Next Article in Journal
Physical Properties, Chemical Structure, and Microstructure of Thermoplastic Polyurethane Recycled Material-Modified Asphalt
Previous Article in Journal
A Study of Composite Salt Erosion Resistance of Nano-Modified Cement Mortar in Early Ages
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/buildings15020280
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Professional Barriers in Energy Efficiency Retrofits—A Solution Based on Information Flow Modeling

by
Xilong Liao
1,2,
Chun Wang
3,*,
Baiyi Li
4,
Baizhan Li
1,2,* and
Chenqiu Du
1,2
1
Joint International Research Laboratory of Green Buildings and Built Environments, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
3
School of Management, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China
4
Chengdu Fire Protection and Rescue Research Centre, Chengdu 610043, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(2), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020280
Submission received: 31 December 2024 / Revised: 12 January 2025 / Accepted: 16 January 2025 / Published: 18 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Building Energy, Physics, Environment, and Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The challenge of high energy consumption and carbon emissions within China’s construction industry has become increasingly urgent, as over 40% of buildings are still non-energy efficient. The multifaceted nature of systems involved in building retrofits results in a complex project, with barriers in both retrofit design and construction becoming increasingly evident. This research comprehensively assesses the common barriers in building retrofits and investigates the potential for integrating energy-efficient retrofits with information flow modeling from an interdisciplinary perspective. In order to pinpoint the main barriers hindering building retrofits, this study employs the bibliometric software VOSviewer. The analysis uncovers that the primary obstacles to energy-saving renovations are categorized into technical, economic, environmental, and other barriers. These barriers are characterized by a high degree of specialization, the inadequate integration of information, and limited collaboration among stakeholders. Subsequently, a qualitative literature review was conducted following the PRISMA methodology, which screened 40 key sources. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) The design of energy-saving renovation processes is impeded by the limited professional perspectives within the construction industry, which restricts the practical applicability; (2) Decision making for energy-saving renovations encounters notable professional barriers and suffers from inadequate information integration; (3) There is a lack of clarity regarding information needs during the implementation phase, and no effective platform exists for information coordination; (4) Risk analyses in complex energy-saving renovations largely depend on expert interviews, lacking robust scientific tools. These findings highlight that knowledge gaps and information asymmetry are the central challenges. To tackle these issues, this paper suggests the implementation of an information flow model that integrates the IDEF0 and DSM for building energy-saving retrofit projects. The IDEF0 model can clearly describe the interaction relationship of all expert information through functional decomposition, while the DSM can show the dependency relationship and information flow path among specialties through the matrix structure. This model is anticipated to enhance professional information integration and collaboration. It is proposed that improved information integration and collaboration under this framework will significantly promote the advancement of professional generative AI.

1. Introduction

Against the backdrop of global climate change and sustainable development, China, as one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, shoulders the important responsibility of promoting global action to reduce emissions. According to the Carbon Emissions Report 2023 [1] and the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy [2], China’s total carbon emissions will account for about one-third of global carbon emissions in 2023, and its total energy consumption will account for 28.4% of the world’s total energy consumption. Notably, the construction industry, being a major source of energy consumption and carbon emissions, accounted for 21.6% of total carbon emissions and 21.9% of total energy consumption during the operational phase of buildings in 2021 alone. This figure not only underscores the significant role of the building sector in carbon emissions but also reflects China’s urgent need to reduce its emissions.
In the face of this grim reality, the Chinese government has set an ambitious goal of achieving carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. This goal necessitates significant emission reductions within a relatively short timeframe, while concurrently maintaining sustained economic growth—a challenge made more formidable because China, as the largest emitter with the shortest timeline compared to European and American countries, must achieve these reductions expeditiously. To attain this objective, China must implement effective measures across several key areas. Research has identified the following four critical pathways for achieving the “dual-carbon target”: improving energy efficiency, expanding the use of renewable energy, optimizing the industrial structure, and promoting a carbon pricing mechanism [3]. As a major consumer of energy, the building sector has consistently been a focal point of scholarly research and plays a pivotal role in these pathways due to its substantial contribution to both energy consumption and carbon emissions.
China’s construction industry has boomed over the past 30 years, during which the level of building construction technology has continued to evolve, and standards have also changed, as shown in Figure 1, resulting in China’s buildings being characterized by a “large base and many old buildings”. With the iterative updating of technology, high-energy-consumption buildings, which were limited by the technical level and equipment in the early days, have become a major difficulty in the construction industry. China has passed the period of large-scale demolition and construction, and, in the context of promoting the transformation of green and low-carbon buildings, building renovation has become the only option for most buildings. Energy efficiency retrofits have gone through many periods, and only during the 13th Five-Year Plan did China’s building retrofit area exceeded 500 million square meters; however, on this basis, China’s non-energy-efficient buildings still account for close to 40% [4], and energy efficiency retrofits still have great potential to reduce the intensity of energy consumption and carbon emissions.
In the first three years of China’s “14th Five-Year Plan”, the national energy consumption intensity reduction achieved was just 7.3%, which is far below the targeted 13.5%, and the actual progress lagged significantly behind the scheduled timeline [20]. This shortfall highlights the pressing need to enhance the efficiency of energy efficiency retrofits, which has become a major challenge in China’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Building retrofits offer a multifaceted solution, not only effectively reducing building energy consumption and carbon emissions but also supporting the realization of China’s dual-carbon goals. Additionally, retrofits can drive the green transformation of the economic structure, expedite the adoption of green production methods, and foster high-quality development [21].
With the continuous advancement of building retrofit technology, an increasing number of new technologies are being introduced into the field of building retrofit. Traditionally, building retrofits primarily focused on the demands of the building itself. However, in recent years, studies have increasingly integrated buildings with grid systems to optimize the energy usage across the entire area through strategies such as peak shaving and valley filling [22,23]. Additionally, research treating electric vehicles as virtual energy storage systems has garnered significant attention [24,25]. These trends indicate that building energy efficiency retrofits are no longer confined to the single focus of the building industry but are gradually evolving into a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and complex project as the technologies and requirements evolve. Building energy efficiency retrofits now require a comprehensive integration of multiple domains, including buildings, power grids, and transportation, to adjust the building’s energy use structure and load profile for more efficient energy management. As the complexity of energy efficiency retrofits grows, the technical barriers and professional challenges throughout the process are becoming more pronounced. Effectively addressing these interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary common issues will play a crucial role in the green and low-carbon transformation and sustainable development of buildings. The comprehensive control over the entire lifecycle of complex large-scale projects remains one of the most challenging aspects of management, encompassing a vast array of professional and inter-professional information. In the context of China, building energy efficiency faces more pronounced issues across various facets, including the retrofit design, cost estimation, and actual implementation. Consequently, this study aims to analyze the common challenges associated with energy efficiency retrofits from an informational standpoint and to explore the potential of such retrofits by moving beyond the traditional construction industry perspective.
This paper reviews the relevant research on the barriers to building energy efficiency retrofits, mainly in China. Section 2 analyzes these barriers using the bibliometric software VOSviewer 1.6.19, and summarizes and refines the common issues identified. Based on this, Section 3 conducts a review and analysis of the relevant literature according to PRISMA standards. Section 4 discusses future research directions for energy efficiency retrofits from an information perspective, and Section 5 summarizes the paper’s main findings and provides an outlook.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology of this study can be divided into the following two parts: trends in the need for bibliometric software and an analysis of the key literature in key research areas.

2.1. Literature Retrieval

In this study, we conducted a literature search using relevant subject terms such as “energy efficiency retrofits” and “barriers.” We screened and reviewed the research articles published over the past 10 years and performed a bibliometric analysis to identify current research hotspots in energy efficiency retrofits. Since 2014, the number of studies on the barriers to energy efficiency retrofits has steadily increased, indicating that the importance of this research is increasingly being recognized by scholars. Furthermore, we classified these barriers by clustering the keywords from related articles.
Based on the keyword clustering shown in Figure 2, we summarized the components of energy efficiency retrofits, focusing on areas such as energy efficiency (#6), energy policy (#4), sustainability (#1), the circular economy (#2), and environment creation (#7). The primary barriers identified pertained to stakeholder constraints, limitations in the use of new energy sources, energy poverty, policy challenges, and technological limitations.
Scholars primarily focus on energy efficiency in energy-saving retrofits, followed by “barriers”, “retrofitting”, “sustainability”, “energy policy”, “circular economy”, and “built environment”. These studies often explore new technologies like solar photovoltaics and renewable energy, addressing economic, policy, environmental, and technological aspects. This underscores the growing complexity and scale of energy efficiency retrofit projects.
Notably, China and Europe are key players in this research landscape. China, driven by national strategies, contributes significantly to research in this area, reflecting the urgent need to enhance energy efficiency.
As shown in Figure 3, “hydrogen” and “energy transition” have gained significant attention in recent years, while photovoltaics—a more mature technology—remains a focal point, with keywords like “photovoltaics”, “solar energy”, and “BIPV” frequently appearing in the cluster. Photovoltaics, which accounts for over 20% of China’s national installed power structure, has become integral to energy-saving retrofits. Concurrently, climate change mitigation, near-zero-carbon initiatives, industrial decarbonization, and sustainable building research have emerged as key themes, positioning building retrofits as a critical solution to climate challenges. Additionally, circular economy principles and full life cycle assessments have gained traction in recent years. From the keyword clustering, it is evident that energy-saving renovation research primarily focuses on new energy decarbonization, related policies, and economic issues. However, the direct relationships between these themes remain unclear, and identifying the specific barriers within these areas remains challenging.
In conjunction with existing articles, common types of barriers were categorized into technical, economic, environmental, and other barriers, and the corresponding barriers are summarized in Table 1.
By summarizing the common barriers in energy-saving retrofits, it is evident that the low degree of professional information integration is a common issue among most of the barriers. The establishment of existing systems and models relies entirely on expert knowledge and experience. This paper provides an overview of the deficiencies in information integration in energy-saving retrofits, particularly those involving expert participation, and discusses the future development direction of energy-saving retrofits based on this analysis.
Based on this summary, a literature search was conducted, again using keywords related to “building”, “retrofitting”, and “expert”. The key literature was then summarized and analyzed through the standard PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) process. This standard process was employed to qualify the key literature, and the findings were summarized and analyzed accordingly, as shown in Figure 4.

2.2. Trend Analysis of Literature

After qualifying the relevant articles, a total of 40 pieces of literature were found to be highly relevant to expert information on energy-saving retrofits. Through these articles, we can further understand the utilization of expert technical information in energy-saving retrofits. Based on the development of expert technical information in energy-saving retrofits, we can discuss and look forward to future advancements. The keywords from the 40 articles were clustered, which helped us to explore the professional dilemmas in energy-saving retrofits.
As shown in Figure 5, Cluster 1 includes the relevant objects involved in energy-saving renovations. Clusters 2, 3, and 4 primarily consist of the multiple factors that experts need to consider in the process of energy-saving renovations, such as the energy efficiency, cost, hazard assessment, life cycle, and schedule management. Among these factors, energy efficiency appears most frequently and receives the widest attention. It is evident that the current focus on energy-saving retrofits shares many similarities with previous clustering approaches but delves deeper into building types. Notably, ‘decision making’ emerges as a key theme, appearing more frequently in professional contexts related to the retrofit process. Incorrect decisions can lead to increased additional costs, highlighting the critical need for comprehensive information collection to inform these decisions. Achieving effective decision making requires collaboration across multiple disciplines, as a pure concentration on the construction industry perspective may limit the potential for successful interdisciplinary cooperation.
From the keyword clustering, expert experience is primarily reflected in the decision support aspect. This includes considerations related to the life cycle of energy efficiency, the cost, and the implementation of risk assessments and progress management. Only a few major content areas encompass multiple specialties, reflecting that energy-saving renovation is a complex, large-scale project. This once again confirms the importance of integrating information from various cross-specialties. Currently, there exists a conspicuous research gap in addressing cross-disciplinary information synergy and providing technical guidance throughout the entire process of energy-saving renovations. This deficiency not only results in numerous projects incurring increased costs but also impedes the progress of energy-saving renovations both in China and on a global scale [49].

3. Results

3.1. Visual Analysis of Key Literature

Forty articles on related topics in the last decade covered different content, which were categorized according to the professional research content of the articles, and the trends of the number of publications and publication contents in different countries during the period were visualized, with the results shown in Table 2.
Figure 6 shows that the countries with the highest number of publications are the United States and China, followed by Italy and the United Kingdom. In contrast, countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia have only one article each. Among these, 74% of the countries are classified as developed, which corroborates that energy-saving and retrofitting-related research has received more attention from scholars in developed countries. Conversely, in Africa, which has a relatively less developed economy, no relevant research was found in this study. As a country with the largest building stock in the world, China faces significant challenges in building energy efficiency and emissions reduction. The data also confirm that China’s related research ranks second only to the United States. Currently, energy-saving and retrofitting-related research is influenced by geographical factors, and the research results from different regions may not be fully transferable or applicable elsewhere. Combined with previous research, it can be seen that energy efficiency retrofits are a global trend, and this trend is more pronounced in China as well as in most developed countries.
As shown in Figure 7, upon categorizing the topics of the research articles, it was observed that the majority of studies concentrated on the design process of energy efficiency retrofits. In contrast, only a few studies delved into the implementation process of such retrofits. Notably, targeted studies that exclusively examined the implementation process have only been considered in the last three years.
As previously summarized regarding barriers to energy efficiency retrofits, the introduction of renewable energy and decarbonization has led to a rapid increase in the system complexity of these retrofits. Consequently, issues in the implementation process have begun to surface and have started to attract extensive attention from scholars in recent years.
Further analysis of the focus of the articles reveals that, in China, which has abandoned the practice of “big demolition and big construction”, energy-saving retrofits have been significantly influenced by the “dual-carbon goal” (carbon peak and carbon neutrality). As a result, these retrofits have gradually evolved into multifaceted and complex issues, with the problem of informational and organizational redundancy becoming increasingly prominent.
Retrofit decision making constitutes the largest portion of the current research content. It is apparent that the existing relevant research is neither comprehensive nor universally applicable, though it has been actively followed up by researchers. A notable gap exists in the lack of a comprehensive framework capable of encompassing all of the relevant research topics. This section will delve into a detailed analysis of the current state of the research, identifying the shortcomings in energy efficiency retrofit studies and exploring potential avenues for future development.

3.2. Process Design

In the realm of energy efficiency retrofits, the aspect of process design has not garnered significant attention in the existing literature. Additionally, qualification reviews have been scarcely addressed in the available research. Syal [87] points out that there is a notable absence of research bridging the gap between laboratory findings and practical implementation processes. The predominant focus in process studies has been on establishing decision-making process frameworks, which, however, encompass only the most rudimentary tasks. These frameworks are geared primarily towards simple energy efficiency retrofits, thereby limiting their applicability to more complex scenarios. Moreover, the decision support systems explored in these studies tend to emphasize the integration of professional information. While this is valuable, it falls short of providing a robust guide for the entire retrofit process. Consequently, more professional information flow models are gaining recognition for their superior performance in both integrating professional information and ensuring process operability.
Kim [78] highlighted in his study that the existing workflow for building energy efficiency retrofits has garnered significant attention. This workflow involves various stakeholders, including suppliers, architects, builders, and multidisciplinary engineers. The ultimate goal of related research is to achieve transparency and the ability to analytically drive professional decision-making models. However, the process design in this research remains relatively rudimentary and fails to adequately reflect the interconnections and interactions between different disciplines. Essentially, the current approach still focuses on the building model to analyze process design from a building-centric perspective.
Baldwin [75], in preparation for a workshop, integrated the expertise of professionals from the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, South America, and China. He divided the energy efficiency retrofit design into a structured eight-phase process, which includes providing background information, conducting problem analysis, identifying objectives, merging objectives into a single objective tree, prioritizing problems, performing impact analyses, and reviewing workshop outcomes. However, the focus is solely on the problem agenda, from which the necessary information for problem solving can be derived. There is no explicit mention of how to integrate and synthesize the expert information from the agenda to guide the connection between actual operations and tasks. Consequently, it is challenging to coordinate information from multiple specialties.
Evidently, the current level of detail in process design within the construction industry is insufficient to guide actual operations. This may be attributed to the impact of professional perspectives. Process design is foundational in the realm of professional information engineering, and information flow models have been extensively applied in related research. Among these, the IDEF0 is regarded as one of the most detailed methodologies, demonstrating exceptional outcomes in system analysis [90,91] and process optimization [92,93].

3.3. Transformation Decisions

A financial assessment is often the most important concern in energy efficiency retrofit decision making. Bozorgi [86] conducted a related study using expert interviews, developed a comprehensive energy assessment tool based on the value, risk, and uncertainty of the basic process, and made investment decisions based on the results of this process. The interviews only involved real estate experts, and the technical and construction considerations were lacking; in the actual project, such an assessment was a default calculation, which would result in the actual cost being higher than the consideration, so it is clear that the retrofit decision requires the participation of multidisciplinary experts so to ensure the correctness of the retrofit decision.
Heo [85] conducted an uncertainty study on the physical properties, system efficiency, and operational settings using a model developed from expert experience. The uncertainty of the parameters was expressed as the mean square deviation of the data in the study. However, this study only considered technical issues and did not take into account financial, behavioral, stakeholder, and construction factors. Additionally, it only compared a fixed combination of energy efficiency measures (EEMs). EEMs vary by region and building routines, suggesting that they are somewhat geographically specific.
Ochoa [84] considered both economic and technical factors to establish an integrated evaluation methodology that balanced energy and economy. The study listed possible options and matched them accordingly. Additionally, the paper highlighted the need for more accurate retrofit decision making in future studies. It also emphasized the necessity for a more comprehensive and expandable database to support these studies. Furthermore, the paper advocated for the inclusion of new technologies, along with economic calculations and construction specifications. It is evident that, during the initial phases of energy efficiency retrofits, retrofit decisions are primarily based on technical and economic considerations. However, the study acknowledged the limitation of not incorporating new systems, such as renewable energy, and recognized that retrofit decisions made solely by experts are still prevalent to a significant extent.
Considering the growing prominence of global environmental issues, concerns over sustainability, decarbonization, and building health have gained increasing attention. As a result, retrofit decisions now require the consideration of a broader range of information and the involvement of more disciplines. Indoor comfort has also emerged as a key factor in retrofit decision making [74], while the introduction of related policies has further influenced the economic aspects of retrofits [79]. In China, the carbon trading market has been established on an initial basis, and the life cycle costs of buildings are beginning to incorporate the benefits derived from carbon trading [94]. Consequently, the evaluation of energy efficiency retrofits should now integrate market dynamics alongside energy efficiency measures to achieve a comprehensive and balanced consideration.
Barell [64] employed a fuzzy logic expert system to develop a method for identifying suitable interventions for building energy retrofits. This approach aimed to reduce the time and effort required by experts to evaluate retrofit projects by utilizing a limited number of parameters as inputs. The system integrated the experts’ considerations across various aspects into fuzzy logic, ultimately presenting the evaluation as a fuzzy rating of the option choices. The rating level corresponded to the likelihood of selecting each option.
Syal [87] emphasized that interactive decision making requires substantial information inputs to minimize information gaps in the decision-making process across all parties. Traditionally, decisions regarding retrofit options rely on expert analysis, which is heavily influenced by regional levels and expert capabilities. To address this, the study proposed an Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS) that integrated quantitative data and expert knowledge into an interactive decision-making tool.
From the studies mentioned above, it is evident that expert information is often presented through the following three key means: quantitative evaluation, fuzzy logic systems, and interactive decision making. Another common approach involves conducting energy efficiency retrofits, which are informed by the projected energy consumption and economic analyses to select the most suitable program. Typically, these analyses are based on existing programs, using simulations to compare target energy consumption and economic costs in order to identify the optimal solution. Despite numerous studies focusing on the optimization of retrofit decision making, particularly in terms of scheme selection, the primary shortcomings stem from inadequate information consideration and the difficulty in bridging the professional divides among stakeholders involved in the decision-making process.
From the informational point of view, many problems in the process of energy-saving renovation come from the existence of “information silos” between the parties, and the construction industry is concerned about the lack of cross-disciplinary information transfer management, which is obviously subject to the professional limitations, for example, perhaps from the traditional architectural perspective; however, the information of all parties can contribute to the integration and synergy, so that the decision-making problem of traditional energy-saving retrofits can be overcome to a large extent.

3.4. Cooperative Work

Information asymmetry poses a significant challenge in the energy efficiency retrofit process, particularly in the redesign of programs. Energy efficiency retrofits involve considerations of aesthetics, economic necessity, and conflicts of knowledge or experience among professionals. Galvin’s [89] study on residential building retrofits in the United Kingdom highlighted that homeowners need to understand their building’s materials, structure, and aesthetic potential. This understanding transforms homeowners from passive participants into active ones, reducing the information asymmetry between them and the technical experts. This shift facilitates multiparty collaborative design efforts.
Saija [51] highlighted significant differences in co-design practices across various areas of expertise through a co-consultation analysis involving structural engineers, thermal system engineers, and building engineers. The study found that face-to-face interactions can effectively reduce conflicts. However, it did not identify the specific problems where information conflicts arose. Additionally, individual experts’ views were biased due to their professional knowledge, and the co-design process demanded substantial time and effort from the experts. Furthermore, the study’s findings lack generalizability to specific projects.
In addition, Yang [83] identified information needs and created a unified platform by engaging with 16 experts in design and energy modeling. The platform facilitated the sharing of information among integrated design team members during design review meetings through an immersive virtual environment (3D view). However, the study revealed several limitations. Firstly, the initial virtual model needed to be merged with the building’s energy parameters in the immersive environment, an approach which was highly specific to individual buildings. Although it could be used for multiparty co-design to some extent, the virtual environment established was not universally applicable. Secondly, the list of information items generated by the study lacked modularity, preventing timely updates to the list when facing different projects. This inflexibility significantly hindered multiparty collaborative design.
Cromwijk [80] proposed a technique for an integrated design approach tailored for inter-professional and multidisciplinary teams to address near-zero-energy buildings (nZEBs). This technique enabled experts to optimize and collaborate on the design and construction process through a relevant platform established in the study. Furthermore, the approach was applicable to complex energy-saving retrofit designs, which clarifies the participation of various professions in the retrofit process. It also enhanced the mutual understanding of different disciplines and unified the technical level of professionals to some extent. However, the process outlined in the study is overly simplistic and lacks a clear embodiment of cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer and collaborative design within the design process.
Baldwin [75] and others proposed a research agenda for residential building renovation that hierarchized the work performed by experts into eight distinct phases. However, this approach may not be universally applicable to all residential situations, particularly where the results of the deliberation are not entirely suitable. The system only considers the deliberation process, making it non-universal. Despite the presence of multiple agendas, the absence of a structured integrated system or model for expert information integration leaves a significant knowledge gap. Without such a system, the gap remains unbridged.
Sermarini [56] utilized BIM + AR to integrate information from paper documents, significantly reducing the time required for information exchange and enabling the effective visualization of data. This high level of information integration led to a substantial reduction in construction time, ranging from a minimum of 56.5% to a maximum of 88.7%, compared to traditional paper-based information transfer. However, actual remodeling construction encompasses far more than a limited set of tasks. The timely comprehension of requirements and efficient information transfer across multiple disciplines could further decrease the time cost of implementation.
Sánchez-Garrido [54] further updated the modern building construction methodology by establishing a multi-level knowledge structure to classify construction methodologies. This system facilitates easy access to relevant information for all stakeholders involved in the construction process, thereby reducing low productivity, labor shortages, and the high costs associated with insufficient multiparty collaboration. The core of the study lies in the integration of professional information, which further diminishes the wasted costs of collaborative work.
Scholars have identified additional time and economic costs as significant concerns in energy efficiency retrofits due to insufficient collaboration between the same and different specialties. The main barriers to effective collaboration include the following: (1) unclear information needs within and across professions [51,75,80,83]; (2) the lack of efficient information collaboration platforms [56,83,95]; (3) the absence of optimization research on energy efficiency retrofit processes [54].

3.5. Risk Analysis

The primary source of risk analysis is expert experience, which relies on expert interviews or fuzzy rank assessments for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Related studies [52,73] depend on expert assessments of the probability of risk occurrence and quantify the expected cost to anticipate the impact. Given the diversity of risks, Huo [55] focused only on the top ten risks with the highest impact in their study and proposed measures to address them. Among these, seven risks—imperfect contractual agreements, risk of capital turnover, risk of financing renovation projects, risk of unfinished strategies, risk of negotiation and increase in renovation costs, risk of unclear sharing of responsibilities among stakeholders, and risk of missing information on the original design of existing buildings—are related to the degree of information integration. The remaining three risks are attributed to excessive information uncertainty.
Most of the risk analyses of energy efficiency retrofits are based on energy performance contracting (EPC). Data from more than 70% of energy efficiency retrofits in public buildings in Beijing, China, show that 51.8% of these retrofits were delayed due to irrational arrangements in the project implementation schedule [49]. Recent literature has also analyzed the risks associated with inappropriate organizational collaboration in the implementation of energy efficiency retrofits, as shown in Table 3.
The existing research primarily focuses on China, and the identified risks may be influenced by geographical constraints. However, it is evident that a significant portion, ranging from 42.8% to 62.5%, of the current risks in energy-saving renovations stem from inadequate professional collaboration. These risks account for approximately half of the total risks, suggesting substantial room for optimization in inter-professional energy-saving retrofit projects. This underscores the potential to explore more collaborative opportunities among various professions in this domain.
The above studies on energy efficiency retrofits have not yet considered complex renewable energy and energy storage systems, nor have they fully addressed the intricacies of power markets. Consequently, the issues of organizational complexity and information confusion are further magnified during the design and implementation phases. Establishing a standardized information flow model appears to be a critical challenge that cannot be circumvented in the context of future complex energy efficiency retrofits. It has been demonstrated that the IDEF0 model, within the framework of the information flow model, is capable of effectively integrating expert information from diverse disciplines. This approach has yielded excellent results in risk analysis, assessment, and identification within complex systems [91].

4. Discussion

4.1. Common Issues

All four of these barriers focus on knowledge gaps and information asymmetries, which currently manifest between experts in the same specialty, between experts in different specialties, and between experts and other stakeholders.
The knowledge gap and information asymmetry among experts within the same specialty are evident in three key areas. First, varying levels of technological expertise, particularly in the context of large-scale public building energy efficiency retrofits, lead to significant disparities in the mastery of retrofit decision-making programs. This discrepancy directly impacts the effective execution of tasks [80]. Second, the interplay between retrofit decision making and policy considerations remains inadequately addressed [60]. The low level of information integration makes it challenging to account for the interactions and impacts, resulting in an unclear balance between the operational costs of retrofits and policy outcomes [70]. Third, the ambiguity regarding the information requirements for certain designs, especially when employing fewer or newer retrofit technologies, further highlights the presence of knowledge gaps [83].
The knowledge gap and information asymmetry between experts of different specialties are reflected in the following three aspects. First, design conflicts between different specialties, such as the space occupation of various systems, often arise [51,89]. Second, the limitations of individual specialties during assessments prevent a comprehensive evaluation [86]. Third, the lack of clarity regarding cross-disciplinary information needs and the lack of understanding of interdisciplinary connections have led to different systems being trapped in “information silos” [80,83]. This has resulted in the majority of projects adhering to traditional processes [101], with few researchers optimizing the energy efficiency retrofit process.
The knowledge gap and information asymmetry between experts and stakeholders are evident in their differing perceptions of the benefits of retrofitting. Investors’ lack of understanding of expert retrofitting approaches complicates the establishment of trust [102], particularly in scenarios where the retrofitting of residential buildings is left to the homeowner’s discretion, leading to hesitancy in retrofitting decisions [57]. Bridging this gap can involve equating knowledge dissemination with an accurate payback period or the economization of energy efficiency benefits, which can help users of varying knowledge levels understand the advantages of retrofits. However, the current level of integration of relevant information is insufficient [70,86], and risk considerations [55] further complicate this effort. Additionally, overlapping construction activities in the building construction industry introduce numerous risks, and rational collaboration risk mitigation strategies remain a critical area of study for scholars [103].
The knowledge gap and information asymmetry, from an information perspective, stem from the complexity of the energy-saving renovation process, where expert information is often too intricate and professional barriers are too high. This complexity prevents the integration and coordination of information across various professions, as it cannot be readily translated into personal knowledge or achieved through simple negotiation. In the management of such information, this issue is typically addressed using information flow models.

4.2. Information Flow Model

The primary manifestation of information flow modeling in building energy efficiency retrofits is the Building Energy Model (BEM), which is constructed in a manner similar to the Building Information Modeling (BIM) approach, with the aim of integrating and uniformly processing data. Retrofitting processes are often slow due to several factors, including stakeholder intervention [104], insufficient building audits [32], lack of economically relevant knowledge [105], the absence of interactive platforms [106], and the non-repeatability of key information for simulations [107]. Traditional information flow models, which rely on the BIM and energy simulation, limit the form of information integration, incorporating data from only a few specialties. This results in models that are highly project-specific and lack universality. A more instructive approach is to shift the information modeling perspective from focusing on individual buildings to a more comprehensive, pervasive study. This involves moving beyond the narrow perspective of a single specialty and transforming an operational information flow model into a guiding one. In the previous key literature, Syal [87] utilized an Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS) to analyze energy efficiency retrofitting in a process-oriented manner. However, this study only demonstrated the retrofitting process within certain professions, and lacked consideration of the economic environment and cross-professional information.
Building remodeling has gradually become a complex event, mirroring the increasing complexity in the design and construction processes within the construction industry. To address this issue, we draw on previous advanced information flow models used in building design and construction. Based on these models, we have summarized the relevant common information flow models, and the results are presented in Table 4.
The integration of process and cross-disciplinary information is crucial in energy-saving retrofit modeling. While all of the aforementioned information flow models are suitable for integrating process information, the IDEF0 model is the most effective in comprehensively integrating cross-disciplinary information due to its well-structured and hierarchical nature [120], as shown in Figure 8.
Since the IDEF0 model struggles to adjust task sequences to optimize their order, achieving effective task collaboration is often challenging. To address this limitation, a more intuitive method for task optimization is required. The DSM, an information model known for its effectiveness in design optimization [121,122], provides a solution. By mapping the task inputs and outputs from the IDEF0 model into the DSM framework, algorithmic decoupling can be performed to minimize information feedback. The mapping relationship between the IDEF0 and DSM models is illustrated in Figure 9.
The green portion of the matrix represents positive feedback, located in the lower triangular section, while the red portion represents negative feedback, situated in the upper triangular section. All of the squares, except for the black diagonal squares (which hold no significance), denote task outputs. These outputs must correspond to the task in the respective column when the task in the corresponding row is completed.
However, this modeling approach is significantly constrained by the highly specialized nature of the IDEF0 model, which incurs a high time cost and is difficult to generate automatically [123].

4.3. Summary and Outlook

Summarizing the above components, the professional barriers to energy efficiency retrofits are shown in Figure 10.
Most of the professional barriers focus on knowledge gaps, insufficient information integration, and a lack of multiparty collaboration. The information flow model discussed in the previous section can effectively bridge these gaps. By matching the professional barriers outlined with the advantageous features of the information flow model, it becomes clear that the information flow model is capable of addressing the professional barriers to energy efficiency retrofits, as illustrated in the figure below.
As depicted in Figure 11, the primary professional barriers summarized from 40 literature sources, selected based on PRISMA criteria, align with the key features of the information flow model presented in Table 4. This correspondence confirms that the information flow model plays a pivotal role in addressing professional barriers throughout the energy efficiency retrofit process, thereby facilitating the retrofit process.
The model is ultimately established by inputting the project’s basic information and participant details. This process yields planning guidance for the design and construction of energy-saving renovations. The basic framework of this approach is illustrated in the figure below.
The output design and construction guidance provide a sequential arrangement of tasks based on the DSM, while tasks that are difficult to decouple (indicated by the red frame in the “DSM model” in Figure 12) need to be arranged individually, often involving multiple disciplines. This guidance minimizes information feedback and facilitates cross-disciplinary information transfer and multidisciplinary cooperation. Wang [121] and others have successfully managed building construction using this model, though there is a lack of research addressing knowledge gaps to guide the work. To address this, the framework categorizes professional information and uses the “Demand information list” at the early design stage to guide the required information for each profession. This approach fundamentally avoids issues such as knowledge gaps, insufficient inter-professional cooperation, and information asymmetry among all parties.
The IDEF0 model has been appearing less frequently in recent years’ papers, and its high modeling cost as an information flow model has led most scholars to avoid using this approach for studying complex events, such as large projects with redundant and highly specialized information.
In recent years, generative AI has been developing rapidly, and big language models have garnered significant attention from scholars. ChatGPT, as a prominent example of a big language model, demonstrates impressive capabilities, with its core features being “Generative (G)”, “Pre-trained (P)”, and “Transformer (T)”. However, the main reason why ChatGPT is not yet capable of replacing experts is that it remains a black-box model lacking in factual accuracy and interpretability [124]. The lack of transparency and the reliance on expert experience means that the generated solutions can be vague or even incorrect, which is unacceptable in the design and implementation phases of energy efficiency retrofits.
There have been studies on using machine learning through project records and logs [125], or fine-tuning large language models to meet professional needs [126], but these approaches still cannot replace the expertise of human professionals. All of these factors underscore the importance of information integration. The IDEF0 model can not only integrate the data required by big language models but also capture causal logic relationships. Information flow modeling for energy-saving transformations will further facilitate the accumulation, dissemination, and application of expert knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing the potential for AI to replace experts in this field.

5. Conclusions

In recent decades, China’s construction sector has experienced rapid development, with advancements in construction technology and frequent changes in standards. These developments have introduced hidden risks of high energy consumption in buildings, leading to a high level of emphasis on building energy-saving renovations by the Chinese government. As energy-saving retrofit technology evolves and social demands shift, the basic envelope structure and conventional system retrofits no longer suffice for actual project needs. Energy-saving retrofits are gradually transforming into complex engineering projects. The models established through expert experience are not updated alongside technological advancements, leading to unreasonable retrofit programs, improper planning, and other professional barriers in energy-saving retrofits. These issues are becoming increasingly serious, and solving them is an urgent demand for the global building industry to accelerate the process of energy efficiency retrofits.
This study contributes to the field by offering new perspectives and approaches to addressing professional barriers in building energy efficiency retrofits. By combining the information flow models of the IDEF0 and DSM, this research proposes the application of an integrated IDEF0 and DSM information flow model to a specific scenario of building energy efficiency retrofits. The effectiveness of this model in cross-disciplinary information integration and collaboration is demonstrated through the alignment between the identified barriers and the model’s features.
This study addresses the knowledge gaps and information asymmetries prevalent in energy efficiency retrofits. It proposes a comprehensive framework for applying information flow models to overcome barriers in these retrofits, thereby transcending the conventional building industry perspective. Successfully implementing this framework will fill a gap in information resolution within energy efficiency retrofits. Moreover, it will incorporate knowledge from diverse fields through a cross-professional lens and explore the potential for multi-professional collaboration using the IDEF0 model. Ultimately, these efforts aim to promote sustainable building development.
Specifically, the IDEF0 model employs functional decomposition to clearly illustrate the interaction of information among experts involved in energy-saving retrofit projects. Concurrently, the DSM utilizes a matrix structure to showcase dependencies and information flow paths among different specialties. By integrating these two approaches, the complex cross-specialty information within the project can be systematically integrated and optimized. This combination significantly mitigates the information silo effect and enhances the efficiency of project collaboration.
The significance of this study extends beyond the realm of building energy efficiency retrofit, providing an essential foundation for the future application of big language models in professional fields. One of the core challenges for big language models as they transition toward specialization is the efficient accumulation, dissemination, and application of expert information. By leveraging the combined information flow model of the IDEF0 and DSM, future big language models can more effectively structure the learning of professional knowledge and grasp the flow of information and dependency relationships within complex projects. This enhanced understanding will enable these models to offer more logical and professional solutions in practical applications.
This structured mechanism for knowledge accumulation and dissemination forms the basis for the in-depth application of the big language model in various professional fields. By integrating and analyzing cross-specialty data, the big language model can progressively accumulate and refine accurate expert information, thereby offering more intelligent support for complex projects such as building energy efficiency renovations. This approach not only enhances the accuracy and professionalism of the big language model in specialized areas but also accelerates the dissemination and sharing of expert knowledge, contributing to the sustainable development of the global construction industry.
In summary, this study presents an information-centric perspective on a comprehensive framework for energy efficiency retrofits, addressing professional barriers through advanced information flow modeling techniques. The proposed approach systematically integrates and optimizes cross-disciplinary information, reducing information silos and enhancing the collaboration efficiency in retrofit projects. By fostering greater inter-professional cooperation, the framework aims to promote the sustainability of building energy efficiency retrofits.
Furthermore, this study lays the foundation for the future application of big language models in professional domains. It enhances the accumulation, dissemination, and application of expert knowledge, making these processes more effective and efficient. Through the structured management of knowledge, the method facilitates the deep integration of big language models across various professional fields, particularly in complex engineering projects. This integration is expected to drive technological progress and foster knowledge sharing in the global construction industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.L.; Methodology, B.L. (Baizhan Li) and X.L.; Software, B.L. (Baiyi Li); Validation, X.L., B.L. (Baizhan Li) and C.W.; Formal analysis, X.L. and C.D.; Investigation, X.L. and C.W.; Resources, B.L. (Baizhan Li); Data curation, X.L., B.L. (Baizhan Li) and C.W.; Writing—original draft, X.L.; Writing—review and editing, C.W., B.L. (Baiyi Li) and C.D.; Visualization, X.L.; Supervision, B.L. (Baiyi Li) and C.D.; Project administration, B.L. (Baiyi Li). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was financially supported by the National Key R&D program of China (grant no. 2022YFC3801504).

Data Availability Statement

This study does not produce any new original data; the tables and figures are based on processed data from a simulated, illustrative case study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIartificial intelligence
ARaugmented reality
BEMbuilding energy model
BIMbuilding information model
DFDdata flow diagram
DSMdesign structure matrix
EEMsenergy efficiency measures
EPCenergy performance contracting
IDEF0integration definition for function modeling
IDSSintelligent decision support system
nZEBsNear-zero-carbon buildings
PERTprogram evaluation and review technique

References

  1. International Energy Agency. CO2 Emissions in 2023; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. KPMG, Energy Institute. Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy; KPMG: London, UK, 2024; pp. 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  3. Huang, C.; Fu, S.C. Evaluating China’s 2030 carbon peak goal: Post-COVID-19 systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025, 209, 115128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. National Development and Reform Commission. One of the Expert Interpretation|Accelerate the Promotion of Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction in the Building Sector to Promote the Comprehensive Green Transformation of Economic and Social Development. 2024. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/jd/jd/202403/t20240321_1365113.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  5. JGJ 26-1995; Energy Efficiency Design Standards for Civil Buildings. China Academy of Building Research: Beijing, China, 1995.
  6. Energy Conservation Law of the People’s Republic of China. 1997. Available online: https://taa.wkinfo.com.cn/legislation/detail/MTAwMDEyOTYzMTE%3D (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  7. Promote Cleaner Production Law. 2002. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/2002/issue_85/ (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  8. GB 50189-2005; Energy Efficiency Design Standards for Public Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2005.
  9. GB/T 50378-2006; The Green Building Assessing Standard. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2006.
  10. JGJ/T 177-2009; Energy Efficiency Testing Standards for Public Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2009.
  11. JGJ 176-2009; Technical Code for Energy-Saving Renovation of Public Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2009.
  12. GB/T 50668-2011; Evaluation Standards for Energy-Saving Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2011.
  13. GB/T 50824-2013; Energy Saving Design Standards for Rural Residential Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2013.
  14. GB 50189-2015; Energy Efficiency Design Standards for Public Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2015.
  15. GB 51245-2017; Unified Standard for Energy Saving Design of Industrial Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2017.
  16. GB/T 50378-2019; The Green Building Assessing Standard. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2019.
  17. GB 50411-2019; Acceptance Standard for Construction Quality of Building Energy Saving Project. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2019.
  18. GB/T 39583-2020; Intelligent Technical Requirements for Energy-Saving Renovation of Existing Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2020.
  19. GB 55015-2021; General Code for Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy Use in Buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2021.
  20. Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. China Is Speeding Up Its Transition to Green and Low-Carbon Energy. 2024. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/yaowen/liebiao/202407/content_6964065.htm (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  21. The website of the Central People’s Government of the PRC. Notice of The General Office of the State Council on Forwarding the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development’s Work Plan for Accelerating Energy Conservation and Carbon Reduction in the Construction Sector. 2024. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/zcwj/gwywj/202403/t20240318_1068599.shtml (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  22. Ouammi, A. Peak load reduction with a solar PV-based smart microgrid and vehicle-to-building (V2B) concept. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 44, 101027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, X.; Liu, Z. Multi-objective optimization of battery capacity of grid-connected PV-BESS system in hybrid building energy sharing community considering time-of-use tariff. Appl. Energy 2023, 350, 121727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lo, K.-Y.; Yeoh, J.H. Towards Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings: Smart Energy Management of Vehicle-to-Building (V2B) Strategy and Renewable Energy Sources. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 99, 104941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Q.; Li, Y. Peak shaving potential and its economic feasibility analysis of V2B mode. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 90, 109271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fasna, M.F.F.; Gunatilake, S. Overcoming barriers for building energy efficiency retrofits: Insights from hotel retrofits in Sri Lanka. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 10, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tuominen, P.; Klobut, K. Energy savings potential in buildings and overcoming market barriers in member states of the European Union. Energy Build. 2012, 51, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Opoku, D.G.J.; Ayarkwa, J. Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 8, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Achtnicht, M.; Madlener, R. Factors influencing German house owners’ preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Palm, J.; Reindl, K. Understanding barriers to energy-efficiency renovations of multifamily dwellings. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. D’Oca, S.; Ferrante, A. Technical, Financial, and Social Barriers and Challenges in Deep Building Renovation: Integration of Lessons Learned from the H2020 Cluster Projects. Buildings 2018, 8, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C. Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption: The United States green building experts’ perspectives. Energy Build. 2017, 144, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, X.; Shen, L. Barriers to implement extensive green roof systems: A Hong Kong study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bertone, E.; Stewart, R.A. Guidelines, barriers and strategies for energy and water retrofits of public buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1064–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Palmer, K.; Walls, M. Assessing the energy-efficiency information gap: Results from a survey of home energy auditors. Energy Effic. 2013, 6, 271–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Paiho, S.; Hedman, Å. Energy saving potentials of Moscow apartment buildings in residential districts. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dauda, J.A.; Ajayi, S.O. Understanding the impediments to sustainable structural retrofit of existing buildings in the UK. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 60, 105168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Paiho, S.; Ahvenniemi, H. Non-technical barriers to energy efficient renovation of residential buildings and potential policy instruments to overcome them-Evidence from Young Russian adults. Buildings 2017, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ma, J.; Qian, Q.K. Barriers for Homeowners in Decisions to Undertake Government-Led Energy Efficiency Renovation Projects in Northern China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fotiou, T.; Capros, P.; Fragkos, P. Policy Modelling for Ambitious Energy Efficiency Investment in the EU Residential Buildings. Energies 2022, 15, 2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fořt, J.; Černý, R. Limited interdisciplinary knowledge transfer as a missing link for sustainable building retrofits in the residential sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 131079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pardo-Bosch, F.; Cervera, C. Key aspects of building retrofitting: Strategizing sustainable cities. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Xue, Y.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A. Renovating the retrofit process: People-centered business models and co-created partnerships for low-energy buildings in Norway. Energy Res. Social. Sci. 2022, 85, 102406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rose, J.; Thomsen, K.E. Building renovation at district level—Lessons learned from international case studies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 72, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shilei, L.; Yong, W. Target-oriented obstacle analysis by PESTEL modeling of energy efficiency retrofit for existing residential buildings in China’s northern heating region. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2098–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Too, J.; Ejohwomu, O.A. Framework for standardising carbon neutrality in building projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sartori, T.; Drogemuller, R. An integrative Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment (WBLCA) framework: A survey of software developers’ perspective. Build. Environ. 2022, 223, 109475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, L.; Darko, A. Challenges to energy retrofitting of existing office buildings in high-rise high-density cities: The case of Hong Kong. Energy Build. 2024, 312, 114220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, Z.; Liu, Q. What kinds of building energy-saving retrofit projects should be preferred? Efficiency evaluation with three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Piscitelli, M.S.; Razzano, G. An interpretable data analytics-based energy benchmarking process for supporting retrofit decisions in large residential building stocks. Energy Build. 2025, 328, 115115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Saija, L.; Li Destri Nicosia, G. The co-design of building deep retrofitting in distressed urban areas: Lessons from e-SAFE. CoDesign 2024, 1–18, 2416632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Purba, A.; Latief, Y. The Application of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method for Green Retrofitting of Mosque Building to Improve Investment Performance. Civil. Eng. Archit. 2024, 12, 3254–3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kussumardianadewi, B.D.; Latief, Y. Development of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in High-Rise Office Buildings using Green Retrofitting based on GBCI and Minister of PUPR Regulation No. 21 of 2021 to Improve the Quality of Resource Planning. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2024, 12, 740–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sánchez-Garrido, A.J.; Navarro, I.J. A systematic literature review on modern methods of construction in building: An integrated approach using machine learning. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 73, 106725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huo, X.; Hao, T. Critical risk factors of public building green retrofit projects—An empirical study in Chongqing, China. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 1–13, 2278886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sermarini, J.; Michlowitz, R.A. Investigating the Impact of Augmented Reality and BIM on Retrofitting Training for Non-Experts. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023, 29, 4655–4665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. de Feijter, F.J. Trust in circular design: Active stakeholder participation in Chinese and Dutch housing retrofit projects. Build. Res. Inf. 2023, 51, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Choi, J.; Kim, J. Techno-economic feasibility study for deep renovation of old apartment. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 135396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tadeu, S.; Rodrigues, C. Eco-efficiency to support selection of energy conservation measures for buildings: A life-cycle approach. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 61, 105142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Petkov, I.; Knoeri, C. The interplay of policy and energy retrofit decision-making for real estate decarbonization. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2021, 1, 035006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Medal, L.A.; Sunitiyoso, Y. Prioritizing Decision Factors of Energy Efficiency Retrofit for Facilities Portfolio Management. J. Manag. Eng. 2021, 37, 04020109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. McCarty, J.; Scott, A. Determining the retrofit viability of Vancouver’s single-detached homes: An expert elicitation. Build. Cities 2021, 2, 354–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jia, L.; Qian, Q.K. How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China. Energy Policy 2021, 157, 112504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Barelli, L.; Belloni, E. Development of a decisional procedure based on fuzzy logic for the energy retrofitting of buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Alfaiz, S.K.; Abd Karim, S.B. Critical Success Factors of Green Building Retrofitting Ventures in Iraq. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2021, 12, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Alam, S.; Airaksinen, M. Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tuffaha, F.M.; Assaf, S. A framework for the performance assessment of construction contractors in Saudi Arabia. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 11, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Peel, J.; Ahmed, V. An investigation of barriers and enablers to energy efficiency retrofitting of social housing in London. Constr. Econ. Build. 2020, 20, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Corrêa, D.; Flores-Colen, I. Old buildings’ façades: Fieldwork and discussion of thermal retrofitting strategies in a mediterranean climate. Designs 2020, 4, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Seebauer, S.; Friesenecker, M. Integrating climate and social housing policy to alleviate energy poverty: An analysis of targets and instruments in Austria. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2019, 14, 304–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zheng, D.L.; Yu, L.J. Decision-making method for building energy efficiency retrofit measures based on an improved analytic hierarchy process. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2019, 11, 045101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jafari, A.; Valentin, V. Identification of Social Sustainability Criteria in Building Energy Retrofit Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04018136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Berghorn, G.H.; Syal, M. Risk model for energy performance contracting in correctional facilities. J. Green. Build. 2019, 14, 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Si, J.; Marjanovic-Halburd, L. Criteria weighting for green technology selection as part of retrofit decision making process for existing non-domestic buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 625–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Baldwin, A.N.; Loveday, D.L. A research agenda for the retrofitting of residential buildings in China—A case study. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Roberti, F.; Oberegger, U.F. Energy retrofit and conservation of a historic building using multi-objective optimization and an analytic hierarchy process. Energy Build. 2017, 138, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Buffat, R.; Schmid, L. GIS-based Decision Support System for Building Retrofit. Energy Procedia 2017, 122, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, S.; Kim, S.H. Lessons learned from the Existing Building Energy Optimization workshop: An initiative for the analysis-driven retrofit decision making. KSCE J. Civil. Eng. 2017, 21, 1059–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fogarassy, C.; Horvath, B. Climate policy cost-benefit model application for successful Central European building retrofitting programs—A Hungarian case study. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2017, 9, 1847979017717574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cromwijk, J.; Mateo-Cecilia, C. An introduction to a novel and rapid nZEB skill-mapping and qualification framework methodology. Buildings 2017, 7, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pashaei, R.; Omar, W.B. A multi-criteria ranking method for selecting the retrofitting alternatives of buildings. Int. J. Control. Theory Appl. 2016, 9, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  82. Yang, T.; Pan, Y. An automated optimization method for calibrating building energy simulation models with measured data: Orientation and a case study. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 1220–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yang, X.; Ergan, S. Requirements of integrated design teams while evaluating advanced energy retrofit design options in immersive virtual environments. Buildings 2015, 5, 1302–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ochoa, C.E.; Capeluto, I.G. Decision methodology for the development of an expert system applied in an adaptable energy retrofit facade system for residential buildings. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Heo, Y.; Augenbroe, G. Scalable methodology for large scale building energy improvement: Relevance of calibration in model-based retrofit analysis. Build. Environ. 2015, 87, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bozorgi, A. Integrating value and uncertainty in the energy retrofit analysis in real estate investment—Next generation of energy efficiency assessment tools. Energy Effic. 2015, 8, 1015–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Syal, M.; Duah, D. Information framework for intelligent decision support system for home energy retrofits. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 0000773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kin, L.; Yan, D. Research on the evaluation system for heat metering and existing residential building retrofits in northern regions of China for the 12th five-year period. Energy 2014, 77, 898–908. [Google Scholar]
  89. Galvin, R.; Sunikka-Blank, M. The UK homeowner-retrofitter as an innovator in a socio-technical system. Energy Policy 2014, 74, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chari, A.; Stahre, J. Analysing the antecedents to digital platform implementation for resilient and sustainable manufacturing supply chains—An IDEF0 modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 429, 139598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ayoub, N.; Musharavati, F. Risk based life cycle assessment conceptual framework for energy supply systems in large buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E. Business Process Reengineering of emergency management procedures: A case study. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1368–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Paciarotti, C.; Cesaroni, A. The management of spontaneous volunteers: A successful model from a flood emergency in Italy. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Luo, W.; Zhang, Y. Life cycle carbon cost of buildings under carbon trading and carbon tax system in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 66, 102509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Fernández Rodríguez, J.F. Implementation of BIM Virtual Models in Industry for the Graphical Coordination of Engineering and Architecture Projects. Buildings 2023, 13, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lee, P.; Lam, P.T.I. Risks in Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) projects. Energy Build. 2015, 92, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wang, Z.; Xu, G. Energy performance contracting, risk factors, and policy implications: Identification and analysis of risks based on the best-worst network method. Energy 2019, 170, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, L.; Peng, J.-j. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for risk ranking of energy performance contracting project under picture fuzzy environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Garbuzova-Schlifter, M.; Madlener, R. AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 559–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wu, Y.; Zhou, J. Risk assessment of urban rooftop distributed PV in energy performance contracting (EPC) projects: An extended HFLTS-DEMATEL fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 47, 101524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Al-Raqeb, H.; Ghaffar, S.H. Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Building Information Modelling in Kuwait’s Ministry of Public Works: A Framework for Sustainable Construction. Buildings 2024, 14, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sequeira, M.M.; Gouveia, J.P. A Sequential Multi-Staged Approach for Developing Digital One-Stop Shops to Support Energy Renovations of Residential Buildings. Energies 2022, 15, 5389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rashidi Nasab, A.; Malekitabar, H. Managing Safety Risks from Overlapping Construction Activities: A BIM Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 2647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Göçer, Ö.; Hua, Y. A BIM-GIS integrated pre-retrofit model for building data mapping. Build. Simul. 2016, 9, 513–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ma, Z.; Cooper, P. Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art. Energy Build. 2012, 55, 889–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sanhudo, L.; Ramos, N.M.M. Building information modeling for energy retrofitting—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 89, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Malhotra, A.; Bischof, J. Information modelling for urban building energy simulation—A taxonomic review. Build. Environ. 2022, 208, 108552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hajdu, M. Effects of the application of activity calendars on the distribution of project duration in PERT networks. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Waissi, G.R.; Demir, M. Automation of strategy using IDEF0—A proof of concept. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2015, 2, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, L. Research on Process Management of Collaborative Design of Construction Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  111. Sarmiento-Calisaya, E.; do Prado Leite, J.C.S. Early analysis of requirements using NLP and Petri-nets. J. Syst. Softw. 2024, 208, 111901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aloini, D.; Dulmin, R. Modelling and assessing ERP project risks: A Petri Net approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 220, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Seifermann, S.; Heinrich, R. Detecting violations of access control and information flow policies in data flow diagrams. J. Syst. Softw. 2022, 184, 111138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yoo, S. Data Flow Diagrams. In Encyclopedia of Information Systems; Bidgoli, H., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 455–468. [Google Scholar]
  115. Gelbard, R.; Pliskin, N. Integrating system analysis and project management tools. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Liu, L.; Hu, D. Review of process model optimization algorithms based on design structure matrix. Comput. Eng. Appl. 2009, 45, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  117. Tang, D.; Zhu, R. Product design knowledge management based on design structure matrix. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2010, 24, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Stallinger, F.; Grünbacher, P. System dynamics modelling and simulation of collaborative requirements engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 2001, 59, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Gómez Vilchez, J.J.; Jochem, P. Simulating vehicle fleet composition: A review of system dynamics models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sullivan, D. Project management in manufacturing using IDEF0. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1991, 9, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Wang, C. Research and Practice of Information Flow in Construction Project Development Management. Ph.D. Thesis, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  122. Mingyu, Y. Research on Information Flow Simulation Model of Architectural Engineering Design Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  123. Ang, C.L.; Luo, M. Knowledge-based approach to the generation of IDEF0 models. Comput. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 1995, 8, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Xiao, Y.; Zheng, S. Knowledge graph-based manufacturing process planning: A state-of-the-art review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2023, 70, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wu, T.; Li, J. ProcessCarbonAgent: A large language models-empowered autonomous agent for decision-making in manufacturing carbon emission management. J. Manuf. Syst. 2024, 76, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gao, D.; Ma, Y. FashionGPT: LLM instruction fine-tuning with multiple LoRA-adapter fusion. Knowl. Based Syst. 2024, 299, 112043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 00280 g001
Figure 1. Historical progression of energy efficiency retrofits [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
Figure 1. Historical progression of energy efficiency retrofits [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
Buildings 15 00280 g001
Buildings 15 00280 g002
Figure 2. Keyword clustering of the publications related to the barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Figure 2. Keyword clustering of the publications related to the barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Buildings 15 00280 g002
Buildings 15 00280 g003
Figure 3. Keyword clustering of publications related to the barriers to energy efficiency retrofits (time dimension).
Figure 3. Keyword clustering of publications related to the barriers to energy efficiency retrofits (time dimension).
Buildings 15 00280 g003
Buildings 15 00280 g004
Figure 4. PRISMA literature search process.
Figure 4. PRISMA literature search process.
Buildings 15 00280 g004
Buildings 15 00280 g005
Figure 5. Clustering of key literature keywords for the technical experience of energy efficiency retrofit experts.
Figure 5. Clustering of key literature keywords for the technical experience of energy efficiency retrofit experts.
Buildings 15 00280 g005
Buildings 15 00280 g006
Figure 6. National sources of the research articles.
Figure 6. National sources of the research articles.
Buildings 15 00280 g006
Buildings 15 00280 g007
Figure 7. Trend statistics for the different study components.
Figure 7. Trend statistics for the different study components.
Buildings 15 00280 g007
Buildings 15 00280 g008
Figure 8. Basic form of the IDEF0 information flow model.
Figure 8. Basic form of the IDEF0 information flow model.
Buildings 15 00280 g008
Buildings 15 00280 g009
Figure 9. Mapping of IDEF0 models to DSM models.
Figure 9. Mapping of IDEF0 models to DSM models.
Buildings 15 00280 g009
Buildings 15 00280 g010
Figure 10. Professional barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Figure 10. Professional barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Buildings 15 00280 g010
Buildings 15 00280 g011
Figure 11. Matching professional barriers (two columns on the left) and information flow model characteristics in energy efficiency retrofits (two columns on the right).
Figure 11. Matching professional barriers (two columns on the left) and information flow model characteristics in energy efficiency retrofits (two columns on the right).
Buildings 15 00280 g011
Buildings 15 00280 g012
Figure 12. Ideal framework for modeling information flow in energy efficiency retrofits.
Figure 12. Ideal framework for modeling information flow in energy efficiency retrofits.
Buildings 15 00280 g012
Table 1. Summary of the common barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Table 1. Summary of the common barriers to energy efficiency retrofits.
Types of BarriersMain BarriersResearch References to BarriersBibliography
Technical BarriersThe implementation of energy efficiency retrofits involves technologies of great professional complexity and there are large gaps in professional competence between different professionals (energy efficiency retrofits are too complex)Lack of technical knowledge and expertise is a significant barrier, leading to poor remodeling results.[26]
A lack of technical awareness among professionals can significantly reduce the outcome of a final remodel.[27]
Lack of knowledge about building retrofitting and the constraints of the current state of the art.[28]
Lack of knowledge leads to a limited understanding of the available technologies in energy efficiency retrofits and limited knowledge of building conditions to efficiently select implementation options (inadequate building audits)Lack of complete information can be a huge deterrent to choosing to invest in energy-efficient technologies.[29]
Asymmetric information among the involved parties and a lack of common goals lead to information gaps during the course of the project.[30]
Limited knowledge of the aging properties of building materials.[31]
Lack of proper understanding of the performance of older buildings.[32]
Lack of adequate documentation of proven sustainable retrofitting techniques for old buildings.[33]
Unclear information about the needs of the building of energy efficiency retrofits process and not knowing which organizations need to share information (unclear information needs)Lack of important meter data can have a huge impact on energy efficiency estimates.[34]
Lack of knowledge of current energy efficiency processes and what data are needed for the audits.[35]
Insufficient knowledge of material parameters in the same building series can lead to large errors in assessments.[36]
Limited knowledge of the sources and properties of sustainable materials for building retrofits.[37]
Economic BarriersLack of detailed and accurate energy use data and forecasts of retrofit effects, while the flow of multidisciplinary information in actual retrofits is restricted, and energy audits and payback calculations are not accurately assessed (poor integration of cost–benefit-related information leads to uncertainty in energy audits and payback periods)Lack of information is a significant barrier to energy efficiency estimations in energy efficiency retrofits, and incorrect energy efficiency estimates can lead to errors in the final evaluation of the program.[38]
The methodology for calculating the payback time for energy efficiency measures is based on self-defined formulae, and some retrofitters do not really know yet how to calculate the payback time for energy efficiency measures.[30]
Investors are not clear about the payment calculation method, the actual retrofit effect, and the potential benefits that largely affect the motivation of energy efficiency retrofits.[39]
Lack of energy audits can address information and uncertainty issues that concern a variety of cross-disciplinary information, with the explicit mentioning of the lack of information as one of the more significant barriers.[29]
Information barriers are one of the major issues in energy efficiency retrofits, including cognitive, managerial, and technical aspects, further increasing the economic uncertainty.[26]
Some energy audits give less consideration to the cost.[40]
Life cycle costing remains a challenging task, and the lack of interdisciplinary cooperation has resulted in the lack of a coordinated approach to the task.[41]
The security of the payback period of energy efficiency retrofit projects is limited by the inaccurate assessment of the calculation of the project’s cost–benefit.[42]
Lack of information sharing and advice, limited resources and knowledge, and the risk of not realizing expected energy efficiencies.[43]
Often, when the initial investment is too large, there is no option to change to a less costly program, but rather to try to convince the investor (the initial investment is too large)The problem of the excessive initial investment can be effectively dealt with through programmatic changes, of which the identification of programmatic and financing instruments prior to the start of a project is a major obstacle.[26]
The initial availability of funds is the most decisive factor for district-scale renovation and directly determines most of the renovation approaches.[44]
High up-front costs, insufficient and unstable funding, and insufficient financial instruments available to support the reasonable costs of the benefits are major problems for the economy.[31]
Related to local government finances, fiscal incentives, tax grounds, grants, and direct subsidies from different regional governments lack real-world considerations (the lack of government incentives)Government financial subsidies can promote institutional and individual incentives for retrofitting, while there is a lack of credible information on energy efficiency.[27]
In China, a complex and effective financing policy has not yet been developed. Without financial incentives, residents, heating companies, and ESCOs have no incentive to move forward. Long-term incentive mechanisms or subsidy policies should be implemented immediately.[45]
Economic interventions (subsidies) can work to some extent.[40]
Environmental BarriersLack of a standardized quantitative framework for carbon emissions from building renovations and subsequent operations (the lack of a standardized carbon accounting framework)Limited interdisciplinary knowledge transfer in building retrofitting has been identified as a major barrier. A key issue among these challenges is the lack of standardized assessment tools for environmental aspects.[41]
Accounting for gaps in building performance, invisible carbon emissions and carbon offsets in the carbon framework are major barriers.[46]
Evaluating the environmental impact from the perspective of a software engineer, design-oriented and interdisciplinary connections, data transparency, and incentives were identified as the most important aspects.[47]
Other BarriersComplex interest disputes between stakeholdersInformation asymmetry among stakeholders makes the willingness to transform inconsistent and even backward-looking among parties.[48]
Information asymmetry between the public and experts/governmentWhen energy efficiency retrofits are undertaken, the participants’ awareness of energy efficiency and knowledge of the benefits can contribute greatly to energy efficiency retrofits.[29]
Table 2. Key elements of key literature studies.
Table 2. Key elements of key literature studies.
Stages InvolvedContentYearBibliography
DesignConstructionFull ProcessRetrofitting DecisionsCooperative WorkProcess DesignRisk Analysis
× × 2025[50]
× × 2024[51]
× ×2024[52]
× × 2024[53]
× ×2023[54]
× × 2023[55]
× ×2023[56]
× 2023[57]
×× 2023[58]
× × 2022[59]
× 2021[60]
× × 2021[61]
× × 2021[62]
× × 2021[63]
× × 2021[64]
× 2021[65]
× × 2021[66]
× × 2020[67]
× × 2020[68]
× × 2020[69]
× × 2019[70]
× × 2019[71]
× 2019[72]
× ×2019[73]
× × 2018[74]
× × 2018[75]
× × 2017[76]
× × 2017[77]
× × 2017[78]
× × 2017[79]
× × 2017[80]
× × 2016[81]
× × 2016[82]
× ×× 2015[83]
× × 2015[84]
× × 2015[85]
× × 2015[86]
× ×× 2014[87]
× × 2014[88]
× 2014[89]
323526524Number of relevant studies
Table 3. Summary of the percentage of risks of inappropriate collaboration in energy efficiency retrofits.
Table 3. Summary of the percentage of risks of inappropriate collaboration in energy efficiency retrofits.
Research LocationTotal Number of RisksNumber of Risks of Inappropriate CoordinationPercentage Share of Total NumberWeightingBibliography
China—Hong Kong181055.6%/[96]
China21942.8%/[97]
China—Southern Region8562.5%/[98]
Russia221045.4%36.3%[99]
China11654.5%53.6%[100]
Table 4. Commonly used information modeling approaches.
Table 4. Commonly used information modeling approaches.
Modeling Technology NameDisadvantages of Information ModelingBibliography
Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)Insufficient flexibility and over-reliance on predetermined activity grids and duration estimates make it difficult to track task follow-up.
Inability to provide a detailed account of the information flow, only predicting the elapsed time of events, and not taking into account the impact of the uncertainties involved.
Probabilistic, using probabilistic estimates to measure the project elapsed time.		[108]
IDEF Modeling MethodologyThe system is highly complex, with a huge upfront investment, requiring knowledge of the entire event process, for the input, output, mechanism, and control information requires the full cooperation of personnel from multiple departments.
Highly integrated information, high requirements for personnel, requiring the participation of personnel with a high level of specialized knowledge.
Expandability: for new technology, new processes can be based on the original model to establish a new IDEF0 model.
Substitutable modularity: the IDEF0 model consists of modules, and any module can be replaced by a new module under the condition of ensuring correct information flow.
Modeling normalization: the symbols and rules used in the IDEF0 modeling are unified and recognized by various industries.
Process normalization: the IDEF0 modeling establishes processes with sequential logic that can be used to guide the design or implementation of processes.
Hierarchical: the IDEF0 modeling is based on task decomposition (WBS), with multiple levels of task hierarchy.		[109,110]
Petri NetThe system has a large amount of computation and is prone to data explosion; when the nodes and tokens are increased, the data on the original basis increase exponentially, leading to difficulty in verification.
Flexibility: the logic of complex or dynamic behavior of the system can be processed by adding or subtracting nodes, and has a strong processing capacity.
Lack of time dimension: the ability to express event time dimension information is weak.		[111,112]
Data Flow Diagram (DFD)Inadequate representation of information dependencies and inability to characterize the complex dependencies and interactions between parts of the information.
Intuitive: graphical representation and easy to understand.
Statelessness: DFD does not focus on the state changes in the system, only on the processing and flow of data.
Different perspectives and understanding of processes by each person make it difficult to standardize the same system, and require the intervention of people who are more familiar with the processes.		[113,114,115]
Design Structure Matrix (DSM)Ease of operation through the matrix form to represent the structure and dependence of the system; easy to analyze and optimize.
Collaborative decoupling, which can be based on matrix iteration, and with a strong collaborative decoupling effect for negative feedback information.
Versatility: can be used for system design and also for project management and schedule control.		[116,117]
System Dynamics ModelQuantifiable: capable of quantitative analysis and numerical simulation to assess the performance of the system.
Fuzzy transfer of information, with only positive and negative feedback, as well as cause and effect relationships.		[118,119]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liao, X.; Wang, C.; Li, B.; Li, B.; Du, C. Professional Barriers in Energy Efficiency Retrofits—A Solution Based on Information Flow Modeling. Buildings 2025, 15, 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020280

AMA Style

Liao X, Wang C, Li B, Li B, Du C. Professional Barriers in Energy Efficiency Retrofits—A Solution Based on Information Flow Modeling. Buildings. 2025; 15(2):280. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liao, Xilong, Chun Wang, Baiyi Li, Baizhan Li, and Chenqiu Du. 2025. "Professional Barriers in Energy Efficiency Retrofits—A Solution Based on Information Flow Modeling" Buildings 15, no. 2: 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020280

APA Style

Liao, X., Wang, C., Li, B., Li, B., & Du, C. (2025). Professional Barriers in Energy Efficiency Retrofits—A Solution Based on Information Flow Modeling. Buildings, 15(2), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop