March 11, 2026 | Blog
Getting the most out of your smart building platform
Written by: Jack Sharp, Operations Director
Why technology alone rarely delivers better building performance.
Scroll to discover more
There is no shortage of smart building technology in the market now. Sensors, dashboards, alarms and analytics are becoming standard across many buildings.
What is far less common is seeing those systems consistently translate into better building performance.
In many buildings the technology is there, but the operational outcomes have not materially improved. Energy use stays higher than it should be. Plant runs when it does not need to. Maintenance remains reactive. Engineers are still chasing symptoms rather than causes.
The data exists, but it is not always being turned into better decisions.
In my view, that usually comes down to one issue. A product on its own rarely achieves its full potential.
An analogy that resonates with me is the PureGym model
The membership is inexpensive and easy to sign up for. People join with good intentions, go a few times, and then it slowly fades into the background. The membership still exists, but it is not really delivering the outcome it was meant to.
From my own experience, I know this is exactly how it plays out.
If I compare that to a gym membership where I work with a personal trainer, it becomes a completely different prospect. The trainer helps build the programme, keeps track of progress, coaches the movements properly, keeps me accountable and shows where the improvement is happening.
The core principle of the gym membership is the same, but the outcomes are very different.
Smart building platforms can fall into the same trap.
The platform is installed, the data is available and the dashboards are there, but without the right level of interpretation and ongoing oversight it can quickly become something that sits quietly in the background rather than something that actively improves how the building operates.
A platform can collect data, display trends and flag exceptions. That is useful, but it is only the starting point. Someone still needs to review what the building is doing, understand what matters, separate noise from real issues and turn that into practical action.
Without that layer, even a good platform can end up as a reporting tool rather than an operational tool.
BSRIA has made a similar point for years in relation to building management systems. Its guidance notes that many systems are underused and that organisations often need to revisit whether they are actually achieving the objectives they were originally installed for.
In many cases the technology is not the real problem. The missing piece is the operational discipline and technical resource needed to get the best from it.
Buildings are complex engineered systems. Plant, controls, occupancy patterns and maintenance regimes all interact with each other.
Platforms may highlight alarms, out-of-hours operation, unstable temperatures or persistent overrides. The data tells you something is happening, but it does not always explain why it is happening or what the operational consequence will be.
That is where engineering interpretation becomes essential
Some more progressive organisations have already recognised this and operate remote command centre models, where building performance engineers continuously review building data and intervene where necessary. In those environments the engineers are well positioned to make full use of smart building platforms because the operational oversight already exists.
Where this type of model is in place, the platform becomes part of a wider performance management approach. Engineering teams can share insights across portfolios, identify recurring issues and build a clearer understanding of how buildings are actually behaving in operation.
This becomes particularly important when it comes to maintenance
One of the biggest missed opportunities in smart buildings is failing to link platform data with maintenance strategy. Maintenance is often still based on generic schedules rather than how assets are actually performing on site.
BSRIA’s maintenance guidance makes this point clearly. Maintenance schedules that are not customised to reflect plant diversity and operational circumstances can lead to inadequate, excessive or unnecessary maintenance.
A more effective approach is to allow operational data from the building to inform when maintenance is actually required. By integrating building data with CAFM systems and aligning activities with established SFG20 maintenance schedules, it becomes possible to adjust or suppress tasks based on real operating conditions.
Instead of relying solely on fixed schedules, maintenance activity can begin to respond to how the building is actually performing.
So when I think about how to get the most out of a smart building platform, I do not start with features.
I start with the operating model behind it
The platform matters. The data matters. But neither is enough on its own. Buildings are engineered systems, and improving their performance still requires engineering judgement, structured oversight and a clear understanding of how the plant is actually behaving.
A smart building platform creates the visibility needed to understand what is happening inside the building. What determines the outcome is what happens next.
If the data is reviewed properly, interpreted in the right context and connected to the way the building is operated and maintained, it becomes a powerful tool for improving performance.
If it is not, it risks becoming another system that quietly runs in the background without ever delivering the improvement it was capable of.
In other words, the technology creates the opportunity.
But it is the engineering around it that ultimately determines whether that opportunity is realised.
