Quite rightly, we’ve spent a long time defining what a good smart building specification should contain. That work has been useful. We now have a reasonably mature understanding of what different asset types require, from workplace and residential buildings to logistics, hospitality and mixed-use developments. You can even buy a swimming badge that proves you have a little bit of everything. But now the problem seems to be that the specification is becoming less capable of describing the thing we are trying to create.
A conventional specification assumes that the required capability can be defined at a point in time, translated into technical requirements and then procured against. That logic works well for many physical systems. A lift still needs to move people safely between floors. A chiller still needs to achieve a defined cooling duty. A fire alarm system still needs to satisfy clearly established performance and regulatory requirements.
Digital capability behaves differently.
A building designed today may not complete for three, five or even ten years. During that period, software platforms will evolve, artificial intelligence will become embedded into more operational workflows, new sensing techniques will emerge, user interfaces will change and technologies that currently appear differentiated may become standard features of mainstream building systems. We end up delivering capability that paints the picture of the capability available at the time of design. A vignette of that moment.
The underlying requirement may remain entirely valid while the optimum way of delivering it changes substantially.
We already understand many of those underlying requirements. A high-performing office should be able to understand occupancy, manage environmental conditions intelligently, support efficient maintenance, provide useful information to occupants and give operators a coherent view across multiple building systems. A logistics facility requires a different emphasis, as does a hotel or residential tower, but the principle is similar. The industry is comfortable defining the outcomes that matter.
What is becoming harder to justify is specifying, years in advance, exactly how those outcomes should be achieved. This creates an important distinction between capability and technology selection. The former should be designed deliberately and early. The latter increasingly needs to remain adaptable.
A smart building strategy therefore needs to establish the architecture that allows capability to evolve. That means getting the less glamorous fundamentals right… network resilience, data structures, interoperability, cybersecurity, identity, system interfaces, ownership of data and clear operational governance. These decisions create the conditions within which future technologies can be adopted without repeatedly redesigning the building around them.
The specification does not disappear entirely. Life-safety systems, communications infrastructure, controls architecture and many other components will always require precise technical requirements. But the digital element needs to become less like a fixed catalogue of features and more like a framework for acquiring capability over time.
This is particularly important as artificial intelligence becomes part of building operations. It would be difficult today to specify precisely what an AI-enabled building should do in 2030. It is much easier to define the information, permissions, interfaces and operational controls that would allow useful AI applications to be introduced when they become sufficiently capable and commercially viable.
The question for designers and developers therefore changes. Instead of asking which smart technologies should be installed, the better question is whether the building has been designed to absorb the next generation of capability.
That is a materially different brief.
The smartest buildings of the next decade may not be those with the longest or loveliest technology specifications. They may be the ones designed with enough discipline in their foundations, and enough flexibility in their architecture, to avoid needing one.
In Dr Marson’s monthly column, he’ll be chronicling his thoughts and opinions on the latest developments, trends, and challenges in the Smart Buildings industry and the wider world of construction. Whether you're a seasoned pro or just starting out, you're sure to find something of interest here.
Something to share? Contact the author: column@matthewmarson.com
About the author:
Matthew Marson is an experienced leader, working at the intersection of technology, sustainability, and the built environment. He was recognised by the Royal Academy of Engineering as Young Engineer of the Year for his contributions to the global Smart Buildings industry. Having worked on some of the world’s leading smart buildings and cities projects, Matthew is a keynote speaker at international industry events related to emerging technology, net zero design and lessons from projects. He is author of The Smart Building Advantage and is published in a variety of journals, earning a doctorate in Smart Buildings.