[Bldg-sim] Suggestions for model reviews

[Jim Dirkes]

Excellent comments!

Nick's point #1 (reviewer may be smarter than you) is one that is
particularly hard for many engineers to swallow.  I won't tell you how many
times I've started a meeting or discussion thinking I was the "brightest
penny in the bucket", only to find out that others had much better insights
than I.  I'm more humble now than 30 years ago.

Point #2 is almost as important (reviewer may not be smarter than you).
Each of us travels somewhat similar paths if we're in the same industry, but
it's a very large industry and our reviewer almost certainly has not had the
same experiences.  Give him (her) the same patience that we'd like to
receive ourselves!

 

The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Miller
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:04 PM
To: 'Nick Caton'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Suggestions for model reviews

 

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/d0fefb5c/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/d0fefb5c/attachment-0002.jpeg>