LowCarb4Real
Knowledge Exchange
Plan outline
Knowledge Exchange
Objectives
• To disseminate the key findings from Stamford Brook
& GHA experience
• To deepen understanding of the problems through
engagement with the house building industry
• To generate solution ideas for addressing the
problems and generating change
• To influence actions for change at all levels
– Micro
– Meso
– Macro
Stamford Brook site
Dunham Massey Hall
Stamford Brook
© NTPL - Nick Meers
Altrincham
Predicted Performance (80 m2 semi)
Dwelling Carbon Emission Rate:
25%
<20 kgCO2/m2
ADL1a 2006 Target = ~23 kgCO2/m2
Measured Performance (80 m2 semi)
Actual Dwelling Carbon Emission Rate:
~24 kgCO2/m2
Notional vs. Real heat loss
Coheating test 2 – winter 2005/06
Measured
Performance
Gap
Predicted
Notional – v – Real heat loss
Plot
No.
Predicted
Fabric Heat
Loss (W/K)
Predicted
Ventilation
Heat Loss
(W/K)
Predicted
Total Heat
Loss (W/K)
Measured
Heat Loss
(W/K)
Measured
Heat Loss Adjusted
for Solar
Gain (W/K)
+75%
13
50.6
13.2
63.8
105.4
111.7
402
54.9
20.3
75.2
136.3
153.4
+104%
The question is: Why?
Stamford Brook “accredited detail”
As Designed = 42mm gap
Ψ value = 0.068 W/mK
Typical As Built - 20mm gap + air gaps –
no insulated board Ψ value = 0.203 W/mK
+199%
+1,168% on optimum (0.016 to 0.203)
Degradation of performance
And it shows!
So what are the lessons?
Some examples at all levels
• Micro
–
–
–
–
Redesign the detail to make it more robust
Communicate to site – drawings & instructions
Inspect
etc
• Meso
– Organisational design & construction quality control
processes
– Organisational training programmes for each new design &
refresh understanding
– Supply chain management
– Feedback – the next detail, next dwelling, next development
• Macro
– Education and training
– Policy and regulatory instruments (eg. Accredited details)
– Regulatory processes (current review of building control)
Disseminating key findings
• To compile a set of summaries of key findings
– for design
– for construction
– for process
• To present findings so as to stimulate debate within
the workshops
• To extend the findings following the workshops; a
deeper understanding of:
–
–
–
–
Cultures
Barriers
Relationships
Ways of tackling the underlying systems problems
Introductory
Text
LowCarb4Real:
SB Summary
Poster
LC4R Summary
Poster
The poster collection
SB Report List
Micro Level
Construction
Collection
Design Collection
Thermal Design
Principles
Airtightness Design
Principles
Thermal Bypassing
Thermal Bridging
Meso Level
Stamford Brook
Performance Data
Process Collection
Buildability
Air barrier
construction
Construction
Sequencing
Construction
Planning
Training Issues
Forensic Monitoring
Coheating Test
Airtightness Test
Results
Macro Level
Supply Chain
Regulation
LowCarb4Real: The poster collection
Engaging with industry:
Principles of workshop design
• Mix the audience – different perspectives
within each workshop
• Stimulate debate with presentation material
backed up by the posters
• Keep work groups to 5 or 6 covering different
issues
• Focus attention at micro and meso levels
• Ground activity in the key findings of SB and
GHA.
Engaging with the industry
Workshop outline
Workshop structure
session
time
Welcome & Introduction to the day
10:00 - 10:15
Overview of the key issues and messages
10:15 - 11:15
coffee
11:15 - 11:30
Breakout groups - 1
11:30 - 12:30
Lunch
12:30 - 13:30
Breakout groups - 2
13:30 - 14:30
Break and poster presentation mill
14:30 - 15:00
Plenary & close
15:00 - 16:00
Enabling engagement
(Motivational Systems Theory)
Each participant needs to;
• be convinced that there is a serious problem to
tackle,
• believes that the problem presented is solvable,
• is convinced that they can help to solve it
and
• gets an emotional buzz out of tackling it on the
day and afterwards in their organisations.
The job of the workshop team will be to enable these
criteria to be fulfilled.
The group sessions
• Groups mixed: designers, constructors, others
• Each group facilitated by a member of the
team.
• Each task receives a brief introduction including
additional and task specific information and
examples.
• Relevant posters from the collection on the
walls
• Facilitator writes up as a poster after the
workshop and feeds back within a week.
The group sessions
Example of a workshop task:
Starter - “Devise a means of ensuring the thermal
integrity of every dwelling envelope (as built) that you
design for a developer”
Facilitator will:
• Expand on the headline question
• Stimulate discussion of issues and factors to be taken
into account – prompts such as - available skills and
knowledge? What tools needed? What checks on likely
performance?
• Help to structure responses and record them.
The group sessions
Options could involve two groups who swap question
perspectives for the second session (design & construction).
• Other questions devised relating to
– Developer organisation
– Driving the supply chain for materials &
components and labour
– Types of technology – traditional & MMC
– Dwelling inspection and testing processes.
Workshop programme design
strategy
• An incremental strategy
• Workshops 1 and 2 designed to explore
Design, Construction and process issues
across the board
• Workshops 3&4 and 5&6 will be refocused
following reflection on the first round.
• Invitation material will carry a general
description of the workshops and the general
issues to be addressed leaving room for
manoeuvre for later rounds.
Audience?
Developer
Senior management
Middle management
Technical & site mgt
Operative
Designer
Consultant
Sub
contractor
Supply chain
Audience?
Senior management
Middle management
Technical & site mgt
Operative
Developer
Designer
Consultant
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
♫
Sub
contractor
♫
♫
♫
♫
Supply chain
♫
♫
Evaluation
The knowledge exchange pyramid
Change
Understanding
Awareness
Evaluation
• Evaluate change in participants
– Questionnaires before and after?
– Evaluation workshop (selected participants)
• Evaluate change in understanding
– Feedback of workshop product to participants
– Invite & analyse comment
– Evaluation workshop
• Evaluate policy & systems change opportunities
– Policy attendance at workshop
– Advisory group comment and self evaluation
– Direct policy input
THE END!