision making. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 9,3
69
70
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
[12] Crawley, D. B., Hand, J. W., Kummert, M., and Griffith, B. T. (2008). "Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs." Building and environment, 43(4), 661-673. [13] Zhao, H.-x., and Magoulès, F. (2012). "A review on the prediction of building energy consumption." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3586-3592. [14]Chung, W. (2011). "Review of building energy use performance benchmarking methodologies." Applied Energy, 88, 14701479. [15]Fumo, N. (2014). "A review of the basics of building energy simulation." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 53-60. [16] Li, X., and Wen, J. (2014). "Review of building energy modeling for control and operation." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 517-537. [17] Pisello, A. L., Goretti, M., and Cotana, F. (2012). "A method for assessing buildings’ energy efficiency by dynamic simulation and experimental activity." Applied Energy, 97, 419-429. [18] Ham, Y., and Golparvar-Fard, M. (2013). "EPAR: Energy Performance Augmented Reality models for identification of building energy performance deviations between actual measurements and simulation results." Energy and buildings, 63, 15-28. [19] Korolija, I. (2011). Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning system energy demand coupling with building loads for office buildings De Montfort University Leicester. [20] Hetherington, R., Laney, R., Peake, S., and Oldham, D. (2011). "Integrated building design, information and simulation modelling: the need for a new hierarchy." [21]Sullivan, L. (2012). The RIBA Guide to Sustainability in Practice. London, United Kingdom. [22]Tupper, K., Franconi, E., Chan, C., Hodgin, S., Buys, A., and Jenkins, M. "Building energy modeling: industry-wide issues and potential solutions." Presented at Proceedings of the 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association. [23]Naboni, E. (2013). "Environmental Simulation Tools in Architectural Practice: The impact on processes, methods and design."PLEA 2013. City: 29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future, Munich, Germany10-12 September 2013. [24]Mahdavi, A. (2011). "People in building performance simulation." Building performance simulation for design and operation, 56-83. [25]Weytjens, L., and Verbeeck, G. "Towards' architect-friendly'energy evaluation tools." Presented at Proceedings of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multiconference. [26]Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [27] Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual review of sociology, 36, 1-20. [28]Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006). "Institutions and institutional work", In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies, London: Sage, 215-254. [29]Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies oforganizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [30]Friedland, R. (2012). "Book review: Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury (2012) The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure and process." Management, 15(5), 582-595. [31]Lounsbury, M., Geraci, H., and Waismel-Manor, R. (2002). "Policy discourse, logics and practice standards: Centralising the Solid-Waste Management field", in A. Hoffman and M. J. Ventresca, (eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment. Stanford University press. [32]Friedland, R., and Alford, R. R. (1991). "Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions", in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [33]Dunn, M., and Jones, C. (2010). "Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967-2005." Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 114-149. [34]Kraatz, M. S., and Block, E. S. (2008). "Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism", in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, and R. Suddaby, (eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE, pp. 243-275 [35]Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., and Lyytinen, K. (2006). "From organization design to organization designing." Organization Science, 17(2), 215-229. [36] Tumbas, S., Schmiedel, T., and Vom Brocke, J. (2015)"Characterizing multiple institutional logics for innovation with digital technologies." Presented at System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on. [37] Sefaira (accessed @usgbc.org on 14th April 2015) [38] Ragin, C. (1989). "New Directions in Comparative Research“.Cross-National Research in Sociology, ed. by ML Kohn. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE, 57-76. [39] Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2009) (eds) Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. [40] Richards, L (2009) Handling qualitative data, SAGE. [41] Oliveira, S (2014), Institutional work for enduring logics : Sustainability evaluation in architectural awards, doctoral dissertation, University of Reading
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
8th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, SEB-16, 11-13 September 2016, Turin, ITALY
Exploring energy modelling in architecture logics of investment and risk
Sonja Oliveiraa*, Elena Marcoa, Bill Gethinga and Craig Robertsonb a
Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of the West of England, UK b Allford Hall Monaghan Morris Architects, London, EC1V 9HL, UK
Abstract This paper examines the ways architects negotiate new early stage design energy modelling tools in their design practice. Energy modelling tools have traditionally mostly been used by building services engineers with their engagement often occurring at late stages in design to largely verify and validate already established ideas. Recently, however, with a growing international energy agenda and development of new modelling technologies there has been a greater need for broadening use particularly with architects early in design. Yet despite the broadening of use, and increased importance placed on building performance, few studies account for the ways new groups of users such as architects negotiate use of new energy modelling tools in their design practice. Research on the topic of energy modelling has tended to focus on addressing improvements within a particular professional domain or in enhancing features within tools and providing better analysis parameters. The data draws on semi structured interviews and focus group sessions with 26 participants across 4 large international architecture firms in the UK. Preliminary findings indicate differing organizational principles as well as team identities and project assumptions on the ways energy modelling contributes or detracts from fulfilling overall project needs. The implications of the findings are twofold. First, the analysis provides an initial overview of how early stage design energy modelling is considered in design in architecture practice in the UK. Second, the paper provides an understanding of how architects negotiate meaning on energy in design. There are also implications for energy policy development in the context of the built environment particularly concerning building performance. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). © 2017 The Authors. Published by International. Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. Peer-review under responsibility of KES Keywords: architecture, building performance, design practice, energy modelling, institutional logics
* [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.008
62
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
1.Introduction Building services engineers have traditionally fulfilled the role of energy analysis in building design with emphasis often placed on verifying established simulation models at late stages of design. Recently, however, leading architecture firms in the UK are adopting energy modelling technology within their design practice. Application of energy modelling at early stages of design has been promoted and advocated by government construction policy [1]; international professional institutions [2,3] and academic literature [4]. Broadening use of energy modelling to new user groups at early stages of design and architects in particular is viewed as a key way to enable improved analysis and prediction of building performance [5]. Although studies have accounted for other building professionals such as building surveyors [6], widening the use of energy modelling technology in architects’ design practice are largely unexamined and poorly understood. Research in energy modelling in buildings has been focusing on analyzing and improving the technical accuracy of modelling tools [7]. In addition, there are few examples of qualitative analysis that accounts for the cultural and social context technology adoption and implementation is situated within. There is a critical need to better understand the ways architects engage with energy modelling and the approaches they draw on to negotiate and justify particular views. The purpose of the paper is to examine how architects approach use of energy modelling in their design practice. The analysis draws on an institutional logics theoretical framework in order to reflect upon the principles, identities and assumptions within particular approaches to new technology adoption. Institutional logics is a helpful analytical lens as its premise is in understanding how actors negotiate meanings in complex organizational contexts with overlapping industry, organizational and social demands [8]. The following section discusses and reviews research on energy modelling in building design followed by the theoretical framework and empirical setting. The methods discuss the approach to data collection and analysis, whilst the findings provide an overview of key insights. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of key contributions and areas for further research.
2.Literature review Energy modelling discussions are generally situated within a broader literature that examines building performance specifically related to prediction, assessment and management of energy in buildings. In particular growing attention has been developing for some time on the issue of the ’performance gap’ and the need for simplifying and widening the use of tools amongst diverse building professionals at early stages of design. Early work by Tucker [9] proposes a simplified method whereby considerations of energy and environment can be integrated into each project from the very start of the design process. Balcomb [10] suggests building simulation tools need to be user friendly and also produce effective results quickly in order to be useful in building design. More recently Bleil de Souza and Tucker [11] suggest that the development of tools need to be informed by users. Their custom based framework is argued to allow software developers flexibility in approach often hindered by statistical analysis. De Wilde [7] reviews approaches to explaining reasons for the performance gap between predicted and measured energy performance. He identifies three types of gap, and suggests a reduction in the performance gap could be achieved through a number of measures. These measures include enabling a combinative approach that incorporates validation and verification, improved data collection for predictions, better forecasting and change of industry practice [7]. Crawley et al. [12] review a report, which compares and contrasts 20 energy simulation programs in terms of their features and capabilities, and identify the benefits and challenges of these programs. Zhao and Magoules [13] similarly review the applicability of recent developments in simulation models, and suggest further improvement is required to better predict energy consumption in buildings. Most studies emphasize the need for developing a template, standard or protocol as a way of standardizing current approaches. For other scholars, issues lie in the growing diversity and number of modelling tools. A number of recent literature reviews point to a need for cohesion between the multiple approaches whether related to prediction, assessment or management of building energy performance [14,15]. Fumo [15] for instance, highlights the need for an up-to-date review that takes account of the “basics of building energy estimation”. His review collates various
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
models developed for whole building simulation and suggests a classification system is required. Li and Wen [16] similarly provide a summary on the application of building energy modelling methods in optimal control for a single building and multiple buildings. Different model-based and model-free optimization methods for building energy system operations are reviewed and compared technically. A stream of discussions highlights the need for bespoke solutions for site specific problems or situations. Pisello et al [17] suggest modelling techniques need to not only be specific to a building but also take account of larger urban contexts. They conduct a simulation exercise which takes account of the urban context revealing that buildings “can mutually impact the energy dynamics of other buildings and that this effect varies by climatological context and by season” (37). Ham and Golparvar-Fard [18] suggest new methodologies based on collecting actual energy data. They test and “validate” their model on what are seen as typical ‘residential and instructional buildings’. Scholarship that focuses on the generation of new tools highlights the need for a change in the way in which tools are configured. Crawley et al [12] argue that building energy performance simulation tools have the capability to evaluate a wide range of responses to external stimulus and could be developed to allow for overheating prediction as well as broader evaluation of alternative technologies. Korolija [19] proposes the development of a regression model based tool that enables the selection of HVAC systems for office buildings. Most research is focused on proposing new or improved modelling tools with a view of tools as objectified technical conceptions. Discussions have largely overlooked how diverse design professions engage with various tools and the effects tools may have on conceptions of energy performance or the design process. Energy modelling is largely discussed in isolation of other design parameters, construction issues or the process overall. The design process and design activities are viewed by some as distinct and separate from energy modelling [20]. According to Hetherington et al [21] the architectural design approach is guided by a view of a building as composed of objects, whilst an energy modelling view is that of a building comprised of thermal zones. Others approach the historical separation of activities as an opportunity for architects [22]. Tupper et al. [22] call for a deployment of energy modelling use by diverse users particularly architects. Their study suggests diverse use of the technology could enable a broader array of decisions [22]. Although there are few empirical accounts of architects’ use of energy modelling technology, recent studies begin to account for how leading firms develop knowledge on types and range of tool parameters [22, 23]. Naboni [23] maps key modelling tools promoted by leading architecture practices. Naboni’s [23] study identifies two main categories of ways in which modelling technology is promoted by large international architecture firms. The first category is described as ‘semi-digital designs’ perceived to be developed “according to the architect’s knowledge of sustainability, experience and sensitivity to climatic contexts and human factors” (5). The second category ‘fully digital designs’ are argued to be “driven by environmental data” (5). For some leading practices, use of energy modelling technology is argued to bring about new internal working arrangements and structures as well as new design methods. Mahdavi [24] highlights architects’ skepticism towards the potential of energy modelling to provide decision support as well as lack of practical simulation ‘know-how’. In addition, his study reflects upon the perceived disconnect between the simulation process and the architectural design process. Weytjens and Verbeeck [25] review six energy modelling tools including ECOTECT, IES/VE – Sketch-Up, Energy10, eQuest, HEED, and Design Builder highlighting the level of user-friendliness to architecture practice. According to Weytjens and Verbeeck [25] most of the tools reviewed did not show adequate applicability of ease and user friendliness in most architects’ decision-making processes. Their study concludes that the main limitations of tool features relate to poor communication and visualization of the output results. Most research analyzing architects’ approaches to energy modelling does not rely on qualitative empirical data, basing discussion on objective reviews and comparison of tool features. In addition, there is a paucity of theoretical discussion or consideration, viewing technology and tools largely through objective technical lens. The following section outlines the theoretical framing of this study reflecting upon the value of an institutional logics and work approach to exploring use of energy modelling in architects’ design practice.
63
64
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
3.Theoretical framework One theoretical domain that has been concerned with how actors negotiate meaning on technology adoption, become taken-for-granted and infused with value has been institutional theory. Actors is a term commonly used in institutional theory and more widely in social sciences viewed as organizations or individuals who exercise forms of agency [26]. Meyer [27] discusses different theoretical approaches to the term from a realist one where an actor represents self-interest to a phenomenological one where actors are viewed as constructed entities. The primary concern of institutional theory has been in examining how understandings on an issue develop, become infused with value and ultimately institutionalized [26]. Scholars have initially examined how these institutionalized understanding influence actors by invoking stability. More recently the focus has been on how actors influence institutionalized understandings [28]. Actors are now viewed as able to maintain particular understandings, transform them as well as contribute towards their creation. These activities of creating, maintaining and transforming institutions are termed institutional work [28]. Activities are viewed to be and guided by institutional logics [26]. Broadly, two schools of thought consider institutional work in diverse settings. One set of views focus in examining how institutions are maintained, created or disrupted, while another set of views group activities under mainly political, cultural or technical clusters. Both streams highlight the role of activities and actors and the fact that all types of work consist of ”legitimacy seeking behaviour and integrity maintenance” [28:74]. Actions are viewed as ‘situated and intelligent’ and are pursued by a diverse range of actors engaged in creation, maintenance and/or disruption work. Actors are viewed as organizations which share the same meaning system regarding their practices as they interact more “frequently and fatefully” with each other than with other actors and are clustered within an ‘organizational field’ [29]. This study draws on concepts of institutional work and logics in order to analyse the approaches architects draw on in their experience of energy modelling implementation and adoption. Organizations comprise of a variety of user groups that often have different goals and assumptions, and draw upon different organizing principles, identities and assumptions (“logics”) for appropriate practice. The concept of institutional logics enables a contextualization of users’ engagement with technology within organizational and societal institutions [30]. Institutional theory is a helpful theoretical lens well suited for studying approaches across practices [8]. Institutional logics are defined as “organizing principles that govern the selection of technologies, define what kinds of actors are authorized to make claims, shape and constrain the behavioral possibilities of actors, and specify criteria of effectiveness and efficiency” [31]. The concept of institutional logics enables the analysis of broader institutions’ link (at the organizational and societal levels) to individual practices [31, 32]. Initially logics were mainly seen to occur at societal levels. Friedland and Alford [32] argued that societal context and more significantly society moderated the decisions, actions and behaviours of actors at multiple levels. From that initial conception of logics as societal orders at family, religion, or market levels, recent research has developed views of logics examined at professional, firm [33] and industry levels [34]. Organizations can be institutionally plural, and individuals can draw on different—sometimes consistent and sometimes contradictory—institutional logics [34]. Although institutional work and logics research on use of technology in architecture contexts is limited, there is a developing interest in digital practice in related design domains. In their study of the use of CATIA, a computeraided design tool commonly used for aerospace applications, Yoo et al [35] examine how architecture practice Frank Gehry, approached using the tool differently with different suppliers across four projects. Similar aspects of CATIA resulted in different practices depending on the institutional logics that guided the action. Tumbas et al [36] study informs research on digital innovation, and emphasizes that organizational actors make sense of technologies in their local context. They argue that actors trigger organizational change by combining distinct practices from various institutional logics and incorporating them into their own profession.
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
4.Empirical setting and research methods The study focuses on the implementation and experience of a recently developed energy modelling tool Sefaira across 4 UK architecture award winning firms. According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC[37] Sefaira offers ‘computer simulation of building energy use given a description of its architecture, lighting and mechanical systems, occupancy and use, and local weather— is a powerful tool for architects and mechanical engineers.’ Although used in the US since 2010, application in UK architecture firms has been more recent. The interest in Sefaira in particular has been as it has seen rapid adoption and is viewed by industry discussions and policy as one of the leading energy modelling tools in the field. The cases (Studio A, F, S and W) were chosen as they were all in the process of recent implementation and were viewed as leading in the field of environmental design and thinking in architecture. Data collection and sampling strategy The research methods draw on a qualitative multiple case comparative analysis design in order to explore how actors in different settings approach a similar issue. In the comparison of the cases the main unit of analysis would be ‘evaluation of energy modelling technology adoption’ rather than the organizations observed [38]. Overall 26 participants took part in interviews and focus groups. Whereas quantitative sampling techniques tend to rely on statistical probability theory, qualitative sampling is mainly based on strategic or theoretical sampling principles. This research applies a strategic type of sampling where the size of the sample in term of how representative it is, becomes less of a consideration [39]. Rather the key question for this research was whether the sample could provide accurate enough data, with the right focus to enable the research to answer the research question. Before conducting interviews and focus groups the composition and number of interviewees was decided. The idea was to gain access to firms that had recently started using energy modelling tools in their practice (in this instance Sefaira). Interviewees included assistant architects, project architects, associates, architectural technologists and divisional directors. By speaking to a range of architect roles, broader insights into effects of energy modelling on design practice were gained. This reduced the data being biased to a particular type of architect role. Data collection commenced in April 2015 with data analysis and literature reviewing overlapping data collection activities. To date 14 interviews and two focus group sessions with 5 and 7 participants have taken place. Within Studio ‘A’ 7 participants were interviewed whilst Studio ‘S’ involved 4 interviews and one focus group with 5 participants. Studio ‘F’ involved 3 participants whilst Studio W involved one focus group with 7 participants. Apart from setting the activities in a wider frame, interviews and focus group sessions helped the researchers fully grasp the perceptions of the individuals taking part in the activity. Interviews and focus groups conducted by the first author were semi-structured and addressed the following themes: the role and background of participant within the organization, learning approaches to using the modelling tools, reasons for using the tool and methods for sharing ‘modelling’ knowledge with client and building services engineer. Interviews and focus group sessions lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Data analysis Once all the data had been collected the analysis focused on rereading the data to gain an understanding of key issues and developments. The data was then analysed thematically and arranged in descriptive and analytic categories [40]. A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned reasoning within the data set [40]. Three Initial descriptive categories included:1) Organization, 2) Learning methods and 3) Energy relationships (see Table 1). Within the categories further subthemes were examined including: hierarchical loops, motivational blockages, client dependence, existing design drivers, uncertain effects. In a second phase, data were re-coded drawing on institutional logics using dimensions identified by Tumbas et al [36] and illustrated in Table 2.
65
66
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70 Table 1: Categories
Overview of initial descriptive coding key categories Coding examples
Organization Emphasis on: hierarchical loops, existing work structures
“It seems senior managers in some teams see this as a distraction…taking away from project time..and the programme…so junior staff are in the hands of senior managers (Studio S Participant 5)”
Learning methods Emphasis on: motivational blockages, uncertain effects
“My view is that I think a lot of people ... it's not that they can't be bothered, but they feel like somebody else will deal with the problem” (Studio A Participant 2) “I'm an architect and it's useful to have this information at my fingertips, but I regard it as a sort of an indication which gives some insight to what the consultant in the future will say” (Studio F Participant 2)
Energy relationships Emphasis on: client dependence, professional boundaries
Within the categories further subthemes were examined including: hierarchical loops, motivational blockages, client dependence, existing design drivers, uncertain effects. In a second phase, data were re-coded drawing on institutional logics using dimensions identified by Tumbas et al [36] and illustrated in Table 2. Table 2:
Institutional logics characteristics (adapted from study by Tumbas et al [36] on logics’ characteristics Dimensions Characteristics Principles
organizing principles that guide activities
Assumptions
understanding how a goal can be reached by particular means
Identities
enactment of selected scripts
Domain of application
key area of activity
5.Findings Across the four firms there are at times overlapping approaches to how architects discussed learning the tool, sharing outputs and using the knowledge and information gained. Two key logics emerged related to learning and sharing: The Logic of Investment and Logic of Risk (see Table 3). The logics were found to guide particular views and legitimate certain institutional work actions. Table 3: Overview of key logics and their ‘institutional work’ characteristics Dimensions Logics of investment Logics of risk Principles Assumptions Identities Institutional work
Personal interest and team compliance Acknowledgment of perceived benefits Personal need
Project value and opportunity
Advocating personal interests and need, Recognizing environmental moral value,Supporting project benefits
Identifying particular needs and resources, Justifying status quo,Verifying professional role and boundaries
Justification and post rationalization Project need
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
Advocating personal need, recognizing societal value and supporting project benefits within Logic of Investment For many learning a new technology was perceived as easy and intuitive. Learning was described as motivated by a personal rather than organizational interest viewed as a process of trial and error and largely for the benefit of the project. Although many projects’ use of energy modelling were described as dependent on client engagement and interest participants often discussed learning from a moral individual perspective. Many participants viewed investment of time as client dependant rather than organizational. “…I'm interested in passive measures as a starting point and good fabric, good wall fabric, wall build up, rather than sticking renewables on top, so kind of getting the basic principles right, but I think it…probably depends on how much the client engages as well and what they want as well…” (Studio F Participant 1) In addition to discussing learning as easy, most participants reflected upon apparent benefits and value of the tool. In Studio A, Participant 3 viewed the technology as ‘good because (the project) was in the early stages “and the remit, our remit was to create a building that was no-nonsense and functional”. Despite reflecting upon apparent lack of knowledge on environmental principles, Participant 5 noted the potential ‘usefulness’ of the technology. “…I don't think so…I understand the basics of energy consumptions in buildings, but I don't understand the details, so it's quite useful in that sense…” (Studio A Participant 5) Although the technology was discussed as being beneficial and useful, many participants seemed uncertain how it could be applied effectively in their project. For Participant 2 in Studio A, the technology was “not a game changer” as “it doesn't change the way that you think about what a sensible move is to make in design in terms of energy efficiency. Similarly, in Studio S the technology was viewed as not changing the approach but mainly viewed as providing justification for established working methods. “…Not necessarily, no 'cos I had already had a basic understanding of how it all worked, so not necessarily did it change my approach, or understanding; it was a very useful tool to prove the thinking behind what we were trying to do…(Studio S Participant 7)” Participants also discussed lack of opportunity to implement ongoing use of the technology. In Studios A and W participants noted the difficulties of ‘going back’ in time as the technology could only be applied at early stages. Participant 23 in Studio W discussed how the firm had spent a lot of time investing in ways to implement the technology usefully, changing protocols and work processes across projects. However, as some projects ‘lasted several years’ by the time another one came along whereby the tool could be used the knowledge was ‘out of date’ Participant 5 observed how the technology had never been fully implemented in projects, although there was awareness of benefit and value as the building design was too complex or ‘had moved on substantially’ to be able to be analyzed. Existing workflows were also viewed as established and needing investment of resource and time to adapt to new methods in order for the tools to effectively embed. Some of those design drivers are described as obstructing or preventing a scientific environmental approach. Existing workflows were described to determine a particular design view or approach. Participant 3 in Studio S described a project where window placements had been determined prior to any energy analysis taking place “…so the technology didn't exactly have as much effect as it could have done because (we) implemented the thinking before we used it, so it was post-justification“. Similarly in Studio A Participant 6 discussed the project being “constrained by (the) planning application, so we already had 40 per cent glazing ratio and windows and specific places, we could move them a bit, but not a huge amount” noting how using the technology regardless of output would have little or no effect on the design. For many participants issues of established workflows were closely related to project roles. Although an interest and potential benefit in using the technology had been largely noted, participants often reflected upon ‘others dealing with the issue’. “My view is that I think a lot of people ... it's not that they can't be bothered, but they feel like somebody else will deal with the problem” (Studio A Participant 2)
Identifying resource, justifying status quo and verifying professional boundaries within Logic of risk Future proofing and delivering ahead was viewed by many as a key benefit of applying early stage energy modelling in architecture. Enabling and communicating design decisions through the use of the technology was discussed by a large number of participants. However, for many outputs of the modelling were viewed as a potential
67
68
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
‘liability’ risk to architects’ relationship with other design team members and the client. Many participants viewed their role as needing to embrace ‘future thinking’ and ‘future proofing’ in order to maintain their position in an ever evolving industry. Participant 1 in Studio A noted how architects did not necessarily need more knowledge but needed to understand numeric information and to prepare for future legislation. Participant 6 in Studio A discussed his involvement in a large infrastructure London project looking at delivery in 2020 and appreciating need to future proof and think ahead. Participant 2 in studio F viewed the technology as another method of communication ultimately adding value to the design outcome: “It gives you another, I guess, tool in your toolbox to be able to carry out high level, early assessments and also communicate to design team members and the client why certain early design decisions might have an energy impact and why it might be more or less favourable to push the design in certain directions” Organizational value and benefits are also viewed through project constraints and challenges. The technology for Participant 2 in Studio S is viewed as “producing pictures and reports that are client friendly, making people aware of the design constraints”. The educational and marketing value of the technology was often reflected upon through a professional lens of risk. “You have a fee for early stage energy modelling and you can ... let's say you have a developer, or a client that isn't the end user, quite often hard to justify spending money on sustainability, but if you maybe teach people about you could sell buildings for more, therefore that's the justification for ... it can be marketed as green buildings, or low carbon usage. I think there's going to be a growing market for those sort of buildings” Although value, opportunity and benefits were frequently highlighted, participants also discussed potential risks and liabilities. Many participants discussed not being able to share information with building services engineers early in the design process. “We still get M&E engineers who still do their drawings by hand in 2D and then they are only prepared to put it into BIM at the very end because it takes too much time to put it in, so there are still problems there I think because for it to work, the whole point is you're meant to merge models the whole time, whereas we would find that the M&E engineers would just want to sort of drop it in right at the end, so that it doesn't waste their time…” Across all firms, discussions often reflected upon issues of risk in terms of sharing of outputs and information. For many risks outweighed investment potentials, viewing beneficial value of the tool as largely isolated from the process. Exceptions include Studio W where the tool was interpreted as beneficial to select typologies and certain projects within a firm. 6.Discussion The discussions and observations across the 4 firms display a sense of professional reluctance and uncertainty. For many the tool was viewed as beneficial and valuable, worthy of investment in time and resource, however, the perceived constraints of embedding within existing workflows, sharing and applying knowledge effectively across design teams was intertwined with notions of risk. For some participants, professional boundaries and roles of architects were locked within contractual responsibilities, client interests and notions of project liabilities. Although most participants viewed the value of energy modelling as intrinsic to supporting better building design, the practical issues of how best to share and communicate outputs gained, were often seen as ‘professionally’ entrenched stumbling blocks. Participants’ discussions were often conflicted and contradictory particularly related to perceptions of effectiveness and application. Whilst reflecting upon perceived usefulness many would note difficulties in how to effectively apply and interpret modelling outcomes. For most participants their remit of workload and workflow was viewed as bounded by their organizational or project domain. Established project and firm workflows were seen to determine how, if and when the technology was ‘learnt’, applied and shared. In addition, organizational hierarchies, structures and ways of shaping project teams were viewed as determining the possibilities of use. The institutional logics analytical lens allows for an examination into the principles, identities and assumptions participants draw on to justify particular decisions or views. Across the firms two logics reflected particular approaches and views with an emphasis placed on reasons for investing effort and time whilst depending on other
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
interests and opportunities. Scholars who have studied how new technologies are used in design organizations suggest particular characteristics of institutional logics guide innovation behavior of users [35]. Tumbas et al [36] suggest organizational actors trigger organizational change by combining distinct practices from various institutional logics and incorporating them into their own profession. The findings in this paper suggest logics continue to overlap and contradict – further analysis is needed to understand how participants employ diverse logics to maintain or resist a particular approach. In addition, an extended analysis is required to determine the extent by which particular logics are emphasized in certain firms and whether a dominance of a particular set of institutional work activities enables wider use and greater effect. Institutional work activities within different logics are often found to contribute towards logics being maintained [41]. Also as examined by Oliveira [41] responses to conflicting logics’ components are driven primarily by the logics’ legitimacy source; an issue that has not been fully explored within this paper.
7.Conclusion There is a relevant and important need for further empirical analysis and theoretical insight that develops a body of research engaged in studying energy analysis from multiple perspectives. The research carried out for this paper shows a potential way of studying energy modelling and analysis that takes into consideration the institutional logics, actors and activities involved. The identified logics although conflicting and contradictory allow participants to reach decisions and legitimate actions when implementing new technologies. In the longer term, more integrated contributions are needed, including a consideration of energy issues against other design and construction concerns as well as an analysis of various personal, organizational and project demands. In addition, further work is required to better understand the ways particular organizations manage use of energy modelling within and across teams and in particular how particular architect roles adapt, transform or reject implementation. The implication of this study is in the analysis of architects approaches and views, perceived as bound by established structures of management and deeply embedded project workflows. Initial insights suggest challenges lie within particular perceived established organizational hierarchies and structures. Much remains to be explored about the way in which organizations within the built environment within the UK and internationally navigate complex technological design environments. The contribution in this paper is in reflecting upon some of the organizational difficulties and social challenges architects encounter and negotiate within a conflicting and contradictory institutional environment.
References [1] HMGovernment. (2011). "Skills for a green economy: a report on evidence", I. a. s. Department for Business, (ed.). London. [2] AIA. (2012). American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2012. An Architect’s Guide to Integrating Energy Modeling in the Design Process. [3] Sullivan, L. (2012). The RIBA Guide to Sustainability in Practice. London, United Kingdom. [4] Eastman, C., Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., and Sacks, R. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors: John Wiley & Sons. [5] ZeroCarbonHub. (2014). Closing the gap between design and as built performance end of term report, Zero Carbon Hub [6] Littlewood, J. and Geens, A. (2002) A new multidisciplinary professional for the UK''s 21st century homes. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 2 (1/2/3). pp. 267-278. [7] De Wilde, P. (2014). "The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation." Automation in Construction, 41, 40-49. [8] Thornton, P., Jones, C., and Kury, K. (2005). " Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing." Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 23, 125-170. [9]Tucker, S. (2004). A simplified method of building thermal assessment (Doctoral dissertation, University of East London). [10] Balcomb, J.D. ed., (1992) Passive Solar Buildings, The MIT press, Massachusetts. [11] Bleil De Souza, C. and Tucker, S. (2015) Thermal simulation software outputs: a conceptual data model of information presentation for building design decision making. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 9,3
69
70
Sonja Oliveira et al. / Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 61 – 70
[12] Crawley, D. B., Hand, J. W., Kummert, M., and Griffith, B. T. (2008). "Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs." Building and environment, 43(4), 661-673. [13] Zhao, H.-x., and Magoulès, F. (2012). "A review on the prediction of building energy consumption." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3586-3592. [14]Chung, W. (2011). "Review of building energy use performance benchmarking methodologies." Applied Energy, 88, 14701479. [15]Fumo, N. (2014). "A review of the basics of building energy simulation." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 53-60. [16] Li, X., and Wen, J. (2014). "Review of building energy modeling for control and operation." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 517-537. [17] Pisello, A. L., Goretti, M., and Cotana, F. (2012). "A method for assessing buildings’ energy efficiency by dynamic simulation and experimental activity." Applied Energy, 97, 419-429. [18] Ham, Y., and Golparvar-Fard, M. (2013). "EPAR: Energy Performance Augmented Reality models for identification of building energy performance deviations between actual measurements and simulation results." Energy and buildings, 63, 15-28. [19] Korolija, I. (2011). Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning system energy demand coupling with building loads for office buildings De Montfort University Leicester. [20] Hetherington, R., Laney, R., Peake, S., and Oldham, D. (2011). "Integrated building design, information and simulation modelling: the need for a new hierarchy." [21]Sullivan, L. (2012). The RIBA Guide to Sustainability in Practice. London, United Kingdom. [22]Tupper, K., Franconi, E., Chan, C., Hodgin, S., Buys, A., and Jenkins, M. "Building energy modeling: industry-wide issues and potential solutions." Presented at Proceedings of the 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association. [23]Naboni, E. (2013). "Environmental Simulation Tools in Architectural Practice: The impact on processes, methods and design."PLEA 2013. City: 29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future, Munich, Germany10-12 September 2013. [24]Mahdavi, A. (2011). "People in building performance simulation." Building performance simulation for design and operation, 56-83. [25]Weytjens, L., and Verbeeck, G. "Towards' architect-friendly'energy evaluation tools." Presented at Proceedings of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multiconference. [26]Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [27] Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual review of sociology, 36, 1-20. [28]Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006). "Institutions and institutional work", In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies, London: Sage, 215-254. [29]Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies oforganizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [30]Friedland, R. (2012). "Book review: Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury (2012) The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure and process." Management, 15(5), 582-595. [31]Lounsbury, M., Geraci, H., and Waismel-Manor, R. (2002). "Policy discourse, logics and practice standards: Centralising the Solid-Waste Management field", in A. Hoffman and M. J. Ventresca, (eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment. Stanford University press. [32]Friedland, R., and Alford, R. R. (1991). "Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions", in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [33]Dunn, M., and Jones, C. (2010). "Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967-2005." Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 114-149. [34]Kraatz, M. S., and Block, E. S. (2008). "Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism", in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, and R. Suddaby, (eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE, pp. 243-275 [35]Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., and Lyytinen, K. (2006). "From organization design to organization designing." Organization Science, 17(2), 215-229. [36] Tumbas, S., Schmiedel, T., and Vom Brocke, J. (2015)"Characterizing multiple institutional logics for innovation with digital technologies." Presented at System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on. [37] Sefaira (accessed @usgbc.org on 14th April 2015) [38] Ragin, C. (1989). "New Directions in Comparative Research“.Cross-National Research in Sociology, ed. by ML Kohn. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE, 57-76. [39] Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2009) (eds) Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. [40] Richards, L (2009) Handling qualitative data, SAGE. [41] Oliveira, S (2014), Institutional work for enduring logics : Sustainability evaluation in architectural awards, doctoral dissertation, University of Reading