Unintended Consequences: institutional artifacts, closure mechanisms and the performance gap

[thumbnail of Open access]
Preview
Text (Open access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview
Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution
[thumbnail of Boyd Schweber Unintended Consequences 2017.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Boyd, P. and Schweber, L. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6069-0002 (2017) Unintended Consequences: institutional artifacts, closure mechanisms and the performance gap. Building Research and Information, 46 (1). pp. 10-22. ISSN 1466-4321 doi: 10.1080/09613218.2017.1331096

Abstract/Summary

Renewable technologies often feature in policies to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. Designers introduce predicted energy values for specific technologies, but are surprised when the technologies fail to perform as expected. Three building projects are used to explore the effect of construction processes on the energy performance of building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) technology. In two cases BIPV failed to deliver expected energy generation, while in the third, dramatic changes in project processes and technical specifications were needed to achieve the specified output. A social construction of technology (SCOT) analysis documents how the energy generation of BIPV disappeared from view at certain points as actors focused on building features. A contribution is made to the theoretical development of SCOT by responding to two issues: privileging of cognitive closure mechanisms and the neglect of institutional analysis. The concept of inflection mechanisms is introduced as a second type of closure mechanism. More specifically, the role of institutional artefacts (e.g. planning requirements and schedules) in the construction process is found to contribute to the performance gap. To reduce the ‘performance gap’, practitioners need to focus on the distribution of design responsibility, sequencing of work and the location of expertise.

Altmetric Badge

Additional Information Special issue: Bringing users into building energy performance
Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/71117
Identification Number/DOI 10.1080/09613218.2017.1331096
Refereed Yes
Divisions Science > School of the Built Environment > Organisation, People and Technology group
Science > School of the Built Environment > Energy and Environmental Engineering group
Additional Information Special issue: Bringing users into building energy performance
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar