Summary_ReaderResponse of Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means Draft #1

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 have been 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' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'. However, standardization is not necessary at this point of development. Also, examples of stakeholders coming together to define 'smart buildings' already exists.

Firstly, Lecomte's article gives readers the impression that the standardization of 'smart buildings' are chaotic and no sustainable outcome is being achieved. The article claims that Efforts to standardize the definition of 'smart buildings' have been hindered by the lack of mutual agreement among various stakeholders. Marcia Wendorf (2019) states that "The Amsterdam Smart City initiative began in 2009, and it currently includes over 170 projects being developed collaboratively by government, residents, and businesses." And as a result of this collaboration, some of Amsterdam's residential buildings are installed with energy meters which rewards people who reduce energy consumption. Though this implementation may not have been on a global or even on a country scale, yet it is reported here that not only private and public sectors but residents also are working together to achieve a 'smart building in a smart city' outcome. This is a prime example of how various stakeholders are coming together to work together on mutual terms to define 'smart buildings'.

Secondly, a diverse interpretation and essence of 'smart buildings' for different countries and even cities is, at this present moment of time, critical to meet the differing needs and problems each community faces. Though every city has similar needs, some needs are more crucial than others, if a city has a high generation of waste, 'smart building' designs will tend to lean towards waste generation, likewise if a city has a higher energy consumption rate. Aura Vasquez points out that "Cities often think about [smart city] programs in a homogeneous way, not an equitable way. Without understanding the people that are going to live in this smart city—what their priorities and problems are—we’re not going to get to them … So, we must be very intentional about how we deploy for those communities." In this case, 'smart' is how the infrastructure can adapt and meet the needs of the community and their culture. Thus, in view of diverse cultures and backgrounds, 'smart' can hold differing values.

Lastly, clamping down on standardization leaves lesser room for experimentation with different technology and their integration with one another. Mankind is constantly advancing in technology and in the area of 'smart buildings', new systems are being developed constantly. These new systems need to be constantly tested in applicable environments and diverse standards could actually prove accommodating to tackle specific and diverse issues alike. Viki (2016) states that analysts have traced the root of creativity in teams and individuals and that is due to the presence of multicultural and environmental exposure. With this fact established, a variation of standardization would prove beneficial for 'smart buildings' the long run. New ways of integration and break through in development can be cultivated from teams comprised of people of different culture and environment, enhancing the range of technology integration of 'smart buildings'.

In conclusion, there are benefits of a more standardized rubrics to facilitate the integration of 'smart buildings' into 'smart cities' and even to beyond that in the future where cities interact with one another. However, this would limit potential innovation allowed with a more flexible choice of rubrics to adopt. While Lecomte's ambition is not in error in the least as discussed, the best interest of today's society would be the sufficiency of space required for creativity to mature and in reward, ingenuity solutions. 

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
- Wendorf, M. (2019, July 29). Smart Cities Initiatives around the World Are Improving Citizens' Lives. Retrieved from Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/smart-cities-initiatives-around-the-world-are-improving-citizens-lives
- Kathleen O’Dell, A. N. (2019, August 28). Inclusive smart cities. Retrieved from Deloitte Insights: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/inclusive-smart-cities.html
- Baumgartner, J. (2010, November 24). Why Diversity is the Mother of Creativity. Retrieved from Innovation Management: https://innovationmanagement.se/imtool-articles/why-diversity-is-the-mother-of-creativity/
- Viki, T. (2016, December 6). Why Diverse Teams Are More Creative. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2016/12/06/why-diverse-teams-are-more-creative/#5bb33de77262