[Ibpsausa] [Bldg-sim] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

[Nick Caton]

Jason et all:

 

I will start with some specific commentary, then step back to discuss
the overall scope of this JTA and my opinion of how the broader goals
should be refined.  I'll preface that this collection of feedback is
blending together discussions I've had recently and in the past with
other colleagues on and off the lists over the topic - these thoughts
may be considered reviewed and coming from more than one of us, in
short.  I hope this helps improve and refine the current efforts to a
positive effect for everyone involved.

 

The document needs to be reviewed for sensible and clear terminology
usage, and to remove any redundant items (stuff a spell-check is not
going to pick up).  For example, Table 7.A.6.a&b lists the two following
tasks side-by-side:

*         Review baselines required for Codes, standards, and protocols

*         Identify additional baselines

The distinction is not clear from the provided context.  On my first
reading I mentally corrected both to reference "baseline requirements,"
but that doesn't read particularly well if these are supposed to be two
distinct tasks either...  Baselines do not always come from a
standard/protocol, as I'm to discuss more thoroughly further down...
perhaps that's what's intended?

 

Specific to the gathered tasks and workflow presented, something I
touched on earlier was how the entire report seems structured around a
specific modeling role and scope of work.  Reviewing what is presented,
this scope initially appears to have a few identifiable characteristics:

*         The energy modeling consultant is working periphery to the
design process (not a member of the "design team")

*         An emphasis appears placed upon identifying and constructing a
baseline model per existing conditions, suggesting the scope of work is
for a renovation/retrofit project.

*         While the modeler is supposed to be familiar with LEED and
similar standards, the duties/tasks/steps for the project at hand are
not specific as to whether a formal performance rating method is being
followed or documented.  If that is the case, I would expect at least
different weightings between the relatively tasks presented.

 

It has since been clarified to me by one of the participating panelists
that the above perceived set of scope characteristics are likely the
combined result of:

*         Discouraging panelists from referencing any specific standard
or protocol (i.e. LEED), where such compliance documentation & review
responses can at times represent a significant portion of the time spent
on a modeling project. 

*         Panelists were asked to iterate every task involved in both
new construction and existing building projects, which introduces
communicative and information-gathering tasks that would not apply under
different scope/project circumstances.

 

These observations lead me to point out and explain something more
fundamental to energy modeling that the rigid structure of the JTA study
procedure/format seems naturally prone to miss.  As has been repeatedly
noted, "energy modeling" is a broad term that describes a wide breadth
and depth of services, knowledge and skillsets.  I would not object to
the duties currently presented being adequately inclusive for the
workflow of a very specific scope of work, but the box as drawn both
misses and diminishes other areas of modeling that I think are integral
to the job description and the industry... If the job of "energy
modeler" must be defined in a "workflow" fashion (duties/tasks/steps) as
currently presented, I would instead propose coming up with a workflow
to describe three separate and distinct categories of modeling services:

*         "Compliance Modeling" - Using energy models to demonstrate
code/standard compliance and using prescriptive procedures such as the
Performance Rating Method to demonstrate relative performance against an
established design standard (i.e. LEED, Title24, EPAcT)

*         "Renovation/Retrofit Modeling" - Modeling inclusive of
existing buildings and systems, characteristically involving additional
measurements and information gathering to define and calibrate baseline
models tied more closely to reality, with the explicit intent to make
informed cost-benefit and ROI analyses and recommendations for cost
saving measures.

*         "Design Analysis Modeling" - SD/DD early stage decision-making
modeling, wherein baselines and results are built on relatives and
isolating the variables in play to analyze and inform design decisions.
Baselines are dynamic to suit any given study, and inherently cannot
follow a prescriptive modeling standard assuming a complete design.
More description to follow.

 

The order and weighting of the JTA duties/tasks/steps descriptions, as
well as the areas of critical knowledge, varies for each of the above
categories.  For example, one doing "Renovation/Retrofit" modeling would
generally want to first invest a good deal of time building a baseline
model to match the properties and behavior of the existing building and
its contents.  An adequately calibrated baseline would functionally
serve as a tool useful to identify the relative impact of individual and
combined cost saving measures, and might also inform parallel ROI
analyses for the building owner's benefit.  On the other hand, if one is
being asked to provide modeling services specifically for LEED or
another prescriptive performance rating, then he or she would generally
be best served to start by accurately modeling the proposed design, from
which the baseline can be constructed.  In either instance, the steps
and questions to be answered for "information gathering" stages, as well
as the order and weighting of each "phase" varies quite dramatically.  

 

Note:  The three above categories of modeling are not mutually exclusive
- any single project could conceivably incorporate any combination of
the three, but they each draw on distinct skill sets.  Obtaining the
experience & knowledge to be an "expert" (or "qualified" or "competent"
... all potentially loaded terms I would advise using judiciously) in
any one sub-field of energy modeling does not make one a master of all
three areas, and simultaneously having little experience in any one area
does not render a modeler incompetent either.

 

Much can be said to further differentiate and define these 3 areas, but
where the first two are I think at least immediately
identifiable/distinguishable to those within and periphery to our
industry, I'll provide some extra attention to help define "Design
Analysis" modeling for this discussion - which I consider to be the
least well-defined within our present industry (discussions surrounding
the next iteration of LEED suggest this may change in years to come).
Design decisions for new construction are often made without a finished
proposed design to reference nor an existing building with energy bills
to calibrate to.  "Baselines" instead must be built in direct response
to the queries posed, based on what information is and is not available.
To illustrate with an example I've used previously: one may wish to pose
a question like  "What is the ideal WWR for the walls along our Southern
facing building facades, considering the savings of daylighting controls
and the impact of the resulting envelope thermal losses/gains?"  This
sort of question can be answered by a competent energy modeler, but to
answer this question in a time-efficient fashion one has to have
distinct skills of being able to identify, isolate and be ready to
communicate & discuss:

(1) the measures being explored, 

(2) the variables which affect the measured outcome, alongside
assumptions of the design that must be made, and distinctly

(3) the parts of the building which do not have an appreciable impact on
the result.  

This last point is given a bold font in particular because in my
experience, "Design Analysis" modeling occurs during the more fluid
stages of design which demand producing feedback at a relatively fast
pace, and the ability to holistically recognize what to focus on and
what not to spend hours defining is critical to that end.  I wager there
is a certain combination of both energy modeling experience and building
design experience that someone adept with "compliance modeling" would
not need, but really facilitates providing this sort of quick,
informative and accurate "design analysis" feedback.  

 

In light of the proposed categories of modeling services, let's step
back to the topic of what the broader term "energy modeler" means in
relation to this study:

 

If the entire JTA form & structure is built around defining and
weighting how much of any one "task" is performed for everything that
falls under the job description of "energy modeling"...  I find it hard
to imagine such a broad single distribution could be usefully applied
for a specific job or qualification description.   The JTA approach to
defining the job will likely be more constructive and useful if distinct
sets of "job blueprints" are developed for each of the three categories
described above.  

 

I recognize this is a wall of text, but this JTA study presently seems
too narrow to claim "identified tasks and weighting factors accurately
represent the job of a commercial building energy modeler."  Personally,
I find the present result to only vaguely describe the abilities and
tasks required of my role as an energy modeler, and I think the
consensus of feedback so far indicates others do not find this terribly
representative either of their unique skill sets and abilities.  A JTA
study developed to isolate and identify the different requirements and
duties for the 3 areas of energy modeling described above would be of
much more use for someone defining/ improving certifications, standards
and qualifications as well as defining the task at hand for solicitation
or hiring purposes.

Sincerely,

 

~Nick

 

PS: I notice in my final review of this that this commentary is coming
in a day late.  I trust those interested will put this and any following
discussion  from the lists in the right hands.

 

 

 

 

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 

 

From: Jason Kirkpatrick [mailto:jason.alan.kirkpatrick at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Nick Caton
Cc: Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir; Building Simulation;
ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy
Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

 

All,

While I agree with some of the concerns regarding the Skills, Abilities
and Attributes section of the document, I think that people are
overlooking the real substance of the document, namely, the Duties,
Tasks, and Steps that were outlined to define the energy modeling
process.

I would like to hear some specific comments regarding that portion of
the JTA. 

-Jason

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111129/f0688f33/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/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111129/f0688f33/attachment-0002.jpeg>