Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143 – 159 www.elsevier.
Intelligent building research: a review
J.K.W. Wong a,*, H. Li a, S.W. Wang b
b a Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Abstract Within the last two decades, substantial amount of literature on intelligent building has been generated. However, there is a lack of systematic review of existing research efforts and achievements. A comprehensive review on existing research provides great benefits to identify where more efforts are needed and therefore the future research directions. For this purpose, this paper reviews the literature related to the subject area of intelligent building. Our review indicates that previous research efforts have dealt mainly with three research aspects including advanced and innovative intelligent technologies research, performance evaluation methodologies and investment evaluation analysis. It is also identified that among the three research aspects, relatively less literature has been found addressing the issues of investment evaluation of intelligent buildings. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the paper also summarizes a few future research directions, which are useful to researchers working in this important area. D 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Intelligent building; Definition; Performance evaluation; Investment evaluation; Net present value; Life cycle costing analysis; Cost benefit analysis; Analytical hierarchy process; Fuzzy set theory
1. Introduction The word ‘intelligent’ was first used to describe buildings in the United States at the beginning of the 1980s. The concept of ‘intelligent building’ was stimulated by the development of information technology [47,56] and increasingly sophisticated demand for ‘comfort living environment and requirement for increased occupant control of their local environments’ . Research on intelligent building has been conducted ubiquitously and research results have been published in many academic journals. Much research
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2766-5111; fax: +8522764-3374. 0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2004.06.001
work has been focusing on the discussion of intelligent building technology development and performance evaluation methodologies. However, little literature has been devoted to addressing investment evaluation techniques of intelligent buildings. Also, there exists insufficient information and support for investment decision-making at the conceptual stage of intelligent building development. The growing investment on intelligent buildings and the greater demand for demonstrating its profitability of intelligent building have led to the investigation for methods and techniques that can be of assistance in evaluating intelligent building investments, preferably at the conceptual stage. The purpose of this paper is to provide a succinct and systematic review of the existing research in
[29. the paper summarizes current research areas in intelligent building into three sections. the UK-based European Intelligent Building Group defines an intelligent building as ‘one that creates an environment which maximizes the effectiveness of the building’s occupants. but is also capable of learning and adjusting performance from its occupancy and the environment.
2.  pointed out both the intelligent building institutes in the United States and the United Kingdom have inconsistent interpretation of building intelligence. For example. services and management in order to create a productive. Most recently. The Intelligent Building Institute of the United States defines an intelligent building as ‘one which provides a productive and cost-effective environment through optimization of its four basic elements including structures. a number of authors have extended the definition of intelligent building and have added ‘learning ability’ and ‘performance adjustment from its occupancy and the environment’ in the definition [94. or in the information technology that they use.144
J. On the other hand.18] suggested the intelligent building accentuates a ‘multidisciplinary effort to integrate and optimize the building structures. Authors such as Robathan . . Some authors [9.W. systems. Moreover. Early definitions of intelligent building focused almost entirely centered on technology aspect and did not suggest user interaction at all [47. Loveday et al. The first section provides an overview of research in intelligent building. Wong et al. In addition. Preiser and Schramm  and Wigginton and Harris  suggested that intelligent buildings must respond to user requirements. cited in Refs. So et al. services and management and the interrelationships between them’ .  argued that ‘intelligent buildings are not intelligent by themselves. cost effective and environmentally approved environment for the building occupants’. Definitions of intelligent building There have been a myriad of academic and technical literature discussing the definition of intelligent buildings. systems. DEGW in mid-1980s found that buildings which were unable to cope with changes in the organizations that occupy them. ) defined intelligent building as ‘one which has fully automated building service control systems’. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
intelligent building in order to identify and suggest future research directions. most existing definitions of intelligent buildings are ‘either too vague to be useful guidance for detailed design which either places an unbalanced focus on technologies only or do not fit that culture of Asia’. flexibility’. This paper begins with the discussion of the definition of intelligent buildings. So et al.94]. and in turn it influences
human’s productivity. The building environment affects the wellbeing and comfort of human in the workplace. The need of a precise intelligent building definition is critical as ‘without a correct definition. while the US definition is more concentrated on technologies. They proposed intelligent building is not only able to react and change accordingly to individual. while at the same time enabling efficient management of resources with minimum life-time costs of hardware and facilities’ . investment and operating cost savings. The second section presents methodologies for investment evaluation for investment evaluation of intelligent building projects.98]. cited in Ref. The difference indicates the UK definition is more focused on users’ requirements.72. According to the research conducted by Wigginton and Harris . morale and satisfaction.56]) defined intelligent building as ‘one which integrates various systems to effectively manage resources in a coordinated mode to maximize: technical performance. but they can furnish the occupants with more intelligence and enable them to work more efficiently’. there has been growing awareness that the services systems and work process management of a building have close relationships with the well-being of human. new building will not be optimally designed to meet the next
. The purely technological definition of intelligent building has been criticized by many researchers. would become prematurely obsolete or require substantial refurbishment or demolition. The third section presents future research directions. organizational and environmental requirement. Cardin (1983. it appears that different intelligent building professional bodies also have different understanding of intelligent building. there exist over 30 separate definitions of intelligence in relation to building. The Intelligent Building Institution in Washington (1988.K. According to Clements-Croome . Then. In contrast.
n M8: image of high technology. So et al.84.24.89. Technologically. etc. intelligent building technologies are characterized by a hierarchical presentation of system’s integration [9. energy management system (EMS). Previous research efforts in this stream have been focused on the advanced development of system integration [41. BAS would perform the function of energy management
3.43. security system [87.89.90. lighting system [48. earthquake.28.  redefined intelligent building as one which ‘designed and constructed based on an appropriate selection of ‘Quality Environmental Modules’ to meet the user’s requirements by mapping with appropriate building facilities to achieve long term building values’. are to provide the ‘qualities that create a productive and efficient environment such as functionality.24] and Arkin and Paciuk .87. and n M10: health and sanitation. n M9: construction process and structure. this new definition gives designers a clear direction and sufficient details to enable a high quality intelligent building design consistent with intelligent building definition. Previous intelligent building research An overview of literature related to intelligent building research works indicates that previous re-
.W. and to provide a fair platform for users and the general public to evaluate the performance of an intelligent building.87].80.93]. n M2: space utilization and flexibility.41. supervise and coordinate the intelligent building subsystems.82. including advanced/innovative technologies.87]. The revised ‘QEM’ (M1 – M10) includes: n M1: environmental friendliness—health and energy conservation. intelligent building performs and arranges differently from a conventional one.21.31.64. which enable the consideration of technologies. security and safety. acoustical.87]. Each of 10 key modules mentioned above will be assigned a number of key elements in an appropriate order of priority.23.22. n M3: cost effectiveness—operation and maintenance with emphasis on effectiveness. and the needs of users.
search efforts have dealt mainly with three research streams. n M5: working efficiency. which control. Chow  proposed the inclusion of additional modules (M10) as supplement to the existing nine modules in order to deal with the health issues for buildings. n M7: culture.87. and building integrity’.82.90] and communication system [38. communication management system (CMS) and office automation (OA) system. 1 shows the framework for intelligent building research and the connections between the various research streams included.90].87]. Research in advanced and innovative technologies A plethora of research efforts have been placed on intelligent building technologies.J.61. Wong et al. The first level comprises nine ‘Quality Environment Modules (QEM)’ (M1 – M9) and the second level includes three areas of key elements which are functional requirements. In response to this. lift system [48. disaster and structural damages.37. performance evaluation methodologies and investment evaluation analysis. fire protection system [48. These three research streams are further described in subsequent sections. First. n The middle level which is performed by the building automation system (BAS).87. 3. Building systems and structure integration.70.K. network protocol [8. which include HVAC system [15. Fig. air-quality and visual comfort. thermal. Also.47.1. n M4: human comfort. functional spaces and technologies. According to Carlini [23. n M6: safety and security measures—fire. So et al. as pointed out by Bradshaw and Miller .  suggested a two-level strategy to formulate an appropriate intelligent building definition. So and Wong  suggested that the new definition has two folds.83] and building subsystem services.94]. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
century’ . many intelligent buildings comprise three levels of system integration which include: n The top level which is dealt with the provision of various features of normal and emergency building operation as well as the communication management.68.
/ Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
Fig.W.60]. ventilation and air-condition-
ing (HVAC) systems.K. Wong et al. Taxonomy of research in intelligent building. and n The bottom level which contains subsystems including heating.
. vertical transportation system.146
system and groups all relevant subsystems in some occasions [43. lighting system. 1. fire protection system. security system and communication system.
It is either a conscious or tacit process which aims to establish the value of or the contribution made by a particular situation.73. construction. and can relate the determination of the worth of an object’. In addition. involving over 10 universities and research institutions from different. Research in performance evaluation methodologies Apart from intelligent technologies research and development. measurement and assessment. rather it was the integration among the various systems. Different authorities have tried to develop evaluation models to assess the performance of intelligent building [9. the application of wireless technologies with buildings or networking building systems is also a popular research area  which has currently attracted attentions of many researchers and industry practitioners.2. intelligent building allows interaction and integration among building subsystem services [48.98]. there have been substantial amount of research devoting to evaluating intelligent building.84. Building performance evaluation is a crucial procedure which offers feedback function on the performance of building materials and components for future improvement and reference (: cited in Ref. System integration is the process of ‘connecting systems.47.
.K. and n Facility management is integrated with BAS. The POE process model is generally executed in three stages. n Fire alarm program would be interfaced with security to release specific locked doors under alarm conditions. n Security system is interfaced with the lighting and HVAC subsystems to define activation of necessary lighting paths and the specific room occupy mode. such as HVAC. . between the system and the building structure. occupancy and recycling. sensors  and control devices that are hard detected by human-beings. lighting and security through BAS. programming. 3. . fuzzy logic. strategy and application of fault detection and diagnosis in HVAC
systems. while  considered the process of evaluation as ‘a series of activities incorporating understanding.J.93]: n Fire alarm system would be integrated with other building systems. Serafeimidis  considered the evaluation process as a feedback mechanism aimed to facilitate learning. Many similar studies have also been conducted attempting to measure the level of intelligence that a building exhibited and to set up criteria for selection of the best intelligent building .W. Arkin and Paciuk  suggested the key to the effective operation of intelligent building was not related to the sophistication of the building services systems. Contemporary research efforts have been attempting to develop software with the use of automated diagnostic tools introducing neural networks. Wong et al.85. devices and programs together in a common architecture so as to share and exchange data’.74. HVAC systems can be used to prevent the smoke from spreading by opening exhaust dampers and closing outdoor air intake dampers of the fire floor if there is a fire on one floor of building. Preiser  developed the ‘post-occupancy evaluation process model (POE)’ in order to determine the intelligence level of intelligent buildings. in 1972 . Typical intelligent building technologies are summarized in Table 1.90. artificial-intelligence-based technologies designed to detect problems. ). Many researchers also paid efforts in developing intelligent control method to be used in modern building management system for improving and optimizing the energy and environmental performance of buildings . The IEA BSC research program Annex 25  and Annex 34 . n Vertical transportation system is interacted with fire alarm or the security systems in order to define the number of elevators required. such as building services systems/components. design. as well as other software-intensive. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
Moreover.70.87. Preiser and Schramm later (in 1997) improved their evaluation models and proposed an ‘integrative building performance evaluation framework’ to evaluate and review the stance in all six major phrases of building delivery and life cycle including planning. Examples of major intelligent building systems interaction include [48. Early performance evaluation models were developed by Manning in 1965 and Markus et al. conducted extensive research on the methodology. Ivanovich  reviewed current research in intelligent building technologies. the mode of operation and in some instances the accessible floor levels.87].
motion detectors. and other controller (ILC)/lighting specific programs for lighting control management system controller.148
J.37.89]) Intelligent building Software/program systems BAS n Standard Protocol (i. and n Other specific programs for HVAC operation n Occupied – unoccupied lighting n Charge-coupled device (CCD) control program (time-based cameras. Unoccupied Period Program. amplifiers. Wong et al. Enthalpy Program. fully addressable automatic fire alarm and detector (sensor) system n Intelligent Access Controller (IAC). n Specific programs for lift n Lift sensors and passenger operation and monitoring detectors.48. temperature. local area network (LAN) and Internet system.W. motion detectors. splitters. heating/ cooling elements located across the n Internet-based HVAC system allows authorized users keep close contact occupancy zones of the floor. and other devices such as CCD camera. intelligent lighting lighting control program). etc. network expansion units. Unoccupied Night Purge Program. LonWorks. and with the BAS wherever the user is other devices such as pressure. integrated service digital network (ISDN). operator workstations. etc. etc. BACnet.38. [21. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
Table 1 Intelligent building technologies and systems (adapted from Refs.
n Internet-based lighting system
Fire protection system
n Specific programs for fire protection and detection
n Specific programs for security protection.) n Direct Digital Control (DDC) Hardware/device n Network control units. within an air-conditioned space fully air-conditioned variable and informs the control system of air-volume system (VAV) controller. application specific controllers and sensor system.K. e-Card access. and other device such as touch switch. and dish antennas for satellite communication
n Advanced drives and artificial intelligence based supervisory control n Computer vision technologies have been used in intelligent building in counting the number of passengers and to aid lift control n Sophisticated fire alarm systems which include stand-alone intelligent fire alarms and intelligent initiating circuit sensors n Internet-based security system
n Use of Web-enabled devices which allows remote building control and monitoring
. Chillers Optimum Start-stop Program. intruder alarm system and special presence detection sensors n Traditional telephone systems. the distribution of the residents) centralized chiller plant. transmission cables. etc. detection and safety system
n Private automatic branch exchanges (PABX). flow sensors. light sensor. repeat amplifiers.
n Use of Web-enabled devices for the building automation system which allows remote building control and monitoring by interaction of the central BAS workstation with the remote dial-up system via modem.87. and other software program enabling remote building control and monitoring
n Intelligent fire controller (IFC). Recent development
Vertical transportation system
n Software program such as Duty Cycle Program. aerials. etc. attenuators and final TV outlets. n CCTV surveillance. neural network-based controller.80. Zero-energy Band Program and Heating/cooling Plant Efficiency Program. n Computer vision system (allows n Air handling unit (AHU) counting of number of residents controller. distributed controller. Load Reset Program. mixers.e.
/ Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
First. According to So and Wong . A summary of the hierarchical development of intelligent building assessment methods is illustrated in Table 2.J. in a building is not a conclusion of its intelligence. For example.K. or system. n Current assessment method do not contain a learning curve and unable to evolve from time to time. to develop compatible data collection instructions in the conceptual phase. However. and n Have learning ability and able to be upgraded and modified from time to time. discourage total ignorance of minor subjects. some of the performance evaluation models have been criticized for fraught with problems of fairness and partially subjective assessment. emphasize important elements but. the Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings  constructed a quantitative assessment method. namely the intelligent building index (IBI). and between systems and the building’s structure. The mere provision of a particular facility. n Slightly different assessment in terms of the weight or priorities of elements for each individual intelligent building project. In response to insufficiencies of existing performance evaluation models. Preiser and Schramm  applied the POE process model to evaluate intelligent building in the cross-cultural context and suggested that the POE model could ‘enhance building performance evaluation in intelligent buildings especially in a long-term. Therefore. measuring all levels of building performances. n Consistent with human preferences while random judgments must be minimized. This model has been adapted by other researchers in the intelligent building performance evaluation such as Yang and Peng. Without a rating system.
. to form the overall intelligent building index. there have been many studies trying to develop rating systems for the intelligent building. 2001 . More recently. Further research is needed to develop performance evaluation models that can meet the above criteria. and n Binary approach of each rule or question is not a good practice. The method employs five categories of factors which are combined to produce overall assessments of the suitability of intelligence provided by the subject building. The individual assessment index for this methodology was originated from the nine ‘Quality Environment Modules’ (M1 – M9). Wong et al. researchers have currently attempted to construct a set of objective evaluation model in order to reflect the performance and justified price of intelligent building. the shortcomings identified are in the following areas: n Inconsistence between final assessment index and human thinking. One of the essential performance rating systems was the ‘building rating method’ developed by DEGW in 1995 based on the ‘building IQ rating method’ and the ‘building quality assessment’ (developed by Intelligent Buildings Europe Work). So and Wong  suggested the criteria for an efficient performance evaluation model which states as follows: n Encourage well-balanced performances.W. third. each index possesses a score which is a real number (within the range of 1– 100) calculated by a conver-
sion formula. second. at the same time. it is difficult to classify and justify the level of intelligence of intelligent buildings. Arkin and Paciuk  developed a ‘‘Magnitude of Systems’ Integration’’ Index (MSIR) to examine the level of systems’ integration of intelligent buildings according to the extent of integration among their systems. to apply and pilot testing of evaluation instruments in field studies on intelligent office building. On the other hand. to carry out comparative analysis of data collected and development of recommendations and guidelines for the utilization of the data-gathering instruments worldwide. n Important elements do not receive sufficient emphasis and less important elements are ignored. This assessment methodology can be used for evaluation and comparison of single aspect of building’s intelligence and to create a unified index for evaluation of system’s integration in intelligent buildings. continuing basis’ because the evaluation system allows the ‘tracking of performance of new high-tech systems and their effects on building occupants as well as the effectiveness of these systems in general’. n Practically extension of the utility theory. weighting as attributes and combining them systematically. A building can be ranked from A to E to indicate the overall intelligent performance.
five-star and four-star). 15 for organizational. n Second phase: conducting POE involves methods and instruments—initiating data collection. [19. New Zealand and Canada
Arkin and Paciuk
Harrison et al. 6 for local environmental and 5 for global environmental). NS X Ri MSI ¼
1988 1991 1992
Camegie Mellon University Kuala Lumpur City Hall Intelligent Building Research Group
1992 1992 – 1994
Intelligent Building in Europe Project Holland. A simple cumulative index is obtained by summing all the ratings (Ri) attributed to the integration features of various systems in the building. performance criteria and planning the data collection process. (1)). services and applications (not published) Development of three evaluation methodologies to evaluate the quality of buildings and the suitability for different tenant types: real estate norm. Building IQ rating method: considering needs (10 for individual user.85]) Year 1983 1985 Research agency DEGW DEGW Details of assessment methods Orbit 1: multi-client study (building use studies) Orbit 2: degree of matching between the building. n Third phase: applying POE involves reporting findings. Project was not completed Intelligent building rating: key questions based on building shell characteristics. satisfaction and efficiency (using six performance criteria and five system integration criteria) Guidelines specifying features of office buildings based on location. Wong et al. The categories are each dimensioned as percent and the four quadrants of each plot are considered to indicate the building’s performance Post-occupancy evaluation process model (POE): three phases of process model include: n First phase: planning POE involves liaison with client.150
J. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
Table 2 Intelligent building performance assessment methods (adapted from Refs. design. the organizations occupying it and IT (using nine key organizations issues and eight key IT issues) Measures of quality.27. ‘‘MSI’’ was used to evaluate as objective index that quantifies and summarizes the various aspects of integration (Eq. recommending actions and reviewing outcomes Intelligent building index (IBI): quantitative assessment methods for IB which was originated from the nine ‘Quality Environment Modules’ (M1 – M9)
So and Wong (AIIB)
. systems and services (six-star. (D) organizational and work process issues (11 items). and serviceability tools and methods Building rating method: involving five sections (A – E) including namely (A) building site/location (7 items).K.
Preiser and Schramm
Building rating method (results matrix): based on the building rating method constructed by DEGW (1995) and demonstrated its use in evaluations through the two plots of the categories (A – B/C. building quality assessment.W. and (E) building services and technology (12 items) where the result is an overall score by combination of all items Magnitude of systems’ integration: to determine the level of systems’ integration in intelligent buildings. and then dividing the sum by the number of available systems. (C) building skin issues (3 items). monitoring data collection and analyzing data. (B) building shell issues (14 items). D – E).
Flax  emphasized the importance of technologies.98]: n Investors are unaware of the total cost in relation to the built asset that their business required. However. Myers  identified six types of costs including in an intelligent building project: equipment costs. spares costs. however.
4.88. A number of authors [26.94] suggested that the growing interest in investment has been credited to potential benefits that an intelligent building delivered to the investors. special software costs and staff/training costs. Research in investment evaluation analysis Another stream of research has been focusing on evaluating economic and financial aspects of intelligent building. many investors have the mentality of ‘high-risk and low-return’ towards investment in intelligent building. This mentality may be explained by following reasons [57. Wong et al. (2001)  attempted to analyze and examine the
. Investment considerations and evaluation techniques for intelligent building Traditionally. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
3. commissioning costs. installation costs.K. Hetherington  suggested the assessment should be made on ‘a project by project basis taking into account the overall project size. convenient and comfortable environment for occupants. and telecommunication in the total building and fit-out capital costs of intelligent building. efficiency and marketability’. Many authors have attempted to identify and classify the cost components of intelligent building.3. the number of intended work stations and the nature of each intelligent building system to be implemented’. which is referred as the investment feasibility evaluation of intelligent building projects. Others apply evaluation techniques to review the project feasibility and adherence to their goals . providing a flexible. There is a growing demand for tools to support intelligent building investment decision-making. Also. Many of the investment evaluation techniques aims to compare project benefits against costs in an attempt to ‘determine acceptability. the project costs and benefits need to be identified and classified.99] as these techniques have ‘failed to reflect the dynamic and constantly hanging reality of businesses’. it is difficult to assess and judge the financial viability of the project. before the evaluation of investment project. Some property investors review historic performance and request assessment of future performance of property portfolios in formulating the investment strategy decision . Investment to intelligent building has increased dramatically in the Asia Pacific region in recent years .W. Wong et al. there is still a lack of generally accepted tool for supporting intelligent building investment decision making. operating and maintenance cost as well as the equipping of the building with automation and communication. Wong et al. n Investors are lack of information and support for investment decision-making at the conception stage of intelligent building development. investors use various types of methods to assess the financial feasibility of a proposed project. offering advanced technological facilities together with reduced maintenance costs. n Investors are failed to observe the connections between initial capital cost. Without such identification works. and improving operational effectiveness. data systems.95]. In the evaluation of project costs of intelligent building. These benefits include ‘reducing operating and occupancy costs.  argued that many investors would consider cost and benefit when they decide whether it is worthwhile to invest in a new technology. The apparent insufficiency of traditional investment evaluation techniques has been identified by many authors [49. Choi  pointed out that the financial viability of intelligent building is the major concern of the developers. Therefore. It is for this reason that the development of new investment evaluation model has become the focus of intelligent building research.J. For example. Mawson  remarked the necessity of justifying the intelligent building investment on the basis of cost and benefit related to the users or investors’ business priorities in order to illustrate the profitability of intelligent building investment. and to set a ranking order among competing projects’ . Many prevailing investment evaluation techniques were extended
conceptually and functionally from the traditional investment decision making techniques [47. These techniques have also failed to provide a comprehensive picture of developers’ returns on investment. Despite all these.
88]. and reduce energy consumption of the facility which can be quantified in dollar terms..g. However. many authors have tried to evaluate the benefits generated by the intelligent building (e.K. airconditioning.
Table 3 Empirical studies for IB investment evaluation summary Year 2001 Authors/researchers Wong et al. A summary of the empirical studies and research efforts reviewed are illustrated in Table 3. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
project costs of both intelligent building and conventional building. Among these techniques. the intelligent building involved more application of advanced technological materials and components in building services systems than the conventional building. These
techniques are based on ‘time-cost-of-money’ principles and are used in slightly varied procedures to estimate the expected investment monetary returns .79] identified 25 different techniques for project investment evaluation. [14.67]. Wong et al. Simply because. a multi-media decision support tool based on the CBA framework Life cycle costing approach accessing the design alternatives which considering all the significant costs of ownership Life cycle costing approach comparing the life cycle cost of intelligent buildings with different levels of integration approach (non-integrated building.1.g. life cycle costing analysis (LCCA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA).54. research related to investment evaluation of intelligent building projects are very limited. power.95. Only a few authors or research groups (e. Net present value method One of the most commonly used investment evaluation techniques in the construction industry today is the NPV method. The NPV is a traditional technique designed to ‘net the present value of the investment from the present value of the benefit of the project’ . or large group revisions.22. In the area of investment evaluation.. internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (PB) are often used to appraise capital investment in building projects [20. It examines cash flows of a project over a given time period and resolves them to one equivalent present date cash flow by using various economic evaluation factors .. )
. environmental controls) and reduce relocation cost of individuals and services. Approach/methodologies Net present value approach systematic assessment of financial viability of IB by comparing two alternatives: conventional and IB building Cost benefit analysis approach ‘‘BIDS’’. and full integration) Evaluation tools NPV method
Yang and Peng
Software-based evaluation model. net present value (NPV). according to Kingston . Apart from project costs. NPV is also a basic tool of CBA approach NPV/discounting method
Lohner (cited in Ref.152
J.47. The basic rule of net present value method is to accept the project with a positive net present value and reject if the value is negative.W.10. [8. Suttell  suggested intelligent building can improve the productivity of building operations.98]) developed techniques and models to assist the process of intelligent building investment evaluation.58. evaluation tool was not specified in the Report However.e. Our overview of empirical studies for the intelligent building investment evaluation revealed that the three most commonly mentioned approaches are the NPV method.54. partial integration. a plethora of evaluation techniques have been developed to assist investors to examine and evaluate the economic desirability of projects.32. The findings suggested the total project costs of intelligent building were generically higher than that of conventional building by 8%. Flax  pointed out intelligent building can minimize the cost on all ongoing expenses (i. and the expenditures on building services were higher than conventional building project by 5%.48. Refs.31.70.39. 4. Remer and Nieto [78.
13. Wong et al. attention should be paid to the following aspects. An unworthy project may be recommended if the chosen rate is
.77. Keel. Results suggested that the fully integrated intelligent building had the lowest life cycle cost compared with non-integrated and partially integrated intelligent buildings. different operating and maintenance and repair costs. LCCA has been employed in a number of empirical studies.
4. LCCA serves two major functions. Many capital investment projects  such as budget planning. regulations. Wong et al. Life cycle costing analysis The LCCA is another approach employed for the evaluation of intelligent building investment.35.50].. In addition. It is used to examine the building performance with different initial investment costs. and tangible benefits by time period must be obtained before performing the CBA . and safety and environmental programs planning  have adopted the CBA approach to compare the costs and benefits.K. and possibly different lives .40. as an investment evaluation technique of
intelligent building. it can be used as an asset management system throughout product’s life cycle . CBA has been traditionally applied to fields including policies. where NCFi represents the net cash flow from the project at period i. Third.17. partial integration and full integration). The cash flow for each option is converted to a common time basis for rational comparison using the NPV technique.3. programs. Despite its simplicity. k represents the capital cost and T is the project life span. For example. some studies suggest that information such as development and operating costs. Kingston  and Islas et al.W. Generally. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
When two or more projects are evaluated.44. and it then determines the capital cost and costin-use for each alternative. First. Cost benefit analysis The purpose of CBA is to give management ‘a reasonable picture of the costs. Yang and Peng  used the LCCA to assess various design alternatives. First.  applied the NPV technique to analyze the financial viability of two project alternatives: conventional or intelligent building. Second. analysis results can be highly affected by the discount factors employed in the CBA. The NPV method was used to calculate the life cycle cost of each model of integration. The solution which outperforms in functions and quality is then recommended. projects. Similar to LCCA. respectively.11. Second. " # " # T T X NCFi X Ii NPV ¼ À f f j¼1 ð1 þ kÞ f ¼1 ð1 þ kÞ Wong et al.  suggested that wrong selection of discount rate would produce a great variation in benefit/cost ratio. Their approach starts with the selection of design alternatives. 4.55.  noted that the reliability of the NPV technique can be affected by the unavailability of relevant cost and benefit data. optimization and quantification of the construction cost during disposal and design stages. demonstrations and other government interventions [16. The study concluded that the intelligent building was more favorable option which had a higher property value at the end of life cycle period.97]).g. Aye et al. while Gluch and Baumann  used the LCCA to determine the environmental decision-making in building investment. The optimal determination of building life cycles was integrated into the analysis in order to provide a comprehensive financial viability results for intelligent building.  employed the LCCA to evaluate project investment options and make selection between competing alternatives.2. In the use of the CBA technique. dams and airports construction. the CBA technique relies on the NVP method as the basis for analysis [16.J. Abraham and Dickinson  and Bogenstatter  ¨ applied the LCCA to the prediction. the one with higher present value is generally selected.69]. project costs and benefits at each stage of the life cycle are discounted into the present values. LCCA approach is widely applied in various aspects of construction and building projects (e. [2.96.30. The NPV can be computed using the following formula . 2003  applied the LCCA to compare and evaluate the total investment life cycle costs of intelligent building at different levels of integration (non-integrated building. benefits and risks associated with a given project so that it can be compared to other investment opportunities’ . it applies in evaluation of alternatives in various aspects . Refs.
Macedo et al. CBA fails to include a method for coping with uncertainty during the evaluation of investment opportunities . n Changes in operational assumptions arising from modifications in user activities. Al-Harbi  applied
. Ho and Liu  critiqued that the NPV method fails to ‘respond and capture management’s flexibility to adapt or revise later decision when.44]. There are only several applications of CBA in evaluating intelligent building investment. First. AHP can be used to model a decision making framework.99]. The analytical approach was built on a three dimensional matrix: design options. the rational and the irrational when the users make multi-objective. Specifically. In general. it is difficult to interpret the nature of the methodologies based on the fact that it is a program-based analytical model. A software program.4. One drawback is that the result is subject to the availability and reliability of input data due to the complexity of building process and numerous components in a building [12. Analytical hierarchy process These identified limitations suggest the need to develop new methods to evaluate intelligent building investment projects.  extended the AHP to evaluating and analyzing building and construction projects. Akin to the NPV method. Akalu  also noted that the NPV method would lead to different decision results in mutually exclusive projects. The accuracy of the result is highly dependent on the assumptions and estimates made whilst collecting data. future events turn out differently from what management expected at the beginning’.46. the LCCA fails to handle irreversible decisions and the results are biased towards the decision maker’s personal values . Many researchers pointed out that traditional evaluation methods are unable to accommodate the task of evaluating intelligent building projects. Recently. n Future technological advances that could provide lower cost alternatives.5. Al Khalil  and Nassar et al.49. The AHP is a decision analyzing and structuring method developed by Saaty in 1970s [6. multi-criterion and multi-actor decisions with and without certainty for any number of alternatives’ . based on the CBA framework was developed and incorporated within a multi-media decision support tool. is suggested to remedy the existing problems . (1978)  summarized some major uncertainties of the LCCA: n Differences between actual and expected performances of a system could affect future operation and maintenance costs. 4. and scenarios. there are drawbacks in the LCCA. cost benefit factors. n Changes on the price level of a major resource such as energy or manpower. AHP comprises a comprehensive framework which is designed to ‘cope with the intuitive. the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). the standard CBA approach considers only tangible benefits and is unable to measure intangible benefits in financial terms.K.7. Moreover. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
too low as the distant benefits are underweighted relative to near-term costs. Limitations of existing techniques for evaluating investment projects on intelligent building have been recognized [4. named as the ‘Building Investment Decision Support (BIDS)’ system. which assumes a uni-directional hierarchical relationship among decision levels. For example.66].65. although the ABSIC’s model was very practical and suggestive.45. ABSIC Group  employed CBA to evaluate the investment in advanced and innovative building system.154
J. as uncertainty is revolved. an evaluation approach which combines the basics of qualitative and quantitative research. Furthermore. AHP has been applied in investment evaluation. Wong et al. and n Errors in estimating relationship.69]. Al-Harbi . as there is always an element of uncertainty associated with the estimates and assumptions. The CBA approach has also revealed several limitations in its capacity to evaluate building investment projects [30.67. The ‘equal class of risk’ assumption in the NPV calculation for both cash inflows and outflows of projects is not practical in the real world.W. Second. Many of these criticisms indicated that traditional NPV based evaluation techniques are not capable of evaluating investment relating to advanced technologies or systems. Abdel-Kader and Dugdale  pointed out the use of ‘arbitrarily’ high hurdle discount rates in the NPV calculation for new technology investment would affect the accuracy of evaluation.
 applied AHP as a decision-making technique to select the appropriate building materials and components based on a set of user-specified criteria and their relative importance weights. They argued that AHP is basically concerned with the analytical factors evaluation.W. quantitatively effectively evaluated tangible benefits measurable and qualitative factors n Hierarchical n Provide a reasonable n Consider the impact representation of a system picture of the costs. 2003  Not applied in IB yet Advantages n Enable investment n Able to consider life n Considers tangible and options to be more cycle cost and intangible.
However. the usefulness of AHP in investment evaluation has also been questioned by Chan et al. depreciation. of all costs rather than n Provides more benefits. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
AHP to the building contractor prequalification decision-making so that the client can determine the contractor’s competence or ability to participate in bidding. Nassar et al. . Wong et al. and risks only initial capital costs information on the structure associated with a given n Facilitate choice and function of a system in system development between competing the lower level alternatives project so that can n Provides an overview of compare it to other the actors and their purposes investment opportunities in the upper levels n Not consider any n Considers only Disadvantages/ n Fails to handle tangible benefits assessment regarding limitations uncertainty and ‘linguistic terms’ irreversible decisions n Does not reflect the n No consideration of n Poor availability and uncertainty qualitative and subjective reliability of data nature of many factors n Relies on estimated n Exact assessment data is variables difficult to obtain in real world n Biased results n Conceptual confusion Purpose/reasons Select the best design alternatives based on the life cycle costs
Select the best design alternatives based on comparison of cost. tangible benefit and associated risk of design alternatives
AHP and fuzzy set theory Not applied in IB yet n Able to deal quantitatively with imprecision or uncertainty n To tackle the ambiguities involved in the process and to assure a more convincing and effective decision-making
n Lacks empirical evidence for their applicability and wide acceptance in construction industries
. Furthermore.. Lohner.e. expenses. salvage value.K. Based on AHP with fuzzy set theory
Comprehensive framework designed to cope with the intuitive. AHP (as well as the traditional evaluation methods) is based on the concept of accurate measurement and crisp evaluation (i. gross income. Abdel-
Table 4 Comparison of investment evaluation approaches Investment evaluation approaches Current approaches Life cycle costing (LCC) CBA AHP Recommended approach Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method (combining AHP and fuzzy set theory) An integration of risks financial and non-financial factors in investment evaluation. are difficult to obtain in real world.J. Al Khalil  employed AHP in the evaluation and selection of an appropriate project delivery method. the measuring values must be exact and numerical) where exact assessment data such as investment cost. multi-criterion and multi-actor decisions with and without certainty for any number of alternatives Basic tool NPV NPV Comparison matrices Authors . the rational and the irrational when we make multi-objective.
87. indexes for IB 75. performance evaluation methodologies.48.M. (1997 (November)) 31 – 35.N. Conclusions This paper summarizes existing research in the area of intelligent building. M. M.  M. Akalu. Evaluating investments in advanced manufacturing technology: a fuzzy set theory approach. Ancevic. Investment decision making: a behavioural perspective. Chan et al. Specifically. ) Construction of investment [14.87. Journal of Property Finance 5 (4) (1994) 32 – 42.61. Adair.K. British Accounting Review 33 (2001) 455 – 489. Evaluating intelligent building according to level of service system integration. the paper indicates that previous research efforts have dealt mainly
. Application of AHP in project management.S. Intelligent building system for airport.51. International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 469 – 474. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159
The research subject Defining IB
Credible publications [9.  M. International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19 – 27. The process of investment appraisal: the experience of 10 large British and Dutch companies.).93]
Advanced and System integration. Abdel-Kader and Dugdale  suggested the same methodology to model and evaluate investment in advanced manufacturing technology. 355 – 362. Dickinson.W.S. the Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings (cited in Ref.29.  proposed a ‘fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method’. )
with advanced and innovative intelligent technologies.A.87.94] [8.91. Controls. Handbook of Heating.70. in: J.G.  D. W.90] Communication system [38.  M.86.87] Evaluation and Intelligent Buildings construction of Europe Work (cited performance models and in Refs. J.  H.94] Lighting system [48. Ven-
Kader and Dugdale  also critiqued that the use of precise value in AHP does not ‘reflect the qualitative and subjective nature of many factors’. pp.26. Re-examining project appraisal and control: developing a focus on wealth creation.21. it is expected that ambiguities involved in the evaluation process can be minimized.92. Dugdale. Brambley.  K.19. Katipamula. Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. Abraham. This method overcomes deficiencies of traditional evaluation models. Simultaneously. innovative building automation technologies system and communication network HVAC system
[15. Akalu.  M.80.90] Lift system [48.
 M.70.87] Fire protection system [48.J. 82. Wong et al. Al-Harbi. to overcome the inefficiencies of traditional evaluation techniques.41. a systematic approach by combing fuzzy set theory with AHP. By using the FMCDCM.47.18.I. 56.59. Berry. Lohner evaluation techniques (2003.74. A summary of methods/techniques used for investment evaluation is presented in Table 4 below.M. Abdel-Kader.R.23.72.
5. Disposal costs for environmentally regulated facilities: LCC approach.77. [9.F. In view of the inadequacies of the traditional evaluation techniques and AHP. R. and. for the purpose of technology selection. Kreider (Ed. ASHRAE Journal.  P.  A.47. which combining the use of fuzzy set theory with AHP.87] Security system [48. Arkin.64. International Journal of Project Management 21 2003. FMCDCM has been applied in problems related to technology selection and advanced manufacturing investment evaluation. The paper also revealed that relatively less attention has been paid to addressing investment evaluation of intelligent building. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 471 – 4220.127.116.11. International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 375 – 383.M. S. McGreal.S.87. cited in and methodologies for IB Ref.98].27. the growing amount of investment in intelligent buildings in recent years has led to a great demand for better methods and techniques for evaluating investments in order to maintain investment profitability.32.83. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124 (2) (1998) 146 – 154.90. Al Khalil.156 Table 5 Literature review summary Research area Definition
J. P.89. The paper further proposes a ‘fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method’ (FMCDCM).85.68. Paciuk.95.37. in order to ‘tackle the ambiguities involved in the process and to assure a more convincing and effective decision-making’ . Curtiss.M. investment evaluation analysis (Table 5 listed main credible publications in these research aspects). 70. Armstrong.33. D. Similarly.98]).
‘‘Demonstrating automated fault detection and diagnosis method in real buildings’’. A. pp. N. 7 – 18. Australia. M. A. Weimer. 1993. Computer Society Press. Boardman. Washington DC. Kivijarvi. Nurmimaki.Y. pp. hhttp://www.wbdg.J. Fu. 2001. Smart and smarter-intelligent buildings graduate to new level. 1994. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 107 2000.M. E. the European Intelligent Building Group. Teknibank. pp. Kuntze. The Information System Consultant’s Handbook : Systems Analysis and Design. Paper presented to the Fifth International Conference on Tall Buildings. Boyd. B. Health Facilities Management. L. L. Seoul Korea IEEE. pp.H. in: D. J. 330 – 337. in: W. Ashworth. Pakanen. L. New York. The Intelligent Building Definition Handbook. G. Dexter. Gardner. Miller.H. Gassmann.C. pp. pp. 4 – 15. L. Building and Environment 39 (5) (2004 (May)) 571 – 580. Life Cycle Costing for Construction. 2000. W. (1991 (April)) 24 – 27.Alfred Waller in association with Unicom. London. K. Sensor Application Vol. Estimating the life expectancies of building components in life-cycle costing calculations.
.E. Fellows. Helsinki. Intelligent buildings and management. The Intelligent Building in Europe-Executive Summary.C. in: O.htmi (2003). Florida. 427 – 438. pp.O. 1 – 3. Bernard. Ferry. Bernaden. Chan. Chan. Report 122. 1990. B. Federal Highway Administration. DC. Dexter. Habitat International 14 (2/3) (1990) 171 – 176. Wong et al. Bogenstatter.D. J. Construction Management and Economics 18 (2000) 927 – 934. Finch. J. Cho.H. S. 1988. T.T. Robinson. Facilities 18 (5/6) (2000) 225 – 234. W. B. CA.T. and Air-Conditioning.M. 2001.W. London.K.L. Finch.edu/ bids> (2001). W. Greenberg. M. The Intelligent Building Index 10: Health and Sanitation. Chung. Jankovic. Fuller.J. CRC Press. pp. 1999. 103 – 126.J. F. D. Weinheim. Cost Engineering 3 (1989 (March)) 8 – 11. Carlini. in: D. Boca Raton. Charters. US Department of Transportation. Environmentally sustainable development: a life cycle costing approach for a commercial office building in Melbourne. National Institute of Standards and Technology.org/ design/resource. Paper presented to the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. H. D. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 529 – 540. J. Intelligent Buildings. Gluch.). Hong Kong. Boyd (Ed. et al (Ed. London. Hong Kong. 1981 – 1987. Tang. Gopel (Eds. What do we mean by intelligent buildings? Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 395 – 399. Economic Analysis Primer-Benefit-Cost Analysis hhttp://www. 2001. Washington.J. Is IP everywhere the way ahead for building automation? Facilities 19 (11/12) (2001) 396 – 403. Norman.C. R. Henley on Thames. E. 1 – 23. U. N. Aye. L.R. D. Cost/benefit analysis. Hong Kong Organising Committee. Yen (Eds. Finland. Flax. Measuring a building IQ. ABSIC Project #00-2 Final Report: Building Investment Decision Support (BIDS) < http://gaudi. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings.L. 1983. P. B. Cost – Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practices. A. Bradshaw. D. New York. Flanagan. pp. V.Alfred Waller in association with Unicom. 35 – 54. Bamford. H. FL. Carlini. Remote building control using the internet. pp.dot.S Davis. hierarchical and distributed control kernel architecture for rapid resource
   
integration of intelligent building system.arc. 2nd edition. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). CRC Press. . P. S.fhwa. University of Central England. Hallikainen. pp. Holonic supervisory control and data acquisition kernel for 21st century intelligent building system. R. T. Intelligent building systems in Hong Kong. in: J. W.php?cn = 0^rp = 0i (2003). Intelligent Buildings. Structural Survey 14 (2) (1996) 4 – 8. San Francisco. pp.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer05. London. D. University of Central England.). et al.S. 2641 – 2646. London.A. 209 – 268. Life cycle costing: a practical tool. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159 tilation. New Jersey. Prentice Hall. J. Hawaii. Gardner. 3rd edition. 1998. second edition. Building Research and Information 28 (5/6) (2000) 376 – 386. Henley on Thames. K. Boyd. Building Control System. IBI. Blanchard. Clements-Croome. The life cycle costing approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Prentice-Hall. The Intelligent Building Sourcebook. S. (1990 (June)) 22 – 30. High-technology buildings and the information economy. Washington DC. Intelligent buildings. Fu. Paper presented to the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. Prentice Hall. 1991. J. . A. Bushby. IEEE Computer Society Press. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle ¨ costs in early design.J.S.L. Davis. Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings. ABSIC. Chow. Wiley-VCH. Meixner. 1991. Ashworth.S. Quantity Surveyors Division of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Baumann. Life cycle costing—a radical approach. Sensor-based management of energy and thermal comfort. D. BACnet: a standard communication infrastructure for intelligent buildings. Construction Research and Information Association. Annex 34 Final Publication (2001). Evaluating stra¨ ¨ tegic IT investments: an assessment of investment alternatives for a web content management system.W. Burmahl. Flanagan. Intelligent building control systems. R. T.).K. Building IQ—rating the intelligent building. John Wiley and Sons. 2001. Facilities 16 (12/13) (1998) 356 – 360. Gann. A.). D. Huang. DEGW. A.C. 2004. 1998. 293 – 301.S. A flexible.cmu. 1994. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Vining. Fabrycky. British Council for Offices.T. IEEE Communications Magazine.). Evaluation methodologies for technology selection. H. Boyd (Ed. Preface.B. Life Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis. Shih.E. H.
Harrison. in: O. New York. Meade. 159 – 171. J. Remer.  S. A.S. F. Energy 28 (2003) 979 – 992. E. pp. J. University of Central England. G. Mugge. 311 – 316. Mehta. pp. Nieto. Myers. Costs of intelligent buildings. Sensor Application Vol. J. Net present value and rate of return methods. Schramm. CABA Intelligent and Integrated Building Council Task Forces.C. J. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings. pp. The future of intelligent buildings. D. J. P. International Journal of Production Economics 42 (1995) 101 – 129. Robinson. IEEE Computer Society Press.S. Mawson. Informa-
 J. Luthi. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 381 – 393.A. 1998.W. Stonham. Nieto. W. in: O. Gopel (Eds. A. Beliveau.). McCowan. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. IEA Annex 25 Final publication.W. in: W. Weinheim.E. 261 – 291. 2001. J. S.F. J. S. Intelligent Buildings. DC. 2002. Kunz. Gopel (Eds. in: D. Loveday. Murphy. Intelligent Buildings.). A. Weinheim.C. Gardner. Automated people counting to aid lift control. Building Research and Information 29 (6) (2001) 456 – 459. 173 – 199. K. Liu.  E. Wenzler. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques: Part 1. D. A multi-agent multi-sensor based security system for intelligent building. T. D.J. 259 – 265. Wiley. Wiley-VCH. pp.P.  Y.158
J.P. Royle. Sensors in HVAC systems for metering and en¨ ergy cost allocation.F. W.).M. Loe.E. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 437 – 445. pp. 1996. Intelligent Buildings in South East Asia. Kroner.P. payback.  T. International Review of Law and Economics 22 (2003) 511 – 526.Alfred Waller in association with Unicom. Martinez. K.W. Cheung.  J.  D. 1996.
  
. L. Presley. Sensor systems in modern high-rise elevators. Remer. Boyd (Ed. H. Gassmann.  K. Plant and equipment acquisition: a life cycle costing case study. Intelligent Buildings: A Guide for Facility Managers. Cost benefit analysis in theory and practice. Hetherington. Sarkis. A. EMCS Engineering. Pressure sensors in the ¨ HVAC industry. (1999 (May)) 73 – 77. 1994. S.). Using cost benefit analysis for enterprise resource planning project evaluation: a case of including intangibles. Facilities 20 (7/8) (2002) 279 – 287.  W. 1995. International Journal of Production Research 37 (2) 1999. Preiser. Meisinger. Oct. E & FN SPON. 1994. An option pricing-based model for evaluating the financial viability of privatized infrastructure projects. Thabet. 1999. D. International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 231 – 241. U. Read. Chichester. Azzi. Robathan. Meixner. 2001. HPAC. L. Gopel. 59 – 66.A. Intelligent office building performance evaluation.M. Construction Management and Economics 20 (2002) 143 – 156. Hesse. 154 – 169.M. H. Feedback. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159 J.). VTT. Wiley-VCH. Life Cycle Costing for Intelligent Buildings. 1994. pp. Nassar.L. 61 – 72. von Wangenheim. McKinsey. Hot properties. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. R. Kingston. CABA. NCARB. A. Henley on Thames. Marchesi.M. D.K. van Grenbergen (Ed. Idea Group. Virk. H. Automation in Construction 12 2003. Washington. Facilities 21 (11/12) (2003) 260 – 264.M. The future of intelligent buildings is now. London. Meixner. Ratio.F. R&D project selection using analytic network process. L.K. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings. in: O. V.L.  M. Wiley-VCH. Henley on Thames. Australian Economic Review 34 (4) (2001) 478 – 487. Hofmann. London. K. J. Modelling project investment decisions under uncertainty using possibility theory. 2003. W. Washington DC.  J. Islas. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (1) 2002 (February). Hesse. Facilities 14 (5/6) (1996) 21 – 25. Information Technology Evaluation Methods and Management. 2001. 1995. W. Hares. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques: Part 2. Cost benefit analysis of energy scenarios for the Mexican power sector. Weinheim. Intelligent design teams design intelligent building. Intelligence in buildings: the potential of advanced modelling.Alfred Waller in association with Unicom. University of Central England.P. Gassmann. 25 – 26. Far Eastern Economic Review 164 (1) (2001) 37. A review of research issues in evaluation of information systems.  F. Serafeimidis. London. Improving Building Performance. pp. R.  A. S.  G. Intelligent building and its influence on the design process. Meade. pp.  E.Y. London. Ho. W. Y. Habitat International 14 (2/3) (1990) 83 – 94. Van Grembergen (Ed. 139 – 149. Keel.). International Journal of Production Economics 42 (1995) 79 – 96. A procedure for multicriteria selection of building assemblies. J. Gopel (Eds. 2003.J. Meixner. Leo.  E. G. Ottawa. Brazil: High Technology Buildings. Building Optimisation and Fault Diagnosis System Source Book. A fresh look at intelligent buildings.M. FINLAND. Trade secrets versus cost benefit analysis.). 2001. Sensor Application Vol. Paper presented to the International Conference Sao Paulo. Schofield. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 447 – 461. J. Lima. Luo. Preiser. Brazil. Su. Preiser. A.Y. Measuring the Value of Information Technology. W. Lin. 241 – 261. pp.E. Karki. Gardner. and accounting methods. UpWord Publishing. C. Paper presented to the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Multi-sensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems. An intelligent and responsive architecture. Boyd (Ed. in: W. Ivanovich.Y. M. feedforward and control: post-occupancy evaluation to the rescue. Sensor Application Vol.  W. Gassmann. Manzini. Ontario.  R. Powell. G. in: D. Simon. W. Intelligent Building Concept. Wong et al. Hesse. 543 – 560. Hamdy. Mohamed.S.  A. M. pp.W. Hyvarinen. pp.
Hesse. A. Intelligent Skin. Kanoun. Dobrow. Boston. Life cycle costing for construction proj¨ ects. 485 – 510.W. Weinheim. Chichester. Wiley-VCH. Trankler.P. So.T. J.P.W.W. K. Wiley-VCH. UK. International Journal of Project Management 15 (6) (1997) 335 – 344. 29 – 61. N. Hesse. H. (1999 (May)) 1 – 8. pp. pp.T. Decision support to the application of intelligent building technologies. P. So.V. pp.W. So. in: O. Meixner. P. Achieving Maximum Value from Information Systems.K. / Automation in Construction 14 (2005) 143–159 tion Technology evaluation Methods and Management.  S. Kluwer Academic Publishers.W.  J. H. Gopel (Eds. Macedo. H. S. The IT Magazine. Gopel (Eds. pp. The Intelligent Building Index Manual. Facilities 20 (5/6) (2002) 208 – 216.T.  M. Wubbenhorst. W. Integrating building management system and facility management on internet. Hesse. Meixner. A. pp.T. Oxford. A.C. A. O. O’Rourke. Sensor Application Vol.L. A.G. Yeo. Building and Environment 35 (6) (2000) 471 – 487. Wong. Tse. Remenyi. W. R. Wang. B. Renewable Energy 22 (2001) 67 – 77. Gopel.  D. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings. The financial viability of intelligent buildings: a Faustmann approach of assessment. Wong. S. Jin. J. A new definition of intelligent buildings for Asia.  D.C.
  
 S. Sensor Application Vol.J. 2001. 2002. J. Buildings.W. Int. Sensor systems in intelligent buildings. J.C. H. A. J.P. 2nd edition. Wang. Chan. Sherwood-Smith. NY. J.R. 307 – 397. Woodward.). Pfister. Sharples. Callaghan. V. Suttell. Gassmann. 1997. Gopel.W. Automation in Construction 6 (1997) 511 – 527. J. Gardner. W. Model-based optimal control of VAV air-conditioning system using genetic algorithm. Gassmann. So. J. 1978. Weinheim. The value of management flexibility—a real option approach to investment evaluation. Wong. Sensor Application Vol.L.H. Wong. International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 245 – 250.J. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings.W. Meixner.).L.L. Gassmann.T. G. JohnWiley & Sons. Belgium. information acquisition and application. Law-based sensor fault diagnosis and validation for building air-conditioning systems. 2002. Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings. 58 – 77. M. Intelligent and integrated buildings. (19) (1986) 87 – 97.  K. Ryser.P. Wiley-VCH. J. in: O. On the quantitative assessment of intelligent building. The integration of communications networks in the intelligent building. Choi. 2001 (October). 49 and 52. Automation in Construction 11 (6) (2002) 707 – 715. 1999. G. Harris.P. A multi-agent architecture for intelligent building sensing and control. J.C. Peng.W. Weinheim. Idea Group Publishing. Smith.W. Wang.C. 2001. K.Q. Will you rent an office in an intelligent building. Value Management for Construction. 1 – 20.T. Wang. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 6 (1) (2001 (March)) 41 – 50. (May (1995)) 14 – 20.  K. Intelligent Building Systems.  M.  K.B. F. Wong et al.). H. Long Range Planning. Yang. in: O. X.  D. J. Yu. HVAC&R Research 5 (4) (1999) 353 – 380. Thuillard. M. International Sensor Review Journal. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings. So.
. JohnWiley. W. November. 2001.  S. Clarke. Xie. Hong Kong. Life cycle costing—theory. Intelligent air-conditioning control. Architectural Press. Gopel (Eds. Life Safety and Security Systems. Qiu. Wigginton. 2001.