Summary of “Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means” Draft #1

In the article 'Smart Buildings: What 'smart really means', Lecomte (2019) states that a standardized metric is required for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Currently, private and public sectors use their own standards to assess smart buildings, but their rubrics vary from one another. Private sector standards are biased to their sponsors, while public sectors' Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are exclusive to engineering features. Efforts to standardize rubrics are unsuccessful thus far as different parties involved could not agree on a standard rubric. Lecomte also emphasized the importance of including the assessment of cyber-risks in the rubric. There was an incident where hackers managed to steal millions of dollars (USD) from a corporation. Such risks increase exponentially along with more advanced and integrated technology. All in all, holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'.

Comments

  1. Hello once more Kang Le, we are here to review.

    - Sophisticated citation information

    - Key points are clearly mentioned

    - Main idea is portrayed clearly

    - Good paraphrasing but can still work on it

    - The quote by the author hints that proper certification is needed to reduce risks (especially cyber-risks). It would be good to also include that in the summary at the part about cyber-risks.

    Reviewed by: Tiara, Sangara and Sammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will take all the points stated into consideration. Thank you for taking the time to review the summary.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Letter

Annotated Summary

Task 3: The Importance of communication skills for engineers