Diskusjon og veien videre – En kort oppsummering av kapittelet
Kapittel 7 diskuterer prosessen som har vært ved valg av mål, indikatorer og verktøy-struktur. Så langt er det kun et foreløpig resultat som presenteres og flere ting kan endre seg i de neste fasene av prosjektet hvor indikatorer og verktøy skal testes. Noen usikre momenter:
‐ Fremtidens teknikk og juridiske lover, spesielt med tanke på muligheten for å måle de ulike parameterne.
‐ Interessen og treffsikkerheten hos brukergruppene, kommunale og spesielt private.
Metoden som ble brukt, MADM, fungerte til en viss grad. Siden det var første gang denne metoden ble nyttet av de involverte i forskningsgruppen ble ikke metoden alltid fulgt, men det var en god metode som grunnlag for en utvelgelsesprosess og gav gode diskusjoner som førte frem til et ferdig indikatorsett for videre arbeid.
Videre så beskrives planene videre for prosjektet PI SEC Task 1.3, hvor verktøy skal testes ut i Oslo (Furuset) og Bergen (Ådland).
This report presents a preliminary toolkit for goals and key performance indicators in Smart Energy Communities developed in close relation to stakeholders. We will now enter a test period where goals, indicators and tools will be calibrated by testing against the two pilot areas, Furuset and ZVB.
Future possibilities are uncertain
A challenge in the process of choosing the preliminary indicator set is that the future is uncertain in terms of technical and legal possibilities, especially when it comes to monitoring and instrumentation.
For example, something that are under discussion in Norway today is the degree of measurements of real time energy consumption in each building or area, based on AMI or other smart instrumentation.
The developments within "smart" ICT is moving fast and the potential is huge. The questions are often on a legal level, more than what is technical feasible.
The indicator set is chosen based on technical and legal possibilities in Norway today or in near future.
Stakeholders feeling of ownership
Until now, the work has been developed based on literature studies and dialogues with different kinds of stakeholders. A risk we are facing is that the stakeholders have not been included enough in the developing face – that we are not meeting the needs of the user group, especially the developers. In the next phase, the user groups will be involved to a much larger degree, to be able to test the indicator sets and tools. This will give valuable input for developing the PI-SEC tool further.
Evaluation of the MADM methodology
The MADM methodology was tested on selection of KPIs. Overall, the methodology was found useful for structuring the decision-making process.
The process with rating all indicators against the attributes is quite time consuming. The fact that all attributes were qualitative in their nature, and therefore had to be quantified, means that there is a lot of subjective evaluation involved. Due to this, it was found that the methodology was not suited for direct selection based on rating, but rather useful as a basis for discussion. The process of selecting attributes and rating the indicators improves the foundation for the decision-making, and ensures that indicators are evaluated more structurally.
50 Further Work
Task 1.3 encompasses analyses of data from the case studies to validate, optimize, or discard the KPIs chosen in Task 1.2.The preliminary set of indicators will be tested in the selected neighbourhood development projects (case studies). This will be done through the following steps, some of them in cooperation with task 2.3 (testing of municipality toolkit):
1. Updated information on the case studies: The first step in task 1.3 will be to gather the necessary updated information for the cases. This means data on the existing and planned building stock and infrastructure as input to the indicator tool. For ZVB, a lot of information already exists in the studies that has been performed in the ZEB project and currently is performed in ZEN. For Furuset, a more comprehensive data gathering is necessary, especially for the existing building stock. The work has been initiated by the "Micro energy system"-project lead by the Municipality of Oslo and Rambøll.
2. Document analysis: The case studies will first be analysed "as planned", i.e. an analysis of the actual performance indicators, goals, and criteria that have been applied by the planners involved. This will be done through document analysis of the chosen case studies. The questions to be addressed are (the last two questions will also be addressed in the group interviews/ interviews described in point 4-5):
What criteria for energy performance have been used, and what was the result in
How much time has been spent on analysing the criteria, and what tools have been used?
3. Researchers testing the toolkitson the case studies: After the initial analysis of the case studies
"as planned", the preliminary tool-kits with KPIs developed in Task 1.2 and 2.2 will be tested on the same case study projects with different energy scenarios. The results of the two sets of analysis ("as planned" vs "alternative energy scenarios with preliminary tool-kits") will be compared, discussed and analysed in cross-disciplinary workshops with respect to how the targets and tool-kits can be applied in practice (data quality, uncertainty, resource use, etc.).
This first testing will mainly be done by the researchers who developed the KPIs, and the results will be presented in a workshop for further development.
4. Presentation of test results and group interviews6: The workshop will start out with presentations of toolkits from wp 1.3. (and scenarios) and 2.3, and there will be a focus group interview about
51
the toolkits. The participants will be both municipal employees and developers. The discussion will be recorded and transcribed, and the findings will be grouped and analysed. The main questions to be addressed during data collection in point 4-5 are:
Where to set the geographic system boundaries for export/import of energy
If necessary, the topics will be divided between two workshops with groups interviews.
5. User test of KPIs and toolkits: Further, the toolkits will be tested by the municipal employees and the estate developers, and the researchers will be involved through action research, helping and guiding the testing Is in the different planning groups for the case studies. The case studies will be analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods; MCA, computer simulations, interviews, and interdisciplinary analyses in workshops. Different technological scenarios will be analysed against the KPIs and energy-related targets using computer simulation tools to model energy performance, GHG emissions and the exchange of energy between buildings and the grid or storage, as well as the dynamic interactions between stationary energy use and transport. The proposed PI-SEC indicator tool will be the main tool used for analysing the cases.
The more detailed technological scenario investigations will serve as input to the indicator tool, to increase the accuracy in evaluation. This will also improve the underlying reference base of normative values and typical efficiencies. During the test period, need for improvement and further development will be evaluated and prioritised. The most relevant developments will be implemented through the test phase and used in the evaluation of the KPIs.
52
The toolkits will also be discussed in meetings with the international reference group during 2017, and these inputs will be analysed together with data from users and experts.
6. Analysing data and further development of KPIs and toolkits: Redesign of the KPI toolkit will be done on the basis of the qualitative and quantitative data from the evaluation process described in point 2-5. The user participation in the process contributes to co-designing of the toolkits, and the process therefore secures that the tools and KPIs will be in accordance with the user needs.
7. The co-designing process and the final toolkit will be described in reports and scientific papers.
Task 1.3 in cooperation with task 2.3 Duration 5 quartiles Start date to be decided 1. Updating the
information on the case studies 2. Document analysis of the case studies
"as planned"
3. Researchers testing the new KPIs on the case studies 4. Workshops presenting toolkits, focus group interviews.
5. Test period of tool-kits, action research 6. Analysing data from group interviews, action research, and input from international and national partners, further development of toolkit/ KPIs
7. Report M3
Scientific papers
SP1 and 2
Milestones: M3: Common report task 1.3 and 2.3.
SP1 and 2: Scientific paper 1 and 2 on the use of the tool-kits.
53