IEA Task 23 Workshop 8-10 March 2000 in Saariselkä, Lapland



Trondheim, March 29.2000 


Minutes from the sixth experts meeting

Saariselkä, Finland, March 8-10, 2000


Subtask A     Subtask B     Subtask C     Subtask D     Workshop     Next meeting     Conclusions


The sixth experts meeting took place in Saariselkä in northern Finland on March 8-10, 2000. 23 persons from 11 countries attended. A list of the participants.

The meeting took two and a half days. The objectives of the meeting were primarily to discuss progress and plans for the work in Subtask B on design process guidelines and in Subtask C on methods and tools for trade-off analyses. A design workshop aimed at providing input to the work in these subtasks was also conducted. Three additional experts, from Helsinki, attended this workshop.


Twelve countries (Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA) are presently participating in the Task. Eleven of the countries were represented at the meeting. The National Contact person for Sweden, Maria Wall, had to cancel her trip in the last minute due to illness and had sent her excuses. 

Subtask A: Case Stories:

Torben Esbensen, the Subtask Leader, distributed copies of a brochure about the results of Subtask A. The brochure, which will be very useful, is based on the article Christina Henriksen presented at the last meeting. Torben and Christina also reported on their efforts to publish the article itself in different journals. This process is still going on.

At the last meeting it was agreed that Christina should make a second volume of the case story report. At that time a few countries said that they had good candidate buildings, but no one had sent Christina any information. It was therefore agreed that she should send a revised format by April 15 to those indicating that they have such buildings. Günter Löhnert will send her a copy of the questionnaire used in the SolarBau project before that, as she may include some of those questions when she revises the format.

Both Günter, Nils Larsson, Bart Poel, and Doug Balcomb said they will provide case stories and will get requests from Christina. So will Luis Alvarez-Ude, as he also may have a candidate. In addition, Anne Grete Hestnes, the Operating Agent, has found a good candidate in Sweden, the Korsvägen project in Göteborg. Christina should therefore also send the format to Maria, asking that she looks into the possibility of presenting that project.

The persons listed should send Christina the filled in formats as soon as possible, so that she can start producing the document. The final deadline for everyone is August 15. Christina will the produce the new report by the end of the year.

Christina also distributed a working document identifying and discussing the criteria used in the design of the case story buildings. It was agreed that everyone should read this report carefully and discuss it with the designers of the case story buildings in order to see if there had been other and/or more criteria used. All comments and contributions should be sent to Christina by June 1, so that she can produce a new document (if she gets any comments) by the next meeting. 

Subtask B: Design process guidelines:

Pierre Jaboyedoff, the Subtask leader, presented the work done in the Subtask so far. The Subtask B working group had clearly been quite active the last few months, trying to catch up with earlier delays. This they have partly managed to do.

The work on the “navigation space” is continuing nicely. Very few had responded to Pierre’s request for comments to the draft he had sent out, however. This request was therefore repeated, and everyone promised to send him comments and additions, both to the lists of issues and to the structure of the space itself, by April 15. The group will continue working on the space and will try to set up a web version so that everyone always can have access to the latest version.

The navigation space is very useful and will, hopefully, eventually be used by dedicated design teams. There is, however, also a need for a short “version”, or a checklist of issues to consider, that can be distributed to, and read by, the design community in general. Günter, the co-chair of the group, will therefore prepare a shortlist of the most important issues found in the navigation space. This list, which he will send to everyone by August 15, will serve as a first draft of the short version of the Task 23 design process guidelines. It will be extensively discussed at the next meeting,

At the meeting Nils presented the introduction used for the C2000 process. It contains many of the same elements and uses many of the same arguments that the Task 23 design process guidelines should have.  Nils will therefore develop a draft introduction for the Task 23 guidelines, based on the same ideas, and send it to everyone by May 1. This introduction will also be discussed at the next meeting.

Two draft documents were distributed at the meeting:

Günter distributed a complete draft of the document on traditional design processes. This is very useful work that in its final form will provide useful conclusions and recommendations. Günter asked that everyone reviews the document carefully and sends him corrections and comments by May 1. He will then send out a revised document by August 15. He may in addition send out specific questions to some of the experts. Everyone promised to respond to such requests in a timely manner.

Günter also distributed a draft of the document on the design processes used in the design of the case story buildings. It was agreed that he should produce a generic design process chart and send it to Christina, so that she can send it to the case story authors. They should fill it in and return it to her by August 15.  She will then include the results in the report on criteria used (see Subtask A).

Three other documents, the survey on design process guidelines, the paper on architects’ and engineers’ working methods, and the survey on tools used/needed in the design process, are still delayed. Pierre promised to send out the survey on guidelines and the paper on working methods by May 1 and June 1, respectively.  Matthias Schuler will send out a format for documenting tools needed/used in the design process by July 1. Everyone is expected to return filled in forms to him by August 15. He will then distribute a draft document on the survey at the next meeting.

Subtask C: Methods and tools for trade-off analyses:

Doug Balcomb, the Subtask Leader, and Inger Andresen, the leader of the MCDM working group, presented the status of testing the MCDM (multi criteria decision making) process developed in the Subtask.  Five countries (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the USA) had tested it in local workshops on real design problems. All of these presented their results.

The conclusions from this second round were still that the process is useful, particularly in structuring discussions and in increasing transparency. A couple of the design teams involved even indicated that they intend to continue testing/using the process.

The testing has been quite useful in that it has resulted in a set of recommendations for improvements in the process and in the tool. The conclusion was therefore that Inger should develop and send out a revised description of the process by May 15. Everyone should review it, possibly test it, and come prepared to discuss it at the next meeting.

It was also agreed that it should be tested in a workshop type setting at that meeting. Anne Grete stressed that careful consideration should be given to how to do this, as the workshop format so far used may not be quite the right one for further testing of the MCDM process. Doug, Inger, and Bart Poel, the Leader of Subtask D, will discuss this, plan the next workshop, and, if appropriate, send out instructions for how to prepare for it.

No changes will be made to the MCDM-23 tool for the time being. Doug will, however, work with Jun Tanimoto, who originally developed MCDM-23 and who also was present at the meeting, to prepare a working document on the tool. This will include a users manual, a printout of the source code, a logic flow diagram, and a CD-ROM that includes object code, source code, documents, and the Help source file. It will be sent to everyone by May 15.

Doug also presented the latest developments and described further plans for Energy-10. Version 1.3, which includes Weathermaker and a few upgrades, had been sent to all Task 23 participants before the meeting. The next version, to be finished in the fall, will include an input routine for drawing buildings directly on screen, Sketch. It will also have an interlinked PV module. Version 2.0, with these modules fully integrated, will not be ready for another year.

A few of the participants have still not provided default values for Energy-10. If they do, Doug will prepare and distribute a new file with all the Task 23 default values.

Subtask D: Dissemination and demonstration:

Bart Poel and Gerelle van Cruchten had sent out a complete draft of the booklet on “Examples of Integrated Design” before the meeting. The authors of the case stories included were asked to review it carefully and to send comments, corrections, and missing photos to Gerelle by April 7. It was agreed that it would be useful to also have the design process charts for the projects included. Günter will therefore send the format for such charts to the five authors by April 1, so that these authors can send completed charts to Gerelle by May 1. In the meantime, she will complete the rest of the document and send it to everyone with a request for approval of the document as a whole. She needs the approval from the experts in the Task in order to send it to the Executive Committee to ask for their approval. Everyone should therefore send her a message telling whether they approve it or not by May 15. (If she does not hear anything, it will be interpreted as silent approval.)

At the same time, she will send the booklet to Pamela Kunz, the ExCo secretary, so that she can check if it follows the rules for the IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Programme publications. The intention is to send the booklet to the ExCo for final approval by June 1, hoping that they can approve it at their meeting on June 22-23.

Damen Consultants will print and publish the booklet themselves, since James & James was reluctant to publishing such a small document unless it was part of a larger package. This means that there is no external financing, and that the participants in Task 23 have to finance this themselves. 800 copies will be printed. Each country will receive 50 copies, for which they have to pay 6$/copy. With the exception of Spain, who has absolutely no funding for participation in the Task and who therefore has to be excused for not accepting any extra costs, this was accepted by everyone.

According to the time plan for the Task, the participants should now be initiating the work on demonstration building projects. Bart reminded everyone that the objective of carrying out demonstration building projects is to disseminate the results of Subtasks B and C and to demonstrate the advantages of integrated solar design.

A check on the status of plans for demonstration buildings showed that Canada still intends to use the new building planned for the Concordia University, that Denmark is looking for a new project in cooperation with the Swedish firm White Architects (which participated in their testing of the MCDM process), that the Netherlands are looking into several options, that Norway will know whether they can use the school they mentioned at the last meeting in May, and that Austria has entered the second phase of the competition and are quite optimistic about being able to use their entry as a demonstration building. The others are still looking for possibilities.

Bart will send a format for describing the demonstration building projects to everyone by April 15. By July 1 he will also send everyone a checklist for how to evaluate the projects, as well as a proposal for how to organize and conduct a “kick off” workshop for the design team. Everyone should send demonstration project descriptions and evaluation plans to him whenever the project plans are finalized. At the next meeting, those with concrete plans should be prepared to present and discuss these in detail.

At the meeting, Günter presented the questionnaire developed for SolarBau, suggesting that it may be useful for further work in both Subtasks A and D. As stated above, he will send Christina a copy to use in her work on new case stories. In addition, he will send a copy to Bart for use in documenting the demonstration building projects. Bart will translate it and make a Task 23 version by August 1.

Bart and Gerelle had also sent out a “bluprint” for presenting national information dissemination plans before the meeting. Those who have not yet sent such plans to Gerelle were asked to do so by May 1. She will then make an overview of the various plans and activities, as well as a draft international information dissemination and publication plan, and send these documents to everyone by August 15. They will be discussed at the next meeting.


The workshop was organized by Jyri Nieminen, Pekka Huovila, and Minna Sunikka. The purpose of it, as presented by Pekka, was to test and gain experience with the use of the Task guidelines and tools and to disseminate the results of the work so far to the design community. It was based on a real project, a design competition for a university building in the ecological community of Viiki, in Helsinki. The client and two local experts had therefore been invited to participate in the workshop.

Everyone had been provided with a lot of information about the project beforehand, on the excellent website that Minna had set up for the meeting. On this website, the participants could find all information related to the workshop and instructions about how to prepare for it. In addition, the project  was presented by Pirkko Varila, an architect from the University of Helsinki and by Erkki Aho from State Real Property Agency at the beginning of the workshop.

Due to the fact that the workshop was conducted the last day, there was very little time to summarize the experience gained. However, it seemed that the workshop had been productive and that several new insights were gained. In particular, the client, who participated very actively in one of the groups, found it very useful. Jyri and Pekka will make a separate report on the workshop and send it to everyone by May 1.


Plans for the next experts meeting:

The seventh experts meeting in the Task was scheduled for September 12-14, 2000. It will take place in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

The main objective of the meeting will be to significantly further the work in Subtasks B and C. In Subtask B, time will be spent on discussing the draft introduction to the design process guidelines, the shortlist of issues selected for inclusion in these guidelines, and the structure of the navigation space. In Subtask C, time will be spent on discussing the revised description of the MCDM process and the results of testing the process. As already noted, the meeting will also include a workshop on this process. The format of the workshop is, however, not yet decided.

In addition, there will be time allotted for detailed presentations and discussions of demonstration buildings.

All in all, the meeting is expected to take two long days. So far, the plan is to start in the late morning of Tuesday September 12 and to end at a reasonable time in the afternoon on Thursday September 14. If it turns out that less time is required, the meeting will start later on Tuesday. Everyone will be informed of the exact schedule by August 1.

The eighth experts meeting in the Task was not scheduled. This was a mistake by the Operating Agent, as it will be too late to find a date at the meeting in New Orleans. A questionnaire about possible dates is therefore included with these minutes. This should be returned to Anne Grete as soon as possible.



The Operating Agent thanked the hosts, Jyri, Pekka, and Minna, for organizing an effective and at the same time very pleasant meeting - and for giving everyone a unique chance to get to the “edge of the North Pole”!

The meeting was adjourned.


Anne Grete Hestnes

Operating Agent








Page updated 30/03/2000 by Minna Sunikka










Action items

List of participants

Questionnaire on possible dates for the next meeting

Mid-term Task Evaluation Questionnaire (please return to Anne Grete as soon as possible – at the latest by May15!)