# The Smart Buildings Revolution: A Comprehensive Review of the Smart Readiness Indicator Literature
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Dominant Themes in the Smart Readiness Literature
#### 4.1.5 SRI's Expansion to Neighborhoods and Districts  
The expansion of the SRI to neighborhoods and districts is vital for achieving broader energy conservation goals, recognizing the interconnectedness of urban systems. To truly achieve energy conservation, it is imperative to incorporate intelligent neighborhood elements, recognizing their profound interconnections, rather than only concentrating on individual building energy components [64]. The current SRI framework predominantly focuses on assessing the resilience and energy efficiency of individual buildings, while the SRI could also be a valuable tool for the management of building utilities at an urban level [16].  
[PERSON] et al. [16] analyzed the SRI for educational buildings and observed that the SRI score is influenced by the level of control of services and automation, particularly those managed at the city level, such as district heating systems. They observed that central management of these systems can limit a building's potential to attain the highest level of smartness. Their study emphasized the significance of city-level services in realizing optimal smartness levels at the building unit level.  
To improve the SRI for complex residential settings, [PERSON] et al. [65] proposed adding a questionnaire to the SRI assessment for complex residential buildings, including detailed questions on electricity consumption, such as specifying the volume and capacity of boilers. In addition, for hot water supply systems and heating, it is recommended to delineate each category of energy consumption. Furthermore, it is essential to document the orientation of windows, their size, and whether they are equipped with other shading devices or protective layers.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [51] extended the application of the SRI and introduced a weighting factor for the SRI districts to ensure that areas with diverse attributes in terms of the size, type, and quality can be comparably assessed.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [66] investigated the development of smart campuses by categorizing their essential services according to the smart buildings, scope, and technologies. They introduced the Smart Availability Scale to assess campus system outputs using multi-criteria decision-making methods and newly created index parameters using the SRI criteria.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [53] applied checklists to assess the smart readiness of buildings and cities, drawing inspiration from the SRI. Their checklists would serve as comprehensive tools for evaluating the readiness of structures or urban areas to incorporate smart technologies effectively.  
[PERSON] et al. [31] employed the SRI calculation to university campuses, focusing on large stocks and energy hubs, recognizing that aggregating the building SRI scores into a campus-wide score does not fully capture the potential interactions between assessed buildings. This limitation stems from the inherent calculation of the SRI, as it primarily investigates on-site electricity generation and storage within building boundaries, while harmonization with the grid is taken into account.  
[PERSON] et al. [67] conducted a study on building energy flexibility at an aggregated level, identifying several barriers and research gaps. These include challenges related to market and policy frameworks, early planning and design, and operation phases. Despite the legal frameworks, limited financing deters private investment. Planners face interoperability challenges and lack tools for effective demand response programs. Operational challenges include complexity, communication, privacy, and acceptability issues.