[Bldg-sim] Suggestions for model reviews

[Nathan Miller]

Regarding item #4 (stubborn, unreasonable reviewer), when I am responding
to an item that I absolutely do not agree with the reviewer's
interpretation, I usually take the following approach:

 

1)      Lay out my full argument as respectfully as possible. Usually this
involves screen shots of the specific code and/or ASHRAE 90.1 sections
that I believe bolsters my argument. 

2)      Present the results that I believe accurately reflect the
requirements of the modeling protocol.

3)      Put in a qualifying statement along the lines of "However, if the
reviewer does not believe this is the correct interpretation of this
ASHRAE 90.1 requirement."

4)      Present the results that reflect the approach that the reviewer
suggested or was clearly implying. 

 

This way the ball is in their court to make the final call, and they have
the full information necessary to decide how many "points" (assuming LEED
compliance is the goal) to award for the project. They don't have to try
to approximate how much savings is realistic if they disagree with my
interpretation, and my client has the most flexibility in deciding if they
want to accept how the reviewer has ruled, or if it is worth trying to
appeal. 

 

It doesn't do any good to paint yourself into a corner where the reviewer
might still disagree with your modeling methodology, but you have already
used your one shot at responding to comments. 

 

Nathan Miller, PE, LEEDRAP

Senior Energy Engineer/Mechanical Engineer

 

D 206-788-4577

 <http://www.rushingco.com/> www.rushingco.com

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:37 AM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [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

 

cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB

 

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/20110718/4d3fd683/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110718/4d3fd683/attachment-0002.jpeg>