a maturity model for energy management - autenticação · a maturity model for energy management...
TRANSCRIPT
A Maturity Model for Energy Management
Pedro Miguel Barata Antunes
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Information Systems and Computer Engineering
Supervisors: Prof. Paulo Jorge Fernandes CarreiraProf. Miguel Leitão Bignolas Mira da Silva
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Nuno João Neves MamedeSupervisor: Prof. Paulo Jorge Fernandes Carreira
Member of the Committee: Prof. Carlos Augusto Santos Silva
June 2014
ii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to express my most sincere thanks to Prof. Paulo Carreira and Prof.
Miguel Mira da Silva. Without their help, knowledge and support, I would have not been able to finish
this thesis, with a special thanks to Prof. Paulo Carreira for his understanding, patience and unwavering
belief in me. I am also grateful to Prof. Carlos Silva for providing valuable help to this project in multiple
occasions, by contributing to the published article and providing us with industry contacts.
I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional support. They are the reason I have reached
this stage of my life, and have helped me become a better person throughout the years. I can only hope
I will be able to repay them for everything they ever did for me.
To Joao Lobato, friend and colleague through the final half of my academic life. Thank you for being
an amazing friend, and for the great times we have spent together along the years.
To all of my friends and colleagues, thank you for the good times together and for being a part of my
life.
To Catarina Rodrigues, my girlfriend, for being there for me at every step of the way. She supported
me throughout this work and has helped me overcome personal hardships. Thank you for always being
confident in my capability to finish this thesis, for making me believe in myself and for sharing your life
with me.
iii
iv
Resumo
A gestao de energia e uma prioridade a medida que as organizacoes procuram reduzir custos en-
ergeticos, assegurar conformidade com requisitos regulamentais e melhorar a sua imagem corporativa.
Apesar do aumento do interesse nas normas de gestao de energia, ha um desfasamento entre a
literatura de gestao de energia e praticas de implementacao. Esta falha pode ser tracada a falta de um
mapa de melhoria incremental.
De forma a corrigir este desfasamento, este trabalho propoe um modelo de maturidade para guiar as
organizacoes nos seus esforcos de implementacao de gestao de energia para alcancar conformidade
com normas de gestao de energia, tais como a norma ISO 50001.
O modelo de maturidade proposto e inspirado no ciclo Plan-Do-Check-Act de melhoria contınua,
e cobre um conjunto de atividades de gestao de energia transversais a varios textos. A proposta e
avaliada de forma combinada recorrendo a diferentes tecnicas: (i) uso de questionarios para avaliar a
utilidade do modelo, de acordo com peritos da industria; (ii) mapeamento entre a norma ISO 50001 e
o modelo de maturidade proposto, de forma a avaliar se poderia ajudar na implementacao da norma;
(iii) avaliacao do mapeamento efetuado utilizando o metodo de Wand & Weber, avaliando deficiencias
ontologicas.
A proposta contida neste trabalho ajuda organizacoes nao so a implementar gradualmente esforcos
de gestao de energia atraves de um conjunto de atividades bem definidas mas tambem ajuda es-
sas organizacoes a alcancar conformidade com a norma ISO 50001, a norma mais recente, trazendo
tambem benefıcios financeiros e de imagem.
Palavras-chave: Gestao de Energia, Modelo de Maturidade, ISO 50001, Plan-Do-Check-Act
v
vi
Abstract
Energy management is becoming a priority as organizations strive to reduce energy costs, conform to
regulatory requirements, and improve their corporate image. Despite the upsurge of interest in energy
management standards, a gap persists between energy management literature and current implemen-
tation practices. This gap can be traced to the lack of an incremental improvement roadmap.
In order to close this gap, we propose an Energy Management Maturity Model that can be used to
guide organizations in their energy management implementation efforts and to incrementally achieve
compliance with energy management standards, such as ISO 50001.
The proposed maturity model is inspired on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle approach for continual
improvement, and covers well-understood fundamental energy management activities common across
several energy management texts.
We evaluate our proposal by combining the following methods: (i) the use of a questionnaire in
energy management related groups to assess the model’s utility, according to industry experts; (ii) map-
ping between ISO 50001 and our maturity model, in order to assess whether it can be used to help ISO
50001 implementation; (iii) evaluate the achieved mapping using Wand and Weber’s method to identify
ontological deficiencies.
Our proposal helps organizations gradually implement energy management efforts with a well known
set of activities and helps them achieve compliance with ISO 50001, the latest energy management
systems standard, providing them financial and consumer image benefits.
Keywords: Energy Management, Maturity Model, ISO 50001, Plan-Do-Check-Act
vii
viii
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Resumo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Document Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Related Work 7
2.1 Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 Energy Management Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 Scientific Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3 Energy Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.4 Energy Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Maturity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1 Comparing Maturity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2 CMMI for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 Proposal 23
3.1 An Energy Management Maturity Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.1 Maturity Level 1 - Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.2 Maturity Level 2 - Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Maturity Level 3 - Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.4 Maturity Level 4 - Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1.5 Maturity Level 5 - Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1.6 Implementation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ix
3.2 Using CMMI for Services in Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Evaluation 39
4.1 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 ISO 50001 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 ISO 50001 Mapping Evaluation using Wand & Weber Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5 Conclusion 51
5.1 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.2 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Bibliography 58
A Questionnaire 59
B CMMI for Services and ISO 50001 mapping 64
C CMMI for Services Process Areas 71
x
List of Tables
2.1 Energy management standards requirements comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Maturity model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Comparison of Capability and Maturity Levels in CMMI for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 CMMI for Services maturity levels, characteristics and process areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Target Profiles and Equivalent Staging in CMMI for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 Comparison table of energy management activities in literature review . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Energy efficiency barrier classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 Mapping between energy management maturity model and analysed literature . . . . . . 24
3.2 Proposed maturity model activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Identified energy management implementation challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4 Categorization and comparison of CMMI-SVC and CMMI-DEV Process Areas . . . . . . 30
3.5 Mapping of CMMI-DEV Engineering process areas to CMMI-SVC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6 Mapping between ISO 50001 requirements and CMMI for Services Process Areas . . . . 32
4.1 Mapping of proposed model and ISO 50001 with identified ontological deficiencies . . . . 40
4.2 Scale used to assess utility and difficulty of implementation in the questionnaire . . . . . . 44
4.3 Classification of questionnaire respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 Questionnaire results of utility and difficulty of implementation for proposed activities . . . 46
4.5 Analysis of questionnaire results regarding proposed activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
xi
xii
List of Figures
1.1 Energy management maturity model main benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Worldwide energy efficiency project implementation in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Continuous and Staged representation in CMMI for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Proposed maturity model levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 CMMI for Services and ISO 50001 mapping process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Ontological deficiencies evaluated through Wand & Weber’s method . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Questionnaire results of utility and difficulty of implementation for proposed activities . . . 46
4.3 Questionnaire results of overall utility of the proposed model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
xiii
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Energy management has been defined as the systematic use of management and technology to improve
an organization’s energy performance [CarbonTrust, 2011] or, in academic research, as the control,
monitoring and improvement activities for energy efficiency [Bunse et al., 2011]. Regardless of definition,
the topic has become of utmost importance for organizations worldwide, many of which are currently
deploying energy management solutions to improve their energy use, to comply with legislation, energy
standards and their requirements, and to enhance the organization’s reputation among customers. By
implementing energy management programs, organizations can save up to 20% on their energy bill,
and can also achieve savings up to 5%-10% with minimal investment, effectively cutting operational
costs [CarbonTrust, 2011].
Energy management and its associated practices vary greatly mainly because there is no well-
understood energy management model, as evidenced by the disparity in the reviewed literature. As
will be clear later, despite the existence of several guides to assist companies in implementing energy
management activities [CarbonTrust, 2011, Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008], case-studies show that
real-world implementations of energy management programs fail to cover the breadth of energy man-
agement activities defined in these guides [Gonzalez et al., 2012, Coppinger, 2010]. In summary, there
is a gap between theory and real-world implementation practices of energy management that needs to
be closed.
Maturity models have been extensively studied and utilized in multiple engineering domains as an
instrument for continuous improvement [Wendler, 2012]. Following the success of the Capability Matu-
rity Model (CMM) for Software [Paulk et al., 1993], there has been significant interest in this field across
multiple areas, both from an academic and professional point of view. CMM has evolved into the Ca-
pability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) with three separate models — CMMI-SVC, CMMI-DEV and
CMMI-ACQ [Software Engineering Institute, 2010c,b,a], for providing services, product and service de-
velopment, and product and service acquisition, respectively — that have been adopted by thousands
of organizations worldwide.
This thesis proposes and conducts a preliminary evaluation of an Energy Management Maturity
Model, meant for energy managers in all kinds of organizations, that organizes the essential energy
1
Energy
Management
Maturity Model
Benefits
Economic aspect
• Energy/resource costs
• Resource productivity
Environmental aspect
• CO2 emissions
(carbon footprint)
• Resource scarcity
Societal aspect
• Customer and
workforce awareness
• Image in society
Figure 1.1: Energy management maturity model main benefits
management activities across five maturity levels, therefore contributing to bridge the gap between the-
ory and real-world practice.
Overall, for an organization, an Energy Management Maturity Model will: (i) structure and im-
prove the understanding of energy management practices, (ii) provide a roadmap towards continuous
improvement, (iii) provide an understanding of the steps required towards successful energy manage-
ment, (iv) enable benchmarking the current energy practices against other organizations, and (v) guide
investment efforts.
This translates into benefits according to three pillars, as shown in Figure 1.1: (i) environmental
benefits, such as reduced CO2 emissions due to lower energy consumption; (ii) economic benefits,
translated into lower energy costs and increased resource productivity; and (iii) societal benefits, such
as customer and workforce awareness and organizational image in society.
1.1 Problem
According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Energy Management stands out
as one of the top five areas that require the development and promotion of international standards. The
adoption of a standard, such as ISO 50001, increases energy efficiency by more than 20% in industrial
facilities [Pinero, 2009]. To further emphasize the relevance of this topic, a study made by Lawrence
Berkeley National Labs about energy efficiency projects in the United States concluded that the total
project spending in energy service companies, from 1990 to 2000, increased from US$500 million to
US$2 billion [Van Gorp, 2004].
Another study has identified that, out of the 3,749 respondents, 85% state that energy manage-
ment was very important to their organizations and 63% have actually invested in energy efficiency
projects [IBE, 2012], as shown in Figure 1.2. Regarding legislation, for example, the EU has also estab-
lished an energy improvement target of 20% by 2020 [Wesselink et al., 2010].
Energy efficiency can be improved through investments in energy technologies and promoting en-
ergy management practices [Backlund et al., 2012]. While energy management shares some common
practices across the literature, there is still a great diversity in these practices: some activities are ne-
2
63%
53%
74%72%
61%
52%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Global Europe US/Canada China India Australia Brazil
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
of
en
erg
y e
ffic
ien
cy p
roje
cts
Figure 1.2: Worldwide energy efficiency project implementation in 2012, through a study composed of3,749 respondents, representing investments on a worldwide and country basis [IBE, 2012]
glected while others are more common. For example, existing solutions for measurement, analysis
and control of energy do not address all the requirements of energy management at the organization
or process level because they do not adequately develop workforce awareness of the energy used in
their business [Vikhorev et al., 2012]. Some common energy management activities include ensuring
management commitment, appointing individuals or teams responsible for energy management, defin-
ing energy policies and action plans, as well as reviewing implemented measures by management, or
metering of energy use.
In an analysis of the Swedish industrial energy efficiency programs [Thollander et al., 2007], energy
audits allow a potential energy performance increase between 16-40% and an electricity savings poten-
tial between 20-60%, and have been identified as very important for the identification and implementation
of cost-effective energy-efficiency opportunities [Shen et al., 2012].
The approaches taken to implement such activities can vary greatly in terms of practices and techno-
logical sophistication: an organization might use energy-saving practices based on the experience of the
facility manager and/or users, while another may employ a computerized Energy Management System,
which is by definition a management system that provides a framework for managing and continually
improving organizational policies, processes and procedures [Hipkiss, 2011]. However, the use of these
energy management systems isn’t a very commonly adopted practice [Molla et al., 2012].
On one hand, the recently published ISO 50001 standard [ISO, 2011] enables organizations to es-
tablish energy management systems and processes necessary for energy performance improvement
to reduce energy costs, greenhouse emissions and other environmental impacts. However, standards
such as IS393 [SEAI, 2006], ANSI/MSE 2000 [ANSI, 2008], BS EN 16001 [BSi, 2009], and more re-
cently ISO 50001, only define the requirements for organizations to establish, maintain, implement and
3
improve energy management systems. These standards do not provide organizations with a model to
assess their current situation against other organizations, except for a final certification, or allow them to
plan their energy management implementation in an incremental way along an established improvement
roadmap.
On the other hand, maturity models can be used as a tool to assess the as-is situation of a company,
derive and rank improvement measures, and control implementation progress [De Bruin et al., 2005].
They consist of a sequence of maturity levels that represent a desired organizational evolution path, in
which the initial maturity level represents a state that can be characterized by an organization having
few capabilities in the chosen domain, while the highest maturity level represents a stage of total ma-
turity [Becker et al., 2009]. Maturity, in this case, can be defined as a metric to evaluate capabilities of
an organization regarding a certain discipline [De Bruin and Rosemann, 2005]. Advancing through this
evolution path indicates that organizations are improving their capabilities step by step [Jorg Becker et
al., 2010].
According to a recent survey on maturity models, out of the 237 studied articles, only 3 efforts focused
on the topic of sustainability [Wendler, 2012], showing that research regarding maturity models in the
energy field is still at its inception. Up to now, no maturity model has been created specifically for energy
management. However, maturity models have been created for Smart Grid implementation [SGMM
Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2011], for data center efficiency [Curry et al., 2012], and initial
efforts have been reported regarding energy management maturity models [O’Sullivan, 2012].
Furthermore, the approach taken by international standards is different from the approach taken by
maturity models. In order to reach compliance with a standard such as ISO 50001, organizations need
to show evidence about every single defined requirement, in the form of a final certification. Maturity
models have the same ultimate goal of process improvement but they establish several levels of or-
ganizational maturity as organizations increase their improvement efforts and implement the required
processes at their own pace, providing them with an implementation roadmap not included in ISO stan-
dards.
In view of the arguments presented above, we may say that “organizations do not have a systematic
approach, e.g., maturity models, to energy management implementation.” Developing a Maturity Model
is a significant research problem related with the importance of guidelines and best practices, e.g.,
maturity models and frameworks. Indeed, the solution for the presented problem will provide a set of
best practices, providing organizations with a systematic means of improving their energy usage.
1.2 Methodology
The aim of this work is the design of an energy management maturity model that will further drive
improvements in energy management in organizations. In order to assess the current state of energy
management practices, design the proposed maturity model and perform its evaluation, we conducted
our research as follows:
• Review of several sources related to energy management (such as energy management sys-
4
tems, energy management guides, energy management standards and case studies), and also of
sources related to maturity models.
• Comparative analysis contrasting the current state of energy management in organizations, ob-
tained from the reviewed case studies, energy management guides and other energy management
articles.
• Identification of a set of energy management activities that will be the basis for the proposed
maturity model based on the previous analysis.
• Evaluation of the proposal for completeness by performing an ontology mapping to the require-
ments of ISO 50001.
• Evaluation of the achieved mapping using Wand and Weber’s method to identify ontological defi-
ciencies,
• Evaluation of the utility and difficulty of implementation of proposed activities, and overall utility of
the proposed maturity model through questionnaires.
1.3 Contributions
The major contributions of this work are as follows:
• A review of literature and state of the art of energy management.
• A review of literature and state of the art of maturity models.
• The identification of energy management implementation and practice gaps, and implementation
barriers.
• Creation of a maturity model for energy management that consists of essential energy manage-
ment activities.
• Mapping of the proposed maturity model to ISO 50001 and corresponding ontological evaluation.
• Evaluation of the utility and difficulty of implementation of each proposed activity, and overall utility
of the model, by industry experts.
• In addition, the work reported herein was accepted for publication at the Energy Policy journal:
Pedro Antunes, Paulo Carreira and Miguel Mira da Silva. Towards an Energy Management Maturity
Model. Energy Policy, Elsevier, 2014
1.4 Document Structure
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the related work associated with this thesis.
This Section presents the study of topics related to this work, namely energy management guides,
5
energy management systems, energy management standards, energy management scientific articles,
and maturity models. Section 3 details the proposed maturity model along with identified implementation
challenges and Section 4 describes the evaluation method performed to validate this work and the results
obtained. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions of this work, along with its limitations, lessons
learned, and future work.
6
Chapter 2
Related Work
This chapter analyses the literature of interest comprised by good practice guides for energy man-
agement, energy management standards, scientific articles, and texts covering energy management
systems. The most relevant literature related to maturity models, some related to the topic of energy
management, is also analysed in this section. Finally, this Section presents a discussion of these find-
ings, identifying an energy management gap and barriers to successful implementation.
2.1 Energy Management
In this Section we will present the studied literature regarding energy management. We have analysed
the main functionalities of energy management systems and studied several good practice guides, sci-
entific articles and energy management standards, which helped us identify an energy management
gap between theory and implementation.
2.1.1 Energy Management Guides
Energy management guides have been published by several entities aiming at establishing a set of
industry best practices. Two references that stand out are the energy management guide published by
Carbon Trust in 2011 [CarbonTrust, 2011] and the Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) designed for small
businesses [Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008].
The CarbonTrust guide prescribes the implementation of an energy management program, organized
into the following steps:
Initial review is the first step in which organizations assess their initial energy performance to under-
stand how energy is being used and managed. This step will enable the understanding of how the
core business and legislation requirements affect energy use. It requires benchmarking current
energy performance by gathering and analysing data.
Senior management commitment aims at engaging senior management in the energy management
7
process to ensure visibility across the organization, spurring the implementation of energy man-
agement improvement efforts and guaranteeing financial and human resources.
Energy policy definition consists of establishing a firm basis for energy management aligned with
corporate vision. The energy policy document must provide a clear definition of energy objectives
and targets, and commitment to ensuring sufficient resources and maintaining an energy strategy.
This step requires, among other, activities such as training staff, communicating and performing
regular reviews.
Energy strategy definition aims at equipping the organization with an instrument to achieve energy
policy objectives. This strategy will define action plans and key activities to ensure that energy
goals are met. The activities defined must support the energy policy, starting with organizational
culture aspects and ending on regulatory or financial aspects of investment and procurement.
Management review reaffirms commitment by reviewing policies, objectives and action plans, redefin-
ing roles and responsibilities, and ensuring that systems and processes are being used.
The Sustainable Energy Ireland guide also organizes the implementation of an energy management
program according to five key steps:
Commit is the defined step that ensures management commitment to the energy management pro-
gram. This step is achieved by establishing the role of Energy Coordinator and creating an effec-
tive, manageable energy statement describing the program goals.
Identify step aims at discovering possible energy and cost savings based on the company’s energy
usage, the main areas of energy use, and energy bills.
Plan step describes an Energy Action Plan consisting of activities that set objectives and targets, as-
signing responsibilities for each objective.
Take action step consists of actual effort directed towards the implementation of the previously defined
Energy Action Plan. Among other activities, this step consists of raising energy awareness inside
the company and motivating staff to participate.
Review step aims at improving the energy management effort by continuously monitoring and compar-
ing energy performance, undertaking a complete review of targets and progress towards achieving
them.
Both guides structure energy management practice according to five major steps. CarbonTrust starts
with an initial review and then ensures management commitment, while the SEI guide starts with com-
mitment. Both prescribe the identification of strategies and action plans, and some type of periodic
review. Clearly, the approaches are extremely similar and, coarsely speaking, define the essential en-
ergy management activities.
These approaches are in tune with the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle [Sokovic et al., 2010]: they focus on
the identification of the current situation of energy performance and establishing a course of action, then
8
implementing improvement measures, followed by the measurement of effectiveness, and finish with a
review step to identify further improvement opportunities. This cycle has been adopted as the basis
for several standards, good practice guides (such as ITIL) and maturity models. As such, the activities
defined in these guides, which are extremely similar, provide organizations with a solid foundation for
the continuous improvement of energy performance.
2.1.2 Scientific Literature
A limited number of scientific sources give an account of the activities that take place in the current en-
ergy management practice [Van Gorp, 2004, Dusi and Schultz, 2012, Gonzalez et al., 2012, Coppinger,
2010]. Analysing the few existing references, we find that many common activities are identified, but
there are also some discrepancies between them.
In addition, we have also found that several papers do not propose ‘essential’ energy management
activities, such as the initial benchmarking of energy usage, defining objectives and targets, maintaining
documentation, or planning for continuous improvement, among others. This validates our initial claim
that essential energy management activities are still not well defined in the scientific literature.
2.1.3 Energy Management Systems
Energy Management Systems (EMSs) are essential tools for energy management as they provide orga-
nizations with information that enables them to support better decisions, by monitoring and measuring
energy consumption, modeling future energy consumption trends, and analysing current costs. EMSs
also enable organizations to automate several tasks, such as gathering meter and equipment status
data, and reporting key performance indicators regarding energy consumption to management.
Without appropriate support by EMSs, organizations are not able to properly measure energy usage
and monitor the effectiveness of their energy improvement measures. These systems can store massive
quantities of data, and usually have two sub-systems: alarming and data visualization [Seem, 2007]. The
functionalities of EMSs can be organized according to four main groups [Van Gorp, 2004]: measurement
and verification, energy use and cost analysis, benchmarking, and modeling and forecasting.
Measurement and verification provides the ability to compare energy use before and after steps have
been taken to address potential energy savings. Energy use and cost analysis enables organizations to
analyse where and when energy is used, providing them a detailed breakdown of energy use and cost
of equipment and processes, enabling organizations to better understand energy performance.
Benchmarking gives organizations the ability to compare the energy consumption of their processes,
buildings and equipment against each other and existing industry’s best practices. The final functionality
group, modeling and forecasting, enables organizations to create models of energy consumption accord-
ing to different factors, allowing them to forecast how energy consumption will evolve. Organizations can
then choose to take measures to correct that trend or to verify the success of energy management
improvements.
9
2.1.4 Energy Management Standards
A number of energy management standards and programs have been created to help organizations
better manage their energy use.
The I.S. 393:2005 [SEAI, 2006] and I.S. EN 16001:2009 [BSi, 2009] were created by the Sustainable
Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) and are very similar and closely related. Both standards define the
same set of requirements: (i) Planning, (ii) Implementation and operation, (iii) Checking (and corrective
action) and (iv) Management review.
The MSE 2000:2008 [ANSI, 2008] standard specifies requirements for energy management systems
to improve energy performance in an organisation. The primary requirements required by this standard
are:
Management responsibility requires a commitment to the energy management system by establish-
ing an energy policy, communicating the importance of energy management to the organisation,
ensuring objectives are established and met, providing resources to achieve these goals, creating
an energy policy and strategy and assigning energy management roles to ensure activities are
done according to energy policy,
Energy management planning states that the organisation must identify, collect, record and analyse
all relevant data for energy management, create energy profiles which establishes energy base-
lines for future comparison, tracking and analysing all utility data to perform regular energy as-
sessments, identify significant energy uses by identifying facilities, equipment, processes and per-
sonnel that affect energy consumption and develop energy performance indicators to measure the
effectiveness of the EMS,
Implementation and operation defines the need to develop procedures for energy purchase that are
consistent with the energy policy and goals to evaluate energy suppliers, ensure control of equip-
ment, systems and processes, establish processes for communication of the energy performance
and ensure that energy management competencies exist, that the required training is done and
energy management awareness is done across the organisation,
Checking and evaluation states that energy performance must be monitored and measured, proce-
dures established for internal audits to the EMS and to deal with corrective and preventive action,
Management review needs to be done at defined intervals where energy performance is assessed and
commitment to further improvements needs to be established.
ISO 50001
The ISO 50001 standard [ISO, 2011] is the most recent energy management systems standard, also
based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) continual improvement framework. ISO 50001 enables any
kind of organization to improve energy performance, efficiency, use and consumption. Large orga-
nizations, from health care, aerospace, automotive and transportation product manufacturers, energy
10
generation companies, and others have adopted continuous energy and quality improvement principles
based on ISO 50001 [Ranky, P.G., 2012].
Success stories concerning ISO 50001 abound. In a recent survey, it was mentioned that 75% of
Turkish industrial organizations welcome ISO 50001 as the new energy management standard and 20%
state that a standard is necessary for energy management [Ates and Durakbasa, 2012]. Denmark,
Sweden and Ireland are also transitioning towards ISO 50001 [Goldberg and Reinaud, 2012]. Another
case study has shown that the adoption of this standard has proved to increase energy use efficiency
by 18.5% [Chiu et al., 2012].
As of December 2012, ISO 50001 certification has only been achieved by approximately two thou-
sand organizations, against roughly 300 thousand that have achieved ISO 14001 compliance, or ap-
proximately 1 million that have achieved ISO 9001 compliance [ISO, 2012]. The number of ISO 50001
certifications, despite being several times smaller in comparison with the mentioned ISO standards,
highlights the great growth potential for this international standard.
ISO 50001 specifies several requirements (such as management commitment, effective monitoring,
measurement and analysis of several variables and management review of the results) of an Energy
Management System for organizations to develop and implement an energy policy, establish objectives,
targets and action plans. The six main requirements established in ISO 50001 are:
Management responsibility whereby management displays commitment to energy management and
supports continuous improvement in (i) creating an energy policy, (ii) appointing management
roles, (iii) ensuring appropriate resources (human and financial), (iv) communicating the energy
management importance to the organization, (v) defining energy objectives and targets and appro-
priate energy performance indicators, (vi) establishing a long-term plan for energy management,
(vii) ensuring results are measured and reported, and (viii) conducting management reviews.
Energy policy that establishes how the organization will address energy management and improve-
ment.
Energy planning that establishes an energy review to analyse energy use, identifying problematic ar-
eas in terms of consumption and improvement opportunities and establishing an energy baseline
for future comparison. The organization also needs to establish energy objectives and targets, as
well as an action plan that defines how the targets will be achieved.
Implementation and operation consists of using the defined action plan, providing training so that
personnel has the necessary skills, communicating internally and externally about energy perfor-
mance, and ensuring that proper documentation is created and maintained. Energy procurement
and design of facilities and processes also need to take into account the energy policy, action plans
and defined goals.
Checking effectiveness of action plans and significant energy uses that will determine energy perfor-
mance by monitoring, metering and analysis of energy performance indicators.
11
Management review consists of periodic reviews of the energy management system, resulting, if nec-
essary, in changes to the energy policy, objectives and targets or allocation of resources.
A full description and comparison of the requirements defined in these energy management stan-
dards is shown in Table 2.1.
IS 393:2005 MSE 2000:2008 IS EN 16001:2009 ISO 50001:2011
requirements requirements requirements requirements
General requirements General requirements
Management responsibility Management responsibility
Management commitment Top management
Responsibility and authority Management representative
Energy policy Energy policy
Strategic planning
Planning Energy management Planning Energy planning
planning
General
External information
Legal and other requirements Legal and other requirements
Review of energy aspects Identification and review Energy review
of energy aspects
Energy baseline
Key performance indicators Energy performance indicators
Objectives and targets Goals, targets and project planning Energy Objectives, targets Energy objectives, energy targets
and programme(s) and energy management action plans
Energy management programme
Implementation and Implementation and Implementation and Implementation and
operation operation operation operation
General
Structure and responsibility Competence, training and awareness Resources, roles, responsibility Competence, training and awareness
and authority
Communication Communication
Documentation
Documentation requirements Documentation requirements
General requirements
Energy manual
Control of documents Control of documents
Control of records
Operational control Operational control Operational control
Design Design and selection Design Design
Specification and procurement Energy supply purchasing Specification and procurement Procurement of energy services, products,
equipment and energy
Operational control Energy purchasing specifications Operational control Operational control
Evaluation of energy suppliers
Energy purchasing bids
Energy purchasing contracts
Installation Installation
Control of equipment, systems
and processes
Energy management project
implementation
Control of outsourced energy
services
Checking and corrective action Checking and evaluation Checking Checking
Monitoring and measurement Monitoring and measurement Monitoring and measurement Monitoring, measurement and analysis
Evaluation of legal compliance Evaluation of legal requirements and
other requirements
Calibration
Internal audits Internal audit of the EnMS
Nonconformity, corrective action Corrective and preventive action Nonconformity, corrective action Nonconformities, correction, corrective,
and preventive action and preventive action and preventive action
Control of records
Management review Management review Review of the energy management Management review
system by top management
Performance statement Performance statement
General
Review inputs Input to management review
Review outputs Output from management review
Table 2.1: Energy management standards requirements comparison
12
2.2 Maturity Models
The main purpose of maturity models is to enable continuous improvement. Since the development of
the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) [Paulk et al., 1993] in 1993, to assess the ability of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense contractors’ processes to perform software projects, the popularity of maturity models
has been increasing. Indeed, the adoption of maturity models has fuelled a great deal of academic
interest [Jorg Becker et al., 2010] and their utilization is expected to continue increasing [Scott, 2007].
Maturity models have helped organizations overcome the challenges of the need for cost cutting or
quality improvement in the face of competitive pressure. They measure organizational maturity, which
can be defined as a “measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization” [Lahrmann et al., 2011]
of a specific domain based on defined rules, and have spread across several domains, from product
development [Software Engineering Institute, 2010b], services management [Software Engineering In-
stitute, 2010c] to data center energy efficiency [Curry et al., 2012] and other [Yin et al., 2011, Pereira
and Mira da Silva, 2011].
Maturity models typically define organizational maturity levels through a five-point Likert scale, with
five being the highest level of maturity [De Bruin et al., 2005]. They represent a theory of stage-based
evolution, aiming at describing stages and maturation paths, as they are expected to disclose current
and desirable maturity levels and to include improvement measures [Poppelbuß and Roglinger, 2011].
Moreover, maturity models are typically one-dimensional, focusing either on process maturity, people
capability or other objects maturity, with most maturity models focusing on a process perspective [Mettler
and Rohner, 2009].
Maturity levels refer to a set of processes that organizations must implement as part of a defined
improvement path. As organizations rise in maturity level regarding a specific dimension of their activity,
they will be operating more efficiently [Jorg Becker et al., 2010].
Another important characteristic of maturity models is that they may have two types of representation:
staged and continuous. According to the definition of CMMI, a staged representation “(...)uses maturity
levels to characterize the overall state of the organization’s processes relative to the model as a whole”
while the continuous representation “(...)uses capability levels to characterize the state of the organiza-
tion’s processes relative to an individual process area” [Software Engineering Institute, 2010c]. What
this means in practice is that organizations can decide which approach they want to take. Through the
continuous approach, organizations choose the specific processes they want to improve upon, based on
their business objectives, and improvement of independent process areas can happen at different rates.
In the staged representation, the model provides a set of processes that establishes a defined proven
path for improvement, which also facilitates benchmarking against other organizations. The difference
between approaches is shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2.1 Comparing Maturity Models
Maturity Models can be compared according to a number of variables such as (i) its success, (ii) the
approach (staged or continuous) taken by each model, (iii) the number of maturity levels the model uses,
13
Criteria SGMM EMMM CMMI-SVC PMF
Success Unknown Unknown High LowModel representationStaged No No Yes YesContinuous Yes Yes Yes YesNumber of maturity levelsStaged N/A N/A 1-5 1-5Continuous 0-5 1-5 0-3 1-5Scope Smart grid Energy management Services IT ServicesDetail High Unknown High LowBasis Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Table 2.2: Maturity model comparison of Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM), Energy Management Ma-turity Model (EMMM) preliminary work, CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) and Process Maturity Frame-work (PMF)
(iv) the scope or relevant area of application of each model, (v) the level of detail that the model provides
regarding objectives and processes, and (vi) whether or not the maturity model has served as basis for
other maturity models [Pereira and Mira da Silva, 2011]. A comparison between several maturity models
is depicted in Table 2.2, contrasting distinct proposals for maturity models according to these variables.
Energy-related maturity models such as Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM) [SGMM Team, Soft-
ware Engineering Institute, 2011] establish several requirements and activities that apply only to energy
providers, while the Energy Management Maturity Model (EMMM) [O’Sullivan, 2012] does not have a
staged representation and is still a work in progress that cannot be adequately studied. Thus, both anal-
ysed energy related maturity models, SGMM and EMMM, are inadequate to serve as a basis for our
Energy Management Maturity Model, since the former is not directly related to energy management and
the latter, while directly related to the topic of this thesis, does not provide organizations with an imple-
mentation roadmap, which is the goal of our work, instead assessing process capability on an individual
level.
Another maturity model, Process Maturity Framework (PMF) for ITIL, establishes both representa-
tions but is focused on IT Services, and has a low level of detail with respect to the activities described.
Moreover, it is unknown whether it has served as the basis for other maturity models. In contrast, CMMI
for Services (CMMI-SVC) addresses all the issues of PMF as it describes each process in a high level
of detail, and is widely used across organizations. Therefore it can be used as a general blueprint for a
staged energy management maturity model, as proposed in this work.
2.2.2 CMMI for Services
This chapter describes CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) in more detail.
CMMI is a collection of best practices that help organizations improve their processes. By using these
practices, which provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, organizations will be able to provide supe-
rior services. The 24 process areas defined in CMMI, which are described in Appendix C, required to
establish, deliver and manage superior services are divided into the following categories: (i) project and
work management, (ii) support, (iii) service establishment and delivery, and (iv) process management.
14
Level Continuous representation Staged representation
0 Incomplete
1 Performed Initial
2 Managed Managed
3 Defined Defined
4 Quantitatively Managed
5 Optimizing
Table 2.3: Comparison of Capability and Maturity Levels in CMMI for Services[Software EngineeringInstitute, 2010c]
0 1 2 3
Process Area N
Process Area 4
Process Area 3
Process Area 2
Process Area 1
Targeted Capability Levels
Se
lect
ed
Pro
cess
Are
as
Continuous Representation
Maturity Level 5
Maturity Level 4
Maturity Level 3
Maturity Level 2
WP
WMC
SD
SAM
REQM
PPQA
MA
CM
Staged Representation
= Process areas chosen for process improvement to achieve maturity level 2
Figure 2.1: Continuous and Staged representation in CMMI for Services [Software Engineering Institute,2010c]
These process areas (PAs) contain a set of specific goals (SGs) which describe the unique character-
istics that must be present in order to fulfil that same process area. These specific goals also contain
specific practices (SP) that are the description of important activities to achieve the associated specific
goal.
In order to benchmark and appraise activities, CMMI-SVC defines capability and maturity levels,
which are also used to guide improvement efforts. To assess this organizational evolution, there are two
different representations in CMMI-SVC: (i) continuous representation, which uses capability levels to
characterize the state of an organization’s processes relative to an individual process area, measured
from Incomplete (Level 0) to Defined (Level 3), and (ii) staged representation, which uses maturity
levels to characterize the overall state of the organization’s processes relative to the model as a whole,
measured from Initial (Level 1) to Optimizing (Level 5). The two representations of CMMI-SVC are shown
in Figure 2.1 and the representation of each capability and maturity level is shown in Table 2.3.
Process areas have an assigned maturity level and can be represented from both the continuous and
staged perspective. This representation enables organizations to choose to focus in improving a specific
process area, by choosing a specific process area from the continuous representation; or to focus on a
set of interrelated process areas, as defined in the staged representation.
Regarding the continuous representation, CMMI-SVC defines the following capability levels:
15
Capability Level 0: Incomplete A process that is not performed or is partially performed, where one
or more of the specific goals of the process area are not satisfied.
Capability Level 1: Performed A process that accomplishes the needed work to produce work prod-
ucts, and the specific goals of the process area are satisfied.
Capability Level 0: Managed A process that is planned and executed in accordance with policy, em-
ploys skilled people, involves relevant stakeholders, is monitored, controlled, and reviewed.
Capability Level 3: Defined A process that is tailored from the organization’s set of standard pro-
cesses according to the organization’s tailoring guidelines, has a maintained process description,
and contributes process related assets to the organizational process assets.
In the staged representation, process areas are grouped into several maturity levels. The character-
istics of each maturity level and the associated process areas are shown in Table 2.4.
Maturity Level Characteristics Process Areas
1 - Initial
•Processes are usually ad hoc and chaotic, organizations do not provide astable environment to support processes
Not applicable
•Success depends on the competence of the people in the organization andnot on the use of proven processes
•Organizations provide services that often work, but frequently exceed theplanned budget and schedule
•Organizations are characterized by a tendency to overcommit, abandon theirprocesses in a time of crisis, and unable to repeat their successes
2 - Managed
•Foundations established for an organization to become an effective service Configuration Management
provider Measurement and Analysis
•Work groups define a service strategy, create work plans, and monitor and Process and Product Quality Assurance
control the work to ensure the service is delivered as planned Requirements Management
•Work groups, work activities, processes, work products, and services are Supplier Agreement Management
managed Service Delivery
•Service provider ensures that processes are planned according with policy, Work Monitoring and Control
involves relevant stakeholders and monitors and controls the process Work Planning
3 - Defined
•Service providers use defined processes for managing work Capacity and Availability Management
•Processes are well characterized and understood and are described in Decision Analysis and Resolution
standards, procedures, tools, and methods Incident Resolution and Prevention
•Standards, process descriptions, and work procedures are tailored from the Integrated Work Management
organizations set of standard processes to suit a particular work group Organizational Process Definition
or organizational unit Organizational Process Focus
•Processes are typically described more rigorously than at maturity level 2, Organizational Training
clearly stating the purpose, inputs, entry criteria, activities, roles, measures, Risk Management
verification steps, outputs, and exit criteria Service Continuity
•Organizations further improve its processes that are related to the maturity Service System Transition
level 2 process areas Strategic Service Management
4 - Quantitativelymanaged
•Service providers establish quantitative objectives for quality and process Organizational Process Performance
performance and use them as criteria in managing processes Quantitative Work Management
•Process performance is controlled using statistical and quantitative
techniques and predictions are based on a statistical analysis of fine-grained
process data
5 - Optimizing
•Organizations continually improve its processes based on a quantitative Causal Analysis and Resolution
understanding of its business objectives and performance needs Organizational Performance Management
•Organizations focus on continually improving process performance through
incremental and innovative process and technological improvements
•Analysis of the organizational performance identifies gaps in performance,
which drive organizational process improvement
Table 2.4: CMMI for Services staged representation, describing the characteristics of maturity levels andprocess areas in each one
16
Since CMMI defines two different representations, it also provides organizations with a way to com-
pare results between the continuous and staged representations. In order to establish this relationship,
CMMI defines target profiles, which are a list of process areas and corresponding capability levels, for
each maturity level in the staged representation. The rules of equivalent staging defined in CMMI, as
shown in Table 2.5, are:
Maturity level 2 All process areas assigned to maturity level 2 must achieve capability level 2 or 3.
Maturity level 3 All process areas assigned to maturity levels 2 and 3 must achieve capability level 3.
Maturity level 4 All process areas assigned to maturity levels 2, 3, and 4 must achieve capability level
3.
Maturity level 5 All process areas must achieve capability level 3.
Name Abbr. Focus ML CL1 CL2 CL3
Configuration Management CM 2
Measurement and Analysis MA 2
Process and Product Quality Assurance PPQA 2
Requirements Management REQM 2
Supplier Agreement Management SAM 2
Service Delivery SD 2
Work Monitoring and Control WMC 2
Work Planning WP 2
Capacity and Availability Management CAM 3
Decision Analysis and Resolution DAR 3
Incident Resolution and Prevention IRP 3
Integrated Work Management IWM 3
Organizational Process Definition OPD 3
Organizational Process Focus OPF 3
Organizational Training OT 3
Risk Management RSKM 3
Service Continuity SCON 3
Service System Development SSD 3
Service System Transition SST 3
Strategic Service Management STSM 3
Organizational Process Performance OPP 4
Quantitative Work Management QWM 4
Causal Analysis and Resolution CAR 5
Organizational Performance Management OPM 5
Target Profile 3
Target Profile
2
Target Profile 4
Target Profile 5
Basic Project
Management
Process
Standardization
Quantitative
Management
Continuous
Process
Improvement
Table 2.5: Target Profiles and Equivalent Staging in CMMI for Services [Software Engineering Institute,2010c]
CMMI also defines generic goals that are transversal across all process areas, and which contain
generic goals (GGs). These generic goals describe the characteristics that must be present to institu-
tionalize processes, and are composed by generic practices (GPs), which describe activities that need
to be addressed in order to achieve the generic goals and institutionalize these same processes.
17
By fulfilling the first, second and third generic goals in each process area, processes can be classi-
fied as (i) performed, meaning that it accomplishes the work necessary to satisfy the specific goals of
a process area; (ii) managed, meaning that it is a performed process that is planned and executed in
accordance with policy, employs skilled people, involves relevant stakeholders, is monitored, controlled,
and reviewed; and (iii) defined, meaning that it is a managed process that is tailored from the organi-
zation’s set of standard processes according to the organization’s tailoring guidelines, has a maintained
process description, and contributes process related experiences to the organizational process assets,
respectively, progressing in the institutionalization of that specific process.
The following is a list of the three existing generic goals in CMMI and corresponding generic practices:
Generic Goal 1 - Achieve Specific Goals
Specific goals of the process area are supported by the process by transforming identifiable input
work products into identifiable output work products.
GP1.1 Perform the specific practices of the process area to develop work products and provide
services to achieve the specific goals of the process area.
Generic Goal 2 - Institutionalize a Managed Process
The process is institutionalized as a managed process.
GP2.1 Establish and maintain an organizational policy for planning and performing the process.
GP2.2 Establish and maintain the plan for performing the process.
GP2.3 Provide adequate resources for performing the process, developing the work products, and
providing the services of the process.
GP2.4 Assign responsibility and authority for performing the process, developing the work prod-
ucts, and providing the services of the process.
GP2.5 Train the people performing or supporting the process as needed.
GP2.6 Place selected work products of the process under appropriate levels of control.
GP2.7 Identify and involve the relevant stakeholders of the process as planned.
GP2.8 Monitor and control the process against the plan for performing the process and take ap-
propriate corrective action.
GP2.9 Objectively evaluate adherence of the process and selected work products against the
process description, standards, and procedures, and address noncompliance.
GP2.10 Review the activities, status, and results of the process with higher level management and
resolve issues.
Generic Goal 3 - Institutionalize a Defined Process
The process is institutionalized as a defined process.
GP3.1 Establish and maintain the description of a defined process.
18
Activities SE
I
Carb
on
Tru
st
Van
Gorp
Du
sian
dS
chu
ltz
Gon
zale
zet
al.
Cop
pin
ger
Management commitment • • • • •Create energy management roles • • • •Understand energy usage • • • • •Benchmark current performance • •Identify opportunities • • • •Establish policy • •Define energy performance indicators • •Set objectives and targets • • •Create action plan • • • •Assign responsibilities • •Prioritise investments • •Procurement •Training • •Documentation •Communicate results • • • •Allocate resources •Regulatory compliance •Metering, monitoring and analysis • • • • •Management review • •Audit process • • •Plan continuous improvement • •
Table 2.6: Comparison table of the energy management activities in all of the analysed energy manage-ment texts, from good practice guides to case studies and other scientific articles [Sustainable EnergyIreland, 2008, CarbonTrust, 2011, Van Gorp, 2004, Dusi and Schultz, 2012, Gonzalez et al., 2012, Cop-pinger, 2010]
GP3.2 Collect process related experiences derived from planning and performing the process
to support the future use and improvement of the organization’s processes and process
assets.
As we can see from the information presented in this Section, CMMI for Services is a detailed ma-
turity model that establishes two kinds of representations in order to enable process improvement in
organizations regarding the establishment and management of services.
2.3 Discussion
Energy management activities are somewhat similar across energy management literature. Although
there are no authoritative sources defining what are the essential energy management activities, all the
analysed literature points to the idea of performing initial reviews to understand how energy is being
used and to establish a baseline of organizational energy performance. The creation of an energy policy
and strategy is mostly established in good practice guides, and most texts also establish an action plan.
The commitment of senior management appears as a cross-cutting aspect required to ensure re-
sources for promoting energy programs, and backing the creation of energy management roles. The
communication of energy improvement results inside the organization as well as staff training is also
considered relevant across most texts.
Metering, monitoring and analysis is relevant across virtually all texts, and must be backed up by
energy management systems. Overall, the functionalities of Energy Management Systems support
activities of metering, monitoring and analysis, benchmarking, understanding energy usage, and assist
in communicating the results of improvement actions, which can be framed into the Energy Strategy and
19
Theory Barrier Examples
Economic Hidden costs Overhead costs, Production disruptions, and information costs (collecting and analyzing)
Access to capital May lead to slim budgets, affecting energy investment
Risk Energy-efficiency measures can be constrained by short pay-back criteria due to risk aversion
Heterogeneity Energy-efficiency measures may not be implemented because they’re not adoptable in theorganization
Imperfect information Research has documented that consumers are often poorly informed about market condi-tions, technology characteristics and own behavior impact
Principal-agent relationships The fact that the principal cannot observe what the agent is doing, may result in strictmonitoring and control by the principal and thus result in neglecting of energy-efficiencymeasures
Adverse selection Purchasers may select goods on visible aspects, such as price, if suppliers know more aboutthe energy performance than purchasers
Split incentives Implementation may become of lower interest if a person or department cannot benefit froman energy-efficiency investment
Behavioral Bounded rationality In theory, decisions are based on perfect information, in reality they’re often made by therule of thumb
Inertia Opponents to change within an organization may result in neglecting of energy efficiencymeasures
Credibility and trust Information sources should be trustworthy in order to successfully deliver information re-garding energy efficiency measures
Form and information Information should be specific and simple in order to increase acceptance possibility
Values Efficiency improvements are more likely to be adopted if there are individuals with realambition, preferably within top management
Organizational Culture A culture characterized by environmental values may encourage energy efficiency investments
Power Lack of power within energy management may lead to lower priority of energy issues withinorganizations
Table 2.7: Energy efficiency barrier classification [Rohdin et al., 2007]
Review steps prescribed by energy guides.
The completeness and level of detail also varies across energy management texts. Some offer
a more complete description of what are considered good energy management practices, such as the
CarbonTrust guide. However, the analysis of case studies and scientific papers shows that organizations
often do not follow the same set of activities as these good practice guides in their implementation of
energy efficiency programs, as evidenced by Table 2.6. Most importantly, no guide or paper explores
how to implement energy management in an incremental way for all the activities.
Despite the fact that a large number of organizations are motivated to pursue energy efficiency and
are informed in this matter, very few have the capabilities to actually implement energy efficiency mea-
sures or can actually demonstrate the results of their improvement actions [Chai and Yeo, 2012]. En-
ergy management efforts are frequently hindered by a number of factors such as (i) lack of information,
(ii) limited awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency measures, (iii) inadequate skills, (iv) cultural or
financial constraints leading to investment in production capacity instead of energy efficiency measures,
and (v) larger importance on addressing upfront costs instead of overhead energy costs [McKane et al.,
2009].
As previously mentioned, we can clearly see a gap between energy management theory and im-
plementation, which is supported by scientific literature. The energy efficiency gap, referring to the fact
that energy improvement measures are not always implemented despite the need for increasing energy
efficiency, is due to three categories of barriers: economic, behavioral and organizational [Rohdin et al.,
2007]. The first category (economic) describes barriers such as (i) hidden costs, which translates to
costs with collecting and analyzing information, (ii) limited access to capital, representing tight energy
20
budgets that may affect the ability to invest in energy efficiency measures, and (iii) risk aversion, caused
by fear of production disruption. Behavioral barriers, for example, refer to the lack of credibility and trust
of information, therefore impeding improvement efforts. Finally, factors such as organizational culture
can be described as organizational barriers. These identified barriers are described in more detail in
Table 2.7.
Regarding energy management maturity models, there have been recent developments in this area.
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) has reported some preliminary work on an Energy
Management Maturity Model [O’Sullivan, 2012]. Their research follows a different approach from our
proposed maturity model, as each process is assessed individually, while our model is based on a
staged representation that provides a global vision of the main processes that an organization should
implement, at each maturity level, for managing energy more efficiently. However, the fact that national
energy authorities are developing a maturity model further underscores the relevance of our work.
21
22
Chapter 3
Proposal
In this section we propose the two approaches studied in this thesis to maturity models for energy man-
agement. First, in Section 3.1, we present a maturity model for energy management which provides an
easy-to-understand staged representation that enables organizations to gradually adopt energy man-
agement practices, guiding them along a clearly defined roadmap and helping them reach compliance
with energy management standards, such as ISO 50001.
The second proposal, as shown in Section 3.2, describes how CMMI for Services shares common
management concepts between its process areas and ISO 50001 requirements and how it could, in
theory, be used in organizations for energy management.
3.1 An Energy Management Maturity Model
Our Maturity Model is based on a representative set of well-defined and well-understood energy man-
agement activities. As discussed previously in Section 2.3, existing energy management guides share
common activities but the implementation of energy management programs and efforts varies greatly.
To obtain such a set of energy management activities we refer to the energy management literature
previously analysed as our basis. Table 3.1 details the activities on which our model is based, along with
a mapping to the ones they were derived from.
The energy management activities derived from the literature were organized into five maturity levels
following the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle framework on which most maturity models and standards are
based.
In the five-level Energy Management Maturity Model, shown in Figure 3.1, the first maturity level,
Initial, captures the starting stage of every organization that has not implemented this maturity model.
The next level, Planning, based on the ‘Plan’ step, starts by grouping together activities that are
considered as the first steps in energy management, when organizations merely focus their efforts in
understanding their current situation, lay out improvement plans and seek organizational support.
Maturity level four, Implementation, based on the ‘Do’ step, focuses on performing improvement
measures, such as workforce training and communication, and procurement of energy services based
23
Proposed activity Source activities ReferencesPlan
Ensure management commitment Management commitment SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, CoppingerEstablish energy management roles Establish energy management roles SEI, CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, CoppingerAssign responsibilities SEI, CarbonTrustEnergy review Understand energy usage SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Gonzalez et al., CoppingerBenchmark current performance Benchmark current performance CarbonTrust, Van GorpIdentify improvement opportunities Identify opportunities SEI, CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al., CoppingerEstablish energy policy Establish policy SEI, CarbonTrustEstablish energy performance indicators Establish energy performance indicators CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al.Set objectives and targets Set objectives and targets SEI, CarbonTrust, Van GorpCreate action plan Create action plan SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVCCheck regulatory compliance Regulatory compliance CarbonTrust
Do
Investment Prioritise investments SEI, CarbonTrustAllocate resources CarbonTrust
Procurement Procurement CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVCTraining Training SEI, CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVCCommunication Communicate results SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and SchultzDocumentation Documentation Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVC
Check Metering, monitoring and analysis Metering, monitoring and analysis SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, Gonzalez et al.,
CMMI-SVCProgram audit Audit process CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, Coppinger
Act Management review Management review SEI, CarbonTrust
Plan continuous improvement CarbonTrust, Coppinger
Table 3.1: Mapping between the activities supporting our proposed energy management maturity modeland the source activities from the analysed literature [Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008, CarbonTrust,2011, Van Gorp, 2004, Dusi and Schultz, 2012, Gonzalez et al., 2012, Coppinger, 2010, Software Engi-neering Institute, 2010c], and organized according to the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
on defined criteria.
The following maturity level, Monitoring, aims for the ‘Check’ stage of the PDCA cycle. At this
level, organizations engage in tracking the effectiveness of the measures implemented in the previous
level. This step is achieved with the help of previously identified functionalities of energy management
systems, as detailed in Section 2.1.3, as they monitor performance indicators established in the second
maturity level of this model, and with the creation of program audits to assess regular improvement.
Finally, the fifth maturity level, Improvement, is based on the ‘Act’ stage of the cycle, where orga-
nizations take action to continue further improvement or corrections, through high level management
decisions, which will impact organizational policies and energy management improvement goals.
The activities that were included were the most relevant across the analysed guides. However, our
model was also inspired by CMMI, taking into account other activities that are deemed as good manage-
ment practices. For example, CMMI process areas Work Planning, Supplier Agreement Management,
Configuration Management, Measurement and Analysis and Organizational Training can be coarsely
mapped to our ‘Create action plan’, ‘Procurement’, ‘Documentation’, ‘Metering, monitoring and analysis’
and ‘Training’ activities. The defined activities of our maturity model are shown in Table 3.2.
3.1.1 Maturity Level 1 - Initial
This first maturity level, designated Initial, depicts the stage that organizations start at and is character-
ized mostly by ad-hoc processes and efforts. Energy usage is not being monitored, organizations don’t
have defined policies or established improvement goals, roles are not defined and energy efficiency ef-
forts are not being regularly reviewed. In this initial stage, the success of energy management efforts in
organizations depends on certain individuals and on their previous experience.
24
Energy Management Maturity Model
Level 1INITIAL
Level 2PLANNING
Level 3IMPLEMENTATION
Level 4MONITORING
Level 5IMPROVEMENT
Time
Mat
urity
Figure 3.1: Proposed maturity model, with five levels of increasing maturity, representing the initial,planning, implementation, monitoring and improvement levels
3.1.2 Maturity Level 2 - Planning
The second maturity level, Planning, represents a point where organizations are undertaking the first
organizational efforts to understand energy usage: how is energy being consumed, how is it related to
the core business, and how and what kind of external constraints, such as legislation, apply to energy
efficiency. This is done by gathering and analysing data to understand current energy performance
in the organization, and creating a baseline for future comparison that will assist the identification of
problematic areas where improvements can be made. This maturity level is defined by the following
activities:
Energy review
In this activity, organizations must establish an energy review that uses measurement and monitor-
ing data to (i) identify energy sources and assess past and present energy use, (ii) identify major
areas of energy use by reviewing facilities, equipment, systems, processes and other factors that
will play a part in energy use, and (iii) create forecasts of future energy use and consumption. This
energy review activity allows organizations to better assess their energy performance status and
to gather information which will be used in further defined activities.
Benchmark current performance
Using the obtained data in the Energy review activity, organizations must establish an energy
benchmark of their current energy performance, creating a baseline which will enable them to
measure the effectiveness of their energy improvement efforts in the future.
Identify improvement opportunities
Also using the obtained data in the Energy review activity, organizations must study the obtained
25
Maturity Level Activities
1 - Initial stage No defined activities2 - Planning stage Energy review
Benchmark current performanceIdentify improvement opportunitiesEnsure management commitmentEstablish energy management rolesEstablish energy policySet objectives and targetsEstablish energy performance indicatorsCreate action planCheck regulatory compliance
3 - Implementation Investmentstage Procurement
TrainingCommunicationDocumentation
4 - Monitoring stage Metering, monitoring and analysisProgram audit
5 - Improvement stage Management review
Table 3.2: Proposed maturity model with the corresponding activities of each maturity level
information and identify improvement opportunities, in order to prioritize efforts.
Ensure management commitment
The purpose of this activity is to use the data obtained in previous defined activities to obtain
management commitment of energy management in the organization. By ensuring management
commitment, it ensures top management will (i) help define the organizational energy policy,
along with establishing well defined energy objectives and targets, (ii) assign an energy manager
role or team with authority and responsibility of energy performance efforts, (iii) promote energy
management inside the organization, (iv) ensure regularly review of objectives and project status,
and (v) provide the essential resources (human, financial, technological and others) to improve
energy performance.
Establish energy management roles
With the help of the organization’s management, an individual or a team must be assigned in order
to ensure energy improvement efforts are made with the energy policy in mind and communicate
the importance of energy management efforts in the organization.
Establish energy policy
Laying out an energy policy will detail organizational commitment to energy performance, stating
commitments to the availability of necessary resources, and compliance with national or interna-
tional legislation. This document will also (i) help define energy objectives and targets, and energy
performance indicators, (ii) be promoted in the organization to further change organizational cul-
26
ture regarding energy management, and (iii) guide the procurement of energy related services and
equipment.
Set objectives and targets
Organizations must set energy objectives and targets following the analysis of their current energy
performance in the Energy review and Identify improvement opportunities activities, consistent
with the energy policy established in the Establish energy policy activity.
Establish energy performance indicators
As part of the planning activities, organizations must establish appropriate energy performance
indicators. These indicators will enable organizations to measure the effectiveness of energy per-
formance efforts and will be compared to the energy benchmark previously established.
Create action plan
Creating an action plan will establish how the organization achieves the proposed improvement
goals. This plan delineates what actions are prioritised and what actions are assigned to individu-
als, with clearly defined responsibilities, budgets and time frames.
Check regulatory compliance
Due to the great number of national and international legislation regarding the energy, sustain-
ability and environment topics, organizations must identify applicable laws and comply with said
legislation.
3.1.3 Maturity Level 3 - Implementation
This maturity level, Implementation, is characterised by organizations where intentional action is being
taken to overcome detected inefficiencies. This maturity level defines activities required for the imple-
mentation of energy improvement measures, with procurement, training and communication playing an
important role, and is defined by the following activities:
Investment
When purchasing new equipment, facilities or designing new processes, organizations must con-
sider energy improvement according to established goals and policy.
Procurement
Following the management commitment to financial resources, the procurement of energy ser-
vices, equipment or products will be done by evaluating suppliers while taking into account the
previously defined energy goals and energy policy.
Training
Organizations must make sure that their workforce with responsibilities in energy management
positions have the required skills to understand the subject and work with energy management
systems. If necessary, organizations must provide adequate training to address this flaw.
27
Communication
With this activity, organizations communicate to everyone inside the organization the benefits and
goals of the proposed energy efficiency measures in order to promote user cooperation and influ-
ence organizational culture, promoting the defined organizational energy policy.
Documentation
Organizations must maintain updated documentation of all defined activities and resultant artifacts,
such as energy policy, energy goals and targets, energy performance indicators, action plans, and
energy review documents.
3.1.4 Maturity Level 4 - Monitoring
In this maturity level, Monitoring, organizations actively and routinely collect, process and analyse
energy data to ensure that the defined goals are met and to identify further improvement opportunities,
providing management with reports on the success of energy management efforts. This assessment of
measures taken is verified by the organizational program audit activity.
Metering, monitoring and analysis
Through the use of energy management systems, organizations can monitor energy performance
indicators previously established, which enables them to assess the effectiveness of proposed
measures and action plans.
Program audit
As part of this maturity level, organizations must perform an internal, unbiased audit of the effec-
tiveness of implemented measures and their results, in order to better understand if the established
goals and targets are being met.
3.1.5 Maturity Level 5 - Improvement
The final maturity level, Improvement, is where organizations ensure that implemented measures are
reviewed by senior management, to correct possible identified flaws and introduce adjustments in the
previously defined energy policy, action plans, and objectives.
Management review
In this activity, top management will assess the effectiveness of improvement measures, obtained
from the previous maturity level activities, Metering, monitoring and analysis and Program au-
dit. Reports obtained from these two activities, and together with previously defined documents,
such as the organizational energy policy, and established energy objectives and targets, will be
used by senior management to perform changes in energy policy, energy performance indicators,
and objectives and targets.
28
3.1.6 Implementation Challenges
Naturally, at each stage in the Energy Management Maturity Model, organizations face distinct chal-
lenges in their energy management efforts. We have identified key challenges and summarized them in
Table 3.3.
Maturity Level Challenges
Initial N/A
Planning Getting top management approval and commitment
Establishing relevant performance indicators
Defining feasible and obtainable goals
Implementation Staff support and knowledge of energy policies
Raising awareness of energy improvement
Resources competition by other departments
Monitoring Ensuring systems can support data collection and analysisfor established indicators
Performing unbiased internal audits
Improvement Providing necessary data to establish further improvementactions
Table 3.3: Identified challenges across each maturity level that organizations face in energy manage-ment implementation efforts
In the second maturity level, organizations must achieve management commitment and define ap-
propriate goals and performance indicators. Without these, future energy management efforts will not
be able to properly advance from the planning stages, as these steps will lay the foundation for im-
proving energy performance, from ensuring financial resources and company awareness to establishing
improvement goals and performance indicators, necessary for future assessment of performance.
In the third maturity level, awareness and support of energy management by the organization’s staff
is extremely important. Without this support, which has the underlying goal of changing organizational
culture, energy improvement efforts will be met with resistance and will not be achieved. During this
maturity level, organizations must also ensure that investment and procurement activities are not under-
mined by competition of resources from other departments in the organization.
In the fourth maturity level, in order to measure the effectiveness of improvement efforts, energy man-
agement systems that are in place must support the collection of data and must be able to analyse it, so
that results can be measured against previously defined goals and presented to top management. En-
suring that program audits are performed in an unbiased way is also important, since the assessment of
the effectiveness of improvement efforts might be compromised due to internal department competition
in organizations.
Finally, in the fifth maturity level, the management review activity cannot be properly executed without
the necessary information. If senior management does not have access to complete information about
energy performance, from previously defined goals and indicators to achieved results, they will not be
able to make correct decisions regarding future energy management efforts and corrective measures.
29
Process Areas by Category CMMI for Services CMMI for Development
Process Management
Organizational Process Definition Organizational Process Focus Organizational Performance Management Organizational Process Performance Organizational Training Support
Causal Analysis and Resolution Configuration Management Decision Analysis and Resolution Measurement and Analysis Process and Product Quality Assurance Project (and Work) Management
Capacity and Availability Management Service Continuity Supplier Agreement Management Requirements Management Risk Management Integrated Work/Project Management Work/Project Monitoring and Control Work/Project Planning Quantitative Work/ Project Management Service Establishment and Delivery
Incident Resolution and Prevention Service Delivery Service System Development Strategic Service Management Service System Transition Engineering
Product Integration Requirements Development Technical Solution Validation Verification
Table 3.4: Categorization and comparison of CMMI for Services and CMMI for Development processareas
3.2 Using CMMI for Services in Energy Management
This proposal is based on two documents: a mapping of ISO 9001 to CMMI-DEV 1.2 [Mutafelija and
Stromberg, 2009] and the ISO 50001 standard [ISO, 2011], with the former document defining a map
between ISO 9001 requirements and CMMI-DEV process areas and the latter document establishing a
comparison table between ISO 50001, ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 22000. Using these two docu-
ments, and by translating CMMI-DEV 1.2 process areas to CMMI-SVC 1.3 process areas, we were able
to achieve a preliminary map between ISO 50001 and CMMI for Services. Furthermore, as several ISO
requirements do not match between ISO 9001 and ISO 50001, we removed these unrelated require-
ments in the achieved mapping. This process, shown in Figure 3.2, enables us to create an updated
mapping between both frameworks, proving that, in theory, CMMI for Services could be used to help
energy management in organizations.
As depicted in Table 3.4, both CMMI models define many process areas which are transversal across
them, since they share a great number of core process areas, despite having different purposes. How-
30
CMMI for Development 1.2 CMMI for Services 1.3
Process Area Specific Practice(s) Process Area Specific Practice(s)
RD 1.1/1.2 SSD 1.1
RD 2.1/2.2/2.3 SSD 1.2
RD 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4/3.5 SSD 1.3
TS 1.1/1.2 SSD 2.1
TS 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4 SSD 2.2
PI 1.1/1.2/1.3/2.1/2.2 SSD 2.3
TS 3.1/3.2 SSD 2.4
PI 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4 SSD 2.5
VER 1.1/1.2/1.3SSD 3.1
VAL 1.1/1.2/1.3
VER 2.1/2.2/2.3 SSD 3.2
VER 3.1/3.2 SSD 3.3
VAL 2.1/2.2 SSD 3.4
Table 3.5: Mapping of CMMI-DEV Engineering process areas to CMMI-SVC process area Service Sys-tem Development
Direct mapping of
ISO 50001 and
9001
Direct mapping of
ISO 9001 and
CMMI-DEV 1.2
Remove unrelated
ISO requirements
Update CMMI-DEV
1.2 process areas
to CMMI-SVC 1.3
Final mapping of
ISO 50001 and
CMMI-SVC 1.3
Figure 3.2: CMMI for Services and ISO 50001 mapping process
ever, there are five Engineering process areas from CMMI-DEV which have no direct correspondence to
CMMI-SVC. In order to achieve a complete correspondence between both CMMI models, which is nec-
essary to translate the studied mapping of ISO 9001 with CMMI-DEV to CMMI-SVC, we have mapped
all five missing process areas to CMMI-SVC process area Service System Development, as shown in
Table 3.5.
The achieved mapping is shown in Table 3.6, depicting what CMMI process areas are associated
with ISO requirements and if they’re associated with these requirements through specific or generic
practices, previously described in Section 2.2.2 of this document. The following is a list of every ISO
50001 requirement, consisting in a brief description of its definition, and what CMMI process areas have
been mapped with it, which is shown in more detail in Appendix B:
• 4.1 General requirements - This requirement establishes that organizations must establish, docu-
ment, implement, maintain and improve an Energy Management System according to ISO require-
31
CMMI for Services Process Areas
Maturity model activities Configura
tion
Managem
ent
Measu
rem
ent
and
Analy
sis
Pro
cess
and
Pro
duct
Quality
Ass
ura
nce
Requir
em
ents
Managem
ent
Supplier
Agre
em
ent
Managem
ent
Serv
ice
Delivery
Work
Monit
ori
ng
and
Contr
ol
Work
Pla
nnin
g
Capaci
tyand
Availabilit
yM
anagem
ent
Deci
sion
Analy
sis
and
Reso
luti
on
Inci
dent
Reso
luti
on
and
Pre
venti
on
Inte
gra
ted
Work
Managem
ent
Org
aniz
ati
onal
Pro
cess
Definit
ion
Org
aniz
ati
onal
Pro
cess
Focu
s
Org
aniz
ati
onal
Tra
inin
g
Ris
kM
anagem
ent
Serv
ice
Conti
nuit
y
Serv
ice
Syst
em
Develo
pm
ent
Serv
ice
Syst
em
Tra
nsi
tion
Str
ate
gic
Serv
ice
Managem
ent
Org
aniz
ati
onal
Pro
cess
Perf
orm
ance
Quanti
tati
ve
Work
Managem
ent
Causa
lA
naly
sis
and
Reso
luti
on
Org
aniz
ati
onal
Perf
orm
ance
Managem
ent
General requirements G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Management responsibility
Top management G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Management representative G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Energy policy G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Energy planning
General
Legal and other requirements Energy review
Energy baseline
Energy performance indicators
Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans Implementation and operation
General Competence, training and awareness G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Communication G# G#Documentation
Documentation requirements G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Control of documents G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Operational control Design Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy Checking
Monitoring, measurement and analysis G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements G#Internal audit of the EnMS Nonconformities, correction, corrective, and preventive action Control of records G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Management review
General G# G#Input to management review G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#Output from management review G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G# G#
Table 3.6: Achieved mapping between ISO 50001 requirements and CMMI for Services process areas,with the G# symbol representing a mapping through CMMI generic practices of that specific process areaand the symbol representing a mapping between CMMI specific practices of that particular processarea
ments and determine how it will meet them. This can be mapped to specific practices of CMMI
process areas ‘Organizational Process Definition’ and ‘Organizational Process Focus’, along with
CMMI generic practice 2.1 across multiple process areas, which states that an organizational pol-
icy for performing processes must be established.
• 4.2.1 Top management - This requirement defines the need for top management to support the
Energy Management System in multiple ways, such as ensuring resources and periodical reviews.
This is mapped to CMMI generic practices 2.1, 2.3 and 2.10 across every process area, which state
that organizational policies for performing processes must be established, adequate resources for
performing these processes are provided, and that activities and results are reviewed with top
management, respectively.
• 4.2.2 Management representative - This ISO requirement establishes that organizations must
32
appoint a management representative to ensure and report the effectiveness of the Energy Man-
agement System. This is mapped to CMMI generic goals 2.4 across all process areas, which state
that responsibilities must be assigned for performing processes.
• 4.3 Energy policy - Through this requirement, organizations must create an energy policy where
they state their commitment to improving energy performance. This is mapped to CMMI process
area ‘Organizational Process Focus’ and generic practice 2.1 in every process area.
• 4.4.1 General - In this requirement, organizations have to conduct an energy planning process,
consistent with energy policy. Since this delineates the first steps in energy planning, we did not
find a direct mapping of this ISO requirement to CMMI, which focuses on service management.
• 4.4.2 Legal and other requirements - In this requirement, organizations identify applicable legal
requirements regarding energy, which can be mapped to ‘Service System Development’ specific
practices in CMMI, a CMMI for Services specific process that can be matched with several CMMI
for Development specific processes.
• 4.4.3 Energy review - This requirement establishes the need for an energy review, where energy
use is analysed and opportunities for improvement are identified. This ISO requirement is also
specific for energy management, and as such, we did not establish a direct mapping to CMMI.
• 4.4.4 Energy baseline - This requirement establishes the need for creating an energy baseline
to assess energy performance changes, and as previous requirements closely related to energy
management, we did not achieve a direct mapping against CMMI.
• 4.4.5 Energy performance indicators - This requirement states that energy performance indica-
tors, appropriate to the organization, must be identified. Since this ISO requirement is specific to
energy management, we did not establish a direct mapping to CMMI.
• 4.4.6 Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans - This require-
ment states that objectives and targets must be defined, along with action plans on how to achieve
these objectives. This can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Measurement and Analysis’, ‘Orga-
nizational Process Focus’, ‘Service System Development’, ‘Organizational Process Performance’
and ‘Quantitative Work Management’ specific practices.
• 4.5.1 General - This requirement states that organizations must use the defined action plan for
implementation and operations. This can be mapped to CMMI process area ‘Service System
Development’, by translating CMMI-DEV process areas to CMMI-SVC.
• 4.5.2 Competence, training and awareness - This requirement ensures that staff has the ad-
equate skills. This can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Work Planning’, ‘Integrated Work
Management’ and ‘Organizational Training’ and generic practice 2.5, which defines the need for
training people who support processes, across all process areas.
33
• 4.5.3 Communication - Due to this requirement, organizations must communicate energy perfor-
mance internally and externally, if they choose to. This can be mapped to CMMI generic goals 2.1
and 2.10 in ‘Organizational Process Definition’ and ‘Organizational Process Focus’ process areas.
• 4.5.4.1 Documentation requirements - This requirement defines that organizations must main-
tain information regarding their EnMS in paper or other forms. This can be mapped to CMMI
process areas ‘Process and Product Quality Assurance’, ‘Work Planning’ and ‘Organizational Pro-
cess Definition’ specific practices. It can also be mapped to generic practice 2.1 across all process
areas.
• 4.5.4.2 Control of documents - In this requirement, it is states that documents must be controlled
by the organization. This can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Configuration Management’,
‘Work Monitoring and Control’ and ‘Work Planning’ specific practices, along with generic practice
2.6 in every process area.
• 4.5.5 Operational control - This requirement states that organizations must identify operations
related to significant energy uses and that they are consistent with energy policy and objectives to
ensure they are carried out under specific conditions. This can be mapped to CMMI process area
‘Service System Development’, by translating CMMI-DEV processes to CMMI-SVC.
• 4.5.6 Design - This requirements defines the need for organizations to consider energy perfor-
mance in the design of new, or modifications to, facilities, equipment, systems and processes.
This can be mapped to specific practices of ‘Configuration Management’, ‘Work Monitoring and
Control’, ‘Work Planning’, ‘Integrated Work Management’ and ‘Service System Development’ pro-
cess areas.
• 4.5.7 Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy - This requirement
states that organizations must inform suppliers that procurement is based on energy performance.
This can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Supplier Agreement Management’ and ‘Service
System Development’.
• 4.6.1 Monitoring, metering and analysis - This requirement states that energy performance is
monitored, measured and analysed. This can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Measurement
and Analysis’, ‘Integrated Work Management’, ‘Organizational Process Focus’, ‘Service System
Development’, ‘Organizational Process Performance’ and ‘Organizational Performance Manage-
ment’. Generic practice 2.8, which states that processes must be monitored and controlled against
plans, is also transversal across every process area.
• 4.6.2 Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements - With this requirement, orga-
nizations must evaluate compliance with legal and other requirements. This can be mapped to
CMMI ‘Work Monitoring and Control’ process area.
• 4.6.3 Internal audit of the EnMS - This requirement states that planned internal audits of the
EnMS must be conducted to assess conformity with energy objectives. This can be mapped
34
to CMMI process areas ‘Process and Product Quality Assurance’ and ‘Organizational Process
Focus’.
• 4.6.4 Nonconformities, correction, corrective, and preventive action - This requirement states
that organizations must address nonconformities by taking corrective and preventive action. This
can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Configuration Management’, ‘Process and Product Qual-
ity Assurance’, ‘Work Monitoring and Control’, ‘Organizational Process Focus’, ‘Service System
Development’ and ‘Causal Analysis and Resolution’.
• 4.6.5 Control of records - This requirement states that organizations must maintain records to
demonstrate conformity with the ISO standard. This can be mapped to CMMI ‘Process and Product
Quality Assurance’ and ‘Work Planning’ process areas. Generic practice 2.6 is also common
across all process areas, which states that process products must be under appropriate levels of
control.
• 4.7.1 General - This requirement states that management must review the EnMS regularly. This
can be mapped to CMMI process areas ‘Organizational Process Definition’ and ‘Organizational
Process Focus’ generic practices.
• 4.7.2 Input to management review - This requirement defines what are the necessary inputs for
management review. This can be mapped to CMMI generic goal 2.10, stating that activities are
reviewed with higher management, across all processes.
• 4.7.3 Output from management review - This requirement defines what are the necessary out-
puts of management review. This can be mapped to CMMI generic goal 2.3 and 2.10, stating
that resources must be provided and activities reviewed with higher management, across multiple
processes.
In terms of CMMI Process Areas which we have not been able to establish a direct correspondence
of their specific goals to ISO 50001 requirements, we have identified the following benefits to their
implementation, regarding energy management:
• Requirements Management Ensuring that requirements are managed as they evolve and that
plans remain aligned with requirements is a process which can be beneficial to all kinds of orga-
nizations, which in this case, would mean managing the requirements of an energy management
system.
• Service Delivery Establishing service agreements between providers and customers according
to agreed criteria will further pursue organizational preparation and delivery of services according
to defined performance measures. Energy management could be seen as a service in organiza-
tions, which would entail the definition of a service agreement between the department providing
this service and other internal departments, changing how energy management is seen in organi-
zations.
35
• Capacity and Availability Management This process has the purpose of ensuring effective ser-
vice system performance and resources to support service requirements. In energy management,
this could be seen as preparing for regular workload and ensuring that energy supply capacity and
availability is constantly monitored and analysed to maintain a balance between resources and
demand.
• Decision Analysis and Resolution Establishing this process will enable organizations to identify
which issues can be formally evaluated through established criteria and select alternative solutions
based on that evaluation. This could be useful, for example, in activities such as taking corrective
or preventive actions actions or the procurement of energy management suppliers, for example.
• Incident Resolution and Prevention Establishing a procedure to deal with energy management
incidents could be very useful to organizations. Preparing for incident prevention and establishing
a system to handle incident information can improve response times to these incidents in order to,
for example, deal with unexpected behaviour of a particular equipment. Ensuring that an incident
management system is in place will also allow the organization to track the incident throughout it’s
life, from the moment it happens to the moment it is fixed, and more importantly, will facilitate the
analysis and resolution of the causes of said incident.
• Risk Management Preparing for any kind of risk can be very useful to any organization. Regard-
ing energy management, energy price could be seen as a risk for organizations. Ensuring that
preparation, identification and analysis for and of these risks will enable organizations to foresee
trends in energy prices and plan supply management accordingly.
• Service Continuity Ensuring that organizations identify essential functions and resources to en-
sure ongoing energy management through preparation and establishment of a continuity plan will
be beneficial to organizations, as they deal with any kind of interruption of their activities, ensuring
a quick response.
• Service System Transition The adoption of this process in energy management could also be
beneficial to organizations. Ensuring that the upgrade of components of an organization energy
management system is done with proper preparation, transition plans and communication is im-
portant in order to reduce transition incidents and maintain effective energy management.
• Strategic Service Management In order to change to a paradigm of energy management as a
service, organizations will have to identify strategic needs and plans so that it can establish a set
of standard services that will be provided to customers.
As we can see from the proposed mapping, CMMI for Services establishes several practices, specific
to each process or generic to all of them, which can be seen as analogous with some ISO 50001
requirements, in terms of generic management practices. However, CMMI establishes several process
areas which are specific to service providers and it does not address specific energy management
related requirements in ISO 50001.
36
3.3 Discussion
In this Chapter we presented two separate proposals regarding a maturity model for energy manage-
ment. First, we detailed a maturity model based on studied literature, which helped us identify a set of
essential energy management activities. These activities were organized according to five maturity lev-
els, and according to the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle methodology. This allows organizations to gradually
implement the proposed activities, by planning energy improvement efforts, followed by their implemen-
tation, monitoring of their effectiveness and finally through improvement of said efforts by management
feedback.
The second proposal, using a previously defined maturity model for energy management, CMMI
for Services, was achieved by establishing a mapping between CMMI and ISO 50001 concepts. We
have observed that both frameworks are very similar when defining management activities which can be
seen as good management practices. Ensuring plans are made to address identified flaws, assigning
responsibility, monitoring performance and establishing documentation control, among other activities,
are activities that can be applied to every organization and every area, following in a broad sense the
Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle of continuous improvement. However, we identified two issues with this pro-
posal: (i) CMMI for Services establishes several process areas which we could not match with ISO
50001 concepts, and (ii) ISO 50001 also defines several requirements with no CMMI correspondence.
Despite such a great similarity of concepts between both frameworks, CMMI is focused in providing
organizations with good practices for service providers, while ISO 50001 is focused on energy manage-
ment.
While we believe that energy management could benefit from adopting processes such as risk man-
agement, studied energy management literature did not identify these activities as good practices in
energy management. We have not investigated this proposal further or evaluated it due to a lack of
resources, however, we believe this can be a part of future work regarding this thesis and topic.
37
38
Chapter 4
Evaluation
This chapter details the performed evaluation of the work presented in described in Section 3.1, together
with a discussion of the obtained evaluation results. The performed evaluation consists in a mapping of
the proposed work to ISO 50001 along with an evaluation of the achieved mapping and the use of ques-
tionnaires to assess utility and difficulty of implementation, according to industry experts, representing
theoretical and practical evaluation steps, respectively.
4.1 Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation method consisted in the following steps:
• ISO 50001 mapping: mapping of proposed activities to latest energy management systems stan-
dard, which enables us to validate the set of proposed energy management activities.
• Wand and Weber method: assess mapping between proposed maturity model and energy man-
agement standard ISO 50001 in terms of ontological deficiencies.
• Questionnaire: gather proposal feedback from industry experts to (i) address the validation and
relevance of the research problem and the proposed work. (ii) evaluate proposed key activities
in terms of utility and difficulty of implementation, (iii) evaluate overall utility of the proposed ma-
turity model, and (iv) gather information relative to the state of energy management efforts and
knowledge in organizations.
4.2 ISO 50001 Mapping
The mapping between our proposed maturity model and ISO 50001 aims at validating if the proposed
model supports ISO standard activities, and is illustrated in Table 4.1.
Regarding the Planning maturity level, the ISO ‘Energy review’ requirement defines the need to anal-
yse and identify the areas of significant energy use and identify the opportunities to improve energy
performance. This can be directly mapped to the activities Energy review and Identify improvement
39
Maturity model activities ISO 50001 requirements Wand and Weber ontological deficiencies
PlanningEnergy review Energy review OverloadBenchmark current performance Energy baseline CompleteIdentify improvement opportunities Energy review OverloadEnsure management commitment Top management CompleteEstablish energy management roles Management representative CompleteEstablish energy policy Energy policy CompleteSet objectives and targets Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans OverloadEstablish energy performance indicators Energy performance indicators CompleteCreate action plan Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans OverloadCheck regulatory compliance Legal and other requirements Complete
ImplementationInvestment Design CompleteProcurement Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy CompleteTraining Competence, training and awareness OverloadCommunication Communication Redundant/Overload
Competence, training and awarenessDocumentation Documentation CompleteN/A Operational control Excess
MonitoringMetering, monitoring and analysis Monitoring, measurement and analysis CompleteProgram audit Internal audit of the EnMS CompleteN/A Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements ExcessN/A Nonconformities, correction, corrective, and preventive action ExcessN/A Control of records Excess
ImprovementManagement review Management review Complete
Table 4.1: Mapping of the activities in the proposed maturity model and ISO 50001 requirements, and thecorresponding evaluation according to the Wand and Weber method, regarding ontological deficiencies
opportunities in our model, respectively. ISO requirement ‘Energy baseline’ states that this initial en-
ergy review will create a baseline for future comparison, which can be mapped to the activity Benchmark
current performance of our model. ISO 50001 also addresses the importance of management com-
mitment which will be essential to a successful energy program. Requirement ‘Top management’ of ISO
50001 states that management needs to demonstrate commitment to the energy management program.
This requirement is directly mapped to our activity ‘Ensure management commitment’. Assignment of
responsibilities is also directly mapped to the Establish energy management roles.
ISO requirement ‘Energy policy’ defines that an energy policy needs to get organizational commit-
ment in order to improve energy performance by ensuring it is documented and regularly assessed to
provide a framework for setting and reviewing energy targets. This is mapped to our Establish energy
policy activity. The definition of energy targets and energy management action plans comprehends
establishing objectives at relevant functions, levels, processes or facilities, consistent with energy policy.
This is captured in ISO 50001 by the ‘Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action
plans’ requirement, which is covered by the activities Set objectives and targets and Create action
plan in our model. Monitoring and baselining appropriate indicators ‘Energy performance indicators’ is
also directly mapped to our model as well as ‘Legal and other requirements’, which is subsumed by our
activity ‘Regulatory compliance’.
The Implementation maturity level defines the necessary activities for the support of energy efficiency
measures. In ISO 50001, we find that the requirement ‘Design’ states that organizations must consider
energy performance improvement opportunities in the design of new, modified or renovated facilities,
equipment, systems and processes. Therefore this requirement can be mapped to our Investment
activity. Next, the requirement ‘Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy’ states
that suppliers are evaluated based on energy performance, as defined in the activity Procurement of
our model.
40
The requirement ‘Competence, training and awareness’ maps directly to our activity Training. How-
ever, this requirement in ISO 50001 also defines the awareness of energy policy, roles inside the organi-
zation and the benefits of energy performance, which together with ISO requirement ‘Communication’,
can be mapped to our Communication activity. Finally, the ‘Documentation’ ISO requirement can also
be directly mapped to our Documentation activity.
The Monitoring maturity level establishes activities for the evaluation of energy efficiency measures.
Requirement ‘Monitoring, measurement and analysis’ is quite similar to the activity Metering, monitor-
ing and analysis in our model, and the ‘Internal audit of the EMS’ is focused on the review of the energy
management system and its need to conform to energy objectives and targets, which greatly overlaps
with our Program audit activity.
Finally, the Improvement Maturity Level is characterized by a management review, where current
progress is evaluated and further continuous improvement is planned. This is done by evaluating the
several artifacts, such as energy policy and monitoring data, by senior management, which is proposed
in both on our model and ISO 50001. Management review, a requirement in ISO 50001, and, in our
proposed model in the Improvement stage, is essential for the continuous improvement of energy per-
formance, since it corresponds to the Act stage of the PDCA cycle. ISO 50001 ‘Management review’
requirement refers to regular top management review of several elements of the energy program, which
is similar to our activity ‘Management review’, that describes the actions taken by to ensure further
commitment to improvement.
4.3 ISO 50001 Mapping Evaluation using Wand & Weber Method
To evaluate the mapping between our model and ISO 50001, we will perform an analysis according to the
Wand and Weber method [Wand and Weber, 1993]. Wand and Weber define an ontological evaluation
of grammars method, where two sets of concepts are compared in order to identify four ontological
deficiencies, as shown in Figure 4.1:
Incompleteness Can every first set element be mapped to an element in the second set? If there isn’t
a total mapping, it is considered incomplete.
Redundancy Are there elements in the first set mapped to more than one element in the second set?
If so, the mapping is considered redundant.
Excess Is every element from the second set mapped to a first set element? The mapping is considered
excessive if there are elements without a relationship.
Overload Is every element of the second set mapped only to one element in the first set? The mapping
is considered overloaded if any element in the second set has more than one mapping to the first
one.
The ontological evaluation of the mapping of our proposal to ISO 50001 is presented in Table 4.1.
A first observation is that the mapping is complete, since every proposed activity in our model can be
41
Incompleteness Redundancy
Excess Overload
Figure 4.1: Ontological deficiencies evaluated through Wand & Weber’s method
mapped to an ISO 50001 requirement. For the next defined attribute, redundancy, there is one activity
in our maturity first model that is mapped to more than one activity in ISO 50001. As for excess, we
have identified several ISO 50001 requirements that couldn’t be mapped to our proposal. Regarding
overload, there are two ISO 50001 requirements that are mapped to more than one activity in our
model.
In terms of the four analysed ontological deficiencies, using this method, our model can indeed
be considered as complete, since every activity can be mapped to a requirement established in the
standard. This evaluation however, clashes with the knowledge that our model does not fully cover ISO
50001.
Regarding excess, despite the assessment of this mapping as complete, there are a few ISO re-
quirements which could not be mapped to our proposal. Requirement Operational control in ISO 50001
states that the organization needs to identify and plan all operations related to energy use to guaran-
tee that they are carried out according to policy, and is a missing activity from the proposed model but
nevertheless is a valuable process in energy management and should be object of further study. Other
requirements such as Control of Records (which establishes the need to maintain documentation that
expresses conformity to the ISO standard), Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements
and other general ISO requirements are not mapped to our model explicitly. Through our analysis of
energy management texts, we did not find any explicit mention to these activities since a few are specific
to the ISO standard, so they were not included in our model, but further development of this model can
accommodate other relevant missing activities.
For redundancy, there is only one activity in our model that is mapped to two different requirements.
In our model, Communication establishes internal communication of energy management efforts and
promotion of their awareness, which is coarsely split between two ISO requirements. Finally, we do not
42
consider overload a problem since our model establishes several ‘finer-grained’ activities in comparison
with ISO’s approach of grouping some requirements.
Our model was established through the analysis of several energy management texts, and therefore,
is not an all-encompassing model, i.e., it does not feature every conceivable energy management activity.
However, we learned that, despite our model being based on energy management texts, it is possible to
achieve an almost complete mapping to ISO 50001, with the exception of three requirements, proving
the proposed model is fairly complete. As a result, organizations can use our maturity model and rise
through the maturity levels by implementing the proposed activities and, as they do so, they will be
automatically working towards ISO 50001 compliance.
4.4 Questionnaire
In this section we will detail how the questionnaires were performed, and present and discuss the results.
We divulged a questionnaire for the evaluation of our work through several Linkedin groups, related to
energy management or ISO 50001, and obtained 31 responses.
In this questionnaire, as detailed in Appendix A, we have evaluated the following parameters:
• State of ISO 50001 knowledge.
• State of ISO 50001 certification.
• Biggest challenges to ISO 50001 certification.
• State of ISO 50001 certification plans.
• State of other energy management standards or certifications.
• State of other standards and maturity models adoption.
• Utility and difficulty of implementation of each proposed activity.
• Overall utility of the proposed maturity model.
• Overall feedback.
Regarding the assessment of utility and difficulty of implementation, the proposed scale is shown in
Table 4.2. We chose a four-level Likert scale in order to remove a neutral option, urging respondents to
reply either positively or negatively to our proposal. By assessing the previously mentioned characteris-
tics, this questionnaire not only allows us to evaluate the utility of our model but also the state of energy
management in organizations.
The set of respondents to the online questionnaire ranged from consulting firms to several other
sectors, such as public administration, military and energy suppliers, as shown in Table 4.3, with three
respondents classified as ‘other’ because the provided information was not enough for the identification
43
Value Utility Difficulty of implementation
1 Lowest utility Lowest difficulty
2 Low utility Low difficulty
3 High utility High difficulty
4 Highest utility Highest difficulty
Table 4.2: Scale used to assess utility and difficulty of implementation in the questionnaire
Sector Number of respondents
Consulting services 14
Electrical equipment 3
Other 3
Public administration 2
Automotive industry 2
Agriculture 2
Military 1
Energy supplier 1
Education 1
Printing industry 1
Metallurgical industry 1
Table 4.3: Classification of questionnaire respondents
of the organization. Overall, this wide range of industry sectors enables us to obtain professional feed-
back from multiple kinds of industries, which we believe is useful for the evaluation of a set of essential
energy management activities, applicable to all organizations.
In terms of the state of ISO 50001 knowledge, 30 out of 31 respondents to the questionnaire were
familiar with the latest energy management systems standard, ISO 50001. This result isn’t too surprising,
since the respondents are working in energy management positions, and most likely have knowledge of
most well known energy management standards or certifications. We must also note that we promoted
our questionnaire in some ISO 50001 groups, which further explains the obtained result.
Regarding the state of ISO 50001 certification, 12 out of the 31 respondents, corresponding to
approximately 39%, answered that their organization has achieved compliance with the aforementioned
standard. Even though the sample number is fairly small, this result shows that adoption of this ISO
standard isn’t particularly high, leaving clear room for improvement.
In terms of challenges/problems to ISO 50001 implementation, the following is a list of obtained
responses:
• Lack of management commitment, communication and support, due to low perceived return on
certification expense and market pull for implementation.
• Lack of energy data, difficulty in defining energy performance indicators and obtaining investment
funds for monitoring systems.
44
• ISO 50001 compliance only for certification, not for real improvement, and difficulty promoting its
value across departments and involving them, which sometimes have different goals and priorities.
• Having clear requirements of procurement of energy and equipment.
• Trouble fulfilling documentation requirements, due to poor documentation systems and lack of
personnel time.
• Lack of organizational commitment to auditing and review efforts.
• Having to deal with multiple technologies and certifications to comply with ISO criteria.
• Difficulty understanding applicable legal requirements.
• Communicating success to others.
Regarding the state of ISO 50001 certification plans, since 12 out of 31 respondents responded
affirmatively to having achieved compliance with ISO 50001, the pool of responses to this question
is reduced to 19. Out of these 19 responses, 10 said their organizations were planning to achieve
ISO 50001 compliance in the next twelve months, representing approximately 53%. These results are
somewhat positive in terms of ISO 50001 adoption, but there still remain several organizations who have
not yet planned to adopt this latest standard in a short-term future.
Concerning the state of other energy management standards or certifications, obtained results
were not relevant enough for a more in-depth analysis, as most results were either not valid or certifi-
cations were extremely sparsed between responses. The vast majority of organizations did not have
energy management related certifications or standards other than ISO 50001, with the exception of
one particular organization which also complies with Superior Energy Performance program, from the
USA’s Department of energy, and another organization that complies with the Sistema de Gestao dos
Consumos Intensivos de Energia (SGCIE), a Portuguese legislation for the regulation and promotion of
energy rationalization in organizations with energy consumption higher than 500 toe/year (tonne of oil
equivalent per year).
Other responses from consulting firms state that they have knowledge and expertise in the Lead-
ership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard for green building design, Energy Star
certification, and Certified Energy Manager certification. As previously stated, this small number of
results does not allow us to infer any meaningful assessment of the state of energy management in
organizations.
Related to the state of other standards and maturity models adoption, several responses stated
that they comply with ISO 14001, an international standard for environmental standard systems, ISO
9001, an international standard for quality management systems and OHSAS 18001, a British stan-
dard for health and safety management systems. While not related to energy, these results show that
some organizations are already working towards resource efficiency in other areas by implementing
other international standards, however, we should also note that none of the responses mentioned the
achievement of maturity levels from models such as CMMI.
45
Maturity model activities Utility Difficulty of implementation
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Energy review
Benchmark current performance
Identify improvement opportunities
Ensure management commitment
Establish energy management roles
Establish energy policy
Set objectives and targets
Establish energy performance indicators
Create action plan
Check regulatory compliance
Investment
Procurement
Training
Communication
Documentation
Metering, monitoring and analysis
Program audit
Management review
1 2 3 4
Activity1
Activity2
Activity3
Activity4
Activity5
Activity6
Activity7
Activity8
Activity9
Activity10
Activity11
Activity12
Activity13
Activity14
Activity15
Activity16
Activity17
Activity18
1 2 3 4
Activity1
Activity2
Activity3
Activity4
Activity5
Activity6
Activity7
Activity8
Activity9
Activity10
Activity11
Activity12
Activity13
Activity14
Activity15
Activity16
Activity17
Activity18
Table 4.4: Illustration of maturity model activities and questionnaire results, showing the maximum, min-imum and average values obtained for both evaluated parameters, utility and difficulty of implementation
Difficulty of implementation
4,03,53,02,52,01,51,0
Uti
lity
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
18
17
16
15
14
1211
10
98
7
6
543
2
1
13
Page 1
Label Activity1 Energy review2 Benchmark current performance3 Identify improvement opportunities4 Ensure management commitment5 Establish energy management roles6 Establish energy policy7 Set objectives and targets8 Establish energy performance indicators9 Create action plan10 Check regulatory compliance11 Investment12 Procurement13 Training14 Communication15 Documentation16 Metering, monitoring and analysis17 Program audit18 Management review
Figure 1: Using Overpic
Figure 4.2: Illustration of maturity model activities and questionnaire results, showing the average valuesobtained for both evaluated parameters, utility and difficulty of implementation
Regarding the utility and difficulty of implementation of each proposed activity, the obtained
results reveal an overall positive evaluation of the utility of the proposed activities, as seen in Table 4.4
and Figure 4.2. Results show that the utility of most activities averages between 3 and 4, with an overall
average of 3,3 between all activities, with the only three activities with an average value of utility below
3 being Establish energy policy, Check regulatory compliance and Documentation. The utilized scale
46
represented 3 as high utility and 4 as highest utility, and as such, the obtained results represent a positive
opinion to our proposal in terms of utility, further underscoring the importance of the proposed activities,
which can be seen clearly in Figure 4.2. Regarding difficulty of implementation, average activity values
settle between low difficulty and high difficulty of implementation. The activity with the highest average,
management commitment, matches respondents opinion as one of the biggest challenges to ISO 50001
implementation and identified barriers to energy management, according to studied research.
Maturity model activities
Average of Average of Average of
all responses from ISO responses from organizations
responses 50001 certified organizations not ISO 50001 certified
Utility
Energy review 3.5 3.4 3.6
Benchmark current performance 3.6 3.8 3.6
Identify improvement opportunities 3.4 3.5 3.4
Ensure management commitment 3.5 3.4 3.5
Establish energy management roles 3.4 3.6 3.2
Establish energy policy 2.9 2.9 2.8
Set objectives and targets 3.2 3.4 3.1
Establish energy performance indicators 3.4 3.5 3.3
Create action plan 3.3 3.3 3.3
Check regulatory compliance 2.9 2.8 3.0
Investment 3.0 2.9 3.1
Procurement 3.2 3.3 3.1
Training 3.2 3.2 3.3
Communication 3.2 3.3 3.1
Documentation 2.9 2.8 3.1
Metering, monitoring and analysis 3.4 3.5 3.3
Program audit 3.2 3.3 3.1
Management review 3.4 3.5 3.3
Difficulty of implementation
Energy review 2.5 2.5 2.5
Benchmark current performance 2.6 2.7 2.6
Identify improvement opportunities 2.5 2.4 2.5
Ensure management commitment 3.0 2.9 3.1
Establish energy management roles 2.6 2.8 2.6
Establish energy policy 2.2 1.9 2.4
Set objectives and targets 2.5 2.2 2.7
Establish energy performance indicators 2.9 2.9 2.8
Create action plan 2.7 2.6 2.8
Check regulatory compliance 2.5 2.3 2.5
Investment 2.8 3.1 2.6
Procurement 2.6 2.8 2.5
Training 2.8 2.5 3.0
Communication 2.5 2.5 2.5
Documentation 2.6 2.7 2.5
Metering, monitoring and analysis 2.7 2.7 2.8
Program audit 2.6 2.6 2.7
Management review 2.5 2.5 2.4
Table 4.5: Analysis of questionnaire results regarding the perceived utility and difficulty and implemen-tation of the proposed activities, split by ISO 50001 certification criteria, highlighting in bold the highestutility and lowest difficulty of implementation values
In order to further understand the perceived utility and difficulty of implementation of our proposed
activities, we have also analysed how responses differ between organizations who have achieved ISO
50001 compliance and the remaining organizations who have not achieved certification with this latest
energy management standard, as shown in Table 4.5. Regarding utility, ISO certified organizations have
attributed a better utility score in the majority of the proposed activities in our model. For example, ISO
50001 certified organizations have attributed a far greater utility value for the activity Establish energy
47
Overal utility of the maturity model
4321
Fre
qu
ency
of
resp
on
ses
20
15
10
5
0
Mean = 2,87Std. Dev. = ,619N = 31
Page 1
Figure 4.3: Histogram and distribution curve of the questionnaire results regarding the overall utility ofthe proposed maturity model as assessed by the 31 respondents, with the middle line representing anaverage utility value of 2,9
management roles, which is a requirement in ISO 50001 and is present in virtually all analysed energy
management texts. As such, we believe organizations who have implemented this activity can better
understand the importance of it, which is supported by the results.
In terms of difficulty of implementation, we can also verify that most activities with the lowest values
are from responses of ISO 50001 organizations. For instance, in activities Establish energy policy and
Training, organizations who have not achieved ISO compliance have attributed high difficulty values for
implementation, which resulted in a great disparity against responses from ISO certified organizations,
leading us to believe that the higher perceived difficulty of implementation of several activities can be
explained by the lack of knowledge and experience in this subject by organizations.
We also asked participants if they would consider implementing an energy management maturity
model in their organizations. Out of the 31 respondents, only six responded they would not consider
implementing it, representing a positive response of approximately 81%.
In terms of overall utility of the proposal, the results obtained are very positive. Regarding scores, we
did not obtain any result classified as lowest utility, eight people classified it as low utility, 19 classified it
as high utility and four people classified it as highest utility. Despite obtaining an average slightly lower
than three, the vast majority of respondents classified our proposal as positive, with the obtained results
shown in Figure 4.3.
48
4.5 Discussion
We believe the obtained evaluation results of this work are positive. Having achieved an almost com-
plete mapping with ISO 50001 further underscores the utility of this proposal in helping organizations
achieve compliance with this latest energy management systems standard, and validates the proposed
set of energy management activities. The obtained utility scores also prove that industry experts across
multiple industries consider this proposal useful to improving energy management in organizations and
have expressed interest in implementing a maturity model, despite the somewhat average difficulty of
implementation of most activities, further underscoring the relevance of this work.
In order to continue the evaluation of our proposal, we believe interviews regarding the utility of our
maturity model and a demonstration of our work in organizations could be useful. This would further
assess the pertinence of our work in real world situations and if it would, indeed, promote energy man-
agement in organizations.
49
50
Chapter 5
Conclusion
In order to cope with the rising energy costs and comply with environmental regulations, organisations
need to improve their energy management practices. Yet, despite the creation of energy management
guides and standards by several entities, the gap between theory and real world implementation still
persists. International standards, like ISO 50001, opt for an improvement strategy of defining a set of
necessary requirements to achieve a final stage of compliance. As such, in order to achieve certification,
organisations must comply with every single defined practice. Maturity models, in contrast, also define
a set of activities but establish several levels of maturity, grouping these activities into specific levels.
This approach is not only compatible with the final goal in the mentioned standards, but also alleviates
the implementation of said practices by providing organisations with a defined incremental path and
systematic approach for energy management.
To address these concerns and to help to close this gap, this thesis proposes an Energy Management
Maturity Model. The proposed model consists of several energy management activities, derived from
energy management guides, case studies and scientific articles and is organized into five maturity levels.
Its completeness is then evaluated against ISO 50001, demonstrating that virtually every requirement
of this industry standard is covered, and the perceived utility of this work was also evaluated through
questionnaires aimed at industry experts.
5.1 Contributions
The impact of our proposal is manifold. An Energy Management Maturity Model will enable organiza-
tions to pursue an incremental improvement path, providing them with a roadmap for achieving higher
energy efficiency. Indeed, the proposed maturity model aims at streamlining the approach of energy
management, making it easily understood and able to be implemented in a staged and gradual ap-
proach. This work will also guide further research as we believe the analysis of several topics regarding
energy management and the achieved results can guide further efforts in this field.
Maturity models have been used in distinct domains and are prevalent in the IT industry, enabling
organizations to continually improve their processes. Expectably, energy management will benefit, as
51
did other fields, from the adoption of maturity models to achieve continuous process improvement and
enabling organizations to better manage their energy management practice. Ultimately, an Energy Man-
agement Maturity Model guides organisations in improving their energy management performance, lead-
ing to further energy performance improvements, which translate to economic gains, customer image
improvement and a reduction of ecological footprint.
5.2 Lessons Learned
During the evaluation stage, we received several comments regarding the utility of the proposed model.
From the gathered feedback, a few respondents highlighted that the proposed model could benefit from
adopting a continuous representation, assessing the capability level of individual activities in organiza-
tions, instead of only defining what processes to implement at each stage of improvement. The ques-
tionnaire responses also improved our knowledge of the real world situation of energy management in
organizations, further cementing the barriers identified in scientific literature as concrete obstacles.
5.3 Future Work
In terms of future work and limitations of this proposal, we have identified the following points:
• The proposed model can be further developed in order to achieve complete compliance with ISO
50001 requirements. By achieving full compliance with this standard, the proposed maturity model
can further improve energy management in organizations.
• The scope of this research only includes which activities must be performed but does not describe
how to perform them. As such, each proposed activity can be studied with more detail in order
to offer a more detailed description, along with a description of relationship between activities and
the definition of roles.
• The maturity model can also be further developed by establishing capability levels for each ac-
tivity, therefore creating a continuous representation of the maturity model, alongside the staged
representation already present in this work, as identified by some questionnaire responses.
• This work can also be further evaluated by performing interviews and through a demonstration of
its application in organizations, further assessing the utility and real life application of this work.
• Regarding academic research, the work repeated herein, together with the evaluation method and
results, can be used in the publication of another article.
Regarding the second proposal of this work, using CMMI for Services as a maturity model for energy
management, as detailed in Section 3.2, there is future work to be done in this topic. The proposed
mapping can be further detailed and investigated, describing the degree of similarity between CMMI
processes and ISO requirements. Regarding evaluation, Wand and Weber’s method can also be used
52
to assess the ontological deficiencies of the achieved mapping, followed by a demonstration in organi-
zations and evaluation through questionnaires and interviews to assess it’s viability.
53
54
Bibliography
ANSI. ANSI/MSE 2000:2008 A Management System for Energy, 2008.
S. A. Ates and N. M. Durakbasa. Evaluation of corporate energy management practices of energy
intensive industries in Turkey. Energy, 45(1):81–91, 2012.
S. Backlund, P. Thollander, J. Palm, and M. Ottosson. Extending the energy efficiency gap. Energy
Policy, 51:392–396, 2012.
J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, and D.-W. I. J. Poppelbuß. Developing maturity models for IT management.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3):213–222, 2009.
BSi. BS EN 16001:2009. Energy Management Systems – Requirements with guidance for use, 2009.
K. Bunse, M. Vodicka, P. Schonsleben, M. Brulhart, and F. O. Ernst. Integrating energy efficiency per-
formance in production management – gap analysis between industrial needs and scientific literature.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6):667–679, 2011.
CarbonTrust. Energy Management – A comprehensive guide to controlling energy use, 2011.
K.-H. Chai and C. Yeo. Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems approach: A conceptual
framework. Energy Policy, 46:460–472, 2012.
T.-Y. Chiu, S.-L. Lo, and Y.-Y. Tsai. Establishing an Integration-Energy-Practice Model for Improving
Energy Performance Indicators in ISO 50001 Energy Management Systems. Energies, 5(12):5324–
5339, 2012.
S. Coppinger. Developing a corporate-wide strategic energy management program. In 52nd IEEE-
IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2010.
E. Curry, G. Conway, B. Donnellan, C. Sheridan, and K. Ellis. A maturity model for energy efficiency in
mature data centres. In SMARTGREENS, pages 263–267, 2012.
T. De Bruin and M. Rosemann. Towards a business process management maturity model. 2005.
T. De Bruin, R. Freeze, U. Kaulkarni, and M. Rosemann. Understanding the main phases of developing
a maturity assessment model. 2005.
B. Dusi and R. Schultz. Energy management and efficiency – a systems approach. In 53rd IEEE-
IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2012.
55
A. Goldberg and J. Reinaud. Promoting Energy Management Systems through Energy Efficiency Pro-
grammes, Incentives and Support – Lessons Learnt from Evaluations in Denmark, Ireland and Swe-
den. In International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 2012.
A. J. Gonzalez, R. Castrillon, and E. C. Quispe. Energy efficiency improvement in the cement industry
through energy management. In Cement Industry Technical Conference, 2012 IEEE-IAS/PCA 53rd,
pages 1–13. IEEE, 2012.
R. Hipkiss. Energy Management Systems and Energy Saving Projects, 2011.
IBE. 2012 Energy Efficiency Indicator: Global results. Technical report, Institute for Building Efficiency,
2012.
ISO. ISO 50001:2011 Energy Management Systems Standard – Requirements with guidance for use,
2011.
ISO. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications – 2012, 2012.
Jorg Becker et al. Maturity Models in IS Research. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS 2010), 2010.
G. Lahrmann, F. Marx, T. Mettler, R. Winter, and F. Wortmann. Inductive design of maturity models:
applying the rasch algorithm for design science research. In Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design
Science Research, pages 176–191. Springer, 2011.
A. McKane, D. Desai, M. Matteini, W. Meffert, R. Williams, and R. Risser. Thinking Globally: How ISO
50001-Energy Management can make industrial energy efficiency standard practice. Technical Report
LBNL-3323E, LBNL, 2009.
T. Mettler and P. Rohner. Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational de-
sign. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems and Technology, page 22. ACM, 2009.
A. Molla, M. T. Ijab, and V. Cooper. Information Systems Based Energy Management Practices at
Telecom Acadia. Green IT Working Paper Series, 2012.
B. Mutafelija and H. Stromberg. ISO 9001:2000 to CMMI v1.2 Map. Technical report, CMMI Institute,
2009.
J. O’Sullivan. Energy Management Maturity Model (EM3) - A strategy to maximise the potential for
energy savings through EnMS, 2012.
M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, and C. V. Weber. Capability Maturity Model, version 1.1. Software,
IEEE, 10(4):18–27, 1993.
R. Pereira and M. Mira da Silva. A Maturity Model for Implementing ITIL V3 in Practice. In Enterprise
Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), 2011 15th IEEE International, pages
259–268. IEEE, 2011.
56
E. Pinero. ISO 50001: Setting the standard for industrial energy management. Green Manufacturing
News, pages 21–24, 2009.
J. Poppelbuß and M. Roglinger. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design
principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. 2011.
Ranky, P.G. Sustainable energy management and quality process models based on ISO 50001:2011
the International Energy Management Standard. In Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST),
2012 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2012.
P. Rohdin, P. Thollander, and P. Solding. Barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency in the Swedish
foundry industry. Energy Policy, 35(1):672–677, 2007.
J. E. Scott. Mobility, business process management, software sourcing, and maturity model trends:
propositions for the is organization of the future. Information Systems Management, 24(2):139–145,
2007.
SEAI. I.S. 393:2005 Energy Management Systems Standard, 2006.
J. E. Seem. Using intelligent data analysis to detect abnormal energy consumption in buildings. Energy
and Buildings, 39(1):52–58, 2007.
SGMM Team, Software Engineering Institute. Smart Grid Maturity Model v1.2. Carnegie Mellon Univer-
sity, 2011.
B. Shen, L. Price, and H. Lu. Energy audit practices in china: National and local experiences and issues.
Energy Policy, 46:346–358, 2012.
Software Engineering Institute. CMMI for Acquisition v1.3. Carnegie Mellon University, 2010a.
Software Engineering Institute. CMMI for Development v1.3. Carnegie Mellon University, 2010b.
Software Engineering Institute. CMMI for Services v1.3. Carnegie Mellon University, 2010c.
M. Sokovic, D. Pavletic, and K. K. Pipan. Quality improvement methodologies–pdca cycle, radar matrix,
dmaic and dfss. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 43(1):476–483,
2010.
Sustainable Energy Ireland. Energy management - A guide for small business, 2008.
P. Thollander, M. Danestig, and P. Rohdin. Energy policies for increased industrial energy efficiency:
Evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy, 35(11):5774–5783,
2007.
J. C. Van Gorp. Enterprising energy management. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 2(1):59–63,
2004.
K. Vikhorev, R. Greenough, and N. Brown. An advanced energy management framework to promote
energy awareness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43:103–112, 2012.
57
Y. Wand and R. Weber. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design
grammars. Information Systems Journal, 3(4):217–237, 1993.
R. Wendler. The maturity of Maturity Model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and
Software Technology, 2012.
B. Wesselink, R. Harmsen, and W. Eichhammer. Energy Savings 2020 - How to Triple the Impact of
Energy Saving Policies in Europe, 2010.
A. Yin, S. Figueiredo, and M. da Silva. Scrum maturity model. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2011), Barcelona, Spain, 2011.
58
Appendix A
Questionnaire
59
A maturity model for energy management
This survey aims at validating the utility of a maturity model for energy management.This maturity model will help organizations in:
Achieving compliance with ISO 50001Establishing a roadmap for energy performance improvementObtaining lower energy related financial costsImproving corporate image among consumers
All of the collected information is confidential.
(* denotes required question)
Respondent characterization
1. What is the name of the organization you’re currently working in?*
2. What is your current position in the organization?*
Feedback contact details (optional)
Please provide us with your name and email so that we can get back at you with the anonymous results of thisstudy, if you wish.
3. Name
4. Email
ISO 50001 standard
5. Are you familiar with ISO 50001?* 2 Yes 2 No
6. Has the organization you work in achieved compliance with ISO 50001?* 2 Yes 2 No
7. If yes, what do you consider the biggest challenges your organization faced in implementingISO 50001? (Please list at least 3 challenges, if possible)
8. If not, is your organization planning to achieve ISO 50001 compliance in the next twelvemonths? 2 Yes 2 No
Energy management certifications
9. Has your organization implemented or achieved any energy management standards or ener-gy related certifications? Please specify which ones. (If not, please reply NONE)*
Continuous improvement frameworks
10. Has your organization achieved compliance with other ISO standards or implemented othermaturity models, such as CMMI? Please specify which ones. (If not, please reply NONE)*
1
Energy management maturity model
The picture below depicts the five proposed maturity levels and the defined activities in each level. Everyorganization starts at level 1 and will increase their maturity level by implementing every defined activity inthat level.
Below the picture, you will find the proposed activities grouped by maturity levels.
Energy Management Maturity Model
Level 1INITIAL
Level 2PLANNING
Level 3IMPLEMENTATION
Level 4MONITORING
Level 5IMPROVEMENT
Time
Mat
urity
Maturity Level Activities
1 - Initial stage No defined activities2 - Planning stage Energy review
Benchmark current performanceIdentify improvement opportunitiesEnsure management commitmentEstablish energy management rolesEstablish energy policySet objectives and targetsEstablish energy performance indicatorsCreate action planCheck regulatory compliance
3 - Implementation Investmentstage Procurement
TrainingCommunicationDocumentation
4 - Monitoring stage Metering, monitoring and analysisProgram audit
5 - Improvement stage Management review
Maturity Level 2 - Planning
Please classify how useful do you believe each activity is and how difficult to implement they would be.
Energy reviewAnalyze energy use and consumption based on measurement data.
11a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
11b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Benchmark current performanceEstablish an energy consumption baseline to allow future measurement and comparison.
12a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
12b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Identify improvement opportunitiesIdentify and prioritize opportunities for improving energy performance.
13a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
13b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Ensure management commitmentEnsure top management supports energy management efforts.
14a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
14b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
2
Establish energy management rolesCreate an energy management team or assign an individual responsible for energy management improvement
efforts.
15a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
15b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Establish energy policyCreate a document that states the organization’s commitment to achieving energy performance improvement.
16a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
16b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Set objectives and targetsEstablish energy objectives and targets within the organization.
17a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
17b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Establish energy performance indicatorsIdentify energy performance indicators for monitoring and measuring energy performance.
18a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
18b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Create action planCreate an action plan for achieving objectives and targets.
19a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
19b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Check regulatory complianceIdentify applicable legal requirements to which the organization subscribes regarding energy.
20a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
20b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Maturity Level 3 - Implementation
Please classify how useful do you believe each activity is and how difficult to implement they would be.
InvestmentConsider energy performance improvement while purchasing new facilities, equipment and systems or esta-
blishing new processes.
21a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
21b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
ProcurementEstablish energy procurement procedures taking into account energy objectives and energy policy.
22a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
22b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
TrainingEnsure staff related to significant energy uses are competent, providing education and training.
23a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
23b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
3
CommunicationCommunicate energy performance efforts internally, promoting awareness.
24a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
24b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
DocumentationMaintain information of every defined activity, and maintain control of that documentation.
25a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
25b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Maturity Level 4 - Monitoring
Please classify how useful do you believe each activity is and how difficult to implement they would be.
Metering, monitoring and analysisCommunicate energy performance efforts internally, promoting awareness.
26a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
26b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Program auditConduct internal audits at planned intervals to ensure energy management efforts conform with energy
objectives and targets.
27a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
27b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Maturity Level 5 - Improvement
Please classify how useful do you believe each activity is and how difficult to implement they would be.
Management reviewReview the organization’ energy management efforts to ensure ongoing effectiveness.
28a. Utility* Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
28b. Difficulty of implementation* Lowest difficulty 2—2—2—2 Highest difficulty
Overall feedback
29. Would you consider implementing an energy management maturity model in your organi-zation?* 2 Yes 2 No
30. Overall, how would you classify the utility of this maturity model?*Lowest utility 2—2—2—2 Highest utility
31a. Please provide any further comments regarding the overall opinion about the utility of anenergy management maturity model.
Thank you for your cooperation, your answer has been submitted. If you chose to provide your personalinformation, we will provide you with the results of this study as soon as possible.
4
Appendix B
CMMI for Services and ISO 50001
mapping
64
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4
Energy management system
requirements 4 Quality management system
4.1 General requirements 4.1 General requirements
Establish QMS All PAs GP 2.1
OPD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
OPF SP 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4
4.2 Management 5 Management
responsibility responsibility
4.2.1 Top management 5.1 Management
commitment
Communicate importance All PAs GP 2.1
Quality policy All PAs GP 2.1
Quality objectives All PAs GP 2.10
Management review All PAs GP 2.10
Resource availability All PAs GP 2.3
4.2.2 Management 5.5.1 Responsibility
representative and authority
Top management defines All PAs GP 2.4
responsibility
5.5.2 Management
representative
Appoint member of OPF GP 2.4
management
Establish QMS processes OPD GP 2.4
OPF GP 2.4
Report performance of QMS OPF GP 2.10
4.3 Energy policy 5.3 Quality policy
Appropriate to organization All PAs GP 2.1
OPF SP 1.1
Commitment to comply OPF GP 2.1
Framework for quality MA GP 2.10
objectives OPF GP 2.1/2.10
PPQA GP 2.10
Communicated OPF GP 2.1
4.4 Energy planning 5.4 Planning
4.4.1 General
4.4.2 Legal and other 7.2.1 Determination of
requirements requirements related to the
product
Statutory requirements SSD SP 1.1
7.3.2 Design and development
inputs
Statutory requirements SSD SP 1.1
Other requirements SSD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
4.4.3 Energy review
4.4.4 Energy baseline
4.4.5 Energy performance
indicators
4.4.6 Energy objectives, 5.4.1 Quality objectives
energy targets and Quality objectives MA GP 2.10
energy management established MA SP 1.1
action plans OPF GP 2.10
OPF SP 1.1
OPP GP 2.10
OPP SP 1.1
QWM GP 2.10
QWM SP 1.1
7.1 Planning product realization
Quality objectives SSD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
QWM SP 1.1
4.5 Implementation and 7 Product realization
operation
4.5.1 General 7.5.1 Control of production and
service provision
Plan and implement service SSD GP 2.2
provision SSD SP 2.4/2.5
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
Requirements Requirements
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4.5.2 Competence, 6.2.2 Competence, training and
training and awareness
awareness Determine competence OT SP 1.1/1.2
WP SP 2.5
Provide training All PAs GP 2.5
OT SP 1.3/1.4
OT SP 2.1
Ensure awareness and IWM SP 3.1
importance
Maintain records OT SP 2.2
4.5.3 Communication 5.5.3 Internal communication
Establish communication OPD GP 2.10
processes OPF GP 2.1/2.10
4.5.4 Documentation 4.2 Documentation requirement
4.5.4.1 Documentation 4.2.1 General
requirements Document quality policy All PAs GP 2.1
Document procedures OPD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
Records WP SP 2.3
PPQA SP 2.2
4.5.4.2 Control of 4.2.3 Control of documents
documents Control required documents All PAs GP 2.6
WMC SP 1.4
WP SP 2.3
Control records WMC SP 1.4
WP SP 2.3
Approve documents CM GP 2.2
Review & update CM SP 2.2
Identify changes CM SP 2.2
Relevant versions available All PAs GP 2.6
Control external documents CM SP 1.1
Obsolete documents CM SP 3.2
Identify documents CM SP 1.1
4.5.5 Operational control 7.5.1 Control of production and
service provision
Plan and implement service SSD GP 2.2
provision SSD SP 2.4/2.5
Requirements Requirements
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4.5.6 Design 7.3 Design and development
7.3.1 Design and development
planning
Plan design and IWM SP 1.4/1.5
development SSD SP 2.3
WP SP 2.7
SSD GP 2.2
SSD SP 3.1
Determine stages IWM SP 1.1
SSD GP 2.2
WP SP 1.4
Determine verification & SSD SP 3.1
validation
Determine responsibility SSD GP 2.4
Manage interfaces IWM SP 2.1/2.2/2.3
IWM SP 3.5
IWM GP 2.7
SSD GP 2.7
Update plans during IWM SP 1.1/1.4
development WP All SPs
7.3.2 Design and development
inputs
Determine inputs to SSD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
development processes
Functional requirements SSD SP 1.2/1.3
Statutory requirements SSD SP 1.1
Similar designs IWM SP 1.2
Other requirements SSD SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
Review inputs SSD SP 1.3
Requirements are SSD SP 1.3
consistent and clear
7.3.3 Design and development
outputs
Outputs are verifiable SSD SP 2.2/2.4
Outputs approved SSD SP 2.4
Meet input requirements SSD SP 2.1/2.2/2.4
Provide information SSD SP 2.1/2.2
Acceptance criteria SSD SP 3.1
Specify characteristics SSD SP 2.2
7.3.4 Design and development
review
Development reviewed and WMC SP 1.6/1.7
evaluated WMC SP 2.1
Identify problems WMC SP 1.2/1.6/1.7
WMC SP 2.1
Appropriate functions IWM SP 2.1/2.2/2.3
participate in reviews WMC GP 2.7
Records of review are kept IWM GP 2.6
WMC GP 2.6
7.3.5 Design and development
verification
Ensure requirements are met SSD SP 3.1/3.2/3.3
Keep verification records SSD GP 2.6
7.3.6 Design and development
validation
Validation follows plans SSD SP 3.1/3.4
Validate before delivery SSD SP 1.3
Keep validation records SSD GP 2.6
7.3.7 Control of design and
development changes
Identify changes CM SP 3.1
SSD GP 2.6
Review and approve changes CM SP 2.1/2.2
Evaluate effect of changes CM SP 2.1/2.2
Keep record of changes CM SP 3.1
SSD GP 2.6
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
Requirements Requirements
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4.5.7 Procurement of 7.4 Purchasing
energy services, 7.4.1 Purchasing process
products, equipment Purchased product meets SSD SP 2.5
and energy requirements SAM SP 2.2
Suppliers selected based on SAM SP 1.2
ability
Selection criteria established SAM SP 1.2/1.3
Records of evaluations kept SAM GP 2.6
7.4.2 Purchasing information
Product requirements SAM SP 1.3
described SSD SP 2.1
Approval requirements SAM SP 1.3
QMS SAM SP 1.3
Adequate requirements SAM SP 1.3
described
7.4.3 Verification of purchased
product
Ensure product meets SAM SP 1.3
requirements SAM SP 2.1/2.2
SAM SP 2.2
SAM SP 2.3
SSD SP 3.3
4.6 Checking 8 Measurement, analysis and
improvement
4.6.1 Monitoring, 8.2.4 Monitoring and
metering and measurement of product
analysis Monitor product All PAs GP 2.8
characteristics MA SP 2.1/2.2
SSD SP 3.3/3.4
8.4 Analysis of data
Collect data on QMS All PAs GP 3.2
effectiveness IWM SP 1.7
MA All SPs
OPM SP 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4
OPF SP 1.2/1.3
OPP SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
Include monitoring data All PAs GP 2.8
4.6.2 Evaluation of legal 7.3.4 Design and development
requirements and review
other requirements Development reviewed and WMC SP 1.6/1.7
evaluated WMC SP 2.1
Records of review are kept IWM GP 2.6
WMC GP 2.6
4.6.3 Internal audit of the 8.2.2 Internal audit
EnMS Determine conformance OPF SP 1.2
PPQA All SPs
Determine effectiveness OPF SP 1.1/1.2/1.3
Audits consider process OPF SP 1.1/1.2
importance PPQA GP 2.2
Select objective auditors PPQA GP 2.4
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
Requirements Requirements
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4.6.4 Nonconformities, 8.3 Control of nonconforming
correction, corrective, product
and preventive action Take action CM SP 2.1/2.2
PPQA SP 2.1
WMC SP 2.1/2.2/2.3
SSD SP 3.3
8.5.2 Corrective action
Eliminate causes of CAR All SPs
nonconformities OPF SP 2.1/2.2
OPF SP 3.1
Review nonconformities CAR GP 2.2
CAR SP 1.1
WMC GP 2.2
WMC SP 2.1
PPQA SP 2.1
SSD GP 2.2
SSD SP 3.3
Determine causes CAR SP 1.2
Evaluate need for action CAR SP 1.2
WMC SP 2.1
Determine action needed CAR GP 2.2
CAR SP 1.1/1.2
CAR SP 2.1
WMC SP 2.2
PPQA SP 2.1
Record results CAR SP 2.3
WMC GP 2.6
PPQA SP 2.2
Review action CAR SP 2.2
WMC SP 2.3
PPQA SP 2.1
8.5.3 Preventive action
Determine action to prevent CAR SP 1.1/1.2
nonconformity OPF SP 3.4
Determine potential CAR GP 2.2
nonconformities CAR SP 1.1
WMC GP 2.2
WMC SP 2.1
PPQA SP 2.1
SSD GP 2.2
SSD SP 3.3
Evaluate need for action CAR SP 1.2
WMC SP 2.1
Determine action needed CAR GP 2.2
CAR SP 1.1/1.2
CAR SP 2.1
WMC SP 2.2
Record results CAR SP 2.3
WMC GP 2.6
Review action CAR SP 2.2
WMC SP 2.3
4.6.5 Control of records 4.2.4 Control of records
Records provide evidence of PPQA SP 2.2
conformity WP SP 2.3
Record control procedure All PAs GP 2.6
CM GP 2.2
4.7 Management review 5.6 Management review
4.7.1 General 5.6.1 General
Review QMS OPD GP 2.10
OPF GP 2.10
Maintain records OPD GP 2.6
OPF GP 2.6
4.7.2 Input to management 5.6.2 Review input
review Audit PPQA GP 2.10
Conformity PPQA GP 2.10
Preventive action CAR GP 2.10
Follow-up All PAs GP 2.10
Improvement OPM GP 2.10
OPF GP 2.10
Requirements Requirements
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
CMMI CMMI
PAs Practices
4.7.3 Output from 5.6.3 Review output
management review Improve effectiveness OPF GP 2.10
Resources All PAs GP 2.3/2.10
ISO 50001 ISO 9001
Requirements Requirements
Appendix C
CMMI for Services Process Areas
71
CMMI for Services Process Areas
Maturity Level 2 - Managed
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Configuration Management (CM) is to establish and main-tain the integrity of work products using configuration identification, con-figuration control, configuration status accounting, and configuration au-dits.
MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSISThe purpose of Measurement and Analysis (MA) is to develop and sustaina measurement capability used to support management information needs.
PROCESS AND PRODUCT QUALITY ASSURANCEThe purpose of Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) is toprovide staff and management with objective insight into processes andassociated work products.
REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Requirements Management (REQM) is to manage require-ments of products and product components and ensure alignment betweenthose requirements and the work plans and work products.
SUPPLIER AGREEMENT MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) is to manage theacquisition of products and services from suppliers.
SERVICE DELIVERYThe purpose of Service Delivery (SD) is to deliver services in accordancewith service agreements.
WORK MONITORING AND CONTROLThe purpose of Work Monitoring and Control (WMC) is to provide anunderstanding of the ongoing work so that appropriate corrective actionscan be taken when the performance deviates significantly from the plan.
WORK PLANNINGThe purpose of Work Planning (WP) is to establish and maintain plansthat define work activities.
1
Maturity Level 3 - Defined
CAPACITY AND AVAILABILITY MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Capacity and Availability Management (CAM) is to en-sure effective service system performance and ensure that resources areprovided and used effectively to support service requirements.
DECISION ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTIONThe purpose of Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) is to analyze pos-sible decisions using a formal evaluation process that evaluates identifiedalternatives against established criteria.
INCIDENT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTIONThe purpose of Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP) is to ensuretimely and effective resolution of service incidents and prevention of serviceincidents as appropriate.
INTEGRATED WORK MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Integrated Work Management (IWM) is to establish andmanage the work and the involvement of relevant stakeholders accordingto an integrated and defined process that is tailored from the organizationsset of standard processes.
ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS DEFINITIONThe purpose of Organizational Process Definition (OPD) is to establishand maintain a usable set of organizational process assets, work environ-ment standards, and rules and guidelines for teams.
ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS FOCUSThe purpose of Organizational Process Focus (OPF) is to plan, implement,and deploy organizational process improvements based on a thorough un-derstanding of current strengths and weaknesses of the organizations pro-cesses and process assets.
ORGANIZATIONAL TRAININGThe purpose of Organizational Training (OT) is to develop skills andknowledge of people so they perform their roles effectively and efficiently.
RISK MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Risk Management (RSKM) is to identify potential prob-lems before they occur so that risk handling activities can be plannedand invoked as needed across the life of the product or work to mitigateadverse impacts on achieving objectives.
SERVICE CONTINUITYThe purpose of Service Continuity (SCON) is to establish and maintainplans to ensure continuity of services during and following any significantdisruption of normal operations.
2
SERVICE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENTThe purpose of Service System Development (SSD) is to analyze, design,develop, integrate, verify, and validate service systems, including servicesystem components, to satisfy existing or anticipated service agreements.
SERVICE SYSTEM TRANSITIONThe purpose of Service System Transition (SST) is to deploy new or sig-nificantly changed service system components while managing their effecton ongoing service delivery.
STRATEGIC SERVICE MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Strategic Service Management (STSM) is to establish andmaintain standard services in concert with strategic needs and plans.
Maturity Level 4 - Quantitatively managed
ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS PERFORMANCEThe purpose of Organizational Process Performance (OPP) is to estab-lish and maintain a quantitative understanding of the performance of se-lected processes in the organizations set of standard processes in supportof achieving quality and process performance objectives, and to provideprocess performance data, baselines, and models to quantitatively managethe organizations work.
QUANTITATIVE WORK MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Quantitative Work Management (QWM) is to quantita-tively manage the work to achieve the established quality and processperformance objectives for the work.
Maturity Level 5 - Optimizing
CAUSAL ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTIONThe purpose of Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) is to identify causesof selected outcomes and take action to improve process performance.
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTThe purpose of Organizational Performance Management (OPM) is toproactively manage the organizations performance to meet its businessobjectives.
3