Draft #4 Summary_ Reader Response:“Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means”
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". According to the article,
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, the article also states that 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 the
cyber-risks caused by technologies incorporated in smart buildings should be
the crucial element of “smartness for all stakeholders” 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".
The author states that the cyber-risk should be the critical aspect for all stakeholders when assessing smart buildings. However, the article fails to establish the gravity of cyber-risk in smart buildings that all stakeholders should be wary of. Awareness on the importance of cyber-risk can be enhanced to all stakeholders when assessing smart buildings by elaborating the adverse effect of cyber-risk on the operational, financial and business aspects.
Secondly, the results
of cyber-threats will cause a financial loss in a smart building. There are various
factors affected by cyber-breach that can cause financial loss, such as damaged
equipment. Zetter (2015) stated that the incident of cyber-attack that “had
struck an unnamed steel mill in Germany” resulted in ruined equipment. Thus,
the amount of financial loss is determined by the number of factors being
affected by cyber-breach. There are also incidents on shutting down
of building as a cyber breach is not handled promptly and effectively. According
to Chauhan (2017), companies were out of business upon experiencing tremendous
financial loss as a result of cyber-breach. The worst possible outcome of
cyber-breach can be a business failure due to the overwhelming financial loss.
Therefore, pointing out the extreme cases of cyber-breach can increase the
awareness of cyber-risk.
Lastly, cyber-risk includes data breach in smart buildings that can impact negatively on the business aspect. Davis (2019) says that cyber-breach can “put customer data at risk”. The author also explains that the survey has shown that “65% of data breach victims” quickly lose confidence in a company that has fallen prey to cyber-breach. Also, the article states that news of the company affected by cyber-breach will spread “within the days following”. Intangible assets in a company like trust and reputation that takes years to build up can vanish in the event of a cyber-breach. The loss of intangible assets would also mean losing existing and potential customers. Thus, showing how cyber-risk can be detrimental to the business in smart buildings increases the awareness in stakeholders.
In conclusion, the aim of stating the adverse effects of cyber-risk in various aspects is to increase awareness in all stakeholders about the importance of the uprising issue in smart buildings known as the cyber-threats. Stakeholders can then gauge the seriousness of cyber-risk based on the party that is affected and how are they being affected. Awareness of the importance of cyber-risk would allow stakeholders to put more consideration in dealing with the potential cyber-threats.
References:
Bennett, T. (2019, September 23). COVER STORY: Property industry responds as smart buildings open up new cybersecurity threats - Which-50. Retrieved from https://which-50.com/cover-story-property-industry-responds-as-smart-buildings-open-up-new-cyber-security-threats/.
Chauhan, B. (2017,
July 10). 4 Times Companies Were Forced to Shut Down Due to Hackers. Retrieved
from
https://www.getastra.com/blog/911/4-times-companies-were-forced-to-shut-down-due-to-hackers/.
Davis, M. (2019, July
25). 4 Damaging After-Effects of a Data Breach. Retrieved from
https://www.cybintsolutions.com/4-damaging-after-effects-of-a-data-breach/.
Lecomte, P. (2019,
January 28). Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means. Retrieved from
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means.
Mihalic, A. (2017,
August 21). Protecting Smart Buildings from Cyber Attacks. Retrieved from
https://www.engineering.com/BIM/ArticleID/15476/Protecting-Smart-Buildings-from-Cyber-Attacks.aspx.
Zetter, K. (2015,
August 1). A Cyberattack Has Caused Confirmed Physical Damage for the Second
Time Ever. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2015/01/german-steel-mill-hack-destruction/.
Comments
Post a Comment