# The Smart Buildings Revolution: A Comprehensive Review of the Smart Readiness Indicator Literature
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Research Gaps and Future Directions in the SRI's Dominant Themes
#### 4.2.3 Research Gap in SRI's Alignment with Other Certificates and Standards  
The EPCs, integral to the EPBD, are recognized for their key role in reshaping the building market [46]. [PERSON] et al. [16] recommended that future research should focus on the integration of the SRI into assessments of energy efficiency. This could involve examining how the SRI scores can complement existing energy performance certificates and inform decision-makers related to building energy efficiency. Continued research should also focus on practical implementation experiences and lessons learned from EU countries that have voluntarily launched a test phase or implemented the SRI [16].  
[PERSON] et al. [56] outlined the need to develop more precise indicators to effectively express and communicate the energy behavior of buildings, particularly to non-specialist audiences. This entails exploring methods to enrich indicators by integrating other tools, such as simulation models and real data, taking advantage of the growing accessibility of digital resources.  
[PERSON] et al. [22] emphasized the importance of integrating the SRI into building energy performance evaluations. They suggested improvements such as integrating the SRI into existing energy assessment processes, considering different building types, and setting minimum requirements.  
Despite being in the early stages, the SRI is seen as a promising tool for assessing building intelligence [22]. [PERSON] et al. [60] mentioned future research areas in this context, including the integration of semantic models for EPCs with semantic tools, aiming to reconcile and align them with cross-domain semantic models, facilitating reasoning on EPC data.  
[PERSON] et al. [20] noted that there is potential to develop a more detailed scoring system. Instead of attributing a fixed value of one to buildings that meet certain standards, a grading system could be implemented. This grading system would allow for a range of scores (less than one) to be assigned based on diverse readings collected from the building across different impact criteria. This approach would provide a more nuanced assessment of building smartness and its impact on various factors.  
Regarding the DBL, [PERSON] et al. highlighted the need to redefine key indicators, incorporating insights from the literature and emerging methodologies [57]. [PERSON] et al. [44] also recommended reassessing the DBL metrics, proposing the inclusion of new parameters such as tracking the reduction of carbon emissions. This would involve assessing decarbonization progress, identifying data needs for renovation roadmaps, and analyzing issues impeding IoT adoption, such as interoperability issues and unclear implementation strategies among industry professionals. The SRI is considered a valuable framework for enhancing the DBL framework, particularly in addressing interoperability challenges. [PERSON] et al. [50] suggested that there is a need for a more quantitative approach to adequately assess the performance and advancement of smart technologies in buildings. Consequently, the EPBD should refine the current SRI methodology, along with the concepts of SBs and SR. They proposed a set of KPIs and acknowledged the need for further testing to evaluate their effectiveness in assessing the performance of smart retrofitted buildings.