中華民國內政部建築研究所中華民國內政部建築研究所

一、研究緣起
內政部自93年開始受理智慧建築標章申請認可，101年1月1日開始實施智慧建築標章分級評估，進一步將通過認可之智慧建築依評分高低，依序區分等級為鑽石級、黃金級、銀級、銅級及合格級等5級。內政部建築研究所出版之智慧建築評估手冊，訂有各等級智慧建築評估基準，係內政部指定智慧建築標章評定專業機構之評定依據。為使智慧建築分級評估基準更為周延，使智慧建築分級評估，可達成引導產業妥適應用智慧建築科技，回應使用者需求，兼顧成本效益之目的，本研究擬就分級評估基準進行合理性研究，作為未來智慧建築評估手冊評估基準增修訂之參考依據。
二、研究方法及過程
參考國外智慧建築分級制度，多數強調智慧建築安全、健康、節能、管理、生產力等效益之展現，當等級愈高時則表示規劃設計階段智慧化之整備愈充分，以確保維運階段效益之展現。因此，以我國目前分等級為鑽石級、黃金級、銀級、銅級及合格級等5級，依據指標評估內容顯示，當等級愈高則導入設施、設備及系統愈多元，但是否符合使用需求、建築特性，讓使用者有感於智慧建築等級差異與服務之關聯性。期望智慧建築分級制度，能適度地展現智慧化效益之差異，讓使用者、維運者、所有者有感於智慧化的價值，才能永續的推動智慧建築政策與標章制度。
現行智慧建築標章申請等級已與獎勵制度接軌，透過分級容積獎勵的方式，成為制度執行的強大推力。然而，透過標章制度推動，將可引導產業在智慧建築科技妥適應用、整合，惟如何有效地回應使用者需求、展現智慧化效益，並兼顧成本與效益之關聯性，係為智慧建築制度落實重要的課題。爰此，本計畫將以新版智慧建築評估手冊之架構，檢視智慧建築分級評估基準合理性，建立能凸顯使用需求，並展現效益目標之分級方式，作為未來智慧建築評估手冊評估基準增修訂之參考依據。
三、重要發現
依據前述智慧建築標章制度執行現況，提出本研究執行預期目標說明如下：
1.完成國內外智慧建築分級評估之資料及案例蒐集分析：蒐集國內外智慧建築評估之方式，包含：分級依據、分級獎勵措施及分級效益等內容，作為我國現行智慧建築分級評估基準之合理性分析之參考。
2.完成現行智慧建築分級評估基準之合理性分析：依據蒐集資料彙整、分析我國建築分級評估基準方式、給分、權重之合理性，引導智慧建築分級能朝向滿足使用需求、展現性能效益的目標。
3.提出智慧建築評估手冊分級評估基準增修訂建議(草案)及案例評估模擬：依據前二項成果，提出智慧建築評估手冊分級評估基準增修訂建議(草案)，並針對已取得現行分級之智慧建築案例，進行分級評估模擬，以確認分級制度草案之合理性。
四、主要建議事項
本研究初步建議說明如下：
建議一
為增進智慧建築效益發展，本研究提出2022年版智慧建築評估手冊分級評估基準增修訂建議(草案)：立即可行建議
主辦機關：內政部建築研究所
協辦機關：無
(一)配合2022年版智慧建築標章手冊之推動時程，各分級得分級距如下表
等級
版本    合格級    銅 級    銀 級    黃金級    鑽石級
2022年新版
(草案)    60分以上，
未達70分    70分以上，
未達110分    110分以上，
未達140分    140分以上，
未達160分    160分以上
得分率(%)
(鼓勵項目得分/總分)
2022年版總分233分，含智慧創新指標33分    25.8%以上，
未達30.0%    30.0%以上，
未達47.2%    47.2%以上，
未達60.0%    60.0%以上，
未達68.7%    68.7%以上
（資料來源：本研究彙整）
(二)智慧創新指標給分，依據其他五項評估得分結果設15%上限
基於智慧建築各指標與智慧創新之匹配性考量，當基礎設施指標、維運管理指標、安全防災指標、節能管理指標及健康舒適指標等5項指標導入得分愈高時，則代表該案例智慧化整備、潛力、功能效益愈高，則此時導入更多的智慧創新，將使建築智慧化效益展現升級。因此，前5項指標評估得分愈高時，則表示該建築智慧化展現條件愈加，透過智慧創新一定比例的配分上限，讓該申請案有加成的智慧效益展現。
為確認合理的智慧建築分級制度，進行7個2016年獲智慧建築評定案例試評，試評案例分別有2016年版評定之3件銀級案例、2件鑽石級及2件合格級。
本研究提出智慧建築評估手冊分級評估基準增修訂建議(草案），透過分級指引智慧建築規劃設計，引導智慧建築產業不再從設備、系統導入著手，而朝向與需求結合、效益展現的發展目標。
建議二
為提供有感的智慧化服務，可設置合理的智慧建築分級差異：立即可行建議
主辦機關：內政部建築研究所
協辦機關：無
建置合理的智慧建築分級制度，能凸顯智慧化服務之分級差異，提供使用者有感的智慧化服務，認同智慧設計概念，並漸進式的精進智慧建築的營運績效，落實智慧建築永續發展的目標。
建議三
為接軌國際趨勢，建議持續建立、完善分級制度：中長期建議
主辦機關：內政部建築研究所
協辦機關：無
透過智慧建築之分級制度，鏈結聯合國永續發展17項目標SDGs(Sustainable Development Goals)，積極鼓勵產業透過智慧建築營運，以智慧建築管理、安全、健康、節能等效益，揭露各產業對SDGs貢獻，翻轉產業的營運思維，面對能源成本未知的未來，落實對碳排放的監管，協助產業環境管理列為重要考量，共創產業價值，積極接軌國際永續發展願景。

I.Introduction
Since 2004, the Ministry of the Interior has been accepting applications for the approval of the Intelligent Building mark. On January 1, 2012, the Intelligent Building mark grading evaluation was implemented, further grading and classifying the approved smart buildings into five grades (Diamond, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Qualified) according to their scores. The Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual published by the Architecture and Building Research Institute of the Ministry of the Interior sets out the evaluation criteria for smart buildings of various grades, which is the designated evaluation basis for the professional organizations assessing the Intelligent Building mark by the Ministry of the Interior. In order to make the Intelligent Building Grading Evaluation Benchmark more comprehensive, so that it can achieve the purpose of guiding the industry to properly apply smart building technology, respond to user needs, and consider cost benefit goals, this research intends to conduct a rationality study on the Grading Evaluation Benchmark, as a reference for future revisions of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual.
II.Research Methods and Process
Referring to foreign smart building classification systems, most of them emphasize the display of benefits such as safety, health, energy saving, management, and productivity of smart buildings. The higher the level, the ampler the preparation of intelligentization in the planning and design stage to ensure the presence of benefits in the maintenance and operation stage. Therefore, as Taiwan is currently divided into 5 grades, namely Diamond, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Qualified, according to the indicator evaluation content, the higher the grade, the more diverse facilities, equipment and systems will be introduced, but whether they meet usage requirements and building characteristics drive users to feel the correlation between difference in grade and service of intelligent buildings. It is expected that the intelligent building grading system can appropriately show the difference in the benefits of smart buildings, so that users, maintenance operators, and owners can feel the value of smart buildings, so as to continuously promote intelligent building policies and labeling systems.
The current application level for Intelligent Building marks has been in line with the reward system, and through the method of graded building bulk ratio bonus, it has become a powerful driving force for the implementation of the system. However, through the promotion of the labeling system, it will be possible to guide the industry to properly apply and integrate smart building technology, yet how to effectively respond to user needs, demonstrate smart benefits, and take into account the correlation between costs and benefits is an important issue for the implementation of the smart building system. Therefore, this project will use the framework of the new version of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual to examine the rationality of the Intelligent Building Grading Evaluation Benchmark, and establish a grading method that can highlight user needs and demonstrate benefit objectives, as a reference for future revisions of the evaluation benchmark for the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual.
III.Major Outcomes
According to the current implementation status of the aforementioned Intelligent Building labeling system, the expected objectives of this study are put forward as follows:
1.To complete the collection and analysis of data and cases of domestic and international Intelligent Building Grading Evaluation: methods of collecting data include grading basis, grading incentive measures and benefits and so forth, to act as reference for the rationality analysis of Taiwan's current Intelligent Building Grading Evaluation Benchmark.
2.To complete the rationality analysis of the current Intelligent Building Grading Evaluation Benchmark: to analyze the reasonability of Taiwan's Building Grading Evaluation Benchmark methods, point giving and weighting based on the collection of data, and guide the intelligent building grading to meet the usage requirements and exhibit the goals of performance benefits.
3.To propose a revision draft for the Grading Evaluation Benchmark of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual and conduct a case evaluation simulation: based on the first two objectives, to put forward a proposal (draft) for the addition and revision of the Grading Evaluation Benchmark of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual, and carry out grading evaluation simulation aimed at cases that have obtained the current Intelligent Building classification to confirm the rationality of the proposed grading system.
IV.Suggestions
The preliminary recommendations of this study are as follows:
Suggestion Ⅰ
In order to enhance the development of smart building benefits, this study puts forward suggestions for adding and revising the grading evaluation criteria of the 2022 edition of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual (draft) : immediate action suggestion.
Organizer : Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, ROC (Taiwan)
Co-organizer : none
1.In line with the promotion schedule of the 2022 edition of the Intelligent Building Label Manual, the scoring intervals for each grade are as follows :
2.Scoring for smart innovation indicators, the maximum limit of scoring is set within 15% of the other five assessment points.
Based on the match consideration of various indicators of smart buildings and smart innovation, when the scores of five indicators including infrastructure indicators, maintenance and operation management indicators, safety and disaster prevention indicators, energy-saving management indicators and health and comfort indicators are higher, it means that the potential, benefit and effective function of intelligentization in the case is higher. Therefore, the higher the index evaluation score for all five indicators, the better the intelligentization of the building.
To ensure the legitimacy of the Intelligent Building Classification System, trial evaluation of 7 smart building cases in 2016 have been conducted, which included 3 silver grade cases, 2 diamond grade cases and 2 pass grade cases (2016 classification.
This study puts forward suggestions for the addition and revision of the grading evaluation criteria of the Intelligent Building Evaluation Manual (draft). The classification guides the planning and design of smart buildings, leading the smart building industry to no longer begin from the introduction of infrastructure and systems, instead towards the development goal of integrated demands and  display of benefits.
Suggestion Ⅱ
To provide perceivable intelligentized services, reasonable Intelligent Building Classification differences can be established: immediate action suggestion.
Organizer : Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, ROC (Taiwan)
Co-organizer : none
By establishing reasonable intelligent building classification system, the grading differences between intelligentized services is highlighted, providing smart services that users feel, in agreement with the concept of smart design, while progressively implementing the goal of sustainable development of smart buildings.
Suggestion Ⅲ
In order to follow international trend, it is advised to continue establishing and flawlessly execute grading system: medium and long-term recommendations
Organizer : Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, ROC (Taiwan)
Co-organizer : none
Through the Intelligent Building Classification System, connecting the 17 SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) of the United Nations, actively encouraging industries to operate through smart buildings, uncovering the contribution of each industry to SDGs by means of smart building management, safety, health, energy saving, etc., changing the operational thinking of the industry, facing the unknown future of energy costs, carrying out supervision and management of carbon emissions, assisting in environmental management are the essential considerations, to collectively initiate industrial value, actively in line with the vision of international sustainable development.