{"id":45218,"date":"2018-08-20T11:02:56","date_gmt":"2018-08-20T10:02:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=45218"},"modified":"2022-10-19T15:29:15","modified_gmt":"2022-10-19T14:29:15","slug":"low-carbon-technologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/energy-news\/low-carbon-technologies\/45218\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridging the gap between intended and actual performance of low carbon technologies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr Terry Keech\u2019s recent study into the barriers to achieving mass low carbon social housing has highlighted the knock-on effect planning policy can have on the entire supply chain. Here, he explains why<\/h2>\n

It will come as no surprise to construction professionals that there is an evident gap between intended performance and actual performance of low carbon technologies. However, less explored are the causes of this performance gap<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A recent study therefore analysed the construction process \u2013 from the initial planning stage right through to the building contractors who sign off the commissioned installation \u2013 to gain a deeper insight into the contributing factors.<\/p>\n

Tracing the problem back<\/h3>\n

A significant finding from the research was a lack of buy-in from the supply chain<\/a>. In most instances, the low carbon technology selected at the local authority planning stage was specified due to planner\u2019s preference, expediency of assessment or simply cost; rarely for the benefit of the development.<\/p>\n

The findings showed many contractors felt that local authorities did not always have the technical know-how to properly consider the most appropriate technology for a given development, with many just \u201cticking boxes\u201d to meet their obligations.<\/p>\n

\u201cLocal authorities have limited understanding really and truthfully what they need to do they\u2019re just not interested, they have to tick a box.\u201d \u2013 Contractor.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think there\u2019s a lot of things that are getting through planning on a lip service basis rather than because things have been properly considered in the spirit of what the planning requirements are all about.\u201d \u2013 Contractor.<\/p>\n

When the chosen technology is then \u2018forced\u2019 on to the design and build contractor, there is a disconnection from the outset. This \u2018tick-box\u2019 approach results in a lack of buy-in at build stage, which causes issues that then filter down and implicate the whole project.<\/p>\n

For example, the study showed that when a main contractor has limited knowledge of the low carbon technology chosen, they commonly defer responsibility to subcontractors and then take little or no interest in the quality of the installation.<\/p>\n

Consequently, subcontractors are appointed to ensure \u2018successful delivery\u2019 and not \u2018successful performance\u2019. For those subcontractors whose tender bids are higher than other competitors \u2013 to ensure \u2018successful performance\u2019 \u2013 the chances of their success are greatly reduced.<\/p>\n

In fact, the study revealed that 67% of contractors and 83% of designers agreed that monitoring installation is the least common activity undertaken on site. It is this \u2018blind trust\u2019 given to the subcontractor (or disinterest) that is another contributory factor to the performance gap.<\/p>\n

The current EPC process does nothing to counter this. With certifications awarded on theoretical modelling and inadequate legislation to ensure effective commissioning, the reported Dwelling Emission Rates (DER) and Target Emission Rates (TER) very rarely correlate with the real performance levels of the property.<\/p>\n

Only 29% of those questioned thought commissioning was carried out effectively on site, with 68% believing that the commissioning process was not fit for purpose. And while this appears to be common knowledge within the industry, there seems to be no desire to challenge the status quo.<\/p>\n

\"Low
\u00a9 www.andrewhatfield.co.uk<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Bridging the gap<\/h3>\n

Evidently, there needs to be a fundamental change to ensure the gap between \u2018intended performance\u2019 and \u2018actual performance\u2019 of low carbon technologies is bridged.<\/p>\n

One route to recovery is to start from the very beginning \u2013 at the planning stage. The key to this stage is identifying a focus with a \u201csense of commitment\u201d (McNiff et al 1996). The \u2018actual performance\u2019 should be made a mandatory standard that can be tested, and, more importantly, validated.<\/p>\n

From a practical perspective, a recommended intervention is a Commission2Perform template, a new process of reporting installation and commissioning activities. Central to the process is a single point document that logs a clear and concise set of information on activities throughout the construction process, which can both complement and support the O&M manual.<\/p>\n

To support this process, the following documents would be included in a central document:<\/p>\n