Mind the gap when implementing technologies intended to reduce or shift energy consumption in blocks-of-buildings

If the designers of technologies intended to reduce or shift energy consumption are not sensitive to how people live and work in buildings, a gap occurs between the expected and actual performance of those technologies. This paper explores this problem using the concepts of ‘design logic’ (designers’ ideas, values, intentions and user representations) and the ‘user logic’ (related in this case to how building occupants currently live and work in a building). The research presented unpacks the ‘design logic’ embedded in DR approaches planned for implementation at four blocks of buildings in a Horizon 2020 funded project, called “Demand Response in Blocks of Buildings” (DR-BoB). It discusses how the ‘user logic’ may differ from the ‘design logic’ and the potential impact of this on the performance of the technologies being implemented to reduce or shift energy consumption. The data analysed includes technical working documents describing the implementation scenarios of DR at four pilot sites, interviews and workshops conducted with the project team and building occupants during the first phases of the project. The analysis presented identifies how expectations about building occupants and their behaviours are built into the DR scenarios (to be tested during the project demonstrations). Initial findings suggest that building occupants’ energy use practices and routines may be different from those expectations. The paper illustrates how the concepts of ‘design logic’ and ‘user logic’ can be used to identify mismatches before technologies are implemented. The paper concludes with recommendations for improving the design and implementation of DR.

[1]  G. Spaargaren,et al.  When social practices meet smart grids : Flexibility, grid management, and domestic consumption in The Netherlands , 2017 .

[2]  J. Jelsma Designing ‘moralized’ products , 2006 .

[3]  Jaap Jelsma,et al.  Technology and behavior , 2006 .

[4]  Kathryn B. Janda,et al.  From “if only” to “social potential” in schemes to reduce building energy use , 2014 .

[5]  Ji Johanna Höffken,et al.  The design and development of domestic smart grid interventions: Insights from the Netherlands , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[6]  Thomas Berker,et al.  A traveler’s guide to smart grids and the social sciences☆ , 2015 .

[7]  Meiken Hansen,et al.  Smart grids and households: how are household consumers represented in experimental projects? , 2018, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[8]  Tomas Moe Skjølsvold,et al.  Users, design and the role of feedback technologies in the Norwegian energy transition: An empirical study and some radical challenges , 2017 .

[9]  Bernadette Sütterlin,et al.  Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics , 2011 .

[10]  T. Crosbie,et al.  Energy-efficiency interventions in housing: learning from the inhabitants , 2010 .

[11]  C. Lindkvist,et al.  Ambivalence, designing users and user imaginaries in the European smart grid: Insights from an interdisciplinary demonstration project , 2015 .

[12]  Brian P. Bloomfield,et al.  Re-Presenting Technology: It Consultancy Reports as Textual Reality Constructions , 1994 .

[13]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization , 1997 .

[14]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Fair distribution of power-generating capacity: justice, microgrids and utilizing the common pool of renewable energy , 2013 .

[15]  D. Schlosberg Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements And Political Theories , 2004 .

[16]  Sarah C. Darby,et al.  Social implications of residential demand response in cool temperate climates , 2012 .

[17]  Nashwan Dawood,et al.  Future Demand Response Services for Blocks of Buildings , 2016, SmartGIFT.

[18]  J. Law A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination , 1991 .

[19]  Marianne Ryghaug,et al.  Material participation and the smart grid: Exploring different modes of articulation , 2015 .

[20]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change ed. by Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law (review) , 1994, Technology and Culture.

[21]  Meiken Hansen,et al.  Scripting, control, and privacy in domestic smart grid technologies: insights from a Danish pilot study , 2017 .

[22]  Michael Short,et al.  DEMAND RESPONSE IN BLOCKS OF BUILDINGS DELIVERABLE: D2.2 – DEMONSTRATION SCENARIOS , 2017 .

[23]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[24]  Yolande A. A. Strengers,et al.  Designing through value constellations , 2015, Interactions.

[25]  Jaap Jelsma,et al.  Innovating for Sustainability: Involving Users, Politics and Technology , 2003 .

[26]  S. Woolgar Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials , 1990 .

[27]  Murray Goulden,et al.  Differentiating ‘the user’ in DSR: Developing demand side response in advanced economies , 2018, Energy Policy.

[28]  The Utilities in Transition : Gazing through the IT window , 2009 .

[29]  I. Vassileva,et al.  Introducing a demand-based electricity distribution tariff in the residential sector: Demand response and customer perception , 2011 .

[30]  T. Pallesen,et al.  Organizing consumers for a decarbonized electricity system: Calculative agencies and user scripts in a Danish demonstration project , 2018 .

[31]  Muneeb Dawood,et al.  Demand response in blocks of buildings: opportunities and requirements , 2017 .

[32]  B. Latour 10 ''Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts'' , 1992 .