Architects’ Approaches to Early Stage Design Energy Modelling – an Organisational Perspective Sonja Oliveira 1 and Elena Marco 1 1 Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, UK Abstract Energy modelling practices have been mainly studied from energy modellers' and/or building services engineers' perspectives. In addition, most discussions have focused attention on analysis parameters and tool features, with less attention devoted to organisational and social processes involved. This paper discusses how architects in leading UK and USA firms approach the adoption and implementation of recently developed early stage energy modelling with a focus on organisational processes across 9 large firms. Findings suggest differing facilitating conditions, social influences and attitudes contributed towards architects either temporarily adapting or adopting energy modelling in their organisational and design practices. Introduction Building energy performance is defined as the amount of energy actually consumed or estimated to meet the different needs associated with a standardised use of the building, which may include heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation and lighting (de Wilde 2014). Discrepancies of over 100 per cent in the energy performance of buildings have been reported, with factors related both to the simulation process as well as to the physical buildings identified as possible sources for this discrepancy (Ruyssevelt (2014); Robertson and Mumovic (2013)). Whilst improvements in energy performance are recognised to have a large impact on national energy savings (Zero Carbon Hub 2014) and though increasing research has focused on addressing the issue via tool improvement and development (de Wilde 2014), understanding the design processes that lead to early building conceptualisation carried out by architects, that have inherent effects on energy use prediction and enable its simulation are poorly studied and overlooked. Although many interrelated issues have been highlighted as the cause of the discrepancies, the most significant challenge lies in complexity of data exchanges between architectural design outputs and building energy simulation components. Interoperability between early stage design and subsequent modelling is not well understood. In addition, related workflows, suggested to be problematic, are under examined. Building geometry and associated spatial properties in a cad file characterise architects ‘spatial and aesthetic’ view of the building; not its ‘performance’ view (Attia et al., 2012). Drawing on a large survey, Attia et al., (2012) document the typical differences between architects and engineers as main operators of a simulation model. Though some scholars suggest, predicting emerging phenomena lie largely in new computational methodologies, there is an emerging agenda that asks for ways to understand ‘designers’ imagination and experience’ ( Hlscher and Brosamle 2007). Emerging insights gained by Oliveira et al., (2017) suggest architects’ focus and approach to planning for energy efficiency and use is often overshadowed by other design priorities such as the aesthetic appearance of buildings and users’ spatial experience - all of which have shown to have an impact on building performance Proceedings of BSO 2018: 4th Building Simulation and Optimization Conference, Cambridge, UK: 11-12 September 2018 511