Gong, Z; Ejohwomu, O; Aminian, E and Abadi, M (2024) Risk analysis of building energy performance gap: Considering project complexity. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Compelling evidence reveals a substantial energy performance gap (BEPG) in low- and zero-energy buildings. While risks contributing to BEPG stem from various complexities of projects, existing literature lacks comprehensive risk analysis of BEPG considering project complexities. This study addresses this gap by comprehensively identifying project complexities and energy performance risks and analysing their relationship through a literature review and interviews. Findings highlight technology synergies, time and cost constraints, internal and external uncertainties, and client and supply chain immaturity as significant complexity factors affecting energy performance risks and leading to BEPG. The varying impacts of complexities underscore the need to integrate project complexity into BEPG risk analysis for tailored risk management strategies in building projects. This study not only contributes to the BEPG literature by introducing a risk analysis perspective into building energy performance management, but also benefits project stakeholders by enhancing understanding of BEPG-related risk factors and providing references for proactively assessing and mitigating risks, thereby increasing the likelihood of achieving energy performance targets and reducing BEPG.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy performance gap; risk analysis; zero-energy buildings; project complexity |
| Index terms: | energy performance, risk analysis, complexity, synergy, project complexity, energy performance gap, zero-energy building, project stakeholder, risk factor, risk management, evidence, strategy, literature review, interview |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, environmental hazards, sociology, partnership management, organizational theory, management, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, sustainability and energy, risk assessment, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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