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'. Lecomte mentions that 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, current private and public metrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte emphasises that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management 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'.
I strongly agree with Lecomte that there should be a globalized standardization of definition on what is a smart building. I strongly believe that a globally recognized smart building will help the city to prosper and thrive.
Lecomte, P. (2019, January 29). Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means. Retrieved September 2019, from The Business Times: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means
(147 words)
Edited 29/09/2019
No comments:
Post a Comment