6 The Selection Process

6.1 Overview

The tool selection process directly involved both industry consultation and interaction with specific tool designers. As stated earlier, the NZGBC worked with key industry representatives to provide a workable framework for a New Zealand based assessment tool. Specifically, the NZGBC facilitated meetings with the Project Working Group to undergo the following steps:

examine existing tools based on research provided by URS NZ Ltd
identify a green building rating tool or suite of tools appropriate for New Zealand commercial office buildings
develop an associated plan for adaptation and implementation.

Meanwhile, representatives from the NZGBC initiated discussions with tool designers regarding the feasibility and conditions of adapting their respective tools. After the Project Working Group had identified a preferred structure, taking into consideration preliminary responses from specific tool designers, a discussion panel was held to obtain further feedback from the wider public.

The preferred tools for adaptation were Green Star (Australia) and Green Office (BRANZ, NZ). The process for adaptation of the tools will be addressed in section 8.

6.1.1 The Initial Focus With a View to the Future

The NZGBC has identified a distinctive market need for a commercially focused tool, which would eventually exist as part of a suite of tools. Our approach was to use this opportunity to develop the framework and then focus on developing the suite of tools inside that framework. It is clear there is strong demand from government agencies and large corporate tenants who are acting on their capacity to reduce their environmental footprint, and see the buildings they occupy as an achievable way they can do this.

6.1.2 Tool Evaluation Criteria

The following is a range of decision-making criteria which were used by industry representatives in the Project Working Group to evaluate each tool:

applicability to New Zealand conditions
any barriers with legislation frameworks
simple interface
ability to adapt the tool for NZ conditions
what characteristic does the tool measure; does it cover a broad enough range of social, environmental and economic issues?
how is performance of the building measured?
other considerations that could be important.

It is important to note these criteria were used as a guide for debate and discussion. Namely, members of the Project Working Group were specifically invited to put forward their perspective on each tool as a spokesperson for the key industry group. Project Working Group members represented: owners/developers, government, project management professionals, architects, engineers, NGOs, academics, materials manufacturers, and contractors. This resulted in valuable feedback both for the tool selection process and looking forward to the adaptation and implementation stage.

The more technical considerations that were discussed by the Project Working Group, with Michael Field providing the expertise to the group, where the following:

What stage of the buildings life-cycle the assessment tool focussed on?
What issues were measured within the assessment framework (full list of areas included within each framework were assessed)?
How were these issues measured and assessed (for example, does the assessment framework award credits for consideration of a particular issue or does it require a measurable outcome)?
Were the issues identified during Workshop 1 missing from any assessment frameworks? Can we rule these out immediately?
How did the assessment frameworks allocate weightings, credits and reward sustainable practices?
Would this system or process be comparable with other schemes (eg, LCA)?
Were weightings attributed to certain issues able to be changed to reflect New Zealand’s specific requirements?
Was the assessment framework targeted at world’s best practice or more at a compliance level?
Where there measurable issues specific to the assessment frameworks country of origin and were these able to be removed or replaced?
How did the assessment framework calculate the final assessment score and how was this final score articulated for example, number of stars, a ratio, from 1 to 100 etc and could this be changed if not suitable?
Were the frameworks updated regularly and how easily was this achieved?
When was the framework last updated and how current were the issues addressed?

6.2 Final Decision and Evaluation

Final selection of the tool structure followed a “funnel” approach, which began with a number of leading international assessment tools. The NZGBC, in conjunction with the Project Working Group, systematically narrowed the original tools down to the final two tools according to the above criteria. Specifically, Green Star and Green Office Scheme have been identified for further investigation and possible development. However, elements of NABERS are of interest for the “in use” aspect of building performance, and we suggest further discussion with these tool designers to look at possible incorporation into a suite of tools.

6.2.1 Further Industry Consultation

A final public presentation held in the main centres in mid-June gave an outline of the process involved in tool selection and invited questions, comments and concerns for discussion from stakeholders, industry members and other interested parties.

In particular, the technical aspects involved with the introduction of a rating scheme were discussed. Outcomes from these workshops are summarised in Appendix I.

[ Previous|Next