Top 10 Smart Building Myths—Busted

1 CommentBy

 

Posted by:
Leo O’Loughlin
VP, IntelliCommand

Smart buildings are a no-brainer and more affordable than most building owners and investors realize

They have been proven to save energy, streamline facilities management and prevent expensive equipment failures. Yet, to many property owners and investors, the value of smart buildings remains a mystery. We are here to debunk the top 10 misconceptions many encounter while helping clients improve company performance around the world.

In most buildings, we can demonstrate a strong business case for strategic investments in smart building systems and management technologies. Not everyone is aware that the tremendous advantages of today’s affordable smart building management technologies easily justify the cost.

Top 10 Smart Building Myths:

Myth #10: Smart Building Technologies Are Expensive.

Myth #9: Smart Buildings are Only About Energy.

Myth #8: Smart Buildings and Green Buildings are the Same Thing.

Myth #7: Industrial Facilities or Laboratories Can’t Become Smart Buildings.

Myth #6: Smart Buildings Can Only Be New Buildings.

Myth #5: Smart Building Technologies are Not Interoperable.

Myth #4: Smart Systems Don’t Make a Building More Attractive to Tenants.

Myth #3: Without a Municipal Smart Grid, a Building Can’t Really Be Smart.

Myth #2: Smart Buildings Are Complicated to Operate.

Myth #1: Smart Buildings Are a No-Brainer. Myth NOT Debunked: This isn’t a myth at all —it’s actually true. As affordable new technologies are adopted, tenants are beginning to expect smart building features—and owners and investors are beginning to realize the return on investment in smart systems.

One thought on “Top 10 Smart Building Myths—Busted

  1. Akos Brandecker

    Great article Leo, thank you.

    In my experience, an existing building, especially a whole portfolio, cannot be ‘smartened up’ in one go but rather in smaller steps. This is primarily for financial reasons. At the same time, senior management would like to see some return on investment every year (and after every step) that can justify their ongoing engagement/commitment to the project.

    Do you think that taking an approach where smart fit-out strategy is constrained by ongoing financial expectations can hinder the overall performance or effectiveness of smart buildings? I mainly think about having to modify or re-commission every system after the addition of a ‘new piece in the puzzle’, so that they can seamlessly integrate with one another.

    I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.

    All the best.
    Akos

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *