Short Summary for a Quick Glance
Building on my recent LinkedIn post, this article explores the crucial distinction between generic use cases and measurable performance indicators in smart buildings. It argues that true value lies not in feature checklists, but in defining what success genuinely looks like for specific applications. The piece advocates for the democratisation of use case libraries through industry collaboration, suggesting WiredScore’s SmartScore framework as a compelling starting point. This approach aligns with the ‘Design for Performance Management’ philosophy, helping to reframe how we measure and deliver performant digital assets beyond merely ‘technology for technology’s sake’.
Full Article: Beyond the Use Case Checklist: Defining True Value in Digital Buildings
Following on from my last post on the WELL standard’s quantifiable impact (a theme I explored in a recent LinkedIn post), I’ve been reflecting on another fundamental discussion I had recently with Alex Plenty, Head of Digital Construction at Skanska. This conversation, where I found myself joining dots on the distinction between use cases and performance indicators in digital buildings, revealed a crucial question: where does the true value lie in the rapidly evolving smart building landscape?
Many smart building design consultants present extensive libraries of ‘use cases’. Yet, a curious observation is how often these libraries are remarkably similar across various firms, despite subtle renamings making them appear to be proprietary. This raises a crucial question: if the underlying functionalities are largely identical, is that truly where the unique intellectual property or client value is to be found?
I’d argue the real value isn’t in clients simply ticking off a list of generic functionalities. Such an approach risks focusing on technology for its own sake, rather than on tangible outcomes. Instead, true value emerges from a consultant’s ability to help clients articulate what true success looks like for those use cases – defining clear, measurable performance indicators and then demonstrating precisely how technology helps deliver and, crucially, prove that success.
The Call for Democratisation and Collaboration on Use Cases
Perhaps it’s time for the industry to collaborate more openly on these foundational use case libraries. The current fragmentation, where similar offerings are rebranded as proprietary, hinders collective progress and creates unnecessary market confusion. A shared, standardised set of use cases, dynamically updated to reflect evolving functionalities and needs, could significantly benefit the entire industry This would allow everyone to have access to what is essentially the same information, rather than trying to present it as proprietary IP.
Various established bodies could facilitate such standardisation. Organisations like the CIBSE, RIBA, or research bodies like BSRIA are well-placed. Additionally, groups focusing on information management and interoperability, such as nima (formerly UK BIM Alliance) or buildingSMART, already work on ontologies and IFCs. However, the challenge for BIM-focused bodies often lies in extending their framework beyond design and construction into real-world operational use cases.
I believe perhaps more laterally that WiredScore’s SmartScore framework offers a compelling starting point for such a collaborative effort. Given its nature and how points are accrued for its rating, it inherently links smart building functionalities to desired outcomes. This positioning could allow SmartScore to be reframed as a core framework for delivering on the ‘Design for Performance Management’ philosophy championed by larger Facilities Management (FM) players, directly addressing those critics who say it merely rewards technology for its own sake. Who knows, maybe SmartScore will evolve into a performance rating itself, akin to NABERS or BREEAM equivalents. Publishing their existing use case library, derived from extensive industry outreach, could significantly accelerate adoption of not only their rating but shared understanding for the common good.
From Use Case to Performance: The Role of Data and the IDL
This shift from mere “use case” to “performance indicator” is underpinned by the effective use of data and the foundational concept of an Independent Data Layer (IDL), a term effectively championed by James Dice of Nexus Labs. An IDL fundamentally structures the hierarchical flow of data from IoT devices and operational technology, through network layers, into a secure, independent layer with an asset register, data model, data storage, and APIs, before it reaches applications (platforms, apps, AI). This independence from specific platforms, applications, and AI tools is crucial for ensuring data is truly leveraged for insights, not just collected.
The real value in smart buildings lies in understanding, measuring, and optimising performance based on this data. This aligns with the ‘Design for Performance Management’ ethos, ensuring that buildings are built to deliver on their promise in operation. This is also where AI truly becomes a game-changer: capable of interrogating vast datasets and O&M manuals to identify issues and recommend solutions, far beyond human capacity.
I can’t help but feel common use cases should be democratised for wider industry benefit. They are not proprietary assets; the true value lies in how consultants guide clients to define success and measure it. But if not WiredScore, then who would facilitate this critical standardisation and knowledge sharing (perhaps using use cases from the European Commission’s SRI Smart Readiness Indicator calculator)?
You can read by abridged version of this post on LinkedIn, together with the accompanying diagram I created here
