Augenbroe, G and Park, C S (2005) Quantification methods of technical building performance. Building Research & Information, 33(2), pp. 159-172. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A building performance assessment toolkit was developed for use by large corporate owners and building portfolio managers in the US. A variety of technical performance aspects are addressed such as energy, lighting, thermal comfort, maintenance and indoor air quality. Every assessment is based on a normative and objective Performance Indicator (PI). For easy data capture and calculation of Pis, the toolkit was implemented in a web hosted form, enabling facility managers and staff to collect the data during a walk-through enabled by PDA-based data entry. The current set of performance indicators is discussed and the results of the first benchmarks, most notably the energy benchmarks, are reported.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; energy; lighting; office buildings; thermal comfort; United States |
| Index terms: | indoor air quality, manager, thermal comfort, owner, United States, performance indicator, office building, toolkit, quantification, building performance |
| Subjects: | software systems, sociology, environmental engineering, Geography, quality assurance, environmental health, construction type, practitioner, performance management, measurement and scaling |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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