July 15, 2005 — Yesterday a colleague and I were in Seattle for a project meeting; we finished early but he delayed his return by an hour just to sit in a downtown Starbucks, use the T-Mobile wireless network, sip a coffee and listen to music while he checked and responded to his emails, something he could have easily done from home when he returned to Portland. What has made Starbucks the leading purveyor of high-priced coffee in the world? Simple: it's the total experience of the user, because coffee is ubiquitous. Dunkin' Donuts may even sell more brewed coffee than Starbucks, but few in business would think of spending an extra hour in such a place.
What does this have to do with LEED? Simple. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system will succeed or fail, based largely on the experience of design, construction, development and ownership teams in using the product. At this same project meeting yesterday, I heard of a LEED documentation reviewer rejecting an innovation credit for 95% construction waste recycling because it was not 100%! What's going on here? When LEED was introduced a scant five years ago, even 50% construction waste recycling was considered an ambitious "stretch" goal. Now here we are saying that 95% isn't good enough!
Let’s have some perspective folks. LEED is a first-cut at a sensible, practical, usable green building rating system. It’s not "holy writ," and those who question its utility are not "blasphemers" or apostates. We need a system and a process that’s as robust and durable as the design and construction process itself, not one that sets itself apart from it. We need to consider the user "experience," in judging LEED’s effectiveness.
By most experts’ counts, less than half and perhaps even less than a third of all registered projects actually proceed to certification, and one must cite the cost and opacity of the process as one of the prime causes. In addition, in my experience, less than half of the projects with green goals even decide to register a project with LEED because of the perceived cost, hassle or lack of value of the brand. If a design team can’t “guarantee” an owner that they will actually get a certain level of certification by going through the process, many owners will just see no value in the extra costs of energy modeling, building commissioning, expert consulting services and LEED documentation. (Of course, many with this point of view never register the project under LEED in the first place.)
What’s missing from the revisions of LEED currently underway (such as LEED version 2.2) is consideration of the “experience” of using LEED by practical people who make most of the building industry’s decisions and who influence 95% of all commercial and institutional building design and construction.
Much of marketing today for services is based heavily on the user “experience” and not on the substance of the service. Why are movie houses moving to be totally integrated experiences with dining, coffee shops, etc., and not just showing movies. Why does Las Vegas succeed against all odds, where they are tearing down half-billion dollar projects from a few years ago, to build two billion-dollar projects? As consumers, we crave experiences. We live in what’s been called the “experience economy.” We have low tolerance for delays, uncertainties, unhappy consumer experiences. Imagine your life without broadband connections!
How can LEED amend its process to enhance the user experience?
First, let the user speak. Market LEED with user testimonials; we’re still relying on green building advocates to make the case to practical business people. I can tell you from professional experience that most architects and engineers are still not that articulate at making the business case for “going green” to owners and developers.
Second, take the mandarins and “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” hair-splitters out of the credit interpretation and certification review process and let a thousand flowers bloom, as long as they’re “green enough.” We should be spending more time telling people how to achieve LEED certification than telling them why their best efforts aren’t good enough.
Certify dozens of independent LEED assessors, let them award certifications and review their decisions carefully. Require every team to have an assessor to assist with preparing and reviewing all LEED documentation. (This is how the ISO 900 process works, and it covers the entire U.S. with less than 50 assessors).
Give certainty, speed and finality to a process that all too often drags out for months at a time. We want our justice system to be swift, certain and fair; why shouldn’t something as consequential as a good green building rating system have the same criteria?
Let’s get the “marketing” back into the “market transformation” that LEED is aiming to achieve. We agree that LEED is a valuable brand, but if we look at our own experience as consumers, we see that the brands to which we are most loyal are those that give the best experience to the user: Starbucks, Amazon.com, Dell, Disney (for parents), Google, Apple iPod, etc.
The USGBC needs a Chief Marketing Officer for all of its LEED products who will have the authority to make decisions on behalf of users of LEED to build the brand experience so well that people will say, “Going with LEED certification was the single best decision that this project made because (fill in the blanks).” Anything less, and LEED may well be doomed to ultimate failure to secure market transformation and the great likelihood of replacement by a more user-friendly product and process.
-------
Jerry Yudelson, PE, MBA, is sustainability director for Interface Engineering, Inc., Portland, Ore., a multi-discipline consulting engineering firm, and a member of ED+C’s editorial advisory board. He is a LEED national faculty member, a LEED Accredited Professional and chair of the U.S. Green Building Council’s 2005 Greenbuild conference and exposition. He is a member of the Core Committee for the LEED for Core and Shell development program. His book, The Insider’s Guide to Marketing Green Buildings, can be previewed and purchased
online.
This column has been reprinted courtesy of
Environmental Design + Construction magazine. It was first printed in the November/December 2005 issue of that publication.
