Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284 – 302

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems

Part 1: Development of key intelligent indicators
and conceptual analytical framework
Johnny Wong a,⁎, Heng Li a , Jenkin Lai b
a
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
b
Energy Management Manager, Facilities Management, Pacific Century Premium Developments Ltd., Hong Kong
Accepted 13 June 2007

Abstract

The rapid development of microprocessor-based technologies and the increasingly sophisticated demands for high performance working
environments have prompted an increasing number of developers to consider adding ‘intelligence’ to their new buildings in order to improve the
buildings' operational effectiveness and efficiency to enhance marketability. However, the lack of satisfactory consensus for characterizing the
system intelligence and structured analytical decision models, inhibit the developers and practitioners to understand and configure optimum
intelligent building systems in a fully informed manner. Little research has been conducted towards aiding in decisions and appraisal of the
building systems and components in the intelligent building. This paper (Part 1 of a two-part research project) aims to identify the key intelligent
indicators, and map the analytical decision models for the system intelligence appraisal of the intelligent building systems. A total of 69 key
intelligent indicators were identified for eight major intelligent building systems. The development of system intelligence analytical models will be
described in Part 2 of the research. The analytic network process (ANP), a systemic analytical approach, is proposed to prioritize the intelligent
indicators and develop the model for computing the system intelligent score (SIS) — a measurement of the system intelligence of the intelligent
building systems. ANP further enables the decision-makers to take the interdependent relationships between the intelligent attributes and the
building's operational goals/benefits into consideration. Their applicability will be also validated and demonstrated using a real intelligent building
project as a case study. The main contribution of this research is to promote and enhance understanding of the key intelligent indicators, and to set
the foundation for a systemic framework that can be used for appraising system intelligence of various intelligent building systems. It aims to
provide developers and building stakeholders a consolidated inclusive tool for the system intelligence evaluation of the proposed components
design configurations.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intelligent building systems (IBSs); Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM); Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Analytic network process (ANP);
Intelligent indicators (IIs)

1. Introduction [94,139,109,60,114]. The implementation of intelligent build-

The significant advances in microprocessor-based technol-
ogies, and the growing awareness of the connection between
human productivity and living/working environment have
driven many clients to implement intelligent systems into new
buildings in order to achieve an energy-efficient environment
that can maximize the efficiency of the occupants; and to
promote maximum profitability for their own business
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 5882; fax: +852 2764 5131.
E-mail address: 03901711r@polyu.edu.hk (J. Wong).
0926-5805/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2007.06.002
ing technologies is particularly favourable in Asian cities as
developers look for product differentiation, and enhance their
‘signature’ building image by forming highly integrated and
intelligent building [133]. Although many new buildings are
claimed to be ‘intelligent’, their level of building intelligence
noticeably varies corresponding to the functionality and
operational efficiency of the installed intelligent components
[109,133]. Some buildings may incorporate full configuration
of intelligent systems and components, while others may only
consist of simple building automation systems. Occasionally,
intelligent buildings are criticised for not flexibly responding to
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
the needs of the end-users. Failure to match the expectations of
clients or end-users would possibly intensify the disconnection
between the expectation and fulfilment of the intelligent
building. This may result in disenchantment, and a serious
decline in interest and confidence in intelligent technologies
[92,45]. Thus, although there is increasing popularity of
implementing intelligent technologies in new buildings, the
real challenge is on designing and configuring optimum
intelligent building systems (IBSs) which are able to respond
intelligently to the changing needs of the end-users, and to fulfil
the goals of the developers.
In practice, the components design configuration poses a
dilemma in that system designers need to amalgamate the best
available intelligent system packages or technologies among a
vast number of alternatives that are available on the market, and
incorporate them to design a building with maximum intelli-
gence that meets or exceeds the performance expectations
desired by developers and end-users [49]. Such design decisions
are further exacerbated by the high aggregation of the multi-
criteria and multi-dimensional perspectives of building intelli-
gence. The criteria include user friendliness, satisfying business
and commercial needs, meeting international standard protocols,
integrating to multiple systems, energy saving features,
information technology, scalability, future proofing, and flexi-
bility [133]. System designers need to strike a balance between
these perspectives, and to cater for the goals and expectations of
the people paying for and/or intending to occupy the building
[9,92]. In dealing with such complexities, developed analytical
methods and techniques over the past few years of research
efforts have facilitated and enabled the decision-making and
evaluation for intelligent building designs. However, review of
available literature reveals significant deficiencies specifically
on intelligent building research. The current focus of appraisal
studies is largely on categorical modelling of intelligent
buildings in which the research concentrated on classifying the
intelligent building to a definite category according to their
overall performance [17,109,112,144]. The major gap is to
develop an integrated systematic methodology and techniques in
addressing the system intelligence of the intelligent building
systems and components. This problem is further exacerbated by
a lack of detailed investigations of system intelligence of the
intelligent building systems in prior research [15]. These
knowledge gaps and practical deficiencies have forced practi-
tioners to continuously rely on their past experience, ‘gut-
feeling’, rudimentary judgments, or a combination of them, in
justifying the intelligence performance of the building systems
during the design and configuration stages. The tried intelligent
building system configuration in one project does not necessar-
ily mean the most suitable option in another project as the project
nature and building design varied from one to another. As a
result, inadequate understanding of system intelligence might
lead to incorrect selection of building systems or components.
This study is envisaged to make a significant contribution by
addressing the identified research problems. The main objective
of this study is to identify the key intelligent indicators, and to
present a systemic analytical approach for appraising the system
intelligence of the key building systems in typical intelligent
285
buildings. The multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tech-
nique is proposed as a solution to solve the complexities
involved in the building system intelligence justification. The
multiple dimensions of system intelligence (i.e. the intelligent
attributes) of the key intelligent building systems are to be
evaluated through an analytic hierarchy-network process (i.e., a
combination of AHP and ANP approaches). The analytic
network process (ANP) approach is utilized in the current
research for two reasons. First, ANP allows a more compre-
hensive analytic framework which is not restrictive with a
hierarchically structural model alone (i.e. analytic hierarchy
process, AHP). This method can be used to integrate qualitative
information and quantitative analysis, and to capture inter-
dependencies among the decision attributes [86,32,69]. Second,
so far the application of ANP in solving decision-making
problems with illustrative examples has been very limited in
construction and intelligent building research (for example:
[32,31,29]). The key processes of the current research
framework are organized as follows:
• review of current intelligent building appraisal research, and
identification of existing research gaps;
• development and validation of intelligent indicators for the
major building systems in the intelligent building (IBSs);
• developing the ANP-based analytical models for computing
the ‘system intelligent score’ (SIS) (discussed in Part 2); and,
• validation of the proposed analytical models using a real-life
practical intelligent building project as a case study
(discussed in Part 2).
Due to the research organization, this study is presented in a
two-part series (Part 1 and 2). This paper (Part 1) reviews the
intelligent building literature to accentuate current research
deficiencies, identifies the suitable intelligent indicators, and
proposes the analytical approach for appraising the system
intelligence of the intelligent building systems. In Part 2, the
methodology and analytical models are discussed. A real-life
intelligent building project is used as a case study to validate the
proposed system intelligence models, and to test their application
practicality. This study contributes to making better understanding
of the intelligent characteristics and attributes of the key intelligent
building systems. It aims to consolidate information from the
industry in order to improve the understandings of the operational
efficiency as well as functionality of the intelligent building
systems. This study further formulates the ‘system intelligence
score (SIS)’ which may provide a reference for existing buildings
as well as future developments to systematically analyze the
specific building systems performance value to the intelligent
building. With this reference tool, it will assist developers and
building-stakeholders in justifying the level of system intelligence
of the building systems with the perspective to meet their
operation objectives.
2. Literature review
The concept of intelligent building has evolved since the
early 1980s. Early perceptions of intelligent building highlighted
286 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
on technology related to the building automation (i.e. the
definition by Cardin (1983: cited in [139]); and that of the
Intelligent Building Institution in Washington (1988: cited in
[72,37])). Since the mid-1980s, it has been recognized that
buildings with ‘intelligence’ need to respond to the change and
to meet the requirement of the users [141]. An intelligent
building should be a dynamic and responsive building that
provides a productive and cost effective operation environment
through optimization among its four basic elements: places
(fabrics, structure, facilities, materials), process (automation,
control, systems); people (services providers, occupants); and
management (maintenance, performance); and the interrelation
between them (CIB Working Group W098 (1995: cited in [39]).
The integrated and intelligent systems play an important role in
that they act as a balance between building contents, the
organization and services that determine if the value objectives
of clients, facility managers, and users are achieved [39]. These
objectives include creating a highly energy efficient and
environmental-friendly built environment with substantial
safety, security, well-being and convenience, a lower life-cycle
cost, and long term flexibility and marketability, which lead to
achieve a high level of buildings that have the highest social,
environmental and economic values [29].
2.1. Current intelligent building appraisal methodologies
Evaluating the building performance is a key determinant in any
acceptance of the intelligent building as a feasible building option
[109]. ‘Building intelligence’ has been employed as a unique term
of measure to reflect the specific performance and properties of the
intelligent building. Over the last twenty years, a large amount of
appraisal methods and techniques have been developed to
benchmark the intelligent performance of the intelligent building
(for example: [17,6,7,108,109,114,67,103,121,122,123,146]; and
the work of Building Research Establishment (cited in [16])). For
example, Arkin and Paciuk [6] devised the ‘intelligent building
score’ (IBS) which enables the IB performance to be quantified in
terms of the building systems installed and the level of integration
that exists between them. Smith [108] developed the ‘reframing’ to
measure the enabling ability of intelligent building to meet
organizational objectives through the examination of the organi-
zational structure, politics, human resources and culture. Smith
[109] also proposed a ‘building intelligent assessment index
(BIAI)’ to assess level of building intelligence through seven
building characteristics: site specification, operational cost,
intelligent architecture, identity, intelligent technology, system
responsiveness, and access and security. Concurrently, some
international intelligent building institutes developed a series of
rating methods to grade the intelligent building according to their
system design and performance [29]. For example, the Asian
Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB) [121,122,123] developed
an ‘intelligent building index (IBI)’ to assess the performance and
categorize the IB. The UK-based BRE [13] devised a matrix tool
for IB performance assessment. The Continental Automated
Building Association [40] in Canada is at present establishing a
new assessment tool (i.e. Intelligent Building Ranking Tool, IBRT)
to assess the level of integrated systems within an IB. Despite such
achievements, most of the measures were developed in forms of
simplified and generic indexes. Many existing approaches were
restricted in their scope on either tangible (i.e. IBS and IBIA) or
intangible (i.e. reframing and QFSD) aspects of IB [109]. Some
indexes (i.e. IBI) were criticised for ‘non-determinism of criteria;
non-sequitur calculation method; non-uniqueness of calculation
results; and non-organizational judgment of assessment procedure’
[29]. Apart from these drawbacks, existing studies lack an
exhaustive investigation of the system intelligence of the intelligent
systems and components in the intelligent building. There is also a
dearth of integrated systematic methodology and techniques which
facilitates the appraisal of the system intelligence of specific
intelligent building systems and components.
2.2. Concepts of system intelligence
Over the last two decades, a plethora of intelligent components
and products have been introduced. The term “intelligent” has
been extensively applied to portray the ‘smart’ properties of the
building system products. Manufacturers of the intelligent
technologies often claimed their system are more intelligent than
the others of its kind, but these assertions tend to be vague and
unjustified [15]. Few universally accepted properties of system
intelligence have been established for characterizing the ‘intelli-
gence’ of the intelligent systems in a quantitative approach [15]. A
review of literature suggested that diverse concepts of system
intelligence have been developed. For example, Armstrong et al.
[4] suggested that an ‘intelligent’ system should be one able to
demonstrate its intelligence to respond effectively to changing
needs of potential occupiers. Wigginton and Harris [139] pointed
out that a system with real intelligence should behave more closely
related to the realms of both artificial and natural intelligence with
the ability to respond and react to external stimuli in a predictable
manner. That is, a system with artificial intelligence is able to
provide the capacity to perform similar functions to those that
characterize human behaviour by emulating the thought process of
living beings, while a system with natural intelligence relates to
the aspirations of appropriating or devising faculties found in
living beings and the biological capacity [139]. Smith [109] stated
that there are two perspectives of ‘intelligence’ of modern
building. One view is related to how the building responds to
change, while another view is closely related to adaptability. A
system is said to be ‘intelligent’ if it is ‘able to respond and adapt in
all these ways’ [109, p.36]. Himanen [59, p.42] suggested that a
building is ‘intelligent’ if it is implemented with ‘environmental
friendliness, flexibility and utilization of space, movable space
elements and equipment, life cycle costing, comfort, convenience,
safety and security, working efficiency, an image of high
technology, culture, construction process and structure, long
term flexibility and marketability, information intensity, interac-
tion, service orientation, ability of promoting health, adaptability,
reliability, and productivity.’ Despite such efforts, many concepts
of system intelligence tended to be simplistic. There is lack of
comprehensive and extensive investigations on the intelligent
attributes of the intelligent building systems.
Although there are limitations in existing research, some
studies have been tried to tackle these problems. Bien et al. [15]
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
developed a concept of ‘system intelligence’ by summarizing a
vast literature regarding system and machine intelligence of
advanced technologies. Four notions of system intelligence
(i.e., autonomy; controllability of complicated dynamics; man-
machine interaction; and, bio-inspired behaviour) were pro-
posed [15]. The first conception of the intelligent system relates to
the abilities on performing self-operative functions (‘autonomy’).
An intelligent system should be designed in a manner that allows
minimum human intervention as much as possible during
execution of task [15]. Self-calibration, self-diagnostics, fault-
tolerance and self-tuning are considered to be the key autonomous
features of intelligent systems [15,78,119,70,55,30,93,71,83,128].
Second, a system is considered to be ‘intelligent’ when it possesses
the ability to perform interactive operative functions, and is able to
make a very complicated dynamic system well-controlled
(‘controllability for complicated dynamic systems’). Examples
of the features of controllability for complicated dynamic
systems include non-conventional model-based, adaptation,
non-linearity, and motion planning under uncertainty
[15,63,64,2,148,115,68,73,126,79,120,44]. In addition, Bien
et al. [15] suggested that an intelligent system should possess
the abilities to interface with operator and working staff, which
make the human users feel more comfortable and use-friendly.
The capability of human-friendly interaction between human and
machine (‘man-machine interaction’), is therefore considered as
another important property of the intelligent systems. Examples of
man-machine interaction include human-like understanding or
communication, emergence of artificial emotion, and ergonomic
Fig. 1. Taxonomy of key intelligent attributes in an intelligent system (reference: Bien et al. [15]).
287
design [15,99,43,117,5,62,56,104,105,53,16,11,77,21]. The last
notion of system intelligence was related to the capability of
performing ‘bio-inspired behavioural based technology’ [15]. This
is the ability to interact with the built environment and the services
provided. Previous work suggested that biologically motivated
behaviour, cognitive-based, and neuro-science are considered as
the typical bio-inspired behaviour of the intelligent systems
[41,65,102,124,129,88,57]. Bien et al. [15] further suggested that
both autonomy and human-machine interaction are two common
components of intelligent systems or machines, while the other
two constructs, bio-inspired behaviour and controllability for
complicated dynamics are considered as a specific components of
intelligent systems based on the operational characteristics of the
groups. Furthermore, the model of system intelligence [15]
suggested that any intelligent system with the above four identified
intelligent attributes can lead to improved safety, enhanced
reliability, high efficiency, and economical maintenance (Fig. 1).
In this study, the system intelligence model of Bien et al. [15]
is adopted for the development of the intelligent indicators.
With the above model in mind, it is expected that the
implementation of intelligent systems in the building would
facilitate the accomplishment of a number of operational goals
and benefits. A review of literature suggested that the main
operational benefits of installing intelligent building compo-
nents include: (1) improved operational effectiveness and
energy efficiency, (2) enhanced cost effectiveness, (3) increased
user comfort and productivity, and (4) improved safety and
reliability [29,109,4,38,33,91].
288 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
3. Research methodology
This study aims to develop key intelligent indicators, and
construct the analytical models for appraising the system
intelligence of the main intelligent building systems. The current
research will confine the investigation to the following eight
main building control systems in a typical intelligent building.
• integrated building management system (IBMS) for overall
monitoring and building management function;
• heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) control
system for indoor air quality (IAQ) and comfort control;
• addressable fire detection and alarm (AFA) system for fire
prevention and annunciation;
• telecom and data system (ITS) for communication network
backbone;
• security monitoring and access (SEC) system for surveil-
lance and access control;
• smart/energy efficient lift system (LS) for multi-floors
transportation service;
• digital addressable lighting control (DALI) system for light
design and control; and,
• computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)
for inventory control and service works.
For the development of intelligent indicators, the basic
requirements for a proposed factor or criterion are that it should
be quantifiable, effective, relevant, understandable, and usable by
the practitioners and stakeholders [130]. Our list of proposed
intelligent indicators was first derived from a comprehensive review
of intelligent building literature (for example: [3,4,6,8,12,10,14,18–
20,22,23,28,33–36,42,47,48,51,52,54,58,59,65,74–76,80–
82,84,85,89,90,95,98,100,101,106,107,110,111,113,116,
118,125,127,132,134,136,137,138,147], and followed by inter-
views with local experts and practitioners. Apart from re-
viewing these studies, a number of available building services
guides [for example, guideline series of Chartered Institution of
Building Service Engineers [24–27] and intelligent building
indices [for examples, ‘intelligent building score’ (IBS),
Fig. 2. Research framework and methodology.
‘building intelligent assessment index (BIAI)’, and ‘intelligent
building index (IBI)] also provide valuable information and
useful insight into the generic intelligent measures of the
building services and components. In order to review, justify,
and further expand our list of proposed intelligent indicators,
three experts (i.e. two M&E engineering consultants and one
property developer) in intelligent building field were consulted.
In this research, two consecutive questionnaire-based surveys:
(1) a general survey; and (2) an ANP-based survey, were conducted
in order to develop and validate key intelligent indicators and to
construct the analytical decision models. The first survey was
designed to collect general views from industry practitioners to
determine the relevance and suitability of the indicators to measure
the system intelligence of various IBSs. This survey also aimed to
develop a team of experts who have rich knowledge and experience
in intelligent building design and development. They were invited
to participate and complete the ANP-based survey.
The ANP-based survey was adopted to include all relevant
(suitable) intelligent indicators, and to compute their mean
weights in order to prioritize and distinguish the more important
indicators from the less important ones in general. ANP allows
the users to consider interdependencies between and among
factors, and enables the problems to be solved in a complex and
non-hierarchical structure [97]. The overall objective of the
models developed in this research is to determine optimum
building systems which help promote the maximum benefits of
intelligent building. The end result is a weighting of the system
alternatives being considered, and the optimal building system
will be the one which ranks the highest. The findings of the
ANP survey and the model development will be discussed in
Part 2 [143] of this two-part series. The research framework and
methodology of this study is summarized in Fig. 2.
4. Development of suitable intelligent indicators
4.1. Survey instruments and analytical tools
The general questionnaire was purposely designed to test
the suitability of identified intelligent indicators for use in
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
measuring the system intelligence of the intelligent building
systems. A pilot study was first undertaken to test the potential
response, suitability and comprehensibility of the questionnaire.
Five intelligent building experts including three mechanical and
electrical (M&E) engineers, one architect and one property
developer, were selected. These experts were asked to assess
whether the proposed indicators sufficiently represented the
intelligent characteristics or attributes of any intelligent building
systems if being examined; whether the wording was acceptable
or whether they should be changed to make the indicators
understandable to the respondents; and whether additional
indicators should be added that are not included. Comments
were received and minor amendments were made to the original
instrument. At the end of consultations, a total of 120 intelligent
indicators were generated and organized into four intelligent
attributes [15]. Table 1 presents the proposed intelligent
attributes and their corresponding indicators for the eight key
intelligent building systems. This is not an exhaustive list of
relevant measures but they are expected to be appropriate
generic intelligent indicators based on the literature and experts'
opinions. Additional intelligent indicators can be integrated
when they are deemed to be essential by the individual
stakeholder/respondent.
In this study, two approaches were used to acquire an
appropriate size of survey sample. First, an invitation letter and
e-mail were sent to main design consultancies (i.e. architecture
and engineering firms) and property developers in Hong Kong in
early September 2005. Until late November 2005, a few
companies that experienced in intelligent building design and
development accepted our invitation and participated in this
survey. Questionnaire surveys were distributed to the staff in these
companies who have experience in design and development of
intelligent buildings, via the post and e-mails. Furthermore, the
‘snowball’ sampling method was adopted in order to boost the
survey sample size. The respondents were invited to distribute the
questionnaires to those colleagues or professionals they know that
have rich experiences in intelligent building design and
development. A total of 157 questionnaires were sent out and
distributed, and 48 questionnaire surveys were returned by the
end of February 2006. Four completed questionnaires were
removed due to erroneous use of the rating scale or inappropriate
respondents, and only 44 replies were usable for the analysis
giving a net usable response rate of 28%. This response rate
appears both representative and reasonable for two reasons. First,
the limited number of experienced professionals in intelligent
building field, and the extent of knowledge required for
completing this lengthy and comprehensive survey restricted
the size of available sample. Second, empirical study with small
survey sample often appears in construction research. For
example, Ekanayake and Ofori [50] invited a sample of 43
building contractors in Singapore in developing the determinants
for the construction wastes. Ugwu et al. [130] included a sample
of 33 construction practitioners in developing key performance
indicators for sustainability appraisal in infrastructure project in
Hong Kong. Dulaimi and Hong [46] identified factors influencing
bid-mark-up decisions of building contractors in Singapore by a
sample of 23 contractors.
289
This first questionnaire consists of two sections. The first
section serves to introduce the objectives and scope of the
survey. The terminology of each IBS and intelligent attribute
was defined in order to clarify their meanings. The first section
is also used to collect demographic data regarding the
respondent's previous experience and general knowledge in
intelligent building field in order to select those experts who are
suitable for the subsequent ANP-based survey. Participants
were invited to elicit their opinions on the suitability of each of
the proposed intelligent indicators on a five-point Likert scale
format (1 = Not suitable; 2 = Less suitable; 3 = Suitable; 4 = More
suitable; and, 5 = Most suitable). The critical rating was fixed at
scale ‘3’ since ratings above ‘3’ represent ‘more suitable’ and
‘most suitable’ according to the scale. Likert scales facilitate the
quantification of responses so that statistical analysis could be
taken and differences between participants could be observed
and generalized [1]. The descriptive statistics were employed to
analyze the survey results on the critical intelligent indicators.
The mean scores ratings of all proposed indicators were
calculated using the formula [50,61]:
1ðrv1 Þ þ 2ðrv2 Þ þ 3ðrv3 Þ þ 4ðrv4 Þ þ 5ðrv5 Þ
Mean ¼ ð1Þ
N ðrv1 þ rv2 þ rv3 þ rv4 þ rv5 Þ
where rv1, rv2, rv3, rv4, rv5 represent the total number of
responses for scale ‘1’ to ‘5’ respectively.
The t-test analysis was employed to identify ‘suitable’
intelligent indicators among them [50,61,142]. The rule of t-test
of this survey sets out that the indicators which value larger than
3.00 were considered to be critical. The null hypothesis (H0:
μ1 b μ0) against the alternative hypothesis (H1: μ1 N μ0) were
tested, where μ1 represents the mean of the survey sample
population, and μ0 represents the critical rating above which the
indicators considered as ‘suitable’. The value of μ0 was fixed at
‘3’ because it represents ‘suitable’, ‘more suitable’ and ‘most
suitable’ indicators. The decision rule was to reject H0 when the
result of the observed t-values (tO) (Eq. (2)) was larger than the
critical t-value (tC) (Eq. (3)) as shown in Eq. (4).
P l
v
tO ¼ w p0ffiffiffi ð2Þ
sD= n
tC ¼ tðn1;aÞ ð3Þ
tO NtC ð4Þ
p ffiffi
ffi
where v is the sample mean, w
P
s D = n is the estimated standard
error of the mean of different score (i.e. w sD is the sampled
standard deviation of difference score in the population, n is the
sample size which was 44 in this study), n-1 represents degree
of freedom, and α represents the significant level which was set
at 5% (0.05).
The suitability of intelligent indicators in this study was
examined using Eqs. (3) and (4)). If the observed t-value is larger
than the critical t-value (tO N tC), t (43, 0.05) = 1.6820 at 95%
confidence interval, then H0 that the indicator was ‘less suitable’
and ‘not suitable’ rejected, and only the H1 was accepted. If the
observed t-value of the mean ratings weighted by the
290 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302

Table 1
Proposed intelligent indicators of the key intelligent building systems (IBSs)
IBS Proposed intelligent attributes and their associated indicators
Autonomy Controllability for complicated Man-machine interaction Bio-inspired behaviour
dynamics
Integrated building • Adaptive limiting • Ability to link multiple • Web base interface to any location • Analyze operation function
management system control algorithm stand alone building control and wireless terminal for functional parameters to select the best and
(IBMS) (e.g. max/min threshold systems from a variety of access (i.e. PALM, pocket PC, effective operation logic to run the
limiter, fault-tolerance manufacturers (interoperability) mobile phone) building services systems over time
adaptation)
• Self-diagnostic of • Remote control via Internet • Reports generation and output of • Automatically adapt to daily
operation deviations statistical and trend profiling of occupied space changes to control
controls and operations building services systems
• Year-round time • Ability to connect multiple • Ability to provide operational and • Provide adaptive control
schedule operation locations analytical functions for totalized algorithms based on seasonal
building performance review changes to control building services
systems
• Alarms and events statistics • Single operation system/ platform
for multiple location supervision
• Control and monitor HVAC • Graphical representation and real-
equipments on sequence control, time interactive operation action
time scheduling, thermal icons
comfort, ventilation, fault
recovery operations
• Control and monitor security • Run continually with minimal
system interlock operation with human supervision
“other services”
• Control and monitor lighting time
schedule/zoning operation
• Control and monitor fire
detection interlock operation with
“other services”
• Control and monitor vertical
transportation operation.
Telecom and data • Adaptive limiting • Integrate multiple network or • Fixed hub/terminal port installed • Interactive voice system
system (ITS) control algorithm service providers for flexibility connections and
(e.g. max/min threshold expansions
limiter, fault-tolerance
adaptation)
• Self-diagnosis to • Transmission capacity control and • System life and turn-round • Transmission/processing analysis
detect the timeworn diversion complexity
parts
• All digital system • End-user terminal provisions
Heating ventilation air- • Adaptive limiting • Operation control mechanism • Provide management staff with • Adaptive to occupancy work
conditioning control control algorithm to achieve efficient power database and analytical tools for pattern
system (HVAC) (e.g. max/min threshold consumption operation and service evaluation
limiter, fault-tolerance
adaptation)
• Sensing the internal • Interface with Energy • Pre-programmed responses and • Utilize natural ventilation control
temperature and Management System, Building zoning control to reduce air-conditioning power
humidity, and auto- Automation System, or consumption
adjustment of systems Integrated Building Management
System
• Sensing of external • Interact with lighting and sun- • Graphical representation and real-
temperature and blinds systems time interactive operation action
humidity, and auto- icons
adjustment of systems
• Automated fault
detection
• Self-diagnosis to
detect the timeworn
parts
Addressable fire • Alarm deployment • Integration and control of • Run continually with minimal • Analysis of alarm and false alarm
detection and alarm algorithm within the sensors, detectors, fire-fighting human supervision events patterns
system (AFA) building and notification equipment
to Fire Department
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302 291

Table 1 (continued )
IBS Proposed intelligent attributes and their associated indicators
Autonomy Controllability for complicated Man-machine interaction Bio-inspired behaviour
dynamics
Addressable fire • Adaptive limiting • Interface with Energy • Provide management staff with
detection and alarm control algorithm Management System, Building database and analytical tools for
system (AFA) (e.g. max/min threshold Automation System, or operation and service evaluation
limiter, fault-tolerance Integrated Building Management
adaptation) System
• Self-diagnostic • Interact with security systems • Pre-scheduled of special events and
analysis for false alarm incidents
reduction
• Self test of sensors, • Interact with HVAC systems • Provide access for tenants and
detectors and control occupants concurrent information
points of the services provision
• Self-diagnosis to • Interact with lift systems
detect the timeworn parts
• Interact with emergency
generator systems
Security monitoring • Adaptive limiting • Dynamic programming • Run continually with minimal • Human behaviour analysis and
and access control control algorithm (routing, time schedule, human supervision diagnostic
system (SEC) e.g. max/min threshold monitoring sequence, control
limiter, fault-tolerance reaction, etc.)
adaptation)
• Sabotage proof to • Configurable to accurately • Provide management staff with • Adaptive to demands in high
resist physical damage implement the security policies database and analytical tools for traffic or occupancy situations
and modification for the premises operation and service evaluation
• Self-diagnosis to • Interface with other system, • Provide access for tenants and
detect the timeworn parts e.g. communication network, occupants concurrent information of
phone system, etc the services provision
• Interface with Energy • Pre-scheduled set up of special
Management System; Building events and normal routines;
Automation System, or
Integrated Building Management
System
• Multiple detection or
verification mechanism
Smart/energy • Adaptive limiting • Accommodate changes of • Human engineering design to • User designation, verification and
efficient lift control control algorithm passenger traffic pattern facilitate convenience of passengers specific control (static sectoring or
system (LS) (e.g. max/min threshold (up peak/down peak) (i.e. voice announcement, fit for dynamic sectoring)
limiter, fault-tolerance disables, lighting, floor display up/
adaptation) down, etc)
• Auto-controlled • Remote monitoring • Provide management staff with • Integration with building usage
navigation at emergency database and analytical tools for schedule for travel programming
(with remote override) operation and service evaluation
(i.e. levelling performance)
• On-line data logging • On-line investigation and • Provide access for tenants and
facilitating routine analysis of lift activity occupants concurrent information of
maintenance the services provision
• Self-diagnosis to • Interface with Energy • Pre-scheduled of special events and
detect the timeworn parts Management System, Building normal routines
Automation System, or
Integrated Building Management
System
Digital addressable • Adaptive limiting • Adaptive to occupancy work • Provide management staff with • Provide multiple level and control
lighting control control algorithm schedule database and analytical tools for mode for occupants to program
system (DALI) (e.g. max/min threshold operation and service evaluation custom-made settings
limiter, fault-tolerance
adaptation)
• Monitoring • Presence detection • Provide access for tenants and • Sensing the light intensity and
capabilities that lamp (i.e. dimmable occupancy sensor, occupants concurrent information of angle of projection and solar
performance and hours access triggered control) the services provision radiation to maximize natural light/
run can be logged reduce lighting power (i.e.
photoelectric switching and
dimming controls)
(continued on next page)
292 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302

Table
Table 11 (continued
(continued ))
IBS Proposed intelligent attributes and their associated indicators
Autonomy Controllability for complicated Man-machine interaction Bio-inspired behaviour
dynamics
Digital addressable • Self-diagnosis to • Control of individual • Pre-programmed response and • Automatic lighting or
lighting control detect the timeworn parts luminaries, groups of luminaries control shading controls
system (DALI) or lighting zone
• Interface with Energy • User interface via internet/intranet
Management System, Building or remote control
Automation System, or
Integrated Building Management
System
Computerized • Automatically • Deployment mechanism • Input/output display custom design for • Diversion of work process
maintenance generation of routine management requirements on busy schedule
management system maintenance work
(CMMS) schedule with alert of
system contract
expiration
• Statistical evaluation • Interfacing with telephone • Dispatch and works tracking • Interactive communication
of building services system, mobile phone system, on demand through system with site
(breakdown, recovery, SMS system, fax system, e-mail workers and operator to
parts replacement, etc) system, etc maintain up-to-the-minutes
status
• Self-diagnosis to • System configuration allows • Management programming to
detect the timeworn parts multiple locations, multiple trade, upkeep changes of labour, work type
multiple client database and material inventory
• Service quality and customer • Set up maintenance scheduling and
feedback management special services

respondents was less than the critical t-values (tO b tC), the H0 situation. It aims to provide automatic functional control and
that was ‘less suitable’ and ‘not suitable’ only was accepted. maintain the building's normal daily operation. Current IBMS
also provides the function of power quality monitoring and
4.2. Summary of the survey results analysis as well as distribution analysis of electricity, gas, and
water consumption in the intelligent building. In this survey, 16
Table 2 summarises the sample characteristics of this survey. indicators were determined as critical in determining the level of
Forty-four industry practitioners including design consultants,
property developers, and facility managers, etc who were Table 2
involved in intelligent building design and development, Demographic details of the general survey respondents
participated in this survey. About 61% of the respondents Demographic information Number %
were from a design background (i.e. M&E engineers, and
Nature of work
architects), and the remainder were property developers (21%) Design consultants (building services engineers) 27 61%
and facility managers (18%). Most respondents (84%) had Developers 9 21%
about 1 to 20 years of work experience in the construction Facility managers 8 18%
sector, and 16% of respondents had more than 21 years work Total 44 100%
Year of experience
experience. Main types of intelligent building projects they
0–5 years 7 16%
have participated in were commercial/residential (30%), and 6–10 years 16 36%
commercial/office (37%) development. Other developments 11–15 years 7 16%
included commercial/hotel-resort (14%), commercial/recrea- 16–20 years 7 16%
tional (6%), and residential (13%) projects. 21–25 years 1 2%
26–30 years 4 9%
Table 3 presents the mean scores and t-test results. Based on
Over 30 years 2 5%
the findings, 69 key intelligent indicators were extracted from a Total 44 100%
total of 120 proposed indicators under the eight IBSs. Pursuant Experience in intelligent building development
to this table, some patterns were identified: Commercial/residential 25 30%
Commercial/office 30 37%
Commercial/hotel-resort 11 14%
4.2.1. Integrated building management system (IBMS)
Commercial/recreational 5 6%
The main function of IBMS is to integrate all essential Industrial/warehouse 0 0%
building services systems to provide an overall strategic Industrial/manufacturing 0 0%
management in all aspects with the capacity to systematically Residential/single block villa 3 4%
analyse and report the building performance and connect with Residential/complex 7 9%
Total 81 100%
multiple site/location to give corporation a portfolio view of the
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
intelligence of IBMS. The top three ranked indicators were the
‘ability to link multiple standalone building control system from
a variety of manufacturers’; the ‘graphical representation and
real-time interactive operation action icons’; and the ‘ability to
connect multiple locations’. The highest ranking of ‘ability to
link multiple standalone building control system from a variety
of manufacturers’ reflects an awareness among stakeholders
over the importance of total integration of the sub-systems by
the IBMS. This is probably caused by the frustrations
encountered by stakeholders regarding the incompatibilities
and limited opportunities for the integration of building
automation and control systems among product of different
manufacturers [135]. Respondents also recognized that the
ability of IBMS to accommodate all devices and to conform
them to the protocol standard being used is significant. Devices
from different manufacturers should employ the same commu-
nications network, communicating with their peers and not
interfering with other equipment. In addition, the graphical
representation and real-time interactive operation action icon
were considered as an indispensable intelligent attribute of
IBMS. Example includes the graphical displays of plant
operation which allow diagrams of plants with live point values
displayed, giving on-screen displays of temperatures, flows etc.
Operating states of items of plant should be displayed. Set
points may be adjusted directly and plant items switched on and
off [27]. An optimum IBMS should be able to display real-time
trend graph of the present situation or a review of historical data.
Interestingly, among the three-categories of participants,
developers also ranked the ‘ability of system self-diagnostic of
operation deviations’ and ‘ability to provide operational and
analytical function’ as the top intelligent indicators of IBMS.
This reflects that there is a high level of awareness that the
importance of IBMS to detect and diagnose faults in the control
systems, devices and sensors with automated monitoring and
control instrumentations in which design consultants and
facility managers regarded relatively low in their ranking.
4.2.2. Telecom and data system (ITS)
The telecom and data system is a communication network
backbone in intelligent building designed to provide effective
and efficient information transmission or exchange inside and
outside building [109]. Four intelligent indicators including the
‘ability of integrating multiple network or service providers’;
‘transmission capacity control and diversion’; ‘the installation
of fixed hub/terminal port’ and ‘system life and turn-round
complexity’, were identified as the most suitable indicator by
the stakeholders. This ranking implies that during data
transmission, communication network should have the ability
to deal with message prioritization/diversion and the avoidance
of message collision when several devices are attempting to
transmit at the same time [27].
4.2.3. HVAC control system
The primary objective of HVAC control system is to enhance
thermal comfort, humidity control, and adequate ventilation
inside the buildings. To determine the intelligence performance of
a HVAC system, design consultants placed greater emphasis on
293
the ability to ‘sense the internal temperature and humidity, and
auto-adjustment’, and the ‘interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS’ of
HVAC control system. As commented by Bischof et al. [1993,
citied in [127]], indoor air quality (IQA) is critical for the well-
being of occupiers because inadequate ventilation in buildings
can lead to serious problems including sick building syndrome,
building-related illnesses and mildew [34,121,3]. In addition, a
comfortable and healthy visual environment is critical to support
the activities of the occupants. In HVAC control system, the PID
(Proportional-Integral-Derivative) controls are employed to
control the supply air temperature, supply static pressure, and
return air flow rate. Optimum control strategies are used to reset
the set points of the local PID control loop of the supply static
pressure (for VAV/AHU system), Sensors concerned are the
temperature sensors of the fresh air, return air, and supply air,
humidity sensors of the return air and fresh air, and the static
pressure sensor of the supply air. These sensors are essential in
monitoring and automatic control of the air handling process
[145]. System instability would result in comfort complaints, IAQ
issues, control problems, and exorbitant utility cost [3].
Developers and facility managers ranked the ‘ability of pre-
programmed responses and zoning control’ as the top intelligent
indicator. This implies the need for the existence of pre-pro-
grammed control modules in its software to facilitate their daily
HVAC control and monitoring. A number of logic control functions
which may be used to improve control operation [27]. The contro-
ller sets its internal parameters to match the characteristics of the
actual combination of building and heating system. This configures
to meet the requirements of the actual control strategy to be
implemented. The averaging module is an example of pre-pro-
grammed control models which is used to produce a mean value of
a number of inputs. The system may be set up to control mean zone
temperature, averaged over several temperature sensors. Sophisti-
cated versions may be programmed to ignore extreme values.
4.2.4. Addressable fire detection and alarm (AFA) system
The key function of the AFA system is to provide effective
fire detection, control and fighting in the building. Other than
the statutory requirements of the fire detection systems, a total
of ten indicators were determined by stakeholders as important
in justifying the system intelligence of fire detection system.
The top two indicators include the ‘alarm deployment algorithm
within the building and notification to Fire Department’, and
‘self-diagnostic analysis for false alarm reduction’. Facility
managers emphasized three other intelligent properties of AFA
system as 1st ranking: ‘interface with security systems’, ‘Run
continually with minimal human supervision’, and ‘interface
with HVAC systems’. In principle, during the fire incident, it is
important for the fire detection system to effectively and
efficiently notify the IBMS (or BAS) for a fire and the BAS
instructs the security system to unlock access. Emergency doors
and other security entrance controllers should be disabled to
allow easy egress of the building occupants [27]. In addition,
the control strategy for each subsystem of the HVAC plant
should set up the control action to be taken in the event of
receiving a fire alarm signal. Much of the plant should be shut
down in response to a fire alarm. The air handling unit (AHU)
294 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302

Table 3
Perceptions of ‘suitable’ intelligent variables/indicators by various industry experts and practitioners
IBS Level 1 Level 2 indicators/variables Mean (SD, ranking) t-value
attributes
All (N = 44) Design Developers Facility
consultants (N = 9) managers
(N = 27) (N = 8)
Integrated AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.32 (.740, 12) 3.33 (.832, 11) 3.11 (.601, 5) 3.50 (.535, 3) 2.852⁎
building
management AUT Self-diagnostic of operation deviations 3.45 (.761, 7) 3.56 (.751, 8) 3.56 (.527, 1) 3.00 (.926, 7) 3.961⁎
system AUT Year-round time schedule operation 3.25 (.751, 14) 3.41 (.844, 10) 3.00 (.000, 6) 3.00 (.756, 7) 2.208⁎
(IBMS)
CCD Ability to link multiple stand alone building control 3.93 (.900, 1) 4.15 (.770, 1) 3.56 (.882, 1) 3.63 (1.188, 2) 6.871⁎
systems from a variety of manufacturers
CCD Remote control via Internet 3.30 (.978, 13) 3.56 (1.050, 8) 2.56 (.726, 8) 3.25 (.463,5) 2.003⁎
CCD Ability to connect multiple locations 3.61 (.618, 3) 3.81 (.557, 2) 3.22 (.667, 4) 3.38 (.518, 4) 6.585⁎
CCD Alarms and events statistics 3.59 (.816, 4) 3.74 (.813, 3) 3.44 (.726, 2) 3.25 (.886, 5) 4.803⁎
CCD Control and monitor HVAC equipments 3.57 (.759, 5) 3.81 (.736, 2) 3.33 (.500, 3) 3.00 (.756, 7) 4.963⁎
CCD Control and monitor lighting time schedule/zoning 3.39 (.722, 10) 3.63 (.742, 6) 3.11 (.333, 5) 2.88 (.641, 8) 3.548⁎
operation
CCD Control and monitor security system 3.20 (.930, −) 3.59 (.747, −) 2.44 (.882, −) 2.75 (.886, −) 1.460
CCD Control and monitor fire detection 3.23 (1.031, −) 3.63 (.926, −) 2.67 (1.000, −) 2.50 (.756, −) 1.462
CCD Control and monitor vertical transportation operation. 3.14 (.878, −) 3.37 (.839, −) 2.89 (.782, −) 2.63 (.916, −) 1.030
MMI Web base interface to any location and wireless 3.02 (.976, −) 3.26 (.903, −) 2.78 (.972, −) 2.50 (1.069, −) 0.154
terminal for functional access
MMI Reports generation and output of statistical and trend 3.39 (.868, 10) 3.59 (.931, 7) 3.00 (.707, 6) 3.13 (.641, 6) 2.951⁎
profiling of controls and operations
MMI Ability to provide operational and analytical functions 3.43 (.728, 8) 3.48 (.802, 9) 3.56 (.527, 1) 3.13 (.641, 6) 3.934⁎
MMI Single operation system/platform for multiple location 3.32 (.740, 12) 3.41 (.797, 10) 3.22 (.441, 4) 3.13 (.835, 6) 2.852⁎
supervision
MMI Graphical representation and real-time interactive 3.66 (.939, 2) 3.67 (1.038, 5) 3.44 (.726, 2) 3.88 (.835, 1) 4.658⁎
operation action icons
MMI Run continually with minimal human supervision 3.41 (.897, 9) 3.63 (.926, 6) 3.22 (.833, 4) 2.88 (.641, 8) 3.024⁎
BIB Analyze operation function parameters 3.34 (.745, 11) 3.48 (.753, 9) 2.89 (.333, 7) 3.38 (.916, 4) 3.034⁎
BIB Automatically adapt to daily occupied space changes 3.16 (.914, −) 3.41 (.888, −) 2.78 (.833, −) 2.75 (.886, −) 1.155
BIB Provide adaptive control algorithms based on seasonal 3.52 (.902, 6) 3.70 (.912, 4) 3.00 (.707, 6) 3.50 (.926, 3) 3.845⁎
changes
Telecom & AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.05 (.569, −) 3.11 (.641, −) 3.00 (.500, −) 2.88 (.354, −) 0.530
data
system AUT Self-diagnosis 3.09 (.640, −) 3.19 (.622, −) 2.89 (.333, −) 3.00 (.926, −) 0.942
(ITS)
CCD Integrate multiple network or service providers 3.77 (.774, 1) 3.81 (.879, 1) 3.56 (.527, 1) 3.88 (.641, 1) 6.627⁎
CCD Transmission capacity control & diversion 3.55 (.791, 3) 3.59 (.931, 3) 3.44 (.527, 2) 3.50 (.535, 2) 4.574⁎
CCD All digital system 3.14 (.734, −) 3.26 (.764, −) 2.78 (.667, −) 3.13 (.641, −) 1.232
MMI Fixed hub/terminal port installed 3.57 (.661, 2) 3.67 (.734, 2) 3.33 (.500, 3) 3.50 (.535, 2) 5.701⁎
MMI System life & turn-round complexity 3.23 (.642, 4) 3.41 (.694, 4) 2.78 (.441, 4) 3.13 (.354, 3) 2.348⁎
MMI End-user terminal provisions 3.16 (.861, −) 3.37 (.839, −) 2.78 (.833, −) 2.88 (.835, −) 1.225
BIB Interactive voice system 2.91 (.802, −) 2.93 (.781, −) 2.89 (.782, −) 2.88 (.991, −) − 0.752
BIB Transmission/processing analysis 3.09 (.709, −) 3.19 (.681, −) 2.89 (.782, −) 3.00 (.756, −) 0.850
HVAC AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.32 (.561, 8) 3.48 (.580, 5) 2.89 (.333, 6) 3.25 (.463, 4) 3.760⁎
control
system AUT Sensing the internal temperature and humidity, and 3.57 (.818, 3) 3.70 (.775, 1) 3.11 (.782, 4) 3.63 (.916, 1) 4.606⁎
auto-adjustment of systems
AUT Sensing of external temperature and humidity, and 3.25 (.943, 10) 3.56 (.892, 3) 2.78 (.667, 7) 2.75 (1.035, 6) 1.758⁎
auto-adjustment of systems
AUT Automated fault detection 3.50 (.849, 5) 3.52 (.802, 4) 3.44 (.527, 3) 3.50 (1.309, 2) 3.906⁎
AUT Self-diagnosis 3.23 (.677, 11) 3.33 (.679, 7) 2.89 (.333, 6) 3.25 (.886, 4) 2.226⁎
CCD Operation control mechanism 3.52 (.952, 4) 3.56 (.801, 3) 3.56 (.882, 2) 3.38 (1.506, 3) 3.642⁎
CCD Interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS 3.61 (.689, 2) 3.70 (.669, 1) 3.44 (.527, 3) 3.50 (.926, 2) 5.905⁎
CCD Interact with lighting and sun-blinds systems 2.80 (.904, −) 3.07 (.829, −) 2.11 (.601, −) 2.63 (1.061, −) − 1.500
MMI Provide management staff with database & analytical 3.27 (.845, 9) 3.44 (.801, 6) 2.89 (.601, 6) 3.13 (1.126, 5) 2.140⁎
tools for operation & service evaluation
MMI Pre-programmed responses and zoning control 3.64 (.685, 1) 3.63 (.688, 2) 3.67 (.707, 1) 3.63 (.744, 1) 6.161⁎
MMI Graphical representation and real-time interactive 3.34 (.834, 7) 3.48 (.849, 5) 3.00 (.707, 5) 3.25 (.886, 4) 2.712⁎
operation action icons
BIB Adaptive to occupancy work pattern 2.89 (.841, −) 3.11 (.892, −) 2.33 (.500, −) 2.75 (.707, −) − 0.896
BIB Utilize natural ventilation control 3.43 (.759, 6) 3.56 (.751, 3) 2.89 (.333, 6) 3.63 (.916, 1) 3.772⁎
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302 295

Table 3 (continued )
IBS Level 1 Level 2 indicators/variables Mean (SD, ranking) t-value
attributes
All (N = 44) Design Developers Facility
consultants (N = 9) managers
(N = 27) (N = 8)
Addressable AUT Alarm deployment algorithm within the building and 3.73 (.949, 1) 3.96 (.759, 1) 3.56 (1.130, 1) 3.13 (1.126, 5) 5.083⁎
fire detection notification to Fire Department
& alarm AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 2.91 (.640, −) 2.96 (.759, −) 2.89 (.333, −) 2.75 (.463, −) − 0.942
system AUT Self-diagnostic analysis for false alarm reduction 3.68 (.601, 2) 3.74 (.656, 4) 3.56 (.527, 1) 3.63 (.518, 1) 7.522⁎
(AFA)
AUT Self test of sensors, detectors and control points 3.45 (.791, 8) 3.78 (.506, 3) 2.44 (.726, 7) 3.50 (.756, 2) 3.811⁎
AUT Self-diagnosis to detect the timeworn parts 2.98 (.590, −) 3.07 (.616, −) 2.78 (.441, −) 2.88 (.641, −) − 0.255
CCD Integration and control of sensors, detectors, fire-fighting 3.48 (.952, 7) 3.56 (.934, 6) 3.33 (1.00, 2) 3.38 (1.061, 3) 3.325⁎
equipment
CCD Interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS 3.20 (.701, 9) 3.30 (.724, 7) 3.11 (.782, 4) 3.00 (.535, 6) 1.934⁎
CCD Interact with security systems 3.66 (.861, 3) 3.81 (.834, 2) 3.22 (.833, 3) 3.63 (.916, 1) 5.077⁎
CCD Interact with HVAC systems 3.61 (.813, 4) 3.78 (.801, 3) 3.11 (.782, 4) 3.63 (.744, 1) 5.006⁎
CCD Interact with lift systems 3.45 (.848, 8) 3.67 (.877, 5) 2.89 (.333, 5) 3.38 (.916, 3) 3.556⁎
CCD Interact with lighting/emergency generator systems 3.50 (.976, 6) 3.67 (.961, 5) 3.22 (.833, 3) 3.25 (1.165, 4) 3.397⁎
MMI Run continually with minimal human supervision 3.57 (.974, 5) 3.81 (.834, 2) 2.78 (.972, 6) 3.63 (1.061, 1) 3.869⁎
MMI Provide database and analytical tools for operation and 3.25 (.991, −) 3.41 (.888, −) 2.56 (1.130, −) 3.50 (.926, −) 1.673
service evaluation
MMI Provide concurrent information of the services provision 2.70 (.765, −) 2.96 (.706, −) 2.11 (.782, −) 2.50 (.535, −) − 2.562
MMI Pre-scheduled of special events and incidents 3.07 (.661, −) 3.22 (.641, −) 2.78 (.667, −) 2.88 (.641, −) 0.684
BIB Analysis of alarm and false alarm events patterns 2.86 (.765, −) 3.04 (.854, −) 2.67 (.500, −) 2.50 (.535, −) − 1.182
Security AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.02 (.731, −) 3.15 (.770, −) 2.78 (.441, −) 2.88 (.835, −) 0.206
monitoring & AUT Sabotage proof 3.41 (.693, 4) 3.48 (.700, 3) 3.11 (.782, 4) 3.50 (.535, 2) 3.917⁎
access control AUT Self-diagnosis 2.91 (.563, −) 2.93 (.616, −) 2.78 (.441, −) 3.00 (.535, −) − 1.071
system (SEC) CCD Dynamic programming 3.32 (.909, 6) 3.37 (.884, 5) 3.22 (.833, 3) 3.25 (1.165, 3) 2.321⁎
CCD Configurable to accurately implement the security policies 3.61 (.722, 1) 3.74 (.764, 1) 3.33 (.500, 2) 3.50 (.756, 2) 5.636⁎
for the premises
CCD Interface with other system, e.g. communication network, 3.59 (.622, 2) 3.74 (.594, 1) 3.44 (.527, 1) 3.25 (.707, 3) 6.302⁎
phone system, etc
CCD Interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS 3.25 (.751, 7) 3.33 (.832, 6) 3.00 (.707, 5) 3.25 (.463, 3) 2.208⁎
CCD Multiple detection or verification mechanism 3.11 (.895, −) 3.44 (.751, −) 2.22 (.667, −) 3.00 (.926, −) 0.842
MMI Run continually with minimal human supervision 3.57 (.950, 3) 3.70 (.912, 2) 3.11 (.782, 4) 3.63 (1.188, 1) 3.968⁎
MMI Provide database and analytical tools for operation and 3.34 (.834, 5) 3.41 (.844, 4) 2.89 (.782, 6) 3.63 (.744, 1) 2.712⁎
service evaluation
MMI Provide concurrent information of the services provision 2.98 (.792, −) 3.22 (.641, −) 2.22 (.833, −) 3.00 (.756, −) − 0.190
MMI Pre-scheduled set up 3.20 (.734, 8) 3.30 (.775, 7) 3.11 (.601, 4) 3.00 (.756, 4) 1.849⁎
BIB Human behaviour analysis and diagnostic 2.68 (.800, −) 2.85 (.770, −) 2.44 (.726, −) 2.38 (.916, −) − 2.637
BIB Adaptive to demands in high traffic or occupancy situations 2.91 (.772, −) 3.04 (.706, −) 2.56 (.726, −) 2.88 (.991, −) − 0.781
Smart/energy AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.18 (.843, −) 3.26 (.944, −) 3.00 (.707, −) 3.13 (.641, −) 1.431
efficient lift AUT Auto-controlled navigation at emergency 3.61 (.841, 1) 3.59 (.844, 1) 3.44 (.726, 2) 3.88 (.991, 1) 4.838⁎
control
system (LS) AUT On-line data logging 3.16 (.608, 7) 3.19 (.681, 6) 3.22 (.441, 4) 3.00 (.535, 5) 1.736⁎
AUT Self-diagnosis 2.93 (.759, −) 3.00 (.832, −) 2.78 (.667, −) 2.88 (.641, −) − 0.596
CCD Accommodate changes of passenger traffic pattern 3.43 (.974, 3) 3.48 (.975, 2) 3.44 (.882, 2) 3.25 (1.165, 3) 2.941⁎
CCD Remote monitoring 3.16 (.939, −) 3.37 (.839, −) 2.56 (1.014, −) 3.13 (.991, −) 1.124
CCD On-line investigation and analysis of lift activity 3.30 (.765, 5) 3.33 (.734, 4) 3.11 (.601, 5) 3.38 (1.061, 2) 2.562⁎
CCD Interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS 3.41 (.972, 4) 3.41 (.971, 3) 3.67 (.707, 1) 3.13 (1.246, 4) 2.791⁎
MMI Human engineering design 3.48 (.849, 2) 3.59 (.797, 1) 3.33 (.866, 3) 3.25 (1.035, 3) 3.730⁎
MMI Provide database and analytical tools for operation 3.20 (.795, 6) 3.22 (.698, 5) 3.11 (.782, 5) 3.25 (1.165, 3) 1.707⁎
and service evaluation
MMI Provide concurrent information of the services 2.91 (.741, −) 2.96 (.706, −) 2.78 (.667, −) 2.88 (.991, −) − 0.813
provision
MMI Pre-scheduled of special events and normal routines 3.20 (.734, 6) 3.22 (.698, 5) 3.11 (.601, 5) 3.25 (1.035, 3) 1.849⁎
BIB User designation, verification and specific control 3.02 (.762, −) 3.07 (.730, −) 2.78 (.441, −) 3.13 (1.126, −) 0.198
BIB Integration with building usage schedule for 3.18 (.815, −) 3.22 (.698, −) 2.89 (.782, −) 3.38 (1.188, −) 1.480
travel programming
Digital AUT Adaptive limiting control algorithm 3.14 (.668, −) 3.19 (.622, −) 3.11 (.601, −) 3.00 (.926, −) 1.354
addressable AUT Monitoring capabilities 3.18 (.815, −) 3.22 (.801, −) 3.22 (.667, −) 3.00 (1.069, −) 1.480
lighting control AUT Self-diagnosis 3.00 (.682, −) 2.96 (.808, −) 3.00 (.500, −) 3.13 (.354, −) 0.000
system (DALI) CCD Adaptive to occupancy work schedule 3.18 (1.018, −) 3.44 (.892, −) 2.33 (.866, −) 3.25 (1.165, −) 1.185
CCD Presence detection 3.23 (.803, 6) 3.37 (.742, 4) 2.78 (.441, 4) 3.25 (1.165, 5) 1.877⁎
(continued on next page)
296 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302

Table
Table 33 (continued
(continued ))
IBS Level 1 Level 2 indicators/variables Mean (SD, ranking) t-value
attributes
All (N = 44) Design Developers Facility
consultants (N = 9) managers
(N = 27) (N = 8)
Digital CCD Control of individual luminaries, groups of luminaries 3.80 (.734, 1) 3.81 (.736, 1) 3.78 (.667, 1) 3.75 (.886, 2) 7.190⁎
addressable or lighting zone
lighting CCD Interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS 3.64 (.718, 2) 3.81 (.681, 1) 3.33 (.866, 2) 3.38 (.518, 4) 5.877⁎
control MMI Provide database and analytical tools for operation and 3.27 (.845, 4) 3.19 (.736, 6) 3.33 (.866, 2) 3.50 (1.195, 3) 2.140⁎
system service evaluation
(DALI) MMI Provide concurrent information of the 2.77 (.774, −) 2.74 (.813, −) 2.78 (.667, −) 2.88 (.835, −) − 1.949
services provision
MMI Pre-programmed response and control 3.25 (.839, 5) 3.26 (.764, 5) 3.33 (.866, 2) 3.13 (1.126, 6) 1.977⁎
MMI User interface 2.91 (.802, −) 2.93 (.675, −) 2.67 (1.118, −) 3.13 (.835, −) − 0.752

BIB Provide multiple level and control mode 3.18 (.896, −) 3.33 (.877, −) 2.67 (.707, −) 3.25 (1.035, −) 1.346

BIB Sensing the light intensity and angle of projection and solar 3.64 (.967, 2) 3.67 (.877, 2) 3.22 (.833, 3) 4.00 (1.309, 1) 4.367⁎
radiation
BIB Automatic lighting or shading controls 3.39 (.841, 3) 3.44 (.801, 3) 3.22 (.441, 3) 3.38 (1.302, 4) 3.046⁎
Computerized AUT Automatically generation of routine maintenance 3.34 (.914, 3) 3.37 (.884, 3) 3.00 3.63 (1.188, 1) 2.475⁎
maintenance work schedule with alert of system contract expiration (.707, 4)
management AUT Statistical evaluation 3.48 (.549, 1) 3.52 (.580, 2) 3.33 (.500, 1) 3.50 (.535, 2) 5.763⁎
system AUT Self-diagnosis 3.09 (.741, −) 3.15 (.718, −) 2.89 (.601, −) 3.13 (.991, −) 0.813
(CMMS)
CCD Deployment mechanism 3.23 (.605, 4) 3.30 (.609, 4) 3.22 (.667, 2) 3.00 (.535, 5) 2.493⁎
CCD Interfacing with telephone, mobile phone, SMS, fax, e-mail 3.05 (.861, −) 3.11 (.751, −) 2.89 (.782, −) 3.00 (1.309, −) 0.350
system, etc
CCD System configuration allows multiple locations, multiple trade, 3.20 (.668, 5) 3.26 (.594, 5) 3.00 (.500, 4) 3.25 (1.035, 4) 2.033⁎
multiple client database
CCD Service quality and customer feedback management 2.75 (.811, −) 3.11 (.698, −) 2.00 (.500, −) 2.38 (.744, −) − 2.046
MMI Input/output display custom design for management 3.05 (.680, −) 3.26 (.594, −) 2.56 (.726, −) 2.88 (.641, −) 0.443
requirements
MMI Dispatch and works tracking on demand 3.00 (.610, −) 3.19 (.557, −) 2.56 (.527, −) 2.88 (.641, −) 0.000
MMI Management programming to upkeep changes of labour, work 3.36 (.810, 2) 3.59 (.572, 1) 2.67 (1.118, 6) 3.38 (.744, 3) 2.979⁎
type and material inventory
MMI Set up maintenance scheduling and special services 3.23 (.937, −) 3.52 (.753, −) 2.56 (1.130, −) 3.00 (.926, −) 1.609
BIB Diversion of work process on busy schedule 3.20 (.632, 5) 3.26 (.594, 5) 2.89 (.601, 5) 3.38 (.744, 3) 2.148⁎
BIB Interactive communication through system with site workers 3.23 (.743, 4) 3.26 (.712, 5) 3.11 (.782, 3) 3.25 (.886, 4) 2.029⁎
and operator to maintain up-to-the-minutes status
Note: AUT = Autonomy; CCD = Controllability for complicated dynamics; MMI = Man-machine interaction; and, BIB = Bio-inspired behaviour.
⁎Represents the t-values which is higher than cut of t-value (1.6820) indicating the significance of the indicators.

plant will be shut down either continuing the supply and extract
fans with inlet and exhaust dampers closed, or with the extract
fan continuing to run with the exhaust damper open [27].
However, the overall ranking of these controls and interlocking
functions were ranked 3rd and lower among the intelligent
indicators. This outcome indicated that all participants might
have regarded these functions as default rather than being
intelligent attributes.
4.2.5. Security monitoring and access control (SEC) system
The SEC system is developed to provide surveillance and
access control to detect unauthorized entry and enhance security
and safety inside the building. Eight intelligent indicators were
determined. Three indicators that were quite consistently in
rankings among developers, design consultants and facility
managers include ‘configurable to accurately implementation of
the security policies for the premises’, ‘interfacing with other
systems’, and ‘continual operation with minimal human
supervision’. The indicator ‘provision of database and analytical
tools for operation and service evaluation’ was given higher
emphasis by the facility managers only.
4.2.6. Smart/energy efficient lift system (LS)
The smart/energy efficient lift system aims to transport
passengers to the desired floor quickly, safely, and comfortably.
A total of 8 key intelligent indicators were determined by the
respondents. The four highest rank of intelligent indicators
included ‘auto-controlled navigation at emergency’; ‘human
engineering design’; ‘accommodate changes of passenger traffic
pattern’; and, ‘interface with EMS, BAS, or IBMS’.
The ‘auto-controlled navigation at emergency’ relates to the
automatic control and monitoring of lift navigation/operation
during special or emergency events [122]. Lifts can be monitored
by control centre operated by the maintenance companies
remotely so that the performance and real-time status of lift can
be analyzed and recorded but this only ranked No.6. In addition,
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
human engineering design should be allowed to facilitate
convenience of passengers [24]. Examples include voice
announcement, suitability for the disabled, and, in-car information
display. Furthermore, an ‘intelligent’ lift control system should be
able to accommodate changes of passenger traffic pattern [24].
For example, use of artificial intelligence techniques to identify
the number of passengers, and the existence of supervisory control
algorithm (i.e. dynamic and static sectoring control algorithm) to
detect passenger traffic patterns and peak traffic.
4.2.7. Digital addressable lighting control (DALI) system
The digital addressable lighting control system is expected to
provide acceptable levels of illumination for all aspects of
occupations, and to enhance efficient lighting usage and energy
conservation in the intelligent building [109]. Seven key
indicators were identified by the stakeholders in the survey.
Both design consultants and developers ranked the ability of
‘system control of individual luminaries, groups of luminaries,
and, lighting zones’ and the ‘system interface with EMS, BAS,
or IBMS’ as the prime intelligent indicators. In the lighting
control system, the luminaire incorporates a presence detector
and a downward-looking photocell which measures the level of
illumination [24]. The built-in controller ensures that illumina-
tion is only provided when the space is occupied and provides a
constant level of illumination in varying ambient light levels.
The luminaries can communicate with each other over a bus
system. A group of luminaries is switched on if a presence is
detected by any one of them. The luminaries can be programmed to
provide general background illumination to avoid the person
working in an isolated pool of light. Luminaires may be
individually controlled by permitted users over the telephone
system or from a PC. Overall, the ‘automatically sensing the light
intensity, angle of projection, and the solar radiation’ ranked as top
intelligent indicator. This reflects that the lighting control system
should contain photoelectric switching and dimming control (i.e.
photocells) to monitor the light level in the space and regulate the
lighting accordingly. A ceiling-mounted photocell looking
downwards responds to the combined daylight and artificial
illumination and the control system is set to provide a constant
level of illumination. One interesting observation is that developers
and facility managers ranked ‘provision of database and analytical
tools for operation and service evaluation’ No. 2 and 3 respectively,
while design consultant ranked this indicator No. 6. This deviation
may reflect the demand of the end-users of the system, who may
not be satisfied due to the difference in perception of the required
operation intelligence in existing practice.
4.2.8. Computerized maintenance management system
(CMMS)
The CMMS is designed to provide efficient and effective
inventory control and service works management of the building.
Seven indicators were suggested by the stakeholders to determine
the system intelligence. Overall, the 1st ranked intelligent
indicator lies in ‘statistical evaluation’. The 2nd and 3rd ranked
indicators reflected management of works deployments and up
keeping of changes. The result implies that the availability,
reliability and maintainability of the CMMS are very common
297
and important in any facilities management operation systems
strategy. This is a key to effective serviceability and maintenance
management of the building.
From Table 3, the coefficient of variation, were about 30%
for most cases, which indicates that the perceptions of system
intelligence of different intelligent building systems vary
moderately among different stakeholders. The variations in
rankings of intelligent indicators in Table 3 reflected different
stakeholders' preference on the suitability of the indicators for
determining the system intelligence of IBSs. The intelligent
indicators to be applied should be project-specific. Utilizing
weightings to each option of IBS would reflect such project-
specificity [130]. Furthermore, the survey findings suggested
that the interpretation of ‘intelligence’ is different from one
intelligent building system to another which implies in this
study that each IBS performs in a non-unique way and contains
unique measures of system intelligence. Our findings were
consistent with Bien et al. [15].
5. Proposed models of system intelligence appraisal for the
intelligent building systems
Once the suitable intelligent indicators of various intelligent
building systems are identified, the analytical frameworks that
involve numerical analysis of distinct alternatives can be
established. These analytical frameworks would facilitate
developers and stakeholders to justify a wide range of intelligent
attributes and indicators before committing to a particular choice
of intelligent building system. As mentioned earlier, the theory
of system intelligence by Bien et al [15] suggested that any
intelligent system with these four identified intelligent attributes
can lead to improved safety, enhanced reliability, high efficiency,
and economical maintenance (Fig. 1). Reviewing the literature
on intelligent building also suggested that a range of operational
goals and benefits (i.e. improved operational effectiveness and
energy efficiency, enhanced cost effectiveness, increased user
comfort and productivity, and improved safety and reliability)
can be promoted from implementing intelligent technologies in
the intelligent building. Therefore, the proposed analytical
models should take the relationship between intelligent
attributes and operational benefits of the intelligent building
systems into consideration, and resulting in the possibility to
form a network-like structural framework. In addition, the
complicated nature of justifying system intelligence requires a
quantitative model that can be used to integrate qualitative
information and quantitative values and analysis. For these
reasons, the analytic network process (ANP), a systemic
analytical approach, was proposed and utilized to prioritize the
intelligent indicators and dealing with network decision models.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and ANP are two related
concepts developed by Saaty [96,97] to handle complicated
MCDM problems. AHP is a general theory of measurement which
models a hierarchical decision problem framework but it is
restrictive to solve problems with a hierarchically structural model
or unidirectional relationships. ANP is the generic form of AHP
which can model the interdependent relationships in the decision
making frameworks by relaxing the hierarchical and unidirectional
298 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
Fig. 3. Graphical representation of relationship for the proposed ANP system intelligence appraisal framework for an intelligent building system.
assumptions. The ANP model can be generically designed as a
control hierarchy (i.e., a hierarchy of subsystems with inner
dependencies) or a non-hierarchical network which includes
decision alternatives as an original element cluster [97,140]. In this
study, the only interdependencies that are identified and will form
the supermatrix, are between the intelligent building benefits and
the intelligent attributes of the intelligent building systems.
Investigating the relationships between these benefits and the
intelligent attributes of intelligent building systems is based on the
inquiry that if a system designer wants to achieve the maximum
benefits from implementing intelligent building components,
which intelligent attribute(s) of the building components or
systems should be relatively more important in promoting these
benefits. In contrast, each intelligent attribute might have varied
degree of importance in promoting the four identified benefits. The
hierarchy-network framework was proposed to assist the problem
structuring. Fig. 3 provide snapshots of the proposed framework
for the model for evaluating the system intelligence of intelligent
building system. The model illustrates the interaction and
interdependent relationship among the intelligent attributes and
the operational goals/benefits. The framework builds on prior
application on performing multi-criteria dimensional evaluation
of decision alternative as well as the interrelationship with ex-
ternal components among researchers [32,86,87,131]. The details
of the ANP process and the development of system intelligence
analytical models will be presented Part 2 of the research.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
This paper, as the first part of this two-part research project,
has presented the development of indicators, and introduced
analytical approaches for appraising system intelligence of the
key intelligent building systems. This study commenced with a
review of the current research in intelligent building appraisal,
reviewed the existing research, and described the practical
problems. The lack of satisfactory consensus for characterizing
the ‘intelligence’ of the intelligent systems in a quantitative
manner, and the paucity of integrated structured evaluation
methodologies aggravated the difficulties in appraising the
system intelligence of the intelligent building systems.
In this paper, a general survey was conducted to elicit the
suitable intelligent indicators of the intelligent building systems.
A total of 69 suitable intelligent indicators were identified. The
survey results further suggest that the interpretation of ‘intelli-
gence’ is different from one intelligent building system to another
which implies that each intelligent building system performs in a
non-unique way and contains unique measures of system
intelligence. The findings further reveal that ‘autonomy’ was
not judged as an important intelligence attribute to reflect the
degree of system intelligence in the ITS and DALI systems. This
research was deliberately limited to an investigation of eight of the
most general building control systems in the intelligent building.
Future study should include other building systems related to
water, waste and pollution control, and sensor technology
networks in order to provide a better understanding and reflection
on the degree of intelligence of the building control systems in the
intelligent building.
Previous research suggested that the development of intelligent
buildings is not only limited to the advances in technologies, the
ability to achieve the clients and stakeholders’ desires and to
enhance their benefits are real objectives of the intelligent building
development, but also suggests that the implementation of
intelligent systems in the building lead to a number of operational
goals and benefits. The authors put forward the use of an analytic
network process (ANP) which allows all suitable intelligent
attributes, as well as their corresponding indicators, to be taken
into account, not only their relative importance, but also their
interrelationship with the building's operational goals/benefits. A
conceptual ANP decision framework was proposed and developed
in this paper. In the next paper, the methodology and analytical
model set up will be discussed and presented. A real-life intelligent
building project will be used as a case study to validate the
proposed system intelligence models and to test their practicality.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the anonymous respondents who
participated in the interview and questionnaire survey for their
invaluable responses that provided the basis of the empirical
analysis in this study.
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
References
[1] M.G. Abdel-Kader, D. Dugdale, Evaluating investments in advanced
manufacturing technology: a fuzzy set theory approach, British
Accounting Review 33 (4) (December 2001) 455–489 Elsevier.
[2] A.A.S. Al-Jumaily, S.H.M. Amin, Fuzzy logic based behaviours blending
for intelligent reactive navigation of walking robot, Proceedings of Fifth
International Symposium on Signal Processing and its Applications, vol. 1,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 1999, pp. 155–158.
[3] R. Alcalá, J. Casillas, O. Cordón, A. González, F. Herrera, A genetic rule
weighting and selection process for fuzzy control of heating, ventilating
and air conditioning systems, Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence 18 (3) (April 2005) 279–296 Elsevier.
[4] P. Armstrong, M.R. Brambley, P.S. Curtiss, S. Katipamula, Controls, in: J.F.
Kreider (Ed.), Handbook of Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning,
CRC Press, 5–46 to 5–59.
[5] G. Appenzeller, J.H. Lee, H. Hashimoto, Building topological maps by
looking at people: an example of cooperation between intelligent spaces
and robots, Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Robot
and Systems, vol. 3, IEEE, New York, 1997, pp. 1326–1333.
[6] H. Arkin, M. Paciuk, Service systems in intelligent buildings, Proceed-
ings 1st International Congress of Intelligent Buildings, Telaviv, Israel,
1995, pp. 19–29.
[7] H. Arkin, M. Paciuk, Evaluating intelligent building according to level of
service system integration, Automation in Construction 6 (5–6) (September
1997) 471–479 Elsevier.
[8] M.R. Atif, A.D. Galasiu, Energy performance of daylight-linked
automatic lighting control systems in large atrium spaces: report on
two field-monitored case studies, Energy and Buildings 35 (5) (June
2003) 441–461 Elsevier.
[9] M. Aygün, Comparative performance appraisal by multiple criteria for
design alternatives, Architectural Science Review 43 (1) (March 2000)
31–36 The University of Sydney.
[10] M. Azegami, H. Fujixoshi, A systematic approach to intelligent building
design, IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE, October 1992, pp. 46–48.
[11] W. Balachandran, Y.M. Enab, M. Halimic, M. Tariq, Intelligent robot
based dynamic weighting system, Proceedings of SPIE, USA, vol. 2353,
1994, pp. 398–409.
[12] C.A. Balaras, K. Droutsa, A.A. Argiriou, K. Wittchen, Assessment of
energy and natural resources conservation in office buildings using
TOBUS, Energy and Buildings 34 (2) (February 2002) 135–153 Elsevier.
[13] R. Bassi, MATOOL: a matrix tool for assessing the performance of
intelligent buildings, Proceedings of the BRE Seminar on Intelligent
Buildings, Building Research Establishment Ltd., UK, 2005.
[14] T. Bernard, H.B. Kuntze, Sensor-based management of energy and
thermal comfort, in: O. Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner,
W. Gopel (Eds.), Sensor Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent
Buildings, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001, pp. 103–126.
[15] Z. Bien, W-C. Bang, D-Y. Kim, J-S. Han, Machine intelligent quotient: its
measurements and applications, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 127 (1) (April
2002) 3–16 Elsevier.
[16] R.P. Bonasso, E. Huber, D. Kortenkamp, Recognizing and interpreting
gestures within the context of an intelligent robot control architecture,
Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1995,
pp. 12–19.
[17] D. Boyd, L. Jankovic, Building IQ — rating the intelligent building, in:
D. Boyd (Ed.), Intelligent Buildings, University of Central England,
Henley on Thames, Alfred Waller Limited in association with Unicom,
London, 1994, pp. 35–54.
[18] V. Bradshaw, K.E. Miller, Building control system, Second edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.
[19] S.T. Bushby, BACnet: a standard communication infrastructure for
intelligent buildings, Automation in Construction 6 (5–6) (September
1997) 529–540 Elsevier.
[20] B. Burmahl, Smart and Smarter - Intelligent Buildings Graduate to New
Level, Health Facilities Management, Health Forum, 12(6), June, (1990),
22–30.
299
[21] L. Cai, A.A. Goldenberg, S.P. Ananthanarayanan, An intelligent
controller for robot contact and non-contact task control, Proceedings
of Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, Los
Alamitos, CA, USA, vol. 1, 1990, pp. 370–375.
[22] J. Carlini, Measuring a building IQ, in: J.A. Bernaden, et al., (Eds.), The
Intelligent Building Sourcebook, Prentice-Hall, London, 1988.
[23] R.A. Carlson, R.A. Di Giandomenico, Understanding Building Automa-
tion Systems, Means Company, Kingston, 1991.
[24] Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers, Transportation
System in Building - CIBSE Guide D, CIBSE, London, 2000.
[25] Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers, Fire Engineering -
CIBSE Guide E, 2nd edition, CIBSE, London, 2003.
[26] Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers, Energy Efficiency in
Buildings - CIBSE Guide F, 2nd edition, CIBSE, London, 2004.
[27] Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers, Building Control
Systems - CIBSE Guide H, CIBSE, London, 2000.
[28] S. Chebrolu, A. Abraham, J.P. Thomas, Feature deduction and ensemble
design of intrusion detection systems, Computers and Security 24 (4)
(June 2005) 295–307 Elsevier.
[29] Z. Chen, T.D.J. Clements-Croome, J. Hong, H. Li, Q. Xu, A multi-criteria
lifespan energy efficiency approach to intelligent building assessment,
Energy and Buildings 38 (5) (May 2006) 393–409 Elsevier.
[30] P. Chen, On intelligent robot motion planning via learning, Journal of
Intelligent and Robotic Systems 19 (3) (July 1997) 299–320 Springer
Netherlands.
[31] E.W.L. Cheng and, H. Li, Application of ANP in process models: an
example of strategic partnering, Building and Environment 42 (1)
(January 2007) 278–287 Elsevier.
[32] E.W.L. Cheng, H. Li, L. Yu, The analytic network process (ANP)
approach to location selection: a shopping mall illustration, Construction
Innovation 5 (2) (2005) 83–97 Emerald.
[33] M.C.T. Cho, R. Fellows, Intelligent building systems in Hong Kong,
Facilities 18 (5/6) (2000) 225–234 Emerald.
[34] W.K. Chow, C.L. Chow, Evacuation with smoke control for atria in green
and sustainable buildings, Building and Environment 40 (2) (February
2005) 195–200 Elsevier.
[35] S.C.K. Chu, C.K.Y. Lin, S.S. Lam, Hospital lift system simulator: a
performance evaluator-predictor, European Journal of Operational
Research 146 (1) (April 2003) 156–180 Elsevier.
[36] W.Y. Chung, L.C. Fu, S.S. Huang, A flexible, hierarchical and
distributed control kernel architecture for rapid resource integration of
intelligent building system, Proceedings of 2001 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, Seoul, South Korea,
2001, pp. 1981–1987.
[37] T.D.J. Clements-Croome, What do we mean by intelligent buildings?
Automation in Construction 6 (5–6) (September 1997) 395–399
Elsevier.
[38] T.D.J. Clements-Croome, Intelligent building, EssentialFM Report, No. 12,
November/December, 2001, The Eclipse Group, UK, 2001.
[39] T.D.J. Clements-Croome, Intelligent Buildings: Design, Management
and Operation, Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2004.
[40] Continental Automated Building Association (CABA), Building IQ
Rating Criteria, Task Force 1: Intelligent Building Ranking System,
CABA, Ottawa, Canada, 2004.
[41] E. Dekneuvel, H. Medromi, An ultrasonic sound intelligent sensor for a
mobile robot perception system: principles, design and experimentations,
Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Conference on Emerging
Technologies and Factory Automation, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA,
1999, pp. 513–520.
[42] A.L. Dexter, Intelligent building control systems, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Tall Buildings, Hong Kong Organising
Committee, Hong Kong, 1998, pp. 4–15.
[43] F. Dinenberg, Y. Zagorulko, D. Levin, M. Zhigalov, I. Popov,
Development of speech control system for intelligent robot, Proceedings
of 4th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to
Information Systems, Wien, Austria, 1999, pp. 173–175.
[44] L. Ding, W. Huamin, W. Boren, Position control of robot arms using
intelligent variable structure system, Proceedings of IEEE International
300 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
Symposium on Industrial Electronics, vol. 1, IEEE, New York, USA,
1992, pp. 357–361.
[45] DEGW, Teknibank and The European Intelligent Building Group, The
Intelligent Building in Europe – Executive Summary, ‘British Council’
for Offices, London, 1990, pp. 1–23.
[46] M.F. Dulaimi, G.S. Hong, The factors influencing bid mark-up decisions of
large-and medium-size contractors in Singapore, Construction Management
& Economics 20 (7) (October 2002) 601–610 Taylor and Francis.
[47] T. Dwyer, Integration is the key, Building Services Journal 25 (1)
(January 2003) 64–65 CIBSE.
[48] A.A. Earp, G.B. Smith, J. Franklin, P. Swift, Optimization of a three-
colour luminescent solar concentrator daylighting system, Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells 84 (1–4) (October 2004) 411–426 Elsevier.
[49] EIBG, European Intelligent Building Group, 2001, www.eibg.net.
[50] L.L. Ekanayake, G. Ofori, Building waste assessment score: design-based
tool, Building and Environment 39 (7) (July 2004) 851–861 Elsevier.
[51] E. Finch, Remote building control using the Internet, Facilities 16 (12/13)
(1998) 356–360 Emerald.
[52] E. Finch, Is IP everywhere the way ahead for building automation?
Facilities 19 (11/12) (2001) 396–403 Emerald.
[53] C. Fischer, M. Buss, G. Schmidt, Human-robot-interface for intelligent
service robot assistance, Proceedings of Fifth IEEE International
Workshop on Robot and human Communication, IEEE, New York,
NY, USA, 1996, pp. 177–182.
[54] L.C. Fu, T.J. Shih, Holonic supervisory control and data acquisition
kernel for 21st century intelligent building system, Proceedings of the
2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE,
San Francisco, CA, 2000, pp. 2641–2646.
[55] J. Gaba, M. Russo, A. Guez, Intelligent image analysis for error detection
and correction in automated laboratory robot systems, Laboratory
Robotics and Automation 10 (5) (1998) 273–282 John Wiley & Sons.
[56] V. Graefe, R. Bischoff, A human interface for an intelligent mobile robot,
Proceedings of Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human
Communication, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1997, pp. 194–199.
[57] T. Hamada, Neuroethology and intelligent robot, Journal of proceedings
of Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Commu-
nication, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1992, pp. 194–199.
[58] V. Hartkopf, High-tech, low-tech, healthy intelligent buildings: new
methods and technologies in planning and construction of intelligent
buildings, Proceedings 1st International Congress on Intelligent Build-
ings, Telaviv, Israel, 1995, pp. 98–136.
[59] M. Himanen, The intelligent of intelligent buildings, in: D. Clements-
Croome (Ed.), Intelligent Buildings: Design, Management and Operation,
Thomas Telford, UK, 2004, pp. 25–52.
[60] M. Himanen, The Intelligence of Intelligent Buildings: The Feasibility of
the Intelligent Building Concept in Office Buildings, VTT, Espoo,
Finland, 2003.
[61] G.D. Holt, Construction research questionnaires and attitude measure-
ment: relative index or mean? Journal of Construction Procurement 3
(August 1997) 88–96 University of Salford.
[62] T. Hori, S. Hirai, Y. Wakita, R. Takada, M. Kakikura, Active intelligent
monitoring for telerobotic task-tracking a handled object, Proceedings of
Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communica-
tion, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1997, pp. 160–165.
[63] F.Y. Hsu, L.C. Fu, A new adaptive fuzzy hybrid force/position control for
intelligent robot deburring, Proceeding of IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1999,
pp. 2476–2481.
[64] F.Y. Hsu, L.C. Fu, Intelligent robot deburring using adaptive fuzzy hybrid
position/force control, IEEE Transactions on Robotics Automation 16 (4)
(August 2000) 325–335 IEEE.
[65] H. Hwang, D.Y. Choi, CMAC towards intelligent robot: motion and
calibration, Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, vol. 1, IEEE, New York, USA, 1990, pp. 517–526.
[66] J. Hyvarinen, S. Karki, Building Optimisation and Fault Diagnosis System
Source Book, IEA Annex 25 Final publication VTT, Finland, 1996.
[67] Intelligent Building Society of Korea (IBSK), Assessment Standards for
Certifying Intelligent Buildings 2002, IBSK, Seoul, South Korea, 2002.
[68] A. Jaura, M.O.M. Osman, N. Krouglicof, Hybrid compliance control
for intelligent assembly in a robot work cell, International Journal of
Production Research 36 (9) (September 1998) 2573–2583 Taylor
and Francis.
[69] S. Jharkharia, R. Shankar, Selection of logistics service provider: an
analytic network process (ANP) approach, Omega 35 (3) (June 2007)
274–289 Elsevier.
[70] B.H. Kim, S.R. Chong, S.R. Oh, I.H. Suh, Y.J. Cho, Intelligent
compliance control for robot manipulators using adaptive stiffness
characteristics, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, IEEE, NJ, USA, 1999, pp. 2134–2139.
[71] V.G. Kountouris, H.E. Stephanou, Task decomposition, distribution, and
localization for intelligent robot coordination, Proceedings of SPIE, USA,
vol. 1387, 1991, pp. 169–180.
[72] W.M. Kroner, An intelligent and responsive architecture, Automation in
Construction 6 (5–6) (September 1997) 381–393 Elsevier.
[73] E. Kruse, R. Gutsche, F.M. Wahl, Intelligent mobile robot guidance in
time-varying environments by using a global monitoring system,
Proceedings of Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles, Kidlington, UK,
1998, pp. 291–296.
[74] D.H.W. Li, J.C. Lam, Evaluation of lighting performance in office
buildings with daylighting controls, Energy and Buildings 33 (8)
(October 2001) 793–803 Elsevier.
[75] D.L. Loveday, G.S. Virk, J.Y.M. Cheung, D. Azzi, Intelligence in
buildings: the potential of advanced modelling, Automation in Construc-
tion 6 (5–6) (September 1997) 447–461 Elsevier.
[76] G. Lowry, Factors affecting the success of building management system
installation, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 23
(2) (2002) 57–66 Sage.
[77] T.C. Lueth, T. Laengle, G. Herzog, E. Stopp, U. Rembold, KANTRA-
human-machine interaction for intelligent robots using natural
language, Proceedings of third IEEE International Workshop on
Robot and Human Communication, IEEE, New York, NY, USA,
1994, pp. 106–111.
[78] R.C. Luo, T.M. Chen, C.Y. Hu, Networked intelligent autonomous
mobile robot: issues and opportunities, Proceedings of IEEE International
Symposium on Industrial Electronics, vol. 1, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA,
1999, pp. PS7–PS13.
[79] R.C. Luo, T.M. Chen, Supervisory control of multisensor integrated
intelligent autonomous mobile robot via Internet, Proceedings of Second
IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Processing Systems, IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1998, pp. 12–16.
[80] R.C. Luo, S.Y. Lin, K.L. Su, A multi-agent multi-sensor based security
system for intelligent building, Proceedings of 2003 IEEE International
Conference on Multi-sensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent
Systems, IEEE, Washington, USA, 2003, pp. 311–316.
[81] R.C. Luo, K.L. Su, K.H. Tsai, Fire detection and isolation for intelligent
building system using adaptive sensory fusion method, Proceedings of
the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
IEEE, Washington, USA, 2003, pp. 1777–1781.
[82] Y. Lüthi, R. Meisinger, M. Wenzler, Pressure sensors in the HVAC
industry, in: O. Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W. Gopel
(Eds.), Sensor Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings, Wiley-
VCH, Weinheim, 2001, pp. 173–199.
[83] M. Maglioni, N. Cavana, The G.D. mobile-robot: another building
block for the intelligent factory, Proceedings of Fifth Internet
Conference on Advanced Robotics, vol. 2, IEEE, New York, USA,
1991, pp. 1650–1653.
[84] E. Marchesi, A. Hamdy, R. Kunz, Sensor systems in modern high-rise
elevators, in: O. Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W. Gopel
(Eds.), Sensor Application Vol 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings, Wiley-
VCH, Weinheim, 2001, pp. 261–291.
[85] D. Mather, CMMS: A Timesaving Implementation Process, CRC Press,
Florida, 2003.
[86] L. Meade, J. Sarkis, Strategic analysis of logistics and supply chain
management systems using the analytical network process, Transporta-
tion Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 34 (3)
(September 1998) 201–215 Elsevier.
 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
[87] L. Meade, J. Sarkis, Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
manufacturing processes: an analytical network process, International
Journal of Production Research 37 (2) (1999) 241–261 Taylor and Francis.
[88] N. Miyake, M. Kametani, H. Sakairi, Hardware and software architecture
for intelligent robot control-an approach to dual control architecture,
Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ/GI International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, Advanced Robotic Systems and the Real World,
vol. 3, IEEE, New York, USA, 1994, pp. 2146−2151.
[89] G. Mügge, Sensors in HVAC systems for metering and energy cost
allocation, in: O. Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W.
Gopel (Eds.), Sensor Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings,
Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001, pp. 159–171.
[90] C. Myers, Intelligent Buildings: A Guide for Facility Managers, UpWord
Publishing, New York, 1996.
[91] R.E. Neubauer, The intelligent building: an overview, in: J. Bernader, R.E.
Neubauer (Eds.), The IB Sourcebook, The Fairmont Press, 1988, pp. 3–14.
[92] D. Pati, C-S. Park, G. Augenbroe, Roles of building performance
assessment in stakeholder dialogue in AEC, Automation in Construction
15 (4) (July 2006) 415–427 Elsevier.
[93] L. Preucil, P. Stepan, Experiencing modelling and development of an
intelligent autonomous robot, Proceedings of Sixth International Workshop
on Computer Aided Systems Theory, Springer, Spain, 1997, pp. 324–337.
[94] D.P. Robathan, The Future of Intelligent Buildings, in: D. Boyd (Ed.),
Intelligent Buildings, University of Central England, Henley on
Thames, Alfred Waller Limited in association with Unicom, London,
1994, pp. 259–265.
[95] A.J.F. Rutten, Sky luminance research imperative for adequate control of
temporary supplementary artificial lighting installations, Building and
Environment 29 (1) (January 1994) 105–111 Elsevier.
[96] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, US, 1980.
[97] T.L. Saaty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the
Analytic Network Process: the Organization and Prioritization of
Complexity, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, US, 1996.
[98] A.J. Schofield, T.J. Stonham, P.A. Mehta, Automated people counting to
aid lift control, Automation in Construction 6 (5–6) (September 1997)
437–445 Elsevier.
[99] G. Schweitzer, What do we expect from intelligent robots? Proceedings
1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, IEEE, NY, USA, 1999, pp. 1271–1278.
[100] V. Serafeimidis, A review of research issues in evaluation of information
systems, in: W. van Grenbergen (Ed.), Information Technology Evaluation
Methods and Management, Idea Group Publishing, Belgium, 2001.
[101] S. Sharples, V. Callaghan, G. Clarke, A multi-agent architecture for
intelligent building sensing and control, Sensor Review 19 (2) (1999)
135–140 Emerald.
[102] G.H. Shah Hamzei, D.J. Mulvaney, I.P.W. Sillitoe, Batch-mode decision
tree learning applied to intelligent reactive robot control, Proceedings of
Sixth International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory
Automation (ETFA'97), IEEE, New York, USA, 1997, pp. 416–420.
[103] Shanghai Construction Council (SCC), Shanghai Intelligent Buildings
Appraisal Specification, SCC, China, 2002.
[104] T. Shibata, Artificial emotional project for intelligent system-human robot
interaction, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Soft
Computing, Singapore, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 43–48.
[105] T. Shibata, K. Inoue, R. Irie, Emotional robot for intelligent system-
artificial emotional creature project, Proceedings of Fifth IEEE
International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, IEEE,
New York, USA, 1996, pp. 466–471.
[106] M.L. Siikonen, Customer service in an elevator system during up-peak,
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 31 (2) (April 1997)
127–139 Elsevier.
[107] S. Smith, The integration of communications networks in the intelligent
building, Automation in Construction 6 (5–6) (September 1997)
511–527 Elsevier.
[108] S. Smith, The use of quality functional deployment in the design of the
office of the future, Proceedings 2nd International Conference on
Construction Management, Sydney, Australia, 1999, pp. 146–155.
301
[109] S. Smith, Intelligent buildings, in: R. Best, G. de Valence (Eds.), Design
and Construction: Building in Value, Butterworth Heinemann, UK, 2002,
pp. 36–58.
[110] A.T.P. So, W.L. Chan, Intelligent Building Systems, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 1999.
[111] A.T.P. So, B.W.L. Tse, Intelligent air-conditioning control, in: O.
Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W. Gopel (Eds.), Sensor
Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2001, pp. 29–61.
[112] A.T.P. So, K.C. Wong, On the quantitative assessment of intelligent
building, Facilities 20 (5/6) (2002) 208–216 Emerald.
[113] A.T.P. So, J.K.L. Yu, Intelligent supervisory control for lifts: dynamic
zoning, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 22 (2)
(2001) 14–33 Sage.
[114] P. Sobchak, Upping a building's IQ, Building, Business Information
Group 53 (5) (2003) 52 Oct/Nov, Toronto, Canada.
[115] D. Surdilovic, Z. Cojbasic, Robust robot compliant motion control using
intelligent adaptive impedance approach, Proceedings of IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, IEEE, Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 1999, pp. 2128–2133
[116] R. Suttell, Intelligent and Integrated Buildings, Buildings Magazine,
BOMA, November, (2002), 49 & 52.
[117] K. Suzuki, A. Camurri, P. Ferrentino, S. Hashimoto, Intelligent agent
system for human-robot interaction through artificial emotion, Proceed-
ings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
vol. 2, IEEE, New York, USA, 1998, pp. 1055–1060.
[118] S. Tanaka, Y. Uraguchi, M. Araki, Dynamic optimization of the operation
of single car elevator systems with destination hall call registration: Part I.
Formulation and simulations, European Journal of Operational Research
167 (2) (December 2005) 550–573 Elsevier.
[119] T. Tanaka, K. Yamafuji, K. Tanaka, Autonomous locomotion control of
an intelligent mobile robot for service use, Proceedings 30th International
Symposium on Robotics, Tokyo, Japan, 1999, pp. 675–681.
[120] T. Tanaka, K. Yamafuji, K. Miyagawa, H. Watanabe, H. Takahashi, S.V.
Ulyanov, Intelligent locomotion control system of the mobile robot
for service use, Proceedings of Second International Conference
on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice, Hong Kong, 1995,
pp. 107–112.
[121] The Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB), The Intelligent Building
Index Manual, Manual Version 2.0, AIIB, Hong Kong, October 2001.
[122] The Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB), The Intelligent
Building Index 10: Health and Sanitation, Manual Version 3.0, AIIB,
Hong Kong, January 2004.
[123] The Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB), IB Index, 3rd ed.
AIIB, Hong Kong, 2005.
[124] S.C.A. Thomopoulos, G. Braught, Machine perception and intelligent
control architecture for multi-robot coordination based on biological
principals sic, Proceedings of SPIE, USA, vol. 2905, 1996, pp. 64–72.
[125] M. Thuillard, P. Ryser, G. Pfister, Life safety and security systems, in: O.
Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W. Gopel (Eds.), Sensor
Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2001, pp. 307–397.
[126] A.V. Topalov, D.D. Tsankova, M.G. Petrov, T.Ph. Proychev, Intelligent
motion planning and control for a simulated mobile robot, Proceedings of
2nd IFAC Workshop on New Trends in Design of Control Systems,
Smolenice, Slovakia, 1997, pp. 351–356.
[127] H.R. Tränkler, O. Kanoun, Sensor systems in intelligent buildings, in: O.
Gassmann, H. Meixner, J. Hesse, J.W. Gardner, W. Gopel (Eds.), Sensor
Application Vol. 2: Sensors in Intelligent Buildings, Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, 2001, pp. 485–510.
[128] A.P. Tzes, Intelligent self-tuning controllers for robot manipulators,
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems Engineering,
IEEE, New York, USA, 1990, pp. 5–8.
[129] H. Ueon, Y. Saito, Model-based vision and intelligent task scheduling for
autonomous human-type robot arm, Robotics and Autonomous Systems
18 (1–2) (July 1996) 195–206 Elsevier.
[130] Ugwu, M.M. Kumaraswamy, A. Wong, S.T. Ng, Sustainability appraisal
in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators
302 J. Wong et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 284–302
and computational methods, Automation in Construction 15 (2) (March
2006) 239–251 Elsevier.
[131] Ugwu, T.C. Haupt, Key performance indicators and assessment methods
for infrastructure sustainability — a South African construction industry
perspective, Building and Environment 42 (2) (February 2007) 665–680
Elsevier.
[132] Vujicic, How to avoid a CMMS collapse, Building Services Professional
(April 2005) 33–36 IMC.
[133] P. Wan, T.K. Woo, Designing for intelligence in Asia buildings,
Proceedings 1st IEE International Conference on Building Electrical
Technology (BETNET), IEEE, Hong Kong, 2004, pp. 1–5.
[134] S.W. Wang, X.Q. Jin, Model-based optimal control of VAV air-
conditioning system using genetic algorithm, Building and Environment
35 (6) (August 2000) 471–487 Elsevier.
[135] S.W. Wang, Z.Y. Xu, H. Li, J. Hong, W.-Z. Shi, Investigation on
intelligent building standard communication protocols and application of
IT technologies, Automation in Construction 13 (5) (September 2004)
607–619 Elsevier.
[136] C.W. Wang, A.T.P. So, Building automation in the century, Proceedings
of the 4th International Conference on Advanced on Advances in Power
System Control, Operational Management, APCOM-97, Hong Kong,
November, 1997, pp. 819–824.
[137] S.W. Wang, J.B. Wang, Law-based sensor fault diagnosis and validation
for building air-conditioning systems, International Journal of HVAC&R
Research 5 (4) (1999) 353–380 ASHRAE.
[138 S.W. Wang, J.L. Xie, Integrating building management system and
facility management on Internet, Automation in Construction 11 (6)
(October 2002) 707–715 Elsevier.
[139] M. Wigginton, J. Harris, Intelligent Skin, Architectural Press, Oxford,
UK, 2002.
[140] B. Wolfslehner, H. Vacik, M.J. Lexer, Application of the analytic network
process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management,
Forest Ecology and Management 207 (1–2) (March 2005) 157–170
Elsevier.
[141] J.K.W. Wong, H. Li, S.W. Wang, Intelligent building research: a review,
Automation in Construction 14 (1) (January 2005) 143–159 Elsevier.
[142] J. Wong, H. Li, Development of a conceptual model for the selection of
intelligent building systems, Building and Environment 41 (8) (August
2006) 1106–1123 Elsevier.
[143] J.K.W. Wong, H. Li, and J. Lai, Evaluating the system intelligence of the
intelligent building systems - Part 2: Construction and validation of
analytical models, Automation in Construction, Elsevier (in press).
[144] N.H. Wong, W.L.S. Jan, Total building performance evaluation of
academic institution in Singapore, Building and Environment 38 (1)
(January 2003) 161–176 Elsevier.
[145] F. Xiao, S.W. Wang, J.P. Zhang, A diagnostic tool for online sensor health
monitoring in air-conditioning system, Automation in Construction 15 (4)
(July 2006) 489–503 Elsevier.
[146] J. Yang, H. Peng, Decision support to the application of intelligent
building technologies, Renewable Energy 22 (1–3) (Jan-Mar 2001)
67–77 Elsevier.
[147] G.R. Yost, T.R. Rothenfuh, Configuring elevator systems, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 44 (3–4) (March 1996) 521–568
Elsevier.
[148] C. Zhou, K. Jagannathan, T. Myint, Prescribed synergy method-based
hybrid intelligent gait synthesis for biped robot, Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1999, pp. 1384–1389.