Dr Richard Bull

Dr. Graeme Stuart

Dave Everitt + M Lemon & P Fleming

Digitally Engaging and Empowering Employees for Energy Demand Reduction: A New Approach for the Next Generation?

The challenge of energy in non-domestic buildings

• Approx 40% energy consumption/35% CO2

• More complex – in terms of building type/agency/control/ethics/organizational culture

• UK and EU Policy context – Energy and Performance Buildings Directive (2008) putting faith in Building Performance Certificates (EPCs & DECs)

• Increasing research and interest in digital economy and ICT based solutions, e.g visualisation of data and SMART/Intelligent Buildings

Digital economy is more than just controls & dashboards . . .

“Our electronic networks are enabling

novel forms of collective action, enabling the

creation of collaborative groups that are larger and more distributed

than any other time” Clay Shirky

“When citizens become involved in working out

a mutually acceptable solution to a project or

problem that affects their community and their personal lives,

they mature into responsible democratic

citizens and reaffirm democracy”

Tom Webler et al

. . . & behaviour change is more than information provision . . .

Gooddee2ds: Research context and methodology

• 18 months funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council - Digital Economy ‘Research in the Wild’ (The ‘wild’ was Leicester City Council)

• Aim of Gooddee2ds: to explore a participatory approach to the development of a web-application to help building-users reduce energy consumption in non-domestic buildings.

• Approach:• 5 meetings with a user-group of ‘lay & expert’ building users• Issued with iPhones• Development of an ICT-based ‘reporting tool’ based on user-input to

encourage participation.• Ongoing monthly meetings with users.

• Findings from this paper are based on a focus-group with the user-group (with insights from recent interviews)

The user-group.

Note to self. The formation of this group

was not easy!

Note to self. E.g. The formation of this group was not easy!

The Gooddee2ds responsive webapp

Research findings (1): user-group approach

• Putting faces to names• We don’t have a lot of contact with other city council departments about this

kind of thing. What I actually find quite useful here is the fact that if we can report something we get a named person who will become responsible for it, and also as part of this user group . . . I’ve met them now. (M4)

• Knowledge sharing• The library assistant (F1) for example said she hoped to “find out more

about how this energy, power and everything is worked out . . . and to look at how we can reduce wastage”.

• This was echoed by the energy services team leader (M5): Having a group that shares knowledge is always important . . . there isn’t one good way of doing a particular thing, and therefore sharing what’s around the table is the whole idea.

• “But with the user group as a whole I think there wasn’t a problem having the different age groups because I think that helped us get the understanding of different people’s views, so that was a good thing I suppose” (R003)

Research findings (2a): social media & smart-phone use• User-group had limited knowledge of social media• Usage affected by roles, and the type and size of

buildings in which they work, some felt that whilst they may engage with the forthcoming Gooddeeds app they would not use their smartphones to do so. For example:• I probably won’t use the phone. If I’ve got the website up, then I

might well use it, but it’s not that big a building. I don’t carry my phone around with me when I’m in the building. If I have something I want to report on it . . . I’ll go and use the computer. (M4)

• I’ve never been very active on the phone for using these things. I would say I was more active on the computer. Most probably it’s the nature of my work. I’m mainly around the desk, therefore more likely to use that. (M5)

• Many participants were desk-bound with access to a computer and less need of smart phone technology.

• Some did however appreciate the ability to take photographs and then send and receive via email or social media. For example,

• “I must admit I have sent some photographs through Gmail and things like that to contractors”. (M2)

• “I take a photo on my phone and I’ll send it by email to people. The good thing for me with this is that I don’t have to go to the site now”. (M3)

Research findings (2b): social media & smart-phone use

Conclusions: implications for energy and non-domestic buildings

• The user-group all expressed benefits of meeting people - ‘putting faces to names’.

• But divided over the benefits and opportunities of smartphones & social media– variations due to job role and background.

• All seemed cautious about the public nature of social media and the potential for complaints and abuse.

• ‘No- one size fits all’ solution within a diverse portfolio of building types, functions and sizes.

• Organisational and cultural barriers – especially in local authorities.• Cost cutting/redundancies• A focus on delivering core services and value for money • Increased sub-contracting of facilities management and separating energy services &

property managament.

Recommendations1. Conducting monthly user-groups can play a key role in engaging employees

and connecting them to the environmental aspects of their workspaces and other users.

2. Membership should include all parties involved in the building (that is, those with formal responsibilities and those without) and be conducted at a time and place convenient to all.

3. Building users are more concerned with comfort, rather than ‘energy’ –users experience comfort (and discomfort) in multiple ways within a single building. Solutions and applications must factor in these variations and be ‘fit for purpose’.

4. Applications and solutions should be available on both personal computer and mobile devices to accommodate different patterns.

5. Trust and security issues are a concern for organisations. Bespoke social media applications may be preferable to Twitter and Facebook in order to ensure security.

Questions . . .(& further reading)• Bull, R., Irvine, K., Rieser, M., Fleming, P (2013). Are people the problem or the

solution? A critical look at the rise of the smart/intelligent building and the role of ICT enabled engagement. ECEEE Summer Study Conference Proceedings 2013, pp. 1135-1145; 5A-079-13

• Stuart, G., Wilson, C., Bull, R. and Irvine, K. (2013) Designing live energy performance feedback for public buildings in Leicester. ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings, 3-257-13

• Bull, R., Brown N., & Faruk, F. (2011) Findings from the DUALL Project: lessons in engaging building users in energy reduction in a UK University. ECEEE 2011 Summer Study: Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon society.

• Bull, R., J. Petts, et al. (2008). "Social Learning from Public Engagement: Dreaming the impossible?" Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 51(5): 703-718.

• Contact: rbull@dmu.ac.uk• Twitter: @richbull• http://greenview.dmu.ac.uk/good-deeds