Sleeping Digital Twins

Sleeping
Digital Twins
Exploring the appetite, benefits
and challenges of whole-life
performance modelling
Created by IES in collaboration with:

Sleeping Digital Twins Contents
Foreword ............................................................ 4 Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 5

Benefits Beyond Net-Zero .............................. 20 The Model Ownership Debate ....................... 36 The Path Ahead ................................................ 46
Contributors ....................................................... 6
Cost-Conscious: Where Are We Now? Cross Stakeholder Collaboration .................................. 47
Introduction ....................................................... 8 Maximising Value for Money ........................................... 21 A Review of Current Model Ownership ......................... 37
See the Bigger Picture .................................................... 47
Creature Comforts: Breaking Up is Hard to Do:
Chapter 1 Occupant Comfort and Wellbeing ................................. 22 Where to Start:
The Model Handover Process ......................................... 39
Assessing Engagement and Understanding In-Use Evaluation .............................................................. 47
Moving In: Which Way?
of Whole-Life Performance Modelling Realising the Value of In-Use Evaluation ....................... 23 Introduce a Best Practice Approach ............................ 48
Improving Access to Models ............................................ 40
and its Potential ............................................... 10 Upskilling and Knowledge Sharing .............................. 48
Futureproofing: Collaboration is Key:
Net-Zero Potential: Making Smarter Renovation and Rebuild Decisions .... 24 Storage Solutions ............................................................. 42 Start the Conversation ................................................... 49
A Whole Life Performance Modelling Approach .......... 11
Demonstrating Excellence: Custody Battle:
Status Quo: Achieving In-Use Certifications & ESG Reporting ........ 24 Should There Be Single or Shared Ownership? ............ 43
Current Uptake of Post-Design Model Utilisation ....... 16
Key Takeaways .................................................................. 25 Rules of The Game:
Moving On:
Should There Be a Standardised
The Appetite for Change ................................................. 17 Chapter 3 Best Practice Approach? .................................................. 44
Blockages: Whole Lifecycle Building In the Driving Seat:
Challenges and Barriers to Progress .............................. 18 Performance Survey ........................................ 26 Who Needs to Lead on the Approach? .......................... 44
Key Takeaways .................................................................. 19 Moving On:
Should Models be on the Handover Checklist? ............ 45
Key Takeaways .................................................................. 45
2 3
Sleeping Digital Twins Foreword
Foreword
Don McLean
Something that most organisations within the built environment are I believe this is just
united on is the need to decarbonise the world’s buildings as efficiently the beginning of this
and quickly as possible to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. important conversation
The built environment must make a dramatic and rapid In recent years I have started to see a shift
shift to significantly reduce its contribution to emissions. within the industry and momentum is
Technology offers the answer to doing this, particularly building for this approach. Steadily, people
in the built environment sector, where it is capable of are becoming enlightened about the benefits
providing the tools to make a difference. We can no it can bring in terms of optimising operational For this to be fully
longer overlook the potential of buildings to help performance and helping to reach net-zero
mitigate the effects of climate change. targets. successful there are
The tools to enable effective decarbonisation of However, for this to be fully successful still many challenges
buildings already exist, however, these are not yet being there are still many challenges and barriers
utilised to their full capability. There is potential to meet to break through, and this must begin with and barriers to break
global climate goals if we wake up to the importance better collaboration and discussion from all
of embracing technology, such as performance digital stakeholders involved in a building’s lifecycle. through, and this
twins created from energy models, to design, build and
retrofit zero carbon, energy-efficient buildings and close
We need to work together to find solutions
and overcome the challenges highlighted in must begin with
the performance gap between predicted and actual
in-use energy performance.
this paper. better collaboration
Although the creation of this paper has been
Integrated whole-life building performance modelling led by IES, I am delighted to say that it has and discussion from
is not a new concept. In fact, it is one I have been
advocating long before I founded IES in 1994. And as
been a collaborative endeavour, bringing
together some of the biggest industry voices
all stakeholders
we face the current climate crisis, it has never been
more important than it is today.
to discuss the challenges, issues and wins
for both consultants and clients that taking
involved in a
The purpose of this paper is an industry call
a digitisation of building performance building’s lifecycle.
approach delivers.
to action for the digitisation of building
performance and its role in decarbonisation. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all
It introduces my vision of the Sleeping of the contributors. I believe this is just the
Digital Twin, an initiative, which aims to beginning of this important conversation and
evolve the many dormant 3D design, I hope that this paper will serve as a catalyst
compliance and BIM models that for much bigger conversations and changes
exist for the majority of our that will enable the effective implementation
current building stock into of Sleeping Digital Twins to close the
digital twins which are useable performance gap and decarbonise our
across the building lifecycle. building stock.
4 5
Sleeping Digital Twins Contributors
Contributors Bringing together some

of the biggest industry voices
1 Andrew Jolly 5 Chris Anton 8 Rich Draper 11 Simon Bell

Principal – Digital Innovation Lead Energy Officer Head of BIM and Digital Assets, Director and Board Sponsor for 1 5 10
at Introba at Perth & Kinross Council University of Birmingham and Sustainability at HLM Architects
Andrew leads all aspects of Digital Chris has over 16 years of experience Co-Chair of BIM4Estates - an AUDE Simon is a Director and Board Sponsor for
Engineering across Introba globally. working in the engineering & energy industry. SIG and Affiliate of NIMA (Previously Sustainability at HLM Architects. He is also
He develops and manages the group He holds a Building Services Honours Degree the UK BIM Alliance) a Certified Passivhaus Consultant and Board
digital strategy and approach, working (BEng Hons) and currently manages the Director of the Passivhaus Association of
with all the different sector teams. Energy Team at Perth & Kinross Council Rich Draper champions Client Lead BIM and Ireland. He has also supported IES as part Andrew Jolly Chris Anton Gary Clark
He leads their research, development & whilst being the Energy Lead on all major Digital Information Management. With an of a team researching the use of Digital Twin
innovation initiatives which are run firm capital and refurbishment projects. He is established pedigree in BIM in Design, Technology at the University of Glasgow.
wide. Andrew has over 25 years’ experience a member of Perth and Kinross Council’s Construction, Asset and estates management 6
in the built environment working on many Rich has forged the approach adopted by 2 11
Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies 12 Don McLean
large-scale projects. (LHEES) working group. University of Birmingham and other higher
education organisations with their processes Founder and Chief Executive
2 Tom Wigg 6 Andrew Krebs and systems. He is a strong advocate for the Officer at IES
use of BIM and Digital Twin technologies in
Senior Advisor – Net Zero Carbon Digital Studio Manager at Sweco the industry and works to implement and
Don has spent the last 40+ years pioneering
Buildings at the UK Green Building the development and use of building
Andrew is the manager of Sweco’s Digital optimise delivery and operations processes.
Council (UKGBC) Rich is constantly pushing the boundaries of
simulation software worldwide. Since
Tom Wigg Andrew Krebs Simon Bell
Studio and Chair of the CIBSE Society of founding IES in 1994, his vision and leadership
Digital Engineering. His background in BIM BIM technology and is a respected thought
Following a Master’s in astrophysics, has been the driving force behind the success
and digital began on his employer’s first ever leader in the industry.
Tom has spent the last 7 years working of the company, seeing it grow from humble
BIM project, and from there has shifted from beginnings to a successful and key global 3 7 12
in sustainability in the built environment.
Firstly, as a consultant delivering full
building services to enabling digitalisation 9 Gillian Brown player in the field of sustainable building
spectrum sustainability and energy support
throughout the industry as an enabler to Vice Chair of the Energy Managers design and operation. To date, IES technology
creating a safer and more sustainable built Association and PhD Researcher has helped design more than one million
on a wide range of projects, before joining
environment. His role in the Society of energy efficient buildings across the globe.
the UKGBC’s Advancing Net Zero (ANZ) at University of Glasgow
Digital Engineering seeks to open doors to
programme. Tom also sits on the Technical
professional recognition for those who are Gillian has nearly 20 years' experience in the 13 Ruth Kerrigan
Steering Group of the UK Net Zero Carbon
Buildings Standard initiative.
involved in digitalising the built environment net zero and sustainability sector and has Farah Husayni Todd Lukesh Don McLean
but don’t have a voice in the industry. Chief Operating Officer at IES
delivered carbon emission reductions in some
3 Farah Husayni of the largest public sector organisations at As COO Ruth plays a key role in implementing
7 Todd Lukesh both local and national scale. Currently a PhD the company vision and strategy, with 4 8 13
Senior Sustainability Consultant
Client Engagement Manager researcher at University of Glasgow she particular emphasis on integration with
and Team Leader at XCO2 researches digital twinning and digital emerging and future technologies and
at Gafcon Digital, an Accenture
modelling capabilities in 1960s higher developing new solutions for the
Having originally studied Architecture in Company education buildings. decarbonisation of the built environment.
Saudi Arabia, Farah went on to complete
Todd is a Client Engagement Manager for Having worked in the R&D space for the last
a Master’s in Environmental Design and
Engineering with the University College real estate advisory services of Gafcon Digital, 10 Gary Clark 20 years, Ruth has extensive experience in the
London. She specialises in sustainable building a subsidiary of Accenture. He leverages more Principal at HOK areas of modern methods of construction,
Carl Collins Rich Draper Ruth Kerrigan
than 20 years’ experience in commercial adaptable structures, energy efficient
designs and masterplan strategies across
real-estate, development, design, With a career spanning over three decades, buildings, control systems engineering,
the hospitality, residential and commercial
construction, sustainability, building Gary has worked for some of the UK’s most building design and renovation, urban and
sectors with a wide range of project
highly respected architectural practices on master planning, energy management and
9
experience. She has a strong interest in simulation, smart buildings, digital twins,
smart cities, data analytics and district scale significant projects such as The Wellcome integration of buildings with their resource
building physics and environmental digital
energy projects. His tenure includes managing Trust Headquarters in London and the Jubilee networks.
tools. Farah was shortlisted for the CIBSE
high-performance commercial-scale projects, Campus for Nottingham University. Gary
Building Simulation Awards 2022.
ESG+H, decarbonization, LEED, Zero Net served as Chair of the Royal Institute of
Energy, Net-Positive and intelligent buildings. British Architects’ (RIBA) Sustainable Futures
4 Carl Collins Group 2018-2021, where he helped shape
Head of Digital Engineering at CIBSE RIBA’s Declaration of Environment and Gillian Brown
Carl was BIM Leader and Pioneer for Arup Climate Emergency, 2030 Climate Challenge
Associates and Global Content Leader for and a suite of sustainability guidance to
Arup for over 12 years. Carl has worked support the RIBA Plan of Work.
with various institutions writing the
standards that support BIM in the UK
and internationally. Carl is now a Head
of Digital Engineering at CIBSE.
6 7
Sleeping Digital Twins Introduction
Introduction
Take a look at the buildings around you and there is a good chance that
an existing 3D design, energy compliance or BIM model already exists
The performance gap that exists between the design
intent and in-use performance of buildings is an issue
that those working in the AEC industry know all too well,
This collaborative paper aims to address this by drawing
together viewpoints from a range of leading industry
bodies, AEC consultants and building owners/occupiers,
and the incorporation of performance evaluation and together with the results from an industry-wide survey
for almost each and every one of them. While these models are often the tracking, measurement, and monitoring of key of more than 240 stakeholders. We’ll address the various
created during the design or refurbishment phase of a building’s performance metrics across the building lifecycle is challenges – technical, legal or otherwise – which are
an approach that is now advocated by many different currently preventing the many Sleeping Digital Twins in
lifecycle, or to show compliance with building regulations, codes, or professional industry bodies, methodologies and existence in the world today from being utilised beyond
other voluntary standards, rarely are they utilised to their full potential standards. Slowly, mindsets are shifting away from
a “design for compliance” approach to one of “design
the design stage and put forward recommendations for
a best practice approach for reinstating these models as
throughout the building’s remaining lifecycle. for performance,” with post-occupancy evaluations, part of a whole-life performance workflow. We will also
operational modelling methodologies, such as CIBSE outline the benefits which can be unlocked through the
The theory that inspired this paper is that these existing Whole-life performance modelling has a crucial role TM54 and TM63, and in-use performance ratings, such improved digitisation of building performance, and the
digital design models, also referred to as Sleeping to play in decarbonising the world’s buildings. After all, as NABERS, gradually coming to the fore. However, in crucial role this can play in the race to decarbonise.
Digital Twins, harness significant untapped potential to if we are not accurately predicting and measuring the spite of guidance which is readily available, through
It is our hope that this paper will be both informative
improve the performance of our current building stock. performance of our buildings throughout their lifecycle, publications such as RIBA’s Sustainable Outcomes,
and instructive for both AEC practitioners and building
By extending the useful life of these models into it is impossible to know how energy and carbon-efficient LETI’s Operational Modelling Guide, and even sector-
operators/end users as we work collectively to close
operation as part of a whole-life performance modelling they truly are, or how they can be improved. With many specific standards such as the NHS Net Zero Building
the performance gap, empowering the transition to
approach, and integrating real operational data, therein science-based targets now requiring significant Standard, approaches largely remain siloed, with each
a net-zero future.
lies an opportunity to transform these underutilised emissions reductions by as soon as 2030, it is important stakeholder group still typically focusing on their own
digital assets into live digital twins capable of that all built environment stakeholders, both on the part of a building’s lifecycle.
supporting improved performance outcomes across AEC consultant and client side, have a clear
the building lifecycle. The ultimate aim is to provide understanding of the value and need to embed better
a virtual replica which is accessible to various project
stakeholders, and that leverages real data and physics-
performance modelling practices at every project stage.
Such practices, underpinned by appropriate digital tools This collaborative paper aims to address this by drawing
based simulation, to help empower better decisions
around how we design, build, retrofit and operate our
and data-sharing protocols, can go a long way not only
in reducing the carbon impact of buildings, but also in
together viewpoints from a range of leading industry bodies,
buildings. delivering improved outcomes across a whole range of AEC consultants and building owners/occupiers, together with
metrics encompassing (but not limited to) energy
efficiency, cost, and comfort. the results from an industry-wide survey.
8 9
1
Sleeping Digital Twins Chapter 1
Chapter 1 Net-Zero Potential:

A Whole Life Performance Modelling approach
Assessing Engagement and Understanding The importance of using energy models in operation The basis for the Sleeping Digital Twin, or whole-life
is widely recognised among architecture, engineering, modelling, approach is simple. All too often, digital
of Whole-Life Performance Modelling and construction (AEC) professionals and end clients
alike. Of the AEC professionals surveyed, 90% stated
energy models are created, usually at significant cost to
a business, and abandoned once a building’s compliance
and its Potential that they see value in using energy models in operation,
and 89% of end clients said the same.
stage concludes during design. But these models are
untapped pools of opportunity, capable of unlocking
so many benefits during the operational stage too.
However, across the industry, these digital models
A key theme which has emerged throughout this Alongside this, the use of Building Information Models are underutilised assets even though the vast majority IES Founder and CEO, Don McLean, explained the
research is that awakening existing design models, (BIM) in operation is also being explored by the industry. within the AEC sector and end clients understand the concept of a Sleeping Digital Twin as ‘dormant’
in particular energy models, has value for both AEC Adding a bidirectional link to sensors, actuators and live hugely important role they can play in reaching net-zero potential. “It is not doing anything but if we wake
stakeholders and end clients alike, especially within data from the real-world building to a BIM model can targets throughout the entire lifecycle of a building. it up, we can update the model and connect it to
the net-zero arena. But what is clear is while the tide deliver complimentary efficiencies linked to equipment the operational building and the end user,” he said.
is turning, many are still not utilising existing models maintenance and management. However, key AEC contributors saw energy models as a key tool
“For relatively little cost, they can get the model up
to their full potential – and there are technical and information linked to building performance resides in for bridging the performance gap between the design
and running and have the operational information
legal blockades standing in their way. the energy model, as does the essential physics-based stage of a building and the actual operational stage.
from it to know that the building is operating as
simulation piece. For consultants and clients alike, the role of energy
best as it possibly can.”
models in reaching net-zero targets was also clear.
This was the most commonly cited benefit from client
respondents (66%) and second to the performance gap
for AEC consultants (83%). Other appreciated benefits
included the role of energy models in achieving building
standards and identifying issues to improve ongoing
operational performance.
10 11
Andrew Jolly, Principal - Digital Innovation at Introba, There may also be misconceptions among some clients
highlighted that awakening Sleeping Digital Twins will that their compliance model accurately reflects how
help the industry as a whole move towards net-zero. energy efficient their building is. However, we know this
He said: “ The collection of [operational] data and is not the case and this is also becoming more widely
then benchmarking against the design data is key recognised in the mainstream. There was awareness of
to improving how we design buildings. This approach how models can assist in closing the performance gap
also helps us achieve our desired outcomes as far as among 84% of those surveyed in the AEC sector, who
emissions and getting carbon down on our buildings. stated this was a driver to using energy models in
We need to be doing this as an industry, not as operation. This was a view shared by 51% of clients.
individual companies.”
To help bridge this performance gap, a compliance
Before a building has been constructed, energy energy model can go through several further modelling
modelling is carried out in the design stage to achieve stages both at design and finally in operation, combining
regulatory compliance with energy-efficiency standards. actual data from the building itself to create a Digital
Yet despite the best efforts of the design team, Twin. Tom Wigg, Senior Advisor – Net Zero Carbon
energy use may not be optimum once the building is Buildings at the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC)
operational and occupied. The disparity between the
predicted energy performance of a building at the
said on the subject: “The performance gap is often
spoken about as a purely operational energy issue,
The performance gap
design stage and the actual performance of a building but it is not. It affects every element of the building is often spoken about
once it is operational is known as the ‘performance gap’. design, in terms of responding to environmental and
There are a few key factors that contribute to this: ecological targets. It’s about ensuring that, as far as as a purely operational
unregulated energy loads are absent if modelling is possible, buildings are delivered as close to how they
carried out only for compliance; compliance models also were designed.” energy issue, but it is not.
don’t accurately reflect actual operating conditions such
as number of occupants, occupancy hours, temperature
Using energy models into operation can also help It affects every element
buildings achieve standards such as NABERS, Design
set points, and HVAC system schedules of operation;
changes that impact energy use can be made during
for Performance and in the implementation of LEED of the building design,
monitoring based commissioning, which aim to tackle
construction; and there is often a rushed commissioning
the design for compliance culture. As more and more in terms of responding
and handover process that leads to building controls
and systems not running optimally. Finally, unpredictable
end clients strive to hit standards like this and ensure
that buildings perform in operation as they were
to environmental and
occupant behaviour, changes to building controls
and systems, and alterations in building use once
designed to, there will be more demand to take up
a Sleeping Digital Twin approach.
ecological targets. It’s
it’s in operation, can lead to issues in years further
down the line. about ensuring that, as
far as possible, buildings
are delivered as close to
how they were designed.
Tom Wigg
Senior Advisor – Net Zero Carbon Buildings
at the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC)
TS TS
AN EN
I
CONSULT
Stated that closing the

CL
84% 51%
performance gap was a
driver to using energy
models in operation
12 13
Types of Compliance Energy Model Operational Energy Model Calibration Process Calibrated Energy Model or Performance Digital Twin
Energy Model Created to show compliance with

various local energy regulations
This model more accurately predicts
the operational energy use of a
Building energy model calibration
is a process that aims to reduce
These are generally dynamic thermal
simulation energy models, calibrated
CIBSE TM63 provides a useful
framework for the development
such as the UK’s Part L and Title 24 building at the design stage and the discrepancies between energy with actual operational data from and validation of calibrated energy
in California, or voluntary rating covers all energy uses – both models and the real building the building in-use. They can be used simulation models. While IPMVP
schemes such as LEED & BREEAM, regulated and unregulated – to using actual metered energy data. once a building enters the operation Option D is a Measurement and
this model will only take into provide as complete and accurate a It involves iterative improvements phase to identify any discrepancies Verification (M&V) framework
consideration regulated energy prediction of a building’s expected to bring model outputs, such as in operating conditions or technical that uses calibrated simulation to
loads as prescribed by the performance in operation as electricity consumption and zone faults within the building. Or when validate that any retrofit energy
compliance methodology being possible. It can help engineers better temperatures, in line with measured considering shallow or deep retrofit conservation measures (ECMs)
followed. inform the development of the data from an actual building. measures. The combination of the are performing as expected.
building’s design, controls and ASHRAE Guideline 14 sets out simulation and operational data
operational strategy. Their creation metrics around what is considered ensure that the calibrated model, or
is encouraged by methodologies an accurately calibrated model. performance digital twin, responds
such as CIBSE TM54 and through and behaves as closely to real life as
rating schemes such as NABERS. possible.
LETI has developed an Operational
Modelling Guide as a useful resource
for all, but includes specific best
practice guidance for modellers
themselves.
Small operational adjustments can create significant Andrew Krebs, Digital Studio Manager at SWECO Farah Husayni, Senior Sustainability Consultant and Overall, energy models are clearly being recognised
change, and every building that operates more energy proposed that ‘digitalisation is a cornerstone of a Team Leader at XCO2 highlighted that models which as crucial tools in achieving better in-use building
efficiently will help towards creating a less carbon sustainable built environment’, stating that using adhere to CIBSE TM54 operational energy modelling performance at handover and in the initial years of
intensive built environment. Furthermore, upgrading models during operational stages is about gaining a guidelines serve as valuable tools for ‘bridging the gap’, operation; bridging the performance gap, delivering
existing buildings to futureproof them in line with deep understanding of why operational energy usage with the data collection required under the guidelines data that improves how buildings are designed, and
decarbonisation goals is equally important. Driving diverges from initial aspirations, moving beyond mere being extensive to precisely identify differences helping meet emerging industry standards in this space.
change, from both a process and technology perspective guesswork. He envisioned these models as valuable between aspirations and end result. The concept of a Sleeping Digital Twin aims to take
in this sector, is a responsibility all industry players sources of insights that can guide consultants in this a step further and change the conversation on
must embrace head-on to reduce emissions collectively. improving future projects, and that ‘reawakening’ the untapped potential of these existing models all the
All will play a huge role in building a greener future, existing models could provide valuable lessons which way across a building’s lifecycle, as a valuable digital
and this collaboration is required sooner rather propel the industry toward achieving its net-zero asset that can support ongoing operational check-ins
than later. objectives. and retrofit/rebuild decisions further down the line
and throughout its lifecycle.
14 15
Status Quo: Moving On:

Current Uptake of Post-Design Model Utilisation The Appetite for Change
From the point of view of clients actively engaged in This is further compounded by the fact that if other A prevailing consensus evident from the interviews This sentiment is shared even by client contributors.
the integration of energy modelling throughout the AEC consultants are then enlisted for retrofitting, conducted is a keen appetite for implementing the According to Chris Anton: “There are many local
building process, a consensus emerges: energy models refurbishment, or post-occupancy studies further down strategies discussed, with AEC contributors in particular authorities that don’t know the real gains and positives
are frequently commissioned primarily for compliance the line, they often opt to create models from scratch recognising the untapped potential within using early you can get out of energy models because they don’t
purposes. Chris Anton, Lead Energy Officer at Perth again. This can be attributed to a lack of access to energy models beyond compliance. However, despite the understand them.” However, it is noteworthy that
& Kinross Council, spearheaded the adoption of IESVE previous models done by other AEC consulting teams or, considerable promise these concepts hold, transforming specific sectors, such as universities, healthcare
software, a suite of building performance analysis tools where there is access, trepidation in not knowing the this enthusiasm into tangible action remains a challenge. institutions, and governing bodies, demonstrate
for the design and retrofit of buildings, at the council. underlying modelling assumptions that may have been a higher level of receptiveness towards these concepts.
Ultimately, it is difficult for a client to employ a process
From his experience there, he observed that when the made within the original model. Carl Collins, Head of As illustrated by our contributors, having a developer
which they are not even aware of. This AEC appetite
tools were initially introduced for large projects, they Digital Engineering at CIBSE, highlighted that, by or client with an appetite can ensure that the entire
is often thwarted by a lack of understanding and
were just being used to ‘look at compliance, rather creating new models, consultants “…know all of the lifecycle of a building incorporates this heightened
familiarity with these processes, on the part of clients.
than relating it to energy-effiency or actual building build-up of that model and can stand by it. If it all goes level of modelling.
However, there is an acknowledgement that certain
performance’. wrong and something ends up in court, they could say
clients do exhibit an appetite for these approaches Efforts to bridge this gap are being made by
‘this was ours and it was entirely ours,’ which makes that
In our survey, less than half of the AEC respondents and have a forward-thinking grasp of their value. forward-thinking clients. Proponents, like Todd Lukesh,
position a little simpler.” The issue of legalities in using
reported that they have developed operational or As noted by Carl Collins, “To a point, people do are actively ‘trying to create the appetite’ for these
existing digital models is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
calibrated energy models. And only 23% say they have understand the value, as they can be sold on it.” processes and an energy focus throughout the lifecycle
ever handed energy models over to a client. Andrew Client contributors to this whitepaper also expressed Nevertheless, AEC contributors are united in their of models. Todd for example works to educate clients
Krebs, noted that although he extends the use of that the poor quality of models they receive is a factor. belief that the value of these models remains and building owners on the true value of early
design models past the design phase in his practice and Chris Anton explained: inadequately understood by the majority of models, encouraging them to maintain
conducts ongoing performance assessments, it would clients. these digital assets.
be ‘completely inaccurate to say that is the norm’. “Many of the models we receive fall short.
We’ll run a simulation and discover numerous Furthermore, Carl Collins observed a
In essence, most clients do not leverage this data
significant exchange of information among
in a modelling context. gaps in the model. Rather than fixing the stakeholders such as consultants – “Quietly,
Despite the substantial investments made in the model, it’s easier to rewrite it entirely the BIM managers and people lower down
creation of design energy models, it appears that the ourselves.” the chain will actually exchange quite a lot of
concept of sharing whole-life performance modelling
He emphasised that within the council’s construction I think an appetite stuff just to help other people out because we
is not accorded the requisite value. Among the AEC know it’s a reciprocal relationship. But, that’s not
respondents, only 14% host models on cloud platforms
endeavours, they now ensure that early design models
meet their exacting standards, emphasising the
would be there for using a contractual thing at all.” This indicates that there is
for universal stakeholder access, keeping valuable data an appetite for knowledge and data sharing and if this
confined within closed systems. Todd Lukesh, Client
importance of crafting models with a comprehensive
view of the building’s entire lifecycle.
a modelling template was outlined at the contractual stage, AEC professionals
Engagement Manager at Gafcon Digital, said, “They’re
developing these expensive models and they just get It seems that there is a tendency to underutilise design that could be updated, would do so more openly.
While efforts to kindle an appetite are underway, the
shelved, and they’re wasted. Why not be able to harvest
that and repurpose it for the lifecycle of the building?”
models post-design stage, due to challenges such as
limited access, poor model quality, and the need for
but, balanced against prevailing sentiment among industry bodies is one of
readiness. Carl Collins stated, “I think an appetite would
There is however, the prevailing view among AEC
client education on the long-term benefits of these
models. The next section will explore the appetite to
the impact of various be there for using a modelling template that could be
industry representatives that many clients lack the
proficiency and resources needed to fully exploit the
take steps to overcome these issues within the industry. challenges. updated, but, balanced against the impact of various
challenges.”
potential of these models. Even when efforts are made Carl Collins It is clear that there is an abundant appetite for better
to preserve the value of design models, they are often Head of Digital Engineering at CIBSE model utilisation, and efforts to educate and create
hampered, with crucial insights ‘shelved virtually’, as
awareness are evident, but translating enthusiasm
Tom Wigg explained. “A huge amount of knowledge and
into tangible action remains a challenge.
collaboration goes into getting design models to the
point where it’s possible to utilise the information you
need for later design stages, then that gets completely
lost once you hand over the information to contractors
and owners or occupiers.”
16 17
Blockages:
Challenges and Barriers to Progress
In the pursuit of an actionable, industry-wide appetite He explained, “If large companies are starting to receive Technological disparities further hinder the appetite
for change, a prevailing barrier is that the scale of funding this way, it will inevitably impact how we choose for better utilisation of models and the take up of
change needed in general is overwhelming. Or as to occupy and maintain built assets.” a new approach. Carl Collins criticised the construction
Carl Collins succinctly put it, “We all know we need to industry in particular for this, stating that ‘every single
change. I don’t think there’s any real argument against it.
The fear of change is most palpable, however, when it
comes to the legal landscape. Professionals across the
sector is doing better than construction’ in this regard. Key Takeaways
But no one wants to do it.” The desire is there and for He mentions that he and many stakeholders within
board are hesitant to act on their appetite for new
some the pieces are starting to fall into place, but only
processes due to potential repercussions. Among those
building projects are using computers which are not – A Sleeping Digital Twin approach is
a few are breaking down the barriers. The construction capable of using the latest modelling software. Gillian recognised by both AEC consultants
interviewed, AEC professionals were particularly
industry has many stakeholders and is inherently known Brown, Doctoral Student at the University of Glasgow and end-clients as key to closing the
concerned about this factor – Todd Lukesh, for example,
to be slow to change. and Vice Chairperson for the Energy Managers
believed that others fear the ‘…legal ramifications that
Association, had a similar perspective, highlighting that
performance gap and reaching
Change inherently carries risks, breeding resistance even could arise if they’ve missed something or if something net-zero.
the University’s supplied computers were also unable
before new processes are put to the test. Describing this is not performing the way that they said it was going to’.
to run the software. This was a key point of focus for – A compliance only approach to
resistance in practice, Tom Wigg said, “The majority of 58% of AEC professionals and 53% of building owner/
Farah Husayni, who explained that the interoperability
the market is still only doing the minimum that they managers surveyed list legal implications as a concern energy modelling is currently
of different software is ‘not something that is
need to do when they hand over a building. They just with model sharing, making it the most frequently cited perceived to be the norm.
completely there yet’, acting as a barrier to modelling
make sure they’ve got the baseline level of information concern for consultants and second most frequent by
between design and operational stages. – Only 23% of AEC consultants say
available, and they don’t really care what happens once their clients.
the building is handed over or sold.” Post-handover, there
Legal challenges are part of a broader barrier to wider
The key player behind many of these challenges is they have ever handed energy
is often little inclination to remain invested, but where education. Those surveyed, both on the AEC and end models over to a client.
industry appetite – among those surveyed, 45% of AEC
does this reluctance stem from? client side, agree that a lack of understanding is a
respondents listed risk mitigation as a concern with – AEC industry representatives
recurring theme within the industry. 63% of AEC
Perceived cost is cited as a substantial hurdle. Many AEC model sharing. This sentiment was echoed among those
respondents cited this as a barrier to using energy perceive that most clients lack the
contributors noted that clients frequently view ongoing interviewed. Todd Lukesh explained the concerns of
updates or the introduction of new models as a other AEC professionals, stating that ‘…they’re fearful
models in operation, with 51% of client respondents proficiency and resources needed
saying the same. to fully exploit the potential of
significant financial outlay, failing to appreciate the of not knowing what they don’t know’.
long-term cost savings and many other benefits tied to
Data governance was another prevalent concern
Without an effort to drive upskilling and education, energy models created at design
these processes. a fear of change is understandable. Andrew Jolly stated stages. However some forward
for 57% of AEC respondents, as well as the majority
that he is ‘unsure on what’s holding us back other than thinking clients are starting to
Andrew Jolly emphasised the close connection between concern (69%) of building owners and managers.
this’, explaining that many see a digital twin as simply
value and cost, explaining that many clients fail to grasp For many, there is a reluctance to introduce external include modelling guidelines within
being software when it should instead be understood
the operational expenditure implications of purchasing work into their proprietary environments, with their specifications to ensure the
as a ‘workflow of information that has different
suboptimal buildings. Andrew Krebs further contended copyright concerns adding an additional layer models are useful to them.
solutions that could be applied dependent on the
that data “…can be repurposed in ways that clients of complexity to model exchange. A number of
required outcomes’. There is a shared belief among
didn’t even really think about’, and this lack of contributors highlighted this – Rich Draper, Head – Barriers to the uptake of the
experts in this field that the vast majority of end clients
comprehension can be a costly oversight. of BIM and Digital Assets at the University of Sleeping Digital Twin approach
do not have the skills or awareness to increase uptake
Birmingham, in particular, stressed the need for include resistance to change,
Resource availability creates a hurdle for many. and will not request models or data simply because they
accurate and reliable data, stating “It is important
Chris Anton explained that many local authorities,
that the industry improves on the validation of
are not aware of its availability. perceived cost, resource availability,
despite having the appetite for change, lack resources: legal concerns, data governance
geometric and information accuracy in BIM models, In addition, as Chris Anton discussed, there is a
“We’ve come a long way and a lot of other councils we’ve issues, technological disparities,
if models are consistently questioned in operation as significant skills gap on the AEC practitioner side.
spoken to are trying to go a similar way. But it’s been
hard because we don’t have a large number of
to their correctness, it will become very difficult to His experiences with starting models from square a lack of awareness, and education
convince client owner/operators to take up the use of one stem from issues with the original design models, and skills.
staff to do the work, and using the models for every
digital twin technology, this will be true for sleeping for which a lack of upskilling is the cause. With many
single site is difficult.”
digital twins too as they will need to be checked before AEC professionals using models primarily for compliance
Optimistically, Andrew Krebs saw a silver lining in the being brought into service as a live digital twin.” purposes, they are not learning how to develop energy
current cost-of-living crisis, where there is a shared modelling to the level that many within the industry
societal understanding of the energy costs associated have an appetite for. AEC contributors concur on
with operating buildings of all sizes. He also noted this point, believing that a lack of skills is preventing
that many banks are increasingly focused on basing consultants from modelling with a heightened
their funding decisions for companies on their energy focus.
sustainable activities and credentials.
18 19
2
Cost-Conscious:
Chapter 2 Maximising Value for Money
Benefits Beyond Net-Zero Getting a better handle on a building’s in-use As Todd Lukesh, Gafcon Digital argued, these models
performance naturally leads to reduced energy would otherwise be left to ‘collect digital dust’ if not
consumption and cost for building owners, as well as re-used. He explained: “Owners spend money developing
Decarbonisation of the built environment and contributing to the reducing capital costs and risks when undertaking any these models just for them to get shelved. You might
retrofits or renovations. This makes value for money take two years to design a building, and two years to
net-zero goal are, of course, major benefits of whole-life performance another major, and somewhat obvious, benefit of build it, but then we are talking 50, 75, 100 years of
modelling and, by extension, the Sleeping Digital Twin approach. awakening a Sleeping Digital Twin. operation. So, we have to constantly remind the
stakeholders to design with the end in mind.”
But additional perks extend to providing value for money, balancing Optimising the model beyond the design stage means
a building owner is squeezing every last drop of value Of course, there is a strong argument to be had for
occupant comfort needs, alongside swathes of others. All could out of a model that would otherwise have been left the productivity benefits that could be realised on the
dormant. Sustainable or green buildings also often AEC practitioner side through the reuse of existing
dramatically improve how we design and operate our buildings. leverage higher premiums. In JLL’s 2022 Future of models too. If the industry can succeed in overcoming
Work Survey, 74% of organisations said they will pay the barriers to reinstating existing Sleeping Digital
a premium for leasing a building with leading Twins, there is potential to significantly reduce the
sustainability or green credentials. Of which 56% initial modelling time involved in post occupancy
plan to do so by 2025. studies, retrofit or rebuild projects, improving
project turnaround and maximising the capacity
of modelling teams.
20 21
Creature Comforts: Moving In:

Occupant Comfort and Wellbeing Realising the Value of In-Use Evaluation
A whole-life performance modelling approach offers By employing this approach, building managers can also The use of energy models in operation to conduct A recent report by the AIA 2030 Commitment program
many human-centred benefits too. Carrying existing identify and target problem areas, to reduce the number monitoring-based commissioning (MBCx), Post highlighted the importance of Post Occupancy
models through into operation can help to balance of occupant comfort complaints, or even employ the use Occupancy Evaluation (POE) or in-use building Evaluation in measuring the success of energy modelling
the trade-off between energy and comfort, helping to of dashboards connected to the digital twin, to help performance evaluation (in-use BPE) studies, was at design stage and enabling adjustments to be made
understand where efficiencies can be realised in a way educate building users on behavioural steps they can identified as another key benefit to awakening a to optimise a building's performance once in operation.
that is mindful of occupant needs. take to improve comfort conditions, while being mindful Sleeping Digital Twin. While in-use studies can be It also brought up the issue of cost, stating that POE
of the knock-on effects their actions may have upon conducted with or without a model, having an accurate studies are often seen as ‘just an additional cost’ and
Frequently, buildings are designed to highly energy
energy and carbon factors. digital twin which is dynamic and calibrated with live are not commonly contracted on projects.
efficient standards, but rarely do design models reflect
data from the building can go a long way in improving
the final operation of the building, which is often Speaking from the perspective of the end client,
this process. CIBSE TM63 provides a useful framework
dictated by occupant behaviours and comfort needs. Rich Draper, University of Birmingham highlighted
for the development and validation of calibrated energy
Methodologies, such as CIBSE TM54, if employed during from first-hand experience how models can be used to
simulation models to identify any discrepancies in
the design stage can go some way in helping to more address practical changes during a building’s operational
operating conditions or technical faults within the
accurately predict the in-use performance of the final phase. “Say we have ten teaching rooms in a building
building, versus the design intent.
building. However, it is crucial that this is still followed and only five of those are ever booked at a time. We can
up by robust commissioning and handover processes to see if we want to control those rooms when they are not Several AEC contributors mentioned that POE
get a true handle on occupant behaviours, and to ensure booked as there is a disparity between the timetable and studies are coming up more frequently in project briefs.
that comfort systems are being controlled optimally. usage,” he said. “There are triggers we can do with the Andrew Krebs , Sweco attributed this increasing interest
Herein lies another key opportunity for awakening an controls to cool a room that somebody just started using in performance outcomes to the heightened demand
existing Sleeping Digital Twin and evolving this into ad hoc. We can start to do some clever stuff to look after for sustainable, smart buildings. He highlighted that
a calibrated performance digital twin, to monitor and the comfort of people in the buildings.” it is now much easier for clients to demonstrate how
improve how a building is operated. a building is or is not performing and as a result,
Of course, climate change is also affecting comfort
consultants need to be involved in and leading on POE.
Across our expert contributors, both practitioners considerations, and many of our existing buildings
within the AEC sphere and end clients recognised the will need to adapt to cope with rising temperatures. However, when surveyed, only 30% of AEC consultants
value of awakening Sleeping Digital Twins to ensure the By extending the life of models through into operation, said that they are being asked to deliver post-occupancy
fine-tuning of comfort strategies once buildings enter and integrating future weather data with physics-based evaluation studies, in contrast with the 53% of clients
into the operational stage. Simon Bell, Director & Board simulations, machine learning and AI predictions, it that say they need consulting support with this aspect.
Sponsor for Sustainability at HLM Architects, said: becomes possible to simulate and understand those
Perth & Kinross Council is an example of how the
risks to inform strategies and adapt the building
“If you have a digital twin that is connected industry is moving forward and recognising the
accordingly.
to the asset and it is constantly adjusting and importance of POE. Chris Anton explained that on
The industry is already recognising the importance of bigger projects, they have approached the design
optimising the operation of your building’s closing the performance gap with regards to occupant consultant to carry out a post-occupancy evaluation Of the clients surveyed who do not include post-
heating and ventilation, you should see lower comfort and operational management. One of the key study but for smaller projects, they tend to do this occupancy, measurement and verification, or in-use
costs and lower carbon emissions which is principles behind the London Energy Transformational themselves. evaluation in their project briefs, the biggest reasons
Initiative (LETI) Operational Modelling Guide is that were deemed to be that it wasn’t a priority, or they
going to be important for the future. In a For clients carrying out their own post-occupancy didn’t see the value. But any end client not requesting
building, if the actual occupancy is higher or modellers need to consider a breadth of occupancy
evaluation studies, Chris suggested that a standard this in their briefs could be sitting in the dark without
scenarios and the potential impact of these on energy
lower than the design occupancy, occupants performance. In this sense, modelling could be key,
template which can be amended depending on the type even realising it.
are either going to be too cold or too hot. and use of the building, would be helpful. The template
providing it is carried out accurately and methodically Todd Lukesh said:
would incorporate guidelines and a checklist of things to
It is that kind of real world fine-tuning which to determine how a building reacts to different
consider in a post-occupancy evaluation. This approach
a performance digital twin can offer.” occupational situations. “Clients who do not have access to the final
reflects the process at Perth & Kinross Council, whereby
they have a POE document which goes out with a
digital models of their buildings are missing
project to detail their requirements on what needs to be out on opportunities to introduce efficiencies
checked. Whilst including this service in a project does and optimise their workflows. There are a lot
add to its cost, Chris pointed out that “if you don’t pick of wasted unknowns that are hard to quantify
any defects up in the first year when you’ve got the and therefore place value on, because clients
contractor, you’ll be paying for it in years to come.”
do not know what they do not know.”
22 23
Futureproofing:
Making Smarter Renovation and Rebuild Decisions
Buildings will adapt and evolve, and the building created Taking a university campus as an example, Rich Draper
initially at the design stage may look very different 50 highlighted how buildings can be taken out of use and
years later. This is one reason why having a digital asset potentially re-used to fit a new need when one arises.
that evolves with the building and is updated at key He said:
project stages is so important. Particularly when we
consider that 80% of the buildings that will exist in “We may have a bank of mothballed buildings
2050 are already standing today. and instead of building new, we can refurbish
As we move forward, decisions surrounding retrofit vs. a building to meet the need and it will mean Key Takeaways
demolition, and which is more sustainable, will become that we better use up our existing building
critical. Systems need to be put in place to quantifiably stock, and I think that is something that has – Dormant energy models = wasted
assess the best route for our ageing building stock, and been a long time coming.” time and money. Awakening and
this is another key area where the reuse of an existing using these models throughout
model can help to deliver future projects for the same Ruth Kerrigan, Chief Operating Officer at IES
also raised how existing digital models can be used
a building’s lifecycle can yield
building. Taking a whole-life approach to help guide significant time and cost savings
decisions around the most suitable retrofit options, as an example of what not to repeat, as buildings that
or whether it may be more sustainable to rebuild. proved difficult to maintain or had other issues can be for consultants and clients.
used to inform a better design for new buildings.
– AEC practitioners and clients
recognised the value of awakening
Sleeping Digital Twins to ensure the
fine-tuning of comfort strategies
Demonstrating Excellence: during both commissioning and
Achieving In-use Certifications & ESG Reporting building operation, as well as
adapting for future climate
predictions.
A performance digital twin can also help support the “We cannot state that we are meeting
attainment of in-use performance certifications, such those targets if we are unable to interrogate – Reusing existing models can help
as NABERS, BREEAM, and LEED for Operations and
the assets to confirm that those targets down the line to guide decisions
Maintenance (O+M). Not only can such certifications
help to ensure optimal performance is being attained, have actually been met. We need to be able around the most suitable retrofit
allowing the end client to benefit from energy savings, to step back further and see if the built options, or whether it may be more
carbon reductions and operational costs, but they can environment is contributing to the sustainable to rebuild.
also benefit building owners, with green rated buildings sustainability of society.”
in some regions reported to attract an 8-18% sales – Having a performance digital twin
price premium, compared to equivalent buildings A performance digital twin, including those developed can help support post occupancy
without a BREEAM or NABERS rating.1 from an existing model, can serve as the central studies, the attainment of in-use
repository for key ESG data to help demonstrate
With ESG-mandated assets projected to make up compliance, or even to secure funding for future
performance certifications and ESG
half of all professionally managed assets globally projects. With around 50% of assets managed using Reporting.
by 20242 the reuse of an existing model can further responsible criteria across Europe, it is also essential
present opportunities to support the tracking and for building developers and owners to report their ESG
reporting of key ESG metrics. In the UK, for example, standpoint when seeking investment. Performance
many organisations have taken on new ESG reporting digital twins that have evolved from previous models
responsibilities under the Sustainability Disclosure can be referred to and emulated for future building
Requirements as part of the race to hit net-zero projects, which can help to de-risk future investments.
targets by 2050. But the data needs to be there to
determine whether targets are actually being met,
as Andrew Krebs said:
1
https://www.knightfrank.com/research/article/2021-09-29-green-building-value-do-greenrated-buildings-add-a-premium-to-sales-price
2
https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/legacy/docs/insights/2022/DI_CFS_FSI-Outlook-Commercial-real-estate.pdf
24 25
Current State of Play Survey Results
Chapter 3
46%
Consultants Consultants
Whole Lifecycle Building Performance use or create
energy models
have gone beyond
compliance to
Modelling Survey for their clients create operational/
calibrated energy
models
Our stakeholder survey gathered insights from 169 AEC practitioners
and 74 building owners, occupiers and facilities managers to
understand how energy models are currently being used and shared
between built environment project stakeholders, and the challenges
82%
and benefits of using these models from design through into the
Consultants
23%
operational phase of buildings. The geographical spread of respondents have handed
was global, with the largest response received from: UK & Ireland, over energy
North America, and Asia. models to
their clients
26 27
Benefits of Energy Models in Operation Survey Results
Consultants and Clients see the value of energy models in operation Key benefits of energy models at building operation
Consultant Client
90%
Achieving net-zero/ 83%
CONSULTANTS
sustainability goals
66%
Closing 84%
Performance Gap
51%
89% 69%
Identifying issues and
improving operational
CLIENTS performance 59%
More efficient ongoing 50%
maintenance
64%
Achieving Industry 57%
Standards
57%
Importance placed on the use of energy models
in operation to reach net-zero targets
Identifying issues/
improving the
59%
Consultant Client commissioning process 51%
Cost savings on future 46%
work for same building
58%
27%
26%
Saving time on future 43%

21.5%
21%
55%
20%
work for same building

19%
35%
14%
Facilitates cross
stakeholder collaboration
53%
11%
10%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
3%
3%
8%
7%
1%
48%
0%
0%
4%
Reduction in occupant
Not Important Very Important

comfort complaints
47%
28 29
Challenges & Barriers Survey Results
Barriers to using energy models in operation Main concern with model sharing
Consultant Client
S
Funding/cost 62% NT
to implement
66%
CONSULTA
63%
58%
Lack of understanding
by those monitoring
operation 51%
Accessibility of Models
54%
43%
Lack of required skills

52%
54% Legal Implications
Time constraints
43%
49%
51% TS TS
Software interoperability N N
41%
A
E
CLI
SULT
Quality of models
inadequate
47%
43% 69% 57%
O N
22%
C
Data not useful
28%
Legal/IP issues
17%
32% Data Governance
30 31
Model Ownership Survey Results
Who should own the energy model? Who should update the energy model in the operational phase?
Consultant Client
Building Owner Shared Ownership
75% 45%
T NT T NT
AN IE AN IE Energy
CO ULT
CO ULT
Modeller
CL
CL
30% 34% 34% 24%
NS
NS
33% Building
Owner
22%
Who should lead on a whole lifecycle modelling approach?*
Consultant Client
34% Engineer
14%
22% 8%
84%
Building
Occupier
76%
73%
69%
58%
57%
13% 16%
49%
Architect
43%
35%
35%
31%
31%
29%
27%
25%
15% 9%
16%
Contractor
Collaborative Building Governing Building

Engineer Architect Government Contractor
Leadership Owner Body Tenant
* Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple choices if they thought it should be a collaborative leadership effort, * Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple choices if they thought it should be a shared responsibility,
rather than the responsibility one single stakeholder group rather than the responsibility one single stakeholder group
32 33
Industry Upskill Survey Results
Decarbonisation and Net-Zero Linked Services Required Consultants and Clients agree that there is a need for upskilling in the industry
to be able to take an energy model and use it in the building’s operation phase
Consultant Client
93%
Whole Life Carbon 54%
Assessment 55%
CONSULTANTS
On-site Renewable/Low- 45%
Carbon Feasibility Studies 53%
96%
Operational/Calibrated 53%
Energy Modelling 45%
Net-Zero Roadmaps 35% CLIENTS
for Individual Buildings 54%
Retrofit Projects
39%
46%
Post Occupancy/In-use 30%
Performance Evaluation 53%
Consultants and Clients agree that there should be
Net-Zero Roadmap 29% an online collaborative portal for energy model sharing
for Campuses or Portfolios 49%
Design for 33%
Performance/NABERS 43% S
T TS
Heat Networks/Heat 20% N N
E
Decarbonisation 55%
SULT
CLI
88%
19%
86%
Monitoring Based or
Seasonal Commissioning 46%
N
25%
O
Passivhaus Standard
34%
C
City or Regional Local 10%
Area Energy Planning 43%
34 35
4
Chapter 4 Where Are We Now?

A Review of Current Model Ownership
The Model Ownership Debate Opinions differed regarding who should own the models There is a clear appreciation, even acceptance, that
and who actually does. Several contributors said that clients should own the model as they have paid for
This chapter delves into the ownership and accessibility of models, the AEC consultant who built the original model the building. But with that comes a requirement for
and assesses the challenges of making whole-life performance currently retains the ownership. However, most agreed
that the client probably should own the model but there
a certain level of education for models to be used
effectively. Firstly, for the client to even want to take
digital twins possible. Viewpoints from industry contributors differ were reservations about whether they would know what ownership of the model and secondly, for them to be
to do with it if ownership was handed over. able to utilise it to influence the building’s operation.
over a possible best-practice approach for the storage, handover, Andrew Jolly, Introba felt that it was important that
This is a view held by Simon Bell, HLM Architects who
and retrieval of models. felt that whilst the client should ideally be the owner of
client ownership of the model did not disrupt the flow
of information throughout the lifecycle of a building.
the model, taking on ownership and management of the
As a result, clients also need to ensure that if they
model requires a certain degree of skill from the internal
take on ownership, they explore how its information
team. Estate teams with large portfolios will likely have
can still be disseminated between stakeholders.
this ability or be able to upskill to gain it, smaller clients
may benefit from the consultant retaining and Model ownership is a ‘complex picture’ according
managing the model. to Carl Collins, CIBSE. He explained that whilst the
owner owns the one-off design, the processes that go
into generating it are owned by the originator. However,
he pointed out that ‘…the virtual currency of data is
literal, in that you do own the virtual as much as you
own the real’.
36 37
Breaking Up is Hard to Do:

The Model Handover Process
The majority (51%) of architects, engineers and So why are modellers hesitant to give
contractors asked, said that they do not hand over the them up?
models to clients, just the reports that are generated
from modelling results. This way of working was also One explanation is the view that clients lack the
reflected in the interviews. Tom Wigg, UKGBC said knowledge and skills to know what to do with a model
“The client owns the outputs from the model, the results if it’s handed over. Throughout the interviews, the need
and the report, but the model itself remains the property for upskilling was a recurring theme. Whilst some
of the modeller.” end-clients are equipped with the resources and skill to
take on the models and use them to their full potential,
Only 23% of AEC respondents surveyed said that they these are the exception rather than the rule. Or as
hand over the actual models to clients, but why is this Todd Lukesh, Gafcon Digital put it, it is the ‘1% of the
the case? 1%’ who currently could take this on. When asked who
One reason is that clients are not asking for them. should update energy models throughout a building’s
A consistent claim that came from the industry experts operational lifecycle, the majority of both AEC
was that it’s a small minority of clients who are asking consultants (37%) and their end clients (45%) were in
for energy models to be handed over, either as part agreement that this should lie with an energy modeller.
of the contract at the beginning of a project or on This was echoed by most AEC contributors who felt that
completion. It was felt that this is because the majority handing over the models was a redundant task if clients
of clients don’t understand the value that these models did not have the in-house support required to use or
could have for them. However, there are some clients update the models. To address this knowledge gap,
that do understand and are at the forefront of best some forward thinking consultants are starting to offer
practice use of models, such as those contributing to services whereby they manage the model, maintaining
this paper. and updating it for the client. Whilst this service comes
The idea that the physical and the virtual should go Gillian Brown shared a similar process. Contractually,
hand in hand was reinforced throughout the interviews, when energy and BIM models are finished for the For these clients, there is frustration around the fact as an additional cost to the client, for those who cannot
reflecting the very nature of a digital twin. This was a University of Glasgow buildings, these are handed over. that models are often difficult to access if they have not manage the model in-house, it could be a solution to
view echoed by Andrew Krebs, SWECO who strongly However, Gillian highlighted that there are ‘a huge been included as a deliverable when agreeing on the making better use of models. Clients interviewed also
felt that ‘…data relating to any built asset should be number of caveats’ that come with taking on initial terms of the project. In fact, some say that even mentioned that often it is unclear whose job model
owned by the owner of that asset.’ Don McLean, IES responsibility for the model. As a result, she reflects the when it is a contractual agreement, it’s a challenge to management would come under, so this approach
also emphasised the need for models to stay with the consultants’ view that there needs to be someone within get hold of the models. would clearly define it as the consultants’ role.
building throughout its entire lifecycle and how AEC the organisation who can use the model. She noted the For consultants, this also offers a way to facilitate
When looking at the Sleeping Digital Twin approach,
firms must be encouraged to ensure that this is the case. benefits of shared ownership to overcome these issues, a recurring revenue stream, Don McLean discussed.
this is a barrier to adoption thinks Don McLean, as
He said: “AEC firms should be teaching clients the value which will be explored later in this chapter. He suggested that consultancies could have a team
models are often archived by the design and build team
of re-using design stage models in building operation. in charge of managing models and keeping them up
It could be that there is ‘no one answer’ to the question and difficult to get hold of to awaken. For the Sleeping
Savvy AEC consultants could be saving time and money to date, with clients benefitting from using the model
of who owns the models, a view held by Farah Husayni, Digital Twin approach to work, clients must know firstly
with this approach whilst generating additional revenue to make carbon and cost savings.
XCO2. She explained that it’s dependent on the building, that a model exists but secondly, where to find it and
by offering operational modelling services. The more we
but that ultimately, ownership should stay with the how to access it.
can get continuity through the whole life cycle of the
person responsible for the management of the building,
building, the more effective it will be for the builder, for
which is not always the same stakeholder group. Carl
the building owner, and for the building users”
Collins highlighted that ‘…who operates it [the model],
Clients equipped with appropriate resources felt that who updates it and who hosts it, might all have
TS TS
ownership should lie with them. Rich Draper explained different answers.’ AN EN
Agree an energy modeller should
CONSULT
I
how his team at the University of Birmingham outline
CL
37% 45% update energy models throughout
model ownership details in their requirements when
commissioning work. He said, “Any modelling that’s a building’s operational lifecycle
done as part of a job that we’re paying for, is ours
and is owned by us.” He pointed out that whilst this
may not be a favoured approach within the industry,
the team will utilise the models to operate the
buildings going forward.
38 39
Another widely cited barrier to handing over the models Ruth Kerrigan, IES, also thinks there is a way forward.
to clients and passing them between stakeholders She says that, for the Sleeping Digital Twins approach,
is fear of legal ramifications if a model has inaccuracies. the intent of why the model needs to be accessed
Gary Clark, Principal at HOK highlighted the ‘blame should be made clear, and that there won’t be
culture’ that makes consultants reluctant to share any repercussions if mistakes are found. In addition,
models, he said “If there’s a blame culture then Ruth suggests that having a memorandum of
automatically, we’re going to retreat into silos and understanding (MOU) in place would minimise
protect ourselves.” the reluctance to hand over models.
Industry experts and consultants widely acknowledge Don McLean added
that this hesitation to share models does disrupt the
flow of information. However, several point out that “There needs to be an understanding that
there is a fine balance between ensuring information what people have done when they create
transfer and managing business risk. Tom Wigg the model is based on the most accurate
emphasised that “avoiding the liability of handing information they had at the time.”
over the model will be one of the biggest challenges Did you know?
to overcome.” To make this shift, a wider industry discussion
is needed to change perceptions and likely some This approach is reflected by some
The LETI Operational Modelling Guide recommends that form of regulation to set it in motion.
the industry be more open to sharing energy models of the more advanced UK industry
to facilitate better transfer of information. It recognises sectors taking steps to standardise
that whilst there is resistance to sharing models modelling approaches, such as
due to liability issues, these issues can be overcome. Healthcare, with the NHS Net Zero
One suggestion is project-based professional indemnity
Building Standard, and Education, with
insurance as opposed to cover for individual consultants.
the Education and Schools Funding
Agency’s (ESFA) School Buildings
Construction Framework. Another is
the Scottish Net-Zero Public Buildings
Standard in which IES consultants
Which Way? authored a Dynamic Simulation
Modelling Guide. These standards and
Improving Access to Models guides closely align with the principles
of the Sleeping Digital Twin approach.
For clients to better access the models created for However, Chris noted that whilst models are usually just
As do other global voluntary standards
their buildings, they need to specify that they want all handed over right at the end of a project, they would
of the models at the earliest stage. Todd Lukesh said, prefer to be involved throughout the process because such as the NABERS scheme, which
at Gafcon Digital, they are educating owners that ‘in they’ve written the specifications. This could be originated in Australia, and USGBC’s
the contractual agreement you get the virtual assets achieved through shared ownership and collaborative LEED monitoring based
as well as the physical assets and that’s changing the modelling which will be explored later in this chapter. commissioning.
conversation.’ Whilst he stressed that this isn’t the
When surveyed, clients said that access to models was
norm, it is something that the industry is making
one of the biggest barriers to using energy models in
moves towards.
operation, alongside cost constraints and lack of
Clients well-versed in modelling are already doing this. knowledge and skills. Addressing how clients can access
Chris Anton, Perth & Kinross Council explained how models, whether it be contractually or not, will be key
they provide exact requirements for how they want to the success of the Sleeping Digital Twin approach.
their building models to be created and delivered. However, we must begin by tackling the barriers that
This enables them to utilise the models effectively once prevent models from being shared in the first place.
received and create a consistent standard across the
modelling for all of their buildings.
40 41
Collaboration is Key: Custody Battle:

Storage Solutions Should There Be Single or Shared Ownership?
Whilst it was found that the majority of AEC consultants BIM linked Common Data Environments (CDEs) are An overwhelming majority (87%) of AEC respondents For example, Chris Anton felt that there needs to be
store the models in a shared drive accessible to all designed to deliver a single point of access for all the and building owners (86%) said that there is a need better collaboration between clients and consultants
within their organisation, a small number of those information, data and documents, belonging to the for an online portal to facilitate energy model sharing. in the form of shared ownership. He explained how
surveyed said they store models in the cloud so that building across the design, construction, and handover Whilst this echoes the fact that most of the paper he thinks a model should be checked at several stages
they can be accessed by all project stakeholders. If the phases. As we move towards a fuller digital contributors believe shared ownership to be a good throughout the process so that the client can review it
industry is to move towards a more collaborative transformation in the industry, are there lessons that idea in theory, in practice, there were concerns about and make comments, discuss these with the consultants
approach, this number needs to increase so that models can be learned from this approach, to create greater how it would work. and any required changes can be made. He emphasised
are stored in a way that better facilitates the flow of openness and the use of non-BIM specific CDEs? that it isn’t about being critical but instead about
Gillian Brown discussed the merits of shared
information between stakeholders. providing an opportunity for the client to be involved in
At the University of Birmingham, models are stored in ownership for encouraging the transfer of insights
the process and input into the model, so it is of best
The client contributors agreed that a central access the Common Data Environment (CDE), said Rich Draper. and collaboration. Whilst she pointed out the cost
use once received. This approach could also
point is necessary to ensure that models are accessible However, he said that master models are stored in their factors involved in procuring the systems needed
help to combat liability issues as the client
and can be shared amongst relevant people in the construction management software, Autodesk BIM 360, to facilitate shared ownership, she also
would be reviewing the model along the way.
organisation. However, how this works in practice and because this makes it easier for all project managers to explained how, for clients without an internal
the vision for a best approach, varies between access, edit and save the models. This approach works team skilled in model management, shared
organisations. well for the organisation as they have lots of ownership is a better solution because
people utilising the models. “people don’t know the full extent of what
they can do with the models yet.” Shared
Having the right equipment and software to
ownership means that clients can learn from
support the storage and use of models was
an expert team and understand how and why
raised. Gillian Brown explained that she had
to purchase a new laptop to store a BIM model
they input certain information into the model, ‘… Data ownership is woven
working together to develop something much better
because the laptops provided by the university
were not powerful enough to run the required
and bigger than what would just be handed over.’ throughout all of the
This causes a problem software or support the sheer size of the model Todd Lukesh said that at Gafcon, “data ownership is stakeholders so that
files. She highlighted that “This causes a problem woven throughout all of the stakeholders so that when
because not everyone because not everyone has access to the same model the model is handed over to the operator or the facilities when the model is
has access to the same which means there are various versions”. As a result,
a very stringent labelling and version control process
manager, it is as inclusive of as much of the data as
possible”. However, he highlighted that this is not the handed over to the
model which means is required to keep track of different iterations. norm, and a significant amount of education is required
to encourage this approach.
operator or the facilities
However, a better approach would be a software
there are various solution which can be accessed through a central login. As Todd and several other contributors pointed out, manager, it is as inclusive
versions. Whilst this would make the models more accessible and
version history more manageable, Gillian pointed out
shared ownership requires a certain level of awareness
from the client, who needs to understand the value that of as much of the data as
Gillian Brown
Vice Chair of the Energy Managers
that it would still need to be a small cohort of people,
with the right skills, who would update the models. This
this could bring. Whilst the majority of clients might
not yet appreciate how this approach could be used to
possible”
Association and PhD Researcher at the would ensure that any adjustments are made correctly. enhance the performance of their building, some clients Todd Lukesh
University of Glasgow Ruth Kerrigan echoed support for this approach, saying are way ahead of the curve. Client Engagement Manager at Gafcon Digital
that it should be one person or team that manages all
the models and data and she sees a type of cloud-based
platform being useful to store the models for the
building owner to access.
42 43
Rules of The Game: Moving On:

Should There Be a Standardised Best Practice Approach? Should Models Be on
The majority of interviewees felt that a standardised “The idea of having a model that works for everyone
The Handover Checklist? Key Takeaways
best practice approach was necessary, but most means that there needs to be a centralised model that’s The panel expressed concerns about the transfer
were unsure of exactly what form this would take. accessible by all design team members and stakeholders” of models to a new owner if a building is sold. – The model ownership debate is far
The consensus was that there are several gaps and explained Farah. She suggested that this may be best Gary Clark felt that it was unreasonable for there to from over. This chapter has simply
challenges that a best practice approach needs to hosted by the client commissioning the work, who has be an expectation that designs should be accessible
to anyone as this increases business exposure to legal
scratched the surface and sparked
address to change the way that models are created, the right to share the model as they please, as opposed
handed over, stored and utilised. to the stakeholders who are unsure of sharing outside issues. This transfer would also require third-party the conversation.
of their circle. warranties and several contributors said they would
A central system or collaborative portal was suggested
be reluctant to share the models without a new
– There is abundant support for a best
by several different contributors, who saw it taking Gary Clark, HOK agreed that the client is best placed to practice approach, whether that be
agreement in place with the new owner.
shape in a variety of ways. Andrew Jolly felt that “there host the models for the stakeholders to feed into. in the form of an industry standard/
should be central digitalisation of all of the information However, he stressed that this requires ‘…a certain level However, some interviewees did feel that ownership
could be transferred with the property. Farah Husayni regulation, or not, which addresses
where tenants can go to access the resources”. This of maturity from the client’. He discussed the possibility
would aid clients in understanding how their building of a ‘charter of collaboration’ which means that people held the opinion that all the information relating to the who owns the models, who can
is performing but could also be vital when it comes to can hand over their best efforts for clients to use, building should become the property of the new owner, access the models and where they
retrofitting. He said “The framework is there, but the without fear of falling victim to the ‘blame culture’. as long as any legal issues were taken into consideration. are stored.
industry needs to make it more of a standard”. Others felt that physical and digital assets should never
For Tom Wigg, a best practice approach is the only way – A best practice approach should
be separate, which supports the view that the two
Farah Husayni, XCO2 expressed that there is a definite to tackle the model ownership and data sharing debate.
need for a best practice approach. Farah suggested that He envisaged that this would ‘…mitigate the liability
would transfer at the same time. address the legal and data
this could take a variety of forms, such as technical issue and give modellers and consultants the confidence Only explored briefly here, the transfer of data with governance challenges which are
notes, workshops, or whitepapers but that ultimately that passing on the model would not put them in a the transfer of ownership is a whole debate in itself. evidently creating a significant
model ownership needed to be included in a standard compromised position.’ barrier to information dissemination
that addresses how the industry would overcome and collaboration between different
The LETI Operational Modelling Guide outlines the
intellectual property and liability issues. stakeholders and clients.
importance of understanding and having a clear
documentation of the assumptions and inputs that
go into the model, as well as how as a client you – There was consensus amongst
can procure the right modelling team and develop contributors and those surveyed
a modelling brief. that the end-client has the power
to really drive the required change
by including whole-life modelling
specifications in their contracts.
In the Driving Seat: However, it was also clear that a
Who Needs to Lead on the Approach? collaborative effort is needed with
industry bodies and consultants
It is clear that a best practice approach needs to be Information flow needs to be agreed upon at the very
developed, but opinions vary when it comes to which beginning of a project to create a benchmark and ensure
educating clients on the benefits of
party should lead the charge. Andrew Krebs felt that that models are included as a deliverable. this approach and pushing for it to
clients need to encourage the change as they’re be considered in the initial
The survey results highlighted a strong leaning towards
commissioning the service. He said “If people wouldn’t
this being a collaborative effort between the owner/ contractual phase.
pay us until we do something else, we’d learn how to do
operator and the end client. The majority of AEC
something else”. Todd Lukesh agrees that the clients are
consultants (73%) and their clients (69%) felt that the
‘in the power position’. He said, “When you’re in the
building owner/operator should lead on a whole life
driving seat and you get these things written into the
energy modelling approach, but this was closely
contract upfront, it’s no longer a surprise to a designer
followed by 59% and 57% respectively selecting that it
or builder, that if they want the contract, they have to
should be the engineer. Respondents were encouraged
deliver the model as well.”
to select all that applied if they felt that this should be
Many contributors mentioned the need for change a collaborative effort.
to happen at the contractual stage for clients to
have better access to the model and for stakeholders
to be clear on what they need to provide.
44 45
Chapter 5 Cross Stakeholder Collaboration

A need to bring all of the key stakeholders, both within
Where to Start:
In-use Evaluation
The Path Ahead the AEC community and the ultimate owners and
operators of buildings, together across the lifecycle
The increased uptake of initiatives such as monitoring
based commissioning (MBCx), post occupancy
of a project was identified as a crucial requirement for
evaluation (POE) or in-use building performance
While the next steps are not straightforward, and there are a number making the Sleeping Digital Twin approach a success.
evaluation (in-use BPE) studies will be key to achieving
Nearly all industry contributors mentioned a lack of
of barriers to overcome to make a Sleeping Digital Twin approach work, collaboration as a barrier to model and knowledge
net-zero targets across the built environment. These are
crucial to closing the performance gap between design
sharing. Having a collaborative portal in some shape
the reuse of existing energy models could prove to be a worthwhile or form, which allows the owner to refer back to the
and operation, and are a key driver and potential
starting point for embedding a whole-life performance
endeavour, with many already on board with the concept. model at key stages, and which the consultant can
modelling approach. AEC professionals can help this
apply updates to as required, seems to be the
transition by educating their end clients on the
favoured approach to facilitate better sharing of data.
Ultimately, greater adoption of whole-life performance importance of improved commissioning and in-use
An overwhelming majority (87%) of AEC respondents
87% 86%
modelling, supported by the awakening of existing evaluation and the role that models can play in
and building owners (86%) said that there is a need
models, can help the AEC sector move away from a optimising a building in operation. This will help to drive
for an online portal to facilitate energy model sharing.
culture of compliance, where buildings are designed demand from clients and expand the services provided
by those in the AEC sector if they are not already
to reach the minimum performance standards required.
By extending and optimising the use of existing design AEC Respondents
See the Bigger Picture offering NABERS, LEED MBCx, POE and other digitally
Building Owners
models throughout the remaining building lifecycle, More generally, there is a need for both consultant enabled services through into the operational phase.
we can ensure performance continues to be optimised and client stakeholders to look beyond their own
at every stage, and maintain progress towards small part in the design or build process. At all times,
all-important net-zero carbon goals. there is a need to ensure that the end building, and
Said that there is a need for an online portal its performance in operation, is kept in mind.
So, what needs to happen to achieve industry-wide to facilitate energy model sharing
uptake of this approach?
46 47
Start the Conversation

As several contributors made clear, we cannot
sit back and wait for change. In the past,
significant shifts have happened in the
industry as a result of a collaborative call
to action and in a digitally enabled age, the
industry must move beyond archaic practices
and push back against diluted policies from
government.
As net-zero targets loom ever closer, we
cannot afford to be complacent and continue
with the status quo. By recognising the role
Introduce a Best Practice Upskilling and Knowledge Sharing that each of us must play in the race to
decarbonise, whether as an AEC practitioner,
Approach Upskilling and knowledge sharing was noted as facilities manager, building owner or occupant,
a key requirement, on both the AEC and client side. we can all play our part in supporting the shift
Whilst data governance issues and fears of legal
AEC professionals, in particular, have a role to play in towards a whole-life performance approach.
ramifications have been identified as barriers to model
increasing awareness and educating clients on the We also need to be sharing stories of best
sharing, it appears that many in the AEC sector would
benefits of utilising digital models throughout the practice, allowing others to learn from our
get behind the shift to more collaborative working if
building lifecycle. If client appetite can be increased successes so they can follow suit.
a best practice approach were introduced to support
through raising awareness, the next challenge will be
model handover. To overcome issues surrounding This paper is only the beginning of a series
equipping clients with the skills to understand and
liability, it was suggested that there needs to be greater of important conversations which need to
manage the models or for AEC professionals to take
transparency around any assumptions that have been happen to fully realise the benefits of that
advantage of this knowledge gap to expand their
made during the modelling process, so that the client whole-life performance modelling has to offer.
service offerings and manage the models for clients.
understands that the model they receive is based upon And while it is clear that there is still some
the best information available to the consultant at Client and AEC contributors also raised that the quality way to go to fully realise the potential of the
the time of its creation. Some form of legislation, or of digital models can often not meet requirements, Sleeping Digital Twin approach, we encourage
memorandum of understanding which could be signed meaning significant improvement is often required all stakeholders to enter into an open dialogue
at the point of handover, was proposed as one potential before they can be put to good use and transformed of how we can begin to make better use of our
route to overcoming many of the legal concerns raised. into a performance digital twin. Focusing on improving existing digital assets to make a real impact
energy modelling practices, and upskilling the workforce across the full building lifecycle.
to go beyond a compliance only approach by fully
embracing the application of building physics and other
digital skills can ensure that design teams, owners,
tenants and contractors have the data and tools needed
to design, construct and manage buildings that meet
net-zero energy targets. A greater upskilling in the
spaces of operational energy modelling at design,
calibration, commissioning and in-use evaluation will
also further help to drive up modelling and building
standards across the board.
48 49
Sleeping
Digital Twins
Bringing together some of the biggest
industry voices to discuss the challenges,
issues and wins for both consultants and
clients that taking a digitisation of building
performance approach delivers.
www.iesve.com/sleeping-digital-twin

Sleeping Digital Twins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sleeping Digital Twins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sleeping Digital Twins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sleeping

Created by IES in collaboration with:

Foreword ............................................................ 4 Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 5

Key Takeaways .................................................................. 45

Contributors Bringing together some

1 Andrew Jolly 5 Chris Anton 8 Rich Draper 11 Simon Bell

Chapter 1 Net-Zero Potential:

Stated that closing the

Energy Model Created to show compliance with

Status Quo: Moving On:

Creature Comforts: Moving In:

Current State of Play Survey Results

Benefits of Energy Models in Operation Survey Results

Saving time on future 43%

work for same building

Not Important Very Important

Challenges & Barriers Survey Results

Lack of required skills

Model Ownership Survey Results

Building Owner Shared Ownership

Collaborative Building Governing Building

Industry Upskill Survey Results

Chapter 4 Where Are We Now?

Breaking Up is Hard to Do:

Collaboration is Key: Custody Battle:

Rules of The Game: Moving On:

Chapter 5 Cross Stakeholder Collaboration

Start the Conversation

You might also like