SUGISAKAMASANORI

Journal of Robotics, Networking and Artificial Life
Vol. 9(2); September (2022), pp. 187–191
ISSN (Online):2352-6386; ISSN (Print):2405-9021
https://alife-robotics.org/jrnal.html

Research Article

The Intelligent Building Assessment Framework and Weight:
Application of Fuzzy AHP
Li-Min Chuang1, Yu-Po Lee2, Chien-Chih Kuo3

The Department of International Business, Chang Jung Christian University, No. 1, Changda Rd., Gueiren District, Tainan City, 711301, Taiwan
The Ph.D. Program in Business and Operations Management, College of Management, Chang Jung Christian University, No. 1, Changda Rd.,
Gueiren District, Tainan City, 711301, Taiwan
12Chien Chang Construction Co., Ltd., No. 88, Wencheng Rd., North Dist., Tainan City, 702029, Taiwan

3

ARTIC LE INFO
Article History
Received 25 November 2021
Accepted 15 July 2022

Keywords
Intelligent building
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Expert decision evaluation

ABSTRACTThe main objective of this study is to probe how Taiwanese building investment anddevelopment companies rate the analytical framework and weights of artificial intelligencebuildings. Document Analysis, the Delphi method, and the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process(FAHP) are applied to conduct a FAHP questionnaire survey among 20 building investment
and development companies in Tainan. Based on the calculation of composite weights, thefindings are: (1) The most crucial evaluation indicator for security and hazard prevention is the“access control system”. (2) The most crucial evaluation indicator for energy-saving
management is “energy-saving technology”. (3) The most crucial evaluation indicator for
health and comfort is the “interior comfort system”. (4) The most crucial evaluation indicator
for intelligent innovation is the “intelligent innovation concept”.

© 2022 The Author. Published by Sugisaka Masanori at ALife Robotics Corporation Ltd
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

1. Introduction

focuses on the evaluation indicators of different editionsof the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual as well as
the key factors and cost comparisons for the introductionof smart systems or equipment. However, there was noresearch exploring the impact of functional option
indicator groups (safety and disaster prevention,energy-saving management, health and comfort, andsmart innovation) on intelligent building or the views ofconstruction investment developers. Therefore, it is aworthy research topic to explore the analysis framework
and weight of Taiwanese construction investment anddevelopment industry's evaluation of intelligent building.
Compared with foreign countries, the start of intelligent
building in Taiwan is relatively late, thus encouraging
domestic construction investment and development
companies to rush to intelligent building with innovative
smart concepts as the starting point and provide digitalIn the 21st century, humankind is facing the problems ofglobal warming, climate change, urban overdevelopment,
and the greenhouse effect, which have led to high global
temperatures, depletion of forests, destruction of theozone layer, and the frequent occurrence of extreme
weather phenomena. As humankind is unable to resist
the relentless forces of nature, in order to mitigate thedamage to the earth’s environment and pursue the goalof global sustainable development, many developed
countries have embarked on the construction of
intelligent and sustainable cities, and further developed
the concept of Intelligent Buildings (IB). Therefore, themain reason for the growing trend of intelligent
buildings in Taiwan and abroad is the transition of thehuman living environment.
Looking back on the related research on intelligent
building issues, the past research orientation generally

Corresponding author’s Email: liming@gmail.com, davidlitw@yahoo.com, kenkuo68@hotmail.com

187and convenient residential services, which has indeed
attracted the attention of many consumer groups. It is
worth noting that cost is currently the biggest obstacle tointroducing smart innovation systems and equipment.
Construction development investors must also think
about how to maintain the life cycle of buildings, try to
reduce the follow-up maintenance costs of smart
systems and equipment and create new value for theintelligent building. In this way, it will definitely help toimprove the public's acceptance of intelligent building.
This study proposes two connotations for intelligent
buildings. One is to create a human living space basedon a combination of green architecture and green
building materials, which must provide users with safer,
healthier, more convenient, comfortable, andenergy-efficient living environments. The second is tointroduce the concept of Intelligent Innovation into theplanning and design of buildings to create a new valueof intelligent buildings. The introduction of intelligent
systems and devices helps maintain and extend the life
cycle of buildings, and provides the best solution to theenergy consumption of buildings.
Objectives of this study are to:(i)Construct an initial hierarchical structureof intelligent building evaluation models, as basedon the theories described in the Intelligent Building
Evaluation Manual.
(ii)
Adopt an expert decision-making
approach to evaluate the analytical framework ofintelligent buildings and construct a definitive
hierarchical structure of intelligent building
evaluation models.
(iii)
Apply Fuzzy AHP to calculate therespective weights of the 4 primary dimensions and12 evaluation indicators of the intelligent building
evaluation model.

managing energy and comfort calculations [5]. Nguyen
et al. reviewed, analyzed, and classified the different
building optimization problems, as well as thealgorithms, tools, and operations used to optimize
building energy management systems until 2013 [6].
Evins et al. encapsulated the construction, operation, andenergy production of intelligent and sustainablebuildings for design and control systems until 2012 [7].
For building developers, the key reason for introducing
intelligent systems and devices is cost, hence, it isessential to understand what design requirements cansatisfy an intelligent home. The 2016 edition of theIntelligent Building Standards Evaluation Manual
includes eight evaluation criteria, incorporates
convenience features into health and comfort, and adds
intelligent innovation.
Intelligent buildings take into account many parameters
and anticipate customer needs from a contextual andsystemic perspective. As for the parameters that should
be considered in Intelligent buildings, many literatures
put forward their views separately, such as: popularity,maintenance and development costs, culture,cost-effectiveness. Thompson et al. Intelligent buildings
consider the ability to adapt to environmental changes[8]. Brad and Murar put forward from the perspective ofperformance and operation: comfort, adaptability,
reducing life cycle costs and improving the control ofavailable resources, etc. [9]. In short, in addition totechnological factors, Intelligent buildings are concernedwith the sustainability of their use and whether they canconform to their beliefs.
3. Evaluation Model Building for Intelligent
Buildings
3.1. Hierarchical StructureThis study combines the results of two rounds of Delphi
questionnaires to construct a definitive hierarchicalstructure for the intelligent building evaluation model,
which consists of 4 primary dimensions and 12
evaluation indicators, as shown in Figure 1.

2. Literature ReviewBased on the requirements of the main occupants andbuilding facilities, intelligent buildings can be classified
as automated buildings, intelligent homes, green
buildings, efficient buildings, and energy efficientbuildings that exchange with the grid [1,2,3].
Dounis et al. reviewed the control systems built up to2008, and proposed a framework to analyze
intelligence-led energy and comfort control systems [4].
Shaikh et al. reviewed the building control systems
optimized up to 2013, which were divided into
intelligent controllers and intelligent methods of

3.2. Subject of this study
In order to investigate how Taiwanese building
investment and development companies rate theanalytical framework and weights of intelligent
buildings, this study took the building developers inTainan as the study subject, and 8 experts were selected
for the Delphi method and 20 for the FAHP
questionnaire. In addition, prior to the FAHP
188

questionnaire survey, the researcher first explained theobjective of this study to the FAHP questionnaire

subjects, and conducted the FAHP survey amongbuilding developers who were willing to participate.

Fig. 1. Intelligent building evaluation model
4. Empirical Study of the Intelligent Building
Evaluation ModelIn this study, 9 evaluation indicators are multiplied bytheir respective dimensions to obtain the composite
weights. Table 1 presents the composite weights of theintelligent building evaluation model.
As indicated in Table 1, the most crucial evaluation
indicator, as perceived by the 12 building developers, isthe “access control system” (with the composite weightof 0.235), and “energy-saving technology” (with thecomposite weight of 0.175) is ranked 2nd. The 3rdindicator is the “emergency hazard prevention andrescue system” (with the composite weight of 0.102),
4th place is the “interior comfort system” (with thecomposite weight of 0.085), and 5th is the “intelligentinnovation concept” (with the composite weight of0.073). Ranked from 6th to 12th place, respectively:“energy-saving device efficiency” (with the composite
weight of 0.064), “fire and water prevention system”(with the composite weight of 0.061), “renewableenergy facilities” (with the composite weight of 0.060),“life service system” (with the composite weight of0.053), “intelligent innovation design” (with thecomposite weight of 0.034), “intelligent innovationdevice” (with the composite weight of 0.030), and“health management system” (with the composite
weight of 0.028).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
The four key findings of this study are listed below:
5.1. The most crucial evaluation indicator for
security and hazard prevention is the “access controlsystem”
Building developers considered “Security and hazardprevention” as the most crucial dimension, with “accesscontrol system” being the most significant. This findingis aligned with the results of a survey conducted by theTaiwan Architecture & Building Center and the Taiwan
Intelligent Building Association in 2013 regarding the“Application of Intelligent Building Adoption inTaiwan”. For the public, whether they choose a
traditional or intelligent building, the primary evaluation

Table 1. The composite weights of the intelligent building
evaluation model189

factor is whether life and property are protected. It isalso worth noting that the added value of intelligent
homes is ex-ante proactive prevention of hazards byusing various modern technologies to make homesintelligent, which allows for both burglary and hazard
prevention, thereby reducing the chance of hazards
occurring in homes, as well as minimizing the loss oflife and property.

innovation concept” being the most significant. The
main reason for this is the recent surge of intelligent
cities across the world, and the increasing popularity ofintelligent systems and devices, which indicates thatmany people have a certain level of understanding of theconcept of intelligent buildings, including security,
energy saving, health, and comfort.
5.5. Research Limitations

5.2. The most crucial evaluation indicator forenergy-saving management is the “energy-savingtechnology”

5.5.1. Research methods
This study refers to the Intelligent Building Evaluation
Manual 2016 edition proposed by the Architecture andBuilding Research Institute, MOI (2015), as thetheoretical foundation, based on which the intelligent
building evaluation model is established. Then the AHP
questionnaires were adopted to collect research data.
The research field belongs to quantitative research.
However, the respondents of the AHP questionnaire may
still be interfered by factors such as personal practicalexperience and the domestic development trend ofintelligent building when filling out the AHP
questionnaire, which may result in non-objective
answers.
5.5.2. Research objects
The research tool of this study is the AHP questionnaire,
and the construction investment and development
companies in southern Taiwan are the main subjects of
the AHP questionnaire. Whether the four dimensions of
the intelligent building evaluation model and the weightsof the twelve evaluation indicators in this study are
sufficient to represent the position and investment
picture of Taiwan's construction industry needs to befurther explored in the follow-up research.

developers
considered“energy-savingBuildingmanagement” as the second most crucial dimension,
with “energy-saving technology” being the mostsignificant, which implies that the majority of building
developers agree that the application of energy-saving
management systems in intelligent homes is both animportant design trend and a major marketing pitch.
This is probably due to the fact that energy-saving is an
important indicator for evaluating whether an intelligent
home can achieve significant energy savings after theintroduction of energy-saving devices, such as
intelligent air-conditioning and lighting with intelligent
energy control technology. In other words, in addition to
the need for ex-ante proactive prevention of burglary
and hazard, the main consideration for intelligent homes
includes the benefits of using energy-saving devices,such as economic efficiency and energy-savingeffectiveness.
5.3. The most crucial evaluation indicator for healthand comfort is the “interior comfort system”
Building developers considered “health and comfort” as
the third most crucial dimension, with the “interiorcomfort system” being the most significant, which isprobably because the main objective of intelligent
buildings is to create a safe, comfortable, and healthy
home environment. This objective relies heavily on theintegration and linkage between the respective
automated systems and energy-saving devices; forexample, through intelligent technology, people canremotely activate or set a fixed time to switch on thepower, which allows intelligent air conditioning tocreate a comfortable living environment, and people canenjoy cool air when they return home.

5.6. Recommendations for follow-up research5.6.1. Research methods
Intelligent buildings are emerging research topics inrecent years. Domestic related research generally
focuses on the exploration of light-current systems andequipment. In addition, the Architecture and Building
Research Institute, MOI, proposed three editions of theIntelligent Building Evaluation Manual on scientificquantification in 2003, 2011, and 2016 respectively. In
order to avoid the possibility of non-objective answers
in quantitative research, it is suggested in this study thatthe interview outlines required for qualitative research
can be designed in the follow-up research. According tothe AHP questionnaire objects of this study, construction
investment and development industry experts wereinterviewed, which can make up for the shortcomings ofquantitative research and gain valuable first-handinformation.

5.4. The most crucial evaluation indicator for
intelligent innovation is the “intelligent innovation
concept”
Building developers considered “intelligent innovation”
as the least crucial dimension, with the “intelligent190

5.6.2. Research objects
Since the main markets of the AHP questionnaire objects
are not subdivided into northern, central, and southern
Taiwan regions, the main markets are mainly located in
Tainan in the south of Taiwan. As a result, whether theintelligent building evaluation model constructed in thisstudy can be applied to northern, central, or southern
Taiwan other than Tainan must be further investigatedby follow-up research.
Besides, it is also suggested in this study that subsequent
research can compare the differences in the evaluation
model of smart housing in this study in different regions
under the premise that research time, cost and otherresources are sufficient. In addition, this study alsosuggests that follow-up research can compare thedifferences in the intelligent building evaluation modelin this study in different regions under the premise thatthe research time, cost, and other resources are
sufficient.

Authors Introduction
Dr. Li-Min Chuang

He received the Ph.D. degree from
theNational
Cheng
Kung
University. He is currently an
associate professor and department
head at the Department ofInternational Business at Chang
Jung Christian University, Taiwan.
His research interests focus on
strategic management, innovation
management, and service innovation.
Mr. Yu-Po LeeConflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.

He works as the manager in the Wei
Shin Aluminum Company for morethan 30 years. He received hisMaster's degree from the EMBA,
Chang Jung Christian University in2012. He is currently studying for adoctoral program at Chang Jung
Christian University in Taiwan.

Mr. Chien-Chih Kuo
He received his Master's degreefromChangJung
ChristianUniversity, Taiwan in 2015. He is achairmanofChieh
Chang
Construction Co., Ltd., and Tainan
Judicious Creative ArchitectureAssociation.

References

1.
J. Wong, H. Li, S. Wang, Intelligent building research: areview, Autom. Constr. 14 (1) (2005) 143–159.
2.
M. Wigginton, J. Harris, Intelligent Skin, ArchitecturalPress, United Kingdom, 2002.
3.
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings
Technical Report Series- Whole-Building Controls, Sensors,
Modeling, and Analytics, US Department of Energy,
December 2019.
4.
A.I. Dounis, C. Caraiscos, Advanced control systems
engineering for energy and comfort management in a building
environment - a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009)
1246–1261.
5.
P. Shaikh, N. Nor, P. Nallagownden, I. Elamvazuthi, T.
Ibrahim, A review on optimized control systems for building
energy and comfort management of smart sustainablebuildings, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 34 (2014) 409–429.
6.
A.T. Nguyen, S. Reiter, P. Rigo, A review onsimulation-based optimization methods applied to building
performance analysis, Appl. Energy 113 (2014) 1043–1058.
7.
R. Evins, A review of computational optimisation
methods applied to sustainable building design, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 22 (2013) 230–245.
8.
M. Thompson, I. Cooper, B. Gething. The Business
Case for Adapting Buildings to Climate Change: Niche orMainstream? Innovate UK, 2014.
9.
B.S. Brad, M.M. Murar, Smart Buildings Using IoT
Technologies, Constructions of Unique Buildings andStructures. 5 (2014) 20 15–27.

191