Case Studies

When Adding More Is the Wrong Answer

Multiple specialists had looked at this building. All of them recommended adding something. None of them had looked at what was already there.

Commercial building interior, layered mechanical and electrical equipment visible overhead
The situation

Breakeven cashflow, angry tenant

The building was running at breakeven. The tenant was not happy. The energy bills were significant and climbing.

The owner had consulted multiple specialists. Each one had looked at the problem from their domain. All of them had arrived at the same recommendation: add infrared heaters on top of the existing system. The cost was significant. The tenant wanted it resolved. The owner was about to proceed.

That was when I walked through the building.

What I found

Layers of accumulated equipment

What I saw was not a building with a heating problem. It was a building with a systems problem that had been generating heating problems for years.

Four main ventilation units. Electric radiators throughout. AC units retrofitted over the previous decade, each one added to solve a problem created by the layer before it. Every system running independently, each optimised for its own task, none of them designed to work with the others.

The proposed infrared heaters would have been the next layer. Another solution added on top of a problem that no one had stopped to diagnose.

The issue was not capacity. The building had more than enough equipment. The problem was that nothing worked together.

What we did

Removing before adding

The work began with district heating -- optimising the primary heat source before touching anything else. Then ventilation, rebalanced to stop it working against the heating rather than with it.

Then we removed things.

The electric radiators came out. Most of the AC units were shut down. The systems that remained were the ones that could work together. Doors and windows in the building were realigned to stop the losses that had been forcing the heating to compensate. Lighting was upgraded last -- not because it was least important, but because by then we understood the whole building and could specify it correctly.

The outcome

From breakeven to profitable

The building moved from breakeven to profitable cashflow. The tenant stayed.

No new systems were added. The infrared heaters that every specialist had recommended were never installed. The capital that would have been spent on them was not spent at all.

The market solution was to add another layer to a building that already had too many. The actual solution was to make the existing assets work -- to remove the conflicts between systems and let the building perform the way it was capable of performing.

That gap between what the market recommends and what the building needs is where value lives. It is rarely visible to a specialist looking at one system in isolation. It becomes visible when someone looks at the building as a whole.

Further reading

Related case studies

Next step

Talk to us about a building where the standard recommendations have not worked

The starting point is always the same: understand how the building actually works before deciding what to change. We are happy to start with a conversation.

Get in touch