Overview of occupant-centric KPIs for building performance and their value to various building stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the significance of occupants and their interactions with the building’s operational systems, various occupant-related key performance indicators (KPIs) have been established. However, there remains a notable gap concerning the practical utilization of these indicators by building stakeholders. Therefore, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the occupant-related building performance KPIs and how various building stakeholders influence them through their decision-making. The study assessed: (1) roles of various building stakeholders; (2) stakeholders’ requirement for occupant-centric KPIs in their decision-making process; (3) factors demonstrating effective occupant-centric KPIs along with data requirements to evaluate them; and (4) stakeholders’ decisions and actions that affect occupant-centric KPIs. Key stakeholders identified involved investors, building owners, designers, building occupants, building managers and operators, as well as utility providers. Effective occupant-centric KPIs were characterised by their fit-for-purpose, actionability, quantifiability, comparability, reproducibility, integrability, feasibility, and usability. Results indicated that building managers and operators primarily affect thermal, air quality, and visual KPIs. Building occupants, public authorities, investors, building owners, and designers influence all categories of occupant-centric KPIs. Utility providers particularly impact thermal KPIs. In conclusion, findings of this study contribute to shaping the way in which stakeholders consider occupants in their decision-making to achieve building performance objectives by data-driven occupant-centric KPIs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".