NESEA 2021 BuildingEnergy Magazine Volume 40 - Number 1

3 NESEA.ORG • BUILDINGENGERGY® PUBLISHED FOR Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA) 20 Federal Street, Suite #8 Greenfield MA 01301 p. 413-774-6051 www.nesea.org ABOUT NESEA AND BUILDINGENERGY® MAGAZINE NESEA advances the adoption of sustainable energy practices in the built environment by cultivating a community where practitioners share, collaborate and learn. The content of this issue of BuildingEnergy magazine was submitted by the NESEA community after an open call for NESEA stories. All views are the authors’ own. To learn more about NESEA’s programs or events, contact Florence MacGregor at fmacgregor@nesea.org. To learn more about membership, contact Katie Schendel at kschendel@nesea.org. Letter From the Executive Director and the Board Chair By Miriam Aylward and Rachel White IDP: What will it take to make the dream a reality? “Commitment, intention, and discipline are what make the difference, and those are all within your grasp.” By Barbra BatShalom The Integrative Design Process Looks at Windows “They say the future is not located in time, but in place. The future of weatherizing existing windows already exists in central Vermont, and it has for the last ten years.” By Christopher Pratt Inside Out: Unpacking the Integrative Design Process “While members of the design team work in parallel, they depend on each other’s expertise, resulting in a process that is less hierarchical, more robust, and arguably more successful than conventional design decision-making.” By Elaine Hoffman and Arjun Mande A Single Integrated Model, Connecting the Parts of IPD “Here is the journey of three teams rethinking IPD and prefabrication using the Single Integrated Manufacturing Modeling (SIMM™) approach, developed by Holzraum System. These retrospectives reimagine the possibilities such a system can deliver.” By llka Cassidy, Steve Hessler, Kyle P. Macht, and Shannon Pendleton A Rational Approach to Large Building Decarbonization “With the broad agreement and recognition that removing fossil fuels from buildings through electrification is required, replicable strategies to decarbonize large and complex commercial and residential buildings are now a major priority among policymakers, government agencies, and industry experts, particularly in New York.” By Jared Rodriguez, Mayra Lujan, Brett Bridgeland, and Michel Beguin A Whole Building Design Process for Better Results “A Whole Building Design Process is not just about buildings, it’s about the people who design them and the people for whom they are designed.” By Doug Kumph, PE, CPHC and Jennifer Marrapese Mind Over Materials: How People and Process Influences Healthier Materials “Analysis paralysis is a primary enemy of the healthier materials effort. We must minimize the complexity by implementing a process that ensures healthier materials within the standard sequencing of a construction project.” By Matt Root Achieving Aspirational Design Through Integrated Process “When creating the mass timber curtainwall system for the Smith College Neilson Library, our team experienced firsthand how much an integrated design process contributes to overcoming project obstacles and developing innovative architectural solutions.” By Matthew Gifford Project Team Approach: Tips for Best Practice “Lessons learned along the way, from a senior sustainability consultant.” By Kai Starn NESEA Business Member Directory NESEA Academic Member Directory The 2021 NESEA Awards NESEA’s awards represent the richness of talent in our community. Index of Advertisers 4 6 16 10 20 12 28 24 32 36 39 72 74 76 NESEA STAFF Executive Director Miriam Aylward Conference Manager Ben Sachs-Hamilton Marketing Manager Jenny Goldberg InformationTechnology Manager Larry Kuttner Program Director Florence MacGregor Office Manager Diane Robinson Membership Manager Katie Schendel Business Manager Gina Sieber Program & Event Coordinator Robert Weiss MAGAZINE CREDITS Editor-In-Chief Florence MacGregor Issue Coordinator Robert Weiss Editorial Committee Keith Bohling Stuart Brodsky Julie Paquette Danny Veerkamp Cover Photo Credit Tim Greenway TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE BOARD CHAIR quinquennial | adjective \ kwin-‘kwe-nē-әl 1 : consisting of or lasting for five years 2 : occurring or being done every five years A lot can happen in five years. Children can be born and start attending school, U.S. presidents can commence and complete their terms, and communities can wrestle with and reinvent what it means to foster connection in a time of physical separation. At NESEA, five years is the interval at which we reassess our strategic priorities, and this year, we began anew. In early 2021, we convened a group of volunteers to form a Strategic Planning Working Group chaired by NESEA Board Member Matt Root. Over the last 10 months this group has designed and facilitated stakeholder focus groups, drafted survey questions, and so much more. Over the summer, we collected survey responses from 132 people and held five open focus groups attended by 62 members of our community. We asked our community to tell us about their demographic identities and how they have engaged with NESEA. We asked how our programming has supported their work and professional development and what we could do to make our programming even better. We also asked our favorite question, “If money and time were no object, what would you like to see NESEA do next?” This fall, our fearless Program Director Flo MacGregor began coding the data to identify trends, opportunities, and challenges. Over the next three months, the NESEA Board of Directors will use the input from our community to draft new strategic priorities for our next five years. The board will publicly unveil the new strategic plan in early 2022. A recurring theme from the data we have collected is the importance of community. The value of NESEA is not just in the quality of our programming, although that is critical. The value of NESEA is also the connections we make and the community we create and nurture together—a community of practitioners who come together to share, collaborate and learn. This theme reflects what we’ve seen over the last year in our member-driven content, including in the focus on Integrated Design Process for this year’s BuildingEnergy magazine. This theme also reverberates in the durability of our ties over the course of the pandemic. We have banded together and not only maintained but deepened our connections to each other. That is something to celebrate and to build on as we embark on our next quinquennial. Thank you to everyone who participated in the process of providing input into our new strategic plan! We look forward to sharing more information in the coming months and welcome any questions you might have in the meantime. Warm regards, MIRIAM AYLWARD, Executive Director and Rachel White, Board Chair ABOUT THE AUTHORS Miriam Aylward joined NESEA in 2014 after completing a Masters of Business Administration at Antioch University New England. She most recently held the position of Program Director at NESEA prior to her appointment as Interim Executive Director in 2019. Before joining the NESEA team, she worked as a project manager at the Clarke Schools for Hearing and Speech, ran an event planning business in Montana and led backpacking trips in Wyoming and Utah. Rachel White is CEO of Byggmeister Design/Build, a nearly 40 year-old residential remodeling company that is striving to serve as an exemplary steward of homes and to prepare them to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Rachel has been affiliated with Byggmeister since 2008, when she hired the firm to renovate her house. What started as an effort to reduce the energy and carbon footprint of her own home became her life’s work. Prior to joining Byggmeister Rachel taught modern Jewish history to adult learners. She holds a PhD in Religious Studies from Brown University and a BA in Religion from Haverford College. BY MIRIAM AYLWARD BY RACHEL WHITE BY MIRIAM AYLWARD STRATEGIC PLANNING: THE QUINQUENNIAL

5 NESEA.ORG • A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR We often describe the content of NESEA programs as being member-driven. When it comes to BuildingEnergy magazine, that has meant different things over the years. For readers who are interested in the process, this note is a summary of how the content in these pages came together: • We ran an open call for proposals around the theme of IDP, which we promoted to the NESEA community. We also asked for volunteers for the Editorial Committee; only current NESEA members are able to serve on the committee. • The four individuals who joined the committee read through the proposals and developed a slate of articles that they thought represented a balance of the submissions and would appeal to a wide range of readers. • After the first drafts were submitted, members of the committee were assigned articles to review. They were asked to note anything that was unclear, that violated the "vendor neutral and commercial-free" guidelines, or that needed a citation. • The authors were able to incorporate feedback into final drafts. • We gave each article a very light-touch copy-edit for clarity, erring on the side of preserving the unique voice of each author. In previous issues of the magazine, you will have seen the term “peer reviewer” used for the person who reviewed a draft and provided feedback for the author(s). We’ve retired this term, as it has a very specific meaning in a publication and the process we’re using isn’t nearly so formal. If you have any questions or would like to be part of the Editorial Committee for the next magazine, please be in touch (fmacgregor@nesea.org). Best, FLORENCE BY FLORENCE MACGREGOR

6 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES Integrative Design Process, or “IDP”, has been a catch phrase for two decades, since long before the ANSI standard for IDP was developed in 2007. Despite reams of literature and inspiring case studies, actual implementation of IDP remains elusive as a foundation for practice and a means to achieve design excellence. Given the urgency of climate change, failure is not an option. We’ve got to do better. Once a firm has committed to being ‘climate positive’ and translates that commitment to internally driven best practices, IDP is then the means through which we can rise to this challenge and stop contributing to the climate disaster. We can use design as a force for positive change rather than contributing to the problem. In this context, IDP refers to a structure, process, and qualitative experience that creates conditions conducive to effective collaboration. The goal of IDP is to optimize the input and knowledge of all the stakeholders on a project team to achieve (performance) goals. It is an intentional choreography to tap into group genius. It is also the mechanism enabling a group of people to turn into a true team. This article focuses on ingredients for success that are rarely discussed. The recommendations that follow distill the less obvious aspects of collaboration success and are drawn from 20-plus years of experience helping firms institutionalize sustainability in their culture, systems, and processes. Before sharing strategies, it’s helpful to consider why IDP is not ubiquitous. Why do we fail? • I speak with architects every week who still think that IDP refers to an early charrette (often, a ‘one-hitwonder’) that focuses on sustainability or LEED, rather than seeing charrette(s) as one element in a larger, intentionally designed process that choreographs the sequence and interactions of activities needed to ensure success achieving goals. • Those who know that it’s a process throughout the duration of a project often think it is planned by one person rather than being co-created (and ‘owned’) by the full project team. • Many architects think of IDP as a project-specific activity, disconnected from a firm’s overarching organizational functions, as if internal standards and best practices, QA/QC, and culture are not intrinsically intertwined with project execution—and therefore those interconnections are rarely explored. • In most cases, the design process isn’t used to intentionally turn the group of project members into a team that trusts each other and is mutually accountable. • Our industry does not invest in developing the ‘human’ or soft skills needed to make the process actually work, such as communication, leadership, sales, how to give feedback, facilitation, negotiation, and conflict management. Architecture schools certainly don’t include these topics, although they are key to any business’s success. You can have the best engineered process ever, but bad behavior or interactions will override the value of structure. These are also the skills you need to engage with resistant clients! You may notice that I did not say failure is because of money or time—those things do not compromise IDP. In fact, tighter schedules and budgets can be better managed through a true IDP process. BY BARBRA BATSHALOM In memory of Lance Hosey, a visionary leader in sustainability who never let fear or uncertainty dampen his passionate crusade for a better future. Image credit: SPI These images are various examples of workshop outputs from different firms. Each firm’s workshop included participants intentionally made up of different roles and seniority. The goal of the session was to “ReDesign” its project delivery process to align with its goals, addressing barriers (in red), developing new standard actions (in green) and identifying any practice level needs for resources or support to ensure new actions would be successful (in blue or purple). IDP: WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE THE DREAM A REALITY?

7 NESEA.ORG • FEATURE: NESEA STORIES WHAT DO WE NEED TO SUCCEED? 1. Look beyond the project to practice. As with any aspect of practice, nothing happens in a bubble. The firm’s culture, management, and leadership influence how projects are executed. Does your firm have a project delivery methodology that everyone understands? How do you achieve excellence on every project? First, your firm needs to own its approach to project delivery and understand how that approach will be consistently applied. This doesn’t mean everyone has to be identical robots but that every team understands what key milestones need to be hit by what time and best practices for those actions. A good example is ensuring that performance goals are set on every project, consistently. From a cultural perspective, it helps if your firm’s goals reflect an internally driven commitment, rather than just being reactive to what clients ask for. Once there is a shared understanding of the firm’s project goals, you can evaluate what activities, throughout your project delivery process, support achieving those goals and what barriers you need to remove. This is an opportunity for your firm to redesign project delivery explicitly to achieve performance and other goals and to define and articulate what your path to success looks like—including four key elements: • The structure of your process, • Feedback loops for iterating decisions, • How to align your consultant relationships, and • What tools and resources you need to use. Finally, you can understand what organizational functions are needed to support the desired outcome, such as establishing accountability processes, QA/QC protocols, and internal design standards or best practices. As you can see from the images below, every firm that does this identifies significant actions that they control, that they can take immediately to achieve better outcomes. (Instructions for a process to do this can be found on our website.1) Image credit: SPI based on a diagram by Bill Reed This diagram represents one example of a template for a firm’s project teams to use so that the team co-creates a roadmap that identifies sequence of actions needed for the team as a whole to analyze options and make decisions, creating clarity and mutual responsibility. This would ideally happen after the previous project delivery methodology was defined.

8 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES CONT’D—IDP: WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE THE DREAM A REALITY The path to institutionalizing these actions and behaviors is its own juicy topic, but the main take-away is that an intentional change management strategy to overcome resistance and accelerate buy-in doesn’t happen by accident. It requires thoughtful consideration and broad engagement very early on, across your firm. There are resources available to guide you in developing your strategy.2 2. Don’t create the plan in a vacuum Given the increasing constraints of project budgets and schedules, it is tempting to want to get it done fast and have a project manager or internal sustainability person lay out the process for achieving sustainability goals. This approach causes more harm than good. Having the project team, including the client and all key consultants, co-create the IDP process—aka the project roadmap—has multiple benefits. • It can be part of a bigger effort of team building, creating trust and mutual accountability amongst the team members. • The resulting plan is stronger and more accurate, eliminating gaps, issues with timing, or confusion. All stakeholders walk away with a higher degree of shared clarity and focus. The dialog that takes place while developing the roadmap for design excellence helps people understand each other’s needs, reasons for what they do and dependencies between disciplines or stakeholders. • People become invested in their roadmap as a result of helping to create it and therefore hold themselves more accountable to it. • Everyone will understand what kinds of activities need to happen when, and how they relate to each other. Ideally, your firm can create templates for these roadmaps that help guide each project team in creating them. In every substantial project, there is a mix of independent analysis or exploration done by one discipline in isolation and a mix of small and large group meetings, or charrettes. Often, the first charrette will be focused on team building and creating a shared understanding of the project constraints, opportunities, and areas to explore. The second charrette may focus on testing assumptions, big-picture strategy options, high-level analysis, and evaluation to determine a direction. The third charrette can then focus on specific strategies and tradeoffs while a fourth drills down into more detailed resolution of final direction and considerations for successful execution. Another important benefit of having a clear methodology and roadmap is for marketing. In project pursuits, when sophisticated clients ask, you can articulate exactly how you can deliver the best value. You’ll be able to give specific examples of how your process ensures optimal collaboration resulting in the best outcomes. 3. Transition from a linear mindset to an iterative model Many teams still see design as a linear process. It’s true that there is a start and an end, at least to design and construction. However, between that start and end point, instead of a straight line, you should actually have a corkscrew—a series of iterative feedback loops to clarify and refine the analysis and decision-making process. Agile software development exemplifies this concept, but our industry tends to be defined by disjointed and sporadic moments of intersection rather than synchronized, well timed back-and-forth that yields better decisions. The points at which these feedback loops happen should be built into the roadmap template, which is another reason that all key stakeholders need to be involved in creating it; no one person in isolation can figure that out. Second, the project doesn’t end when you walk away, and neither should your understanding of how successful it was. The true performance of a project is not revealed until it has been in operation for at least a year. If your firm’s process stops at turnover, you learn very little, essentially selling your clients your past mistakes. It is your responsibility to learn from your work and continuously improve.If your IDP does not have a giant feedback loop to learn and institutionalize those learnings, you are not delivering the value that your clients are paying you for. Would you choose a doctor who kept doing the same procedure, but never learned from their work? Image credit: www.smartsheet.com/all-about-team-assessments This questionnaire is one example of many illustrating the kinds of questions a team might use to reflect on and measure how well they work together.

9 NESEA.ORG • FEATURE: NESEA STORIES 4. Quality: it’s not just what but how Laying out a roadmap for your project’s IDP is mandatory, but it’s easy to forget that success needs both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’; both what the steps are and how you execute them matter. Making sure an energy model is executed doesn’t define the quality of that model. This concept applies in two ways. At a high level, it’s important to look at the project delivery process itself as a design problem and assess how successful it is. How effective is your collaboration? If you don’t consider metrics for collaboration effectiveness, you are purely relying on luck. The quality of the process significantly influences the quality of the outcome. We can approach collaboration effectiveness with the same rigor and intention that is brought to building performance. It’s important for the team to discuss and agree upon metrics at the start, then check in at specific points along the way, and then to assess and debrief at the end to learn what to take forward or improve for the next time. At the project level, it’s about the quality of the work, as in the example of an energy model. Another example is the discovery phase. Before goal setting, asking questions about the client’s vulnerabilities (physical and operational), hazards, risk tolerance, and resilience goals (bounce back or bounce forward) should always be part of the early problem finding phase, yet it rarely is. 5. Technical skills are not enough It’s easy to forget that design is a human process. We are a group of people interacting, communicating, and problem solving. That brings inherent challenges due to conflicts, misunderstandings, and poor communication. We’ve all experienced when things go wrong. Communication, facilitation, interest-based dialog—there is an entire toolbox of non-technical skills that can make or break the success of a collaboration. Not everyone will come to the project with advanced interpersonal skills. The roadmap identifies the “what,” or sequence of activities, but the “how” is equally important. The process should be designed to ensure that all stakeholders hear and be heard. The key is to make sure that those skills are present within the team somehow. There will always be conflict and disagreement. Having someone skilled and comfortable in managing those situations can make a huge difference. A facilitator who understands active listening and interest-based dialog will be able to broker agreement about ideas or strategies that a stakeholder or client may have been resistant to otherwise. Teams solely relying on data and case studies to convince someone, without really understanding their underlying concerns or motivations, will have limited success. If you’ve never given deep thought to these topics before, don’t lose heart. The good news is that there is precedent proving that it can be done! The greatest contribution to this evolution in practice is the AIA’s 2030 Commitment program. Unlike rating systems like LEED that focus on project specific metrics, which can be achieved without addressing any of the issues mentioned above, the 2030 program really drives holistic transformation. For more than twenty years, rating systems have thrived but hundreds of firms who achieved certifications did not take any steps to transform their practices. 2030 forces firms to look across their entire portfolios rather than rest on the laurels of a few exemplary projects. In turn, this makes aligning consultants imperative. The required tracking of portfolio-wide data creates a structure for a feedback loop that puts firms on a path of continuous improvement. The establishment of the pEUI metric (predicted energy use intensity) encourages early goal setting, related to that benchmark. In 2019, 27 firms of varying size achieved the 70% reduction of energy use intensity across their entire portfolios! Many more than that hit a 50% reduction. Ten years ago, no one would have believed that could be achieved. You can hear directly from these successful firms,3 and as their stories illustrate, firm size doesn’t matter, nor does having ample resources—it really comes down to conscious decision. Failure is not an option. Commitment, intention, and discipline are what make the difference, and those are all within your grasp. ENDNOTES 1. https://sustainable-performance.org/wp-content/uploads/ ProcessMappingExercise2.pdf 2. https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Creating_a_ Sustainability_Action_Plan.pdf 3. https://sustainable-performance.org/resources/tools-resources ABOUT THE AUTHOR Barbra BatShalom is an educator, management consultant, leadership coach and change agent working with a wide range of governmental, institutional, and private sector organizations, helping them institutionalize sustainability and achieve measurable improvements in performance and profitability. With a diverse background of fine arts, social psychology and 20-plus years in architecture and sustainability consulting, she brings a variety of skills to her work and a unique perspective engaging the human dynamics of decision-making and creative collaboration to technical work.

10 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES BY CHRISTOPHER PRATT I f we are to apply the Integrated Design Process (IDP) to commercial and residential windows, what sort of windows will we come up with? The process brings together many disciplines and professionals—including community leaders, ecologists, and regular homeowners—to ask questions and question assumptions, leading to more sustainable decisions. It is a process designed to help us break out of entrenched ways of doing “business as usual” and shift to a less catastrophic climate-change trajectory. Windows need to be energy efficient, easy to use, pleasing to look at, and meet the demands of the user. They should also be affordable, widely available, a stimulus to the local economy, and a source of pride for homeowners. As technology advances, even greater improvements could be incorporated into the future of windows, and IDP product decisions should include effects on local community and economy. IDP Helps Define What a High-Performance Window Is What is an IDP high-performance window? Let’s start with a few obvious characteristics: Windows that are super energy-efficient, have a 100-year life span, and never need maintenance. It sounds good, but it is expensive. Affordability is critical to community sustainability. If only 10% of the community can have high efficiency windows, then community benefit is reduced by 90%. This principle is especially important in the context of reducing global carbon emissions. Moderate efficiency for the many has a much greater impact than super-efficiency for the few. The amount of carbon it takes to create efficiency (embodied carbon) is also important to consider: An expensive, more efficient window may also use more carbon in the manufacturing. In some cases, we must emit carbon now to reduce our use in the future, but it is much better to find solutions that can cut emission today. A designer might even reconsider windows that are built to last, but cannot be altered, retrofit, or modified to adapt to improvements. It also matters if the cost of making the windows brings money into the community or siphons it out. Windows should be easy to repair with skilled labor from the community using locally sourced, low carbon-based materials, particularly wood that sequesters carbon. If the cost of the window does not improve the economic condition of the community, then it is not helping to sustain the community and therefore would score low in terms of IDP. Modern window manufacturers have put a lot of time and energy into u-values and low infiltration rates (cfms). The sustainability score would be high except that the cost is high, they do not last that long, they cannot be repaired, and they are not adaptable to new technology. The materials used to make them are carbon-intensive and hazardous to our health. The historic window preservationist Robert Yapp estimates that in 2017, 112 million windows went into U.S landfills every year, and that 56 million of these were less than twenty years old. A holistic, integrated approach helps us see that instantaneous measurement of u-value and cfms, without considering product “life cycle,” are misleading metrics of sustainability. Image credit: Wayne Fawbush Traditional double hung window with low-energy panel “The Integrated Design Process (IDP) is a method for realizing high performance buildings that contribute to sustainable communities. It is a collaborative process that focuses on the design, construction, operation and occupancy of a building over its complete life-cycle. The IDP is designed to allow the client and other stakeholders to develop and realize clearly defined and challenging functional, environmental and economic goals and objectives. The IDP requires a multi-disciplinary design team that includes or acquires the skills required to address all design issues flowing from the objectives. The IDP proceeds from whole building system strategies, working through increasing levels of specificity, to realize more optimally integrated solutions.” — From “The Integrated Design Process: Report on a National Workshop held in Toronto in October 2001” (March 2002) THERE ARE NO REASONS TO REPLACE YOUR OLD WINDOWS

11 NESEA.ORG • FEATURE: NESEA STORIES An expensive window can benefit a community if the profits from a well-made factory window cycle back into the community that receives them, but most of the profits from new windows go out of low- and middleincome communities and into the three or four major window manufactures, their shareholders, and the wealthy communities that they live in. Many will argue that the installation of the new windows brings jobs to the community, but this is usually a short-term economic gain and pales in comparison to the money and well-paying job opportunities that would flow into communities if small weatherization companies were to become the major window providers. Homeowners would have a greater array of choices. Weatherization and restoration work uniquely positions small businesses to compete against corporate manufacturing because there is so little standardization in old windows. The High-Performance Window is Already Here As it turns out, the high-performance windows, as defined in my version of IDP, are here now and already installed in most of our existing homes. The pre-1970 wood window—be it double-hung, single-hung, casement, or awning—meet all the requirements except for one: energy efficiency. The good news is that making them energy efficient is not expensive or difficult. It is already being done at an affordable cost by my company in Central Vermont and another one in Portland, Oregon. Modern technological innovation in glass and weather seals makes it possible to “fully weatherize” the existing wood window. It is affordable, uses local labor, saves on embedded carbon, and is made from the most sustainable materials and highest-quality hardware. They say the future is not located in time, but in place. The future of weatherizing existing windows already exists in central Vermont, and it has for the last ten years. The breakthrough in weatherization came with the addition of a low-e energy panel to the outside of existing windows that allows the two sashes to move past each other. The system does not involve sealing two pieces of glass together, but it creates a dead-air space between the original glass and the added panel that is 90% as efficient as a modern Insulated Glass Units. When I started fixing and restoring old windows in Portland, Oregon in 2006, it was hard to persuade people to keep their old windows. Restoration takes time and money, and in the end, you’d have single-pane windows that were not nearly as energy efficient as replacement windows. Adding a storm window defeats the purpose of showing off a beautiful window, and it comes with its own headaches: it’s inconvenient, has mediocre u-value, and depends on a diligent user. Climate change makes energy efficiency much more important. It is not just a matter of saving money on heating costs, or being more comfortable, but a moral obligation to reduce carbon with its existential consequences for civilization and the planet. In response to the challenges of climate change, in 2009 I developed a system for adding low-e glass to the outside of existing (old wooden) double-hung windows that increased the value of these old windows and inspired me to advocate for fully weatherizing existing single-pane wood windows. The additional glass created a double glazing that was very close to the u-value of a modern replacement window. U-values are R/1, ratings that measure the thermal resistance of glass. Single-pane, single-strength glass has a u-value of 1, standard Insulated Glass Units have a u-value of .35, the energy panel comes in at .42, and triple-pane glass gets down to .25. Put another way: if the outside temperature is 20 below zero (F), then the inside surface of single pane of glass is 0 degrees. The addition of a low-e glass energy panel (double glazing) brings the inside surface of the glass up to 43 degrees. A modern insulated argon filled thermo pane raises it to 48–50 degrees. This tells us that energy panels are about 90% as efficient as a replacement window. A comprehensive weather sealing method and the addition of a low-e glass panel makes weatherization of old windows affordable and effective without having to add a storm window to the exteriors. There are some obstacles to bringing the future to the rest of the country. It is business-as-usual that stands in the way. The repair economy does not exist and the labor force to make it happen does not exist. These are systemic problems that make all change hard. IDP is an important tool for changing business as usual as we work towards reducing carbon emission and becoming more sustainable in general. NESEA is helping many of us become more familiar with it, by making it the theme of this magazine. IDP may have factored into decisions such as bringing new people like Rev. Mariama WhiteHammond* and small innovative companies like mine to the table, letting us tell our stories and put forward our diverse perspective and solutions. If our future depends on the rebirth of a repair economy, it will be value based interdisciplinary organizations like NESEA that will have to lead the charge. *Rev. Mariama White-Hammond delivered the keynote address for the BuildingEnergy NYC 2020 conference. Her presentation was titled “Becoming Transformative Placemakers. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Christopher Pratt lives in East Montpelier Vermont and is the owner of a window weatherization company in Montpelier called Opensash. He built his first window at the age of 16 and designed and built his first house when he was 19. Chris also has a masters degree in forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and he has worked and taught in the field of forestry. Opensash is the perfect union of these two disciplines. Image credit: Cardinal Windows One example interior of glass temperature measurements done by Cardinal Windows

12 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES Integrative design process (IDP) is a collaborative approach to high-performance design that engages disciplines from across a whole project team to find innovative solutions to problems. The IDP approach can be challenging; it requires patience, humility, and flexibility from many parties at once. However, the highperformance outcomes that result from a full embrace of IDP prove its value. This article provides an overview of IDP, describes a new team approach and a new project role that help support IDP success, offers a case study to illustrate how this approach and role contributed to the success of a high-performance building design, and shares lessons learned from that project. Though IDP continues beyond design through the construction and into occupancy, this article focuses on the design phases of a single project. What Is IDP, and What Can it Be? IDP, a project delivery method for high-performance building design, is based on continuous interdisciplinary collaboration. The iterative use of four tools characterizes IDP: • Goal Setting • Charrettes • Analysis & Research • Workshops Client groups, design teams, and construction teams are all active participants in this collaborative process that drives innovative and high-performing solutions. The definition of what constitutes an IDP is codified by LEED and other certification programs. Sometimes, however, project teams follow less of a “process” than a loose idea or talking point—something supplemental rather than integral. When project teams take a postfacto IDP lens to a business-as-usual process, they miss opportunities to push high-performance design even further. Two fundamental changes to business-as-usual can help achieve a truly integrated process: first, a new approach—inclusive and intensively collaborative— adopted by the full design team; second, a new role— “High-Performance Design Lead”—embedded within the architecture firm’s project leadership. The following case study illustrates how adopting a new approach enhanced solutions throughout the design and how the role of “High-Performance Lead” helped keep performance goals on track. Project Overview The team behind the new home for Dartmouth College’s Arthur L. Irving Institute for Energy and Society fully embraced IDP to achieve the project’s energy performance goals. The building’s passive and active strategies include a robust thermal envelope with automated exterior shades, all radiant heat and cooling, and a natural ventilation system with automated operable windows, ceiling fans, and stack-effect ventilation through a glass cavity and rooftop exhaust vent. The building is organized around a central atrium that acts as a public living room, provides daylight to surrounding spaces, serves the natural ventilation exhaust path, and is heated and cooled with radiant floors. This project was uniquely positioned for success; ambitious energy goals and overall project vision were intertwined due to the nature of the program—a research institute focused on the future of energy. The client group and design team brought special expertise, enthusiasm, and dedication to accomplish four project goals: 1. A chieve ultra-low energy consumption (Energy Use Intensity [EUI] < 20 kBtu/sf/yr). 2. Optimize occupant thermal comfort. 3. Minimize the need for mechanical cooling. 4. Express performance through design. Ultimately, the design fulfills these goals: the building anticipates an EUI below 19 kBtu/sf/yr; a natural ventilation system will serve 88% of workspaces and minimize mechanical cooling demands; and energy performance is expressed in the building form, from its three-story double-skin main entry (a natural ventilation stack) to informational displays that will share performance data with building users. Credit for this rigorous integrative design process goes to many participants. High-performance consultants (Transsolar) and MEP engineers (van Zelm Engineers) BY ELAINE HOFFMAN AND ARJUN MANDE Image credit: Goody Clancy Figure 1. East elevation with double-skin glass pavilion serving natural ventilation system. INSIDE OUT: UNPACKING THE INTEGRATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

13 NESEA.ORG • FEATURE: NESEA STORIES helped define major goals, strategies, and solutions. Sustainability consultants (Steven Winter Associates), envelope consultants (3ive), acoustical consultants (Acentech), code consultants (Jensen Hughes), and others played significant roles in the collaborative process. On the client side, the design review committee and donor group were critical to project visioning and design review. The user group, Project Management Services, and Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance (FO&M) teams provided valuable expertise to further efficiency and comfort goals. The construction manager, product engineers, and subcontractors helped streamline design. In short: It took a village to integrate a design process. A New Approach: Inclusive,Collaborative Teamwork The design process behind the Irving Center’s automated natural ventilation system illustrates the benefits of a truly integrative design approach. The three goals for this system were to: 1. M aximize the building area served by natural ventilation. 2. Increase time in natural ventilation mode. 3. I mprove system visibility to promote energy awareness. During the Concept Design phase, the building massing, program layout, and atrium were developed to supply fresh air to as many workspaces as possible. In Schematic Design, a double-skin façade was established as a supplementary natural ventilation exhaust path and the building massing evolved to add a large thermal vent on the main façade to improve the stack effect. Wide-ranging visioning conversations and large-group collaboration throughout these early phases helped build deep support for the project vision. By the time the project reached Design Development, everyone—from engineers, to donors, to building users—was heavily invested in the natural ventilation approach. Nevertheless, as the development of the space program drove the floor plate to become more compartmentalized, providing sufficient fresh air to each space became increasingly challenging. Questions about the practicality of integrating all the automated components came to a head. Our code consultant and energy modeler provided valuable input through workshops and analysis. This collaboration, combined with the project’s wide-ranging support, enabled the team to push through this moment of challenge. Over the course of the project, its performance goals continued to gain momentum. In Construction Documents, office layouts were adjusted to allow for plenum zones to exhaust from the floor plate into the atrium. The natural ventilation system’s exhaust paths were architecturally articulated at significant transfer points in both the interior atrium walls and the exterior thermal vent. The window actuator controls evolved to allow modulated openings to let variable fresh air volumes into the workspaces, accommodating varying occupant thermal comfort and expanding the use of the system into cooler seasons. In more conventional design, the “big moves” impacting energy consumption are established in schematic design and are not expected to significantly impact design in later phases. However, the Irving Center project demonstrates that when a fully integrated team is focused on optimization, energy performance continues to impact architectural moves all the way through to details. As shown in Figure 3, many team members were involved in significant decisions throughout all the design phases. A New Role: High-Performance Design Lead The introduction of the role of High-Performance Design Lead (HDL) on the Irving Institute project was critical to the success of the IDP. The HDL was responsible for overseeing performance goals, coordinating with high-performance and sustainability consultants, tracking performance analysis outputs, and working to ensure that the building design met the performance targets. Due to the technical, managerial, and design-oriented nature of the role, it required a unique combination of communication skills and broad technical knowledge (e.g., building performance concepts and strategies and analytical approaches that bridge performance and design). The importance of the HDL role was underscored in a critical moment in the design process during which, despite the design’s strong support, its functionality was almost compromised. In the middle of the Construction Documents phase, several of the control layers at the double-skin space and executive conference room appeared to be in conflict. The system had been carefully coordinated throughout each phase, and as each component was finalized, sized, and detailed, the team reconvened to ensure that each piece was fully coordinated. Even so, space was constricted at the connection point between the ceiling plenum and the Image credit: Goody Clancy Figure 2. Section persepctive showing pathways for natural ventilation system.

14 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES double skin, and the design lacked a simple solution to maintain thermal and acoustical barriers while allowing sufficient airflow and separation between the plenum and the double-skin exhaust cavity. At one point, the team even considered eliminating the airflow through the double-skin. At this point, the HDL distilled the problem into manageable pieces for each discipline to tackle. Based on careful tracking of each team member’s concerns, the HDL diagrammed how various control layers were coming into conflict, proposed several design iterations to address individual aspects of the problem, and reviewed them with each expert. This provided a starting point—and a process: the best ideas of the whole team were captured and brought together into an elegant solution that maintained the full functionality of the doubleskin cavity. Again, without this high-performance champion facilitating the problem-solving, a creative solution might not have been identified. LESSONS LEARNED 1. Inclusive integrative processes take work. “Integrative” process could be assumed to imply an “inclusive” process. IDP actually makes inclusivity, particularly related to staff levels, more challenging. When so many disciplines are involved, it may only be practical to have one or two experts from each discipline present for large group meetings; and with so much time dedicated to charettes, workshops, and coordination, efficiency is prioritized. Even when young professionals are present, having everyone in the same room does not automatically translate to everyone being heard. An inclusive integrative process requires commitment to engaged listening from all parties, as well as clear and consistent communication to team members not in attendance. 2. Process fatigue is real. IDP can appear to have a linear progression when viewed in hindsight, but in practice, refining decisions in a large group over multiple years can be fatiguing. IDP requires a high level of flexibility and patience from team members. Establishing shared goals at the outset of the project is essential to maintaining commitment to the process throughout the project. While the cyclical nature of collaborative design work can be tiring, the result is strengthened by those cycles of evolution. 3. I nterdisciplinary thinking makes us smarter (but nobody knows everything). Unfortunately, collaboration does not give rise to a new, collective intelligence within a team. Instead, IDP depends on continued coordination as the design develops and evolves. In an integrated system, where small changes can ripple throughout, it is usually impossible for one discipline to anticipate precisely how one change in the system will impact all project constraints. Recognizing the limitations of collaboration is important to managing expectations. Image credit: Goody Clancy Figure 3. Design evolution and key team members of the natural ventilation (NV) system. CONT’D—INSIDE OUT: UNPACKING THE INTEGRATIVE DESIGN PROCESS

15 NESEA.ORG • FEATURE: NESEA STORIES CONCLUSION A truly integrative design process requires attention, engaged listening, and active participation. While members of the design team work in parallel, they are interdependent on each other’s expertise, resulting in a process that is less hierarchical, more robust, and arguably more successful than conventional design decision-making. An embedded project role focused on facilitating integrated design and high-performance goals helps teams meet ambitious targets. As architects shift toward taking more responsibility for the quantitative impacts of their design, the High-Performance Design Lead will play the pivotal role of translating expertise and analytics into design parameters and solutions, thereby improving project performance and helping to accelerate the AEC industry’s contribution to a more sustainable future. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Elaine Hoffman is an architect at Goody Clancy, focusing on high-performance design and championing the use of analytical modeling as a design tool. She has been a certified Passive House Consultant with the Passive House Institute U.S. (PHIUS) since 2017. She has been co-chair of her office’s 2030 committee since 2015, stewarding the firm-wide effort to tackle technical and communication challenges around sustainability. Her background in environmental studies expands project issues into firm-wide conversations about the impacts of our buildings on the natural environment. Arjun Mande provides design leadership across a broad spectrum of educational projects including student life, research, and teaching spaces. He is motivated to create buildings that are beautiful, sustainable, and healthy. As an architect and urban designer, Arjun envisions buildings that are both distinctive and that contribute to shaping a broader campus setting. His award-winning work includes new construction, additions, and transformations of existing buildings. As an Associate Principal, Arjun has held lead design roles on multiple Goody Clancy projects over the past 14 years and is one of the firm’s sustainable design advocates.

16 • BUILDINGENERGY VOL. 40. NO. 1 | 2021 FEATURE: NESEA STORIES Integrated Design Process and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD/IDP) are often the first lessons taught in sustainable design. These processes aim to address climate change impact through interdisciplinary collaboration by disrupting common work silos. While they share common goals, IPD extends its reach through project delivery and factors in the means of construction. Addressing climate change means accounting for carbon emissions beyond project delivery, into specification, operation, renovation, demolition, and recycling. As sustainable building certifications strive toward zero carbon buildings, prefabrication is one process with great potential for scaling up delivery. As technology accelerates manufacturing, our industry will deliver buildings at rates previously unimagined. How do we quickly capture the full potential of prefabrication and better yet, integrate our 2030 goals? As author of the 2030 Challenge, Edward Mazria notes, “Immediate actions are critical to accomplish the 65% emissions reduction target by 2030. If we act quickly and responsibly, we have an excellent chance of staying within the 1.5˚C budget.”1 Here is the journey of three teams rethinking IPD and prefabrication using the Single Integrated Manufacturing Modeling (SIMM™) approach, developed by Holzraum System. These retrospectives reimagine the possibilities such a system can deliver. A SIMMple Scale Up for IPD and Prefabrication Currently, many popular tools for collaboration and delivery, such as 3D Building Information Models (BIM), allow for rich visualizations and the idea of a digital twin (a virtual representation of a physical object or assembly). But these tools are predominantly “symbol based” to capture design intent, then printed as 2D construction drawings and retired after project close-out. However, CDs are not a building, and they can’t make the jump to prefabrication. They assume shop drawings will be made by others and they won’t ‘plug and play’ with production machinery or production lines. Conversely, “parts-based” models made specifically for prefabrication are often created by panel manufacturers to include only their delivery scope. These models are also typically delivered as 2D drawings and commonly retired during project close-out. Meanwhile, sustainable design teams are sharing sketches, 2D linework, 3D models, PDF plans, site photos, meetings, phone calls, emails, specifications, pricing, and more. Mistakes and silos between design intent and fabrication can result in parts that don’t match up on site and in vast, lost opportunities for increased sustainability and alignment of stakeholder goals. This is where a SIMM, based on accurate and data attached parts, comes into play. In order to fill in the holes in symbol-based models and prepare for prefabrication, a “psed” model which defines every wall, floor, and roof to include every single manufacturable and quantifiable part is necessary. The design time and cost is factored into the overall efficiency of panel production. But why stop there: Why not generate a high fidelity, digital twin for the entire building? The SIMM can be used during each team meeting to iterate and define details, sequencing, materials, and attached data, and to translate design intent volumes into actual parts and assemblies. In turn, SIMM can produce a visual record of ideas, shop drawings, schedules, and pricing. Once a holistic, parts-based model is virtually constructed, it begins to offer limitless opportunities as an evolving visual database that can store and release project data in very organized ways. SIMM can guide present and future operational, performance, and repurposing goals and can stay accessible throughout and beyond the building’s lifecycle. So why are paper drawings still being delivered to builders, jurisdictions, owners, and operators when a data-rich hotlinked 3D model would allow all these players more rapid integration for their sustainable benchmarking goals, maintenance, and troubleshooting? If the goal is to improve our collective building stock, why aren’t our certified details and metrics attached to a SIMM that can be referenced, recycled, and reenvisioned by all future users? If our buildings live on, why don’t our models? SMALL FIRMS BIG GOALS The following case studies highlight two project teams that used SIMM to design, build, and deliver two low carbon panelized Passive Houses: Artview House a 21st-century A SINGLE INTEGRATED MODEL, CONNECTING THE PARTS OF IPD Image Credit: Holzraum System | Teufel S.I.M.M. Coordination Meeting BY ILKA CASSIDY, STEVE HESSLER, KYLE P. MACHT, AND SHANNON PENDLETON

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzM2NTU=