Developing a weighting scheme for building operational performance: A case study from the Netherlands

IF 7.6 1区 工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
Wei Luo , Hicham Johra , Esther Borkowski , Xu Liu , Jin Wen , Mohamed Ouf , Alfonso Capozzoli , Zoltan Nagy , Rick Kramer
{"title":"Developing a weighting scheme for building operational performance: A case study from the Netherlands","authors":"Wei Luo ,&nbsp;Hicham Johra ,&nbsp;Esther Borkowski ,&nbsp;Xu Liu ,&nbsp;Jin Wen ,&nbsp;Mohamed Ouf ,&nbsp;Alfonso Capozzoli ,&nbsp;Zoltan Nagy ,&nbsp;Rick Kramer","doi":"10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Building operations must balance the often-competing performance objectives of occupants’ needs, energy efficiency, and power grid demand, posing a complex multi-criteria decision-making problem. Tailored weighting schemes offer practical approaches to synthesize these diverse performance aspects onto a common scale, effectively informing building operations and overall performance evaluations. However, such schemes remain underdeveloped. To address this gap, a stakeholder ontology was first developed to analyze power dynamics and information flows among stakeholders involved in building operational performance. Building managers were identified as key stakeholders to determine weights of such a scheme. Subsequently, building on the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) framework, a survey was conducted to calculate the weights for commercial buildings using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Inputs from 27 building managers in the Netherlands were collected, along with 13 building owners and 13 international researchers. Results showed that performance aspects were not equally weighted. Building managers prioritized occupants’ health and wellbeing, building service downtime, and occupant comfort, while assigning the lowest weight to operational cost. Building owners and researchers also agreed with these top three priorities. However, considerable individual variation in priorities was observed, even after accounting for stakeholder roles, building types, and country. These findings suggest that the SRI weighting scheme should be adapted to regional contexts and highlight the necessity for customizable building management dashboards tailored to specific building conditions. Finally, the proposed weighting scheme offers pragmatic insights to support decision making in building operations, policy development, certification systems development, and smart building control and management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9273,"journal":{"name":"Building and Environment","volume":"286 ","pages":"Article 113762"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Building and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132325012326","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Building operations must balance the often-competing performance objectives of occupants’ needs, energy efficiency, and power grid demand, posing a complex multi-criteria decision-making problem. Tailored weighting schemes offer practical approaches to synthesize these diverse performance aspects onto a common scale, effectively informing building operations and overall performance evaluations. However, such schemes remain underdeveloped. To address this gap, a stakeholder ontology was first developed to analyze power dynamics and information flows among stakeholders involved in building operational performance. Building managers were identified as key stakeholders to determine weights of such a scheme. Subsequently, building on the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) framework, a survey was conducted to calculate the weights for commercial buildings using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Inputs from 27 building managers in the Netherlands were collected, along with 13 building owners and 13 international researchers. Results showed that performance aspects were not equally weighted. Building managers prioritized occupants’ health and wellbeing, building service downtime, and occupant comfort, while assigning the lowest weight to operational cost. Building owners and researchers also agreed with these top three priorities. However, considerable individual variation in priorities was observed, even after accounting for stakeholder roles, building types, and country. These findings suggest that the SRI weighting scheme should be adapted to regional contexts and highlight the necessity for customizable building management dashboards tailored to specific building conditions. Finally, the proposed weighting scheme offers pragmatic insights to support decision making in building operations, policy development, certification systems development, and smart building control and management.
为建立运营绩效开发一个加权方案:来自荷兰的案例研究
建筑运营必须平衡居住者需求、能源效率和电网需求等经常相互竞争的绩效目标,这构成了一个复杂的多标准决策问题。量身定制的加权方案提供了实用的方法,将这些不同的性能方面综合到一个共同的尺度上,有效地为建筑运营和整体性能评估提供信息。然而,这些计划仍然不发达。为了解决这一差距,首先开发了利益相关者本体来分析构建运营绩效所涉及的利益相关者之间的权力动态和信息流。建筑物管理人员被确定为确定此类方案权重的关键利益相关者。随后,在智能就绪指标(SRI)框架的基础上,进行了一项调查,使用层次分析法(AHP)计算商业建筑的权重。研究人员收集了荷兰27位建筑管理者、13位建筑业主和13位国际研究人员的意见。结果表明,绩效方面的权重并不相等。建筑管理者优先考虑居住者的健康和福祉、建筑服务停机时间和居住者舒适度,同时将运营成本分配到最低的权重。建筑业主和研究人员也同意这三大优先事项。然而,即使在考虑了利益相关者的角色、建筑类型和国家之后,在优先级上也观察到相当大的个体差异。这些研究结果表明,SRI加权方案应适应区域背景,并强调针对特定建筑条件量身定制的建筑管理仪表板的必要性。最后,提出的加权方案为支持建筑运营、政策制定、认证系统开发以及智能建筑控制和管理方面的决策提供了实用的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Building and Environment
Building and Environment 工程技术-工程:环境
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
23.00%
发文量
1130
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: Building and Environment, an international journal, is dedicated to publishing original research papers, comprehensive review articles, editorials, and short communications in the fields of building science, urban physics, and human interaction with the indoor and outdoor built environment. The journal emphasizes innovative technologies and knowledge verified through measurement and analysis. It covers environmental performance across various spatial scales, from cities and communities to buildings and systems, fostering collaborative, multi-disciplinary research with broader significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信