Design Process For Energy Performance of Buildings

DOC TOR A L T H E S I S
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering

Division of Structural and Construction Engineering
A Design Process Perspective on the
Jutta Schade A Design Process Perspective on the Energy Performance of Buildings

ISSN: 1402-1544 ISBN 978-91-7439-549-5
Luleå University of Technology 2013 Energy Performance of Buildings
Jutta Schade
DOCTORAL THESIS
A DESIGN PROCESS PERSPECTIVE ON THE

ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
Jutta Schade
Luleå, January 2013
Division of Structural and Construction Engineering

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Luleå University of Technology
SE - 971 87 LULEÅ
www.ltu.se/sbn
Printed by Universitetstryckeriet, Luleå 2013
ISSN: 1402-1544
ISBN 978-91-7439-549-5
Luleå 2013
www.ltu.se
Abstract
Abstract
From a sustainable development perspective, buildings should be designed to

be as energy-efficient as possible, as the contribution of buildings to total
energy consumption has steadily increased, reaching between 20% and 40% in
the developed countries. One of the main challenges for achieving this goal is
to develop more cost-effective systems and processes for energy renovation
and modernising of the building stock of Europe. This challenge is addressed
in this thesis.
The research presented herein has had the overall purpose to identify and
explore obstacles in the design process of constructing more energy-efficient
buildings. Three research questions have guided the research work: (1) How
can life cycle cost be used to predict the cost benefits of energy efficient
buildings?; (2) How can the handling of energy performance requirements in
the design process for buildings be improved?; (3) How do client requirements,
political governance and regulations affect the design of energy performance in
buildings?
The research is based on literature reviews, interviews and surveys, as well as
case and computational studies. A computational study was performed with
three different building types situated in Finland using three different energy-
saving design concepts for each building. Energy consumption and
construction costs were analysed for each case and the financial viability was
analysed using the discounted payback method. Individual interviews were
carried out to determine to what extent life cycle cost calculations are used in
the construction sector and how energy performance is taken into account in
model-based design processes for buildings. A decision-making framework
and an axiomatic design model for a performance-based design process was
then developed and the conceptual model was compared with a real case of low
energy design in Sweden. Finally, a survey explored energy conservation
I
A design process perspective on the energy performance of buildings
strategies in the design of buildings in Germany and Sweden and a longitudinal

investigation of key policy instrument regarding energy conservation in
Germany and Sweden was conducted to support the main findings of the
survey.
The main results of the research work show that:
x There is no evidence that the design of energy performance is considered
differently in the design process for buildings in Sweden and Germany,
even if regulations and building codes differ between the two countries.
However, the somewhat steeper reduction in space heating in Germany
compared with Sweden could be due to the stricter regulation in the building
codes in Germany over the last decade.
x The transparency of the design and the associated decision-making about
energy performance can be improved by using the requirement management
model developed, which is based on axiomatic principles and the proposed
decision-making framework for evaluating, structuring and detailing the
requirements from the conceptual to the detailed design stages.
x Energy performance design can give cost benefits over a specific time for a
building, as measured by the resulting life cycle costs. In general, life cycle
cost analysis can be a tool for evaluating cost benefits over time and provide
support for the decision-makers, but the challenges and uncertainties of its
use have to be taken into account in the decision-making process.
To conclude, the "energy gap" between regulations and what is technologically
possible can be reduced to a certain extent by facilitating the energy design
process with a performance-based design process and decision-making tools
that support the evaluation of life cycle performance. However, it seems that
regulation is a more important driver for the development of technology for
low energy housing than market forces so the regulatory limit should therefore
be set with respect to what is possible and not with respect to current practice.
II
Contents
Contents
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................I
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... III
PREFACE .......................................................................................................... V
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ VII
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and motivation ............................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research questions ........................................................................... 3
1.4 Scope and Limitations ...................................................................... 4
1.5 Outline .............................................................................................. 5
1.6 Appended papers .............................................................................. 5
2 METHOD .................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Research design ................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Chosen research methods ..................................................... 9
2.1.2 Research process ................................................................ 10
2.2 Literature studies ............................................................................ 12
2.3 Empirical data collection................................................................ 12
2.3.1 Computational study........................................................... 12
2.3.2 Interviews ........................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Case study........................................................................... 14
2.3.4 Survey ................................................................................. 14
2.4 Reliability and validity ................................................................... 20
3 FRAME OF REFERENCES ................................................................... 21
3.1 Economic analysis method ............................................................. 21
III
3.1.1 Life cycle costing ............................................................... 22

3.2 Design process ............................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Energy design process ........................................................ 25
3.2.2 Model based design ............................................................ 26
3.2.3 Management of requirements ............................................. 27
3.2.4 Decision-making process ................................................... 29
3.2.5 Decision-making methods.................................................. 30
3.3 Drivers for building energy-efficient buildings ............................. 31
3.3.1 Performance driven by market demands ............................ 31
3.3.2 Performance driven by regulations .................................... 32
4 SUMMARY OF PAPERS....................................................................... 35
4.1 Summary of Paper I ....................................................................... 35
4.2 Summary of Paper II ...................................................................... 37
4.3 Summary of Paper III..................................................................... 38
4.4 Summary of Paper IV .................................................................... 39
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ..................................................... 43
5.1 Addressing the research questions ................................................. 43
5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................... 48
5.3 Generalisation and limitations ....................................................... 50
5.4 Future research ............................................................................... 51
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 53
PUBLICATION LIST ...................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................... 71
APPENDED PAPERS
IV
Preface
Preface
This PhD. thesis reflects a part of my research journey as a postgraduate

student. This study has been made possible thanks to the many people around
me. In this preface, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the
help and assistance of these people.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my scientific advisors

Professor Thomas Olofsson and Professor Ove Lagerqvist. Thank you for all
your support and enthusiastic ideas. Thomas, thank you for your patience and
confidence in me during this research journey. It is very inspiring working with
you.
Special thanks are due to Assistant Professor Anders Venström for many
valuable comments at my pre-seminar “paj-seminariet”. They really helped to
improve my work. I would also like to thank Gustav Jansson for his helpful
comments and the good work on our inspiring work together. Further, I would
like to give a special thank you to my co-supervisors Erika Hedgren and Peter
Wallström, thanks for your support and help.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the InPro (http://www.inpro-

project.org) - an integrated project funded by the European Union
6thframework program, the Centre for Energy and Resource Efficiency in the
Built Environment, (CERBOF), and the Development Fund of the Swedish
Construction Industry, (SBUF).
This research work would never have been achieved without the support of my
dear colleagues in our research group. Thank you, Kajsa, Ekaterina, Kristina
Patrik, Peter, Håkan, Hendrik, Per-Erik, Tamas, Robert, Ove, Lu, Tim, Patrik
V
and Thomas for the friendly and supportive atmosphere in our group. Carina,
thank you for all the help with the sometimes confusing administrative stuff.
I would like to thank all my colleagues and friends at the Department of Civil,
Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering for their support in and
outside the University.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family in Sweden and Germany
and all my friends, who have given me support throughout these years. It is
great that you all exist.
Thanks to all
January 2013
Jutta Schade
VI
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
AEC Architectural, engineering and construction
AHP Analytical hierarchy process
BIM Building information model
Cs Constrains
DPP Discounted payback period
DPs Design parameters
ECA Equivalent annual cost
EDP Energy design process
FRs Functional requirements
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCC Life cycle cost
MAUT Multi-attribute utility theory
NPV Net present value
OIE Open information environment
OIP Open information platform
VII
PIs Performance indicators
PVs process variables
WLA Whole life appraisal
WLC Whole life costing
VIII
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the background and motivation for this thesis are explained.
The purpose, aim, research questions and scope of the research are also
stated. Finally, the outline of the thesis and the contributions of each author of
the appended papers are summarised.
1.1 Background and motivation

An important goal for policy-makers is the sustainable development of our
society in order to protect the environment. According to Kohler (1999),
sustainable buildings consist of three main parts related to sustainability:
ecological, economic and social/cultural development. The sustainability
agenda for buildings often includes a number of matters such as: energy
saving, improved used of material, reuse and recycling and emission control
(Sarja, 2002; Asif et al., 2004; Ramesh et al., 2010).
The energy consumption in buildings has steadily increased, reaching 20% to

40% of the total energy consumption in the developed countries and has, in
many cases, exceeded the contribution of the industrial and transportation
sector (Pérez-Lombard et al., 2008). Most of the energy is consumed by
dwellings in the operating stages of their building life cycle (Thormark, 2001).
The energy consumption during production in most cases accounts for only 10
– 15% (Fossdal, 1995; Adalbert, 1997; Adelbert, 2000; Winter and Hestnes,
1999). Looking from a sustainable development perspective, buildings should
therefore be designed to be as energy-efficient as possible.
Nässen et al. (2005) claimed that the energy efficiency of Swedish buildings
significantly improved during the 1970s and early 1980s, then stagnated in the
late 1980s and 1990s. Elmroth (2002) also showed that the measured energy
1
consumption in Swedish houses built in the 1990s could be 50 – 100% higher

than the estimated energy use. Therefore, Nässen et al. (2005) argued that the
current Swedish standard had has little effect on the energy efficiency of new
buildings since 1977.
At present, the Swedish energy regulation policy regarding new buildings and
recommendations for renovation can be considered as moderate. The Swedish
National Board of Housing, Building and planning (Boverket) divides Sweden
in the building regulation BBR19 (BBR 19, 2012) into three climate zones. For
residential buildings, the permitted energy consumption for heating is between
130 kWh/m2a in the north and 90 kWh/m2a in the south for non-electrical
energy supply.
Compared to the definition for passive houses used in central Europe that
stipulates a heat demand of 15 kWh/m2a or less (Feist et al., 2005), the
Swedish regulation permits about 6 times more energy consumption for
heating. Lylykangas and Nieminen (2008), as well as Pedersen and Peuhkuri
(2009), suggested a somewhat higher limit in the range of 25 – 35 kWh/m2a for
the heating demand of passive houses at a latitude of 60º north (Stockholm,
Oslo, Helsinki), so the gap between the regulation and what is considered
possible is still wide.
It is widely acknowledged that the most important design decisions concerning

a building's energy performance depend on decisions taken early in the design
process (Schlueter and Thesseling, 2009). The study by Schade (2009) showed
that energy calculations made in the early design phase, that are usable for
design decisions, can be made at different levels of information maturity.
Depending on the maturity level, more or less detailed design information is
available which influences the estimation of the energy consumption.
Therefore, early estimations made when the information maturity is low should
be used to compare different design alternatives and guide the design in a more
energy-efficient direction. Life cycle cost calculations can support the
investment in energy conservation measures. However, the outcome is strongly
affected by the real rate of interest selected, the forecast of energy prices as
well as the discount time.
At present, design decisions are often made with only minor consideration of
energy use and indoor environment (Nielsen, 2005). The energy performance
aspects are often not considered before the detailed design phase (Schlueter
and Thesseling, 2008). At this stage of the design process, only small
improvements in the building design are possible since changes often result in
2
Introduction
high additional costs. The space heating energy consumption of a building can
be reduced by up to 80% if the orientation, building shape, insulation and
ventilation are optimised in the design process (Feist et al., 2005; Smeds and
Wall, 2007).
1.2 Purpose
The overall purpose of this thesis is to explore the obstacles and drivers in the
building process in respect of energy conservation, with the aim to facilitate
the design of energy-efficient buildings.
1.3 Research questions

Research question 1:
How can life cycle cost be used to predict the cost benefits of energy efficient
buildings?
The first question aims to give an understanding of life cycle costing, existing
methods to evaluate the economic aspects (e.g. payback period) of energy-
efficient buildings and how they can be used.
How can the handling of energy performance requirements in the design

process for buildings be improved?
This question aims to investigate how requirements regarding energy

consumption can be structured as functional requirements through a
performance-based design process from the early conceptual stage to the
detailed design stage. What kind of choices are possible in different stages and
how can the decision-making process be improved in a design process?
How do client requirements, political governance and regulations affect the

design of energy performance in buildings?
The purpose of this question is to explore and understand how the design
process can be affected by requirements from clients as well as requirements
expressed in the regulatory framework. To be more specific, the study is
limited to the design of energy performance in Sweden and Germany since
3
these countries have different strategies regarding political governance and

regulations.
1.4 Scope and Limitations

This thesis focuses on the energy performance of buildings from a design
process perspective. The different studies included in this research have
different perspectives on the energy design process. The three primary
perspectives are the economic analysis method, the design process and the
drivers for building energy-efficient buildings. No attention is paid to the
environmental influence of the energy consumption or the life cycle
assessment (LCA) of the building. The research concentrates on the design of
energy performance in buildings, as shown in figure 1.1.
First contact Contract Building Handover

with client signature approval
Disciplines Phases
Business Feasibility Building Detailed design

Operation RIP
planning design design and realisation
Design
Construction
Electric
Fire
Energy
l 3 Level 4th Level 5th Level 6th Level
for support of
Figure 1.1: Limitations of the study of the energy design process
The study of the economic analysis method included a computing study where
all buildings were situated in Finland, thus limiting this computing study to
conditions in Finland.
The study of the design process is limited to Scandinavian conditions as the

performance-based design process was adapted to Swedish conditions and
regulations. The interviews for this study were conducted in Finland and the
empirical data about the energy design process were collected from a
construction project in Sweden from one of the largest contractors in
Scandinavia.
The study of client requirements, political governance and regulations is

limited to Sweden and Germany, as the empirical data for this study were
collected in these countries.
4
Introduction
1.5 Outline
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the background and motivation of this
thesis. The purpose, aim and research questions as well as the limitations are
also presented in this chapter. Further, the distribution of the work in the
appended papers is highlighted.
Chapter 2 gives an overview of the research design and describes the methods
used in the research presented in this thesis.
Chapter 3 presents the frame of reference on which this study is based.
Chapter 4 presents a detailed summary of each appended paper, including the

title of the paper, authors, the research question focused on, keywords,
introduction and purpose, method, main content and finally the results and
contributions to this thesis.
Chapter 5 contains a discussion and conclusion of the research work. The

research questions are addressed followed by a presentation of the scientific
and practical contribution of this research.
1.6 Appended papers

Paper I: Alanne, K., Schade, J., Martinac, I., Saari, A., Jokisalo, J., Kalamees,
T. (2012) Application of life cycle costing to the economic evaluation of
energy-efficient buildings. Submitted to Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Review (August 2012)
This paper discusses the application of life cycle costing in the economic
viability assessments of energy-efficient buildings. The history, methods,
standards and practise for life cycle costing were reviewed. The paper includes
a survey of recent economic viability assessments of various energy-efficient
building types in worldwide locations. A computational study was conducted
for three different building types situated in Finland, where the economic
viability of energy-efficient design was evaluated using the discount payback
period method.
This paper was written by several authors. Alanne was the main author who
coordinated the work and edited and reviewed the final version. Alanne also
carried out and wrote the survey of the worldwide economic viability
assessment. My contribution to this work was the review of the history,
5
methods, standards and practise of the life cycle costing. Jokisalo reported and
carried out the building simulations in collaboration with Kalamees. Saari
carried out and reported on the economic viability analysis. Martinac
contributed by reviewing and commenting on the paper. The conclusions and
theoretical discussions are the result of our collaborative efforts and
contributions.
Paper II: Schade, J., Olofsson, T., Schreyer, M. (2011) Decision-making in a

model-based design process. Construction Management and Economics, 29,
371-382
Paper II gives a framework for decision-making in a structured design process,

when design alternatives consist of both objective and subjective evaluation
criteria. The framework was demonstrated using an energy design scenario.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate how life cycle cost
and energy performance is currently taken into account in model-based design
processes for buildings.
I was the main author who coordinated the work and editing, conducted the
interviews and developed the energy design scenario. The idea of the decision-
making framework was developed during a project workshop together with
Olofsson and Schreyer. Schreyer contributed the literature study about Multi-
criteria decision methods and Olofsson carried out the building information
modelling. The motivating case, the analysis and the conclusions are the results
of our collaboration.
Paper III: Jansson, G., Schade, J., Olofsson, T. (2012) Requirement

management for the design of energy performance in buildings. Submitted to
ITcon (January 2013)
The third paper presents a conceptual model of requirement management based

on the principals of axiomatic design. A case study of the design of energy
performance in a Swedish project was used to evaluate and compare the
conceptual model developed against how functional requirements are currently
managed in a typical construction project.
This paper was written by Jansson and myself. Jansson was the main author
and had the initial idea for the paper. Jansson contributed the design theory in
the literature survey whereas my contribution concerned the design of energy
performance of buildings. The model was developed in collaboration with
Jansson. I contributed the description of the energy design case. The analysis,
6
Introduction
results and conclusions are a result of collaborative efforts by Jansson and

myself. Olofsson reviewed the paper.
Paper IV: Schade, J., Wallström, P., Olofsson, T., Lagerqvist, O. (2012) A
cooperative study of the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings
in Germany and Sweden. Submitted to Energy Policy (October 2012) accepted
with revision (December 2012)
This paper presented a longitudinal comparison of the key policy energy

conservation instruments implemented in Sweden and Germany. A
questionnaire survey was conducted investigating how both countries manage
the energy requirements in building projects. The survey was analysed with the
help of statistical analysis. The paper resulted in an understanding of how key
energy policies affect the management of energy requirements in the design
process in Sweden and Germany.
I was the main author, where my contribution was the longitudinal comparison
between the implemented key policy energy conservation instruments and the
development, distribution and collection of the questionnaire survey.
Wallström contributed the statistical analysis of the survey and the literature
review. The resulting conclusions and discussions were developed together.
Olofsson reviewed the work and assisted in the discussion and analysis of the
results. Lagerqvist contributed by reviewing the paper.
7
Method
2 METHOD
In this chapter, the research method is discussed. The chapter starts with a
discussion and description of the chosen research methods used to answer the
research questions. Further, it describes the research process as a guideline
through the research. The methods for collection and analysis of empirical
data used for the different studies are described in this chapter.
2.1 Research design

This research can be undertaken in different ways and the outcome of the study
is influenced by the selected approach. When undertaking research, it is
important to choose a suitable strategy to ensure that the research objectives
can be met and that the findings can be validated (Fellows and Liu, 2003).
Research design is a strategy for linking the research questions together in the
research project (Robson, 2002).
2.1.1 Chosen research methods
The choice of research methods is based on the purpose and aim of the study
and the resulting research questions. According to Yin (2009), the choice of
research strategy depends on what type of research questions are being asked.
The research questions in this study are ‘how’ questions. Yin (2009) presented
five types of research strategies to be used for different types of research
questions: Experiment, Survey, Archival analyses, History, Case study. The
chosen research method for each research question and in which appended
paper the work is documented, is summarised in table 2.1. The first question is
a combination of an exploratory and explanatory question. When considering
Yin’s theory, a possible way of answering how and why questions, which are
9
more explanatory, would be to use a research strategy based on case studies,

experiments or history (Yin, 2009). The chosen method was an extended
review of publications about energy savings in energy-efficient buildings and
the application of life cycle costing. Further, an experimental study (computing
study) was chosen to investigate three different building types using three
different energy standards, their energy savings and the economic outcomes of
those savings. The second research question is, likewise, of an exploratory
nature, so a case study was chosen and interviews with a few individuals acting
in key roles in the projects. The third question is a how question in the form of
“how much” do client requirements, political governance and regulations affect
the design of energy performance in buildings. As the third research question
in this study is of a more exploratory nature, all five research strategies can be
used. Hence, the survey strategy was chosen that gave a broader perspective.
To carry out a systematic investigation of how architects and engineers in
Sweden and Germany handle the energy design process, a questionnaire was
developed using quantitative data.
Table 2.1: The chosen research methods for each research question and the
main output
Research question Chosen Methods Main output

RQ 1 Literature study
Paper I
How can life cycle cost be used to predict the cost Computational study
benefits of energy efficient buildings?
RQ 2
Literature study
Papers II and
How can the handling of energy performance
Individual Interview III
requirements in the design process for buildings be
improved? Case study
RQ 3
Literature study
How do client requirements, political governance Survey (questionnaire) Paper IV
and regulations affect the design of energy
performance in buildings?
2.1.2 Research process
The overall purpose of this thesis is to explore the obstacles and drivers in the
building process regarding energy conservation with the aim of facilitating the
10
Method
design of energy-efficient buildings. The research started with an extensive

literature review and a computational study which focused on life cycle costing
in the energy design process (Paper I). This study investigated the application
of life cycle costing to energy-efficient buildings. The results presented in
paper I showed that the obstacles in the design process that prevented the
building of more energy-efficient buildings were not solely in the economic
analysis methods but also related to when this issue is raised in the design
process. Therefore, the focus shifted to studies of the design process for the
second step of the research process. Papers II and III investigated how to
improve the handling of energy performance requirements in the design
process for buildings. Paper II, with an interview approach, focused on the
decision-making process in the energy design process. The case study in paper
III focused on requirement management in the energy design process. The
empirical data from papers II and III showed that not only the change in
handling the design process solve the obstacles. This led to an investigation of
drivers for building more energy-efficient buildings. Paper IV investigated,
based on a questionnaire survey, what effects client requirements, political
governance and regulations can have on the energy design process. Figure 2.1
shows a schematic figure of the research process.
Figure 2.1: Research process
11
In this study, the energy design process (EDP) was at the centre of the different
studies. The EDP is investigated from three different perspectives, economic
analysing method, design process and drivers, with different research methods,
figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: The different perspectives of the EDP in the research process
2.2 Literature studies

Throughout the research, literature studies were carried out to establish
knowledge about the energy design process for buildings, life cycle cost,
requirement management, axiomatic design, the decision-making process, key
policy instruments etc. For different subjects, different key words were used in
combination with the “snowball method”, meaning that new searches for
articles are made using information from the listed references that are found in
the relevant articles and reports.
2.3 Empirical data collection

2.3.1 Computational study
In the computational study, three alternative energy-saving design concepts for

a typical new detached house, an apartment building and an educational
building were analysed. The buildings analysed were located in Finland. The
aim was to investigate the impact of three different design concepts for each
building type on the total delivered energy consumption and the construction
costs. Further, the financial viability of the concepts was analysed using the
discounted payback period method (DPP). The DPP takes the time value of
money into account and can be used for quickly determining if an initial
12
Method
investment will be profitable. This method was suitable as not all the data were
known and the analyses could be carried out on individual parts of the
buildings.
The detached house studied was a two storey house (net floor area 140.5 m2),
the apartment building studied was a four storey block of flats (1630 m2) and
the educational building was a comprehensive school that included teaching
facilities (1858m²), a canteen (635 m²) and a gym hall (1187 m²). For each
building type studied, three different design concepts based on the Finnish
building codes and guidelines were simulated. The first design concept used
the energy requirements and thermal transmittance of the building envelope as
defined by the Finnish 2010 building code C3 (Finnish code of building
regulation, 2010). The second design concept used the new Finnish guidelines
for low-energy buildings, RIL 249 (Low-energy construction, residential
buildings, 2010). The third design concept used the new Finnish guidelines for
ultra-low-energy buildings, RIT 249 (Low-energy construction, residential
buildings, 2010). Table 6 in paper I summarises the properties of the building
envelope and ventilation system for each case.
Energy simulations of the target buildings were conducted using IDA Indoor
Climate and Energy 4.0 (IDA-ICE), as it is one of the common dynamic
whole-building simulation tools. Helsinki-Vantaa hourly climatic data for 2001
were used for the simulations.
Construction costs were calculated using the standard method for estimating
construction costs in Finland (Building Element Estimate Method). The
construction data were specified on the basis of information obtained from the
suppliers of the thermal insulation materials. The costs of construction
components were ‘as installed’ and, with the standard method used, also
included the relevant share of the overheads (12 %), the project management
(7.1 %) and design (6.4 %). The percentages in brackets are additions over and
above the construction component costs. All of the costs used in this study are
based on June 2008 prices.
The life cycle cost analyses was performed for the different cases. The
discounted payback period method was used for the calculation. Parameters
such as rate of interest and energy prices were varied to investigate their effect
on the result of the life cycle cost.
13
2.3.2 Interviews
To determine to what extent life cycle cost (LCC) analysis is used in the
construction sector and how energy performance is taken into account in the
design process for buildings, interviews were carried out. The interviews were
conducted with a total of eight individuals, acting in key roles on the client side
and on the consulting side. The strategically-chosen respondents included four
LCC experts and two energy experts from Granlund Oy along with two project
managers from the Finnish government-owned enterprise, Senate Properties,
which has been involved in projects where LCC and energy analysis were both
used. The interviews were open-ended and semi-structured. The questions used
as a basis for the interviews can be found in Appendix A.
2.3.3 Case study
The case study concerned the design process used in a construction project by
one of the largest contractors in Scandinavia. The specific chosen case was a
housing project with higher demands on energy requirements than the Swedish
energy regulation defined. Predefined stages with intermediate gates were
followed throughout the design process and the building shape was designed
using predefined geometrical and component standards. The design activities
were followed and mapped by observations in project meetings in 2010 and
2011 and by qualitative interviews with the project manager, the design project
manager, structural engineers and the energy engineer. Semi-structured
interviews were chosen in order to obtain a better understanding of the
operational work. In addition, the logbook and related design documents were
analysed.
The case was analysed from a design process perspective with engineering
design theories as a foundation. The purpose of the analysis was to investigate
weaknesses and strengths in the conceptual model of management of
requirements.
2.3.4 Survey
Questionnaire
A survey was carried out to investigate how architects and engineers in

Sweden and Germany effected energy conservation strategies during the design
and construction phases. The questionnaires were developed in Swedish and in
German, to ensure a proper understanding of the questions. The questionnaires
14
Method
can be found in Appendix B. It is also the case that the architecture,

engineering and construction (ACE) sectors in both countries have their own
terminology and processes. To overcome the problem with different terms for
the phases in the design and construction process, the terms were fitted to the
naming convention used in the InPro project (Olofsson et al., 2010), see table
2.2. The questionnaires were web-based and were sent by e-mail, using
individual participant links to the questionnaire. This made it possible to send
out reminders to those who did not answer, to increase the respondent rate.
A covering letter describing the study and its purpose was sent out including
the individual link. The letter also explained that the answers from the
respondents would be anonymous and that their contact information would not
be used outside the study.
The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section contained

questions about the respondent such as age, education etc. The second section
covered questions regarding the analysis of the energy performance of
buildings in relation to the design and construction process. The third section
contained follow-up questions regarding the process and reasons and motives
for not carrying out an energy analysis. The questions consisted of multiple
choice alternatives and possibilities to add options not listed in the first section.
Sections two and three contained binary or multiple choice questions, in the
latter case using 5-point Likert scales. When using Likert scales, it is possible
to track relative positions in a serial order but not the absolute difference
between the values (Hair et al., 2010). The Likert scale used in the
questionnaire had five levels. The reason for choosing five levels was that it
was considered a reasonable trade-off between resolution and noise. If the
resolution is reduced, it will increase the reliability since small random changes
will not be detected, but at the same time this decreases the usefulness of the
results since they may not reveal differences among subgroups (Lekvall and
Wahlbin, 2001).
15
Table 2.2: The InPro German and Swedish naming convention for the
phases in the design and construction process.
InPro Phase Germany Sweden

Goals Grundlagenermittlung Idéskedet
Feasibility Vorplanung/ Entwurfsplanung Förslags-/programskedet
Building Genehmigungsplanung Systemprojektering
design
Detailed Ausführungsplanung Detaljprojektering
design Vorbereitung/Mitwirkung bei der
Vergabe
Realisation Bauausführung/bauüberwachung Byggskedet
Operation Gebäudeverwaltung Förvaltningsskedet
Population and samples
The population sizes for this study were assessed in November 2009. The
actual numbers may differ slightly from current values.
Germany
According to the Federal chamber of Engineers (2007), Germany had149 000

Civil Engineers and 118 000 Architects. The Federal chamber of Engineers in
Germany has around 43 000 members, spread over 16 regional state chambers.
In November 2009, the Federal Chamber of Architects in Germany had around
124 000 members including 6721 retired architects and 2000 volunteer
members, spread over the 16 regional state chambers. The regional state
chambers for Engineers and Architects show a large variation of member
numbers, as the population differs in the different regional states.
To achieve an even distribution, the number of respondents among Civil

Engineers and Architects was chosen according to the population in each
regional state. In total, 215 civil engineers and 621 architects were chosen, see
figure 2.3. In order to overcome problems with the response rate, the
population in the different regional state chambers was restricted to engineers
working in the planning stages for buildings, while groups working with, for
example, road construction were eliminated. For the Architects, the same
procedure was followed and architects working in the planning stages for
buildings were chosen, while groups like landscape architects, interior
architects and retired architects were eliminated.
16
Method
Germany has around 513 certified passive-house planners, according to the

International Passive House Association (PHI, 2009) and 591 energy advisors
according to the German energy advisor database (Energieberatung-regional,
2009). These professional groups are definitely involved in the energy process
and were therefore considered as important to include in the study. In order to
include these professional groups into the study, an equivalent sample group to
that of the Architects and Engineers was chosen. Figure 2.3 shows the
population size of each professional group and the chosen sample size.
The random choice was made using the Microsoft Excel Random Function.
From 124 000 Architects and 43 000 Engineers, a response group of 0.5% (620
architects and 215 engineers) was chosen. To achieve a balanced sample size,
249 passive-house planners and 249 energy advisers were randomly selected,
proportionally spread across the regions.
Figure 2.3: Population and sample size for Germany
Sweden
The Swedish Organisation of Civil and Structural Engineers (SVR) has about
3500 members, accounting for about 25% of all civil engineers in Sweden.
This implies that there are about 14 000 civil engineers in Sweden.
The Swedish Association of Architects (Sveriges Arkitekter) has about 11 500

members including interior architects, landscape architects and spatial
planners. The population of the AEC sector in Sweden is smaller than in
Germany as the population is smaller. To ensure an even sample group in
Sweden, a higher percentage of engineers and architects was chosen. Figure
2.4 shows the population size and the chosen sample size for the different
professional groups.
17
The access to e-mail addresses for architects and engineers in Sweden is much
more limited than in Germany because in Sweden, membership of the architect
chamber is not compulsory and Architect is not a proprietary title. In total,
there were 250 engineers (1.79%) registered with the Swedish construction
engineering Federation (SBR, 2009) as working in the planning process for
buildings. A further 121 architects (2.24%) were identified through the register
of the Swedish Association of Architects (Sveriges Arkitekter, 2009) as
working in the planning stages of buildings. A further 114 energy advisers
were selected from the 407 registered energy advisors listed by the Swedish
National Board of Housing, Buildings and Planning (Boverket, 2009). From
the 37 passive-house planners registered at the International Passive House
association (PHI, 2009), 36 were selected (as the 37th register passive-house
planner was the author herself).
Figure 2.4: Population and sample size for Sweden
Responses
In total, 1262 questionnaires were sent out in Germany as not all 1334 e-mail
addresses collected were correct and some addresses were duplicated as the
respondent had been listed in two sample groups e.g. Architect and passive-
house planner. In Sweden, 513 questionnaires were sent out as eight e-mail
address were incorrect or duplicated.
155 responses were received from Germany and 210 from Sweden after one e-
mail reminder. This gives a response rate of 12% for Germany and 41% for
Sweden.
Analysis
The total sample was split into six groups: German architects, German
engineers, German others, Swedish architects, Swedish engineers and Swedish
18
Method
others. The two groups marked as “others”, with 41 German respondents

(26%) and 27 Swedish respondents (31%), were excluded from the analysis
since they both covered a large range of educational levels and professional
roles compared to the architect and engineer groups. Grouping by profession
was carried out because of the large difference in the number of respondents of
architects and engineers from each country. Since there was a statistical
difference between the respondent numbers for each occupation in each
country, the analysis was performed between the groups of German architects
and Swedish architects and the groups of German engineers and Swedish
engineers. A comparison between German and Swedish respondents would
have mainly been a comparison between German architects and Swedish
engineers. The grouping of the sample is shown in table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Sample grouping and percentages of those with further education
as an energy advisor or passive-house planner
Groups Respondents Further education as energy advisor or

passive-house planner
Architect SE 45 38%
Engineer SE 138 20%
Architect DE 76 82%
Engineer DE 40 86%
Three statistical classification tests were used in the analysis: binary logistic
regression, the Mann-Whitney test and the 2-sample t-test. Since the
distribution differed between the questions and the subgroups, as well as the
number of answers and since all tests have their strengths and limitations, no
single method could be singled out as the best method. The binary logistic
regression and the Mann-Whitney test make no distribution assumption.
However, the binary logistic regression is sensitive to small sample groups and
the Mann-Whitney test works best if the distributions have similar appearances
and scales. The 2-sample t-test performs best if the samples have normal
distributions, but the test does not require a similar variance between the
groups. Therefore, if all tests were significant for a certain question, the
difference between the two groups was considered to be significant.
19
To use multiple tests is a form of triangulation. Denzin and Lincoln (2000)

discussed how triangulation is not a tool or strategy of validation but rather an
alternative to validation. The use of triangulation with multiple methods is an
attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the studied phenomenon.
2.4 Reliability and validity

The reliability of a piece of research depends on whether the process of the
study is consistent and reasonably stable over time across researchers and
methods (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The reliability depends on how reliable
the results of the study are and on whether the same results would be obtained
when repeating exactly the same study. For qualitative research, the reliability
is sometimes questioned because of the lack of opportunity for other
researchers to reproduce the same study with similar results. While reliability
relates to the consistency of the study, the validity relates to the accuracy of the
measurements. The constructed validity is concerned with whether the
researcher measured the correct variables in the research (Fellows and Liu,
2003). The external validity considers the degree to which the findings can be
generalised outside of the context of the study.
It is therefore important that the researcher provides transparency by giving

sufficient information about the methods used and the justification for their use
(Robson, 2002). To ensure the reliability of this research, the methods and
steps of each process were documented. The computing study was documented
in a technical report entitled “Sustainable energy - Final Report” (Saari et al.,
2010). The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed into structured notes to
ensure that no important information was lost. The interview questions can be
found in appendix A. To secure the validity of the case study, the data from
reports were analysed together with quantitative data from interviews and
documented routines at the company. The questionnaire, appendix B, was pre-
tested on Swedish and German energy experts, engineers and architects. The
result of the questionnaire was recorded and documented.
20
Frame of References
3 FRAME OF REFERENCES
This chapter outlines the frames of reference that the research is based on and
summarizes the results of the literature studies related to the research
questions. The chapter is divided into three parts (economic analysis method,
design process, drivers) structured in a similar way to the research process,
see figure 2.1. The first part (Section 3.1) reviews related research about the
economic analysis method and life cycle costing for energy-efficient buildings.
The second part (Section 3.2) outlines the reviewed research about the design
process including the design and energy process, decision-making process and
method and requirement management including axiomatic design. The third
part (Section 3.3) reviews research related to the drivers for building energy-
efficient buildings. This section describes how performance is driven by
market/regulation and the state of regulation in Germany and Sweden.
3.1 Economic analysis method

Rational initial investments can significantly decrease the total life cycle cost
(LCC) for a building. It is particularly important to show the relationship
between design choices and the resulting life cycle cost such as energy,
maintenance and operation cost (Kotaji et al., 2003). The often-quoted
relationship 1:5:200 between investment, maintenance and operation of office
buildings (Evans et al., 1998) has been questioned by Hughes et al. (2004).
However, most of the energy is consumed by dwellings in the operating stages
of the building life cycle (Thormark, 2001).
LCC as an economic analysis method is useful for showing the relationship

between investment cost and the resulting energy cost of the operating stage
for different design alternatives over a long period.
21
3.1.1 Life cycle costing
Definition of life cycle cost and life cycle costing
The ISO 15686-5 standard (building and construction assets, service life
planning) differentiates between life cycle cost (LCC) and “life cycle costing”
by stating that LCC should be used to describe a limited analysis of a few
components where “life cycle costing” should, instead, be understood to be the
cost calculations themselves. This standard also introduced the concept of
whole life cost (WLC), which, in addition to LCC, entails all cost and income
elements related to a building, including indirect costs such as IT services and
parking charges (ISO 15686-5, 2008).
Discussions about wording create a good deal of confusion in this field.

Different terms are used in the literature i.e. “cost in use”, “through-life
costing”, “life cycle cost” (LCC), “whole life costing” (WLC) and “whole life
appraisal” (WLA). Even in the ISO standard, it is admitted that sometimes all
terms are used interchangeably, but the standard does try to interpret those
terms more narrowly. In this research, the terms life cycle cost (LCC) and life
cycle costing are used in accordance with the ISO definition.
Life cycle costing, practice problems and challenges
Life cycle costing is a tool for comparative assessment of alternative products

or services over a specified period. In the field of construction industry, life
cycle costing is commonly used as a decision-making tool by construction
clients at the early stages of a design.
LCC data should be presented in such a way that they enable comparison of
alternative solutions. For that reason, the cost breakdown structure is an
important concept in LCC (Bakis et al., 2003). Several different standards (ISO
15686-5/NS3454/ASTM/Australian/New Zealand Standard) are available to
guide LCC analysis. Each of these standards has different cost categories and
slightly different cost breakdown structures.
For the construction sector, several different cost-based, LCC calculation

methods are practical, each having its own advantages and disadvantages.
According to the reviewed literature, the most suitable approach to LCC in the
construction industries is the net present value (NPV) method or, in the case of
comparing alternative schemes with different lifetimes, the equivalent annual
22
Frame of References
cost (ECA) method (Kishk et al., 2003; Flanagan and Jewell, 2005; Ellingham
and Fawcett, 2006). The NPV method is mainly used in existing LCC tools
(Kishk et al., 2003). However, users should be aware that different methods
have been developed for different purposes with specific advantages and
limitations. For example, the simple payback period method is usable to give a
rough estimation as to whether the investment is profitable or not. Table 1 in
Paper I illustrates the six main economic evaluation methods used in
evaluation of LCC, their advantages, disadvantages and the purpose for which
they can be used.
Since LCC analysis is concerned with cost and benefit flows throughout the
life of a project, the time value of money must be considered. Money today is
worth more than it is at a later date. Costs in the future are therefore discounted
to a smaller value when transformed to the present time. The selection of a
suitable discount rate is a crucial decision in a LCC analysis. In the literature,
the discount rates vary from 3 – 4% up to 20%.
Also, a period needs to be chosen for NPV analysis, but it is generally

recommended to avoid using long periods for analysis. The further into the
future one looks, the greater the risk that current assumptions will not apply
(McDermott et al., 1987). Many building components still lack information on
what actual real-life periods to use (McDermott et al., 1987; Anderson and
Brandt, 1999). It is recommended that short periods are used for physical,
functional and economic life spans. Moreover, refurbishment cycles are likely
to become shorter in the future for many types of buildings (Ashworth, 2004).
Energy costs are mentioned in the literature as an important part of a life cycle
cost analysis for buildings (Kishk et al., 2003; Flanagan and Jewell, 2005;
Ellingham and Fawcett, 2006). As energy prices strongly influence the
outcome of the calculation, it becomes an even more important value in a life
cycle cost analysis for energy-efficient houses. It is difficult or perhaps even
impossible to forecast energy prices over a period of 20 years or more. Future
energy prices are dependent on the demand and the market itself, while
political factors in the form of taxes also have a strong influence on the price.
Some trends can, however, be recognised in the construction of a plausible
future scenario by considering energy prices over recent years for electricity,
gas and oil. For example, Clausnitzer et al. (2007, 2008) and Gabriel and
Balmer (2007) assumed future development of the energy prices (gas, oil, coal,
biomass, electricity, district heating) for the end user and Gabriel and Balmer
(2007) used a combination of the official statistics for a certain time frame and
23
prognoses from a study by the Institute of Energy Economics at the University

of Cologne to develop a future energy cost scenario.
The data that must be collected for a LCC estimate can be divided into five
main groups: occupancy data, physical data, performance data, quality data,
and cost data (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005). The importance of the various
groups depends on the stage of planning and reason for the LCC calculation.
To support decision-making in selecting projects, designs, or building
components, the LCC data should be collected and presented in a way that
enables such a comparison. In this case, the cost breakdown structure is an
important aspect. This does not, however, take into account the difficulties of
collecting quality data.
LCC deal with the future and many factors – such as future maintenance,
operating costs and discount and inflation rates – are difficult or even
impossible to forecast over a period that can range from 20 to 100 years.
Consequently, sensitive analysis should be performed to study how the output
is affected by the different input parameters, such as discount rate and inflation
rate etc.
The absence of a formalised approach has limited the widespread adoption of

life cycle costing (Cole and Sterner, 2000). Although the ISO 15686 (2008)
provides an overall conceptual framework for the LCC, there is a lack of a
universal and widely approved methodology to calculate the LCC and to
integrate the operating and maintenance strategies in the design phase (Clift,
2003). This could be partly due to the high technical complexity and low
practicality of the published LCC models (Davis Langdon Management
Consulting, 2007).
3.2 Design process

The design process is mainly sequential (Harris and McCaffer, 2001). The
different phases of a construction project are often separated in time and space
where each phase has a predetermined purpose and, at the end, a decision point
at which the progress can be reviewed and further actions identified (Smith et
al., 2006; Harris and McCaffer, 2001). The isolation, ineffective coordination
and poor communication among the different stakeholders in construction
projects have created operational islands (Mattar, 1983) where:
x Investments and operating costs are usually split among different actors
i.e. those who invest do not benefit from low operational costs.
24
Frame of References
x End-users or facility managers responsible for the operational phase of a

building’s life-cycle have normally very little opportunity to provide
feedback to developers and designers in the design phase.
x The long-term performance of a building is often less prioritised, as the

focus is on the initial cost (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005).
These operational islands make it difficult to take decisions that optimise the
life cycle performance of a building, figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Operational islands, after Mattar (1983), from WBCSD (2008).
3.2.1 Energy design process
Buildings should be designed and constructed to fulfil the needs of their users.
Many of these needs are expressed as functional and technical requirements by
society through the building codes, standards and local regulations. When new
buildings are designed, these needs and requirements must be considered.
It is widely claimed that the most important design decisions concerning a

building's performance are taken early in the design process (Schlueter and
Thesseling, 2009). At present, these decisions are often made with only minor
consideration of energy use and indoor environment (Nielsen, 2005). The
energy performance aspects are often not considered before the detailed design
phase (Schlueter and Thesseling, 2009). At this stage of the design process,
only small changes to the building design are possible since changes often
result in high additional costs.
25
The space heating energy consumption of a building can be reduced by up to

80% if the orientation, building shape, insulation and ventilation are optimised
in the design process (Feist et al., 2005; Smeds and Wall, 2007).
3.2.2 Model based design
One way of improving the life cycle design of a building can be the use of a
model-based design for handling the data from the different disciplines during
the design process. This can be used for tracking and evaluating data
throughout the process. Several research projects and national programs have
been launched in the past years in Europe in order to develop model-based
design guidelines and exchange strategies for building information model
(BIM) data (InPro 2010, BIPS 2007, Senate 2007).
With the InPro approach, the information level is synchronised with the
decision-making process over a building’s life cycle. The decisions to be made
at a certain gate, called a quality gate, require a specific level of information so
that the performance of the proposed design solution can be evaluated. InPro
defines the project information collected as an open information environment
(OIE) and the software infrastructure for collaborative work as an open
information platform (OIP). In general, the OIP contains a mix of documents
and models. The content of the OIP is project specific. Change management
procedures are applied at approved levels of information maturity. By default,
InPro defines eight life cycle maturity levels to guide the project management
using the InPro life cycle design framework, see figure 3.2.
26
Frame of References
Early design
Briefing
Strategic Tactical Operational briefing
First contact Contract Building

with client signature approval Handover
Phases
Business Feasibility Building Detailed design

Operation RIP
planning design design and realisation
Client
Actors
Architect
Engineer
Contractor
FM spec.
OIP maturity
0th Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level 5th Level 6th Level
Maturity
levels for support of
CAFM systems
Goals Conceptual Functional System Detailed As built Operational
Figure 3.2: Default mapping of OIP maturity levels versus life cycle phases
(Olofsson et al., 2010)
Each design discipline is responsible for its model. The combined model is the
responsibility of the project management as data sharing and model
coordination are the most important aspects of concurrent engineering. This
combined model should be handled by an appointed project information
manager who is also responsible for the quality assurance of the OIP.
3.2.3 Management of requirements
Even by using model-based design, the designer has to capture user

requirements in order to provide alternatives that can fulfil the users’ needs
(Olofsson et al., 2010). Further, the functional and technical requirements,
which are often expressed by society through building codes, standards and
local regulations, need to be handled throughout the design process. The
energy performance of buildings is often regulated through building codes. A
client’s requirements are often not traceable through the design process and are
often misinterpreted or lost in translation (Haymaker and Fischer, 2008;
Kiviniemi, 2005). In order to increase the efficiency of the design from a life
cycle perspective, a requirement structure is needed to support the design work
(Almefelt, 2005). According to Fiksel & Dunkle (1992), managing
requirements can be seen as a form of process management of how to create,
maintain and test requirements through products’ life cycles (see paper III).
27
Axiomatic design
Axiomatic design is one possible solution for structuring the requirements

during the design process. The axiomatic design method gives structure to the
design process and has been established as a scientific theoretical basis (El-
Haik, 2005). The method is rational, using activities and logical tools.
According to Suh (2001), the design exists in four domains: the customer
domain, the functional domain, the physical domain and the process domain,
figure 3.3.
The customer domain contains the customer’s needs or attributes for a product.
In the functional domain, this customer’s needs are translated into functional
requirements (FRs) and constraints (Cs). In the physical domain, these FRs and
CRs from the functional domain are used as design parameters (DPs). A
process mapping from the physical domain to the process domain defines the
DPs as process variables (PVs) (Suh, 2001).
Figure 3.3: Axiomatic design domains and transformation of the design vectors (CA
Ö FR Ö DP Ö PV) through different product views. Adapted after Suh (2001) and
Jensen et al. (2012).
The axiomatic design method proceeds from a high level of abstraction to a

detailed component level. The design architecture is characterised in the
concept as hierarchies, which means starting at the main level of FRs, then
decomposing into lower levels of FRs. To decompose FRs and DPs, a
zigzagging between the domains is required. The zigzagging is driven by
decomposition of defined DPs to new FRs on the next level. Zigzagging is one
of three concepts where two axioms are:
28
Frame of References
1. The independent axiom: Maintain the independence of the FRs.

2. The information axiom: Minimise the information content of the design.
Reduce information for the best design solution without affecting the
independency of FRs.
(Suh, 2001)
Figure 3.4: Zig-zag decomposition in Axiomatic Design (Suh, 2001).
The coupling between FR and DP is defined mathematically as {FR} = [A]

{DP} where A is the design matrix. A diagonal (uncoupled) or a triangular
(decoupled) matrix fulfills the independence axiom. However, even though this
can be hard to accomplish, design solutions with as few off-diagonal elements
as possible should be the aim (Suh 2001).
If two solutions have similar coupling matrices, the second axiom states that
the best alternative is the solution with less information. Boundary conditions
and system constraints are denoted by Cs and restrict the design space.
Decisions taken from higher levels stages act as constraints at lower levels
(Suh 2001).
3.2.4 Decision-making process
Decisions in the early design process have a big impact on the life cycle
performance of a building. However, especially in the early design stages, not
all the information needed for a rational decision-making process is available.
Further, the rational decision-making model ignores the ambiguity, uncertainty
and chaos that typically plague decision-making (Jones, 2007). In the real
world, decision-makers can only follow bounded rationality as not all
29
information and consequences are known and the fact that people only have a
limited ability to consider a bounded amount of information at the same time
influences their decision-making (March, 1994; Jones, 2007). Decision-makers
use various strategies to cope with limitations in information and their
information-handling capabilities (March, 1994).
The performance requirements created by the customer often generate multi-

criteria decision-making problems of high complexity. The building design
process is also characterised by a continuous, interdisciplinary team-based
decision-making process. A model-based design can increase the amount of
information and reduce the uncertainty in a decision-making process. Even
though decision-makers can only make bounded rational decisions, the
increase in information and the reduction of uncertainty can increase the
quality of decision-making.
3.2.5 Decision-making methods
In the building design process, complex multi-criteria decision problems arise.

Developing methods and tools to support humans in complex multi-criteria
decision problems using mathematical methods is not a new issue
(International Society on Multi-criteria Decision Making, 2010). Several
researchers have formalised decision-making methods in the past, see paper II.
Keeney and Raiffa (1993) developed a multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT),

which is a quantitative comparison method used to combine dissimilar
measures of costs, risks and benefits along with individual and stakeholder
preferences into high-level, combined preferences. MAUT uses utility
functions to define how diversely dimensioned criteria will be, transformed
into a common, dimensionless scale with a range of 0 to 1.
Saaty (1990) developed the comparative analytical hierarchy process (AHP),

which is one of the best known methods with many published applications at
present. The core of the procedure is that the preferred solution is identified
using pair-wise comparisons of alternatives, based on their relative
performance against the criteria. The method is most useful for supporting
group decisions in teams where people with different specialisations are
working on complex problems. Both methods, MAUT and AHP, play a
significant role in the proposed decision-making framework (paper II).
Currently, the processing of data is not a major barrier anymore, but the data
acquisition and transformation process is still an effort, in particular when
30
Frame of References
applied to interdisciplinary problems with objective and subjective criteria.

With the availability of structured project information in the form of BIM and
opportunities for visualisations and analysis to support team decision-making,
the possibility for using formal decision-making methods in the design process
is increasing.
3.3 Drivers for building energy-efficient buildings

In this section, the drivers for building more energy-efficient buildings are
discussed. The two main drivers can be seen as regulations and the market. The
market can improve the energy efficiency of buildings above the normal
standard if the market’s interest is strong enough. Regulation determined by
what is technically and economically feasible can force energy efficiency for
buildings if there is a weak interest from the market.
3.3.1 Performance driven by market demands
To be successful, a company must provide the right product or service for its
customers. To secure an order, the company must fulfil certain criteria that are
important to the customer. If there are gaps between the current performance
and customer requirements, these gaps must be closed in order for the
company to be competitive in the market. According to Voss (1995), in
manufacturing strategy literature these important criteria are usually described
in terms of cost, quality, dependability and flexibility.
Hill (1993) and Berry et al. (1999) introduced the terms “order-winners” and
“qualifiers” as an alternative to the different competitive factors when
functional strategies are formed. This distinction of order, winner and
qualifiers described by Hill (1993) is a widely adopted approach. The basis of
the classification is that different competitive factors can play different roles in
determining the competitive contribution of the operations function. For
example, order winner competitive factors are described as those which result
in more business or improve the chances of more business through better
performance. This factor can be, for example, the price that makes the
customer choose one company over all the others. Qualifying competitive
factors are those for which performance has to be above a particular level. For
example, if the price is low but the quality criteria are not fulfilled, the order
will not be won. The factors identified as qualifiers should be improved to the
qualifying level but there is little to be gained by improvements above the
qualifying level. The effort expended in improving order winner factors should
lead to more orders. As the market changes, so will the weight of qualifiers.
31
The relevant order winners or qualifiers can also be found as part of the design
strategy of companies (Hill, 2000).
In order to use a market-driven improvement of a certain criterion, such as

energy efficiency, the criterion must be an order winner or an order-winning
qualifier, otherwise companies will not actively improve that criterion. This
means that the requirement for energy efficiency that exceeds normal standards
must come from the market.
3.3.2 Performance driven by regulations
A common view amongst economists is the concept of a free market.

Government intervention and regulations will lead to a dysfunctional market
(Zerbe and McCurdy, 1999). According to Gann et al. (1998), “The traditional
view that standards and technological change are antithetical is challenged by
recent indications that an appropriate match between design of standards and
their goals within a sector-specific context can aid innovation”. Tax as a
regulation instrument is also controversial. Wickman and Lingle (2004)
believed that tax-cut policies benefitting individual stakeholders can favour
groups that have lobbyists. Other economists believe that taxes are a cost-
effective way to regulate (Hahn and Stavins, 1992) but can lead to a loss of
competitiveness (Lee and Yik, 2004).
However, other research indicates that there are also non-economic causes that
affect energy consumption and decisions. Sandstad and Howarth (1994)
concluded that analysing transaction costs is more conceptual than empirical.
Further, DeCanio (1998) concluded that economic parameters alone cannot
explain a company’s decision. A company might avoid profitable energy
alternatives or savings based on non-economic reasons. Personal values are
another factor that will influence energy consumption (Stern, 1986). Brown
(2001) and Nässén et al. (2008) discussed the principal-agent problem that
results in optimising short-term costs instead of long-term savings, including
energy. Another aspect is that energy is not a well-defined product (Nässén et
al., 2008).
Requirements based only on voluntary participation have a limited effect.

According to Lee and Yik (2004), voluntary instruments lead only to modest
environmental results. There has been research that has suggested that a mix of
32
Frame of References
regulation and voluntary instruments is more efficient than using them

separately (Lee and Yik 2004; Bennear and Stavins, 2007).
Geller et al. (2006) stated that minimum efficiency standards can be a very
effective strategy for stimulating energy efficiency improvements on a large
scale, provided they are updated periodically. However, policy-makers should
ensure that efficiency standards are technically and economically feasible.
Also, voluntary agreements between governments and the private sector can be
effective especially in situations where regulations are difficult to enact or
enforce. To be effective, voluntary agreements should be complemented with
financial incentives, technical assistance where needed and the threat of taxes
or regulation if companies fail to meet their commitments (Geller et al., 2006).
Energy regulation in Sweden and Germany
Both Germany and Sweden are currently using a combination of different

policy instruments to improve energy efficiency in the housing sector such as
regulation, subsidies and taxes (Brunn, 2010; McCormick and Neij, 2009).
Germany has applied strict domestic policies and standards (Lifferink and
Andersen, 1998). By strict regulation, it is meant that the regulation demands
are close to what is economically and technically possible. Sweden has a more
moderate energy regulation policy (i.e. the distance between the regulation and
what is economically and technically possible is bigger) regarding new
buildings and recommendations for renovation (Nässén et al., 2008).
Further, Germany, with a political tradition of a more technological problem-

solving approach (Jorden and Lenschow, 2010), has manifested its desire for
the reduction of energy consumption with new regulations for new buildings
and renovations in 2011. Sweden which, politically, has a more socially
responsible framework compared with other European countries (Jorden and
Lenschow, 2010), has implemented a more client-driven energy policy for new
buildings and renovation, making the construction sector rely more on market
conditions than on regulations for energy conservation.
A common view amongst economists is the concept of a free market.

Government intervention and regulations will lead to a dysfunctional market
(Zerbe and McCurdy, 1999). This would indicate, from a purely economic
perspective, that the drivers for energy conservation are stronger in the
Swedish market compared to the German market, or that the political ambition
to save energy in the building sector is higher in Germany compared to
Sweden. Historically, during the 1970s and 1980s, the regulation of energy
33
efficiency in the building sector significantly improved both in Sweden and

Germany. While the building codes were de-regulated in the late 1980s and at
the beginning of the 1990s in Sweden (Nässén et al., 2005), Germany
continued to amend the building codes, yielding an average energy reduction
for new buildings over the past 30 years of over 75% (Friedrich et al., 2007;
Kiss, 2010).
34
Summary of papers
4 SUMMARY OF PAPERS
In this chapter, the four appended papers are summarised.
4.1 Summary of Paper I

Title: Application of life cycle costing to the economic evaluation of energy-
efficient buildings
Authors: Kari Alanne, Jutta Schade, Ivo Martinac, Arto Saari, Juha Jokisalo,
Targo Kalamees
Research question in focus: How can life cycle cost be used to predict the
cost benefits of energy efficient buildings? (RQ I)
Keywords: Life cycle cost analysis, life cycle costing, whole-life costing,
buildings, energy
Introduction: The energy consumption in buildings accounts for 40% of the

total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission in the EU (EU, 2009).
Improving buildings’ energy efficiency is an important goal from the current
sustainable society perspective. Future buildings should generate part of their
electrical energy on-site. But there is still a strong demand to keep investments
and operational costs low. Since the lifespan of buildings is measured in
decades, designers should also be able to predict the future. Life cycle costing
is commonly used as a decision-making tool by construction clients in the early
stages of the design.
Purpose: The paper discusses the application of life cycle costing on the
economic viability assessment of energy-efficient buildings.
35
Method: Literature study, Literature review of life cycle costing studies for
energy-efficient buildings from 2000 until 2012, computing study
Summary of main contents: The first part of the paper discusses the different
definitions and the history of life cycle cost (LCC). Six different economic
evaluation methods used in evaluation of LCC are illustrated with their
advantages, disadvantages and the purposes for which they can be used. Even
if the most common method for LCC in the construction industry is the net
present value method, for a simple estimation to test if an investment is
profitable or not, a payback method is more suitable. Different standards such
as ISO 15686-5 and the practice of LCC are discussed. Life cycle costing is
concerned with cost and benefit flows throughout the lifespan of a building or
component. This implies crucial decisions about the choice of parameters such
as a discount rate varying from 3 – 20 % in the literature and the period over
which the LCC will be calculated. Future energy prices need to be forecast
which is a very difficult or perhaps even impossible task to perform accurately.
Consequently, sensitive analysis should be performed to study how the output
is affected by the different input parameters, such as discount rate and inflation
rate etc. The absence of a formalised approach has limited the widespread
adoption of LCC. The proposed LCC models in the literature are often
technically complex and not really practical. Further, if LCC calculations are to
be used as a decision-making/support tool for the building industry,
appropriate and accurate data must be collected, which is difficult as databases
have their limitations.
Results and contributions: LCC is a useful method for comparing design

alternatives but it can be difficult to allocate the purchased thermal energy
precisely to certain product systems. Further, the problems and challenges of
the use of life cycle costing should be considered. Gathering complete life
cycle cost data for an entire building is a laborious task. Life cycle costs deal
with the future and many factors – such as future maintenance and operating
costs and discount and inflation rates – are difficult or impossible to forecast
over a period that can range from 20 to 100 years. The most critical issues
related to life cycle costs are the reliability of background data and the
decision-maker’s ability to draw rational conclusions under conditions of
uncertainty. The computing study shows a range of savings from 15 – 32%
using three alternative energy designs. The economic analyses of this study
suggest that low and ultra-low energy designs for detached houses are
unattractive as the payback period exceeds 30 years.
36
Summary of papers
4.2 Summary of Paper II

Title: Decision-making in a model-based design process
Authors: Jutta Schade, Thomas Olofsson and Marcus Schreyer
Research question in focus: How can the handling of energy performance in

the design process for buildings be improved? (RQII)
Keywords: Decision-making, design process, energy, design decision, BIM
Introduction: Decisions taken in the early design process have a big impact on
the life cycle performance of a building. It is particularly important to show the
relationship between design choices and the resulting life cycle cost such as
maintenance and operation costs, including energy costs.
Purpose: This paper describes a decision-making framework to support a

performance-based design process, where different design alternatives can be
evaluated and compared.
Method: Literature study, interviews, workshops
Summary of main contents: A decision-making framework using a

performance-based design process in the early design phase is proposed. An
energy design scenario was developed in order to demonstrate the proposed
framework. The client goals can be compared pair-wise and the priority of the
goals can be evaluated with the help of the framework. The framework is
aimed at supporting decision-makers to take informed decisions regarding the
life cycle performance of a building, as different aspects of a design can be
contradictory.
Results and contributions: The benefits of adapting this decision-making

framework into a model-based process is the transparency of the design
decisions with respect to the goals at the beginning of the project. Different
design aspects can be contradictory i.e. specific aspects such as energy
performance are influenced by the required indoor climate etc. With the help of
the decision-making framework, the performance of different design
alternatives can be evaluated and compared. Using the decision-making
process, the design rationale is based on a more formal, hence transparent,
procedure than the biased process we often find within project teams at
present. As different criteria can be included in a hierarchical composition in
the decision-making, this framework is very flexible. The construction client
37
can be more involved in the early design process. This process reflects the
necessary compromise during the design and interdependencies of the different
goals.
4.3 Summary of Paper III

Title: Requirement management for the design of energy performance in
buildings
Author: Gustav Jansson, Jutta Schade, Thomas Olofsson
Research question in focus: How can the handling of energy performance in

the design process for buildings be improved? (RQII)
Keywords: Requirement management, axiomatic design theory, energy

performance, stage based design process
Introduction: Buildings are designed to fulfil multiple and often contradictory

requirements from users, clients and society. The many design disciplines
involved in construction projects creates operational islands causing ineffective
coordination and design solutions that do not meet the original requirements
(Kiviniemi et al. 2005; Haymaker and Fischer 2008; Jallow et al. 2008).
Purpose: The purpose is to explore a framework for requirements management

in the design of buildings that enables traceability across disciplines. The
framework is then tested in the stage-based design process of energy
performance proposed by COBIM (2012).
Method: Literature review, development of theoretical concept, case study and

interviews
Summary of main contents: A conceptual framework for requirement

management in construction is presented based on Suh’s (2001) theories of
axiomatic design and requirements-driven product modelling by Malmqvist
(2001). The detailing of the product is proposed to be defined in a stage-gated
design process, where the zigzag decomposition of functional requirements and
design solutions from higher levels leads to new requirements at the lower
levels. The conceptual framework was then used as a reference model in a case
study of the design of a multi-dwelling house project situated in the region of
Gothenburg where the requirements of energy use in the project were
essentially lower than the level prescribed by the Swedish building code.
38
Summary of papers
Results and contributions: A framework based on the theory of axiomatic

design and requirements-driven product modelling to support the management
of requirements in building design is presented and adapted to a stage-based
design process of energy performance. In the context of managing energy
requirements in the design of buildings, the following conclusions were made:
x Identification and communication of functional requirements improves

transparency between stakeholders and creates better support for selecting
strategies and decision-making in the design process.
x A set-based design strategy should be used to manage and evaluate the
performance of multiple design alternatives against the established
functional requirements.
x Spatial models using space objects are believed to be useful as containers of
functional requirement structures for e.g. energy, acoustic, environmental
and fire requirements in the design process.
4.4 Summary of Paper IV

Title: Design and construction of energy-efficient buildings - A comparative
study of Germany and Sweden
Authors: Jutta Schade, Peter Wallström, Thomas Olofsson, Ove Lagerqvist
Research question in focus: How do client requirements, political governance

and regulations affect the design of energy performance in buildings? (RQIII)
Keywords: Building sector, Energy efficiency, Energy policy instrument
Introduction: The building stock in Europe accounts for over 40% of the
energy consumption in the European Union (European Commission, 2011).
The performance goal for buildings in the European Union is a reduction in
energy consumption of 20% by 2020 (European Commission, 2011). The
European Commission estimates that the energy-saving potential for residential
and commercial buildings is up to 30% (European Commission, 2006).
However, European countries have been adopting different strategies for

energy conservation in the building sector. Sweden which, politically, has a
more socially responsible framework compared with other European countries
(Jorden and Lenschow, 2010), has implemented a more client-driven energy
39
policy for new buildings and renovation, making the construction sector rely
more on market conditions than on regulations for energy conservation.
Germany which, politically, has a more technological problem-solving
approach (Jorden and Lenschow, 2010), manifested its desire for the reduction
of energy consumption with new regulations for new buildings and renovations
in 2011.
Does this difference in the political governance and regulation in Sweden and
Germany affect how architects and engineers consider energy performance
requirements in the building process?
Purpose: This paper investigates how the key policy instruments related to
energy conservation have developed over time in Germany and Sweden.
Further, a survey in the form of a questionnaire was sent out to architects and
engineers in both countries, in order to explore how the key policy instruments
affect the management of energy performance in the current design and
construction process.
Method: Literature study, questionnaire survey. For the analysis of the

questionnaire, three different statistical analyses were used: binary logistic
regression, the Mann-Whitney test and the 2-sample t-test.
Summary of main contents: The longitudinal comparison between Swedish

and German key energy conservation policy instruments such as regulations,
ordinances, taxes and voluntary agreements, shows that the energy regulations
have developed differently. Sweden had a very strict regulation in the 1970s
but developed during the 1980s to a more moderate regulation before
stagnating in the 1990s until the present time. German regulation was less strict
in the 1970s but has been continuously amended since then, improving energy
performance by approximately 30% at each amendment. At present, the
German regulation stipulates approximately half of the energy consumption for
heat demand than the Swedish regulation for the south of Sweden, see figure
4.1. The figure shows the resulting heating demand as defined by the Swedish
and German regulation whilst the lower line shows the approximate heat
demand of the best available technology on the market. The points in the figure
show when the best available technology was first used.
40
Summary of papers
Figure 4.1: Resultant heating demand excluding hot water as defined by the
German and the Swedish energy regulations over the period 1978
to 2012 (For Germany, the figure is based on Witt (2008) and for
Sweden on a basic calculation for a 140m2 two storey single
house in southern Sweden).
The analysis of the questionnaire shows that there are no significant

differences concerning where in the design process the energy consumption is
determined. But the role of architects is clearly different in Germany as the
architect is more involved in the whole design and construction process
compared to the Swedish architect. Swedish architects are less satisfied,
compared to the German architects, with the way energy performance is
managed during the design and construction process. Further, the Swedish
engineers consider carrying out energy analysis at the operating stage as more
important.
Results and contributions: The results from the questionnaire show no

significant difference between Germany and Sweden concerning the energy
design process. Furthermore, there are no differences between the two
countries regarding customer orientation to the construction sector in respect of
energy efficiency. However, the difference in development of the regulation
and building codes in Germany and Sweden indicate that the stricter regulation
41
in the building codes in Germany could be an explanation of the steeper

reduction in space heating in Germany. Regulations provide the upper limit of
what is required, with the gap between that and what is actually technically
possible providing the area where market forces can compete and push the
technological boundary, figure 4.1. The market-driven improvement in energy
efficiency, according to the order-winner and qualifiers theory, must be an
order-winner or an order-winning qualifier criterion. This necessitates energy-
efficient buildings to be a construction client requirement, otherwise the
market will most likely not lead energy developments, because a company will
not invest in developing energy-efficient options if there is no demand.
42
Discussion and Conclusion
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter presents a discussion and conclusion of the research work. The
research questions and contributions are addressed and discussed.
5.1 Addressing the research questions

The three research questions, addressed at the beginning of this thesis will be
answered individually in this section.
Research question 1
How can the contribution of the energy performance to the life cycle cost for a
building be evaluated?
This question can be answered with the result of the research described in
paper I.
To summarise, the answer is that life cycle costing can be used as a decision-
making tool in the energy design process. LCC provides cost benefits in the
long-term for the construction clients and end-users. Life cycle costing
highlights the relationship between the initial cost and the resulting life-time
cost of alternative design routes. However, the problems and challenges
connected with its use should be noted. The most critical issues related to LCC
are the availability of reliable background data and the decision-maker’s ability
to draw rational conclusions under conditions of uncertainty, since LCC relies
on future costs (such as energy) which are not easy to predict accurately.
The theoretical multiple case analysis shows that, by using an economic

framework set up for the life cycle costing, energy savings of 15 – 32 % can be
seen to be unattractive as the extra construction cost makes the payback time
43
more than 30 and in some cases over 40 years. Of course, it is debatable if 30

years really is such an unattractive payback period since a building usually has
a longer life; indeed, the current economic life span of residential buildings in
Sweden is about 50 years (Börjesson and Gustavsson, 2000). Another issue is
the prediction of energy prices and inflation in the future. From a current
perspective, these assumptions may seem realistic but it is unclear how far into
the future such predictions can be made that are even close to being accurate.
NPV is, according to the reviewed literature (e.g. Flanagan et al., 1989; Kishk
et al., 2003), the most commonly used method for LCC but the user should be
aware of the purpose and use of the different methods used for LCC i.e. the
payback method can be suitable for a quick estimation of whether an
investment is profitable or not. LCC is a useful method for comparing design
alternatives, when either the whole building constitutes a single product system
or when the allocation of costs for a separate subsystem is trivial. However, a
building is an entity in which heat transfer takes place in a transient manner.
Hence, it is difficult to allocate the purchased thermal energy precisely to
certain product systems, such as the building envelope or the air-conditioning
plant. On the other hand, gathering the complete life cycle cost data for the
entire building is a laborious task.
The survey of published studies between 2000 and 2012 on life cycle costing
for energy-efficient buildings shows that the energy efficiency builds upon a
combination of energy-efficient measures rather than a single, or a few,
improvements. The current trend of development supports the use of life cycle
costing in the sense that buildings are designed as “a whole” in principle,
addressing general requirements such as energy efficiency, building codes and
indoor climate. Further, from the reviewed publications, it was perceived that
the discount rate usually varies between 0 and 16% depending on the real
interest rate. A discount rate of 0% is only applied for sensitivity analyses. For
energy-saving measures, long analysis periods (up to 75 years) are often
chosen.
Life cycle costs deal with the future and many factors – such as future
maintenance and operating costs and discount and inflation rates – are difficult
or impossible to forecast over a period that can range from 20 to 100 years.
Consequently, sensitivity analysis should be carried out to study how the
output is affected by different input parameters such as discount rate and
inflation rate etc.
44
The result of the theoretical multiple case analysis of Finnish buildings shows
that the impact of the energy design concepts could, depending on the type of
energy design concept, give total energy savings of between 15% and 32% for
the detached houses, 18 – 22% for the apartment buildings and 25 – 32% for
the educational building. The results can be generalised for climatic conditions
similar to Finland. The financial viability of the concept was evaluated using
the discounted payback period method (DPP). The increases in construction
costs when compared to the reference buildings were €45 –€205/net floor m2
for the detached house, €25 – €71/net floor m2 for the apartment building and
€30 – €65/net floor m2 for the educational building. The economic analysis
suggests that low-energy and ultra-low-energy designs are unattractive
investments for detached houses, since the payback period exceeded 30 years
in all the analysed cases. For the educational building, a payback period of 21
years was obtained for the ultra-low-energy design at an interest rate of 3% and
using an electricity price of €0.15/kWh. The payback periods for low-energy
design varied from 12 to 31 years. For the apartment building, payback periods
between 15 and more than 40 years were obtained when using low-energy
design. It is worth noting at this point that the above analyses have been drawn
up from a purely economic perspective. Current decision-making should also
address key considerations such as atmospheric emissions and indoor comfort.
Research question 2
How can the handling of energy performance requirements in the design

process for buildings be improved?
This question can be answered with the results from the research presented in
papers II and III. Paper II described a decision-making framework for a
performance-based design process. Paper III proposed a requirements
management model, based on axiomatic design concepts, for supporting the
building design.
By making the design process more transparent and the decision more
traceable the handling of the energy performance requirements in the design
process can be improved.
The proposed framework and model from papers II and III help to map the
energy design requirements throughout the process and facilitate the design
process by making it more transparent and traceable. This improves the energy
design process, especially at the early design stage, by including design factors
(e.g. orientation, building shape) which have influence on heat demand. At the
45
more detailed design stage, the proposed framework can help to optimise
systems such as the combination of ventilation system and building envelope
for the specific building, thus reducing its energy consumption. Hence, both
the proposed decision-making framework and the process model need to be
tested on a real construction project.
The result described in paper III shows that the proposed requirements
management model based on axiomatic design can improve the transparency of
the energy design process. By identifying the functional requirements (defined
by clients, local and national regulations) and downstream constraints (from
engineering, production and supply), the transparency in the design process can
be improved thus creating better support for selecting strategies and decision-
making. The frequently fragmented energy design process, which is often
locked because the design is divided between different technical disciplines,
could be structured to manage sustainable design solutions. The analysis of the
process model in the context of a building design shows that axiomatic design
can manage and evaluate multiple design alternatives. The transformation of
stakeholder requirements (FRs) by evaluating multiple design solutions (DPs)
and, subsequently refining them, is determined by production, logistics and site
constraints (Cs) throughout the design phases. By making demands and
requirements transparent in the design process, functional varieties provide
room for stakeholder decision-making. Further, a function-oriented design
allows the design of areas related to energy, acoustic, environment and fire
using space objects which appear both in the functional and the physical
domain. This process model, supported by BIM technology, could increase the
transparency of the gap between space and components.
The proposed framework in paper II consists of a stage/gate design process

where the information maturity is adapted to the project-specific decision-
making process. The framework is demonstrated in a relatively simple energy
scenario of a specific design stage of a building’s life cycle. The benefits of
this BIM-based design mean that information such as building geometry,
structure, material, installation and functional use is stored in the BIM. This
reduces time and cost when analysing the energy performance of the building.
The benefit of adapting the decision-making framework into a model-based
process is the transparency of the design decisions with regards to the goals set
up at the beginning of the project. The construction client can become more
involved in the early design process. With the help of the decision-making
process, the design rationale is based on a more formal, hence transparent,
procedure than the biased process we often find within project teams today.
The potential for the inclusion of different criteria in a hierarchy within the
46
decision-making process makes this framework very flexible. This process

further reflects the necessary compromises required during the design and the
interdependencies of the different goals. However, it does not explicitly define
the semantic interdependencies between design parameters. The required
modification of the design still has to be anticipated by specialists.
Furthermore, by choosing to use appropriate performance indicators (PIs) for
corporate control, a long-term improvement process for the enterprise can be
enabled.
Research question 3
How do client requirements, political governance and regulations affect the

design of energy performance in buildings?
This question can be answered using the results presented in paper IV, in
which the findings from the questionnaire survey in Germany and Sweden and
the longitudinal comparison between implemented energy conservation key
policy instruments in Sweden and Germany are described.
To summarise, it can be stated that there is no evidence that building energy

performance is considered differently during the design process in Sweden and
Germany. The different development of regulations and building codes in
those countries, however, indicate that the stricter regulation of the building
codes in Germany could be an explanation of the steeper reduction in space
heating requirements there (paper IV, figure 5). Building standards and
regulations regarding energy performance affect how professionals are
educated and the way in which energy requirements and demands are managed
throughout the building process. The energy performance of buildings does not
seams a an important client requirements, as the analysis of the questionnaire
showed no evidence that energy performance is of great importance for
producing order-winning or qualifiers offers in Germany or Sweden.
Regulations provide the upper limit of what is required, with the gap between
that and what is actually technically and economically possible providing the
area where market forces can compete and push the technological boundary,
see page 41, figure 4.1. The market-driven improvement in energy efficiency,
according to the order-winner and qualifiers theory, must be an order-winner or
an order-winning qualifier criterion. This necessitates energy-efficient
buildings to be a construction client requirement, otherwise the market will
most likely not lead energy developments, because a company will not invest
in developing energy-efficient options if there is no demand. The analysis of
47
the questionnaire showed no evidence that energy performance is of great

importance for producing order-winning or qualifiers offers. To improve
energy efficiency for buildings on a larger scale, minimum efficiency standards
can be very effective, according to Geller et al. (2006). If energy efficiency is
not a client requirement, regulation can help to stimulate energy development.
However, regulation of the upper limit must be chosen according to what is
technically and economically feasible, not according to the current Swedish
practice (Nässén et al., 2005), in order to push the development of energy
conservation further.
The longitudinal comparison of the key energy conservation policy instruments

(e.g. regulations, ordinances, taxes and voluntary agreements) showed that
energy regulation has developed differently in Sweden and Germany. The
strict and detailed regulation of the Swedish building codes from the late 1970s
and 1980s was changed during the 1990s to a more performance-based
(market-oriented) building code. The regulation has, however, stagnated
concerning the permitted heating demand and is now at approximately the
same level as in 1988. Figure 4.1, page 41 shows that the German energy
regulations during the same period have been amended four times, lowering
the heating demands by approximately 30% at each amendment.
The results from the questionnaire show that there is no significant difference
between Germany and Sweden concerning where in the design process the
energy consumption for buildings is determined. The difference that is evident
is that German architects are more frequently further educated as energy
advisors or passive-house planners.
A difference can also be seen regarding the engineers. Swedish engineers

consider carrying out energy analysis in the operating stage to be more
important. This might be explained by the fact that the Swedish regulation
states that there must be a follow-up determination of the actual energy
consumption two years after the completion of the building.
The difference in the ranking of the reasons for “to do/not to do energy
analysis” in Sweden and Germany is believed to be an indicator of the different
regulations and requirements of energy performance shown by the analysis.
5.2 Conclusions
The purpose of this thesis was to explore the obstacles in current design
processes for the construction of energy-efficient buildings. The energy design
48
process has been positioned at the centre of this research and has been
investigated from three different perspectives: analysis methods, design
processes and drivers. The results show that the obstacles in the design process
for constructing energy-efficient buildings can be ranked as shown in figure
5.1.
Figure 5.1: The notional size of the obstacles from the three different
perspectives investigated
Overall, it can be concluded that a main obstacle in the energy design process
to building more energy-efficient buildings at present can be found in the
drivers e.g. regulation and market-drivers. If the energy efficiency of a building
is not a client requirement, the market will not invest in developing energy-
efficient options. Geller et al. (2006) stated that minimum efficiency standards
can be a very effective strategy for stimulating energy efficiency improvements
on a larger scale. Regulation of the upper limit must be chosen according to
what is technically and economically feasible, not according to the current
practice, in order to push the development of energy conservation further. As
stated in the literature, regulation, voluntary agreements and market forces
would be the best combination to push the developing technology for low-
energy housing (Lee and Yik, 2004; Geller et al., 2006; Bennear and Stavins,
2007).
However, changes in the design process can improve the design from the
energy perspective. If there is not a sufficient driving force for building energy-
49
efficient buildings, there will be too little interest to change the design process
in order to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. By using a requirements
management model in the early design phase, the different functional
requirements, constraints and design parameters for the energy design can be
facilitated. The decision-making framework reflects the necessary
compromises required during the design and the interdependencies of the
different goals. This can help to give more transparency to the decision-maker
and, if an energy-efficient building is desired, better traceability of the design
development can be guaranteed. To secure transparency for the decision-
maker, different analysis methods can be combined in the process. Life cycle
costing as an economic analysis method can give a broader view from the
economic perspective to the decision-maker.
The computing study of the buildings in Finland showed that certain energy-
efficient buildings can be unattractive to build from an economic point of view.
This decreases the interest of the market for developing technology for low-
energy housing.
Regulation of the upper limit must be chosen according to what is

economically and technologically possible, not what the current practice is, in
order to push the development of energy conservation technology further
without increasing the cost of construction too much.
The main challenge will be to develop cost-effective systems for the

renovation and modernising of the building stock of Europe so that it becomes
more energy efficient.
5.3 Generalisation and limitations

Generalisation of this research must take into account the study’s limitations.
The collection of empirical data for different studies in different countries like
Sweden, Finland and Germany, may be seen as limiting the results to northern
Europe. The empirical data from each country cannot be generalised for all
countries. The computing study conducted in Finland might give a different
result if carried out in southern Europe as factors (e.g. construction cost,
energy cost, energy consumption) would vary. Thus, this computing study was
limited to the climate and construction cost in Finland. The study of the design
process is limited to the Scandinavian environment as the performance-based
design process was adapted to Swedish rules and regulations. The interviews
for this study were conducted in Finland. The empirical data about the energy
design process have been collected from a construction project in Sweden by
50
one of the largest contractors in Scandinavia. The study of client requirements,

political governance and regulations is limited to Swedish and German
circumstances, as the empirical data for this study have been collected in these
countries.
Having the limitation of each study in mind, a generalisation of this study can
be made. Without drivers such as regulations, client requirements or other
market forces, the development of energy-efficient buildings will stagnate. If
the energy efficiency of a building is not a client requirement, the market will
not invest in developing energy-efficient options. In this case, the regulation
must provide a minimum efficiency standard to improve energy efficiency for
buildings. Further, if there is not a large enough driving force for the building
of energy-efficient buildings, there will be too little interest to change the
design process in order to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.
The results of the two studies about the design process can be generalised
because the requirements management model and the decision-making
framework provided are tools to improve the design process and can thus be
adapted to different national regulations and construction design processes.
Also, the result of the life cycle costing as summarised in 5.1 can be
generalised apart from the computing study which reflects Finnish
circumstances.
5.4 Future research

An area for future research is the combination of market and regulations. The
question arises, if the gap size between what is technical possible and what the
regulation require influence the market interest in reducing the energy
consumption beyond the level stated by the regulations? Further it would be
interesting to investigate how to formulate regulations in order to ensure that
the market can develop technology for energy-efficient buildings under
reasonable economic conditions.
The main challenge will be to develop cost-effective systems for the

renovation and modernising of the building stock of Europe so that it becomes
energy efficient. However, the result of the analysis shows no evidence of
client-influence regarding energy conservation. This is regardless of country
and the different gaps. Future research will therefore include answering the
following questions: “How large can the gap be without affecting the market-
driven development?”, “What forces drive the development in the market?”
and “What affects these forces?”
51
By using the decision-making framework and the requirements management

model, the design process can be improved. Both have been tested in a
theoretical framework and the next step would be to use this model in the
design process of a project.
52
Refernces
References
Adalberth, K. 1997, "Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings:
Examples", Building and Environment, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 321-329.
Adalbert K. (2000). “Energy use in four multi-family houses during their life
cycle”, International Journal of Low Energy & Sustainable Buildings.
1999–2000; 1: (Electronical journal),
<http://www.cc.kth.se/bim/leas/journal.htm>
Almefelt, L. 2005, “Requirements-driven product innovation : methods and

tools reflecting industrial needs”, Göteborg, Chalmers tekniska högskola
Anderson, T. & Brandt E.1999, “The use of performance and durability data in
assessment of life time serviceability”, Proceedings of the eighth
International Conference on durability of building materials and
components, Vancouver, Canada; 30 May–3 June. pp. 1813-1820.
Ashworth, A. 2004, Cost studies of buildings, Pearson Education UK.
Asif, M., Muneer, T. & Kelley, R. 2007, "Life cycle assessment: A case study
of a dwelling home in Scotland", Building and Environment, vol. 42, no.
3, pp. 1391-1394.
ASMT 2005, ASTM E917-05 Standard prediction for measuring life cycle cost
of buildings and building systems, ASTM International.
Bakis, N., Kagiouglou, M., Aouad, G., Amaratunga, D., Kishk, M. & Al-Hajj,
A. 2003, "An Integrated Environment for Life Cycle Costing in
Construction", The 20th CIB W78 Conference on Information Technology
in Construction, Auckland, New Zealand, 23-25 April.
BBR19 2012, Boverkets byggregler BFS 2011:26 BBR19 (Building regulations

BBR19), Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning.
53
Bennear, L.S. & Stavins, R.N. 2007, "Second-best theory and the use of
multiple policy instruments", Environmental resource economics, vol. 37,
no. 1, pp. 111.
Berry, W.L., Hill, T. & Klompmaker, J.E. 1999, "Aligning marketing and
manufacturing strategies with the market", International Journal of
Production Research, vol. 37, no. 16, pp. 3599-3618.
BIPS 2007, 3D working method 2006, Digital Construction BIPS, Ballerup

DK.
Börjesson, P. & Gustavsson, L. 2000, "Greenhouse gas balances in building

construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use
perspectives", Energy Policy, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 575-588.
Boverket 2009, Swedish National Board of Housing, Buildings and Planning,

<http://www.boverket.se/Bygga--forvalta/hitta-behoriga/>
Brown, M.A. 2001, "Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy
policies", Energy Policy, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1197-1207.
Brunn, C. 2010, Minimum energy performance standards for buildings in

Germany. Final Draft.
C3 Finnish code of building regulations. 2010,” Rakennusten lämmöneristys

(Thermal insulation of buildings)”, Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the
Environment, Regulations, [in Finnish].
Clausnitzer, K.D., Gabriel, J., Diefenbach, N., Loga, T., Wosniok, W. 2007,
Effekte des KfW-CO2- Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms 2005 und 2006,
Gutachten im Auftrag der KfWBankengruppe, Frankfurt.
Clausnitzer ,K.D., Gabriel, J., Diefenbach, N., Loga, T., Wosniok, W. 2008,
Effekte des CO2-Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms 2007. Gutachten im
Auftrag der KfW- Bankengruppe, Frankfurt.
Cole, R.J., Sterner E. 2000, “Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle

costing”, Building Research & Information, vol.28, no 5–6, pp. 368–375.
54
Refernces
COBIM 2012, Common BIM Requirements 2012, Series 10 Energy

requirements, The Building Information Foundation RTS, Helsinki,
Finland.
Dave, B. & Koskela, L. 2009, "Collaborative knowledge management-A

construction case study", Automation in Construction, vol. 18, no. 7, pp.
894-902.
Davis Langdon Management Consulting 2007, Life cycle costing (LCC) as a

contribution to sustainable construction: a common Methodology –
Literature review. Towards a common European methodology for Life
Cycle Costing (LCC).
DeCanio, S.J. 1998, "The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational

barriers to profitable energy-saving investments", Energy Policy, vol. 26,
no. 5, pp. 441-454.
Denzin, N., K & Lincoln, Y., S. 1994, Handbook of qualitative research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, Calif.
El-Haik, B. 2005, Axiomatic Quality - Integrating Axiomatic Design with Six-

Sigma, Reliability, and Quality Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, N.J.
Ellingham, I. and Fawcett, W. New generation whole life costing, property and
construction decision-making under uncertainty. Oxford: Taylor &
Francis, 2006.
Elmroth, A., 2002. Energianvändning i teori och praktik i flerbostadshus i

Effektivare energi i bostäder, Boverket, Energimyndigheten,
Naturvårdsverket, 66-75.
Energieberatung-regional 2009, Energieberater suchen und finden,

<http://www.energieberatung-regional.de/index.php?job=suchen>
European Commission, 2006. Action Plan for Energy efficiency 2007-2012;

<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/energy_efficiency/l27064
_en.htm>
55
European Commission, 2011. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011;

<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/energy_efficiency/en0029
_en.htm>
European Union 2009, European Union energy and transport in figures – 2009
edition. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Evans, R., Haryott, R., Haste, N. and Jones, A. 1998, The long term costs of
owning and using buildings, Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
Fay, R., Treloar, G. & Iyer-Raniga, U. 2000, "Life-cycle energy analysis of

buildings: a case study", Building Research & Information, vol. 28, no. 1,
pp. 31-41.
Federal chamber of Engineers 2007, Ingeneurberufe statistische Daten und

Fakten: Zusammenstellung der Bundesingeneurkammer 2007.
Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V. & Haas, A. 2005, "Re-inventing air heating:
Convenient and comfortable within the frame of the Passive House
concept", Energy and Buildings, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1186-1203.
Fellows, R. & Liu, A. 2003, Research Methods for construction, Blackwell

Publishing, Oxford.
Fiksel, J. & Dunkle, M. 1992, "Principles of requirement management

automation", Combined Proceedings of the 1990 and 1991 Leesburg
Workshops on Reliability and Maintainability Computer-Aided
Engineering in Concurrent Engineering, 1990 and 1991, pp. 231.
Flanagan, R. & Jewell, C. 2005, Whole Life Appraisal for construction,

Blackwall Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Flanagan, R., Norman, G., Meadows, J. & Robinson, G. 1989, Life Cycle
Costing Theory and Practice, BSP Professional Books, Oxford.
Fossdal, S., 1995, Energi- og miljöregnskap for bygg. Prosjektrapport 173–

195. Norges byggforskningsinstiyutt, Oslo, Norway.
56
Refernces
Friedrich, M., Becker, D., Grondey, A., Laskowski, F., Erhorn, H., Erhorn-
Kluttig, H., Hauser, G., Sager, C. & Weber, H. 2007, CO2 Gebäudereport,
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, Berlin.
Gabriel, J., Balmert, D. 2007 Effekte des KfW-CO2-

Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms 2005 und 2006: Zusatzauswertung,
Gutachten im Auftrag der KfW-Bankengruppe, Frankfurt.
Gann, D.M., Wang, Y. & Hawkins, R. 1998, "Do regulations encourage

innovation? - the case of energy efficiency in housing", Building Research
& Information, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 280-296.
Geller, H. 2006, "Polices for increasing energy efficiency: Thirty years of

experience in OECD countries", Energy Policy, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 556.
Hahn, R.W., Stavins, .R.N., 1992, “Economic Incentives for Environmental

Protection: Integrating Theory and Practice., Papers and Proceedings of
the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic
Association , The American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 2,May,
pp.464-468.
Hair, J.F. 2010, Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective, 7th ed,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, N.J..
Harris, F. & McCaffer, R. 2001, Modern Construction Management, 5th

Edition edn, Blackwell, Oxforrd.
Haymaker, J. & Fischer, M. 2008, Formalizing Narratives to Better

Communicate & Integrate Sustainable Design Processes & Information,
CIFE Technical Report #TR 176, Stanford University.
Hill Terry 1993, Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 2end ed, MacMillan
Press, London.
Hill, T. 2000, Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 2. ed, Palgrave, New
York.
57
Hughes, W.P., Ancell, D., Gruneberg, S. and Hirst, L. (2004), “Exposing the
myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating initial cost, maintenance and staffing
costs of office buildings”, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of
Association of Researchers in Construction Management ARCOM,
Edinburgh 1-3 September, pp. 373-82.
InPro 2010, Open Information Environment for Knowledge-based

Collaborative Process through the Lifecycle of Buildings, EU integrated
Project, <http://www.inpro-project.eu/main.asp>
International Society on Multiple Criteria Decision Making 2010,

<http://www.mcdmsociety.org>
ISO 2008, ISO/DIS-15686-5.2 Building and constructed assets – Service life

planning – Part5: Life cycle costing, International Organization for
Standardization.
Jallow, A.K., Demian, P., Baldwin, A.N. & Anumba, C.J. 2008, "Lifecycle
approach to requirements information management in construction
projects: state-of-the-art and future trends" Proceedings of 24th Annual
Conference of Association of Researchers in Construction Management
ARCOM, Cardiff, Wales 1-3 September, 2008, pp 769-778.
Jensen, P., Olofsson, T. & Johnsson, H. 2012, "Configuration through the

parameterization of building components", Automation in Construction,
vol 23, pp. 1-8.
Jones, G.R. 2007, Organizational theory, design, and change, 5th ed., Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J..
Jordan, A. & Lenschow, A. 2010, "Environmental policy integration: a state of

the art review", Environmental Policy and Governance, vol. 20, no. 3, pp.
147-158.
Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H. 1993, Decisions with multiple objectives :

preferences and value tradeoffs, 2.ed., Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
58
Refernces
Kishk, M., Al-Hajj, A., Pollock, R., Aouad, G., Bakis, N. & Sun, M. 2003,
Whole life costing in construction A state of the art review, The Royal
Institution for Charted Surveyors, Research papers, vol. 4, pp 18.
Kiss, B., Manchóm, C.G. & Neij, L. 2010, "The importance of learning in
supporting energy efficiency technologies: A Case Study on Policy
Intervention for Improved Insulation in Germany, the UK and Sweden",
14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production
(ERSCP) conference and the 6th Environmental Management for
Sustainable Universities (EMSU) conference Delft, Netherlands,
26.September.
Kiviniemi, A. & Fischer, M. 2005, "Multi-Model Environment: Links between

Objects in Different Building Models", Proceedings of 22nd CIB-W78
Conference Information Technology in Construction, ed. R.J. Scherer,
CIB, Dresden, Germany, 19-21 July, pp. 277-284.
Kohler, N. 1999, "The relevance of Green Building Challenge: an observer's

perspective", Building Research & Information, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 309-
320.
Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A. & Edwards, S. 2003, Life cycle assessment in

building and Construction, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Denver.
Lee, W.L. & Yik, F.W.H. 2004, "Regulatory and voluntary approaches for
enhancing building energy efficiency", Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 477-499.
Lekvall, P., Wahlbin, C. & Frankelius, P. 2001, Information för

marknadsföringsbeslut, 4., [omarb.] uppl. [sic] edn, IHM Publ., Göteborg.
Liefferink, D., Andersen, M.S., 1998, “Strategies of the 'green' member states
in EU environmental policy-making”, Journal of European Public Policy,
vol. 5, pp.254-270.
Lylykangas K, Nieminen J. 2008, “What is a passive house in Finland?”,

Conference proceedings of 12th international conference on passive
houses 2008, Nuremberg, Darmstadt, 11–12 April, pp. 337–342.
59
March, J.G. 1994, A primer on decision making : how decisions happen, Free
Press, New York.
Mattar, S.G. 1983, "Build ability and Building Envelope Design", Second
Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology, Nov. 1983.
McCormick, K. & Neij, L. 2009, Experience of Policy Instruments for Energy

Efficiency in Buildings in the Nordic Countries. Research Report for the
Centre for Energy and Resource Efficient Construction and Facilities
Management (CERBOF), Sweden.
McDermott, F., Torrance, V.B., Cheesman, P.G. 1987, Forecasting lifespan for
life cycle costing, in Building Maintenance Economics and management,
Spedding, A. (ed),E & FN Spon, London, 1987.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994, Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook, 2. ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nässén, J. & Holmberg, J. 2005, "Energy efficiency—a forgotten goal in the

Swedish building sector?", Energy Policy, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1037-1051.
Nässén, J., Sprei, F. & Holmberg, J. 2008, "Stagnating energy efficiency in the
Swedish building sector—Economic and organizational explanations",
Energy Policy, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 3814-3822.
Nielsen, T.R. 2005, "Simple tool to evaluate energy demand and indoor
environment in the early stages of building design", Solar Energy, vol. 78,
no. 1, pp. 73-83.
NS 2000, NS3454 Life cycle costs for building and civil engineering work -
principles and classification, Standard Norge.
Olofsson, T., Schade, J., Heikkilä, K., Benning, P., Schunke, M., Schreyer, M.,
Dehlin, S., Sormunen, P., Hirvonen, T., Meiling, J., Tulke, J. &
Holopainen, R. 2010, The InPro Lifecycle design Framework for
Buildings.
Pedersen S, Peuhkuri R. 2009, “A real passive house in Finland”, Conference

proceedings of 13th international passive house conference 2009.
Frankfurt am Main, Darmstadt; 17–18 April, pp. 177–82.
60
Refernces
Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J. & Pout, C. 2008, "A review on buildings energy
consumption information", Energy and Buildings, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 394-
398.
PHI 2009, International Passive House Association,

<http://www.passivhausplaner.eu/englisch/index_e.html>
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R. & Shukla, K.K. 2010, "Life cycle energy analysis of
buildings: An overview", Energy and Buildings, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1592-
1600.
Raymond, J.C. & Sterner, E. 2000, "Reconciling theory and practice of life
cycle costing", Building research & Information, vol. 28, no. 5-6, pp. 368-
375.
RIL 249 – 2010. 2009, Matalaenergiarakentaminen, Asuinrakennukset. (Low-

energy construction, residential buildings). Helsinki, Finland: Suomen
Rakennusinsinöörien Liitto RIL, [in Finnish].
Robson, C. 2002, Real World Research second edition, second edition,

Blackwell publishing, Oxford.
Saaty, T.L. 1990, Multicriteria Decision Making. The Analytic Hierarchy

Process, PA - 1990 extended edition, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Sanstad, A. H. & Howarth, R.B. 1994. “Normal" markets, market

imperfections and energy efficiency”, Energy Policy, vol. 22, no. 10, pp.
811-818.
Sarja, A. 2002, Integrated life cycle design of structures, Spon Press, London.
Sarri, A., Jokisalo, J., Keto, M., Alanne, K., Niemi, R., Lund, P. & Paatero, J.
2010, Kestävä Energia – loppuraportti. (Sustainable Energy – Final
Report) Raportti TKK–R-B24, Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.
SBR 2009, Swedish construction engineering Federation , <

http://www.sbr.se/om-sbr-svenska-byggingenjorsforbundet/soek-sbr-
medlemmar>
61
Schade, J. 2009, Energy Simulation and Life cycle Costs- Estimation of

Building's Performance in the Early Design Phase. Licentiate thesis,
Luleå University of Technology.
Schlueter, A. & Thesseling, F. 2009, "Building information model based

energy/exergy performance assessment in early design stages",
Automation in Construction, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 153-163.
Senate (2007). Senate Properties, BIM Guidelines,

<http://www.senaatti.fi/document.asp?siteID=2&docID=588>
Smeds, J. & Wall, M. 2007, "Enhanced energy conservation in houses through

high performance design", Energy and Buildings, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 273-
278.
Smith, N.J., Merna, T. & Jobling, P. 2006, Managing risk in construction

projects, Second edition, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.
Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand joint standard AS/NZ 4536,1999,

Life Cycle Costing – An Application Guide.
Stechert, C. & Franke, H.-. 2009, "Managing requirements as the core of multi-
disciplinary product development", CIRP Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Technology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 153-158.
Stern, P.C. 1986, "Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics doesn't say
about energy use", Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 200-227.
Suh, N.P. 2001, Axiomatic design: advances and applications, Oxford

University Press, New York; Oxford.
Sveriges Arkitekter 2009, The Swedish Association of Architects

<http://www.arkitekt.se/s4330>
SVR 2009, The Swedish Organisation of Civil and Structural Engineers,

<http://www.svr.se/Hem>
62
Refernces
Thormark, C. 2002, "A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied

energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential", Building and
Environment, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 429-435.
Voss, C.A., 1995.Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.15,
pp 5 – 16.
WBCSD 2008, Facts and Trends Energy Efficiency in Buildings, World

Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wickman, K. & Lingle, C. 2004, "Rethinking tax policies: new ideas from a
dead economist”, Economic Affairs, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 53-57.
Winther, B.N. & Hestnes, A.G. 1999, "Solar Versus Green: The Analysis of a
Norwegian Row House", Solar Energy, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 387-393.
Witt, J., 2008. Unterstützung der Schaffung und Ausweitung von Märkten für
Endenergieeffizienzmassnahmen und Energiedienstleistungen in Kontext
der nationalen Umsetzung der EDL-Richtlinie. DENA Veranstaltung.
<http://www.energieeffizienz-online.info/index.php?id=11956, 2012>
Yin, R.K. 2009, Case Study Research; Design and Methods, Fourth Edition
edn, SAGE Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.
Zerbe, R.O. & McCurdy, H.E. 1999, "The failure of market failure", Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 558-578.
63
Publication list
PUBLICATION LIST
Appended papers
The following journal articles are appended to this thesis:
Paper I:
Alanne, K., Schade, J., Martinac, I., Saari, A., Jokisalo, J., Kalamees, T. (2012)
Application of life cycle costing to the economic evaluation of energy-efficient
buildings. Submitted to Renewable & Sustainable Energy Review (August
2012)
Paper II:
Schade, J., Olofsson, T., Schreyer, M. (2011) Decision making in a model-

based design process. Construction Management and Economics, 29, 371-382
Paper III:
Jansson, G., Schade, J., Olofsson, T. (2012) Requirement management for the
design of energy performance in buildings. Submitted to ITcon (January 2013)
Paper IV:
Schade, J., Wallström, P., Olofsson, T. Lagerqvist, O. (2012) A cooperative

study of the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings in Germany
and Sweden. Submitted to Energy Policy (October 2012) accepted with
revision (December 2012)
65
Reports and book chapters
Dehlin, S, Heikkilä, K, Olofsson, T, Schade, J, Racz, T, Eriksson, P-E (2011)

Effektive projektering av lågenergihus. vol. CERBOF69, SBUF 12369,
CERBOFS hemsidan.
Olofsson, T, Schade, J, Meiling, J, Heikkilä, K, Dehllin, S, Benning, P,

Schunke, M, Tulke, J, Schreyer, M, Sormunen, P, Holopainen, R, Hirvonen, T
(2010) The InPro Lifecycle Design Framework for Buildings.
Schade, J (2009) Energy simulation and life cycle costs: estimation of a

building's performance in the early design phase. Licentiate thesis / Luleå
University of Technology
Levander, E, Schade, J, Stehn, L (2009) Methodological and other

uncertainties in life cycle costing. B Atkin & J Borgbrant (red), i: Performance
Improvement in Construction Management. Spon press, London and New
York, s. 233-246. Spon Research
Sormunen, P, Holopainen, R, Jokela, M, Laine, T, Dehlin, S, Heikkilä, K,

Nummelin, O, Hirvonen, T, Sandesten, S, Friestedt, S, Benning, P, Åberg, P,
Olofsson, T, Schade, J, Matthyssen, A, Gerene, S, Fijneman, M, Bluyssen, P
(2009) Capturing stakeholder values: Stakeholder values, stakeholder
preferences and requirements for the life cycle design process.
Conference papers
Jansson, G, Schade, J, Olofsson, T & Tarandi, V (2010) Requirements

transformation in construction design. i: CIB W78 27th International
Conference on Applications of IT in the AEC Industry & Accelerating BIM
Research Workshop.
Schade, J, Olofsson, T, Schreyer, M (2009) A model-based design approach

with the focus on energy. i: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference for
Construction Economics and Organisation. vol. 1, University of Reykjavik,
Reykjavik, s. 168-184.
Schade, J (2007) Life cycle cost calculation models for buildings. B Atkin & J
Borgbrant (red), i: Proceedings of 4th Nordic Conference on Construction
Economics and Organisation: Development Processes in Construction
Mangement. Luleå tekniska universitet, Luleå, s. 321-329. Research report /
Luleå University of Technology, nr 2007:1
66
Appendix
Appendix A
Interview Questions
67
68
Appendix
LCC questions:
x How long do you use LCC analysing systems?
x Way did you start working with LCC analysis?
(Construction client, owner perspective, regulations)
x Did you develop the LCC analysing tool by yourself?
x What kind of models you use for benchmarking?
x What kind of LCC model are you using?
x What are the main parameters?
x How do you collect the data for the LCC model?
(Database, experience, assumptions)
x In which planning stage you are using LCC?
(Early design stage, later stage)
x What are in your opinion the main factors?
Energy questions
x When do you use Energy analysing tool in a project?
x What is the main reason to use energy analysing tools?
x Where in the design process do you start to do energy analysis?
x What kind of energy analysing tool you are using?
x How do you collect the data for the energy analysis?
(Database, experience, assumptions)
69
70
Appendix
Appendix B
Questionnaire; Swedish and German
71
Enkät - Energiberäkningen Processer
1.Information om enkäter
Tack för att du vill medverka till att skapa ny kunskap!
Avdelningen för Byggproduktion vid Luleå tekniska universitet har under flera år samarbetat med byggindustrin och
bidragit till att utveckla nya arbetsmetoder, höja kvaliteten och minska kostnader inom byggandet. Syftet med denna
undersökning är att ta reda på hur byggnaders energiförbrukning hanteras under program- och projekteringsskedena.
Du kan när som helst avbryta enkäten, men vi hoppas att du tar dig tid att besvara samtliga frågor. Enkäten tar ca. 5
minuter att besvara och svaren kommer att behandlas anonymt. Både du och ditt företag kommer att få ta del av
resultatet. Som tack för ditt deltagande deltar du i en utlottning av biobiljetter.
Studien genomförs av doktoranderna Jutta Schade och Tamas Racz och ingår i forskningsprojekt inom området
planering av energieffektivt byggande. Tveka inte att höra av dig till oss om du har frågor om enkäten eller om vår
forskning.
Med vänliga hälsningar
Jutta Schade och Tamas Racz
Jutta Schade, Avdelningen för Byggproduktion

jutta.schade@ltu.se; 0920-492571
Tamas Racz, Avdelningen för Byggproduktion

tamas.racz@ltu.se; 0920-492892
Klicka Nästa för att börja svara.
2.Allmän Frågor
Observera att fr o m fråga 5 avser enkäten din/ditt företags verksamhet under det senaste året.
*1. Vilken utbildnings bakgrund har du?

Arkitekt

Civilingenjör

Högskoleingenjör

Byggingenjör

Annan

Page 1
2. Har du genomgått någon av följande viderutbildningar :
internationellt certifierad passivhusexpert

certifierad passivhusbyggare

certifierad Energiexpert

igen av ovanstående

Annan utbilding
*3. I vilken yrkesroll var du huvudsakligen verksam under det senaste året?
beställare

byggherre

arkitekt

byggkonstruktör

energikonsult

byggledare

byggentreprenör

installationstekniker

installationssamordnare

projekteringsledare

Annan

*4. Hur många år har du varit verksam i

denna yrkesroll?
år
omkring
*5. I vilken grad är du involverad i följande skeden av byggprocessen?

Ange omfattning för respektive skede
1 = aldrig involverad 2 3 4 5 = altid involverad
Idéskedet

Förslags-/programskedet

Projekteringsskedet:

systemprojektering

detaljprojektering
Byggskedet

Förvaltningsskedet

Page 2
6. I vilket skede av byggprocessen fastställs kraven på den energiförbrukning som
byggnadens ska uppfylla?
Idéskedet


Projekteringsskedet: systemprojektering

Projekteringsskedet: detaljprojektering

Byggskedet

Förvaltningsskedet

*7. Har byggnadens energiförbrukning analyserats i något av de byggprojekt ni

medverkat i under det senaste året?
Ja

Nej

3.
*8. I vilka skeden av byggprocessen analyseras byggnadens energiförbrukning?

Ange omfattning för respektive skede.
0 = vet ej 1 = aldrig 2 3 4 5 = altid
Idéskedet



systemprojektering

detaljprojektering
Byggskedet

Förvaltningsskedet

Page 3
*9. Vad är den huvudsakliga anledningen till att ni analyserar byggnaders
energiförbrukning?
Hur relevant är respektive påstående?
5 = mycket
0 = vet ej 1 = inte relevant 2 3 4
relevant
För att kontrollera att

kraven i BBR uppfylls
För att verifiera att

byggnaden uppfyller krav
enligt LEED, BREEAM,
Green Buildings etc
För att verifiera att

byggnaden uppfyller
beställarens egna krav
För att följa det egna

företagets kvalitetssystem
För att kunna lämna

konkurrenskraftiga anbud
För att kunna jämföra olika

alternativa lösningar
För att kunna göra multi-

disciplinoptimering
Annat (ange hur relevant: 1-5)
10. Vilka hjälpmedel använder ni för att analysera byggnaders energiförbrukning?

Exempel: Energi balans (Handberäkning), Beräkning efter standard,VIPWEB, VIP+,
VIPEnergi, EnergyCal, IDA ICE, BV2, DOE-2, RIUSKA, EnergyPlus, ...

11. Anser du att den process ni genomför för att analysera byggnaders
energiförbrukning är optimal?
5 = fullt
1 = inte alls 2 3 4
tillfredsställande
.

4.
Page 4
12. Om byggnadernas energiförbrukning inte analyserades – vad var orsaken till detta?
Hur relevant är respektive orsak?
5 = mycket
0 = vet ej 1 = inte relevant 2 3 4
relevant
Ej efterfrågat av

beställaren
Bedömning baserat på

tumregler ansågs vara
tillräckligt
För kostsamt

Ej nödvändigt pga litet

projekt med
standardlösningar
Annat (ange hur relevant: 1-5)
5.Tack!
Tack för din medverkan!
Om du vill vara med i utlottningen av biobiljetter, fyll i e-postadress eller telefonnummer nedan.
Avsluta enkäten genom att klicka på Klar.
Tack för din medverkan!
13. E-postadress
14. Telefonnummer
Page 5
Fragebogen - Energieprozess
1.Willkommen
Vielen Dank, dass Sie uns bei unserer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit helfen wollen!
Das Institut für Baumanagement an der Technischen Universität Luleå in Schweden arbeitet seit vielen Jahren eng mit
der Bauindustrie zusammen, um u.a. die Entwicklung bezüglich neuer Planungsmethoden voran zu treiben. Das Ziel
dieser Untersuchung ist, herauszufinden wie die deutsche Bauindustrie im Vergleich zur schwedischen, die Frage
des Energieverbrauchs von Gebäuden in der Planungsphase behandelt.
Sie können jeder Zeit die Umfrage abbrechen, wir hoffen jedoch, dass Sie sich die Zeit nehmen den kompletten
Fragebogen zu beantworten. Die Beantwortung der Fragen dauert ca. 5 Minuten. Die Antworten werden natürlich
anonym behandelt. Sie können selbstverständlich bei Interesse die Resultate der Studie erhalten. Als Dankeschön,
dass Sie an dieser Umfrage teilnehmen, haben Sie die Möglichkeit, bei unserer Verlosung u.a. einen leckeren Elch-
Schinken zu gewinnen.
Die Umfrage wird von den Doktoranden Jutta Schade und Tamas Racz durchgeführt. Die Resultate gehen in
verschiedene Forschungsprojekte bezüglich optimierter Planung von energieeffizienten Gebäuden in der frühen
Planungshase ein. Wenn Sie Fragen zu dieser Umfrage haben und/oder zu unserer Forschung, wende Sie sich
jederzeit gerne an uns.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jutta Schade und Tamas Racz
Jutta Schade; Abteilung für Construction Engineering and Management

Telefon: +46 (0)920 492571; jutta.schade@ltu.se
Tamas Racz; Abteilung für Construction Engineering and Management

Telefon: +46 (0)920 492892; tamas.racz@ltu.se
Klicken Sie auf Weiter um zu den Fragen zu gelangen
Definition
Bauprozess: Das gesamte Verfahren zu Herstellung eines Gebäudes von der Bauplanung über die Bauausführung bis zur Baunutzungsphase.
2.Allgemeinen Fragen
Bitte beantworten Sie ab Frage 5 diesen Fragebogen unter Berücksichtigung Ihrer Arbeitstätigkeit während des
letzten Jahres.
*1. Welche Berufsausbildung haben Sie?

Architekt (FH)

Architekt

Bauingenieur (FH)

Bauingenieur

Anderen Abschluss

Page 1
2. Haben Sie eine Zusatzausbildung als:
Energieberater

Zertifizierter Passivhausplaner

keine der genannten
Andere Zustatzausbildung
*3. In welcher Rolle haben Sie im letzten Jahr gearbeitet?

Architekt

Bauherr

Energieberater/Experte

Statiker, Baumanagement

Projektplanung

Bauphysiker

Installationsexperte

Projektleitung

Bauleitung

Anderer Fachbereich

*4. Seit wie vielen Jahren arbeiten Sie in

Ihrem Fachbereich?
Jahren
Etwa seit
*5. Wieviel sind Sie in den einzelnen Bauprozessphasen tätig?

Bewerten Sie auf einer Skala von 1 (niemals tätig) bis 5 (immer tätig)
1 = niemals
2 3 4 5 = immer involviert
involviert
Grundlagenermittlung

Vorplanung

Entwurfsplanung

Genehmigungsplanung

Ausführungsplanung

Vorbereiten der Vergabe

Mitwirkung bei der Vergabe

Bauausführung/Bauüberwachung

Gebäudeverwaltung

Page 2
6. In welcher Phase des Bauprozesses wird der Energieverbrauch des Gebäudes
festgelegt?

Vorplanung

Entwurfsplanung

Genehmigungsplanung

Ausführungsplanung




Gebäudeverwaltung

*7. Haben Sie im letzten Jahr, in einem der Bauprojekte, den Energieverbrauch des
geplanten Gebäudes analysiert?
Ja

Nein

3.Energiespezifische Fragen
*8. In welcher Phase des Bauprozess wird der Energieverbrauch des Gebäudes
analysiert?
Bewerten Sie auf einer Skala von 1 (niemals) bis 5 (immer)
0 = weiß nicht 1 = niemals 2 3 4 5 = immer

Vorplanung

Entwurfsplanung

Genehmigungsplanung

Ausführungsplanung




Gebäudeverwaltung

Page 3
9. Aus welchem Grund analysieren Sie den Energieverbrauch eines Gebäudes?
Bewerten Sie auf einer Skala von 1 (unwichtig) bis 5 (sehr wichtig)
0 = weiß nicht 1 = unwichtig 2 3 4 5 = sehr wichtig
Um die Anforderung der

EnEV einzuhalten
Um

Zertifizierungsbedingungen
wie LEED, BREEAM,
GreenBuildingds DGNB
u.s.w einzuhalten
Um sicherzustellen, dass

die gewünschten
Anforderungen des Kunden
hinsichtlich des
Energieverbrauchs
eingehalten werden
Um die Qualitätsstandards

einzuhalten
Für ein konkurrenzfähiges

Vergabeargument
Um unterschiedliche

Alternativen zu vergleichen
Um multi-disziplinäres

Arbeiten zu verbessern
Andere Gründe

Andere Gründe (Angabe der Relevantz: 1-5)
10. Welche Hilfsmittel wenden Sie für die Analysierung des Energieverbrauchs an?
(Mehrfachantwort möglich)
(Beispiele: ARCHline, SUNNYCAD, SOLARBRIM, EPASS-HELENA, FPASS-ESTER,
ARGOS, EnEV-Wärme & Dampf, IDA-Raum, PHPP,..)

11. Sehen Sie den von Ihnen verwendeten Prozess als otimal an, um den
Energieverbrauch für Gebäude zu analysieren?
Bewerten Sie auf einer Skala von 0 (überhaupt nicht) bis 5 (vollständig zufrieden
stellend)
5 = vollständig
1 = überhaupt nicht 2 3 4
zufrieden stellend
.

Page 4
4.Zusatzfrage
*12. Was ist der Grund dafür, dass Sie den Energieverbrauch des Gebäudes nicht
analysieren?
Bewerten Sie auf einer Skala von 1 (unwichtig) bis 5 (sehr wichtig)
0 = weiß nicht 1 = unwichtig 2 3 4 5 = sehr wichtig
Kein Interesse von Seiten

des Bauherren.
Erfahrungswerte und

Schätzungen sind
ausreichend.
Zu kostenintensiv

Wird für nicht notwendig

gehalten weil man eine
Standardlösung wählt.
Andere Gründe (Angabe der Relevanz: 1-5)
5.Vielen Dank
Vielen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme!
Wenn Sie an unserer Verlosung teilnehmen möchten, geben Sie bitte Ihre E-Mail Adresse oder Ihre Telefonnummer an.
Beenden Sie diese Umfrage indem Sie auf "Abschicken" klicken.
Vielen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme!
13. E-Mail Adresse
14. Telefonnummer
Page 5
Paper I
Application of life cycle costing to the

economic evaluation of energy-efficient
buildings.
Alanne, K., Schade, J., Martinac, I., Saari, A., Jokisalo, J.,
Kalamees, T.
Submitted to Renewable & Sustainable Energy Review

(August 2012)
Paper I
Application of life cycle costing to the economic evaluation of energy-
efficient buildings
Kari Alannea, Jutta Schadeb, Ivo Martinacc, Arto Saarid, Juha Jokisaloa,
Targo Kalameese
a
Department of Energy Technology, Aalto University, P.O. Box 14100, 00076 Aalto, Finland
b
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University of
Technology,
97187 Luleå, Sweden
c
Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 10044
Stockholm,
Sweden
d
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Aalto University, P.O. Box
12100, 00076 Aalto, Finland
e
Tallinn University of Technology, Chair of Building Physics and Architecture, Estonia
Abstract
Life cycle costing is a tool for comparative assessment of alternative products or

services over a specified period of time. In the field of construction industry, life cycle
costing is commonly used as a decision-making tool by construction clients in the early
stages of design. Insufficient data, inadequate experience in using life cycle cost models,
and misinterpretation of the results may preclude decision makers from enjoying the full
benefits of LCC. This paper discusses the application of life cycle costing in the
economic viability assessments of energy-efficient buildings. The first part of the paper
reviews the history, methods, standards, and practices of life cycle costing. The second
part of the paper reports on a survey of recent economic viability assessments of various
energy efficient building types in worldwide locations, addressing their saving
potentials, discount rates and analysis periods, and the demarcation of product systems
for cost allocation. The paper ends by reporting a set of computational studies, in which
the economic viability of energy-efficient designs has been evaluated in Finnish
residential and educational buildings using the discounted payback period (DPP)
method.
Keywords: life cycle cost analysis, life cycle costing, whole-life costing, buildings,
Energy
1. Introduction
The energy consumption of buildings accounts for 40 percent of their total energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Improving a building’s energy
efficiency outlines contemporary energy policies and building codes and defines the
operational boundary conditions for a building and its systems [2].In the future, the
buildings should generate at least some of their electrical energy on-site and even
contribute to community level energy supply, promoting the use of on-site renewable
energy sources. Furthermore, more complex performance requirements take place in
1
Paper I
terms of sustainability, indoor air quality, and so on, but there is still strong demand to
keep investment and operational costs low [3].Since the computational life span of
buildings is measured in decades, designers should also be able to foresee the future.
The above requirements call for a comprehensive economic way of thinking in which
the building owner’s long-term costs and benefits are identified and valued with as
accurate input data as possible.
The life cycle way of thinking embraces the consideration of a product or a product
system from cradle to grave. The concept of “life cycle” is often applied in the context
of life cycle assessment (LCA), which assesses the potential environmental impact
related to a product’s raw material acquisition, processing, manufacturing, and disposal
[4]. The applications of LCA in buildings have been reviewed by Sharma et al. [5], who
highlighted the contribution of the operational phase in energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, pointing out the significance of good decisions at the very
beginning of a construction project. The same way of thinking applies to life cycle costs,
with the procedure referred to as life cycle costing or whole life costing [6]. Although an
overall conceptual framework for the LCC is standardized by the ISO 15686-5 [7], there
is a lack of universal and widely approved practices concerning how the LCC should be
calculated and integrated in the operating and maintenance strategies in the design phase
[8].
The life cycle way of thinking involves allocating costs and benefits into a demarcated
product or product system, from which the data is collected during the entire life span.
When applying LCC in the comparative analysis of sustainable design schemes or
renewable energy installations, energy costs appear to represent a substantial part of the
life cycle costs.
Building service installations can account for a significant portion of the initial
investment, and they play a prominent role in the energy balance of a building.
Therefore, the reliability of the analysis is related to how the energy use is allocated to
the product system. In construction, one of the most common approaches is the
comparison of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy options. Here, an
alternative design comprises a product system; that is, a set or collection of different
products that issue a concrete representation to components, subsystems, and whole
systems. This idea is illustrated in Figure 1.
2
Paper I
Figure 1. Product systems of building services.
Assuming that an LCC assessment is applied to determine the most feasible design for a
lighting system, Figure 1 implies that the result may be different depending on whether
the boundary of energy (and cash or resource) flows is located around the lighting
system or the entire building. In the former case, the alternatives only vary in terms of
electrical demand, whereas in the latter case the impact extends to the thermal demand.
Lamps that consume more electricity increase the amount of thermal gain, which
decreases the heating demand, but not necessarily by the same amount the lamps release.
The utilizable heat gain depends on the thermal demand of the building and the control
system’s ability to adapt to changing requirements. In certain conditions, the decrease of
thermal demand may even distrain the benefit obtained from selecting energy-efficient
lamps. Another practical example is the ventilation/air-conditioning system. The
electrical energy input is basically represented by fan energy, whereas the economically
meaningful thermal energy input is equal to that fed into the heating/cooling coil. Due to
heat losses or gains inside the building, which result in changes in the supply
temperature of thermal energy, the cost of a kilowatt of energy at the boundary or a
single product system is not exactly the same as that at the building’s energy
(electricity/heat distribution center) interface.
In life cycle cost analyses, certain parameters, such as discount rate and analysis period,
significantly impact the proposal that the analysis gives as the end result. Hence, the task
to choose them is critical, but challenging.
This paper contributes to the research in three main ways. Firstly, it reviews recent
techno economic assessments of energy efficient buildings worldwide. Secondly, it
upgrades the existing knowledge on the application of life cycle costing in the above
context. Thirdly, it reports on three computational studies that assessed the economic
viability of energy efficient single-family dwellings, apartment buildings, and
educational buildings in Finland. The review focuses on academic journal papers and
conference papers published since 2000. The Sciencedirect, Scirus, and Informaworld
databases have been used for the retrieval of information. The review is primarily
3
Paper I
targeted at educators and designers in the field of renewable and sustainable energy and
construction and for the programmers of whole-life costing and decision making tools.
2 Lifecycle costing
2.1 Definition and history of life cycle costing

Adrian et al. [9] defined the term life cycle costing as a technique to determine the total
cost of ownership. LCC is mentioned as a management assistance tool that both
government and private and public business sectors use to procure decision-making. In
managerial application, life cycle costing is useful in all project stages [10]. Life cycle
costing encompasses the flow of money over time, presenting the net present value of a
benefit. Brown [11] addressed the significance of LCC in marketing industrial products
with high initial prices, but low long-run costs. The definition of LCC in the ISO 15686
standard (service life planning) is based on a cradle-to-grave way of thinking that
accounts for the initial costs of a product, and the costs that ensue from its operation,
maintenance, and disposal/demolition. In the construction sector, life cycle costing is
primarily used as a designer’s and building owner’s decision making tool. The ISO
15686-5 standard (building and construction assets, service life planning) introduces the
concept of whole-life-cost (WLC), which, in addition to LCC, entails all cost and
income elements related to a building, including indirect costs such as IT services and
parking charges [7]. The terms terotechnology, through-life-costing, costs-in-use,
ultimate life cost, and total cost are also associated with life cycle costing, but these
appellations are less commonly used [6].
The history of life cycle costing dates back to the 1930s, when the costs of maintenance
and operation were mentioned parallel to price in the acceptance or rejection of bids
[12]. The first practical fields of application were related to procurement and acquisition
of defense equipment and systems in the 1960s. At about the same time, the Building
Research
Establishment (BRE) introduced research activities related to „cost-in-use‟ [13]. Since

1974, in the aftermath of the oil crisis, several US states made life cycle cost analysis
mandatory in the design of state buildings [14]. In Britain, the BS 3811 standard was
published, where the sequence of life cycle phases were determined [15]. Since the
1980s, the scientific discussion around the use of life cycle costing proceeded more or
less parallel to environmental issues [16]. Since 2000, the LCC has been addressed in
the sense of the techno-economic optimization of whole buildings (e.g.,Bogensätter
[17]) and the implementation of new technological innovations, such as intelligent
buildings [18].
Traditionally, design phase decisions have frequently been based on the initial building
cost. Since the 1930s, however, it has become obvious that the choice between
alternatives cannot be based solely on the initial cost [6, 19]. Also, between 70 and 90
percent of the total life cycle costs are defined in the design phase [7, 20, 21, 22]. Hence,
consequences over the whole life cycle should be considered earlier in the design phase.
Kotaji et al. [23] pointed out that it is particularly important to show the relation between
4
Paper I
design choices and the resulting life cycle cost, such as energy, maintenance, and
operating cost. Therefore, the LCC analysis in a construction project should consider the
following items; (i) Construction cost, including design and engineering costs;(ii)
Operation costs, which include rent, insurance, cyclical regulatory costs, utilities, tax,
etc., (iii) Maintenance costs, including costs for adaptation; and (iv) End-of-life costs,
such as disposal and demolition.
2.2 Methods of economic evaluation

Several cost-based LCC calculation methods are available for use in the construction
sector, with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. According to the
reviewed literature, the most suitable approach to life cycle cost in the construction
industries is the net present value (NPV) method or, in the case of comparing alternative
schemes with different lifetimes, the equivalent annual cost(ECA) method. The NPV
method is mainly used in existing LCC tools today. However, users should be aware of
that different methods have been developed for different purposes with specific
advantages and limitations. For example, the payback method may be the most suitable
for simple estimates of an investment’s profitability. Table 1 illustrates the six main
economical evaluation methods used in evaluation of LCC, their advantages,
disadvantages, and the purpose for which they can be used.
5
Paper I
Table 1. The advantages and disadvantages of economic evaluation methods for LCC.
Method Approach Advantage Disadvantage Purpose (Notes)

Simple payback Calculate the time required to return the initial investment. Quick and easy calculation Does not take inflation, Usable in the early design stage,
The investment with the shortest pay-back time is the most [24–27] interest or cash flow into give a rough estimation, if the
profitable one [24–27]. account. Further, the different investment is profitable [24–27].
life time of the Products are
not considered [24–27].
Discount Basically the same as the simple payback method, it just Takes the time value of Ignores all cash flow outside Should be only used as a
payback period takes the time value of the money into account. The result is money into account the payback period [6, 24]. screening device, not as a
(DPP) the number of years required to recoup the initial cash outlay [6,24,25]. decision support [6, 24].
of the investment [24, 25].
Net present value The NPV of an investment is calculated by using a discount Takes into account the time Not usable when the compared Most LCC models utilize the
(NPV) rate and a series of future payments (negative) and income value of money and the alternatives have different life NPV method if alternatives have
(positive). In general, if the NPV is positive, it is worthwhile cash flow during the lengths. Not easy to interpret. the same life length or get
investing. In the case of LCC, the focus is on cost rather than calculated timeframe Very sensitive to the discount calculated for the same chosen
on income. Therefore, the costs are treated as positive and [6,24,26]. rate [6,24,26]. time period [6, 24, 26].
income as negative. Consequently, the best choice between
two competing alternatives is the one with minimum NPV
[6, 24, 26].
Equivalent This method express the one-time NPV of an alternative as a Different alternatives with Only gives an average Comparing different alternatives
annual cost uniform equivalent annual cost, in that it takes the factor different life lengths can be number; it does not indicate with different life length [6].
(ECA) present worth of an annuity into account [6]. compared [6]. the actual cost during each
year of the LCC [28].
Internal rate of The IRR of a project is the discount rate at which the project Result is presented as a The literature shows several Can be only used if the
return (IRR) cash flow has a net present value of zero. Projects with high percentage, which gives an drawbacks for this method investments will generate an
IRR are the preferred alternative [6, 24, 26, 27]. obvious interpretation [6, [29, 30]. For example, if the income [6].Further, it has to be
24, 26]. cash flows are negative costs, considered that often risky
then the IRR cannot be projects give high IRR [26].
calculated. Can give an
inconsistent recommendation.
Net saving (NS) The NS is calculated as the difference between the present Easily understood NS can only be used if the Can be used to compare
worth of the income generated by an investment and the investment appraisal investment generates an investment options [7].
amounted invested. The alternative with the highest net technique [6]. income [6].
saving is the best [6].
6
Paper I
2.3 Standards and Practices

The ISO 15686-5 [7] declares that the whole life cost (WLC) should include all cost
elements accumulated during the entire life cycle of a building/construction; that is,
LCC plus non construction costs, externalities, and income. Non-construction costs
are costs that arise during the life cycle that are not directly linked to the building or
construction, such as IT service, reception, helpdesk, parking charge, and furniture.
Income can be understood as the income for the building owner in the form of rent
and service charges. Externalities are a consequence of an economic activity that is
experienced by unrelated third parties [7]. The standard further differentiates
between LCC and “life cycle costing” by stating that LCC should be used to describe
a limited analysis of a few components, whereas “life cycle costing” should be
understood as the cost calculations themselves. The Norwegian Standard
3454 [31] defines LCC as including both original costs and costs incurred throughout
the whole functional lifetime, including demolition.
LCC is a decision making tool in the sense that it could be used to select among
alternative projects, designs, or building components. Consequently, LCC data
should be presented in such a way that enables comparison of alternative solutions.
For that reason, the cost breakdown structure is an important concept in LCC [32].
Several different standards (ISO 15686-5/NS3454/ASTM/Australian/New Zealand-
Standard) are available to guide LCC analysis. Each of these standards has different
cost categories and slightly different cost breakdown structures. The NPV method,
which is the recommended method for the construction industry, takes the discount
factor into account and is usable if the different alternatives have the same life span.
The NPV analysis shows the projected result, based on a required rate of return of
each annual projected cash flow, discounted to the present value. Since LCC focuses
on cost rather than income, the usual practice is to treat cost as positive and incomes
as negative. Therefore, the best choice between competing alternatives will be the
one with the minimum net present value.
Since LCC analysis is concerned with cost and benefits flows throughout the life of a
project, the time value of money must be considered. Money today is worth more
than it is at a later date. Therefore, costs in the future are discounted to a smaller
value when transformed to the present time. It is common practice to use the term
discount rate in reference to the interest rate, which is a rate paid for borrowing
money, often expressed as an annual percentage of the borrowed sum. The nominal
rate of interest is the rate of interest before adjusting for inflation. The real rate of
interest takes inflation into account and is therefore the nominal rate of interest minus
inflation. A selection of a suitable discount rate is a crucial decision in a LCC
analysis. Discount rates in the literature vary from 3–4 percent up to 20 percent [33].
Forecasting of discount rates provides convenient mathematical expression for
projecting the difference between the real value of the investment and the expected
return in a future time period. It implies that inflation is constant over the time. The
rate of return is the annual amount of income from an investment, expressed as a
percentage of the original investment.
A time period need to be chosen for NPV analysis, but it is generally recommended
to avoid using long periods of analysis. The further into the future one looks, the
greater the risk that assumptions used today will not apply [34]. Many building
components still lack information on actual real-life periods to use [34, 35].It is
7
Paper I
recommended is to use short time periods as physical, functional and economical life
spans. Moreover, refurbishment cycles are likely to become shorter in the future for
many types of buildings [37].
It is difficult or perhaps even impossible to forecast energy prices over a time period
of 20 Years or more. Future energy prices are dependent on the demand and the
market itself, while political factors in form of taxes also have a strong influence on
the price. However; some trends can be recognized in the construction of a plausible
future scenario considering energy prices over recent years for electricity, gas and
oil. For example, Clausnitzer et al. [38, 39] and Gabriel and Balmer [40] assumed
future development of the energy prices (gas, oil, coal, biomass, electricity, district
heating) for the end user. For example, Gabriel and Balmer [40] used a combination
of the official statics for a certain time frame and combined this with prognoses from
a study by the Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne to develop
a future energy cost scenario.
The data that must be collected for a LCC estimate can be divided into five main
groups: occupancy data, physical data, performance data, quality data, and cost data.
The importance of the various groups depends upon the stage of planning and
purpose of the LCC calculation. To support decision making in selecting projects,
designs, or building components, the LCC data should be collected and presented in
a way that enables such a comparison. In this case, the cost breakdown structure is an
important aspect.
The occupancy and physical data can be seen as the key factors in the early design
stage. In this stage, LCC estimation depends on gross floor area and other
requirements for the building, especially for public buildings [24]. Performance and
quality data is influenced by policy decisions such as how well the building should
be maintained and the degree of cleanliness demanded [6]. Quality data is highly
subjective and less readily accountable than cost data [24]. In the more detailed
design stage, life cycle cost estimation is based more on the performance and cost
data of a building [32]. While cost data is essential for LCC research, it is virtually
meaningless if it is not complemented by other types of data [24]. Cost data must
always be evaluated in the context of other data categories in order to be correctly
interpreted [6].
There are three main sources of data for LCC: (i) from the manufacturers, suppliers,
contractors and testing specialists; (ii) historical data; and (iii) data from analytical
and numerical models. Data from manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and testing
specialists can often be seen as a “best guess”. These actors may have detailed
knowledge of the performance and characteristics of material and components, but
not of the ways in which facilities are used [26]. Still, the knowledge and experience
of specialist manufacturers and suppliers are valuable sources for life cycle
information. If the required data is not available, modelling techniques can be used.
Mathematical models can be developed and statistical techniques can be incorporated
to address the uncertainties of future estimates [26]. Data from existing buildings can
be used as sources of historical data. Some of this data is published as the BMI
(Building Maintenance Information) occupancy cost. Other sources include clients‟
and surveyors‟ records, and journal papers [24].
8
Paper I
Life cycle costs deal with the future, and many factors – such as future maintenance
and operating costs and discount and inflations rate– are difficult or even impossible
to forecast over a period that could range from 20 to100 years. Consequently,
sensitive analysis should be performed to study how the output is affected by the
different input parameters, such as discount rate and inflation rate, etc.
2.4 Problems and challenges

The absence of a formalized approach has limited the widespread adoption of LCC
[41]. Although the ISO 15686 [7] provides an overall conceptual framework for the
LCC, there is a lack of a universal and widely approved methodology to calculate the
LCC and to integrate the operating and maintenance strategies in the design phase
[8]. This could be partly due to the high technical complexity and low practicality of
the published LCC models [42]. However, decisions made at the beginning of a
construction project strongly affect the outcome of the project during its entire life
cycle. Hence, one of the most critical issues related to LCC is the reliability of
background data and the decision-maker’s ability to draw rational conclusions under
conditions of uncertainty [43].
The literature has offered several proposals and approaches to address the above
problems. Verbruggen et al. [44] discussed the irrevocability of decisions and
preclusion of alternatives in terms of energy efficient investment appraisals in
buildings, and called for flexibility and resilience in energy performance evaluations.
Kirkham [45] presented a whole life cycle costing (WLCC) framework in which an
iterative decision-making process is assisted by a decision support system with
recorded decision data. Whyte and Scott [46] suggest the application of statistics and
probability, fuzzy logic, neural networks and object-oriented analysis in terms of life
cycle costing. Several computer-based LCC tools have also been introduced [42].
Kishk and al-Hajj [6] regarded the LCC method as less satisfactory as a decision
making/support tool in the building industry. Therefore, Ellingham and Fawcett [26]
proposed an options approach to whole life costing that provides flexibility in
situations of uncertainty, to mitigate the risk of a project becoming worthless or
requiring major adaptation in changing circumstances. This, combined with a whole
life evaluation matrix that considers restriction of capital, uncertainty of technology,
regulations, and use, and restriction of time zones, can help decision makers make
long-term decisions. However, this does not consider the difficulties of collecting
quality data.
Also, the transition from understanding the theory of life cycle costing to practicing
it is not easy [24]. In many cases, intangibles (such as aesthetics) conflict with the
results from LCC calculations [6], contributing to the difficulties facing the
usefulness of the technique. In order to conjoin these objective techniques with more
subjective ones, Flanagan et al. [24] suggested using weighted evaluation matrices to
handle the intangible costs and benefits. The quality of decision-making derived
from the use of LCC calculations is constrained by the availability of appropriate and
accurate data; Flanagan and Jewell [27] referred to this as the “data problem”. Thus,
data collection brings difficulties; however, LCC analysis is only accurate if the
collected data is reliable [47]. Existing databases have certain limitations. For
example, they do not record all necessary context information about the data being
9
Paper I
fed into them [6] and the data is usually expressed as units of cost, which limits it to
local use.
3 A literature review on the economic evaluation of energy-efficient buildings

Several studies have shown that a major part of life cycle costs originates from the
use of a building and the operation of its building service systems. Hence, the design
of buildings is affected by the need to create energy- and cost-efficient solutions,
while being mindful of good indoor air quality and thermal conditions. The
significance of justifiable design choices is emphasized as a consequence of the
tightening energy regulations, which drives the market to find ways to break “lock-
in” effects associated with traditional technology [48]. As discussed by Roberts [49],
there is a need, in parallel with the strict energy efficiency requirements, to adapt to
inevitable climate change. Larger incentives are desirable to make new technologies
more attractive for the customers. Audenaert et al. [50] applied break-even analysis
to justify the importance of governmental support on the road from the standard to
passive houses. Furthermore, the purport of renovation projects as a way to increase
the market value of real estate has been acknowledged [51].Since there are several
options to make a building meet the criteria of energy efficiency, modern designs
must take the combined effect of single energy-efficient measures into account [52].
Section3 of this paper reviews the techno-economic studies related to energy-

efficient buildings around the world. Firstly, we survey the energy-saving potential
of various building types. Secondly, we review the application of life cycle costing,
covering the choice of interest rates, analyzing periods, and the allocation of costs.
We have focused on recent studies (those published since 2000) that have addressed
life cycle costing.
3.1 Savings potential
3.1.1 Residential buildings

Recent studies have promulgated both savings potential and stakeholders’
willingness to invest in energy efficiency in residential buildings. Balaras et al. [53]
reported the conclusions of energy audits carried out in 192 buildings in five
countries in order to assess thermal energy consumption and its environmental
impacts in European apartment buildings. They concluded that 38 percent of the
audited buildings exceeded the annual average European thermal energy
consumption (174.3 kWhm2), while 30 percent and 23 percent exceeded the average
European airborne and solid waste emissions, respectively. Based on a survey of
buildings in Switzerland, Banfi et al. [54] noted that energy-saving measures were
highly valued among 163 apartment tenants. Kwak et al. [55] drew similar
conclusions in a study of South Korea. On the other hand, political definitions
strongly direct customers’ decision-making, according to Leth-Petersen and
Togeby’s [56] study on the role of policy measures in reducing energy consumption
of apartment buildings.
The design trend of new buildings is towards passive and zero energy standards. The
TRNSYS and EnergyPlus simulation software was employed by Wang et al. [57],
who concluded that it is possible to obtain a zero-energy house in the United
Kingdom following the European definition. Through a demonstration project,
Tommerup et al. [58] showed that Danish single-family houses equipped with
10
Paper I
energy-saving measures easily met future energy demands. In Finland, the energy
demand of a passive house is defined to be approximately one-quarter of the energy
demand of a standard house [59]. Finnish passive house demonstration projects have
been reported by Pedersen and Peuhkuri[60].
Since a major part of life cycle costs and environmental burdens originates from the
use of a building and operation of its building service systems, the greatest potential
to reduce costs and environmental impacts lies in the design and construction phase.
The most influential choice at the design phase is the selection of energy source of
the house(e.g.,Gustavsson et al. [61]). Badescu [62] investigated economic aspects
related to the application of ground thermal energy in terms of passive houses,
concluding that a conventional ground-source heat pump (GSHP) provided the best
solution for 3–10 years, but that a ground heat exchanger surpassed the GSHP
system when the time scale exceeded 20 years. Badescu and Staicovici [63] also
examined the applicability of passive and active solar heating in passive houses.
Their results suggested that passive heating provided a better thermal yield than
active heating and that the vast majority of the collected heat was utilized in the
domestic hot water (DHW) heating. The use of classical air and water heaters could
still not be avoided.
Many studies have shown that better insulation, reduced air infiltration, and
reasonable control of heating systems reduces energy use. Opitz et al. [64] concluded
that the reason for the high thermal energy consumption of Russian apartment blocks
was the poor control of the thermal energy delivering system. Citherlet and Defaux
[65] analyzed three variants of family houses in Switzerland and identified the choice
of building materials for low-energy houses as a significant design issue in terms of
energy efficiency. Similar conclusions have been drawn by Utama and Gheewala
[66] in Indonesia and by Koroneos and Kottas [67] in Greece. Persson et al. [68]
investigated the effect of window size and orientation on the performance of low-
energy houses through DEROB-LTH simulations. Specifically, they decreased the
window size facing south and increased the window size facing north. They
concluded that the size of a window is essential in terms of cooling needs in summer.
Results from studies concerning the energy saving potential in residential buildings
are summarized in Table 2.
11
Paper I
Table 2. Summary of studies concerning energy saving potential in residential

buildings.
Source Location Data collection method Measures Results
Hasan et al. [52] Finland (Detached Whole-building simulation Insulation thickness 23–49 percent
house) (IDA-ICE 3.0) Windows reduction in space
Generic optimization Type of heat recovery heating energy
(GenOpt 2.0) (Minimum LCC)
Bambrook et al. [69] Australia (Single- Energy simulation and Orientation Up to 94 percent
family house ) optimization Shading reduction in space
Insulation heating and cooling
Minimized infiltration energy demand
Joelsson & Sweden (Single- Case analysis Convert electrical 88 percent reduction
Gustavsson [70] and family house) heating to biomass- in primary energy
Joelsson & based, cogenerated 96 percent reduction
Gustavsson [61] district heating in CO2 emissions
Smeds& Wall [71] Sweden (Single- Whole-building simulation The best available 83 percent reduction
family house) (DEROB-LTH) technologies in space heating
demand
Filippin et al. [72] Argentina Case analysis, monitoring Passive solar heating, 50 percent reduction
(Apartment natural ventilation and in total auxiliary
building) solar protection energy consumption;
no extra cost
Cheung et al. [73] Hong Kong Whole-building simulation Passive envelope 36.8 percent reduction
(Apartment (TRNSYS) design in sensible cooling
building) load
31.4 percent reduction
in annual cooling
energy
Bojic&Lucic [74] Yugoslavia Computational analysis Passive solar heating 1.5–4 percent energy
(Weekend house) saving
3.1.2 Commercial buildings

Cole and Kernan [75] reviewed the distribution of life cycle energy use in office
buildings and concluded that, on the basis of contemporary standards, the total
energy use mainly consisted of operating energy. This is in line with similar studies
on other building types. The trend has changed, however, partly because of
improvements in energy efficiency. Yohanis and Norton [76] estimated that
embodied energy may represent as much as 67 percent of operating energy over a
25-year period. Kofoworola and Gheewala’s [77] results for Thailand suggested that
life cycle energy concentrated in the operational period, but that embodied energy
should not be neglected. They also found that concrete and steel played the most
crucial role in the material life cycle of an office building. Saidur[78] concluded that
air-conditioning was the most significant end user of energy in a Malaysian office
building, representing 57 percent of the total energy use. Other major energy
consumers were lighting (19 percent), lifts and pumps (18 percent), and other
appliances (6 percent).
Results from studies concerning the energy-saving potential in commercial buildings

are summarized in Table 3.
12
Paper I
Table 3. Summary of studies concerning energy saving potential in commercial

(office) buildings.

Kofoworola Thailand Case analysis Combination of energy- 40–50 percent reduction
and saving measures. in electricity
Gheewala Recycling building 9 percent of life cycle
[77] materials. energy (recycling)
Saidur [78] Malaysia Case analysis Combination of energy- 77,569 MWh saving
saving measures potential
(electrical motors
identified as the single
most important factor)
Kneifel [79] USA Whole-building simulation Combination of energy- 20–40 percent reduction
saving measures in energy use
Orosa and Spain Case analysis Passive indoor climate 3 kWh m-2a-1 saving
Oliveira [80] control (permeable potential
coverings)
Schiavon and Cold climate IDA-ICE &GenOpt Application of 61–268 percent increase
Melikov[81] personalized ventilation compared to conventional
mixing ventilation
60 percent cut in heating
energy, when the
operative temperature
limit of the room was
extended
Iqbal and Al- Saudi-Arabia Review of design drawings, Extra insulation. Window 7 percent reduction in
Homoud [82] energy audit, inventory of replacement. annual electricity
utility bills and whole- Instituting the set-point of 36 percent reduction in
building simulation (Visual room temperature. total energy use
DOE 4.0) Updating air-conditioning (combination of all
system from CAV to measures)
VAV.
Energy-efficient lamps.
Adjusting the schedule of
lighting and equipment.
Kawamoto et Japan Field measurements and Load management 3.5 TWh/a energy saving
al. [83] surveys potential (2 percent of
total domestic commercial
electricity consumption)
3.1.3 Schools
Schools are common target buildings for energy efficiency studies, often with a
connection to indoor air quality research. According to Theosiou and Ordoumpozanis
[84], this may be partly because of sustainability for future citizens and high
valuation of good education, which, in turn, presumes healthy indoor conditions. The
main reasons for problems in terms of the above fields are building envelopes and
the improper control of heating, ventilation, and lighting systems.
In schools, operational energy accounts for the majority of life cycle energy. Scheuer
et al. [85] presented a comprehensive case study of a new six-story university
building. The building is located on the University of Michigan campus and its area
is 7300 m2. Scheuer et al.’s methodology incorporated life cycle assessment and
inventory of all installed materials. The HVAC system was modeled using the
eQuest 2.55b simulation tool [86]. The analysis resulted in the primary energy
intensity of 2.3×106 GJ (316 GJ/m2) over the building’s 75-year life cycle. HVAC
and electricity represented 94.4 percent of the overall primary energy consumption.
Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis [84] mentioned the absence of legislative measures

as a reason for poor energy efficiency in schools, but even more crucial is the lack of
13
Paper I
interest in energy-saving measures. Wirtschafter and Denver [87] proposed an

incentive program to promote the energy conservation in schools. The idea of such a
program would be to share the money saved through energy savings among teachers,
students, and maintenance staff. Moreover, Wirtschafter and Denver concluded that a
successful incentive program requires a key individual who is willing and able to
direct the effort at the district level.
Several energy analyses have suggested that approximately half of the energy
consumption can be saved in a school environment. The implementation of passive
solar strategies in the design of school buildings has been identified as an attractive
option to reduce heating and cooling loads, and therefore energy consumption. In
some energy audits, increased energy consumption caused by a building’s poor
energy efficiency has been discovered, leading to incorrect sizing of the heating
system. Butala and Novak [88] audited 24 school buildings in Slovenia and found
that heat losses were 89 percent higher than recommended values, while resulted in
57 percent overcapacity of the heat exchangers of the district heating system.
Table 4 summarizes the results from studies concerning the energy saving potential
in school buildings.
Table 4. Summary of studies concerning energy saving potential in school buildings.

Hong et al. Republic of Whole-building simulation “Green roofs”. 29.6 percent reduction
[89] Korea (Energy Plus 6.0) Exterior insulation. in annual energy
Exterior blinding. demand
Windows.
Energy-efficient lighting
(LED).
Mahlia et al. Malaysia Survey Energy-efficient lighting 40 percent reduction in
[90] (University) energy consumption
Dimoudi and Greece Monitoring Improving the insulation. 49212 kWh/a (28.75
Kostarela Whole-building simulation Determining the percent) total energy
[91] (SUMMER 2 (Geros and orientation and amount of saving potential (all the
Santamouris, 1998)) openings. saving measures)
Removal of shading 13.3 percent saving
devices. potential (thermal
Improvement of the air insulation only)
tightness in openings.
Improving the thermal
characteristics of
windows.
Larsen et al. Argentina Monitoring Building layout 50 percent reduction in
[92] Simulation and optimization heating requirement.
(SIMEDIF) 70 percent reduction in
cooling requirements
compared with the
conventional layout (no
additional cost).
Desideri and Italy Energy indexes Combination of measures 38 percent reduction in

Proietti [93] Energy audit thermal energy.
46 percent reduction in
electrical energy.
14
Paper I
3.2 Perceptions and realizations on the use LCC in evaluating energy efficiency
measures
The literature review by Davis Langdon Management Consulting [42] is one of the
recent international attempts to explore the common European life cycle costing
methodologies. That review dealt with the implementation of LCC, relevant EU
standards, financial variables, and methodological premises, as well as the collection
of life cycle data, mathematical models, and computational tools. One of the main
conclusions of that study is that the discussion focuses on the concepts, benefits, and
techniques related to life cycle costing and life cycle assessment, whereas there is a
limited amount of evidence regarding the applications of life cycle costing and the
extent of its use. That study observed that the method of economic evaluation is most
commonly based on the present value or the net present value, but also payback. The
equivalent annual cost method is preferred when comparing alternatives with various
life spans. The discount rate is usually recommended to be “the net of inflation
discount rate” [6]. According to Davis Langdon Management Consulting [42], the
private procurement usually employs discount rates between 2 percent and 14
percent, the selection of discount rate being less controversial than in the public
sector. Sensitivity analysis and risk assessments are considered necessary in
forecasts. One of the major sources of uncertainty in LCC is the service life of the
product systems and their components. The literature on life cycle costing
methodologies does not commonly comment on the demarcation of separate product
systems, but instead considers a whole building as an entity. Establishing the cost
breakdown structure, however, presumes that the costs of single elements can be
distinctly defined and estimated [6].
Kneifel [79] applies life cycle costing to identify the cost-effectiveness of energy
efficiency measures in new commercial buildings in the US. The cost data is
acquired from databases. Building construction, maintenance, repair, replacement,
and energy costs are accounted for, as is the building residual value. LCC is
considered to be the NPV of all relevant costs through the study period. Since net
savings are determined between the base case and alternative design’s LCCs, the
analysis is an ordinary investment appraisal by nature. Kneifel [79] ended up with
“negative life cycle costs” due to more energy-efficient HVAC installations and
concluded that the cost-effectiveness is strongly related to the analysis period. The
adjusted internal rate of return (AIRR) – that is, the annualized return on the energy
efficiency investment costs– is determined and compared to an investor’s minimum
acceptable rate of return (MARR).
Morrissey and Horne [94] used a similar type of approach to evaluate an extensive
sample of dominant house designs in Melbourne, Australia. The base case is first
established and the cost savings due to improved thermal performance are then
considered as positive cash flows in evaluating the net present value of the
investment.
Hong et al. [89] calculated the life cycle costs of green roof systems in South Korean
elementary school facilities. The demolition costs are excluded based on the
assumption that the waste disposal cost would be offset by the salvage value. The
real interest rate is calculated from the nominal interest rate, the inflation rate, and
the escalation of energy price. The data is collected from the publications of the
Construction Association of Korea and through interviews.
15
Paper I
Mahlia et al. [90] conducted an LCC and discounted payback analysis to find the
economic viability of energy-efficient lighting in a university building. They
considered the existing lighting system as the reference system and compared three
alternative systems. Their data was collected through a survey of available lighting
technologies. Mahlia et al.’s study recommended T5 fluorescent lamps, which result
in 40 percent savings in life cycle costs.
Bambrook et al. [69] minimized an LCC function containing the net present value of
the construction cost, the HVAC capital cost, and the electricity cost for space
heating and cooling. They combined the LCC model with whole-building simulation
providing data on energy demands.
Nikolaidis et al. [95] performed a net present value analysis in which the given
energy saving measures were ranked by the internal rate of return, the savings-to-
investment ratio, and the depreciated payback period.
Chel and Tiwari [96] conducted an LCCA to find the discounted payback period
related to aninvestment in earth-to-air heat exchanger for a simulated vault roof
building located in India.Their results suggested that a payback period of less than
two years can be obtained when tax benefits are incorporated.
Leckner and Zmeureanu [97] examined the financial viability of a net zero energy
house by way of simple payback method and life cycle cost analysis. They used the
simple payback method because it is still widely in use and because their study
aimed to show the difference between simple and more sophisticated methods of
economic evaluation. In their study, the life cycle cost analysis is referred to as a
cumulative cash flow method, also known as cash flow analysis method. The study
concluded that the energy payback time for a net zero energy house is 8.4–8.7 years,
whereas the life cycle cost analysis indicates that the financial payback is never
achieved.
Agrawal and Tiwari [98] characterized their study as a life cycle cost analysis for a
building-integrated photovoltaic-thermal system. Their approach is based on the
equivalent annual cost method. They only considered costs directly related to the
integrated PV system, which includes initial, maintenance, repair, and replacement
costs, and salvage value. The final outcome of the study is the unit cost of power
generation, which is obtained by dividing the annualized life cycle costs by the
annual energy output of the system. For the integrated PV, this cost is found to be
US$0.1009 per kWh, which is close to the price of the grid power.
Shohet and Puterman [99] developed a methodology for the integrated analysis of
roofing systems to the use of designers. The method is practically an LCC analysis
following the principles in ISO-15686-1 (2000) andutilizing the survey of actual cost
information on the building site. Operation costs, taxes, and associated costs are set
to zero and energy costs are neglected because the alternative roofing systems do not
make a difference in energy consumption. The study concluded that the life cycle
costs from the maintenance and repair are 2.3–3.5 times the initial costs.
16
Paper I
The economic approach in all of these academic studies is either directly or indirectly
based on the calculation of net present value. The simple payback method is only
referred to in order to highlight the significance of accounting for the time value of
money in life cycle costing. Most of the computational examples are ordinary
investment calculations in the sense that cash flows are set with respect to a certain
reference level (that is, difference life cycle costs), rather than defining the total costs
of ownership in absolute terms, according to the principles in ISO-15686-5. The
discount rate varies between 0 and 16 percent, and is based on bank rates or the
expected rate of profit set by the investor, which is in line with the review of Davis
Langdon Management Consulting [41]. The data on energy consumption is obtained
by way of whole-building simulation in most of the studies reported above. The
reported studies are mostly predictive, relying on the data provided by manufacturers
and prevailing regulatory conditions provided by authorities. Sensitivity analysis has
been included in life cycle costing to capture uncertainties. Shohet and Puterman [99]
used a standardized LCCA procedure in which the actual cost information on the
building site is needed as input.
Table 5 summarizes the methods of economic evaluation, discount rates, and analysis
periods used in the reviewed studies.
Table 5. Summary of information concerning life cycle costing in reviewed studies.

Source Method of Discount rate Analysis period
economic
evaluation
Joelsson and Gustavsson [48] EAC 3% N/A
Audenaert et al. [50] NPV 4.49–5.48% 5–50 a
Zavadskas et al. [51] NPV (SIR) N/A 22–40 a**
DPP
Hasan et al. [52] minimization of 4.9% 20–50 a
dLCC function
Badescu [62] NPV N/A 0–40 a
Bambrook et al. [69] minimization of LCC 6.5%* 20 a
function
Joelsson and Gustavsson [70] EAC 6% N/A
Kneifel [79] cost database N/A 10–40 a
AIRR
Hong et al. [89] NPV 3.3% 40 a
Mahlia et al. [90] NPV 11.4% 0–10 a
DPP
Morrisey and Horne [94] NPV 0.5–3.5% 0–75 a
Nikolaidis et al. [95] IRR 4–8% 0–30 a
NPV (SIR)
DPP
Chel and Tiwari [96] DPP 4–16% N/A
Leckner and Zmeureanu [97] SPP 4% N/A
Agrawal and Tiwari [98] EAC 4% N/A
Shohet and Puternan [99] LCCA 5% 50 a
Marszal et al. [100] EAC 1–6% 50 a
Marszal and Heiselberg [101] NPV 1–6% 30…80 a
*A market interest rate of 6.5 percent was used as the discount rate; electricity price inflation was 6.7
percent p.a.
** Average payback periods for investment packages.
17
Paper I
In the surveyed papers, the demarcation of product systems and the allocation of
energy and costs are mainly trivial, so they are basically not addressed at all. Instead,
Kosonen et al. [102] made use of cost allocation in their comparison of four different
air-conditioning systems by way of an LCC analysis. They started by simulating the
operation of the systems during a test year, and then identified the differences in
energy consumptions caused by each alternative and allocate the energy costs on that
basis. They noted that if the system is located near the outer zone of the building, the
differences in energy consumption of the whole building between alternative systems
only depend on the features of the system. Pulakka et al. [103] suggested that energy
installations should not be considered a separate product system in LCC, but a
building should be investigated as whole on any occasion. They mentioned a large
glass façade as an example of a design scheme that strongly affects both the thermal
loss and solar gain, and hence the sizing of heating and cooling systems and energy
demand.
In economic terms, the boundary is located at the building’s energy interface. For the
reasons stated above, the boundary of energy balances in economic evaluation should
always be set at the energy interface of the buildings, regardless of how the product
systems have been demarcated. This makes the allocation of energy costs
challenging and requires the energy consumption at the level of the entire building to
be analyzed using simulation tools or a standard calculation method, all of which
takes time and effort. Hence, it is often more reasonable to evaluate the cost savings
(at the interface) caused by a design alternative and to assess the financial viability
through a traditional cost/benefit approach.
Hasan et al. [52] suggested a different life cycle costing methodology (dLCC) for
finding the optimal design of a detached house. From the viewpoint of life cycle
costing, the study deals with five product systems: external walls, roof, floor,
windows, and ventilation heat recovery. The final design is a portfolio that consists
of one wall, roof and floor structure, one type of windows and one heat recovery
option. The study noted that there is no need to determine the value of absolute life
cycle cost of the entire building, but certain (arbitrary) life cycle cost is set as a
reference design portfolio and only the differences between the reference and any
other design portfolio are determined for each variable. The difference in the life
cycle cost for i-th design portfolio is defined as
dLCCi LCCi LCCr dIC dOC dMC dRC i (1)
where LCCi is the life cycle cost for the i-th portfolio and LCCris the life cycle cost
for the reference portfolio. Consequently, the reference portfolio is represented by
dLCCi = 0. The difference costs for investment, operation, maintenance, and
replacement for the i-th portfolio are dIC, dOC, dMC and dRC, respectively. When
an option being represented in the reference portfolio is also selected in the i-th
portfolio, difference costs are equal to zero. Assuming there are n options to be
selected in the whole portfolio, the difference cost of investment for the i-th portfolio
is
n
dICi ¦ dIC
j 1
j (2)
18
Paper I
Correspondingly, dOC can be calculated from
dOCi aep dE (3)
where a is the discount factor, ep is the price of energy, and dE is the difference
between the annual energy consumption of the i-th portfolio and the reference
portfolio. The difference costs of maintenance and replacement are calculated in a
similar way.
The difference life cycle costing method reverts to the same way of thinking as
investment calculus and these methods should basically result in the same statement
of viability. However, difference life cycle costing is applied when a single number
is expected to indicate the financial viability, benefit, or an overall value of a design
portfolio, such as in optimization studies.
4 Computational studies
This section presents a set of case study analyses entailing three alternative energy-
saving design concepts for a typical new detached house, an apartment building, and
an educational building. The educational building also provides a rough
representation of commercial buildings, due to its similar profile of occupancy and
the use of lighting and appliances. All of the target buildings are located in Finland.
The impact of the design concepts on the total delivered energy consumption and the
construction costs were calculated and the financial viability of the concepts was
analyzed using the discounted payback method (DPP). See Saari et al. [104] and
Saari et al. [105] (KesEn-final report) for further details.
4.1 Methodology and source data

The studied buildings were a two-story detached house (net floor area 140.5m²), a
four-story block of flats (1630m²), and a comprehensive school that included
teaching facilities (1858m²), a canteen (635m²), and a gym hall (1187m²). Three
different design concepts were determined on the basis of the Finnish building code
and guidance, as follows:
[a] “2010 regulations”: Thermal transmittance of the building envelope meets the
requirements of the Finnish 2010 building code C3 [106].
[b] “Low-energy”: Low-energy building fulfilling the new Finnish guidelines for
low-energy buildings RIL 249 [107].
[c] “Ultra low-energy”: Ultra-low-energy building fulfilling the new Finnish

guidelines for ultra-low-energy buildings RIL 249 [107].
Table 6 summarizes the properties of the building envelope and ventilation system
for each case. The buildings are equipped with mechanical supply and exhaust
ventilation systems with heat recovery because of the Finnish requirements for the
ventilation heat recovery [108]. The 2010 regulation [a] cases were fitted with cross-
flow heat exchangers, while the more efficient heat recovery of the low-energy [b]
and ultra-low-energy [c] cases was achieved by a countercurrent or a rotary heat
exchanger.
19
Paper I
Table 6. Properties of the design concepts.

Design concept
Description a b c
of building “2010 “Low-energy” “Ultra-low-energy”
regulations”
Thermal transmittance U, W/(m2·K) of the envelope
External
0.17 0.12 0.07
walls
Roof 0.09 0.08 0.06
Floor 0.17 0.08 0.08
Windows 1.0 0.8 0.7
Air tightness of the building envelope
Air change
rate at 50 Pa: 1¹/2² 0.8 0.6
n50, 1/h
Ventilation heat recovery efficiency
Temperature
ratio of 0.55 0.8 0.8
supply air
¹ A value for apartment building.
² A value for detached house and the educational building.
The heating system options for the detached house were direct electric floor heating
(DEFH) or air source heat pump (ASHP) and ground source heat pump (GSHP) with
hydronic floor heating. The heat pumps were included into the study because they
are popular heating solutions in new detached houses in Finland. The seasonal
performance factor (SPF) of the ASHP was 2.6 for space heating and 2.3 for
domestic hot water [109]. The SPF of the GSHP was 3.5 for space heating and 2.7
for domestic hot water [110]. The apartment building and the educational building
were heated with district heating (DH) via hydronic radiators because this is the most
common heating system in those building types in Finland. The studied buildings
were not equipped with mechanical cooling because it is not common in Finnish
residential buildings and comprehensive schools.
Energy simulations of the target buildings were conducted using the IDA Indoor
Climate and Energy 4.0 (IDA-ICE) dynamic whole-building simulation tool [111,
112], which has been validated in different case studies, such as in [113–
116].Helsinki-Vantaa 2001 hourly climatic data was used for the simulations. The
average number of degree days (indoor temperature 18°C) in 2001 was 4547.
All of the costs used in this study are based on June 2008 prices. Construction costs
were calculated using the standard method for estimating construction costs in
Finland (Building Element Estimate Method) [117]. The construction data was
specified on the basis of information obtained from suppliers of the thermal
insulation materials. The costs of construction components were ‘as installed’ and,
under the standard method used, also included the relevant share of the overheads
(12 percent) and of the project management (7.1 percent), and design (6.4 percent).
The percentages in brackets are additions over and above the construction component
costs.
20
Paper I
4.2 Results
For each design concept, we calculated the delivered energy consumption, the
difference costs for investment, and the payback period. Delivered energy consists of
energy for heating, ventilating and lighting, and energy for domestic hot water and
for the use of various electrical devices and technical systems, also regarding the
influence and efficiency of appliances.
The difference in construction cost (that is, the difference cost for investment)
represents the additional construction cost in comparison with the reference case,
which is the “2010 regulations” design concept for each building type. The
discounted payback period was defined as the length of time during which the net
present value of the cumulated difference energy costs (that is, the savings in
comparison with the reference case) recovers the difference cost for investment.
The payback period for various design concepts was also calculated using the “2010
regulations” design concept as a reference. Here, the reference design of the detached
house with various heating systems (DEFH, GSHP and ASHP) was first compared
against low-energy [b] and ultra-low-energy [c] designs. Secondly, the GSHP and
ASHP heating systems were compared with the DEFH in various design scenarios (a,
b, and c).
The payback analysis for the detached house has been carried out using a real interest
rate of 3 percent and an electricity price of €0.10/kWh. The applied discount rate is
realistic when compared to a common bank loan interest in Finland. The discounted
payback periods for the apartment building and the educational building have been
calculated in three economic scenarios: the real interest rates of 3–5 percent,
electricity prices of €0.10–0.15/kWh, and district heat prices of €0.05–0.08/kWh.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the detached house. The results of the other
buildings are shown in Table 8.
Table 7. Total delivered energy consumption, difference in construction cost and

payback period of the detached house with direct electric floor heating (DEFH), air
source heat pump (ASHP), and ground source heat pump (GSHP).
Heating Design concepts
system a b c
Total delivered energy consumption, kWh/net floor m²,a
DEFH 152 117 104
ASHP 90 75 68
GSHP 80 68 64
Difference construction costs, €/net floor m²
DEFH Ref 70 130
ASHP 45 115 175
GSHP 95 145 205
Payback period, years (real interest rate 3%, electricity price €0.10/kWh)
DEFH Ref 31 >40
ASHP Ref >40 >40
GSHP Ref >40 >40
Payback period, years (real interest rate 3%, electricity price €0.10/kWh)
DEFH Ref Ref Ref
ASHP 9 14 13
GSHP 18 21 28
21
Paper I
Table 8. Delivered energy consumption, difference in construction cost and payback

period (years) of the apartment building (BF) and the educational building (EB).
Building Design concepts
a b c
Delivered heat energy consumption, kWh/net floor m²,a
BF 78 55 50
EB 96 59 54
Delivered electricity consumption, kWh/net floor m²,a
BF 60 58 58
EB 56 55 50
Total delivered energy consumption, kWh/net floor m²,a
BF 138 113 108
EB 152 114 103
Difference construction costs, €/net floor m²
BF Ref 25 71
EB Ref 30 65
Payback period, years (real interest rate 3%, heat energy price €0.05/kWh and electricity price
€0.10/kWh)
BF Ref 27 >40
EB Ref 22 >40
Payback period, years (real interest rate 5%, heat energy price €0.05/kWh, and electricity price
€0.10/kWh)
BF Ref >40 >40
EB Ref 31 >40
Payback period, years (real interest rate 3%, heat energy price €0.08/kWh, and electricity price
€0.15/kWh)
BF Ref 15 >40
EB Ref 12 21
4.3 Discussion
Three energy-saving design concepts were formulated for the detached house, the
apartment building, and the educational building. These building types were selected
for the study because the energy efficiency of these building types can strongly
influence the overall energy use in Finnish buildings due to their large proportion (81
percent) of the building stock [118].
The annual total delivered energy consumption of the detached house varies
extensively, in the range of 64–152 kWh/m²,a, while the variation is smaller in the
apartment building (108–138kWh/m²,a) and the educational building (103–
152kWh/m²,a). The delivered energy can be savedup to 49kWh/m²,a by using the
studied design concepts, depending on the building type and the heating system. The
results indicate that the more energy efficient the heating systems, the less energy
saving can be gained from the design concepts that are focused on properties of the
building envelope and the ventilation system. Up to 72 kWh/m²,a of delivered energy
can be saved by using the GSHP with the reference level (a) design concept. The
saving potential is reduced, however, when the envelope and ventilation heat
recovery are improved. In proportional terms, the total saving in delivered energy is
15–32 percent for detached houses (provided that the heating method is not
changed), 18–22 percent for apartment buildings, and 25–32 percent for the
educational buildings. In this sense, the results are somewhat conservative, but well
in line with earlier studies (e.g., Kneifel et al. [79], Hong et al. [89] and Hasan et al.
[52]). The results can be generalized in climatic conditions similar to Finland. It is
also important to note that the simulations were based on the standard use of the
above building types. In practice, the individual user profiles strongly influence the
22
Paper I
energy consumption. Life cycle fluctuations of the costs of energy resources were not
considered, which can be considered a limitation of the present analysis.
The difference in construction costs (above the reference) was €45–205/net floor
m2in the detached house, €25–71/net floor m2in the apartment building, and €30–
65/net floor m2in the educational building. As Table 7 shows, the payback period is
more than 30 years unless the heating system is changed, which appears to make the
low-energy and ultra-low energy designs financially unattractive in detached houses.
Instead, when the alternative heating systems are compared against the electrical
heating, the shortest payback period can be obtained using the air source heat pump
(9–14 years). For the GSHP, the payback period is 18–28 years.
The data in Table 8indicates that the payback period of 21 years is obtained for the
“ultra-low-energy design” [c] of the educational building only at the interest rate of 3
percent and at the electricity price of €0.15/kWh. In all of the other cases, the
payback period is more than 40 years, which makes the investment unattractive. In
the case of “low-energy design” [b], the payback period varies between 15 and more
than 40 years for apartment buildings and between 12 and 31 years for educational
buildings under similar conditions.
5 Conclusions
This paper has discussed the application of life cycle costing in the economic
viability assessments of energy-efficient buildings; reviewed the history, methods,
standards, and practices of life cycle costing; and surveyed the recent economic
viability assessments of various energy efficient building types in worldwide
locations. The findings will serve evaluators in the application of WLC/LCC
assessment methods to the financial viability analyses related to energy efficiency
measures and renewable energy in buildings. Secondly, the review provides a road
map to useful reference material for educators developing learning material
regarding the life cycle economics of building service systems. Thirdly, designers
and building owners (construction clients) may find this article useful when
researching the magnitude of energy/cost savings related to various energy-saving
measures.
Despite reported problems and challenges of use, LCC as a decision making tool can
provide cost benefits in the long run for the construction clients and end-users. This
became apparent in the 1930s when it was recognized that decision cannot be based
solely on initial cost. LCC highlights the relation between initial cost and the
resulting life-time cost of alternative design routes.
According to the reviewed literature, the most suitable method for life cycle cost
estimations in the construction industries is the NPV method or, in case of comparing
alternative schemes with different life-spans, the ECA method. Today, the NPV
method is dominant among the existing LCC tools. However, a LCC user should be
always be aware of the purpose and use of different LCC methods. For example, the
payback method can be suitable for quickly estimating whether an investment is
profitable. Consequently, other methods, such as those in Table 1, can be used if the
purposes for use are considered to have been fulfilled.
23
Paper I
The main challenge in LCC is to collect the necessary input regarding occupancy
data, physical data, performance data, quality data, and cost data. The importance of
the different types of data depends upon the stage of planning and purpose of the
LCC calculation. To support decision making in selecting projects, designs, or
building components, the LCC data should be collected and presented in a way that
enables such a comparison. In this case, the cost breakdown structure is an important
aspect. Here, standards such as ISO or Norwegian standards can help structure the
data.
The ISO Standard 15686-5 (ISO, 2008) makes a distinction between WLC and LCC.
The standard contends that WLC is equivalent to LCC plus non-construction costs,
externalities, and incomes. LCC should be used to describe a limited analysis of a
few components, whereas “life cycle costing” should be understood as the cost
calculation themselves and WLC should seen as a broader term that covers a wider
range of economic analysis.
The present study has surveyed the discount rates and analysis periods in recent
studies related to energy-efficient buildings. It has also discussed the applicability of
life cycle costing in the above context and the demarcation of product systems for
cost allocation.
From the reviewed publications, it was perceived that the discount rate usually varies
between 0 and 16 percent and is based on the real interest rate. The discount rate zero
is applied in terms of sensitivity analyses only. For energy-saving measures, long
analysis periods (up to 75 years) are chosen.
Life cycle costing is a useful method for comparing design alternatives, when either
the whole building constitutes a single product system or when the allocation of costs
for a separate subsystem is trivial. However, a building is an entity in which heat
transfer takes place in a transient manner. Hence, it is difficult to allocate the
purchased thermal energy precisely to certain product systems, such as the building
envelope or the air-conditioning plant. On the other hand, gathering the complete life
cycle cost data for the entire building is a laborious task. If life cycle costing is still
preferred over an investment appraisal, a useful method of evaluation is then
difference life cycle costing (dLCC), where the energy demands and savings are
determined using the whole building’s energy balance, but using cash flows only
with respect to a given reference level (that is, difference life cycle costs).
We have reviewed the recent economic viability analyses related to energy efficient
residential, commercial, and educational buildings. The survey shows that the energy
efficiency builds upon a combination of energy efficient measures rather than a
single or a just a few improvements. The current trend of development supports the
use of life cycle costing in the sense that buildings are designed as “a whole” in
principle, addressing general requirements such as energy efficiency, building codes,
and indoor climate. Instead of comparing the capital cost against the net present
value of forthcoming net savings/profits, LCC results in a single number, on the basis
of which the alternatives can be compared. The LCC or dLCC may be useful, for
example, as an objective function in optimization problems.
Furthermore, the paper has presented a set of Finnish case study analyses involving
three alternative energy saving design concepts for a typical new detached house, an
24
Paper I
apartment building, and an educational building. The impact of the design concepts
on the total delivered energy consumption and the construction costs were calculated
and the financial viability of the concepts was evaluated using the discounted
payback method (DPP).Total savings of 15–32 percent in delivered energy was
obtained in the detached house, 18–22 percent in the apartment building, and 25–32
percent in the educational building. The results can be generalized in climatic
conditions similar to Finland. The economic analysis suggests that low-energy and
ultra-low-energy designs are unattractive investments in detached houses, since the
payback period exceeded 30 years in all the analyzed cases. The replacement of the
direct electrical floor heating by an air source heat pump provided payback periods
of 9–14 years, compared to 18–28 years for a heating system based on a ground
source heat pump. In the educational building, a payback period of 21 years was
obtained for the ultra-low-energy design at an interest rate of 3 percent and at the
electricity price of €0.15/kWh; the payback periods for low-energy design varied
from 12 to 31 years. In the apartment building, payback periods between 15 and
more than 40 years were obtained in the conditions of low-energy design. It is worth
noting at this point that the above analyses have been drawn up from a purely
economic perspective. In today’s decision-making, key considerations such as
atmospheric emissions and indoor comfort should also be addressed.
References
[1] European Union energy and transport in figures – 2009 edition. Luxembourg:
Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009:228 pp.
[2] Perez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, Coronel JF, Maestre IR. A review of HVAC systems
requirements in building energy regulations. Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(2–
3):255–268.
[3] Kolokotsa D, Rovas D, Kosmatopoulos E, Kalaitzakis K. A roadmap towards

intelligent net zero- and positive-energy buildings. Solar Energy 2011; 85(12): 3067–
3084.
[4] ISO 14040. Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles

and Framework.
[5] Sharma A, Saxena A, Sethi M, Shree V, Varun. Life cycle assessment of

buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15(1):871–
875.
[6] Kishk M, Al-Hajj A, Pollock R, Aouad G, Bakis N, SunM. Whole life costing in
construction: A state of the art review. UK: RICS Foundation, 2003.
[7] ISO (2008) ISO/DIS-15686-5.2 Building and constructed assets – Service life
planning – Part5: Life cycle costing. ISO ed., International Organization for
Standardization, 2008.
[8] Clift M. Life-cycle costing in the construction sector. Sustainable building and
construction. UNEP Industry and Environment 2003; 37–41.
25
Paper I
[9] Adrian TP, Chen G, Williams D. Life-cycle costing. USA: Encyclopedia of

Public Administration and Public Policy, Second Edition (Print Version) CRC Press,
2007. Pages
1164–1167.ISBN: 978-1-4200-5275-6
[10] Ferry DJO, Flanagan R. Life cycle costing – a radical approach. London, UK:
CIRIA Report 122, 1991.
[11] Brown RJ. A new marketing tool: Life-cycle costing. Industrial Marketing
Management 1979; 8(2):109–113.
[12] Wübbenhorst KL. Life cycle costing for construction projects. Long range
planning 1986;19(4):87–97.
[13] Stone PA. Economics of building design. UK: Building Research Establishment,
1960.
[14] Dhillon BS. Life-cycle costing. USA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers,
1989. ISBN 2-88124-302-9.
[15] BSI.BS3811: British standard glossary of maintenance of physical resources

UK: Department of Industry, 1974.
[16] Finch EF. The uncertain role of life cycle costing in the renewable energy
debate. Renewable Energy 1994; 5(5–8): 1436–1443.
[17] Bogenstätter U. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design.

Building Research & Information 2000; 28(5):376–386.
[18] Wong JKW, Li H, Wang SW. Intelligent building research: a review.

Automation in Construction 2005; 14(1):143–159.
[19] Dale SJ. Introduction to life cycle costing. In life-Cycle Costing for
Construction, Edited by: Bull J. Chapman & Hall, London, 1993.
[20] Dowlatschahi S. Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an

optimization approach, International Journal of Production Research 1992; 30:1803–
1818.
[21] Romm JJ. Lean and clean management: How to boost profits and productivity
by reducing pollution, Kodansha International, New York: 1994.
[22] Bescherer F. Established life cycle concepts in the business environment –

Introduction and terminology, Laboratory of Industrial Management Report Series,
Report 1/2005, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005.
[23] Kotaji S, Schuurmans A, Edwards S. Life cycle assessment in building and

construction, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Denver, 2003.
26
Paper I
[24] Flanagan R, Norman G, Meadows J, Robinson G. Life cycle costing theory and
practice, BSP Professional Books, Oxford, 1989.
[25] Kirk S.J. Life cycle costing for design professionals. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, 1995.
[26] Ellingham, I. and Fawcett, W. New generation whole life costing, property and
construction decision-making under uncertainty. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[27] Flanagan JR, Jewell C. Whole Life Appraisal for Construction. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., Oxford, 2005.
[28] Khanduri AC. Assessing office building life cycle costs at preliminary design
stage. Structural Engineering Review 1996; 8:105–114.
[29] Birger R. The internal rate of return method – A critical study, Engineering
Costs and Production Economics1980; 5: 43-52.
[30] Bromwich M. The use of present value valuation models in published

accounting reports. The Accounting Review 1977; 52: 587–596.
[31] NS (2000), NS3454 Life cycle costs for building and civil engineering work –
principles and classification, 2000.
[32] Bakis N, Kagiouglou M, Aouad G, Amaratunga D, Kishk M, Al-Hajj A. An

Integrated Environment for Life Cycle Costing in Construction.Proceedings of the
CIB W78‟s 20th International Conference on Construction IT, Construction IT
Bridging the Distance, CIB Report 284, Waiheke Island, New Zealand 23–25 April
2003.
[33] Woodward DG, Life cycle costing –Theory, information acquisition and
application Intentional Journal of Project Management 1997; 15:335–344.
[34] McDermott F, Torrance VB, Cheesman PG. Forecasting lifespan for life cycle
costing, in Building Maintenance Economics and management, Spedding, A. (ed),E
& FN Spon, London, 1987.
[35] Anderson T, Brandt E. The use of performance and durability data in assessment
of life time serviceability. Proceedings of the eighth International Conference on
durability of building materials and components, Vancouver, Canada; 30 May–3
June 1999. pp. 1813-1820.
[36] Hermans MH. Building performance starts at handover: the importance of life
span information. Proceedings of the eighth International Conference on durability of
building materials and components, Vancouver, Canada; 30 May–3 June 1999. pp.
1867–1873
[37] Ashworth A. Cost Studies of Buildings, Pearson Education UK, 2004.
27
Paper I
[38] Clausnitzer KD, Gabriel J, Diefenbach N, Loga T, Wosniok W. Effekte des

KfW-CO2- Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms 2005 und 2006, Gutachten im Auftrag
der KfWBankengruppe, Frankfurt 2007.
[39] Clausnitzer KD, Gabriel J, Diefenbach N, Loga T, Wosniok W. Effekte des

CO2-Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms 2007. Gutachten im Auftrag der KfW-
Bankengruppe, Frankfurt 2008.
[40] Gabriel J, Balmert D. Effekte des KfW-CO2-Gebaeudesanierungsprogramms

2005 und 2006: Zusatzauswertung, Gutachten im Auftrag der KfW-Bankengruppe,
Frankfurt 2007.
[41] Cole RJ, Sterner E. Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle costing.
Building Research & Information 2000; 28(5–6):368–375.
[42] Davis Langdon Management Consulting. Life cycle costing (LCC) as a

contribution to sustainable construction: a common Methodology – Literature
review. Towards a common European methodology for Life Cycle Costing (LCC),
2007.
[43] Gluch P, Baumann H. The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual
discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Building and
Environment 2004;39(5):571–580.
[44] Verbruggen A, Marchohi MA, Janssens . The anatomy of investing in energy

efficient buildings. Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(4):905–914.
[45] Kirkham, RJ. Re-engineering the whole life cycle costing process. Construction
Management and Economics 2005;23(1):9–14.
[46] Whyte A, Scott D. Life-cycle costing analysis to assist design decisions: beyond
3D building information modelling, in Tizani, W. (ed), The 13th International
Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering 2010 (ICCCBE 2010).
Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press: 2010.
[47] Emblemsvåg J. Life cycle costing. Using activity based costing and Monte
Carlo methods to manage future costs and risks. Wiley, Hoboken 2003.
[48] Joelsson A, Gustavsson L. Perspectives on implementing energy efficiency in

existing Swedish detached houses. Energy Policy 2008; 36(1): 84–96.
[49] Roberts S. Effects of climate change on the built environment. Energy

Policy2008; 36(12): 4552–4557.
[50] Audenaert A, De Cleyn SH, Vankerckhove B. Economic analysis of passive

houses and low-energy houses compared with standard houses. Energy Policy2008;
36(1): 47–55.
[51] Zavadskas E, Raslanas S, Kaklauskas A. The selection of effective retrofit

scenarios for panel houses in urban neighborhoods based on expected energy savings
28
Paper I
and increase inmarket value: The Vilnius case. Energy and Buildings 2008; 40(4):
573–587.
[52] Hasan A, Vuolle M, Siren K. Minimisation of life cycle cost of a detached

house using combined simulation and optimization. Building and Environment
2008;43(12): 2022–2034.
[53] Balaras CA, Droutsa K, Dascalaki E, Kontoyiannidis S. Heating energy

consumption and resulting environmental impact of European apartment buildings.
Energy and Buildings 2005; 37(5): 429–442.
[54] Banfi S, Farsi M, Filippini M, Jakob M. Willingness to pay for energy-saving

measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics 2008;30(2):503–516.
[55] Kwak SY, Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. Valuing energy-saving measures in residential
buildings: A choice experiment study. Energy Policy2010; 38(1):673–677.
[56] Leth-Petersen S, Togeby M. Demand for space heating in apartment blocks:

measuring effects of policy measures aiming at reducing energy consumption.
Energy Economics2001; 23(4):387–403.
[57] Wang LK. A Comparative Study of the Life Cycle Cost of Mechanical Building
Services Installations based on Different Maintenance Strategies. MSc Thesis. Hong
Kong, China: The University of Hong Kong, 2006.
[58] Tommerup H, Rose J, Svendsen S. Energy-efficient houses built according to

the energy performance requirements introduced in Denmark in 2006. Energy and
Buildings 2007;39(10): 1123–1130.
[59] Lylykangas K, Nieminen J. What is a Passive House in Finland? Conference

Proceedings. 12th International Conference on Passive Houses 2008. 11–12 April
2008, Nuremberg, Darmstadt, Germany, 2008. pp. 337–342.
[60] Pedersen S, Peuhkuri R. A real Passive House in Finland. Conference

Proceedings. 13th International Passive House Conference 2009. 17–18 April 2009,
Frankfurt am Main. Darmstadt, Germany, 2009. pp. 177–82.
[61] Gustavsson L, Joelsson A. Energy conservation and conversion of electrical

heating systems in detached houses. Energy and Buildings 2007; 39(6): 717–726.
[62] Badescu V. Economic aspects of using ground thermal energy for passive house
heating. Renewable Energy 2007; 32(6): 895–903.
[63] Badescu V, Staicovici MD. Renewable energy for passive house heating: Model
of the active solar heating system. Energy and Buildings2006; 38(2):129–141.
[64] Opitz MW, Norford LK, Matrosov YA, Butovsky IN. Energy consumption and
conservation in the Russian apartment building stock. Energy and Buildings1997;
25(1): 75-92.
29
Paper I
[65] Citherlet S, Defaux T. Energy and environmental comparison of three variants

of a family house during its whole life span. Building and Environment 2007; 42(2):
591–598.
[66] Utama A, Gheewala SH. Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia.
Energy and Buildings 2008; 40(10): 1911–1916.
[67] Koroneos C, Kottas G. Energy consumption modeling analysis and

environmental impact assessment of model house in Thessaloniki-Greece. Building
and Environment 2007; 42(1): 122–138.
[68] Persson ML, Arne Roos A, Wall M. Influence of window size on the energy
balance of low energy houses Energy and Buildings 2006; 38(3):181–188.
[69] Bambrook SM, Sproul AB, Jacob D. Design optimisation for a low energy
home in Sydney. Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(7): 1702–1711.
[70] Joelsson A, Gustavsson L. District heating and energy efficiency in detached

houses of differing size and construction. Applied Energy2009; 86(2): 126–134.
[71] Smeds J, Wall M. Enhanced energy conservation in houses through high

performance design. Energy and Buildings2007; 39(3): 273–278.
[72] Filippín C, Larsen SF, Beascochea A, Lesino G. Response of conventional and

energy saving buildings to design and human dependent factors. Solar Energy 2005;
78(3): 455–470.
[73] Cheung CK, Fuller RJ, LutherMB. Energy-efficient envelope design for high-
rise apartments. Energy and Buildings2005; 37(1): 37–48.
[74] Bojić M, Lukić N. Numerical evaluation of solar-energy use through passive

heating of weekend houses in Yugoslavia. Renewable Energy 2000; 20(2): 207–222.
[75] Cole RJ, Kernan PC. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Building and
Environment1996; 31(4): 307–317.
[76] Yohanis YG, Norton B. Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a
generic single storey office building in the UK.Energy2002; 27(1): 77–92.
[77] Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH. Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office
building in Thailand. Energy and Buildings2009; 41(10): 1076–1083.
[78] Saidur R. Energy consumption, energy savings, and emission analysis in

Malaysian office buildings. Energy Policy2009; 37(10): 4104–4113.
[79] Kneifel J, Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in
new commercial buildings. Energy and Buildings 2010; 42(3):333–340.
[80] Orosa JA, Oliveira AC. Energy saving with passive climate control methods in
Spanish office buildings. Energy and Buildings2009; 41(8): 823–828.
30
Paper I
[81] Schiavon S, Melikov AK. Energy-saving strategies with personalized ventilation

in cold climates. Energy and Buildings2009; 41(5): 543–550.
[82] Iqbal I, Al-Homoud MS. Parametric analysis of alternative energy conservation

measures in an office building in hot and humid climate. Building and
Environment2007; 42(5): 2166–2177.
[83] Kawamoto K, Shimoda Y, Mizuno M. Energy saving potential of office

equipment power management. Energy and Buildings2004; 36(9): 915–923.
[84] Theodosiou TG, Ordoumpozanis KT. Energy, comfort and indoor air quality in
nursery and elementary school buildings in the cold climatic zone of Greece. Energy
and Buildings 2008; 40(12): 2207–2214.
[85] Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P.Life cycle energy and environmental
performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications. Energy and Buildings 2003; 35(10): 1049–1064.
[86] Hirsch JJ. eQuest 2.55b, Energy Design Resources. Camarillo, CA, USA: 2002.
[87] Wirtshafter RM, Denver A. Incentives for energy conservation in schools.

Energy Policy1991; 19(5): 480–487.
[88] Butala V, Novak P. Energy consumption and potential energy savings in old
school buildings. Energy and Buildings1999; 29(3): 241–246.
[89] Hong TH, Kim JM, Koo CW. LCC and LCCO2 analysis of green roofs in
elementary schools with energy saving measures. Energy and Buildings 2012; 45:
229–239.
[90] Mahlia TMI, Razak HA, Nursahida MA. Life cycle cost analysis and payback
period of lighting retrofit at the University of Malaya. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2011; 15(2): 1125–1132.
[91] Dimoudi A, Kostarela P. Energy monitoring and conservation potential in

school buildings in the C′ climatic zone of Greece. Renewable Energy2009; 34(1):
289–296.
[92] Larsen SF, Filippín C, Beascochea A, Lesino G. An experience on integrating

monitoring and simulation tools in the design of energy-saving buildings. Energy and
Buildings2008; 40(6): 987–997.
[93] Desideri U, Proietti S. Analysis of energy consumption in the high schools of a

province in central Italy. Energy and Buildings2002; 34(10): 1003–1016.
[94] Morrissey J, Horne RE. Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency
measures in new residential buildings. Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(4):915–924.
31
Paper I
[95] Nikolaidis Y, Pilavachi PA, Chletsis A. Economic evaluation of energy saving

measures in a common type of Greek building. Applied Energy 2009; 86(12):2550–
2559.
[96] Chel A, Tiwari GN. Performance evaluation and life cycle cost analysis of earth
to air heat exchanger integrated with adobe building for New Delhi composite
climate. Energy and
Buildings 2009; 41(1):56–66.
[97] Leckner M, Zmeureanu R. Life cycle cost and energy analysis of a Net Zero
Energy House with solar combisystem. Applied Energy 2011; 88(1):232–241.
[98] Agrawal B, TiwariGN. Life cycle cost assessment of building integrated

photovoltaic thermal (BIPVT) systems. Energy and Buildings 2010; 42(9):1472–
1481.
[99] Shohet IM, Puterman M. Flat roofing systems: towards integrated techno-
economic analysis, Building Research & Information 2004; 32(2): 165 – 173.
[100] Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P, Jensen RL, NØrgaard J. On-site or off-site

renewable energy supply options? Life cycle cost analysis of a Net Zero Energy
Building in Denmark. Renewable Energy 2012; 44:154–165.
[101] Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P. Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential
net zero energy building in Denmark. Energy 2011; 36:5600–5609.
[102] Kosonen R, Laitinen A, Laine T, MartiskainenV. Huonekohtaisten

talotekniikkajärjestelmien elinkaarikustannukset (Life-cycle costs of individual
building service systems). Espoo, Finland: VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland, 1999.
[103] Pulakka S, Heimonen I, Junnonen JM, Vuolle M. Talotekniikan

elinkaarikustannukset (Life-cycle costs of building services). Espoo, Finland: VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2007.
[104] Saari A, Kalamees T, Jokisalo J, Michelsson R, Alanne K, Kurnitski J.

Financial viability of energy-efficiency measures in a new detached house design in
Finland. Applied Energy 2012; 92:76–83.
[105] Saari A, Jokisalo J, Keto M, Alanne K, Niemi R, Lund P, Paatero J. Kestävä

Energia – loppuraportti. (Sustainable Energy – Final Report) Raportti TKK–R-B24.
Espoo, Finland: Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Aalto University,
2010.
[106] C3 Finnish code of building regulations. Rakennusten lämmöneristys (Thermal

insulation of buildings). Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the Environment,
Regulations, 2010. [in Finnish]
32
Paper I
[107] RIL 249 – 2010 Matalaenergiarakentaminen, Asuinrakennukset. (Low-energy

construction, residential buildings). Helsinki, Finland:
SuomenRakennusinsinöörienLiitto RIL; 2009 [in Finnish].
[108] D2 Finnish Code of Building Regulations,

RakennustensisäilmastojaIlmanvaihto (Indoor Climate and Ventilation of Buildings).
Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the Environment, Regulations and Guidelines, 2010
[In Finnish].
[109] D5 Finnish code of building regulations. Rakennuksen energiankulutuksen

jalämmitystehontarpeen laskenta (Calculation of energy consumption and thermal
power of buildings). Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the Environment. Guidelines:
2012.Draft 14.3.2012 [in Finnish].
[110] Finnish heat pump association SULPU ry (referred 29.5.2012).

<http://www.sulpu.fi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=1
14>.
[111] Sahlin P. Modelling and simulation methods for modular continuous system in
buildings, PhD Thesis, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden; 1996.
[112] Björsell N, Bring A, Eriksson L, Grozman P, Lindgren M, Sahlin P, et al. IDA

indoor climate and energy. In: Proceedings of the IBPSA building simulation ‟99
conference, Kyoto, Japan; 1999.
[113] Moinard S, Guyon G. editors. Empirical validation of EDF ETNA and GENEC
test-cell models, Subtask A.3, A Report of IEA Task 22, Building Energy Analysis
Tools; 1999.
[114] Travesi J, Maxwell G, Klaassen C, Holtz M. Empirical validation of Iowa

energy resource station building energy analysis simulation models, IEA Task 22,
Subtask A; 2001.
[115] Achermann M, Zweifel G. RADTEST – Radiant heating and cooling test

cases, Subtask C, A report of IEA Task 22, Building Energy Analysis Tools; 2003.
[116] Woloszyn M, Rode C. Tools for performance simulation of heat, air and
moisture conditions of whole buildings. Building Simulation 2008;1:5–24.
[117] Haahtela Y, Kiiras J. Talonrakennuksen kustannustieto (Cost data of

construction). Helsinki, Finland: Haahtela-kehitysOy: 2007[in Finnish].
[118] Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). Buildings and free-time residences [e-
publication]. ISSN=1798-6796. 2011, Appendix table 2. Number of buildings by
intended use in 1980 – 2011. Helsinki. Statistics Finland (referred: 28.5.2012).
http://www.stat.fi/til/rakke/2011/rakke_2011_2012-05-25
33
Paper II
Decision making in a model-based design

process
Schade, J., Olofsson, T., Schreyer, M
Construction Management and Economics 2011, 29, 371-

382
Construction Management and Economics (April 2011) 29, 371–382
Decision-making in a model-based design process

JUTTA SCHADE1*, THOMAS OLOFSSON1 and MARCUS SCHREYER2
1
Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå,
97187 Sweden
2
Max Bögl Group, Neumarkt, Germany
Received 8 April 2010; accepted 21 December 2010

Taylor and Francis
10.1080/01446193.2011.552510
Decisions early in the design process have a big impact on the life cycle performance of a building. The
outcome of a construction project can be improved if different design options can rapidly be analysed to assist
the client and design team in making informed decisions in the design process. A model-based design approach
can facilitate the decision-making process if the design alternatives’ performances can be evaluated and
compared. A decision-making framework using a performance-based design process in the early design phase
is proposed. It is developed to support decision-makers to take informed decisions regarding the life cycle
performance of a building. A scenario is developed in order to demonstrate the proposed framework of
evaluating the different design alternatives’ energy performance. The framework is applicable to decision-
making in a structured design process, where design alternatives consisting of both objective and subjective
evaluation criteria can be evaluated.
Keywords: Decision making, design process, energy, design decision, BIM.
Introduction Thesseling, 2009). However, the different aspects of a

design are often contradictory, i.e. specific aspects such
The building stock in Europe accounts for over 40% of as energy performance are influenced by the required
the final energy consumption in the European Union indoor climate, etc. Therefore a performance-based
(European Commission, 2004). Since roughly 50% of design needs the support from a formal decision-
the energy is based on fossil fuels the building sector making method where the different design alternatives’
also contributes substantially to greenhouse gas emis- performances can be evaluated and compared.
sions. Today, minimizing the investment cost is a prior- The aim of the research is to define a decision-
ity for new buildings. However, the focus on making framework to support a performance-based
production cost does not improve the service life design process.
performance (Öberg, 2005). Rational initial invest-
ments can significantly decrease the total life cycle cost
(LCC) for a building. It is particularly important to
Review
show the relation between design choices and the
resulting life cycle cost such as energy, maintenance Building information modelling
and operation cost (Kotaji et al., 2003). The often
quoted relation 1:5:200 between investment, mainte- Early definitions of product models for buildings or
nance, and operation of office buildings (Evans et al., BIM date back some 20 years, e.g. the general architec-
1998) has been questioned by Hughes et al. (2004). tural, engineering and construction (AEC) reference
The use of building information models (BIM) can model (Gielingh, 1988), the building systems model
offer more precise estimates where required data to (Turner, 1990). During the 1990s the development of
evaluate the building performance can be imported to the IFC Object Model (Building Smart International
different types of estimation and analysis software, e.g. Alliance for Interoperability, 2010) started based on
energy consumption (Bazjanec, 2004; Schlueter and experience from earlier projects, most notably, the ISO
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: jutsch@ltu.se
Construction Management and Economics

ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online © 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.552510
372 Schade et al.
10303 (1993) standard for the exchange of product synchronized and evaluated at quality gates. These
model data. While much attention was devoted to the maturity levels will form the framework for the design
technological aspect of BIM the procedural impact is trades and reflect the detailing of the design, e.g. BIM
now in focus. Laiserin (2007) defines BIM as a process maturity A, B or C, depending on how many different
to support communication (sharing data), collabora- maturity levels are required for the design process (see
tion (acting on shared data), simulation (using data for Figure 1).
prediction) and optimization (using feedback to At each quality gate, stakeholders in the building
Figure 1 A concurrent stage-gate engineering approach with increasing BIM maturity (Jaeger et al., 2007)
improve design, documentation and delivery). This process need to evaluate the design alternatives
definition makes no reference to any software at all, but against both objective and subjective criteria, as trans-
software can automate and improve that process. BIM lated from customers’ needs and building codes,
applications generally operate on shared databases that before advancing to the next maturity level.
enable them to capture, manage and present data in an Computer-interpretable BIM models offer opportuni-
appropriate although coordinated way for each disci- ties for automated criteria-checking although the tech-
pline (Ibrahim and Krawczyk, 2003). nology is still in its infancy and needs to be developed
VDC (virtual design and construction) is another further (Eastman et al., 2009).
acronym for model-based technology and working
methods (Kunz and Fischer, 2009). Kunz and Fischer
Performance evaluation
(2009) recognize three types of implementation of
VDC methods in the building sector: visualization, Performance requirements originating from the voice
integration and automation. Visualization means that of the customer often create multi-criteria decision
3D models are used to predict performance metrics problems of high complexity. The building design
and coordinate design disciplines. In integration process is also characterized by a continuous, interdis-
computer-based methods are developed to exchange ciplinary team-based decision-making process to fulfil
data among different modelling and analysis applica- multiple and often partially contradictory goals. The
tions either using standard formats such as IFC criteria for evaluating a design are also manifold. They
(Industry Foundation Classes) or proprietary formats. range from subjective criteria using qualitative state-
Automation implies that routine design tasks or ments to objective measurable criteria, with different
manufacturing of assemblies for onsite installation are dimensions or scales. Another challenge for the evalua-
automated. tion method comes from the increasing level of detail
While the 3D visualization phase is fairly easy to which results in having to cope with information gaps
implement, several research projects and national during the different design phases. Since alternatives
programmes have been launched over the past few and interdependencies of design decisions are often too
years in Europe in order to develop guidelines for inte- complex to be evaluated by only one person, designs
grated model-based design and exchange strategies are regularly coordinated during project team meet-
based on the IFC standard (BIPS, 2007; Senate, 2007; ings. During these design coordination meetings, the
InPro, 2010; Statsbygg, 2009). Generally the degree of experts explain their designs and subjectively predict
detailing and hence the information level or model the implications of their alternatives. The performance
maturity increase through a number of phases from the concept presented in Figure 2 offers an intermediate
early stages to detailed design and construction. During language that makes it possible to match demand and
the design phases the required technical solutions and solution—the use of a ‘performance language’
systems are gradually defined. In order to improve the (Spekkink, 2005).
complex coordination tasks along with interdisciplinary To capture and control life cycle oriented project
Figure 2 The performance language: a solution to match demand and solution (after Spekkink, 2005).
process Jaeger et al. (2007) propose a concurrent goals that require data from various design processes
engineering approach where the design maturity is requires a significant coordination effort. Although the
Figure 1 A concurrent stage-gate engineering approach with increasing BIM maturity (Jaeger et al., 2007)
A model-based design approach 373
Figure 2 The performance language: a solution to match demand and solution (after Spekkink, 2005)
organization of project information in one or several of 0 to 1. In the late 1970s Saaty (1980) introduced the
BIM facilitates these otherwise time consuming data comparative analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which
acquisition and integration processes (Liston et al., is one of the best-known methods with many published
2001), an analysis method helping to capture, evaluate applications until today. The core of the procedure is
and control the design performance throughout the that the preferred solution is identified using pair-wise
design phases is missing. Without such an objective comparisons of alternatives based on their relative
and comprehensive performance analysis method for performance against the criteria. The method is most
the designs, the building’s owner as the major decision useful to support group decisions in teams where people
maker in the project team has to rely on discipline- with different specializations are working on complex
specific recommendations from his designers or the problems. Both methods, MAUT and AHP, play a
experience of a project management consultant. significant role in the proposed SMART decision-
making framework (see Figure 3).
Owing to the effort these methods require to process
Figure 3 Genealogy scheme of multi-criteria decision methods (after Rohr, 2004)
Multi-criteria decision methods

the data, their practical application became more
The idea to use mathematical methods to support popular after the 1990s with the broader availability of
humans in complex multi-criteria decision problems is personal computers and the increased use of the Inter-
not new (International Society on Multi Criteria Deci- net (International Society on Multiple Criteria Deci-
sion Making, 2010). In the 1950s a research group sion Making, 2010, http://www.mcdmsociety.org/).
around Kuhn and Tucker (1951) and Charnes and Although the processing of data is no major barrier
Cooper (1961) and Charnes et al. (1955) suggested anymore, the data acquisition and transformation
approaches linked to the research on nonlinear optimi- process is still an effort, in particular when applied to
zation and theory of games. Zionts and Wallenius (1976) interdisciplinary problems with objective and subjec-
continued their work in the studies of solving interactive tive criteria. With the availability of structured project
multiple objective mathematical programming prob- information in the form of BIM and opportunities for
lems. Parallel to this group, Keeney and Raiffa (1976) visualizations and analysis to support team decision-
and Howard and Matheson (1984) developed methods making, the possibility for using formal decision-
for a ‘sequential decision process’. Keeney and Raiffa’s making methods in the design process is increasing.
book about multi-criteria decision methods (MCDM)
is still considered to be a standard reference book on
MCDM. Keeney and Raiffa’s method was further devel-
Method
oped in the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) by
Assumptions and limitations
Keeney and Raiffa (1993). MAUT is a quantitative
comparison method used to combine dissimilar Within the context of this paper we assume that one or
measures such as costs, risks and benefits, along with more building information models form the base on
individual and stakeholder preferences, into high-level, which the decision-making method will be applied.
aggregated preferences. MAUT uses utility functions to The existence of such a structured and data rich model
define how diversely dimensioned criteria will be trans- which exceeds a mere graphical 3D representation of
formed into a common, dimensionless scale with a range the building geometry by additionally containing
374 Schade et al.
Figure 3 Genealogy scheme of multi-criteria decision methods (after Rohr, 2004)
semantic building elements information offers signifi- Table 1 Characteristics of the decision problem of BIM-
cant advantages in facilitating analysis. based design evaluations
For the design evaluation from a BIM, two different Characteristics of design Characteristics of evaluation
opportunities exist: alternatives criteria
● Indirect measurement such as stimuli from visu- • Reasoning about existing • Generally multiple criteria
alizations classified as ordinal-, interval- or ratio- design alternatives have to be evaluated
level scales; available as BIMs • Criteria from different
● Direct measurement such as values from the • Number of design domains lead to complex
BIM or from analyses/simulations based on BIM alternatives is generally 2–4 decisions
data. or up to 15 (design • Subjective and objective
competition) criteria have to be
An example of an indirect measurement is the rank- • Alternatives differ either in considered
ing of the aesthetics of different design alternatives. A geometry or just in details • Criteria have different
direct measurement is the energy performance as • Explicit data available from dimensions
calculated from an energy analysis tool. Indirect and BIMs
direct measurements need to be transferred or normal-
ized from dimensional quantities into dimensionless
evaluation results, which can be combined and priori- evaluation of energy performance was selected as a case
tized into an aggregated result using a traceable math- for further investigation.
ematical method. Facing the variety of different Thereafter interviews were performed with clients
methods and strategies offered by decision theory, it is and consultants with experience of how energy perfor-
necessary to further define the characteristics and mance is taken into account in today’s model-based
restrictions of the decision problem. Table 1 summa- design process of buildings. The result of the interviews
rizes the characteristics of evaluating BIM-based generated the following questions:
design alternatives.
● How can we develop a strategy for creating more
Recent research shows that energy calculations
than one design alternative?
usable for design decision can be made at different
● How can we evaluate and select the best design
maturity levels in the early design stage (Pietrzyk and
alternative?
Hagentoft, 2008; Schade, 2009). Also, by optimizing
the design parameters such as building shape, the Several workshops were conducted to define and
building envelope and orientation the heat consump- select methods to support decision-making and perfor-
tion can be reduced up to 80% (Feist et al., 2005). mance-based design processes in the early design
Considering the various ranges of the parameters and phase. Finally, an energy design scenario was devel-
the complexity of the decision-making process, the oped in order to demonstrate the proposed framework.
Early design phase Approved design information is stored and put under
change management control after each quality gate. The
In the building process the stakeholders have different
design process is seen as iterative; the design solution is
interpretations of the term ‘early phase’ (Ryd, 2008).
gradually being more detailed at each stage during the
For the client the ‘early phase’ starts when a business
early design phase.
opportunity or a societal demand arises. The initiation
In order to narrow down the possible alternatives, it
of a building project often includes a business planning
is common in the early design phase to restrict the
phase for the client where goals, budget, timeframe and
options to a few design alternatives fulfilling the func-
organization are determined before other stakeholders
tional programme. In later design phases single
from the AEC sector are involved (see Figure 4). The
features of a chosen virtual building are optional,
design of a building is traditionally carried out in two
while the basic design largely stays unchanged.
stages: first a system design of the architectural, struc-
Consequently, the decision-making process may be
tural and installation systems; second, the selected
characterized as choosing among a fairly limited
solution is further detailed for construction. After real-
number of prepared options. The support for this
ization the building is handed over for operations.
process should therefore focus on helping to evaluate
One of the main goals was to shift the focus from the
Figure 4 A building project from the perspective of the client and stakeholders from the AEC sector
these alternatives.
detailed design to the early design phase where the
majority of the decisions with significant implications
for the final costs, are made. From a client’s perspective
the AEC sector needs to be involved earlier in the
The decision-making method
building process. On the other hand the AEC sector
With the characteristics of decision problems we can
also needs to involve the client more in the design
define the required components or functionalities of a
process to ensure that business and project goals as
framework that supports decision-making during
expressed by the client are met by the proposed design.
design. First it is essential to know the target values that
One of the interviewed clients complained:
the design should fulfil from the stakeholders’ perspec-
that even if we ask for three alternative solutions from tive, in particular the client. These values, typically
the architect in the sketching stage, we usually only get expressed in different dimensions, are often contradic-
one usable solution. The architect just puts effort into tory to one another. Second, in order to be able to
one solution and makes the other two with less effort. comprehensively analyse these critical target values, the
Therefore, we only get one design solution to optimize
stakeholders have to transfer them into dimensionless
for energy but that often means optimizing the windows
performance indicators (PIs). To solve the dilemma of
which cost a lot instead of optimizing the whole design.
multiple and contradictory target values, we further
The used definition for the early design phase need a method to transparently prioritize the different
included the business planning, building design and a criteria or PIs and a mathematical evaluation method
feasibility design phase. In the feasibility design phase to combine PIs into an overall ranking of alternatives.
the development team, including the client, translates This will also guide the design team in the development
the client’s project goals expressed in user language into of different design alternatives. Finally charts or
values and design requirements expressed in perfor- diagrams to visualize the performance of the alterna-
mance language. In this phase different design require- tives regarding each single target value will be required
ments turn out to be interdependent or even conflicting. in order to communicate and explain the method’s
Each stage in the early design ends with a quality gate, results in a self-explanatory way. The following
i.e. go/no-go criteria, where the result is evaluated using methods were used in the proposed decision-making
a formalized and traceable decision-making process. framework:
Figure 4 A building project from the perspective of the client and stakeholders from the AEC sector
376 Schade et al.
● Evaluation method—the MAUT family of evalu- simulation, analysis, etc. at a specific stage will
ation techniques for multi-attribute decision determine the requirement of information
problems. content.
● Prioritization method—the AHP process using ● A maturity level defines the approved design
pair-wise comparison. information content. Change management
● PIs are normally used to benchmark the success procedures are applied on approved information
of building projects. In the proposed smart content.
framework the PIs were extended to represent
The default mapping of maturity levels versus the
the utility functions used in the MAUT frame-
building’s life cycle phases and quality gates are
work
adapted to the complexity of the specific project.
Figure 5 shows a schematic overview of the required
components and input for the proposed decision-
Design workflow
making process.
The design workflow is coordinated among the
Figure 5 The InPro decision-making framework (after Schreyer et al., 2009)
involved specialists using the concept of maturity levels

Modelling concepts and quality gates for decision-making. Figure 6 shows
The model-based process is divided into information a proposed methodology for the decision-making
maturity levels adapted to the decision-making process process at a specific stage of the design. It starts from
for a specific purpose in a building’s life cycle. The an approved level of maturity set by the previous qual-
decisions are based on a defined level of information at ity gate (level m).
First the development team, the client and differ-
Figure 6 Generic workflow process between two levels of maturity (Olofsson et al., 2009)
a specific design stage from which performance indica-

tors can be presented to the main decision makers. This ent design specialists decide about the mapping of
allows decision makers to make informed decisions performance requirements from the client’s goals and
throughout the building’s life cycle, matching solutions requirements that can be evaluated using PIs of the
against functional needs. These modelling concepts for design. The PIs are then prioritized to guide the
the proposed model-based design process may be team in developing a design strategy. Also the inter-
summarized as follows: faces between the different design disciplines must
also be defined using process maps or dedicated
● The design contains the minimum required design spaces to manage the concurrent design
information needed to support the decision- process (Eppinger, 1991). After different design alter-
making process at the quality gate in question. In natives have been created and evaluated, the devel-
general the information contains a mix of docu- oped design information and analysis must be
ments, models (design discipline models and checked for consistency, completeness and correct-
aggregated models) and evaluated performance ness in the quality assurance (QA) gate, c.f. Figure 6.
indicators. If the design model does not pass the QA phase it
● The use of information for e.g. derivation of needs to be updated and checked again at the QA
performance indicators through visualization, gate. The PIs for the different alternatives are
Figure 5 The InPro decision-making framework (after Schreyer et al., 2009)

Figure 6 Generic workflow process between two levels of maturity (Olofsson et al., 2009)
presented together with the overall ranking of the From the project team’s experience, the energy target
alternatives using the smart decision-making tool at ‘Energy Class A’ is hard to combine with the required
the quality gate (QG). If one of the alternatives is ‘indoor climate class S1’. Additionally they suggest
selected at the QG the new approved set of design balancing the energy savings of various design options
variables is added to the model and the design moves with their investment costs. The client and future
to the next level (level n), otherwise the design loop building owner agrees to continue with an investigation
starts again. of different design options during the building design
phase. The project manager summarizes the goals for
the building design (see Table 2).
Motivating case
The scenario Design strategy

For the rebuilding of a warehouse to create an office As a next step the project team starts the discussion of
building in Helsinki an environmentally conscious priorities among the above goals with the client. In
client requests his project team to deliver a very order to formalize the discussion, the project manager
efficient, low-energy consumption design. Having prepares the evaluation for the team shown in Table 3.
heard about the new energy consumption classes he Table 4 is prepared according to a nine-point scale
suggests evaluating the options to create an ‘Energy proposed by Building Smart International Alliance for
Class A’ design. During the feasibility design the client Interoperability (2010):
is informed that, for the climatic conditions at the
building location, such an energy class cannot be ● Equally important = 1
achieved without paying tribute to the indoor climate. ● More important = 3
Table 2 Client goals expressed in user and performance language

Client goals Value (for client) KPI Target value(s)
Healthy and comfortable indoor climate Best indoor climate Indoor climate class S1
Low energy consumption Energy efficiency Energy certificate class A–C
Cost effectiveness (moderate rent level) Lower operational cost Payback for investment Payback time 5–10 (years)
378 Schade et al.
Table 3 Prioritization of design goals using pair-wise Table 4 Evaluation matrix for calculation of the priority
comparison (eigenvector)
KPI Pair-wise priority KPI Evaluation Indoor Energy Payback for Priority
matrix climate certificate investment (eigenvector)
Indoor climate is more important than Energy certificate class class
class class
Indoor climate is strongly more Payback for Indoor 1 3/1 5/1 0.64
class important than investment climate class
Energy is more important than Payback for Energy 1/3 1 3/1 0.26
certificate class investment certificate
class
Payback for 1/5 1/3 1 0.10
investment
● Strongly more important = 5
Total 1.00
● Very strongly more important = 7
● Overwhelmingly more important = 9
When the first criterion in the left column is less ‘Energy class’ class A would completely fulfil the
important than the second criterion, the weight value desired requirements. The rating for values B to D is
becomes reciprocal. The normalized eigenvector of decreasingly disproportional and values beyond class
the weights matrix calculates the priority vector. After D were not accepted by the client. Regarding the
defining the priorities, the target values with toler- payback time for the total investment, the client is
ances and therefore the boundary conditions for the willing to spend more if the additional investment
design alternatives have to be discussed among the does not exceed a payback time of 15 years. The
project team. The decision-making method requires optimum rating for the economically most sustainable
assigning a utility function to each PI and criterion design is therefore assigned when the payback for
respectively to relate values measured for the different investment will not exceed five years.
design alternatives to a dimensionless performance Figure 8 Utility functions for the KPI in the energy design scenario
scale from 0 to 100% fulfilment of the client’s

Design and analysis
demand (see Figure 7).
Together with the project team the following At the design kick-off meeting the team reflects on
Figure 7 Rating of target values between minimum requirement and desired functionality using PI utility functions (after Ryd, 2008 and Schreyer et al., 2009)
ratings of optional target value ranges are determined the consequences of the design requirement analysis
by the client (see Figure 8). An important criterion for the design strategy and the technical solutions
for the client is the indoor climate class since he is available for investigation. Taking the client priorities
convinced that the productivity of his company will into consideration, the preference of the indoor air
be strongly influenced by an excellent indoor environ- quality will govern the design strategy. However, at
ment. He is willing to allow some tolerance below the same time the requirement for an economically
class S1 but not lower than S2. For the criterion reasonable design solution within the boundaries
Figure 7 Rating of target values between minimum requirement and desired functionality using PI utility functions (after
Ryd, 2008 and Schreyer et al., 2009)
Figure 8 Utility functions for the KPI in the energy design scenario
Figure 9 Design alternatives of the Senate headquarters in Helsinki
given by the client will have to be fulfilled, a crite- The result of the energy analysis is summarized in
rion that is also influenced by finding a technical Table 5. The three alternatives have the same indoor
solution with low energy consumption. A couple of climate class and the payback time for the investment
days later, the design team have created and analy- in energy saving designs 2 and 3 was estimated at 8 and
sed the three building information models summa- 12 years respectively (design 1 is the reference, i.e. 0
rized in Figure 9. year’s payback).
Figure 9 Design alternatives of the Senate headquarters in Helsinki
Table 5 Result from analyses of the three design alternatives

Energy consumption Unit Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
Heating Space MWh/a 529 307 307

AC MWh/a 321 311 180
Hot water MWh/a 66 66 66
Electricity Equipment MWh/a 24 24 24
Lightning MWh/a 211 211 211
HVAC MWh/a 212 211 211
Cooling MWh/a 29 37 37
Total energy MWh/a 1392 1167 1036
Energy efficient rate kWh/m2 123 103 92
Energy class – C B B
380 Schade et al.
Figure 10 Calculation and visualization of the PI ratings for the different design alternatives
Decision-making at the quality gate consumptions results in a payback period that is still
within the tolerance level of the client.
After the model information has been quality assured
The total performance chart together with the
by the information management the project manager
individual PI results for each alternative help the design
prepares the project meeting in order to pass the design
team to transparently explain the evaluation results,
through the next quality gate and calculates the perfor-
their design decisions and recommendations to the
mance indicator (PI) ratings for the three alternatives
client, thus enabling him to make an informed decision
from the utility functions. The result is also visualized
or, if necessary, to reconsider the initial priorities.
in a spider diagram (see Figure 10).
The total rating, here 89% can also serve as an over-
After the individual PI performance results have
Figure 10 Calculation and visualization of the PI ratings for the different design alternatives
all key PI for the design process as it reflects the fulfil-

been calculated and visualized, the priorities are taken
ment of the client’s goals/values.
into consideration in order to calculate the total evalu-
ation result for each design alternative (see Table 6). In
the final design meeting the team discusses the results Conclusions
of the analysis with the client. Under the conditions
given, alternative 2 which fulfils the design require- The proposed framework consists of a stage/gate design
ments with a rate of 89%, offers the best performance. process where the information maturity is adapted to
The improvements for lower energy consumption by the project-specific decision-making process. The use
the heat recovery systems in alternative 3 do not pay off of information for e.g. derivation of performance indi-
fast enough to balance the additional investment. On cators through visualization, simulation, analysis, etc.
the other hand, the improvement through higher insu- at a specific stage of the design will determine the
lation and tightness of the building shell of the energy requirement on the information content. To develop a
strategy for creating more than one design alternative,
Table 6 Total rating of the three design alternatives a decision-making process is proposed where project
goals and functional needs are mapped to building
KPI Unit Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 performance requirements for the particular design
Indoor climate Priority 0.64 0.64 0.64 stage. These multiple and often contradictory target
Rating 100% 100% 100% values are prioritized using the AHP process of pair-
Energy certificate Priority 0.26 0.26 0.26 wise comparison and then transferred to dimensionless
Rating 10% 60% 60% PIs. The prioritizing of targets will guide the design
Payback Priority 0.10 0.10 0.10 team in exploring the solution space and developing
investment design alternatives. The PIs can later on be evaluated
Rating 100% 90% 50% from proposed design alternatives and compared indi-
Total rating ΣRating 77% 89% 85% vidually with the target values or be assembled in a total
XPriority score of the design, guiding the decision makers in the
selecting of a design alternative.
The framework was exemplified in a relatively simple BIPS (2007) 3D Working Method 2006, Digital Construction
energy scenario of a specific design stage of the build- BIPS, Ballerup, Denmark.
ing’s life cycle. The benefits of this BIM-based design Building Smart International Alliance for Interoperability
include that such information as building geometry, (2010) IFC-Summary of IFC releases, available at http://
buildingsmart-tech.org/products/ifc-specification/ifc-
structure, material, installation and functional use is
releases/summary/(accessed 15 September 2010).
stored in the BIM model. This reduces time and cost
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1961) Management Models
for analysis of energy performance for the building. and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming, Wiley,
The benefit of adapting the decision-making frame- New York.
work into a model-based process is the transparency of Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Ferguson, R. O. (1955)
the design decisions with regards to the goals at the begin- Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear
ning of the project. The construction client can further programming. Management Science, 1, 138–51.
become more involved in the early design process. With Eastman, C., Lee, J.-M., Jeong, Y.-S. and Lee, J.-K. (2009)
the help of the decision-making process the design ratio- Automatic rule-based checking of building designs.
nale is based on a more formal, hence transparent proce- Automation in Construction, 18, 1011–33.
dure than the biased process we often find within project Eppinger, S.D. (1991) Model-based approaches to manag-
ing concurrent engineering. Journal of Engineering Design,
teams, today. The possibility of including different crite-
2, 283–90.
ria in a hierarchical composition in the decision-making
European Commission (2004) European Union Energy &
process makes this framework very flexible. This process Transport in Figures 2004 Edition, Part 2: Energy, Director-
further reflects the necessary compromises during the ate General for Energy and Transport, European
design and interdependences of the different goals. Commission, Brussels.
However, it does not explicitly define the semantic inter- Evans, R., Haryott, R., Haste, N. and Jones, A. (1998) The
dependences among design parameters. The required Long Term Costs of Owning and Using Buildings, Royal
modification of the design still has to be anticipated by Academy of Engineering, London.
specialists. Furthermore, by choosing to use appropriate Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V. and Haas, A. (2005) Re-
PIs for corporate controlling, a long-term improvement inventing air heating: convenient and comfortable within
process for the enterprise can be enabled. the frame of the Passive House concept. Energy and Build-
ings, 37, 1186–1203.
The proposed framework needs to be tested in real
Gielingh, W. (1988) General AEC Reference Model. External
performance-based building projects to be developed
Representation of Product Definition Data, TNO-Report BI-
further in practice. Especially the combination of 88-150, Document no. 3.2.2.1.
design requirements which must be fulfilled, e.g. from Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E. (1984) Influence
codes and regulations, with more relaxed performance diagrams, in Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E. (eds)
requirements translated from the voice of the custom- Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Anal-
ers needs to be investigated further. Also, the transfor- ysis, Vol. II, Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA.
mation of high-level requirement PIs at project level Hughes, W.P., Ancell, D., Gruneberg, S. and Hirst, L.
into more detailed requirement specifications as the (2004) Exposing the myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating
maturity level of the design increases is another impor- initial cost, maintenance and staffing costs of office build-
tant field for research in the future. ings, in Proceedings of the 20th Annual ARCOM Conference,
Vol. 1, Heriot Watt University, 1–3 September, ARCOM,
Reading, pp. 373–81.
Acknowledgement Ibrahim, M. and Krawczyk, R. (2003) The level of knowl-
edge of CAD objects within the building information
model, in ACADIA22 Connecting—Crossroads of Digital
The result presented in this paper is part of InPro
Discourse, Indianapolis, USA, 24–27 October, pp. 173–7.
(2010) (http://www.inpro-project.eu), an integrated
International Society on Multiple Criteria Decision Making
project co-funded by the European Commission within (2010) Available at http://www.mcdmsociety.org
the Sixth Framework and the project efficient design of (accessed 15 December 2010).
low energy houses financed by the centre for energy InPro (2010) Open Information Environment for Knowledge-
and resource efficiency in the built environment and based Collaborative Processes through the Lifecycle of Buildings
the construction industry’s organization for research EU Integrated Project, available at http://www.inpro-
and development in Sweden. project.eu/main.asp (accessed 15 December 2010).
ISO (1993) Product Data Representation and Exchange. Part 1:
Overview and Fundamental Principles, ISO 10303-10301,
References International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Jaeger, J., Leuthner, B., Markwardt, A., Siegler, S. and
Bazjanec, V. (2004) Building energy performance simulation Sulzer, C. (2007) Comparative analysis of best practice.
as part of interoperable software environments. Building InPro D4, Task 1.1 Best Practice.
and Environment, 39, 879–83.
382 Schade et al.
Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decision with Multiple tellt am Naturschutzprojet Weidelandschaft Eidertal.
Objective: Preference and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York. Doctoral thesis. Argrarwissenschaftliche Fakultät an der
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1993) Decisions with Multiple Christian-Albrechts-Universität in Kiel, Kiel.
Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge Ryd, N. (2008) Initiating Building Projects—Clients’ and
University Press, Cambridge. Architects’ Front-end Management of Projects, Dept of
Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A. and Edwards, S. (2003) Life Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology,
Cycle Assessment in Building and Construction, Society of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Denver. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning,
Kuhn, H.W. and Tucker, A.W. (1951) Nonlinear program- Setting Priorities, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New
ming, in Proceedings of 2nd Berkeley Symposium, University York.
of California Press, Berkeley, 31 July–12 August 1950, pp. Schade, J. (2009) Energy simulation and life cycle costs:
481–92. estimation of a building’s performance in the early
Kunz, J. and Fischer, M. (2009) Virtual design and design phase, Licentiate thesis, Luleå University of
construction: themes, case studies and implementation Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
suggestions. CIFE Working Paper 97, Center for Schlueter, A. and Thesseling, F. (2009) Building information
Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, model based energy/exergy performance assessment in
Stanford, USA. early design stages. Automation in Construction, 18, 153–63.
Laiserin, J. (2007) Building information modeling for today Schreyer, M., Benning, P., Brandt, T., Jäger, J., Ryd, N. and
and tomorrow, To BIMfinity and Beyond! (AEC Insight Tulke, J. (2009) An evaluation framework for early design
Column), Cadalyst, available at aec.cadalyst.com/aec/arti- based on key performance indicator. InPro D10, Task 1.3
cle/articleDetail.jsp?id=470080 (accessed 15 December Key Performance Indicator.
2010). Senate (2007) Senate Properties, BIM Guidelines, available at
Liston, K., Fischer, M. and Winograd, T. (2001) Focused http://www.senaatti.fi/document.asp?siteID=2&docID=588
sharing of information for multidisciplinary decision (accessed September 2010).
making by project teams. Itcon, 6, 69–82. Spekkink, D. (2005) Performance Based Design of Buildings,
Öberg, M. (2005) Integrated life cycle design—applied to PeBBu Domain 3 Final Report, CIBdf-International
concrete multi-dwelling buildings, Doctoral thesis Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
(REPORT TVBM-1022), Division of Building Materials, Construction, Rotterdam.
Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Statsbygg (2009) BIM-Manual 1.1, Statsbyggs generelle
Olofsson, T., Schade, J., Meiling, J., Heikkilä, K., Dehlin, retningslinjer forbygningsinformasjonsmodellering (BIM),
S., Benning, P., Schunke, M., Tulke, J., Schreyer, M., http://www.statsbygg.no/FilSystem/files/prosjekter/BIM/
Sormunen, P., Hirvonen, T. and Holopainen, R. (2009) SB-BIMmanual1–1mVedl.pdf (accessed 15 December
The InPro Lifecycle Design Framework for Buildings. 2010).
InPro D17, Task 2.4 Life cycle design process. Turner, J. (1990) Building systems model, ISO TC 184/
Pietrzyk, K. and Hagentoft, C.-E. (2008) Reliability analysis SC4/WG1, Document N363, working paper, Interna-
in building physics design. Building and Environment, 43, tional Organization for Standardization.
558–68. Zionts, S. and Wallenius, J. (1976) An interactive program-
Rohr, T. (2004) Einsatz eines mehrkriteriellen Entsc- ming method for solving the multiple criteria problem.
heidungsverfahrens im Naturschutzmanagement - Darges- Management Science, 22, 656–63.
Paper III
Requirement management for the design of

energy performance in buildings
Jansson, G., Schade, J., Olofsson, T.
Submitted to ITcon (January 2013)

Paper III
REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF

ENERGY PERFORMANCE IN BUILDINGS
SUBMITTED: January 2013
Gustav. Jansson, Tech. Lic.,

Division of Structural and Construction Engineering, Luleå University of Technology;
gustav.jansson@ltu.se
Jutta. Schade, Tech. Lic.,

jutta.schade@ltu.se
Thomas. Olofsson, Professor,

thomas.olofsson@ltu.se
SUMMARY: Buildings are designed to fulfill multiple and often contradictory

requirements from users, clients and society. The many design disciplines involved
in construction projects creates operational islands causing ineffective
coordination and design solutions that do not meet the original requirements. A
framework based on the theory of axiomatic design and requirements-driven
product modelling to support the management of requirements in building design
is presented and adapted to a stage-based design process of energy performance.
In the context of managing energy requirements in the design of buildings, the
following conclusions were made:
x Identification and communication of functional requirements improves

transparency between stakeholders and creates better support for selecting
strategies and decision-making in the design process.
x A set-based design strategy should be used to manage and evaluate the
performance of multiple design alternatives against the established functional
requirements.
x Spatial models using space objects are believed to be useful as containers of
functional requirement structures for e.g. energy, acoustic, environmental and
fire requirements in the design process.
The use of BIM to support the proposed requirement framework needs to be

studied further and connected to construction classification and ontology
framework.
KEYWORDS: Requirement management, Axiomatic design theory, Energy

performance, Stage based design process
1
Paper III
1. INTRODUCTION
Buildings are designed and constructed to fulfil the demands of users, clients
and society. Many of these demands are expressed as functional requirements
through building codes, standards and local regulations. The management of the
many requirements throughout the design suffers from a lack of transparency
which can later lead to solutions in the design process that do not meet the
original requirements (Kiviniemi et al. 2005; Haymaker and Fischer 2008;
Jallow et al. 2008). This results in design iterations and rework, resulting in low
efficiency (Apleberger et al. 2007; Ye et al. 2009). Also, the operational islands
between the many design disciplines cause ineffective coordination which can
affect the fulfilment of the multiple and often contradictory requirements
(Mattar 1983), which in turn can affect the life cycle performance of buildings
(Schade et al. 2011). Proper requirements management in this context can
reduce the number of design iterations and the amount of rework by providing
better integration of the different teams in the design development
environment (Gosling and Naim 2009).
FIG 1 Operational islands from WBCSD (2008), after Mattar (1983).
Many aspects of a building's performance depend on decisions taken early in

the design process (Schluter and Thesseling 2009). Space heat consumption of a
building can be reduced by up to 80% if orientation, building shape, isolation
and ventilation are optimized in the design process (Feist et al. 2005; Smeds and
Wall 2007). Energy requirements should be considered for the entire building
in the conceptual design phase and then refined throughout the design of
spaces, MEP systems and components (COBIM 2012). However, energy aspects
are often not considered before the detailed design phase (Schluter and
Thesseling 2009), when only minor changes to the design are possible.
When designing sustainable buildings, where tendering and refinement of the

product is made through a network of decisions and value processing, there are
2
Paper III
opportunities to increase design quality (Magent et al. 2009) by focusing on the

integration of systems into daily engineering work. A better management of the
functional requirements related to the energy consumption of the building can
increase the transparency and provide better integration and opportunities for
optimizing the energy performance of a building across disciplines in the design
process.
The purpose of this paper is to explore a framework for requirements

management in the design of buildings that enables traceability across
disciplines. A conceptual model is presented based on Suh’s (2001) theories of
axiomatic design and requirements-driven product modelling by Malmqvist
(2001) in the field of engineering design. The model is then adapted to a stage-
based design process of energy performance as presented by COBIM (2012).
2. FRAMEWORK
2.1 Theory of Axiomatic Design
The theory of axiomatic design is a systematic method for the design

transformation between the customer, the functional, physical and production
domains (Suh 2001). The transformations between two domains, such as the
functional and physical domains, represent the design task to interpret and
translate functional requirements (FRs) into design parameters (DPs), from the
most generic and top-level requirement to more detailed requirement levels
using zigzag decomposition cycles, see Fig. 2.
FIG 2 Zigzag decomposition in Axiomatic Design (Suh 2001).
Zigzagging is one of three basic concepts in axiomatic design where the other
two axioms are:
1. The independence axiom: Maintain the independence of the functional

requirements (FRs).
3
Paper III
2. The information axiom: Minimize the information content of the design.

Reduce information for the best design solution without affecting the
independency of FRs.
(Suh 2001)
The coupling between FR and DP is defined mathematically as {FR} = [A] {DP}

where A is the design matrix. A diagonal (uncoupled) or a triangular
(decoupled) matrix fulfills the independence axiom. However, even though this
can be hard to accomplish, design solutions with as few off-diagonal elements as
possible should be the aim (Suh 2001).
If two solutions have similar coupling matrices, the second axiom states that the
best alternative is the solution with less information. Boundary conditions and
system constraints are denoted by Cs and restrict the design space. Decisions
taken from higher levels stages act as constraints at lower levels (Suh 2001).
The transformations between the domains are normally carried out by different
actors with specific product views. In the context of construction, the
architectural view describes the transformation from customer attributes (CAs)
within the customer domain to functional requirements (FRs) within the
functional domain. The engineering view(s) describes the transformation from
functional requirements (FRs) to design parameters (DPs) in the physical
domain and the production view describes the transformation work from design
parameters (DPs) to production variables (PVs) in the process domain.
Constraints (Cs) are limitations of downstream activities that have to be
considered in upstream transformations, Fig. 3. These constraints can arise as a
result of the standardization of components, processes or organizational
conditions. Constraints can also describe regulations used at the site or
conditions for transportation (Jensen et al. 2012).
4
Paper III
FIG 3 Axiomatic design domains and transformation of the design vectors (CA Ö
FR Ö DP Ö PV) from different product views adapted after Suh (2001) and Jensen
et al. (2012).
2.2 Requirements Management
According to Fiksel and Dunkle (1993), managing requirements is the

knowledge of how to create, maintain and test requirements throughout a
product life cycle. Methods of requirements management are categorized
according to eliciting, modeling, analyzing, communicating, agreeing and
evolving requirements for the system (Nuseibeh and Easterbrook 2000). The
requirement management model by Malmqvist (2001) describes the
transformation process as a synthesis of required properties for product
definition models (described as the technical components of the product) and life
cycle system models (described as production and supply chain systems), Fig. 4.
Property models describe the properties of the product definition models, which
are used to evaluate the performance of the design against initial requirements.
5
Paper III
FIG 4 Requirements-driven integrated product and process model (Malmqvist

2001).
It is important to evaluate both measurable quantitative properties as well as

properties that are related to qualitative stakeholder values and the functional
structure of the design (Suh 2001; Malmqvist 2001).
Requirements in the construction industry are often expressed in terms of What

is required and Why it is required from stakeholders such as clients and users.
Design solutions express how these requirements should be met by the supplier
side (Ye et al. 2009). However, very few research projects have focused on the
gap between what and why and how these requirements are fulfilled by the
architecture, engineering and construction industry. Kiviniemi (2005)
researched how Requirement Hierarchies can be managed by Building Product
Models and proposed the use of space and component objects as carriers of
requirements. The transparency between requirements and solutions is another
important area to consider in how to reach usability and sustainability from a
life cycle perspective (INPRO-D14A 2009).
2.3 Progression in construction design
Engineering design delivers drawings, models, documents and information

based on national, regional and client/customer requirements for the planning
of work and supply of material to the production system. Two types of
strategies can be recognized for the design work: Point-based design and Set-
based design. Point-based design narrows down the number of product solutions
in the early stages to one preferred alternative for further development. In Set-
based design, a number of alternative design solutions are kept open to avoid
iteration in the design process and to make expensive design commitments as
6
Paper III
late as possible (Choo et al. 2004). As the design progresses, the number of
solutions are slowly reduced. The set-based design strategy requires more
design resources and frequent meetings, especially in the early design phase.
However, an early agreement on product functionality can lead to faster
downstream decisions as the design progresses (Liker et al. 1996).
The use of evaluation, optimization and negotiation are examples of methods

that concretize solutions in an iterative design process (Wynn et al. 2007). A
concurrent engineering process can reduce lead times in the design (Prasad
1996), but the reviews necessary to ensure the quality of the design can
increase the number of iterations and hence the time and cost for that design
(Le et al. 2012). From a lean perspective, iterations should be value-generating
and chosen for a specific purpose (Ballard 2000).
2.4 Design for energy performance
The structure of functional requirements in construction design can be

decomposed from primary requirements, such as the energy efficiency of a
building, to lower-level requirements describing measurable criteria, such as
low ζͲǤ͸Ȁ2, that can be controlled using property models of the
design solution (Kamara et al. 1999). It is important to include decisions that
are critical for energy performance, such as the shape of the building, early in
the design process (Bazjanac 2008). Therefore, several frameworks related to
the design of energy performance have been proposed.
Schade et al. (2011) introduced a decision-making framework in a performance-

based design process. The framework is applicable in a stage-gated design
process where objective and subjective performances of design alternatives are
evaluated at each gate stage. That piece of research studied an office property in
Finland with the focus on the early design stages and energy performance to
demonstrate the framework (Schade et al. 2011). In the common BIM
Requirement defined by BuildingSMART Finland, an eight stage process for
indoor climate and energy analysis is proposed from conceptual design to
maintenance (COBIM 2012). Cavique and Gonçalves-Coelho (2009) proposed a
requirement structure using axiomatic design theory to reduce energy
consumption in HVAC systems. The energy requirements were divided into five
categories, based on the regulations in five countries in the south of Europe.
3. METHOD
A requirements management framework for construction is proposed, see

section 4. The proposed framework is compared to what happens in practice
using energy analysis as the contextual source of data. A single case study is
conducted to gain qualitative insights and profound understanding on how
7
Paper III
functional requirements are managed through the design progression within

the specific context of energy (Yin 2003). The requirements management
framework was applied to the daily engineering work but not used by engineers
for design work at the company studied.
The design of a multi-dwelling house project with approximately 1500 m2 floor

area, situated in the region of Gothenburg, by one of the largest contractors in
Scandinavia was selected as the case study. The building system for the project
is based on prefabricated concrete elements for walls, balconies, structural
columns, slab floors and stairs using standard company shapes and
components. The requirements of energy use in the project were essentially
lower than the level prescribed by the Swedish building code.
The design activities observed in project meetings and design reviews during
2010 and 2011 were focused on the energy design. Predefined stages with gates
were practiced throughout the design process. These observations were
complemented later in interviews with the project manager, the design project
manager, the structural engineers and the energy engineer. Semi-structured
interviews were chosen to secure validity between interviews with project
managers and engineers, the project log and related design documentation. In-
depth interviews about the operational work were also carried out with project
managers, structural engineers and energy engineers. To ensure a valid
investigation, the data from reports were compared with the response from the
interviews and documented routines at the company.
4. THEORETICAL MODEL OF REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT

FOR CONSTRUCTION
The transition from specifying design solutions to functional requirements

(FRs) in the building codes has been fully embraced in the Swedish regulations,
BBR 19 (2011:26). As well as the national regulations, the client’s use of the
building is now part of the list of FRs. As the design process progresses from
higher conceptual levels to the more detailed design of parts and components,
the functional requirements also become more detailed (Suh 2001; Nuseibeh
and Easterbrook 2001).
A set-based design strategy is recommended to explore multiple options,

especially in the early stages when the majority of the decisions taken influence
the final costs (Romm 1994). The use of virtual design methods and BIM tools
are proposed to manage the design process in the search for design parameters
that fulfill the requirements (Haymaker and Fischer 2008; Eastman 2008). In
the case of the customization of standardized building systems, the design space
is more limited. Some design parameters are already defined and act as
8
Paper III
constraints (Cs) in the design process, whilst other parameters can be adapted
to customer requirements within fixed intervals. Parametric design of BIM
objects can be used here to automatically support the engineering configuration
of alternatives (Jensen et al. 2012).
The detailing of the product is proposed to be defined in a stage-gated design

process, Fig. 5, where the zigzag decomposition of FR and DP levels occurs
according to the theory of axiomatic design (Suh 2001). Evaluation of design
solutions from higher levels leads to new requirements at the lower levels. The
use of space objects as information containers for the functional requirements
can support the customer view without limiting product solutions in the early
design stages (Kiviniemi et al. 2005). In later stages, components and systems
can carry information regarding decomposed functional requirements at lower
levels. Some BIM tools have the functionality to manage spaces, components and
systems but need structures to manage the transition between functional
requirements and design parameters and the relationships to building system
constraints. The axioms of independency of FRs and information minimization
in the proposed solutions can be used as strategies both in the design and
evaluation process at each stage to secure the functionality of the product. The
entire management of the design process should be based on value-adding
iterations and information processing between involved actors.
9
Paper III
FIG 5 Proposed requirements management model.
National and user requirements for the energy consumption of buildings can be
mapped using different systems and components, such as the building envelope,
internal gains and loads, consumption of HVAC system and the like (Cavique and
Gonçalves-Coelho 2009). The common BIM requirements, developed by Senate
properties, describe a stage-gated strategy for the analysis of indoor comfort
and for energy consumption (COBIM 2012). Combining Malmqvist´s (2001)
anomalies (synthesis-analysis-evaluation) with the zigzag theory in axiomatic
design, the energy requirements can be set up using the developed COBIM
framework for energy. Here, the use of a Swedish classification system for
building parts (BSAB 1990) will be used to enable exchange of information
between design models and property models of energy (Ekholm and Fridqvist
1996). As this classification system is hierarchical, it is natural to arrange
requirements in a matching hierarchy, according to the theory of axiomatic
design, Fig. 6.
10
Paper III
FIG 6 Energy requirements model
The decomposition of energy requirements develops from both parent

requirements and design parameters in the property model. The property
model can be used to evaluate whether the performance of the design solution
meets the functional requirements (Malmqvist 2001).
5. CASE STUDY
The design process at the case study company is divided into four stages:
Conceptual design, Schematic design, Design development and Detailed design. A
review of the design solution was conducted between each stage in the design
11
Paper III
process in respect of the requirements from the client and national codes. In the
last three stages, energy simulation of 3D property models was carried out to
secure the requirements for energy consumption. Even though energy
simulation was part of the schematic design stage, the structural engineering
work determined the progress of the design process.
5.1 Schematic design
The first energy simulation was conducted at the schematic design level,
comparing different designs of the building envelope. The requirements (FRs)
were determined by the Swedish code BBR15 (2008:20) and the local policy in
Gothenburg, the constraints (Cs) by the location, geometrical and structural
constraints and certain assumptions regarding input data not yet defined. Since
only information regarding gross areas, location and building type was
determined at this stage, a simplified simulation based on standard values was
created for the purpose of checking basic requirements as well as to support
decisions about the selection of energy supply. The simulation software IDA
Indoor Climate and Energy was used, in combination with a simple sensitivity
analysis.
Two different building shapes were evaluated, slab block and tower block, to
ensure that the consumption and installed effect did not exceed 60kWh/m2a
and 15 W/m2 respectively, according to the requirements of the city of
Gothenburg (Gbg). The air leakage was set to 0.6l/sm2 at 50 Pa as defined by the
regulations. The heat transfer coefficient of the building envelope was estimated
to be U=0.3 W/m2 K where the proportion of thermal bridges was set to 15%.
Estimation of ventilation losses was based on a ventilation rate of 0.35 l/sm2
using two heat recovery systems installed in the ventilation system. A duct
ventilation system with no heat recovery was compared with a system that
delivered a heat recovery rate of 75%. It was assumed that the building will use
district heating.
The tower block shaped building (16.5 x 16.5 m) was less energy-efficient (62
kWh/m2a) than the slab block building (10.5 m x 23.5 m) (58 kWh/m2a). This
difference was mainly caused by the number of buildings that it was possible to
construct according to the city plan. However, the recommendation from the
energy analysis team was that both building types could be adapted to meet the
energy requirement. The team also recommended windows with a lower heat
transfer coefficient and that the air leakage be reduced.* Changing to a
ventilation system with no heat recovery increases the energy demand by
37kWh/m2a. At the end of this design stage, a decision to continue only with the
slab block building was taken.
12
Paper III
TABLE 1 Examples of FRs, Cs and DPs at the Schematic design level
FR Cs DP
FR1= Qenergy ζ͸ͲȀ2a (Gbg) Cs= Climate data Gothenburg Set1DP1 = Slab block Atemp = 1500 m2 => Qenergy 58.2
FR112 =Utotal ζͲǤͷȀ2K (2008 BBR 15) Cs= Open space structural kWh/m2a
FR114 = Indoor climate (Gbg) limits Set2DP1 = Tower block Atemp = 1500 m2 => Qenergy 62.4
FR1142 = VηͲǤ͵ͷȀ2 Cs = Levels 2860 mm kWh/m2a
FR1143= Bright energy-efficient flats DP112 = Building envelope Utotal = 0.3W/m2K
FR115 = AζͲǤ͸Ȁ2 at 50 Pa DP1122 = Wall Brick 200 insulation U=0.16 W/m2K
FR131 =Heating performance ζ Set1DP1142 = Duct systems without heat recovery
15W/m2(Gbg) Set2DP1142 = Duct systems with heat recovery
FR213 αͳͲΨζ DP1143= Attic flats
DP213 = 18% windows to the net gross area (Atemp)
5.2 Design development
In the design development stage, standardized spaces (i.e. shafts and toilets)
and wall thickness were added to the list of Cs as constraints of the building
system along with the storey size. In the second energy simulation, the building
shape, the structure and the orientation to the sun were defined. These DPs are
represented by space elements in the property model. The heat transmission
coefficients (U-value) for the different components in the building envelope e.g.
window, walls, roof and floor slab, were set according to the recommendations
in the BBR. The sensitivity analysis showed that a change of the heat transfer
coefficient for windows from 0.9W/m2K up to 1.1W/m2K would increase the
energy demand by 2.5 kWh/m2a. Also, the size and placement of windows,
which affects the heat gains through the incoming solar radiation, were
considered in the simulation. The glazing U-values, solar properties and
external shading effect on energy consumption were analyzed. The location of
windows and walls facing different orientations were defined.
TABLE 2 Examples of FRs, Cs and DPs at the Design development level
FR Cs DP
FR1= Qenergy ζ͸ͲȀ2a (Gbg) Cs= Climate data Gothenburg Set1DP1= Slab block Atemp = 1284m2=>Qenergy 57.9
FR112 =Utotal ζͲǤͷȀ2K (2008 BBR 15) Cs= Shading of the building kWh/m2a
FR1121=UwallsζͲǤͳͺȀ2K Cs= Levels 2860 mm Set2DP1= Slab block Atemp = 1284m2=>Qenergy 60.4
FR1122=Uwindows ζ ͳǤ͵ Ȁ2K (2008 BBR Cs= Structural wall 200 mm kWh/m2a
15) conc. DP112= Building envelope Utotal = 0.27 W/m2K
FR1123= Uroof ζͲǤͳ͵Ȁ2K Cs= Open space structural DP1121= 50+195+70 mineral wool Uwalls =0.124 W/m2K
FR1124= UgroundζͲǤͳͷȀ2K limits Set1DP1122= Frame windows Uwindow =0.9 W/m2K
FR114 = Indoor climate (Gbg) Set2DP1122= Frame windows Uwindow =1.1 W/m2K
FR1142αηͲǤ͵ͷȀ2 DP1123= Roof Uroof =0.94 W/m2K
FR1143= Bright energy-efficient flats DP1142=Duct system 0.5 l/sm2
FR1115 αζͲǤ͸Ȁ2 at 50 Pa DP1143=Two attic flats with dormers
FR131= Heating performance 15W/m2 DP1241= 6.1 % south facing windows
(Gbg) DP1242=79.2 m2 south facing windows
FR213 αͳͲΨζ DP213 = 12.5 % windows to the net gross area (Atemp)
DP2131=160.4 m2of windows
In the building design stage, a more detailed energy simulation was conducted.
Factors such as ventilation losses through window openings or air exhausts
were included.
13
Paper III
5.3 Detailed design
In the detailed design phase, the analyses of energy performance and indoor
climate simulation were carried out to verify that the final design (DP) fulfilled
the requirements (FRs), see table 3. During the design process, the national
regulations were updated to BBR19 (2011:26), changing the requirements of
the U-values. At this stage of the design of the heating loads, the energy use of
cooling loads and heat generation was defined. Furthermore, building parts
were defined to component level and validated in the energy simulation. The
roof solution became one critical factor for the resulting energy demand with a
late structural design of a glulam roof combined with dormers for attic
apartments that resulted in a high U-value (0.94 W/m2K). The specific space
layout was defined and simulations of indoor climate for different ventilation
systems were conducted.
TABLE 3 Examples of FRs, Cs and DPs at the Detail design level
FR Cs DP
FR1= Qenergy ζ͸ͲȀ2a (Gbg) Cs= Climate data Gothenburg DP1 = Slab block Atemp = 1284m2=> Qenergy 57.9 kWh/m2a
FR112 =Utotal ζͲǤͶȀ2K (2011 BBR 19) Cs= Shading of the building DP112 = Building envelope Utotal = 0.27 W/m2K
FR1121=UwallsζͲǤͳͺȀ2K Cs = Levels 2860 mm DP1121= 50+195+70 mineral wool Uwalls =0.124 W/m2K
FR1122=Uwindows ζ ͳǤʹ Ȁ2K (2011 BBR Cs= Structural wall 200 mm DP1122= Frame windows Uwindow =0.9 W/m2K
19) conc. DP1123= Roof Uroof =0.94 W/m2K
FR1123= Uroof ζͲǤͳ͵Ȁ2K Cs= Max air Velocity/losses in DP11231 = Ceiling high 2.4m
FR1124= UgroundζͲǤͳͷȀ2K ventilation duct DP11232 = Roof structure Uroof =0.94 W/m2K
FR1125=Uentrance ζ ͳǤʹ Ȁ2K (2011 BBR Cs= Storeys dimension limits DP11233= Roof insulation 450 mm mineral wool
19) Cs= Open space structural DP11234= Roof structure with glulam beams 90x495mm
FR1141 = Indoor climate (21ºC) (Gbg) limits DP1142 = Duct system 0.5 l/sm2 (Mechanical exhaust air
FR1142 = VηͲǤ͵ͷȀ2 ventilation system with heat recovery)
FR1143 = Bright energy-efficient flats DP1143 = One three-room 101 m2 and one two-room 71
FR115 = AζͲǤ͸Ȁ2 at 50 Pa m2 attic flat
FR131 = Heating performance DP115 = Taped plastic film between floors and curtain
ζ15W/m2(Gbg) walls
FR213 αͳͲΨζ DP1241=1.2 % south facing windows of Atemp
FRij = Requirements DP1242 = 15.2 m2 south facing windows
DP131 = Heating system 14.1 W/m2
DP213 =12.5 % windows to the net gross area (Atemp)
DP2131 =160.4 m2of windows
DPij = Properties to spaces, components and systems
The size of ventilation systems was compared to the energy use of different
ventilation and cooling systems, such as variable air volume and chilled beams.
Here, air quality levels could also be improved or degraded with a resultant
effect related to parameter changes in energy consumption, equipment sizing
and thermal comfort. Also, the indoor climate at room level could be simulated
for design values (DPs) by the input of requirements (FRs) when the detailing of
structural and installation system had been defined. According to the energy
engineer, the energy simulations were used to secure minimum requirements
and were not used for optimization of energy performance until the detailed
design.
14
Paper III
6. ANALYSIS
6.1 Structure and transparency
The energy performance did not govern the design process, even if the energy
requirement was prioritized by the client. The evaluation of energy
performance was carried out on demand by the structural engineering team.
The use of a stage-gate process increased the fulfillment of the requirements but
the effects on the workflow were believed to be marginal according to
interviews. The structure of axiomatic design with FRs, Cs and DPs was useful
when visualizing inputs for decisions and analyses both in the early and later
stages of the design process.
The identification, communication and decomposition of FRs, DPs and Cs

broadly followed the proposed framework for quantitative requirements such
as the heat transfer for the building envelope (FR112 > FR1121 , FR1122). This
visibility helped in updating the energy requirements from BBR 15 to BBR 19
when the codes changed during the detailed design phase. However, this
structure was only visible to the energy design team and for the setting up of the
property model and conducting of the analysis. Qualitative requirements such
as bright and energy-efficient apartments (FR1143) and indoor climate (F114), were
not decomposed and traced in the same manner as the quantitative
requirements. Hence, "non-measurable" qualitative requirements lack a
structure to refine their management throughout the design process.
6.2 Set-based or point-based iteration
The structural engineering team locked the design solution early in order to
select efficient production methods. Hence, the set-based alternatives tested in
the case study were limited to two building shapes (DP1), two types of duct
system (DP1142) and windows with different U-values (DP1122). According to the
interviews, the management of multiple solutions was time-consuming.
Energy designers only participated in the three design phases where the results
were used for the determination of structural dimensions and the design and
selection of components and technical systems such as windows and the
capacity of the ventilation system. Unplanned point-based iteration occurred in
the phases design development and detail design when DP did not fulfill the
energy FR. These extra iterations caused additional costs and delays (Le et al.
2012).
6.3 Space objects and functional requirements
When used as containers of functional requirements in BIM tools, space objects

can be used to track FRs and Cs to manage design alternatives in the design
15
Paper III
process (Kiviniemi et al. 2005). It is also recommended by COBIM (2012) that

design teams should use "rough spatial models for alternative designs". In the
case study, only the energy requirements were mapped and made visible.
According to interviews, the economic and resource risks increase if energy
requirements and models were to be developed in the early design phase
because of the uncertainty as to whether the project would ever be completed.
However, the respondents also described early energy analysis for the
evaluation of spatial requirements as being useful because of the opportunity it
presents to assess the impact of energy performance for the design solution and
also the potential it has to reduce rework and non-value-adding iterations later
in the design process. This equivocal attitude may be the reason for the
relatively small involvement of the energy engineering team in specifying the
functional requirements regarding energy and indoor climate, especially in the
early design stages. The design team was more focused on the analysis of design
solutions than the creation of a structure of functional requirements adapted to
stakeholder values.
7. DISCUSSION
Kiviniemi (2005) wrote that the management of requirements in design is

concerned with the verification of design solutions to a set of evolving
requirements throughout the design process. High-level requirements that will
be linked to the design need to be evaluated early in the design process. In the
case studied, a gate ensuring that the functional requirements for energy were
met at the schematic design stage was not set up. Also, the engineering activities
for energy design were fragmented and mostly concerned with the analysis of
the fulfillment of required properties of building parts and systems as proposed
by the architectural and structural designers, rather than on activities based on
a holistic view of a development of an energy efficient design.
Operational islands, like the energy simulations performed in the case study,
need to be connected to the other design disciplines by a framework with
routines to enhance the transparency for the stakeholders and avoid sub-
optimization along with unnecessary design iterations. Axiomatic design offers
a structure to manage requirements and constraints in relation to design
parameters (solutions) by systemizing them in a supporting structure. In the
case study, areas other than energy such as fire, acoustics and environmental
considerations also generated new requirements as the refinement of building
design progressed.
Alternative design solutions were tested to some extent in the case study.
However, the alternative design sets were few and rapidly abandoned in favor
of one solution that progressed as a point-based design strategy. The
16
Paper III
opportunities to manage multiple solutions by using methods such as

parametric 3D modeling and rough spatial models need to be developed in
practice.
The requirement structures derived from the theory of axiomatic design are of
benefit for all stakeholders in building projects such as clients, project
managers, suppliers and end-users (Ye et al. 2009). However, these structures
need to be transformed between different views, connecting customer values
with engineering design and production specifications (Malmgren et al. 2010;
Jensen et al. 2012 ). Therefore, the use of spaces objects is recommended to
communicate and transform client values into requirements.
Managing all the technical expertise required at the early design phase
increases information complexity and can be time-consuming. Here, an
integrated concurrent engineering approach, where functional requirements
are centrally stored, decreases the non-value-adding iterations in the design
process (Jallow et al. 2010) with a lower cost and higher quality as a result
(Chachere 2009).
The study of how energy requirements can be managed using the principals of
the axiomatic design theory only shows a small part of how the theory can be
applied to the design of buildings. In the axiomatic design structure, a client’s
involvement and values need to be considered because, according to Kamara
(1999), both qualitative and quantitative functional requirements are related to
the voice of the customer.
8. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a framework based on the theory of axiomatic design to

support the management of requirements in building design. By studying this
framework within the context of managing energy requirements in the design of
buildings, the following conclusions can be made:
x By identifying and making more transparent the functional requirements

(client's, local and national regulations) and downstream constraints
(from engineering, production and supply) in the design process, better
support for selecting strategies and decision-making is created.
x A set-based design strategy together with the theory of axiomatic design
can be used to manage and evaluate the performance of multiple design
alternatives (DPs) against the established functional requirements (FRs).
x Spatial design models using space objects are useful as containers of
functional requirement structures for e.g. energy, acoustic,
environmental and fire requirements.
17
Paper III
The use of BIM to support the proposed requirement framework needs to be

studied further and connected to construction classification and ontology. Also,
further research is needed on how model-checking tools can be used to
compare requirements (FRs) with the performance of design solutions and
defined constraints (Cs). The use of FRs, Cs and DP structures can probably be
reused as components with associated design and production activities. Finally,
more research is needed in the transformation from customer value to
functional requirement structures e.g. how can an architectural design be
transformed into functional requirement structures?
Acknowledgement
This work was carried out within the competence centre of Lean Wood
Engineering. We gratefully thank the respondents at the case study company for
their time and inspiration. This work was funded by the Swedish Governmental
Agency for Innovation (VINNOVA), the Centre for Energy and Resource
Efficiency in the Built Environment (CERBOF) and the Development Fund of the
Swedish Construction Industry (SBUF).
9. REFERENCES
Apleberger, L., Jonsson, R. & Åhman, P. 2007, Byggandets industrialisering:

nulägesbeskrivning, Sveriges byggindustrier.
Ballard, G. 2000, "Positive vs negative iteration in design", Proceedings Eight Conference of

the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC),Brighton, U.K., 17-19 July.
Bazjanac, V. 2008, "IFC BIM-based methodology for semi-automated building energy

performance simulation", CIB-W78 25th International Conference on Information
Technology in Construction,Santiago, Chile, 15-17 July.
BSAB 2010, Svensk Byggtjänst, AB Svensk Byggtjänst.
Cavique, M. & Gonçalves-Coelho, A. 2009, "An energy efficient framwork for HVAC
systems", The Fifth International Conference on Axiomatic Design, Campus de
Caparica, March 25-27, 2009.
Choo, H.J., Hammond, J., Tommelein, I.D., Austin, S.A. & Ballard, G. 2004, "DePlan: a tool
for integrated design management", Automation in Construction, 13(3), 313-326.
COBIM 2012, Common BIM Requirements 2012, Series 10 Energy requirements, The
Building Information Foundation RTS, Helsinki, Finland.
Eastman, C.M. 2008, BIM Handbook: a Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Ekholm, A. & Fridqvist, S. 1996, "A conceptual framework for classification of construction
works", Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 11-25.
18
Paper III
Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V. & Haas, A. 2005, "Re-inventing air heating: Convenient
and comfortable within the frame of the Passive House concept", Energy and Buildings,
37(11), 1186-1203.
Fiksel, J. & Dunkle, M. 1992, "Principles of requirement management automation",

Combined Proceedings of the 1990 and 1991 Leesburg Workshops on Reliability and
Maintainability Computer-Aided Engineering in Concurrent Engineering, 1990 and
1991, 231.
Gosling, J. & Naim, M.M. 2009, "Engineer-to-order supply chain management: A literature
review and research agenda", International Journal of Production Economics, 122(2),
741-754.
Haymaker, J.R., Chachere, J.M. & Senescu, R.R. 2011, "Measuring and improving rationale
clarity in a university office building design process", Journal of Architectural
Engineering, 17(3), 97-111.
INPRO-D14A 2009, "CAPTURING STAKEHOLDER VALUES", downloaded 04/06/2012

from www.inpro-
roject.eu/docs/InPro_CapturingStakeholderValues_ValuesPreferencesRequirements_P
ublic.pdf.
Jallow, A.K., Demian, P., Baldwin, A.N. & Anumba, C.J. 2008, "Lifecycle approach to
requirements information management in construction projects: state-of-the-art and
future trends", .
Jensen, P., Olofsson, T. & Johnsson, H. 2012, "Configuration through the parameterization
of building components", Automation in Construction, 231-8.
Kamara, J., Anumba, C. & Evbuomwan, N. 1999, "Client requirements processing in

construction: a new approach using QFD", Journal of Architectural Engineering, 58.
Karwowski, K., Wysota, W. & Wytrebowicz, J. 2009, "Computer Aided Requirements

Management", Computational Collective Intelligence.Semantic Web, Social Networks
and Multiagent Systems, 389-400.
Kiviniemi, A. 2005, Requirements Management Interface to Building Product Models,

Stanford University.
Kiviniemi, A., Fischer, M. & V, B. 2005, "Multi-Model Environment: Links between

Objects in Different Building Models", Proceedings of 22nd CIB-W78 Conference
Information Technology in Construction, 277–284.
Le, H.N., Wynn, D.C. & Clarkson, P.J. 2012, "Impacts of concurrency, iteration, design
review, and problem complexity on design project lead time and error generation",
Concurrent Engineering.
Liker, J.K., Sobek, D.K., Ward, A.C. & Cristiano, J.J. 1996, "Involving suppliers in product
development in the United States and Japan: Evidence for set-based concurrent
engineering", Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 43(2), 165-178.
19
Paper III
Magent, C.S., Korkmaz, S., Klotz, L.E. & Riley, D.R. 2009, "A design process evaluation
method for sustainable buildings", Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
5(1-2), 62-74.
Malak, R.J., Aughenbaugh, J.M. & Paredis, C.J.J. 2009, "Multi-attribute utility analysis in
set-based conceptual design", Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 214-227.
Malmqvist, J. 2001, "Implementing requirements management: A task for specialized

software tools or PDM systems?", Systems Engineering, 4(1), 49-57.
Mattar, S.G. 1983, "Buildability and Building Envelope Design", Second Canadian
Conference on Building Science and Technology Waterloo.
Nuseibeh, B. & Easterbrook, S. 2000, "Requirements engineering: a roadmap", Proceedings

of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 04-
11, 2000.
Prasad, B. 1996, Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Integrated Product and Process

Organization, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Schade, J., Olofsson, T. & Schreyer, M. 2011, "Decision-making in a model-based design

process", Construction Management and Economics, 29(4), 371-382.
Schlueter, A. & Thesseling, F. 2009, "Building information model based energy/exergy

performance assessment in early design stages", Automation in Construction, 18(2),
153-163.
Smeds, J. & Wall, M. 2007, "Enhanced energy conservation in houses through high
performance design", Energy and Buildings, 39(3), 273-278.
Suh, N. 2001, Axiomatic Design, Oxford University Press.
WBCSD 2008, Facts and Trends Energy Efficiency in Buildings, World Business Council
for Sustainable Development.
Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M. & Clarkson, P.J. 2007, "Modelling iteration in engineering
design", 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'07, Paris,
FranceCiteseer, .
Ye, J., Hassan, T., Carter, C. & Kemp, L. 2009, "Stakeholders' requirements analysis for a
demand-driven construction industry", Journal of Information Technology in
Construction (ITcon), 14629-641.
Yin, R.K. 2003, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE, London.
20
Paper IV
A cooperative study of the design and

construction of energy-efficient buildings in
Germany and Sweden
Schade, J., Wallström, P., Olofsson, T. Lagerqvist, O
Submitted to Energy Policy (October 2012) accepted with

revision (December 2012)
Paper IV
A comparative study of the design and construction of

energy efficient buildings in Germany and Sweden
Jutta Schade, Peter Wallström, Thomas Olofsson, Ove Lagerqvist

Construction Engineering and Management, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural
Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden
Phone number: +46 (0)706694983
e-mail: jutsch@ltu.se
Abstract
Reducing the energy consumption of buildings is an important goal for the European
Union. However, it is therefore of interest to investigate how different member states
address this goals. Countries like Sweden and Germany have developed different
strategies for energy conservation within the building sector. A longitudinal
comparison between implemented energy conservation key policy instruments in
Sweden and Germany and a survey regarding the management of energy
requirements in the building process shows that:
No evidence is found that energy consumption is of great importance for
producing competitive offers, either for Swedish or German clients.
The Swedish market-driven policy has not been as successful as the German
regulation policy in decreasing the energy consumption of new buildings.
Building standards and regulations regarding energy performance affects how
professionals are educated and the way energy requirements and demands are
managed throughout the building process.
In conclusion, the client's demand will govern the development of energy efficient
buildings. Therefore, in order to use market-driven policies, the desired parameters
must be of concern for the customer to influence the majority of building projects to
be more energy efficient than is specified in national standards and regulations.
Keywords: building sector, Energy efficiency, Energy policy instruments
Introduction
The building stock in Europe accounts for over 40% of the energy consumption in
the European Union (European Commission, 2011). As we spend most of our time in
enclosed spaces, the use of technology to improve the thermal comfort inside
buildings has steadily increased, causing a corresponding increase in energy
consumption. However, investment costs are still the focus for procurement of new
buildings (Bescherer, 2005; Lindholm and Suomala, 2004; Woodward, 1997;
Dowlatshahi, 1992)
The energy performance of the building is often not assessed before the detailed
design phase (Schlueter and Thesseling, 2008). At this stage in the design process,
only minor changes to the building design can be implemented since a major "make-
over" results in high extra costs. From a life cycle perspective, energy analyses that
are performed late in the design phase limit the opportunities for energy optimization
and fulfilment of requirements for low energy performance (Bazjanac, 2009).
1
Paper IV
The performance goal for buildings in the European Union is a reduction in energy
consumption of 20% by 2020 (European Commission, 2011).The European
Commission estimates that the energy saving potential for residential and
commercial buildings is up to 30% (European Commission, 2006). However,
European countries have been adopting different strategies for energy conservation
in the building sector. For example, Sweden which, politically, has a more socially
responsible framework compared with other European countries (Jorden and
Lenschow, 2010), has implemented a more client-driven energy policy for new
buildings and renovation, making the construction sector rely more on market
conditions than on regulations for energy conservation. Germany which, politically,
has a more technological problem solving approach (Jorden and Lenschow, 2010),
revealed its desire for the reduction of energy consumption with new regulations for
new buildings and renovations in 2011.
From a purely economic perspective, this would indicate that the drives for energy
conservation are stronger in the Swedish market compared to the German market, or
that the political ambition to save energy in the building sector is higher in Germany
compared to Sweden. Historically, during the 1970s and 1980s, the regulation of
energy efficiency in the building sector significantly improved both in Sweden and
Germany. While the building codes were de-regulated in the late 1980s and
beginning of the 1990s in Sweden (Nässén et al., 2005), Germany continued to
amend the building codes, yielding an average energy reduction for new buildings
over the past 30 years of over 75% (Friedrich et al., 2007; Kiss, 2010).
Has this difference in the political governance and regulation of the sector affected
the energy performance of new buildings and how it is managed in the building
process? The aim of this research is to investigate how different energy conservation
key policy instruments influence the building process of new buildings in Sweden
and Germany.
First, a short review regarding the design and analysis of the energy performance of
buildings is presented, followed by an introduction to the market drivers and
regulatory instruments. Then, a longitudinal comparison between Germany and
Sweden is described, relating to energy conservation key policy instruments that
have been implemented. In order to explore how this has affected the management of
energy performance in the current design and construction process, a survey in the
form of a questionnaire was sent out to Swedish and German architects and
engineers. Finally, the results of the survey are presented, discussed and the
implications of findings are described.
Instruments of energy performance of buildings
Design of energy performance
Buildings should be designed and constructed to fulfil the needs of their users. Many
of these needs are expressed as functional and technical requirements by society
through the building codes, standards and local regulations. When new buildings are
designed, these needs and requirements must be considered. The energy performance
of buildings is often regulated through building codes.
It is widely acclaimed that the most important design decisions concerning building's
performance depend on decisions taken early in the design process (Schlueter and
Thesseling, 2009).Today, these decisions are often made with only minor
2
Paper IV
consideration of energy use and indoor environment (Nielsen, 2005). The energy
performance aspects are often not considered before the detailed design phase
(Schlueter and Thesseling, 2009). At this stage of the design process, only small
changes to the building design are possible since changes often result in high
additional costs. The space heating energy consumption of a building can be reduced
by up to 80% if the orientation, building shape, insulation and ventilation are
optimized in the design process (Feist et al., 2005; Smeds and Wall, 2007).
The European research project InPro (Olofsson et al., 2010) proposed a strategy for
energy performance analyses that dealt with energy consumption and indoor climate
simulation, to guide the design in a more energy efficient direction in the early
design phase and at different stages of the design process. Furthermore, a decision-
making framework to support a performance-based design process was developed
(Schade et al., 2010), covering a rough estimation early in the process regarding the
location, orientation, total area and number of floors to the more detailed analysis
and simulation of energy consumption and indoor climate at room level in the later
stages (Herronen, 2008; Schade, 2009). However, how an energy-efficient design is
carried out is dependent on the energy requirements put forward in the design
process.
Environmental classification systems provide guidelines and requirements for
improving the environmental performance of a building above normal standards. Of
the classification systems available on the market, the passive house classification
focuses solely on energy consumption. Specific design templates have been
developed to adjust the building components to fulfil the goal of 15 kWh/m2a for
heating demand and 120 kWh/m2a for the total use of energy. The European
definition of passive houses has been considered rather restrictive in cold climates
above the latitude of 60° north; 25 – 35 kWh/m2a is suggested as a more realistic
goal for heating demand (Lylykangas and Nieminen, 2008; Pedersen and Peuhkuri,
2009)
Whether the requirements come from the client directly or through some
environmental classification system, the performance can be said to be driven by
market demands, but how strong is the marked demand? The other possibility is that
requirements are defined by regulation to meet a performance threshold defined by
the political system. In the latter case, the performance is driven by regulations.
Performance driven by regulations
A common view amongst economists is the concept of a free market. Government
intervention and regulations will lead to a dysfunctional market (Zerbe and
McCurdy, 1999). According to Gann et al.; “The traditional view that standards and
technological change are antithetical is challenged by recent indications that an
appropriate match between design of standards and their goals within a sector-
specific context can aid innovation” (Gann et al.,1998). Tax as a regulation
instrument is also controversial. Wickman and Lingle (2004) believed that tax-cut
policies benefitting individual stakeholders can favour groups that have lobbyists.
Other economists believe that taxes are a cost-effective way to regulate (Hahn and
Stavins, 1992) but can lead to a loss of competitiveness (Lee and Yik, 2004).
However, other research indicates that there are also non-economic causes that affect
energy consumption and decisions. Sandstad and Howarth (1994) concluded that
analysing transaction cost is more conceptual than empirical. DeCanio (1998)
3
Paper IV
concluded that economic parameters alone cannot explain a company’s decision. A

company might avoid profitable energy alternatives or savings based on non-
economic reasons; therefore, organizational concerns must be taken into account.
Personal values will also influence energy consumption (Stern, 1986). Brown (2001)
and Nässén et al. (2008) discussed the principal-agent problem that results in
optimizing short-term costs instead of long-term savings, including energy. The
problem with energy is that it is not a well-defined product (Nässén et al., 2008).
There has been research that has suggested a mix of regulation and voluntary
instruments is more efficient than using them separately (Lee and Yik 2004; Bennear
and Stavins, 2007). Also, a growing body of literature claims that general
performance requirements allow firms the freedom to innovate while prescriptive
standards stifle creativity (Hemenway, 1981; Breyer, 1982; David, 1995, Gann et al.,
1998) Gann et al. (1998) investigated performance-based contra-prescriptive
standards for the building sector. The study showed that the performance-based
standard, which should give more innovative freedom to companies, encourages a
continued focus on component parts as with a prescriptive standard. Monitoring the
whole system using performance-based standards seems too complex.
Requirements based only on voluntary participation have a limited effect. During the
1990s, a series of voluntary environmental classification concepts were launched in
different areas. However, these led to only modest environmental results according to
Lee and Yik (2004). They also believed that the market should be given more space
to operate since laws and energy policies can only have a moderate effect on the
reduction of energy consumption.
On the other hand, Geller et al. (2006) stated that minimum efficiency standards can
be a very effective strategy for stimulating energy efficiency improvements on a
large scale, if they are updated periodically. However, policy-makers should ensure
that efficiency standards are technically and economically feasible. Also, voluntary
agreements between governments and the private sector can be effective especially in
situations where regulations are difficult to enact or enforce. To be effective,
voluntary agreements should be complemented with financial incentives, technical
assistance where needed and the threat of taxes or regulation if companies fail to
meet their commitments (Geller et al., 2006).
Performance driven by market demands
To be successful, a company must provide the right product or service for its
customers. To secure an order, the company must fulfil certain criteria that are
important to the customer. If there are gaps between the current performance and
customer requirements, these gaps must be closed in order for the company to be
competitive in the market. In manufacturing strategy literature, these important
criteria are usually described in terms of cost, quality, dependability and flexibility
according to Voss (1995). A variation of this can be found in Miltenburg (1995),
Stevenson (2005) and Krawjeski et al. (2010).
Hill (1993) and Berry et al. (1999) introduced the terms “order-winners” and
“qualifiers” as an alternative to the different criteria when functional strategies are
formed. General statements are too imprecise to be of help. Order-winner relates to
specific criteria, for example price, that makes the customer choose one company
over all others. But there is rarely only one criterion that is involved in the order
decision process. There are other criteria that must be met to secure the order. These
4
Paper IV
criteria are called qualifiers. If the price is low but the quality criteria are not
fulfilled, the order will not be won. The development of order-winners and qualifiers
must identify the level of influence of a qualifier. There is a difference between a
qualifier and an order-losing qualifier. More important qualifiers are given higher
weights compared with less important ones. As the market changes, so will the
weight of qualifiers. The relevant order-winners or qualifiers can also be found as
part of the design strategy of companies.
In order to use a market-driven improvement of a certain criterion, such as energy
efficiency, the criterion must be an order-winner or an order-qualifier, otherwise
companies will not actively improve that criterion. This means that the requirement
for energy efficiency above the normal standards must come from the market.
Implementation and outcome of energy policies in Germany and

Sweden
Germany
Since the 1970s, Germany has introduced a range of policy instruments for energy
conservation in buildings. As a consequence of the parliamentary adoption of the
energy saving law (act) in 1976, more than 25 legal standards have been developed
over the years, see figure 2. 1977 saw the first heat insulation ordinance and, in 1978,
the heat appliance ordinance was implemented. These ordinances were revised over
the years until they were merged in 2002 into the new energy saving ordinance, the
so called EnEV. The EnEV has been revised in 2004, 2007 and in 2009. A new
EnEV revision is planned for 2012, which reduces the minimum energy standard
again by 30% compared to 2009. Also of note is the heating plant operational
ordinance which was implemented in 1978.
Other important policy instruments are the heat cost ordinance (1981) which
regulates the metering of heating and warm water cost per housing unit. The mineral
oil tax law from 1939 was replaced by the energy tax law in 2006. The Eco Tax was
reformed in 1999 and is mainly a tax on fossil fuels. The energy performance
certification for new buildings has been compulsory since 1995 and for major
refurnished buildings since 2002. Since 2008, all residential buildings have needed
an energy performance certificate.
5
Paper IV
1978 Heating 1995 certification for

plant operation new buildings
ordinance
1999 Eco
1978 Heating 2006 Energy
Tax
appliance ordinance tax law
Reform
1976 Energy
saving law
1977 Heat insulation 2002 Energy
ordinance saving
ordinance
1981 Heat Cost
Ordinance
1999
100 000 Roofs Program
1993 2001 Program for energy

Solarthermie efficient construction and
2000 Program renovation
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 1. Timeline of key policy instruments implemented in Germany

The regulations have been continuously amended between 1977 and 2009 and have
required approximately 30% better energy performance at every amendment. As a
result, the average energy demand for heating in new buildings has been reduced
from about 170 kWh/m2a to less than 40 kWh/m2a over the past 30 years (Friedrich
et. al., 2007; Kiss, 2010).
Financial incentives have been implemented since the 1990s through the German
state-owned KfW bank, to support specified renewable energy projects like the
solarthermie program or the Photovoltaic program (the so-called 100 000 roof
program) with low interest loans. From 2001, the KfW bank has supported energy
efficient construction and renovation of buildings.
According to Odyssee (2012), the household sector has reduced the space heating in
Germany from approximately 125 kWh/m2a in 1990 to 85 kWh/m2a in 2009.
Sweden
In 1946, the first Swedish building regulation was introduced which set a minimum
requirement for insulation for different building components and different climate
zones across the country (BABS, 1946). In 1977, the energy supplement to the
building regulation from 1975 (SBN 1975) came into force, which strengthened the
requirements for the energy efficiency of buildings. The regulation has been revised
on several occasions since then, see figure 3. The building regulation BFS1988, that
came into force in 1989, significantly changed the code system from specific
requirements on building components and materials to a system based on
performance requirements applied to building parts. The required insulation could be
achieved by different means which allowed for more flexibility in the design solution
of the building. In 2006, the new building code BBR12 set a minimum standard for
the energy performance of the buildings dependent on the climate zones across the
country and introduced a requirement for the whole building envelope. In 2008, the
law for energy declaration was introduced, making it mandatory for residential
buildings to have an energy performance certificate.
6
Paper IV
A number of voluntary agreements have also been applied in Sweden. Bygga Bo

Dialogen, Bebo and Belok are all examples of organisations working to improve
energy efficiency through networking. Bygga Bo Dialogen 1998-2010, for example,
is a cooperative of companies, municipalities, national and local authorities and the
Swedish government with the goal of creating a sustainable building and property
sector before 2025 (Hållbara Städer 2012, McCornick and Neij, 2009). Bebo and
Belok are collaborations between the Swedish Energy Agency and the largest
property owners in Sweden (BeBo, 2012; Belok, 2012). Bebo has been active since
1989 and launched initiatives including technology procurement to support new
innovations such as energy efficient windows (Belok, 2012)
1989 New building 2006 building

regulation regulation including
energy consumption
1977energy 1991 CO₂ Tax 2008 Energy

efficiency declaration
supplement to the
building regulation
1989 Voluntary 2001Voluntary

agreements agreements
(Bebo) (Belok)
1998 Voluntary
agreements (Bygga
Bo Dialogen)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 2. Timeline of key policy instruments implemented in Sweden after

McCornick and Neij (2009)
In Sweden, the development of the building codes has not been accompanied by the
development of any strategic evaluation plans. The contractors bear full
responsibility to fulfil the regulations (McCornik and Neij, 2009).
Comparative analysis
Sweden benefits from a long history of public support for environmental policies
and, according to Eurobarometer (2009), 87% of Swedes consider themselves well
informed about the consequences of climate changes compared to 68% of Germans
in the same category. Both Germany and Sweden are using a combination of
different policy instruments to improve the energy efficiency in the housing sector
such as regulation, subsidies and taxes (Brunn, 2010; McCormick and Neij, 2009).
While Germany has applied strict domestic policies and standards (Lifferink and
Andersen, 1998), Sweden has a more moderate energy regulation policy regarding
new buildings and recommendations for renovation (Nässén et al., 2008).
The German regulations regarding energy efficiency have been continuously
amended since 1970, improving energy performance by approximately 30% at each
amendment. As a result, the average energy demand for heating in new buildings has
7
Paper IV
been reduced from about 170 kWh/m2a to less than 40 kWh/m2a over the past 30
years. (Fridrich et al., 2007; Kiss, 2010).
Odyssee (2012) compared how much the household sector reduced space heating in
different European countries. While Germany reduced the consumption by 32%,
from approximately 125 kWh/m2a in 1990 to 85 kWh/m2a in 2009, Sweden reduced
the consumption by 15%, from 115 kWh/m2a to 98 kWh/m2a, during the same
period.
While the Swedish building sector improved the energy efficiency of buildings
significantly during the1970s and early 1980s, the improvements stagnated in the late
80s and 90s (Nässén et al., 2005). Elmroth (2002) also showed that the measured
energy consumption in Swedish houses, built in the 1990s, could be 50 – 100%
higher than the estimated energy use. Nässen et al. (2005 and 2008) argued that the
current Swedish standard has little effect and the standard has only been marginally
improved since 1977. Nässen and Holmberg (2008) also claimed that the Swedish
national energy standard has been developed into a norm, rather than a minimum for
energy performance in the Swedish market.
To investigate how the regulation has affected the energy performance since 1970,
the heating demand has been calculated (excluding hot tap water) according to
Swedish standards for a two floor house in southern Sweden. The resulting demand
has been compared to a similar study by Witt (2008) in Germany, see figure 3. While
the standards in Germany have been steadily improved, the main improvements in
Sweden occurred before 1990. The lower curve in figure 3 shows the technical
development of low energy buildings.
8
Paper IV
Figure 3. Comparison between the German and Swedish energy regulations and the
resulting heating demand excluding hot water from 1978 to 2012. (This figure is
based for Germany on Witt (2008) and for Sweden on a basic calculation for a 140m2
two floor single house in southern Sweden)1
Regarding environmental classifications, statistics from the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors (2011) over Europe show that there were very few BREEM and
LEED certified buildings in both Germany and Sweden. In March 2011, only 4
Swedish and 9 German LEED buildings were certified and another 26 and 105
buildings in Sweden and Germany respectively registered for certification.
Regarding BREEM certified building, there were only 3 Swedish and 6 German
buildings and another 3 and 8 buildings in Sweden and Germany respectively
registered for certification.
International certifications are not so easy to adapt to a country-specific standard
which can be one explanation why so few buildings have been certified. As an
example, the Swedish Green building council is currently working on a version of
LEED which is suitable to Swedish legislation, called ACP (Alternative Compliance
Path). The German Sustainable Building Council has developed its own country-
specific Green building certificate, the so-called DGNB; currently, there are 285
certified buildings in Germany.
Regarding passive houses, there are 1596 certified passive house projects in
Germany and 3 certified passive house projects in Sweden. Another 108 certified
passive houses in Sweden have been completed, according to the Swedish passive
house standard which is an adjusted version of the passive house standard, amended
to be suitable for the Swedish climate. The actual number of passive houses is
1
The comparison has been carried out between southern Sweden and Germany so that approximately
equal climate conditions are compared (for example, Munich and Malmö have a similar number of
heating degree days (Munich=2762 and Malmö 2713))
9
Paper IV
higher, since not all buildings are registered on the passive house database.
According to regional economic data for Europe, the number of passive houses rose
to more than 13 500 in 2010 in Germany.
The energy regulations have developed differently in both countries. Sweden started
with a very strict regulation in the 1970s, making it a model country for energy
efficient housing in the early 1980s (Schipper, 1985). The strict regulation in Sweden
developed into a more moderate regulation which stagnated in the 1990s until the
present time. German regulation was less strict in the 1970s but have been
continuously amended since then improving energy performance by approximately
30% for each amendment. At present, German regulation requires approximately half
of the energy consumption for heat demand than the Swedish regulation for the south
of Sweden. Both countries do not have a high number of LEED and BREEM
certificated buildings as the country-specific standard is not easily adaptable. The
higher number of passive houses in Germany indicates that this kind of low energy
house seems to be better established in German markets than in Swedish markets.
Survey
Sampling and design of questionnaire
A survey was constructed to understand how architects and engineers in Sweden and
Germany apply energy conservation strategies during the design and construction
phases. The questionnaires were web-based and were sent by e-mail to 1262 German
and 513 Swedish architects and engineers, including passive house planners and
energy advisers in November and December 2010.
The architects and engineers were selected by use of a stratified sampling method.
The stratification was based on the total number of members in architectural and
engineering societies in each country and their regional distribution. The number of
people employed in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector in
Sweden is smaller as the general population is smaller. To ensure a big enough
sample group in Sweden, a higher percentage of engineers and architects was chosen.
In order to overcome problems with the response rates, engineers and architects
working in the design and planning stages in building projects were selected and
other types of architects and engineers working with e.g. landscaping and road
construction were excluded. The random selection was done using the random
function in Excel. The response rate was 12% in Germany and 41% in Sweden.
The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section contained questions
about the respondent, such as age, education etc. The second section covered
questions regarding the analysis of the energy performance of buildings in relation to
the design and construction process. The third section contained follow-up questions
regarding the process and reasons and motives for not carrying out an energy
analysis. The questions consisted of multiple choice alternatives and possibilities to
add options not listed in the first section. Sections two and three contained questions
using multiple choice, 5-point Likert scale or binary choice. The selected participants
represented a random selection of architects and civil engineers.
As Sweden and Germany have different terms regarding the phases in the design and
construction process, they were adjusted to the naming convention used in the InPro
project (Olofsson et al., 2009), see table 1.
10
Paper IV
Table 1. The InPro German and Swedish naming convention regarding the phases in
the design and construction process.
InPro Phase Germany Sweden
Goals Grundlagenermittlung Idéskedet
Feasibility Vorplanung/ Entwurfsplanung Förslags-/programskedet
Building Genehmigungsplanung Systemprojektering
design
Detailed Ausführungsplanung Detaljprojektering
design Vorbereitung/Mitwirkung bei der
Vergabe
Realisation Bauausführung/bauüberwachung Byggskedet
Operation Gebäudeverwaltung Förvaltningsskedet
Analysis and sample grouping

The sample was split into six groups, German architects, German engineers, German
others, Swedish architects, Swedish engineers and Swedish others. The two groups
marked as “others”, with 41 German respondents (26%) and 27 Swedish respondents
(31%), were excluded from the analysis since they both had a large range of
educational levels and professional roles compared to the architect and engineer
groups.
The grouping according to occupation was due to the large difference in respondents
between architects and engineers from each country. There were a lot more
respondents that were architects than engineers from Germany. The opposite was
true for the Swedish respondents - more engineers than architects. Since there was a
statistical difference between the numbers of in each occupation in each country, the
analysis was performed between the groups German architects and Swedish
architects and the groups German engineers and Swedish engineers. A comparison
between German and Swedish respondents would have effectively been a
comparison between German architects and Swedish engineers. The sample group is
shown in table 2.
Table 2. Sample grouping and % of those further educated as energy advisor or
passive house planner
Groups Respondents Further education as energy
advisor or passive house planner
Architect SE 45 38%
Engineer SE 138 20%
Architect DE 76 82%
Engineer DE 40 86%
11
Paper IV
Three statistical classification tests were used in the analysis: binary logistic
regression, the Mann-Whitney test and the 2-sample t-test. Since the distribution
differed between the questions and the subgroups, as well as the number of answers,
no single method could be singled out as the best method, since all tests have their
strengths and limitations. The binary logistic regression and the Mann-Whitney test
have no distribution assumption. However, the binary logistic regression is sensitive
to small sample groups and the Mann-Whitney test works best if the distributions
have similar appearances and scales. The 2-sample t-test performs best if the samples
have normal distributions, but the test does not require a similar variance between the
groups. Therefore, if all tests were significant for a certain question, the difference
between the two groups was considered to be significant.
Result
Table 3 shows the involvement of the Swedish and German architects and engineers
in the building process. There is some difference between the two occupational
groups in each country. German architects are always more involved in the design
and construction process compared to German engineers. The probability that the
differences between the mean in each phase is random is less than 1.6% for the
German architects. In Sweden, the architects are more involved in the early phases
compared to the Swedish engineers. The conclusion is that the German architects act
as project leader more than their Swedish counterparts.
Table 3. The involvement of the Swedish and German architects and engineers in the
design process
Swedish Swedish German German
Architect Engineer Architect Engineer
Mean (σ) Mean (σ) Mean (σ) Mean (σ)
Goals 4.22 (0.9) 2.61 (1.33) 4.14 (1.14) 2.68 (1.38)

Feasibility 4.31 (0.82) 2.99 (1.32) 4.38 (1.03) 3.25 (1.32)
Building 4.04 (1.07) 3.4 (1.40) 4.36 (0.95) 3.4 (1.35)
design
Detailed 3.96 (1.00) 3.52 (1.42) 4.20 (1.17) 3.55 (1.22)
design
Realisation 2.91 (0.95) 3.3 (1.38) 3.62 (1.40) 3.28 (1.47)
Operation 1.33 (0.52) 2.32 (1.32) 1.64 (1.14) 1.45 (0.93)
Regarding the individual involvement in the different phases, there is no significant

difference between German and Swedish engineers in the first 5 phases. In the last
phase, operation, the Swedish engineers are more involved compared to German
engineers. A similar tendency is found between German and Swedish architects,
where German architects are more involved in the realisation phase. In the last phase,
operation, a significant difference is found, with the exception of the binary logistic
regression, between German and Swedish architects indicating that German
12
Paper IV
architects are also more involved in operation. This difference in the last two phases
also suggests that the architect role is different in both countries. The German
architects' role as project leader compared with the Swedish architects' role as
designer means that German architects are more involved in the building process as a
whole.
Table 4 shows a comparison of where in the building process energy consumption is
analysed. There is no significant difference between the German and Swedish
engineers and architects where energy consumption is determined in the building
process. However, two significant differences can be found between the Swedish and
German engineers involved in a project where the energy consumption had been
analysed during the last year. The first difference is that it was more common to
carry out energy analysis in the detailed design phase in Sweden. The second
difference was that it was more common to carry out energy analysis in the operating
phase in Sweden. The second difference may be attributed to legal reasons, as it is
required by Swedish law, but also due to the fact that Swedish engineers in the
sample group are more involved in the operating phase.
Table 4. Comparison of where in the process energy consumption is analysed from
the Swedish and German AEC sector (mean value)
Phase German Swedish German Swedish
Architects Architects Engineer Engineer
Mean (σ) Mean (σ) Mean (σ) Mean (σ)
Goals 2.44 (1.24) 2.53 (1.01) 2.31 (1.45) 2.46 (0.91)
Feasibility 3.73 (1.47) 3.19 (1.01) 2.94 (1.39) 3.02 (1.07)
Building design 3.36 (1.58) 3.83 (0.91) 3.60 (1.50) 3.74 (1.09)
Detailed design 3.73 (1.47) 3.26 (1.18) 2.94 (1.39) 3.85 (1.29)
Realisation 3.30 (1.72) 2.00 (1.06) 2.21 (1.58) 2.67 (1.27)
Operation 2.85 (1.57) 3.00 (1.41) 2.46 (1.66) 3.71 (1.23)
Among the Swedish and German architects there is a significant difference in the
realisation phase where an energy analysis is performed more often in Germany. This
is common in low energy building projects, such as passive house certification
procedures, where blow door tests and other adjustments need to be verified. Both
Swedish and the German architects have higher mean values in the feasibility,
building and detailed design phases. It is noted that the variation is higher among
German architects in both tables 3 and 4. This might indicate a larger spread of the
architectural role in German building projects compared to Swedish practice.
Comparing the reasons for analysing energy consumption, see table 5, there is only
one significant difference between German and Swedish architects. It is more
important to fulfil the requirements of the company’s own quality system in
Germany compared to Sweden.
13
Paper IV
Table 5. The reasons for analysing energy consumption (architects)

Reasons to do analysis German Swedish German Swedish
Mean (σ) Mean (σ) rank rank
fulfil regulations 4.42 (1.09) 4.17 (1.29) 2 2

fulfil classification system (LEED, 3.17 (1.58) 3.11 (1.37) 5 5
BREEM, GreenBuildings etc.)
fulfil client demand 4.62 (0.70) 4.39 (0.84) 1 1
fulfil company’s own quality system 4.39 (0.88) 3.47 (1.07) 3 3
produce competitive offers 2.76 (1.41) 2.39 (1.03) 6 6
compare different alternatives 3.76 (1.14) 3.30 (0.95) 4 4
The reasons were ranked according to mean value for both countries. The ranking is
the same for both German and Swedish architects. Also, the standard deviations
indicated that this question had the highest degree of consensus.
The highest mean, rank 1, for architects in both countries was to fulfil client demand
followed by to fulfil regulations. The lowest rankings, 5 and 6, were to fulfil
classification system and to produce competitive offers. From a market perspective,
this indicates that neither "...classification system" nor "...produce competitive"
energy conservation offers can be an order-winner or even an order-qualifier
criterion. The importance to fulfil client demand is really a manifestation of the
construction product offer as an investment service in building properties, (Akintoye
et al., 2000). If the client is not asking for energy conservation from the investment
services, the second most important reason - fulfil the regulations (BBR 18; EnEV),
will govern how energy efficient the building will be designed and constructed both
in Sweden and Germany.
The next table, table 6, shows the ranking of the reasons for not performing an
analysis of energy consumption. In contrast with table 5, the Swedish architects have,
in general, higher mean values for the reason for not carrying out the analysis
compared to the German architects. Furthermore, the standard deviation is also lower
for the Swedish architects which suggests there is a higher degree of consensus
among the Swedish architects regarding the reason listed. The difference between the
German and Swedish architects is significant for all the reasons except the not
necessary, small... reason. The ranking of mean values reveals some differences
between the German and Swedish architects. The number one reason for not
performing an analysis in Germany is projects with standard solution while this
reason is ranked as number 2 in Sweden. The highest ranked reason in Sweden is no
request from clients while this is number 2 in Germany. However, the differences
between the two top reasons in both countries are minor.
14
Paper IV
Table 6. The reasons for not analysing energy consumption during the design
process (architects)
Reasons not to analyse German Swedish German Swedish
Mean (σ) Mean (σ) rank rank
no request from clients 2.93 (1.54) 3.71 (1.46) 2 1
rules of thumb estimation sufficient 2.75 (1.27) 3.34 (1.05) 4 3
too expensive 2.85 (1.47) 2.86 (1.14) 3 4
not necessary. small projects with 3.1 (1.39) 3.58 (1.23) 1 2
standard solutions
In table 7, the tables 5 and 6 above are combined to rank all the propositions for each
country and a combination of both. The results are rather similar for Swedish and
German architects. The two top ranked reason are the fulfil client demand followed
by fulfil regulations while the reason produces competitive offers is at the bottom of
the combined list.
The analysis from a market perspective is still valid. According to Hill (1993) and
Berry et al.(1999), a customer (or client) decides in favour of a certain product or
service if that product or service can meet important customer criteria. There are
certain criteria that are necessary and must be fulfilled, order qualifiers, and there are
criteria that, in the end, decide the customer’s choice, order winners. The reason for
performing energy analysis is more based on regulation than on customer demand.
The AEC industry does not value the energy criterion unless the client asks for it.
The reasons where we found significant differences between Swedish and German
architects are highlighted in bold text in table 7. The higher ranking of fulfil
company’s own quality system, the lower ranking of rules of thumb and no request
from clients in Germany is believed to be an indication that the fulfilment of the
regulations is more detailed and this needs to proven by comparison of the German
regulations with the Swedish regulations.
15
Paper IV
Table 7. Combined ranking of the mean values from table 5 and table 6
Reasons to/not to do analysis German Swedish Combined
ranking ranking ranking
fulfil client demand 1 1 2
fulfil regulations 2 2 4
fulfil company’s own quality system 3 5 8
not necessary, small projects with
standard solutions 6 4 10
no request from clients 7 3 10
compare different alternatives 4 7 11
fulfil classification system (LEED,
BREEM, GreenBuildings etc.) 5 8 13
rules of thumb estimation sufficient 10 6 16
too expensive 8 9 17
produces competitive offers 9 10 19
The satisfaction with the process of energy analyses in the design and construction
phases was also investigated, see figure 4. There is a significant difference between
Sweden and Germany where German architects are more satisfied with the process
(median value 4) than their Swedish counterparts (median value 3). The German
result has a higher mean and lower spread compared with the Swedish result. Also,
the German distribution is skewed toward the higher grades while the Swedish
distribution is quite symmetrical. To be certain that the energy education did not
influence the respondents’ answers, an additional test was performed grouping those
with further energy education versus those without further energy education for each
country. However, no significant difference in answers between the two groups could
be found. Among the engineers, no statistical difference could be determined.
40,0
35,0
Sweden %
30,0 Germany %
Per cent
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
1 2 3 4 5
Grade
Figure 4. Showing the architects’ satisfaction in percentage terms of their energy
analysing process.
16
Paper IV

From a market perspective, the client's demand for energy efficient buildings will
govern the development of energy efficient buildings. The client's demands and
requests are a top priority for the architects from both countries. The architects' client
focus has previously been confirmed by Akintoye et al. (2000). The clients can
therefore influence the energy performance of a building. But this requires that the
clients have an interest in energy efficient buildings.
One of the major objections to regulation is that it leads to stagnation since there is
no incentive to be better than the regulation. There are examples of market
innovations regarding energy efficient buildings such as LEED, BREEM and Passive
house. However, very few buildings have been certified in Sweden and Germany.
Why? According the theory of order winners and qualifiers, at least one energy-
related qualifier or winner should be present in the client's list of requests. If not, the
market will most likely not lead the energy development. Why should a company
invest in providing energy efficient options if there is no demand? The analysis of
the questionnaire shows no evidence that energy performance is of great importance
for producing order winning offer. Other issues seem to be more important to clients.
This is regardless whether it is Swedish or German clients.
The history of energy regulation differs between the two countries, see figure 3.
Sweden started with a strict and detailed regulation of the building codes in the late
1970s and 1980s. Strict in the sense of the limits that was provided for the energy
related requirements and detailed regarding how these requirements were expressed
as technical specifications rather than functional requirements. In the 1990s this was
abandoned for a more market oriented building code with less detailed technical
requirements in favour of functionally expressed requirements. According to Nässen
et al. (2005) this shift has hindered the improvement of the energy efficiency in new
buildings. The German regulations have been amended four times during the same
period. Each time the heating demands were lowered by approximately 30 %. Figure
5 shows the relative decrease in space heating in Germany and Sweden 1990-2008.
In Sweden the largest decrease occurred during the first year of the time period
followed by no or smaller changes as the regulations changed. In Germany, on the
other hand, there has been a decrease for most of years especially towards the end of
the period. The stricter building code regulation is probably one of the explanations
for the German decrease.
17
Paper IV
140
120
100
80
Sweden
60
Germany
40
20
0
2004
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 5. Development of space heating demand (kWh/m2a) for the building stock in
Germany and Sweden between 1990 – 2008 (Odyssee, 2012).
The results from the questionnaire regarding the management of energy analysis
show:
x There are no significant differences where in the design process the energy
consumption for the building is determined.
x The role of the architect differs. German architects are more involved in the
whole design and construction process compared to Swedish architects. This
might explain why the German architects are more frequently further
educated as energy advisors or passive house planners in order to act as
project leader.
x Swedish engineers deem carrying out energy analysis in the operating stage
to be more important than German engineers. This is probably due to the
Swedish regulations stating that there must be a follow-up of the energy
performance 2 years after construction.
x The different ranking of reasons for the to do/not to do energy analysis in
Germany and Sweden is an indication of the difference in regulations and
requirements of energy performance proved by analysis.
x Swedish architects are less satisfied compared to German architects with the
way energy performance is managed during the design and construction
process. A client-driven process is, in many ways, more vulnerable and
dependent on the demand and knowledge of the client compared to a process
regulated by national codes.
In conclusion:
x The power of the market as an energy efficiency improver cannot be
confirmed. Market forces seem to be too weak to influence the majority of
building projects to be more energy efficient than is specified in national
standards and regulations.
Building standards and regulations regarding energy performance affects how
professionals are educated and the way energy requirements and demands are
managed throughout the building process. An area for future research is the
18
Paper IV
combination of market demand and regulation. If the gap between what is

technologically possible and national regulations becomes too large, the market has
little interest in reducing the energy consumption beyond the regulation and
companies and/or local authorities can decide to impose stricter energy efficiency
demands (Schreurs, 2008). In Sweden, many cities and construction companies have
declared that they will set their own stricter energy performance standards for new
buildings (Miljöanpassat byggande Göteborg, 2009; Anton Teknikkonsult AB,
2012)2. Such a diversification of requirements can counteract the harmonization of
regulations in order to increase competition in the construction sector (Fasth, 2012;
Anton Teknikkonsult AB, 2012)3. In Sweden (2012) the government proposed a
law/regulation that prohibits local authorities to demand anything stricter than the
current national regulation. Such a law can hamper the development of energy
efficiency buildings according the research of Lee and Yik (2004) and Bennear and
Stavins (2007) since it will be illegal to introduce local requirements better than the
national regulation.
Lee and Yik (2004) and Bennear and Stavins (2007) suggest a combination of
regulation and market orientation. However, any regulation of the market will lead to
imperfection according to the market advocates. The self-regulatory effect of the
market will balance supply and demand. One of the regulators of demand is the price
that to a large extent depends on the scarcity of a commodity. As the commodity
becomes scarcer the price will go up and balance the lack of supply. Hart and Spiro
(2011) conclude that the influence of scarcity is generally overrated. Also, the results
of this analysis show little or no evidence of client influence and demand for energy
conservation. This is regardless of country and the different gaps. Future research
will therefore be needed to investigate how market forces of energy conservation
measures can be stimulated. It seems like the regulatory upper limit must be chosen
according to what is possible in order to push the development of measures that are
both effective regarding energy conservation and cost. The main challenge in the
future will be to develop cost and energy effective systems for the renovation and
modernising of the building stock of Europe.
The question of energy efficiency is larger and more complex than just market versus
regulation. The dependable supply of energy is one of the most critical and
strategically important issues for a society since it is the essence of prosperity.
Goldthau and Sovacool (2012: p.232) consider energy as "the lifeblood of the
economy and human existance" and they also quote E.F Schumacher whom
considers energy as "not just another commodity, but the precondition of all
commodities".
2,3
Miljöanpassat byggande Göteborg, 2009 is a report made by the municipality of Gothenburg
regarding environmental constructions in Gothenburg. Anton Teknikkonsult AB, 2012 An report
commissioned by the Swedish municipalities and regions as an decision support to permit a better
coordination of the construction requirements. Hus kan byggas mer energisnålt (2011, 3 december)
Svenska Dagbladet, Opinion piece by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the construction
industry and some of the larger (national) construction clients where they demand a stricter regulation
to lower the energy consumption of new buildings. Fast E. M., 2012 - Swedish housing minister
would like to see a national energy standard.
19
Paper IV
Another complexity is the time scale. The decisions made, or not made, today, will
influence future needs and options. A building will affect the energy demand for a
long time. Most buildings will probably last longer than most companies. Therefore a
time frame of ten years makes sense for a company but not for a society. Several
energy sources will not last this century. According to Brown and Sovacol (2011) the
current production natural gas resources will last to approximately 2070 and uranium
to approximately 2095, with this scenario, one of the possible future conflicts within
a society is the energy supply for buildings. Not everything will need regulation, but
it will certainly need monitoring. To blindly believe in that market of today can
provide the solution for the future is to escape our responsibilities for future
generations. If the market and clients planning horizon don't reach beyond a decade,
the society must make the decision of the century.
Acknowledgement
The Centre for Energy and Resource Efficiency in the Built Environment,
(CERBOF), and the Development Fund of the Swedish Construction Industry,
(SBUF), are acknowledged for their financial support.
References
Anton Teknikkonsult AB, 2012. Energieffektivt byggande- möjligheter och hinder för högre krav.
Uppdrag till Sveriges Kommunen och Landstingen.
<http://www.skl.se/MediaBinaryLoader.axd?MediaArchive_FileID=2ca0d8d3-5049-4a87-
81d0-a25832995388&FileName=Energieffektivt+byggande+-
+m%C3%B6jligheter+o+hinder+120504.pdf>
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. & Fitzgerald, E., 2000. A survey of supply chain collaboration and
management in the UK construction industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6, 159-168.
Bazjanac, V., 2009. Implementation of semi-automated energy performance simulation: building
geometry. In Dikbas, A., E. Ergen and H.Giritli (Eds.), CIB W78, Proc. 26th conf., Managing
IT in Construction. Istanbul, TK 595-602. CRC Press.
BeBo, 2012. Energimyndighetens Beställargrupp för Energieffektiva Flerabosttadshus.
<http://www.bebostad.se/>
Belok, 2012. Effektiv energi I lokaler. < http://www.belok.se/belok.php?belok>
Bennear, L.S., Stavins, R.N., 2007. Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments.
Environmental resource economics, 37, 111.
Berry W.L., Hill T., Klompmaker J.E., 1999. Aligning marketing and manufacturing strategies with
the market. International Journal of Production Research, 37, 3599-3618.
Bescherer, F., 2005. Established Life Cycle Concepts in the Business Environment – Introduction and
Terminology. Laboratory of Industrial Management Report Series, Report 1/2005, Helsinki
University of Technology.
Breyer, S., 1982. Regulation and Its Reform, Harvard University Press, London.
Brown, M.A., 2001. Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies. Energy Policy,
29, 1197-1207.
Brown, M.A., Sovacool, B.K., 2011. Climate Change and Global Energy Security: Technology and
Policy Options. MITPress, Cambridge.
Brunn,C., 2010. Minimum energy performance standards for buildings in Germany. Final Draft.
David, P., 1995. Standardisation policies for network technologies: the flux between freedom and
order revisited, in R. Hawkins, R.Mansell and J. Skea (Eds.), Standards, Innovation, and
Competitiveness: The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical
Environments, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, Chap. 3.
DeCanio, S.J., 1998. The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable
energy-saving investments. Energy Policy, 26, 441-454.
Dowlatshahi, S., 1992. Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an optimization
approach. Journal of Production Research, 30, 1803-18.
20
Paper IV
Elmroth, A., 2002. Energianvändning i teori och praktik i flerbostadshus i Effektivare energi i
bostäder:66-75, Boverket, Energimyndigheten, Naturvårdsverket.
European Commission, 2011. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011;
<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/energy_efficiency/en0029_en.htm>
European Commission, 2006. Action Plan for Energy efficiency 2007-2012;
<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/energy_efficiency/l27064_en.htm>
European Commission, 2009. Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. Special Eurobarometer
313/ Wave 71.1 _TNS Opinion Social.
<http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf>
Fast E. M., 2012.Bostadsminister vill ha nationell energistandard. VVS Forum.
<http://www.vvsforum.se/?id=7040>
Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V., Haas, A., 2005. Re-inventing air heating: Convenient and
comfortable within the frame of the Passive House concept. Energy and Buildings, 37, 1186-
1203.
Friedrich, M., Becker, D., Grondey, A., Laskowski, F., Erhorn, H., Erhorn-Kluttig, H., Hauser, G.,
Sager, C. & Weber, H. 2007. CO2 Gebäudereport, Bundesminsterium für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung, Berlin.
Gann, D.M., Wang, Y., Hawkins, R., 1998. Do regulations encourage innovation? - the case of energy
efficiency in housing. Building Research & Information, 26, 280-296.
Geller, H., 2006. Polices for increasing energy efficiency: Thirty years of experience in OECD
countries. Energy Policy, 34, 556.
Goldthau, A., Sovacool, B.K., 2012. The uniqueness of the energy security, justice, and governance
problem. Energy Policy, 41, 232-240.
Hahn, R.W., Stavins, .R.N., 1992.Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating
Theory and Practice. The American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, Papers and
Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic
Association (May, 1992), pp.464-468
Hart, R., Spiro, D., 2011. The elephant in Hotelling's room. Energy Policy, 39, 7834-7838.
Hill Terry 1993, Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 2end ed. MacMillan Press, London.
Hemenway, D., 1981. Performance vs. Design Standards, US Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, Washington DC.
Herronen, N., 2008. Calculation of energy consumption based on a Building Information Model. 89.
Hus kan byggas mer energisnålt (2011, 3 december) Svenska Dagbladet,
<http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/hus-kan-byggas-mer-energisnalt_6682392.svd>
Hållbara Städer, 2012. Exemplesamlingar ByggaBoDialogen.
<http://www.hallbarastader.gov.se/Bazment/hallbarastader/sv/byggabodialogen.aspx>
Jordan, A., Lenschow, A., 2010. Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review.
Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 147-158.
Kiss, B., Manchóm, C.G., Neij, L., 2010. The importance of learning in supporting energy efficiency
technologies: A Case Study on Policy Intervention for Improved Insulation in Germany, the
UK and Sweden, Delft, Netherlands ed. In: Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for
Sustainable Innovation: ERSCP-EMSU conference, TU Delft, Netherlands, 26.10.2010.
Krajewski, L.J., Ritzman, L.P. & Malhotra, M.K., 2010. Operations management: processes and
supply chains. (9. ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
Lee, W.L.,Yik, F.W.H., 2004. Regulatory and voluntary approaches for enhancing building energy
efficiency. Progress in energy and combustion science, 30, 477.
Liefferink, D., Andersen, M.S., 1998. Strategies of the 'green' member states in EU environmental
policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 254-270.
Lindholm, A., Suomala, P., 2004. “The Possibilities of Life Cycle Costing in Outsourcing Decision
Making”. In: Seppä, M., Järvelin, A-M., Kujala, J., Ruohonen, M. & Tiainen, T. (eds.)
Proceedings of e-Business Research Forum eBRF 2004, Tampere, Finland. pp. 226-241.
Lylykangas K, Nieminen J., 2008. What is a passive house in Finland? In: Conference proceedings of
12th international conference on passive houses 2008. 11–12 April 2008 Nuremberg,
Darmstadt; 2008. p. 337–42.
McCormick, K., Neij, L., 2009. Experience of Policy Instruments for Energy Efficiency in Buildings
in the Nordic Countries , CERBOF project 65; Centre for Energy and Resource Efficient
Construction and Facilities Management.
21
Paper IV
Miljöanpassat byggande Göteborg, 2009. Program för bostäder.

<http://goteborg.se/wps/wcm/connect/afdf3705-2a0b-4a45-9268-
5acab5ae3dcd/Milj%C3%B6anpassa_byggande_2010_09_06.pdf?MOD=AJPERES>
Miltenburg, J., 2005. Manufacturing strategy : how to formulate and implement a winning plan, 2. ed.
ed. Productivity Press, New York.
Nässén, J., Holmberg, J. 2005. Energy efficiency—a forgotten goal in the Swedish building sector?.
Energy Policy, 33, 1037-1051.
Nässén, J., Sprei, F., Holmberg, J., 2008. "Stagnating energy efficiency in the Swedish building
sector—Economic and organisational explanations", Energy Policy, 36, 3814-3822.
Nielsen, T.R., 2005. Simple tool to evaluate energy demand and indoor environment in the early
stages of building design. Solar Energy, 78, 73-83.
Odyssee, 2012. Energy Efficiency Country Profiles. Energy efficiency Indicators in Europe.
<http://www.odyssee-indicators.org/publications/country_profiles.php>
Olofsson, T., Schade, J., Heikkilä, K., Benning, P., Schunke, M., Schreyer, M., Dehlin S., Sormunen,
P., Hirvonen T., Meiling J., Tulke, J, Holopainen, R., 2010. The InPro Lifecycle Design
Framework for Buildings.
Pedersen S, Peuhkuri R. A real passive house in Finland. In: Conference proceedings of 13th
international passive house conference 2009. 17–18 April 2009 Frankfurt am Main,
Darmstadt; 2009. 177–82.
Sanstad, A. H. and Howarth R.B., 1994. “Normal" markets, market imperfections and energy
efficiency. Energy Policy, 22, 811-818.
Schade, J., 2009. Energy simulation and life cycle costs: estimation of a building's performance in the
early design phase, Licentiate thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
Schade, J., Olofsson, T., Schreyer, M., 2011. DecisionǦ making in a modelǦ based design process.
Construction Management and Economics, 29, 371-382.
Schipper, L., Meyers, S., Kelly, H., 1985. Coming in from the cold: energy-wise housing in Sweden,
1. ed. Seven Locks Press, Cabin John, Md.
Schreurs, M.A., 2008. From the Bottom Up. The Journal of Environment & Development. 17, 343-
355.
Schlueter, A., Thesseling, F., 2009. Building information model based energy/exergy performance
assessment in early design stages. Automation in Construction, 18, 153-163.
Schumacher, E.F., Kirk, G., 1977. In: Kirk, G.(Ed.), Schumacher on Energy: Speeches and Writings
of E.F.Schumacher, Cape, London.
Smeds, J., Wall, M., 2007. Enhanced energy conservation in houses through high performance design.
Energy and Buildings, 39, 273-278.
Stern, P.C., 1986. Blind spots in policy analysis: What economics doesn't say about energy use.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5, 200-227.
Stevenson, W.J., 2005. Operations management, 8. ed. ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.
Voss, C.A., 1995.Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 15, 5 – 16.
Wickman, K., Lingle, C., 2004. Rethinking Tax Policies: New Ideas from a Dead Economist.
Economic Affairs, 24, 53-57.
Witt, J., 2008. Unterstützung der Schaffung und Ausweitung von Märkten für
Endenergieeffizienzmassnahmen und Energiedienstleistungen in Kontext der nationalen
Umsetzung der EDL-Richtlinie. DENA Veranstaltung. <http://www.energieeffizienz-
online.info/index.php?id=11956, 2012>.
Woodward, D., 1997. Life cycle costing – theory, information acquisition and application.
International Journal of Project Management, 15, 335-344.
Zerbe, R.O., McCurdy, H.E., 1999. The failure of market failure. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 18, 558-578.
22

Design Process For Energy Performance of Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Process For Energy Performance of Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOC TOR A L T H E S I S

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering

A Design Process Perspective on the

Jutta Schade A Design Process Perspective on the Energy Performance of Buildings

Luleå University of Technology 2013 Energy Performance of Buildings

A DESIGN PROCESS PERSPECTIVE ON THE

Luleå, January 2013

Division of Structural and Construction Engineering

From a sustainable development perspective, buildings should be designed to

strategies in the design of buildings in Germany and Sweden and a longitudinal

3.1.1 Life cycle costing ............................................................... 22

This PhD. thesis reflects a part of my research journey as a postgraduate

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my scientific advisors

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the InPro (http://www.inpro-

AEC Architectural, engineering and construction

AHP Analytical hierarchy process

BIM Building information model

DPP Discounted payback period

DPs Design parameters

ECA Equivalent annual cost

EDP Energy design process

FRs Functional requirements

LCA Life cycle assessment

LCC Life cycle cost

MAUT Multi-attribute utility theory

NPV Net present value

OIE Open information environment

OIP Open information platform

PIs Performance indicators

PVs process variables

WLA Whole life appraisal

WLC Whole life costing

1.1 Background and motivation

The energy consumption in buildings has steadily increased, reaching 20% to

consumption in Swedish houses built in the 1990s could be 50 – 100% higher

It is widely acknowledged that the most important design decisions concerning

1.3 Research questions

How can the handling of energy performance requirements in the design

This question aims to investigate how requirements regarding energy

How do client requirements, political governance and regulations affect the

these countries have different strategies regarding political governance and

1.4 Scope and Limitations

First contact Contract Building Handover

Business Feasibility Building Detailed design

l 3 Level 4th Level 5th Level 6th Level

Figure 1.1: Limitations of the study of the energy design process

The study of the design process is limited to Scandinavian conditions as the

The study of client requirements, political governance and regulations is

Chapter 3 presents the frame of reference on which this study is based.

Chapter 4 presents a detailed summary of each appended paper, including the

Chapter 5 contains a discussion and conclusion of the research work. The

1.6 Appended papers

Paper II: Schade, J., Olofsson, T., Schreyer, M. (2011) Decision-making in a

Paper II gives a framework for decision-making in a structured design process,

Paper III: Jansson, G., Schade, J., Olofsson, T. (2012) Requirement

The third paper presents a conceptual model of requirement management based

results and conclusions are a result of collaborative efforts by Jansson and

This paper presented a longitudinal comparison of the key policy energy

2.1 Research design

2.1.1 Chosen research methods

more explanatory, would be to use a research strategy based on case studies,

Research question Chosen Methods Main output

2.1.2 Research process