Borhani, A; Borhani, A; Dossick, C S and 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): 04024014, ISSN 0733-9364
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | building evaluation, built environment, building stakeholder, life cycle, digital technology, body of knowledge, sustainable building, operation phase, practitioner, intelligent building, ontology, comparative analysis |
| Subjects: | project delivery, data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, value management, computing systems, practitioner, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, asset management, sustainable construction, design practice, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here