# The Smart Buildings Revolution: A Comprehensive Review of the Smart Readiness Indicator Literature
## 5 Conclusions  
This study aimed to examine the predominant themes in the current literature on the SRI and identify research gaps that are critical for advancing the evolution of smart buildings. To achieve this, and to address the research questions, we conducted a systematic literature review to understand the evolution of smart buildings and the status of the SRI. The findings show that the SRI literature predominantly focuses on the two main SRI domains, that is, the energy performance of buildings and the demand response, but lacks almost all the occupant-focused domains (see Figure 3). Similarly, the literature focuses on the extensions of the SRI rather than studying how the SRI can drive the evolution of smart buildings in the building stock. The findings demonstrate several significant research gaps. Despite the original introduction of the SRI for buildings, its potential extends much further. There is a need for more studies on the applicability of the SRI across different building types and climatic conditions, the challenges of subjectivity within the SRI framework, its alignment with other certifications and standards, its use as a tool for smart retrofitting, its expansion to the neighborhood and district levels, and the correlation of SRI scores with energy performance. Our content analysis identified six dominant themes with substantial research gaps in the literature:The applicability of the SRI to different contexts  
The subjectivity of the SRI framework  
Alignment of the SRI with other certifications and standards  
The SRI as a tool for smart retrofitting  
Expansion of the SRI to neighborhoods and districts  
SRI scores and energy performance. These findings suggest that while the current literature focuses on the technical aspects of the SRI framework, there is a lack of emphasis on its role in driving the evolution of smart buildings. Most studies prioritize improvements in the technical implementation of the SRI, such as refining its methodology, broadening its scope, or enhancing its audit procedures, rather than exploring how these efforts can catalyze a broader transformation in the building sector. The literature review emphasizes the role of the SRI as a versatile framework for assessing buildings' readiness to adapt to developing energy systems and occupant requirements. However, several challenges remain. There is a need for more practical examples that illustrate the potential energy reduction percentages, ensuring that the SRI indicators translate into tangible performance improvements. Addressing the limitations in applying the SRI to diverse geographical contexts is also crucial. This study developed a framework that integrates past and recent research, outlining key areas for future study, as illustrated in Figure 5.  
Despite the promising insights uncovered in this review, there are several limitations. The review was limited to studies published in English and indexed in specific academic databases, potentially excluding significant contributions from non-English language publications or non-indexed sources. Moreover, the subjectivity in interpreting diverse research findings could have introduced bias into the synthesis process. Additionally, while Figure 5 outlines the relationship between the research gaps and the future research directions, this study does not include an expert validation process to assess the practical applicability of the future research. Future research should focus on addressing the broader applicability of the SRI beyond individual buildings, particularly in terms of its use for assessing neighborhood-level or district-scale smart readiness. Additionally, research should aim to establish standardized minimum SRI scores for buildings, ensuring consistency and clarity in assessments. Integrating the SRI with existing certification systems would enhance its reliability and effectiveness as a tool for fostering sustainable, energy efficient buildings. Visualization, T.D. and E.B. ; methodology, T.D. and E.B. ; software, T.D. ; validation, E.B. and S.J.