1. Methodologies for improvement of non-residential buildings' day- to-day energy efficiency reliability Minder May 2014, HJG & TB (contact: thomas. berker @ ntnu. no NTNU, Trondheim

2. Actors, Roles Construction project team –architect(s) –consulting engineers –consultants for law and economics –construction workers –etc. GAP Maintenance and operation –strategic: property manager –tactical: operations and maintenance manager –operational: managing operational personnel (aka janitor)

3. Tools, competences Used during design and construction Gap Used during management, maintenance, operation

4. MINDER "Methods" bridging the gap Specific methods –(Continuous) Comissioning (Cx) –Soft landings (SL) Generic methods –(Certain aspects of) Building performance evaluation (BPE) –(Some) Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) –(Some forms of) Value management and engineering (VM&E)

5. The MINDER approach "Methods" –Literature review –Survey among facilities managers "Practices" –Case studies –Interviews

6. Minder "Practices" bridging the gap Stuff: Tools, infrastructures, the buildings themselves Skills: Both tacit and explicit Images –Values and preferences –Fear, love, idiosyncracies

7. The specific methods

8. Continuous commissioning Commissioning: Making sure that the building functions according to the specifications when it is commissioned to use Actors Cx engineer local facilities manager Tools and competences FDD (Fault Detection and Diagnosis) building control system Energy management system Outcom: Fault detection

9. Soft Landings What kind of landing? Project team remains involved after handover Expectation management among all involved parties Actors SL champion from within the project team In principle the whole project team Tools, Competences Meetings: "Communication between all parties" Teaching and learning tools (eg. creating manuals) Outcomes Learning Quality = matched expectations

10. Generic methods

11. BPE Actors Building performance evaluators (either added to existing roles or contracted from the outside) Occupants Tools and competences: Assessment tools and the competences to use them Learning from assessments Processes: The whole range of assessment and evaluation processes (100s) Outcomes: Usability, energy efficiency

12. EPC Actors ESCOs and other 3rd parties Construction firms Utilities Public actors witin PPPs Competence/tools: Quantifying benefits and outcomes Execution of enery saving measures Civil law Processes focussed interventions contractual arrangements Outcomes: primarily financial, energy efficiency

13. VM&E and LCC Actors: LCC accountants either in-house or consultants Tools and competences: Establishing a clear relation between cost and benefit operationalized as functions over the whole life cycle of a building Processes: Cost-benefit assessment, evaluation and optimization Outcome: Optimal cost-benefit relation over the whole life cycle of a building

14. Conclusions (so far) The engineers' way: Continuous commissioning The architects' way: Soft landings The FM-professionals' way: Building performance evaluation The economists'/lawyers' way: EPCs The managers' way: VM&E

15. Next steps Survey and case studies of the missing implementation of the "methods" Adding insights from STS and Design thinking

16. Energy reliability gap 1 Closing the gap – Carbon Trust (http://www.carbo ntrust.com/media /81361/ctg047- closing-the-gap- low-carbon- building- design.pdf)

17. Reliability gap 2 "competence, contractually stated performance targets, and a spirit of collaboration", http://blog.mcclureco.com/the-green-performance-gap-part-2-implied-versus-targeted-energy-performance/