Customizing and using GBTool: Two case-study projects

This paper highlights the differences in the customization and use of GBTool during the GBC '98 process by contrasting the assessments of two multiunit residential case-study projects: the Ekoporten project (renovation project), Norrkoping, Sweden and Co-housing project (new build), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. The application of GBTool in the two projects suggests that the differences between assessing new and refurbishments is much more significant than initially envisaged. The customizing of the default Performance scales was extensive. The wide range of interpretations that different National Teams placed on the various criteria reinforced the importance of regionally specific assessment methods. The Non-applicability designation was often applied due to technical difficulties in performing an evaluation rather than whether or not the performance issue was pertinent to the case-study project. The Criticality/Non-criticality designation was ineffectively used during this first testing of the assessment process, primarily due to the absence of meaningful guidance. Although an option existed for National Teams to propose the addition of a limited number subcriteria unique to the region or building type it was not used. The GBC process clearly showed that users need time to become familiar with an assessment procedure and it is evident that a much clearer and consistent set of directives must be provided to assist in any customization process than currently evident within the GBC process.