IP credit

Michael, that's an interesting perspective, but following your logic, couldn't you say the same thing about a lot of LEED credits? Even credits that have a concrete impact on the building, like say daylighting—you can have a building that meets the daylighiting credit that is otherwise not a better building. You could have FSC-certified wood, or recycled content concrete, and not have a substantially better building.That is the weakness of the checklist approach—pursuing any one of these credits doesn't necessarily create a better building.However, USGBC (and LEED) are betting that if you earn the prereqs and enough of the credits to get certified, then the building will be substantially greener than average.Furthermore, having credits like these that reward process should (in theory) get teams OUT of the checklist mentality and into a whole-building approach that could really result in big improvements.The fact that these are credits and thus optional means that teams that don't want to use such a process, or document one, can skip it and earn points elsewhere. Teams that create documentation for something that didn't happen are being dishonest, and inherent in a lot of LEED documentation is an honor system. We shouldn't get rid of credits in anticipation of dishonest documentation.What do you think? I thought your argument was interesting enough to try to rebut... I'd be interested in further dialogue.

Michael, if you read the daylighting credit, you get more points for simulation than measurements and you are correct that simulation is the best means for daylighting design.

Lets let look at what LEED was originally for, market transformation, which i would have to say that it has done this. So the intention or idea behind the integrated credit is that projects were designing buildings by the checklist method. I see it and here, projects base their decisions solely on whether they get a point or not. That is not what LEED is about or is to be about. So these credits will hopefully start to TRANSFORM (key word) project teams mentallity that by using integrated design, the LEED points come automatically and that the overall goal is better building, not a plaque.

Michael, I agree that in this case LEED is giving points for process rather than for outcomes, but I would agree with USGBC that process is important and worth rewarding. As you point out, integrated process is no guarantee of a better-performing building; however, it greatly increases the chances of a better outcome. Energy modeling is no guarantee of performance either, yet it is widely regarded as an essential process tool towards making better-performing buildings.
It's also worth noting that LEED already has other credits related to processes, rather than outcomes, include commissioning and measurement & verification. And in the EBO&M rating system there are even more points awarded for good management practices rather than just outcomes - have water meters and energy submeters, and conducting a waste audit, for instance.
In general, one benefit of rewarding a good process is that it helps to educate the team members so that their future projects will probably also be greener. I agree that it's no guarantee, but I think it's worthy of encouragement via LEED points as well.
If you're interested only in performance, EnergyStar and Living Building Challenge are both structured more that way than LEED.

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion! Much of what we took away from the 1st Public Comment period relative to the Integrative Process credit category is that the credits were overly prescriptive with regard to the process teams must use, rather than focusing on the outcomes that can come from an integrative process.

The 2nd Public Comment draft credits are attempting to be much more outcome oriented without prescribing specifics of the process (number of meetings, people who must be present at meetings, etc) because, as our experts discussed during the revisions of these credits, those aspects may not guarantee improved outcomes. Whenever possible, LEED credits are written in a performance based way without dictating the specific strategy; the attempt here is to make credits about a process as performance-based as possible. I'm really interested in everyone's thoughts about how we might continue to focus more on the outcomes but still get those in the market who are unfamiliar or unlikely to use integrative design process thinking about the concept and the benefits.

I'd also like to put in a plug for an Integrative Process Webinar hosted by USGBC on September 8th, with guest experts Joel Todd, John Boecker, and Bill Reed. The Webinar will explain how and why the evolution of LEED 2012 rating systems are further incorporating the integrative process into credits, discuss how the inclusion of integrative process standards into LEED 2012 credits will impact your professional practice, and illustrate case studies and best practices from the field. More information can be found here: https://video.webcasts.com/events/pmny001/viewer/index.jsp?eventid=38183

Michael,
It may not get rid of the checklist mentality completely, hopefully it will get those that are just doing that, to look at the process as a whole. In the statement of those who already use the integrated process don;t need change, I would say that it is not about change, but it is to look at one's process for improvement. That credit is not about market transformation, as i had noted it is about mentality transformation.
I ask, have you viewed the link posted by Chrissy? Have you looked at this from the standpoint that the bar has been raised in this version and these are points that for most are the easy ones to get since there are now credits that are pushing the bar?

Most of the folks who tell me they "use Integrated Design already", don't.

Of course they do, just like everyone builds green and energy efficient buildings! :-)

I think points for ID / IP will work. As a related example :-

In South Africa the commissioning of buildings is mostly unheard of, is not understood at all, and is seen as an extravagance.

We therefore battled with the LEED Commissioning prerequisite. Finally our entire team of 5 Engineers ( Clients included ) resolved to go across to the University of Wisconsin at Madison to do their Commissioning course – what an absolute eye opener !

In the end, commissioning has had a major impact on the quality of the delivered project, and in some cases has required that we revisit the design too. This LEED prerequisite, initially seen as frivolous, paid for itself and more.

The Client tells us he won’t build any other way in future.

So, if the intention is to kick-start integrated design then it may well work much like the example above.

I can see it, at the very least, forcing the design team to start talking together. Then, If they have any sense, they will investigate how to use something like the AIA approach or the ASHRAE approach and that will be a large step forward ?

I refer you to Lynn Bellenger, Past ASHRAE President :-
“ …. It is going to require a cultural shift in our industry to transform the design process, and it is a shift that has to occur if we are going to reach our goal of net zero energy buildings.”

First off, sorry I am late to this, but billable work always seems to take precedent some how. I will leave my general posts, but not expect comments as today is the last day of commenting. Nonetheless, I would like to hear others takes even if it is just for our own edification.

In terms of integrative process, you pretty much have to have one in order to achieve many LEED credits as it stands. You cannot earn very many credits in silos, and while integrative processes do not generate green buildings, you can't really have a truly green building without an integrated process.

My first problem with Integrative Process is I fear it will just become too "documentation heavy, result lite" credits that everyone will do because so many of the other 'easy' credits have been taken away. Sure, it will just be 1 credits out of 110, but seems

I do think that it will provide good foder and deliverables for charrettes, but I am not sure you should get a point for having a productive charrette and follow up.

I would like to know others opinions on how onerous they think performing a water balance study will be for a site, seems like a several thousand dollar in fee undertaking.