[Bldg-sim] Suggestions for model reviews

[Hopf, Johannes]

Hi all!

 

Our problem is, that different reviewers want to see different things.

 

Our first project NC 2.2 Platinum was accepted without any clarification 3
years ago. For the next project, same version we used the same tool, model,
reports – everything – we needed two clarifications, had to pay extra money
etc. because of missing results, input files, report structure etc. Based on
this clarified project we did three more whole building simulation were we
got 20 – 30 comments to clarify. 

 

Projects were all very much the same, so different systems can´t be the
reason. And due to the missing direct communication, it is sometimes hard to
get to know what the reviewer has in mind. 

 

We would appreciate 

-       more details about what is definitely necessary (nobody tells us, if
it is too much information), 

-       what is obsolete,

-       the same reviewer for earch project as far as possible because he is
familiar with the structure of documents etc

-       a way of direct communication after the first review…

 

Does somebody know how much time reviewers have for Minimum/Optimize Energy
Performance / how much money they get?

 

Regards Johannes

 

Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Nick Caton
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juli 2011 18:37
An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Betreff: [Bldg-sim] Suggestions for model reviews

 

Recently, I’ve had an odd string of personal contacts and strangers alike
confiding with me and demonstrating their frustrations over energy model
reviews.  As an outside-party, it’s actually largely entertaining to hear,
and puts a few things in perspective.  We are all human, and we all share
common emotions when put under the spotlight, but how we put those feelings
to action makes all the difference between an easy/productive review process
and a train wreck…

 

I’ve had the pleasure of treading both paths, and I thought it might be
helpful for modelers of all skill/experience levels to share a few tips I’ve
developed to manage the stress-level in your energy model reviews.  A few
reviewers out there might also benefit to turn this advice around and apply
it to their practices as well:

 

1.       Do not assume your reviewer knows less than you.  

a.       Recognize that stuff gets lost in translation – energy modeling
minutiae are rarely easy to communicate in text format.

b.      It’s human to feel annoyed when your work is questioned, but practice
patience.  Odds are you and/or your reviewer are going to learn something as
a result. 

c.       If you ever catch yourself thinking/responding in a dismissive or
condescending fashion, stop.  Your heart is in the wrong place (however right
you might be) and you’re missing the point of an objective review.  Take a
breather!

2.       Do not assume your reviewer knows more than you, either.  

a.       Do not be afraid to challenge or question a query, but prepare and
present a solid case for any contrary position.  

b.      It is very easy to run yourself in circles trying to explain/justify
yourself when it isn’t really necessary.  

c.       Reviewers can and should make it plain when an in-depth explanation
is required.

3.       Be prepared to change your mind!  For better or for worse, reviews
are ultimately beneficial to all parties involved, because they provide an
excellent opportunity to learn a thing or two.  Allow your personal expertise
to continually evolve and incorporate, or at least recognize, others’
perspectives and practices.  They may serve you well personally in the
future!

4.       Once in a while, you may have to work with an individual who is
truly stubborn, unreasonable and is not willing to participate in any
objective discussion.  If a review should fail to “close out” over such
behavior, the best you can hope for is to document communications so you can
later make apparent in hindsight that you were proactive, and pulling your
weight to move the process forward.  

 

If anyone has similar guiding principles or tips to share (from either side
of the reviewing fence), I think it would be much appreciated =)!

 

~Nick

 

 

 

NICK CATON, P.E.

SENIOR ENGINEER

 

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway, suite 200

olathe, ks 66061

direct 913.344.0036

fax 913.345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110726/fb9ab5e4/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110726/fb9ab5e4/attachment-0002.jpeg>