Part Two: Two-Way Feedback – A New Perspective on Interactions

From: Smart office buildings – curse or blessing? Human needs and “smartification”

In Part One In this series of articles we learned about the relevance of two-way communication between people and technology for well-functioning efficiency and comfort optimization. Today there is a lack of suitable channels that inform people in the building about the (effects) of their actions.

Possible strategies to improve energy saving behavior

In the following graphic from the Wuppertal Institute and the EBZ Business School (Fig. 1), strategies are categorized according to their potential for behavioral changes and energy savings.

Direct feedback from the technology to the people who use it is just one of many strategies for influencing energy saving behavior (see Fig. 1). This was precisely what was denounced by the people interviewed on the Schindler Campus as a particularly relevant, missing element. In the following examples we will therefore focus on various feedback options and energy transparency via monitoring systems. 

The perceived interior temperature / energy transparency

The perceived interior temperature is essential for the comfort in a room. At the same time, however, this feeling is individual and therefore falls into the efficiency-comfort problem already described. While one person likes to leave the window open at 16°C, the room next door is heated to 23°C. Neither an open window nor 23°C should be technically excluded, otherwise comfort will suffer. But neither is necessarily energy efficient. But if users were now told live what amount of energy they can influence with their individual behavior, they could take on this part of the responsibility and make a reflected and conscious decision. With a little effort, live displays of energy consumption can now be created to make the impact of one's own behavior tangible.

The automatic sun protection / decision-making transparency of the algorithms

"'Why are these damn blinds going down again?' I ask myself, rushing to the counter to stop the blinds coming down. My colleague does the same. This scenario repeats itself at least once every day, but usually several times. For reasons that seem inexplicable to me, the automatic system starts at the slightest ray of sunlight, if anything of the sun can be seen at all. When the sun hits our office full blast later, the blinds stand still. I have already tried several times to deactivate the automatic function so that I can decide for myself when I want the sun at work and when the radiation is too intense or blinding. Unfortunately this was unsuccessful. I have absolutely no understanding of the process behind this automation. I even wonder whether there is a deeper meaning or even a hint of intelligence behind it.”

This example illustrates very well the consequences of not taking human needs into account in the process. The result is a lack of understanding and resistance.

In fact, a very simple algorithm is used in the building described in the quote. More modern sun protection systems take into account the outside and inside temperatures, the occupancy of the room in question and the actual glare of the sun when making the decision to turn it down or up. Nevertheless, the more complex the algorithm, the less transparent the “behavior” of a blind becomes for the people in the room. In addition to the “energy transparency” already described in order to be able to make conscious and reflected decisions, there is also the need for the traceability of the automatic decisions. It must be made clear why something is happening in the room (in this case the reasons for lowering/raising the blinds) in order to increase or even generate acceptance.

Algorithms that learn individual preferences are also conceivable today. If the shutdown of the sun protection is always overridden manually, as in the case mentioned above, it should not happen. If the sun protection is later manually lowered again, a learning system could differentiate the situations based on various input parameters (e.g. the position of the sun) and thus follow specific wishes more and more precisely. Such user feedback loops could be part of future studies, but currently no statements can be made about possible improvements in satisfaction. 

Ventilation / approaches to user assistance

“'It's drafting'...again I'm annoyed that my colleague has opened the window and an unpleasant stream of cold air is blowing past me. I don't mind letting in some fresh air every now and then, but leaving the window open forever and ideally running away from the square every now and then annoys me. It's inexplicable to me how anyone can ENJOY sitting in a cold, drafty room. It's not like I wasn't familiar with this phenomenon from my school days... some people prefer constant ventilation, others crowd around the heating to avoid freezing completely. Especially in the depths of winter, there were always endless discussions that were not always on a friendly and understanding level. However, if I look at the situation objectively, I ask myself what would be an appropriate solution to this problem? Because one thing is clear, fresh air is needed. But a building in which the ventilation works automatically and the windows cannot be opened at all? I have already had this experience and I can say that I was not happy with this approach. A uniform temperature in summer and winter, no direct contact with the outside environment for the ears and nose, no authentic perception of the weather and a constant draft from the air conditioning are very unpleasant and frustrating in the long run. So it seems to me that you have to come to terms with your colleagues, have conversations and agree on compromises. Because one thing is certain: Individual offices in which everyone can have their own individual air conditioning and ventilation are definitely not helpful for good collaboration and collegial exchange.”

Let’s consider indoor air quality. CO2, as an odorless gas, is only perceived late and indirectly by most people through difficulty concentrating and headaches, but it is a killer of both energy efficiency and productivity. Various devices have been developed in recent years, primarily to bring the viral load under control, but also to promote good indoor air quality. What stands out here is the “climate sparrow”, as it was described in the above-mentioned study by the Wuppertal Institute and the EBZ Business School.“[This climate sparrow] is called “Piaf” and measures the air quality in the room. In addition to the CO2 value, the room climate assistant also records the temperature and relative humidity and signals [via a pleasant chirping sound, author's note] when health is declining due to reduced air quality and should be ventilated“,”* it says in one Press release from 2019. But simpler systems with LED rings or similar can also be very effective in discreetly drawing attention to the correct ventilation times (open windows / close windows). 

Such devices that support people and enable them to behave consciously can be found under the term “technical assistance systems”. They support their human counterparts with certain skills, but do not necessarily intervene actively. Thinking a little further, highly efficient and engineered buildings could also benefit from the cooperation of users. From an energy perspective, it is easy to understand that when the outside temperature is mild, mechanical ventilation (with fans) requires more energy than an open window. In order to leverage this potential, the people on site must be involved and provided with the necessary information about the building technology. Who knows how much electrical energy the ventilation system needs for the fans alone, for example, and at what outside temperature the heat recovered exceeds this necessary electrical energy?

A WORD OF THUMB: COMPARED TO WINDOW VENTILATION, OPERATION OF A VENTILATION SYSTEM WITH HEAT RECOVERY IS ONLY ENERGETICALLY SENSE BELOW 17°C (4°C DIFFERENCE FROM THE INDOOR TEMPERATURE). IT IS EXACTLY THIS IN SUMMER: FROM ABOVE 30°C, FROM AN ENERGY PERSPECTIVE, THE VENTILATION SYSTEM WITH HEAT RECOVERY SHOULD BE USED AND THE WINDOWS SHOULD REMAIN CLOSED.

IF YOU WANT TO IMPLEMENT THIS IN YOUR OFFICE, YOU SHOULD CHECK BEFORE IF THE VENTILATION SYSTEM CAN BE TURNED OFF IN A ROOM OR RENTAL AREA. WHETHER IT DOES THIS AUTOMATICALLY WHEN THE WINDOW IS OPEN. OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE A “DOUBLE” WASTE OF ENERGY.

A good communication channel from technology to people can also cover the described application case of “manual window ventilation instead of mechanical systems in mild outside temperatures” and thus increase further efficiency potential. At the same time, it remains an individual decision as to whether this additional activity is worthwhile or whether laziness will win.

Conclusion

The examples mentioned show that there is considerable potential in terms of energy efficiency and user satisfaction when it comes to automating heating, cooling and ventilation systems. The focus is on feedback from the technology to people regarding live energy consumption, explanation of the decisions made algorithmically and inclusion in the actual automation task. In the next article in this series we will focus on flexible office space use, user-centered operational management and satisfaction feedback.