| Summary: | <br/>The importance of effective feedback loops during and after building retrofits is well-established. Good communications between designers, practitioners and building users typically lead to better outcomes for users and can allow designers, investors and builders to learn from experience. <br/>Where ‘smart’ retrofits are concerned – that is, introduction of ICT for more sophisticated control and new functions such as demand response – it can seem as though the aim is a friction-free transfer of activity and learning from humans to machines. In such a scenario, the complexities of real-life routines and activities are typically minimised or ignored, along with the need for time and effort to put into sense-making and adaptation. The paper argues that this is unhelpful at best. Drawing on the author’s involvement in evaluating three contrasting programmes, it illustrates how smart refurbishment is an exercise in which ‘smartness’ is distributed between technologies and humans; one in which we can expect some emergent (i.e. unpredictable) outcomes. The three case studies, at different scales, are: <br/>• the rollout of smart meters in Great Britain, a large-scale infrastructure refurbishment; <br/>• ‘smartening’ domestic storage heaters and water heaters, a retrofit exercise in homes; <br/>• ‘smartening’ electricity demand in a community – small-scale system upgrade. <br/>These programmes show the significance of different types of communication in sociotechnical systems as they incorporate smart technologies. Thematic analysis indicates three ways of categorising communication during these processes: between technologies (connectivity), between technologies and people (controls), and between people (care). As buildings become more closely integrated into energy systems, for example via on-site generation, demand response and heat networks, these categories can be useful when designing, implementing and evaluating smart refurbishment.
|
|---|