Draft #1 Technical Report (Introduction)

Background Information
In recent studies, the rate of Singapore heating up is double than that of the world at about 0.25°C per decade (Ng & Tang, 2019). The temperature in Singapore could increase gradually to 40°C between the years 2045 and 2065 due to the astronomical amount of greenhouse gases the world continues to emit. In addition to the rising temperatures from climate change, Singapore is forced to contend with high humidity levels throughout the year (Low, 2019).

Being geographically located near the equator, the island undergoes a tropical climate. Furthermore, Singapore is surrounded by ocean where the heat and wind will convect water into the country through the breeze and rainfall (Billy Aircon, n.d.). Hence, the high humidity levels as a result of rainfall and temperature from climate change may cause people to be more susceptible to heat-related health dangers (Ng & Tang, 2019).

According to National Climate Change Secretary (NCCS, 2018), water resources is one of the elements that would be affected by climate change. Upturn in the unpredictability of weather patterns could pose a plethora of obstacles to the management of water resources. In Singapore, spells of drought can affect the dependability of its water supply, whereas unforeseen events of intense rainfall could swamp the drainage system, causing flash floods. With reference to the Public Utilities Board (PUB), managing the water supplies to meet the growing demands of the country require the involvement and contribution of the community (PUB, 2019). This explains how each individual plays an essential role in managing the water demands and ensuring sufficient water supply in the future.

In this report, team WATERHACK will discuss about the ideal school environment in terms of climate, the problems that arise due to higher relative humidity levels in Singapore, the proposed engineering solution developed to mitigate these problems and the water recycling benefits of implementing this solution.


Problem Statement
An ideal forward-looking university should be a conducive and comfortable place for students to be in. In the current SIT@Dover campus, outdoor study areas can be very warm during hot days which will cause students to feel muggy even with the presence of fans. Therefore, the team believes that SIT@Punggol campus should incorporate dehumidifiers around outdoor study areas so as to maximise student’s productivity in their learning process and at the same time, reduce the risk of any heat-related health dangers . These portable dehumidifiers can play a part in lowering the humidity level around the vicinity which will enhance students’ well-being when studying outdoor around the new campus.


Purpose Statement
This report aims to propose the implementation of portable dehumidifiers in outdoor study areas around SIT@Punggol campus to the estate planning committee in hopes of mitigating the effects of high temperature and humidity on students.

Draft #3 Summary_ReaderResponse: Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means

In the article “Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized rubrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the “built environment”. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own rubrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public rubrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in “smart cities”. Lecomte emphasizes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats “increase exponentially” along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable “smart building certifications and rubrics” will be the foundation of a “functioning market for smart real estate”.

While Lecomte stated his case for establishing smart building certification under standardized rubrics and discussed inconsistencies in current indicators, he did not suggest concrete proposals to fully address the challenges.

First of all, Lecomte mentioned the need for “common standards and metrics” in smart building certifications, given their importance in smart cities. He also cited the success of globally recognised green building certification, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. Such standardized certification system will offer a clear method for smart buildings to be benchmarked against consistent rubrics, and allow for the identification of improvement opportunities. This view is shared by Smeenk (2018) who stated in an article that recognized “industry-wide smart building certification levels” will “become the basis” for leaders to understand and develop smart cities. In addition, LEED has been thought to be critical in “transforming building practices” for the last 25 years by the U.S. Green Building Council (Long, 2018), and this emphasises the value for such a standardized certification system. Thus, like the use of LEED certification for green buildings, standardizing the metrics and rubrics for smart building certification has the potential to positively impact the built environment and accelerate the progress towards smart cities.

In addition to making the case for smart building certifications with standardized metrics and rubrics, Lecomte also highlighted the inconsistencies in smart building indicators used by different countries and corporations, which hampered the development of a standardized smart building certification. As different countries and corporations have unique priorities, it can be a huge challenge for them to negotiate the differences and come to an agreement on what a smart building really is. In a research paper published by the Czech Technical University (Lom & Pribyl, 2017), it was acknowledged that there are no straightforward and comprehensible framework which will allow cities to assess the benefits of their smart city solutions. Sullivan (2018) also suggested that varying definitions of smart buildings as well as the lack of wide-spread acceptance of existing indicators are key obstacles to the development of a standardized building certification programme. It appears to be a rather collective view that the road towards smart building certification with standardized metrics and rubrics will need considerable effort.

Lastly, although Lecomte listed the importance for consistent smart building rubrics and metrics, he did not make specific proposals on how to drive efforts to introduce a “universal framework”. For instance, a possible course of action is the recent push to develop and “launch the world’s first Intelligent Buildings Index” (Willow, 2019). This effort is being led by International Intelligent Buildings Organisation and will use “a state-of-the-art literature review, international stakeholder engagement and calibration against a global spectrum of smart buildings” (Willow, 2019). The index also promises to “ensure that the index stays abreast of latest industry and technological advances” (Willow, 2019). The process of developing this index can potentially deal with the inconsistencies that Lecomte mentioned in his article and help unify views of diverse stakeholders.

In conclusion, Lecomte’s article mentioned the importance of having a standardized smart building certification in the development of smart cities and listed key contributors hindering its development. However, he did not fully address how a “universal framework” can be developed. As the advancement of smart cities require significant time and effort for stakeholders to come together to standardize on a common metrics and rubrics for smart buildings, there is no better time than now to utilise a well-defined approach to progress towards the creation of a universal definition of smart cities.

References:

Lecomte, P. (2019, January 29). Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means. The Business Times. Retrieved from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means

Lom, M., & Pribyl, O. (2017). Smаrt City Evaluation Framework (SMACEF): Is a smart city solution beneficial for your city? Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(3), 60-65.

Long, M. (2018). Green building accelerates around the world, poised for strong growth by 2021. U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved from: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-accelerates-around-world-poised-strong-growth-2021

Smeenk, H. G. (2018, March 12). The smart way to smart cities begins with buildings. Smart Buildings Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.smartbuildingsmagazine.com/features/the-smart-way-to-smart-cities-begins-with-buildings

Sullivan, E. (2018). Is a smart building certification on the way?. Facilitiesnet. Retrieved from: https://www.facilitiesnet.com/buildingautomation/article/Is-A-Smart-Building-Certification-On-The-Way---17485

Willow. (2019). Introducing the world’s first Intelligent Buildings Index. Retrieved from: https://www.willowinc.com/2019/06/11/introducing-the-worlds-first-intelligent-buildings-index/

Draft #2 Summary_ReaderResponse: Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means

In the article “Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized rubrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own rubrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public rubrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte emphasizes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats ‘increase exponentially’ along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'.


While Lecomte stated his case for establishing smart building certification under standardized rubrics, discussed inconsistencies in current indicators and the importance of cybersecurity, he did not propose concrete proposals to fully address the challenges.


First of all, Lecomte mentioned the need for “common standards and metrics” in smart building certifications, given their importance in smart cities. He also cited the success of globally recognised green building certification, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. This view is shared by Smeenk (2018) who stated in an article that recognized “industry-wide smart building certification levels” will “become the basis” for leaders to understand and develop smart cities. In addition, LEED has been thought to be critical in “transforming building practices” for the last 25 years by the U.S. Green Building Council (Long, 2018), and this emphasises the value for such a standardized certification system. Thus, like the use of LEED certification for green buildings, standardizing the metrics and rubrics for smart building certification has the potential to positively impact the built environment and accelerate the progress towards smart cities.


Secondly, Lecomte highlighted the inconsistencies in smart building indicators used by different countries and corporations, which hampered the development of a standardized set of rubrics and metrics for smart building certification. In a research paper published by the Czech Technical University in Prague (Lom & Pribyl, 2017), it was acknowledged that there are no straightforward and comprehensible framework which will allow cities to assess the benefits of their smart city solutions. Sullivan (2018) also suggested that varying definitions of smart buildings as well as the lack of wide-spread acceptance of existing indicators are key obstacles to the development of a standardized building certification programme. It appears to be a rather collective view that the road towards smart building certification with standardized metrics and rubrics will need considerable effort.


Thirdly, although Lecomte listed the importance for consistent smart building rubrics and metrics, he did not suggest specific proposals on how to drive efforts to introduce a “universal framework”. For instance, a possible solution is the recent push to develop and “launch the world’s first Intelligent Buildings Index” (Willow, 2019). This effort is being led by International Intelligent Buildings Organisation and will use “a state-of-the-art literature review, international stakeholder engagement and calibration against a global spectrum of “smart” buildings” (Willow, 2019). The index also promises to “ensure that the index stays abreast of latest industry and technological advances” (Willow, 2019). The process of developing this index can potentially deal with the inconsistencies that Lecomte mentioned in his article and help unify views of diverse stakeholders.


Lastly, Lecomte underscored the importance of considering cybersecurity in the standardized rubric for smart buildings, but once again did not provide examples on how to do it. It is well known that cybersecurity will be a dominant topic for the smart building industry going forward and that technological leaps in recent years have brought about the advent of more frequent and highly sophisticated cyber-attacks (Blue Future Partners, 2018). In view of that, there are a few possible ways the smart building rubric can recognise and address these cyber threats. For instance, smart building vendors involved in cybersecurity need to be audited for their ability to stay ahead of potential cyber threats by consistently releasing timely new patches to upgrade their respective security management systems (Cyber Security Hub, 2018). Also, building operators need to be reminded through the rubrics to take the necessary precautions to boost their cybersecurity, such as "improving authorization controls and implementing stronger data encryption” (Blue Future Partners, 2018).


In conclusion, Lecomte’s article mentioned the importance of having smart building certification with standardized rubrics and metrics in the development of smart cities and listed key contributors hindering its development. However, he did not fully address how a “universal framework” can be developed. Furthermore, Lecomte also stated the need to consider cybersecurity in the smart building rubrics, but missed out suggestions on how to do so.

References:

Lecomte, P. (2019, January 29). Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means. The Business Times. Retrieved from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means

Smeenk, H. G. (2018, March 12). The smart way to smart cities begins with buildings. Smart Buildings Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.smartbuildingsmagazine.com/features/the-smart-way-to-smart-cities-begins-with-buildings

Lom, M., & Pribyl, O. (2017). Smаrt City Evaluation Framework (SMACEF): Is a Smart City Solution Beneficial for Your City?. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(3), 60-65.

Blue Future Partners. (2018). The Future of Smart Buildings - Top Industry Trends. Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@BlueFuture/the-future-of-smart-buildings-top-industry-trends-7ae1afdcce78

Cyber Security Hub. (2018). The Importance Of Vendor Risk Management. Retrieved from: https://www.cshub.com/attacks/articles/the-importance-of-vendor-risk-management

Long, M. (2018). Green Building Accelerates Around the World, Poised for Strong Growth by 2021. U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved from: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-accelerates-around-world-poised-strong-growth-2021

Sullivan, E. (2018). Is A Smart Building Certification On The Way?. Facilitiesnet. Retrieved from: https://www.facilitiesnet.com/buildingautomation/article/Is-A-Smart-Building-Certification-On-The-Way---17485

Willow. (2019). Introducing the world’s first Intelligent Buildings Index. Retrieved from: https://www.willowinc.com/2019/06/11/introducing-the-worlds-first-intelligent-buildings-index/

Draft #1 Summary_ReaderResponse: Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means

INCOMPLETE: 

In the article “Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized metrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own metrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public metrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte emphasizes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats ‘increase exponentially’ along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'. 

Lecomte has rightly stated that establishing smart building certification under a standardized rubric will be a vital step towards advancing smart buildings (and smart cities), and also aptly brought forth suggestions on doing so. As smart buildings are the building blocks of a successful smart city, having recognised “industry-wide smart building certification levels” will “become a basis” for leaders to fully comprehend and execute their development of smart cities. (Smeenk, 2018) However, presently, there are no straightforward and comprehensible framework which will allow cities to assess their solutions on developing smart cities. (Lom & Pribyl, 2017) As a reference solution, Lecomte cited the system of “LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification” in green buildings, a well-known green building certification used globally. Developed in the early 2000s, LEED has been thought to be critical in “transforming building practices”, and this emphasises the value for such certification systems. (https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-accelerates-around-world-poised-strong-growth-2021) Likewise, creating an inclusive smart building framework that guides stakeholders through the lifecycle of the smart building also has the potential to positively impact the built environment and allow the cohesive progress towards smart cities. 

Lecomte continues by addressing the limitations and inconsistencies in existing indicators in both private and public sectors. Different countries and corporations develop their own smart building indicators, and this is hindering the development of a standardized set of rubric for smart building certification. Indeed, such varying definitions of what a smart building means and the lack of wide-spread market acceptance in existing indicators are obstacles to the development of a standardized rubric. (https://www.facilitiesnet.com/buildingautomation/article/Is-A-Smart-Building-Certification-On-The-Way---17485). With that in mind, efforts have been introduced in recent more recently to develop and “launch the world’s first Intelligent Buildings Index”. (https://www.willowinc.com/2019/06/11/introducing-the-worlds-first-intelligent-buildings-index/). The process of developing this index can potentially deal with the inconsistencies that Lecomte mentioned in his article and help reach a consensus among diverse stakeholders. The index also promises to “ensure that the index stays abreast of latest industry and technological advances.” (https://www.willowinc.com/2019/06/11/introducing-the-worlds-first-intelligent-buildings-index/). 

It is important to note, however, that buildings can serve different purposes, such as offices, residential properties, hospitals, just to name a few. (Smeenk, 2018). Although across these uses, basic building infrastructure needs (such as energy and water efficiency, trash, security, connectivity, parking management) are identical (Smeenk, 2018), smart buildings “must be designed according to the local climate in order to obtain the maximum of benefits”. (https://www.energyintime.eu/smart-buildings-beneficial/). In consideration of that, while a standardized rubric for smart building certification could be developed, in future it could be further expanded to a suite of certificates that may be tailored accordingly to local context or specific needs. This was also practised in the “LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification”, in which a suite of certifications were developed to address the uniqueness of different types of buildings (https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/06/is-leed-tough-enough-for-the-climate-change-era/559478/). 

Furthermore, Lecomte underscores the importance of cybersecurity in the development of the standardized certifications under a standardized rubric for smart buildings. Technological leap in recent years has brought together with it the advent of more frequent and highly sophisticated cyber-attacks, and cybersecurity will be a dominant topic for the smart building industry going forward (https://medium.com/@BlueFuture/the-future-of-smart-buildings-top-industry-trends-7ae1afdcce78). Vendors involved in cyber security need to stay ahead of potential threats and take action to prevent cyber-attacks by consistently releasing timely new patches to upgrade their respective security management systems in order to allow their customers to be less susceptible to new methods of cyber-attacks. On the other hand, building operators also need to keep themselves up to date and take the necessary precautions to boost their cybersecurity, “such as improving authorization controls and implementing stronger data encryption, as well as working closely together with their IT department”. (https://medium.com/@BlueFuture/the-future-of-smart-buildings-top-industry-trends-7ae1afdcce78). This would require significant effort from the respective stakeholders. With that in mind, the standardised rubrics implemented and certifications released to respective stakeholders also need to be re-evaluated on a regular basis to ensure relevancy and competency to prevent vulnerabilities. 

Finally, to properly build up capabilities in the built industry, there should be an increased emphasis on education to building developers, building users, and the general public. Building developers should have platforms to share insights in conferences to use the standardized framework, be given opportunities to improve on the standardized rubrics from time to time. Building users and the general public should also be made aware of the potential benefits as well as risks involved in the use of smart buildings so that they do not inadvertently allow cyber-threats to take place within the smart buildings.   

References:

Lecomte, P. (2019, January 29). Smart buildings: What 'smart' really means. The Business Times.  Retrieved September 2019 from: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means 

Lom, M. & Pribyl, O. (2017). Sмаrt City Evaluation Framework (SMACEF): Is a Smart City Solution Beneficial for Your City? . SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS , 15(3), 60-65. 

Smeenk, H. G. (12 March, 2018). The smart way to smart cities begins with buildings. Retrieved from Smart Buildings Magazine: http://www.smartbuildingsmagazine.com/features/the-smart-way-to-smart-cities-begins-with-buildings 

MORE TO COME.