Borhani, A., Borhani, A., Dossick, C. S., & Jupp, J. (2024). An Ontological Analysis for Comparison of the Concepts of Sustainable Building and Intelligent Building. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13711
View Publication
Abstract
The concept of intelligent building is emerging in the contemporary built environment. Intelligent buildings aim to leverage digital technologies and information throughout the building’s life cycle (design, construction, and operation phases) to improve the building’s performance and value. In recent years, academic scholars and industry practitioners have made efforts to articulate the intelligent building concept and identify its components. However, there is still no commonly accepted definition for the term intelligent (or smart) building. Furthermore, the term is used interchangeably with similar terms such as sustainable building and high-performance building. The primary gaps in research are the lack of a holistic and clearly defined list of intelligent building components. This gap limits building stakeholders’ abilities to decide which technologies to implement in their buildings, prove its capabilities and advantages, and improve its performance. In response to the identified gaps, this research conceptualizes intelligent building in comparison with the concept of sustainable building. We identified the key components that each concept entails and conducted a comparative analysis of the identified components. The findings of this research include a categorization of intelligent building’s definitions which helps to conceptualize intelligent building and distinguish it from other similar concepts. In addition, the research team used the developed ontologies for intelligent and sustainable buildings to provide a fundamental overview of the structure of building evaluation systems and their different approaches for determining evaluation criteria. Overall, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by identifying and classifying components of intelligent buildings, which is a prerequisite for intelligent buildings’ evaluation. It also makes a distinction between the concepts of intelligent building and sustainable building in order to determine their context and applications.
At the end of October, Urban@UW hosted the first ½-day Research to Action Collaboratory workshop session for more learning, sharing and productivity. The Just Circular Communities team attended and focused on solidifying and growing their network of community partners. The team is also working to build a broader definition of “circular economy.” Read more about the October workshop session here. —– May 18, 2023: College of Built Environments researchers are selected for inaugural cohort of the Urban@UW Research to Action…
Wang, Y., Hu, S., Lee, H. W., Tang, W., Shen, W., & Qiang, M. (2023). To Achieve Goal Alignment by Inter-Organizational Incentives: A Case Study of a Hydropower Project. Buildings (Basel), 13(9), 2258–. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092258
View Publication
Abstract
Although the use of incentives has been widely recognized as an effective project management tool, its application still needs specific exploration. Existing research on incentives mainly focuses on intra-organizational incentives, lacking systematic research with empirical evidence from the perspective of the inter-organizational level. To fill this research gap, this study conducted an in-depth investigation into the application and impacts of inter-organizational incentives by studying a typical case of a hydropower project. In this case, a series of innovative inter-organizational incentives, involving a multiple contractual incentive scheme concerning schedule, quality, safety, as well as environmental performance, is applied. Using a mixed methodology that included a document review, a questionnaire survey, and interviews, this case study revealed that inter-organizational incentives could effectively help promote goal alignment, stimulate cooperative inter-organizational relationships, and improve project performance. This research developed a novel classification of inter-organizational incentives and emphasized the importance of non-contractual and informal incentives, which were ignored in previous research. The results further highlight that while incentivized organizations generally value incentives according to their monetary intensity, their prioritization of goals is determined by various factors. Therefore, to achieve project goal alignment, the optimization of incentive schemes should comprehensively consider a variety of influencing factors rather than merely focusing on monetary intensity. These findings will help both academic researchers and industrial practitioners design and execute effective inter-organizational incentives for superior project performance, especially for those projects that pursue high sustainable performance with safety and environmental performance included.
Keywords
inter-organizational incentive; inter-organizational relationship; multiple incentive; motivation; goal alignment; relational contracting; contractual incentive; environment incentive; environment performance; project performance
Research Interests: urban sustainability and resiliency, hybridized built environments, wetland city and wetland center typologies, nature-based solutions and scalable blue-green-gray infrastructure, human ecology and urban informatics in urban design
Research Interests: Climate change and infrastructure planning, artificial intelligence and data science for social good/urban planning
Brook Waldman is a research engineer at the Carbon Leadership Forum, where he investigates the life cycle of building materials — their manufacture, use, and end-of-life — and the environmental impacts that accompany those processes. He also studies and aims to improve the methodologies and data behind the measurement and communication of those environmental impacts. At the CLF, he has been particularly involved in supporting the EC3 tool and developing the CLF Material Baselines.
Anber Rana is a Researcher with Carbon Leadership Forum.
Jordan Palmeri is a Senior Researcher on the policy team at Carbon Leadership Forum. He’s an interdisciplinary scientist and policy advisor focused on reducing the lifecycle impacts of building materials. He is an experienced leader and facilitator with demonstrated success at multiple project scales, and a systems thinker with practical implementation strategies for private and public sector initiatives. Prior to joining the CLF, Jordan was an Environmental Scientist and Policy Analyst for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Mel Chafart is a Researcher with the Carbon Leadership Forum where he is primarily focused on researching Whole Building Life Cycle Assessments. Prior to joining the CLF, Mel was a structural engineer at Buro Happold. There, he assisted in the design of steel and concrete structures in the US and abroad. He has worked on projects from concept design through construction administration. On the embodied carbon side, Mel has deep experience performing embodied carbon assessments and helped Buro Happold build out their portfolio of benchmarked projects. Outside of work, he enjoys watching soccer and baseball, woodworking, gardening, and tinkering with Raspberry Pis.
Milad Ashtiani is a Building and Materials Researcher with Carbon Leadership Forum. Milad is a civil engineer who received his PhD from the University of Washington in the summer of 2022. Milad is responsible for the execution of research and analysis, development of guidance documents and educational resources, and outreach across the design community to improve the quality, accuracy, and effectiveness of building performance tools, methods and data that address embodied carbon. As a building and materials researcher, Ashtiani works collaboratively with CLF’s internal research team as well as with architecture and engineering firms and research consortiums across North America with a focus on building performance, computation, embodied carbon assessments, and life cycle assessment (LCA).