Our recent podcast episode with the WiredScore team aired just before they launched SmartScore, their scorecard for commercial office building intelligence.
At the launch, which I recommend watching, WiredScore unveiled their 3-step framework for scoring how smart a building is:
- Determine the outcomes you’re trying to achieve
- Assess how well those outcomes are met through user functionalities
- Assess how well the existing infrastructure enables those functionalities
This division between outcomes and infrastructure is a key differentiator of SmartScore and I think it’s spot on. You first define “smart” in your terms (point B), assess where you are today (point A), and then create a plan that gets from point A to B.
We run into trouble when we don’t take this holistic, top-down approach to smart building planning. If we take a bottom-up approach, where we focus on upgrading infrastructure first, we risk spending money enabling outcomes we didn’t want or need. If we take a narrow approach by focusing on just one outcome or use case, we risk adding yet another silo with minimal functionality for only a subset of users.
And the value of this framework isn’t limited to office buildings… it applies across the entire built world. Each type of building has jobs-to-be-done, stakeholders that care about how well those jobs are being done, and ways technology can help do those jobs better. Each building has existing infrastructure that is either helping or hurting those jobs.
Serendipitously, WiredScore’s framework matches how I’ve structured our Foundations course curriculum. It’s scary how close it is, considering they were developed independently.
🎵 Here’s a quick clip from the podcast when I realized we were playing from the same sheet of music.
🧱 Join the waitlist for Nexus Foundations to hear about the next cohort.