This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

NIST Technical Note 1849 

Roadmap for Building 

Commissioning Research 

Workshop Summary Report 

Natascha Milesi Ferretti 

Steven T. Bushby 

David Shipley 

Walter Zalis 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

NIST Technical Note 1849 

Roadmap for Building 

Commissioning Research 

Workshop Summary Report 

Natascha Milesi Ferretti 

Steven T. Bushby 

Energy and Environment Division 

Engineering Laboratory 

David Shipley 

ICF International, ASHRAE TC 7.9 Research Chair 

Ottawa, Canada 

Walter Zalis 

Energetics Incorporated 

Columbia, MD 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849 

September 2014 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

 document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1849 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1849, 27 pages (September 2014) 

CODEN: NTNOEF 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	iv	

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many thanks are given to all who participated in the webinar workshop on Building Commissioning 

Research and Measurement Science Needs. The presentations and discussions that took place at the 

workshop provided the foundation for this report. A complete list of attendees is provided in Appendix A. 

A special thanks is also due to ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.9 on Building Commissioning who 

provided important information that the webinar workshop was based on. 

Special thanks are extended to the members of the workshop planning committee, speakers, and others that 

assisted in this effort, listed below. 

Planning Committee 

Natascha Milesi Ferretti, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

David Shipley, ICF International, ASHRAE TC 7.9 Research Chair 

Joan Pellegrino, Energetics Incorporated 

Leslie Nicholls, Energetics Incorporated 

Walter Zalis, Energetics Incorporated 

Speakers 

Natascha Milesi Ferretti, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

David Shipley, ICF International, ASHRAE TC 7.9 Research Chair 

Other Contributors 

Additional thanks to Ryan Colker at the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and the 

Commissioning Leaders Council, as well as George Hernandez and Benjamin Goldstein of the Department 

of Energy for their assistance in creating this workshop. 

Thanks are also due to the administrative and conference support staff, especially Michael Vaughn and 

Tara Thomas (ASHRAE), Jessica Knapstein and Rebecca Price (Energetics Incorporated) and Sandra 

Heckman (NIST) who made sure that the many important meeting details were handled properly and 

efficiently. 

Hard copies of this report can be obtained by contacting Sandra Heckman at 301-975-4112 or 

sandra.heckman@nist.gov. 

Cover photo credit: Istock image #11422750 

   
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	v	

This page left intentionally blank 

   
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	vi	

PREFACE 

This report summarizes the results of the Building Commissioning Research and Measurement 

Science Needs Webinar Workshop held on April 29, 2014, sponsored by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology with assistance from ASHRAE. This effort supports ongoing research 

in building commissioning, a practice that has a significant potential for reducing energy 

consumption in existing and new buildings. This report documents an assessment of research 

needs in the commissioning industry to provide the information necessary for making informed 

research investment decisions. To that end, this report organizes and presents input from the 

building industry on the state of the building commissioning industry, the research priorities 

associated with it, and the measurement science necessary to support technological advances. 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	vii	

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................ vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... viii

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

A. Overview .................................................................................................................... 1

B. Background................................................................................................................ 1

C. Workshop Objectives and Scope ............................................................................... 2

II. Barriers Facing Building Commissioning ........................................................... 3

III. Building Commissioning Research Gaps ........................................................... 5

IV. Building Commissioning Measurement Science Needs .................................. 8

V. Building Commissioning Prioritization Survey ................................................ 10

A. Description ............................................................................................................. 10

B. Prioritization Survey Results ................................................................................... 11

VI. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 12

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 14

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX A: List of Contributors .......................................................................... 16

APPENDIX B: Workshop Agenda ............................................................................. 18
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	viii	

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Building commissioning (Cx) has a significant potential for reducing energy consumption in 

existing and new buildings. The last decade has seen a significant increase in market adoption of 

building commissioning but significant barriers remain to the widespread implementation (GBIG 

2014, CaCx 2008), International Energy Agency Annex 40 presented an international assessment 

of research needs for commissioning (IEA 2004) and Frank et al. (2007) presented a state of the 

art review for commissioning low energy buildings in the U.S. but there has not been a more 

recent assessment of research needs in the commissioning industry to provide the information 

necessary for making informed research investment decisions. Consequently, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.9 on 

Building Commissioning (TC 7.9) sought input from key stakeholders to assess the state of the 

building commissioning industry, with the following objectives: to identify research priorities and 

identify measurement science needed to enable technological advances. 

This report presents the outcomes of a facilitated discussion among building commissioning 

experts to identify gaps in building commissioning research and measurement science needs. 

These insights, which focus on energy, will provide guidance for future efforts that could 

facilitate adoption of more effective building commissioning practices. 

The participating industry experts have made it clear that there are specific priorities in building 

commissioning research and measurement science that need to be addressed (see Figure E1). 

Specifically, research that demonstrates the benefits and return on investment (ROI) of 

commissioning to building owners is key in promoting mass adoption of building commissioning. 

E1: Workshop Results 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	ix	

Building owners must be assured that changes in building design and operation for increased 

energy efficiency will not affect occupant health within the building. Education and certification 

components within building commissioning are also clearly important, according to experts. 

Building commissioning providers need methods to inform building owners about the building 

commissioning process, and how it can benefit their buildings and their bottom line. Strict 

certification requirements for building commissioning providers will help maintain uniformity in 

the industry and provide confidence to building owners that they will receive a service of 

consistent quality. 

While several measurement science needs were identified, participants made one a clear priority; 

to develop a standardized measurement protocol for measuring actual building performance 

before and after building commissioning. This priority would effectively set a baseline for 

building commissioning evaluation. This priority will require the development of key 

performance metrics that are then integrated into the building design process and into operations. 

The three other secondary priorities in measurement science for building commissioning focus on 

standardizing cost/benefit analysis in the industry, proper guidelines for metering, and protocols 

for a standard criteria when evaluating buildings in building commissioning. 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	1	

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Overview 

Building commissioning (Cx) is 

a quality control process for the 

design, construction and 

operation of buildings, in which 

requirements are determined 

while considering 

environmental effects, energy 

and facility usage. The 

commissioning process is 

executed in order to realize the 

performance of buildings’ 

systems requested in the 

owner's project requirements 

through the life of the building. 

Commissioning of new and 

existing buildings has been shown to reduce energy usage and can also produce non-energy 

related benefits such as improved occupant comfort (Mills et al. 2009, Effinger et al. 2009, 

Friedman et al 2012,). When compared with other initiatives such as installation of high 

efficiency equipment or installing photovoltaic systems, commissioning can be highly costeffective, resulting in short investment payback periods. Despite these proven benefits, 

commissioning is still not business as usual. 

B. Background 

Building commissioning has a significant potential for reducing energy consumption in existing 

and new buildings and the last decade has seen a significant increase in market adoption, but 

significant barriers remain to the widespread implementation of these quality control processes. 

In 2000, the International Energy Agency conducted two international workshops to assess the 

research needs for commissioning. The international assessment of research needs for 

commissioning and to develop a work plan that would make progress in those areas. The result 

was IEA Annex 40, an international research project that was conducted between 2000 and 2004 

(IEA 2004). In the U.S., Frank et al. (2007) presented a state of the art review for commissioning 

low energy buildings but there has not been a more recent, published assessment of research 

needs in the commissioning industry to provide the information necessary for making informed 

research investment decisions. Since 2007, there has not been a published assessment of research 

needs in the commissioning industry to provide the information is necessary for making informed 

research investment decisions. Prior to the workshop, the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) and members of ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.9 Building 

Commissioning (TC 7.9) conducted a literature review and developed an initial list of gaps in 

research and measurement science for building commissioning. This list provided a seed for the 

workshop discussions and highlighted a number of commissioning barriers: 

(Photo credit: Istock image #2353167)
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	2	

 Lack of information on the life cycle cost impacts of commissioning, 

 Lack of knowledge and acceptance of commissioning, 

 Technical knowledge gaps, and 

 Lack of systems to support the commissioning process. 

Workshop discussions also covered a full spectrum of 

measurement science needs, as shown in Figure 1. The 

availability of measurement science for building 

commissioning will be critical as the industry moves forward. 

For example, effective measurements and standards could: 

 Provide a foundation for commerce, 

 Enable interchangeability (hardware and software), 

 Lower costs and simplify training, 

 Provide a basis for agreement on deliverables and 

specifications, and 

 Promote reliability and repeatability in investigations. 

C. Workshop Objectives and Scope 

The overall objectives were to identify 1) critical gaps in building commissioning research; 2) 

needs for measurement science having the greatest potential impact for improving standard 

practice; and 3) where government funded (or co-funded) research would be of the most benefit 

to industry. All types of building commissioning were discussed, including new buildings, 

existing buildings, and retrofits, with a focus on energy commissioning. 

Workshop organizers invited over 120 experts within the building commissioning field from 80 

organizations, resulting in participation from over 50 individuals from over 40 organizations (The 

participants are listed in Appendix A of this report). During the two discussion periods of the 

workshop (research gaps and measurement science needs), participants were invited to share their 

ideas. 

The outputs of the discussion were a set of research gaps and measurement science needs for 

building commissioning along with possible strategies to meet these challenges. Post-event, a 

survey was developed to enable stakeholders to prioritize the R&D gaps and needs in terms of 

urgency. More information on the survey can be found in Section V of this report. 

This report presents the outcomes of the workshop, organized around the primary objectives of 

barriers, research gaps, and measurement science needs. It is anticipated that the priorities 

identified here will help to guide future research and development and related measurement 

science activities among those working in the building commissioning field. 

 

Figure1. Broad Aspect of 

Measurement Science:

 Reference Data 

 Reference Materials 

 Measurement Methods 

 Methods of Test 

 Test beds 

 Predictive Tools 

 Performance Metrics 

 Comparison Studies 

 Assessment of Technologies 

 Information Models 

 Protocols 

 Technical Guidelines 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	3	

II. Barriers Facing Building 

Commissioning 

Through a literature review, stakeholder discussion and in prior meetings of TC 7.9

(http://tc79.ashraetcs.org/research.html), several barriers were identified and presented during this 

workshop, as shown in Table 1. These have given rise to potential research concepts in the areas 

of: 1) Impact of commissioning on the life cycle cost of a building; 2) Awareness and acceptance 

of commissioning; 3) System support for commissioning, and 4) Measurement science needs. 

Table 1. Barriers Identified for Building Commissioning

Barrier Details on Gaps 

Lack of information 

on the life cycle cost 

impacts of 

commissioning 

 Accurate upfront estimates of commissioning costs 

 Effects of commissioning on subsequent owning and operating costs 

 Data on the performance impacts of faults that commissioning would 

be expected to fix 

 Data on the comfort impacts of faults that commissioning would be 

expected to fix 

 Field data on the impact of commissioning on the performance of 

specific pieces of equipment, such as rooftop units, variable air 

volume boxes, and direct digital control systems 

 Data on the persistence of commissioning savings 

 Limited understanding of how technology can be used for maximum 

benefit 

 Quantifying true value of Cx 

 Demonstrating return on investment (ROI) of Cx 

Lack of knowledge 

and acceptance of 

commissioning on 

the part of various 

stakeholders 

 Convincing building owners to invest in the Cx process 

 Convincing operators to act on building commissioning 

opportunities 

Lack of Cx 

stakeholder 

coordination 

 Ineffective teams (including building operators, design practitioners, 

contractors and subcontractors, code officials) 

 Need to capture the relevant building design information from the 

design phase and make that available for use in improving building 

operations 

Lack of systems to 

support the 

commissioning 

process 

 Building design information needed during the commissioning 

process and subsequent building operation 

 Standard of practice for functional testing 

 User interfaces to building energy management systems that enable 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	4	

operators to perform ongoing commissioning 

 Agreed upon naming conventions 

 Data accessibility 

 Issues with metadata 

Measurement 

Science Needs 

 Lack of a metric for “goodness” of control loop tuning 

 Applicability of sampling techniques in commissioning 

 Metrics to evaluate the performance of automated tools/ expert tools 

 Improved measurement and verification of commissioning impacts 

 Lack of tools for evaluating the performance of mechanical systems 

such as automated fault detection and diagnostic systems 

 Identifying monitoring points in control systems to support the 

commissioning process 

 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	5	

III. Building Commissioning Research 

Gaps 

Building commissioning experts were asked to provide input to the following focus question to 

identify gaps and priorities in building commissioning research: 

“What are the gaps in building commissioning research outside of those identified by 

ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.9 on Building Commissioning and pre-workshop 

literature review?” 

Participants were provided with an example answer which included a barrier, a research gap, and 

a strategy to overcome that barrier/gap: 

A number of important themes emerged from this discussion as summarized in Table 2. 

Table 2. Building Commissioning Research Barriers, Gaps and Strategies 

Building 

Commissioning 

Barrier 

Building Commissioning 

Research Gap 

Proposed Strategies 

Lack of 

information on 

the life cycle cost 

impacts of 

commissioning

 No standard way to 

document the benefits/ROI 

of Cx: Quantifying costs 

and benefits across Cx 

types. 

 The need for and the 

benefits of having data 

measurement tools in the 

field. 

 Research to determine best way to 

share the benefits of commissioning 

and the drivers that affect an owner’s 

approach to the Cx process. 

 A continuous building performance 

monitoring system that allows for 

intermittent review, and involves all 

stakeholders would help demonstrate 

the value of Cx. 

 Research to quantify occupant 

comfort and air quality vs. energy 

efficiency/savings. 

Barrier Research Gap Strategy

Lack of a method for

measuring how

well‐tuned a loop is

A common

metric for loop

“goodness”

Identify alternatives

and evaluate how

well new metrics

describe loop

“goodness”
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	6	

Lack of 

knowledge and 

acceptance of 

commissioning on 

the part of 

various 

stakeholders 

Lack of information available 

to demonstrate the value of 

ongoing Cx vs. occasional Cx 

to building owners. 

Ensuring Cx providers possess the proper 

tools to educate building owners of 

ongoing Cx benefits and necessity. 

Develop Ongoing Cx toolbox for Cx 

providers, and sufficient proof of benefits 

of ongoing Cx. 

Lack of educational programs 

for building owners/customers 

on benefits of Cx (monetary, 

comfort/productivity and 

energy efficiency). 

Training curricula to help guide building 

owners through the Cx process while 

demonstrating the benefits of Cx actions. 

Lack of guidance for 

integrated building operations 

in Cx. 

Guidance for the commissioning of 

multiple building systems and their 

interactions (HVAC, enclosure, security, 

water systems). 

Lack of industry standards for 

the certification of qualified 

building commissioning agents 

to improve consistency in Cx 

processes (minimum required 

core competencies). 

Leveraging industry efforts to identify 

core competencies that support industry 

best practices: 

 American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) E2813 

Support work to establish accreditation 

criteria and to harmonize personal 

certification processes:

 International Code Council (AC476), 

to be used to accredit organizations 

that train and/or certify 

commissioning personnel. 

 International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) 17024 

 National Institute of Building 

Sciences (NIBS) 

 NIBS/Department of Energy (DOE) 

Commercial Workforce Credentialing 

program 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	7	

Lack of Cx 

stakeholder 

coordination 

Guidelines to ease 

communications between Cx 

stakeholders. 

Develop tools for standard process flow 

that makes it easy for developers to 

collaborate, utilizing a building systems 

manual and developed standards. 

Standardized forms/reports in Cx for 

statements of work, functional testing 

protocols, and other documents. 

Bridging the gap between 

building efficiency and overall 

design, e.g., how Cx works in 

differing building 

design/delivery models. 

Licensed design professionals to set 

facility and condition goals and set 

performance requirements and identify 

ways to reach them. There must be a 

feedback loop to designers and ongoing 

Cx as a benefit to improve design. 

Lack of systems 

to support the 

commissioning 

process 

Guidelines for utilizing a 

building automation system 

(BAS) and trend logging. 

Hardware and operational sequences for 

self-checks in BAS could remedy this 

issue. Big data and analytics can be 

utilized to provide feedback on continuous 

basis to owners and operators. 

Research should be completed to 

demonstrate the value of using the BAS 

and trend logging. 

Lack of research to support Cx 

of the building enclosure. 

Support for industry efforts to address this 

gap: ASTM standards and guidelines for 

Building Envelope Cx (BECx) –

developed in collaboration with NIBS. 

ASHRAE partnering with ASTM, NIBS 

(and federal agencies through NIBS) to 

propose instrumentation for building 

enclosures in the GSA inventory (e.g., for 

data acquisition and analysis).

 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	8	

IV. Building Commissioning Measurement 

Science Needs 

Building commissioning experts were asked to provide input to the following focus 

question to identify gaps and priorities in measurement science for building 

commissioning: 

“What are the measurement science needs that would likely have the greatest potential 

impact for improving standard building commissioning practice?” 

Participants were provided with an example answer which included a barrier, a research gap, and 

a strategy to overcome that barrier/gap:

A number of important themes emerged about gaps in measurement science needed to advance 

building commissioning. Strategies were also developed to address gaps and issues identified. 

Both are summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3. Measurement Science Barriers, Gaps and Strategies 

related to Building Commissioning 

Building Commissioning 

Measurement Science 

Barrier 

Building Commissioning 

Measurement Science Need 

Proposed Strategies 

Missing metrics for 

Building Commissioning 

Identification of proper sampling 

techniques and the impact of 

sampling rate on cost and 

completeness. 

 Establish metrics associated 

with the sampling rate. 

 Develop guidelines on the 

proper use of sampling in 

Cx. 

Missing Measurement 

Tools 

Accurate measurement/calibration 

of fluid flow and power 

consumption. 

Utilize equipment with built in 

sensors that are self-calibrating 

to measure flow & power. 

Barrier Measurement

Science Gap Strategy

EMCS capabilities

are under‐utilized

in commissioning

Code to run  

self‐checks

in the EMCS

modules

Generate code using

hardware, standard

sequences, and

functional tests to

automate self‐checks
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	9	

Measurements to support building 

automation systems for trend logs 

and other related Cx analysis. 

Missing standard 

measurement protocols 

Lack of standardized 

protocol/criteria across building 

systems to aid in stakeholder 

communication (i.e. data 

accessibility issues, naming 

conventions). 

Develop a standard that 

accounts for different building 

system types and evaluation 

criteria that provides a 

predictive model of 

performance. This model should 

consider occupant productivity, 

impact to the planet, and a 

financial perspective. 

Lack of standard measurement 

protocols for establishing baseline 

performance. 

Develop an evaluation model 

and a predictive model for 

performance. 

Whole building air leakage 

measurement to support Cx of 

building enclosure. 

Develop a strategy for making 

use of existing methods for 

conducting whole building air 

leakage testing before/during 

construction. A proxy 

measurement should be 

required for finished 

construction. 

Lack of standards to utilize 

metering in Cx. 

Guidelines for metering to 

support Cx (i.e. calibration, 

guideline on monitoring points 

to include).

Standard way to document the 

benefits/ROI of Cx: Quantifying 

costs and benefits across Cx 

types. 

Improved/ standardized 

benefit/cost analysis in Cx. 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	10	

V. Building Commissioning Prioritization 

Survey 

A. Description 

Following the workshop webinar, meeting organizers identified various themes within both 

discussions: building commissioning research gaps, and measurement science needs. These 

themes, found in sections III and IV of this report, were added to an online prioritization survey, 

conducted by ASHRAE. The following questions were included in the survey: 

Table 4. Building Commissioning Prioritization Survey Questions

Question #1 Please review the following research areas that would be beneficial to the 

Building Commissioning industry. These research areas are based on input 

from a recent webinar that identified gaps in building commissioning research. 

Please rank your top four (4) choices, one (1) being the most 

important/impactful piece of research for the building commissioning 

community.

Question #2 Please explain your building commissioning research gap selections.

Question #3 What building commissioning research gaps are we missing? Is this missing 

piece a top four (4) priority research gap?

Question #4 Please review the following measurement science needs within the Building 

Commissioning industry. These measurement science needs are based on input 

from a recent webinar that identified such needs in building commissioning. 

Please rank your top three (3) choices, one (1) being the most 

important/impactful piece of research for the building commissioning 

community.

Question #5 Please explain your building commissioning measurement science need 

selections.

Question #6 What measurement science needs in building commissioning are we missing? Is 

this missing piece a top three (3) priority research gap?

Following development of this online survey, invitations with a link to the survey were shared 

with all 122 invitees, with 31 experts filling out the survey. Below are the results of their input. 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	11	

B. Prioritization Survey Results 

After reviewing the total votes for the various research gap and measurement science 

need themes, scores were determined with the following values: 

 Research Gaps scoring 

o 1st ranked theme (the most important theme) = 4 points 

o 2nd = 3 points 

o 3rd = 2 points 

o 4th = 1 points 

o All other themes = 0 points 

 Measurement Science scoring 

o 1st ranked theme (the most important theme) = 3 points 

o 2nd = 2 points 

o 3rd = 1 point 

o All other themes = 0 points 

With this scoring in mind, the following themes were identified as priorities: 

Table 5. Workshop Results 

Priority Description Survey 

Score 

Top Priority Cx 

Research Gaps 

A standard way to document the benefits/ROI of Cx: 

Quantifying costs and benefits across Cx types 

79 

Secondary Priority 

Research Gaps 

Guidelines for utilizing a building automation system (BAS) 

and trend logging, and research should be completed to 

demonstrate the value of doing so. 

37 

Standard development for certification of qualified building 

commissioning agents 

35 

Educational programs for building owners/customers on 

benefits of Cx (monetary, comfort/productivity and energy 

efficiency) 

32 

Lack of information available to demonstrate the value of 

ongoing Cx vs. occasional Cx to building owners 

26 

Top Measurement 

Science Need 

Standard measurement protocols for establishing baseline 

performance 

42 

Secondary Priority 

Measurement 

Science Needs 

Improved/standardized benefit/cost analysis in Cx 33 

Guidelines for metering to support Cx (i.e. calibration, 

guideline on monitoring points to include) 

33 

A standardized protocol/criteria across building systems to aid 

in stakeholder communication (i.e. data accessibility issues, 

naming conventions) 

24 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	12	

VI. Summary of Findings 

Reviewing the results of the workshop and the resulting prioritization survey, industry experts 

have made it clear that there are specific priorities in building commissioning research and 

measurement science that need to be addressed. Figure 2 illustrates the top priority research and 

measurement science needs identified. By a considerable margin, stakeholders indicated research 

that demonstrates the benefits and ROI of commissioning to building owners is a high priority, as 

it is key in promoting mass adoption of building commissioning. Building owners must be 

assured that changes in building design and operation for increased energy efficiency will not 

affect occupant health within the building, and if/how it can benefit their bottom line. Building 

commissioning stakeholders have identified strategies to combat this priority research gap: new 

research to determine best methods to quantify the benefits/costs of building commissioning, as 

well as to determine the drivers that affect an owner’s approach to the building commissioning 

process. 

Demonstrating the value of ongoing building commissioning vs. occasional building 

commissioning was also voted as important to advancing the field. Building commissioning 

providers need reliable, quantitative data to educate building owners and enable them to make 

an informed investment decision. 

Education and certification components within building commissioning are clearly important as 

ascertained by both survey voting and workshop discussions. Building commissioning officials 

working with building owners must meet strict certification requirements in order to maintain 

uniformity in the industry. ASTM E2813 (Standard Practice for Building Enclosure 

Figure 2: Top Commissioning (Cx) Research and Measurement Science Needs 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	13	

Commissioning) is working toward addressing this gap in the context of BECx through minimum 

required core competencies and is developing with NIBS, a BECx Personnel Certification and 

Training Program to support those requirements in accordance with ISO 17024 (sets out criteria 

for an organization's certification program for individual persons). ASHRAE is already 

participating in this effort, which will also align with the requirements of the NIBS/DOE 

Commercial Workforce Credentialing program. Further steps can be taken to help in the 

education process of building owners, such as creating a common lexicon for communicating, 

determining scope, and meeting objectives for building projects. 

Other strategies included developing guidelines for utilizing a BAS and trend logging, as well as 

the research to prove its value to buildings owners. By developing hardware and sequences for 

self-checks in BAS, value could become readily apparent to building commissioning 

stakeholders. Building data and analytics can also be utilized to provide feedback on a continuous 

basis to owners and operators. 

While several measurement science needs were identified, participants made one a clear priority; 

to develop a standardized measurement protocol for measuring actual building performance 

before and after building commissioning. This priority would effectively set a baseline for 

building commissioning evaluation, and will require the development of key performance metrics 

that are then integrated into the design process and into operations. By developing an evaluation 

model and a predictive model for performance, this need can be met. 

The three secondary priorities in measurement science for building commissioning focus on 

standardizing cost/benefit analysis in the industry, proper guidelines for metering, and protocols 

for a standard criteria when evaluation buildings in building commissioning. By developing a 

standard criteria that accounts for different building system types and evaluation criteria that 

provides a predictive model of performance, the building commissioning industry can achieve 

further uniformity. In addition, this model should consider occupant productivity, impact to the 

planet, and a financial perspective. 

This report and assessment of research needs in the commissioning industry is already being 

utilized to prioritize building commissioning research by NIST and ASHRAE. It is anticipated 

that this report can serve as a benchmark for industry needs and to highlight critical barriers to 

broader deployment of commissioning as a means to achieve improved building system 

performance and improved environmental quality.
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	14	

REFERENCES 

California Commissioning Collaborative(CaCx). 2008. “2007 California 

Retrocommissioning Market Characterization”

Mills, E. 2009. “Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs 

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” http://cx.lbl.gov/2009-assessment.html. 

Friedman, H., et al. 2012. “IEA Annex 47: Cost-Effective Commissioning for Existing and 

Low Energy Buildings.” NIST Technical Note (NIST TN) 1727. 

Effinger, J., H. Friedman, D. Moser. 2009. “A Study on Energy Savings and Measure Cost 

Effectiveness of Existing Building Commissioning.” Prepared for U.S. Department of 

Energy. http://resources.cacx.org/library/HoldingDetail.aspx?id=508.

Frank, M. et al. 2007. “State-of-the-Art Review for Commissioning Low Energy Buildings: 

Existing Cost/Benefit and Persistence Methodologies and Data, State of Development of 

Automated Tools and Assessment of Needs for Commissioning ZEB” NIST 

Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) 7356.

International Energy Agency (IEA). 2004. “IEA Annex 40: Commissioning of Buildings and 

HVAC Systems for Improved Energy Performance”, Final Report, Editor: J.C. Visier. 

www.commissioning-hvac.org 

Winters, D. 2014 “The Economic Benefits of Building Commissioning”U.S. Green Building 

Council, Green Building Information Gateway, April. 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	15	

APPENDICES 

 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	16	

APPENDIX A: List of Contributors 

Webinar Organizers

Role Name

Technical Monitors & Presenters Natascha Milesi Ferretti, NIST 

David Shipley, ICF International, ASHRAE 

TC 7.9 Research Chair 

Facilitator Walt Zalis, Energetics Incorporated 

Live Capture Jessie Knapstein, Energetics Incorporated 

Webinar Workshop Participants 

Full Name Organization 

Anderson, Joseph Anderson Engineering 

Bebout, David Technical Assurance 

Belleville, Melinda FACOM 

Bornside, David Siemens Building Technologies Inc 

Brambley, Michael Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Bridges, Barry Sebesta Blomberg & Associates 

Brooks, Bradley Portland Energy Conservation Incorporated 

Bushby, Steven National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Cappellin, Thomas E.L. Pruitt 

Charette, David TST Energy Systems Inc. 

Dunagin, Vernon American Institute of Architects - Consulting Architect 

Eldridge, Kenneth Innovative Construction & Design Solutions, LLC 

Enck, Harry Commissioning & Green Build Solutions, Inc 

Ewing, Calvin Siemens AG 

Fischer, Liz Building Commission Association 

Flock, Sarah Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc. 

Fong, Joe Walter P. Moore 

Herring, Bridget Mathis Consulting Company 

Herron, David Herron + Partners 

Kagan, Jack Merritt & Harris, Inc. 

Katipamula, Srinivas Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Kendzel, Jim American Society of Plumbing Engineers 

Kettler, Gerald Air Engineering & Testing Inc 

Lam, Wei Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

Lemieux, Dan Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

Lemieux, Thierry Natural Resources Canada 

Linc, Brian Technical Assurance 

Luffred, Michael Eaton Energy Solutions, Inc. 

Meyer, Tom National Environmental Balancing Bureau 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	17	

Modadugu, Suresh Alamo Architects 

Murray, Jeff CDM Smith Inc. 

O'Connor, Pat Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. 

Pang, Karen Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. 

Portie, Pennie SSOE Group 

Rahman, Mohammad Muzibur Zuhair Fayez Partnership Consultants 

Ryan, Dave Sebesta 

Sams, Pamela HOK 

Sawyer, Richard Brummel, Myrick & Associates 

Stroik, Brian The Boldt Company 

Surak, Christopher American Society for Testing and Materials International 

Suschak, John Technical Assurance 

Townsend, Terry Townsend Engineering 

Wackerle, Melissa The American Institute of Architects 

Wauters, Drake Perkins+Will 

Webster, Lia Portland Energy Conservation Incorporated 

White, David Raba Kistner 

Wray, Craig Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Other Stakeholder Input to Identify Commissioning Gaps 

Full Name Organization 

Seidl, Reinhard Taylor Engineering 

Granderson, Jessica Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

 
This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1849

Roadmap	for	Building	Commissioning	Research	 Page	18	

APPENDIX B: Workshop Agenda 

Webinar Workshop Agenda

1:00 pm Introductory Remarks: Webinar Overview Walt Zalis, Facilitator 

1:05 pm Welcoming Remarks Natascha Milesi Ferretti, NIST 

1:15 pm Presentation: ASHRAE Building Commissioning 

Research 

David Shipley, ASHRAE and 

Reinhard Seidl, Taylor Engineering 

1:30 pm Facilitated Discussion Part 1: Identify the gaps in 

building commissioning research outside of those 

identified by ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.9 

on Building Commissioning. 

2:15 pm Presentation: Measurement Science Natascha Milesi Ferretti, NIST 

2:30 pm Facilitated Discussion Part 2: Identify the needs 

for measurement science that would likely have the 

greatest potential impact for improving standard 

practice. 

3:15 pm Prioritization: Identify research areas that would 

be of the most benefit to industry for both building 

commissioning research gaps, and measurement 

science needs in building commissioning through a 

survey. 

3:25 pm Closing Remarks Natascha Milesi Ferretti, NIST and 

David Shipley, ASHRAE 

3:30pm Adjourn