In the article “Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized metrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own metrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public metrics are unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte believes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats ‘increase exponentially’ along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' would be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'.
Though it is courageous and bold of Lecomte to address the elephant in the room, which is the disagreement on standardized rubrics and certifications, no solution exists in the article to facilitate these standardization between public and private sectors.
References:
- Lecomte. (2019,
January 29). Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means. Retrieved from
The Business Times:
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means
No comments:
Post a Comment