Towards an energy management maturity model

Towards an energy management maturity model

Pedro Antunes a, Paulo Carreira a,b,n, Miguel Mira da Silva b

a INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol, 9, 1000-029 Lisboa, Portugalb Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Doutor Aníbal Cavaco Silva, 2744-016 Porto Salvo, Portugal

H I G H L I G H T S

� Real-world energy management activities are not aligned with the literature.� An Energy Management Maturity Model is proposed to overcome this alignment gap.� The completeness and relevance of proposed model are validated.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 January 2014Received in revised form12 April 2014Accepted 9 June 2014

Keywords:Energy managementMaturity modelISO 50001

a b s t r a c t

Energy management is becoming a priority as organizations strive to reduce energy costs, conform toregulatory requirements, and improve their corporate image. Despite the upsurge of interest in energymanagement standards, a gap persists between energy management literature and current implemen-tation practices. This gap can be traced to the lack of an incremental improvement roadmap. In thispaper we propose an Energy Management Maturity Model that can be used to guide organizations intheir energy management implementation efforts to incrementally achieve compliance with energymanagement standards such as ISO 50001. The proposed maturity model is inspired on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle approach for continual improvement, and covers well-understood fundamental energymanagement activities common across energy management texts. The completeness of our proposal isthen evaluated by establishing an ontology mapping against ISO 50001.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy management has been defined as the systematic use ofmanagement and technology to improve an organization's energyperformance (CarbonTrust, 2011) or, in academic research, as thecontrol, monitoring and improvement activities for energy effi-ciency (Bunse et al., 2011). Regardless of definition, the topic hasbecome of utmost importance for organizations worldwide, manyof which are currently deploying energy management solutionsto improve their energy use, to comply with legislation, energystandards and their requirements, and to enhance the organiza-tion's reputation among customers. By implementing energymanagement programs, organizations can save up to 20% ontheir energy bill, and can also achieve savings up to 5%–10%

with minimal investment, effectively cutting operational costs(CarbonTrust, 2011).

Energy management and its associated practices vary greatlymainly because there is no well-understood energy managementmodel, as evidenced by the disparity in the reviewed literature.As will be clear later, despite the existence of several guides toassist companies in implementing energy management activities(CarbonTrust, 2011; Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008), case-studies show that real-world implementations of energy manage-ment programs fail to cover the breadth of energy activitiesdefined in these guides (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010).In summary, there is a gap between theory and real-worldimplementation practices of energy management that needs tobe closed.

This paper proposes and conducts a preliminary evaluation ofan Energy Management Maturity Model, meant for energy man-agers in all kinds of organizations, that organizes the essentialenergy management activities across five maturity levels, there-fore contributing to bridge the gap between theory and real-worldpractice. Overall, for an organization, an Energy ManagementMaturity Model will: (i) structure and improve the understanding

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.0110301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author at: Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa,Av. Prof. Doutor Aníbal Cavaco Silva, 2744-016 Porto Salvo, Portugal.Tel.: þ351 21 310 0300.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Antunes),[email protected] (P. Carreira),[email protected] (M. Mira da Silva).

Please cite this article as: Antunes, P., et al., Towards an energy management maturity model. Energy Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.011i

Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.011



mailto:[email protected]








of energy management practices, (ii) provide a roadmap towardscontinuous improvement, (iii) provide an understanding of thesteps required towards successful energy management, (iv) enablebenchmarking the current energy practices against other organi-zations, and (v) guide investment efforts.

According to the International Organization for Standardization(ISO), Energy Management stands out as one of the top five areasthat require the development and promotion of internationalstandards. The adoption of a standard, such as the ISO 50001,increases energy efficiency by more than 20% in industrial facilities(Piñero, 2009). To further emphasize the relevance of this topic, astudy made by Lawrence Berkeley National Labs about energyefficiency projects in the United States concluded that the totalproject spending in energy service companies, from 1990 to 2000,increased from US$500 million to US$2 billion (Van Gorp, 2004).

Another study has identified that, out of the 3749 respondents,85% state that energy management was very important to theirorganizations and 63% have actually invested in energy efficiencyprojects (IBE, 2012). Regarding legislation, for example, the EU hasalso established an energy improvement target of 20% by 2020(Wesselink et al., 2010).

Energy efficiency can be improved through investments inenergy technologies and promoting energy management practices(Backlund et al., 2012). While energy management shares somecommon practices across the literature, there is still a greatdiversity in these practices: some activities are neglected whileothers are more common. For example, existing solutions formeasurement, analysis and control of energy do not address allthe requirements of energy management at the organization orprocess level because they do not adequately develop workforceawareness of the energy used in their business (Vikhorev et al.,2012). Some common energy management activities includeensuring management commitment, appointing individuals orteams responsible for energy management, defining energy poli-cies and action plans, as well as reviewing implemented measuresby management, or metering of energy use.

In an analysis of the Swedish industrial energy efficiencyprograms (Thollander et al., 2007), energy audits allow a potentialenergy performance increase between 16 and 40% and an elec-tricity savings potential between 20 and 60%, and have beenidentified as very important for the identification and implemen-tation of cost-effective energy-efficiency opportunities (Shenet al., 2012).

The approaches taken to implement such activities can varygreatly in terms of practices and technological sophistication: anorganization might use energy-saving practices based on theexperience of the facility manager and/or users, while anothermay employ a computerized Energy Management System, whichis by definition a management system that provides a frameworkfor managing and continually improving organizational policies,processes and procedures (Hipkiss, 2011). However, the use ofthese energy management systems is not a very commonlyadopted practice (Molla et al., 2012).

On one hand, the recently published ISO 50001 standard (ISO,2011) enables organizations to establish energy management sys-tems and processes necessary for energy performance improvementto reduce energy costs, greenhouse emissions and other environ-mental impacts. However, standards such as IS393 (SEAI, 2006),ANSI/MSE 2000 (ANSI, 2008), BS EN 16001 (BSi, 2009), and morerecently ISO 50001 only define the requirements for organizationsto establish, maintain, implement and improve energy managementsystems. These standards do not provide organizations with amodel to assess their current situation against other organizations,except for a final certification, or allow them to plan their energymanagement implementation in an incremental way along anestablished improvement roadmap.

On the other hand, maturity models have been extensivelystudied and utilized in multiple engineering domains as aninstrument for continuous improvement (Wendler, 2012).Following the success of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM)for Software (Paulk et al., 1993), there has been significant interestin this field across multiple areas, both from an academic andprofessional point of view. CMM has evolved into the CapabilityMaturity Model Integration (CMMI) with three separate models—CMMI-SVC, CMMI-DEV and CMMI-ACQ (CMMI Product Team,2010b, 2010a; SEI, 2010), for providing services, product andservice development, and product and service acquisition, respec-tively—that have been adopted by thousands of organizationsworldwide.

Maturity models can be used as a tool to assess the as-issituation of a company, derive and rank improvement measures,and control implementation progress (De Bruin et al., 2005). Theyconsist of a sequence of maturity levels that represent a desiredorganizational evolution path, in which the initial maturity levelrepresents a state that can be characterized by an organizationhaving few capabilities in the chosen domain, while the highestmaturity level represents a stage of total maturity (Becker et al.,2009). Maturity, in this case, can be defined as a metric to evaluatecapabilities of an organization regarding a certain discipline.Advancing through this evolution path indicates that organizationsare improving their capabilities step by step (Becker et al., 2010).

According to a recent survey on maturity models, out of the 237studied articles, only 3 efforts focused on the topic of sustainability(Wendler, 2012), showing that research regarding maturity modelsin the energy field is still at its inception. Up to now, no maturitymodel has been created specifically for energy management.However, maturity models have been created for Smart Gridimplementation (SGMM Team, 2011) and for data center efficiency(Curry et al., 2012), which are related to this topic.

Furthermore, the approach taken by international standards isdifferent from the approach taken by maturity models. In order toreach compliance with a standard such as ISO 50001, organiza-tions need to show evidence about every single defined require-ment, in the form of a final certification. Maturity models have thesame ultimate goal of process improvement but they establishseveral levels of organizational maturity as organizations increasetheir improvement efforts and implement the required processesat their own pace, providing them with an implementation road-map not included in ISO standards.

This paper starts by performing a literature review of severalsources related to energy management (such as energy manage-ment systems, energy guides, and case studies), and also ofsources related to maturity models. This literature review is thenfollowed by a comparative analysis contrasting the current state ofenergy management in organizations, obtained from case studies,energy management guides and other energy management arti-cles. This analysis then sustains the identification of a set of energymanagement activities that will be the basis for the proposedmaturity model. The model is then evaluated for completeness byperforming an ontology mapping to the requirements of ISO50001 using Wand and Weber's method to identify ontologicaldeficiencies.

2. Energy management

The literature of interest identifying the significant activities inenergy management comprises good practice guides for energymanagement, scientific articles, and texts covering energy man-agement systems. The most relevant literature related to maturitymodels, some related to the topic of energy management, is alsoanalyzed in this section.

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎2






2.1. Energy management guides

Energy management guides have been published by severalentities aiming at establishing a set of industry best practices. Tworeferences that stand out are the energy management guidepublished by Carbon Trust in 2011 (CarbonTrust, 2011) and theSustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) designed for small businesses(Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008).

The CarbonTrust guide prescribes the implementation of anenergy management program, organized into the following steps:

Initial review is the first step in which organizationsassess their initial energy performance tounderstand how energy is being usedand managed. This step will enable theunderstanding of how the core businessand legislation requirements affect energyuse. It requires benchmarking currentenergy performance by gathering and ana-lyzing data.

Senior managementcommitment

aims at engaging senior management inthe energy management process to ensurevisibility across the organization, spurringthe implementation of energy manage-ment and guaranteeing financial andhuman resources.

Energy policydefinition

consists of establishing a firm basis forenergy management aligned with the cor-porate vision. The energy policy mustprovide a clear definition of energy objec-tives and targets, ensure sufficientresources and the commitment to main-tain an energy strategy. This step requires,among other, activities such as trainingstaff, communicating and performing reg-ular reviews.

Energy strategydefinition

aims at equipping the organization with aninstrument to achieve energy policy objec-tives. This strategy will define action plansand key activities to ensure that energygoals are met. The activities defined mustsupport the energy policy, starting withorganizational culture aspects, goingthrough energy information, and endingon regulatory or financial aspects ofinvestment and procurement.

Management review reaffirms commitment by reviewing poli-cies, objectives and action plans, redefin-ing roles and responsibilities, and ensuringthat systems and processes are being used.

The SEI guide also organizes the implementation of an energymanagement program according to five key steps:

Commit is the step that ensures management commitment tothe energy management program. This step is achievedby establishing the role of Energy Coordinator andcreating an effective, manageable energy statementdescribing the program goals.

Identify aims at discovering possible energy and cost savingsbased on the company's energy usage, the main areasof energy use, and energy bills.

Plan describes an Energy Action Plan consisting of activitiesthat set objectives and targets, assigning responsibil-ities for each objective.

Takeaction

consists of actual effort directed towards the imple-mentation of the Energy Action Plan. Among otheractivities, this step consists of raising energy awarenessinside the company and motivating staff to participate.

Review aims at improving the energy management effort bycontinuously monitoring and comparing energy per-formance, undertaking a complete review of targetsand progress towards achieving them.

Both guides structure energy management practice accordingto five major steps. CarbonTrust starts with an initial review andthen ensures management commitment, while the SEI guide startswith commitment. Both prescribe the identification of strategiesand action plans, and some types of periodic review. Clearly, theapproaches are extremely similar and, coarsely speaking, definethe essential energy management activities.

These approaches are in tune with the Plan-Do-Check-Actcycle: they focus on the identification of the current situation ofenergy performance and establish a course of action, then imple-menting improvement measures, followed by the measurement ofeffectiveness, and finish with a review step to identify furtherimprovement opportunities. This cycle has been adopted as thebasis for several standards, good practice guides (such as ITIL)and maturity models. As such, the activities defined in theseguides, which are extremely similar, provide organizations witha solid foundation for the continuous improvement of energyperformance.

2.2. Scientific literature

A limited number of scientific sources give an account of theactivities that take place in the current energy managementpractice (Van Gorp, 2004; Dusi and Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez etal., 2012; Coppinger, 2010). Analyzing the few existing references,we find that many common activities are identified, but there arealso some discrepancies between them. Table 1 presents thedetails that sustain this analysis.

In addition, we have also found that several papers do notpropose ‘essential’ energy management activities, such as theinitial benchmarking of energy usage, defining objectives andtargets, maintaining documentation, or planning for continuousimprovement, among others. This validates our initial claim thatessential energy management activities are still not well defined inthe scientific literature.

2.3. Energy management systems

Energy Management Systems (EMSs) are essential tools forenergy management as they provide organizations with informa-tion that enables them to support better decisions, by monitoringand measuring energy consumption, modeling future energyconsumption trends, and analyzing current costs. EMSs also enableorganizations to automate several tasks, such as gathering meterand equipment status data and reporting key performance indi-cators regarding energy consumption to management.

Without appropriate support by EMSs, organizations are notable to properly measure energy usage and monitor the effective-ness of their energy improvement measures. These systemscan store massive quantities of data, and usually have two sub-systems: alarming and data visualization (Seem, 2007). Thefunctionalities of EMSs can be organized according to four maingroups (Van Gorp, 2004): measurement and verification, energy useand cost analysis, benchmarking, and modeling and forecasting.

Measurement and verification provides the ability to compareenergy use before and after steps have been taken to addresspotential energy savings. Energy use and cost analysis enables

P. Antunes et al. / Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3






organizations to analyze where and when energy is used, provid-ing them a detailed breakdown of energy use and cost of equip-ment and processes, enabling organizations to better understandenergy performance.

Benchmarking gives organizations the ability to compare theenergy consumption of their processes, buildings and equipmentagainst each other and industry's best practices. The final func-tionality group, modeling and forecasting, enables organizations tocreate models of energy consumption according to differentfactors, allowing them to forecast how energy consumptionwill evolve. Organizations can then choose to take measures tocorrect that trend or to verify the success of energy managementimprovements.

2.4. Discussion

Energy management activities are somewhat similar acrossenergy management literature. Although there are no authorita-tive sources defining what are the essential energy managementactivities, all the analyzed literature points to the idea of perform-ing initial reviews to understand how energy is being used and toestablish a baseline of organizational energy performance. Thecreation of an energy policy and strategy is mostly established ingood practice guides. Most texts also establish an action plan.

The commitment of senior management appears as a cross-cutting aspect required to ensure resources for promoting energyprograms, and backing the creation of energy management roles.The communication of energy improvement results inside theorganization as well as staff training is also considered relevantacross most texts.

Metering, monitoring and analysis is relevant across all thetexts, and must be backed up by energy management systems.Overall, the functionalities of Energy Management Systems sup-port activities of metering, monitoring and analysis, benchmark-ing, understanding energy usage, and assist in communicating theresults of improvement actions, which can be framed into theEnergy Strategy and Review steps prescribed by energy guides.

The completeness and level of detail also varies across energymanagement texts. Some offer a more complete description ofwhat are considered good energy management practices, such asthe Carbon Trust guide. However, the analysis of case studies andscientific papers shows that organizations often do not follow allthe activities in their implementation of energy efficiency pro-grams, as evidenced by Table 1. Most importantly, no guide orpaper explores how to implement energy management in anincremental way for all the activities.

3. Maturity models

The main purpose of maturity models is to enable continuousimprovement. Since the development of the Capability MaturityModel (CMM) in 1993 (Paulk et al., 1993), the popularity ofmaturity models has been increasing. Indeed, the adoption ofmaturity models has fuelled a great deal of academic interest(Becker et al., 2010) and their utilization is expected to continueincreasing (Scott, 2007).

Maturity models have helped organizations overcome thechallenges of the need for cost cutting or quality improvementin the face of competitive pressure. They measure organizationalmaturity, which can be defined as a “measure to evaluate thecapabilities of an organization” (Lahrmann et al., 2011) of a specificdomain based on defined rules, and have spread across severaldomains, from product development (CMMI Product Team, 2010a),services management (CMMI Product Team, 2010b) to data centerenergy efficiency (Curry et al., 2012) and other (Yin et al., 2011;Pereira and Mira da Silva, 2011).

Maturity models typically define organizational maturity levelsthrough a five-point Likert scale, with five being the highestlevel of maturity (De Bruin et al., 2005). They represent a theoryof stage-based evolution, aiming at describing stages and matura-tion paths, as they are expected to disclose current and desirablematurity levels and to include improvement measures (Pöppelbußand Röglinger, 2011). Moreover, maturity models are typically one-dimensional, focusing either on process maturity, people capabil-ity or other objects maturity, with most maturity models focusingon a process perspective (Mettler and Rohner, 2009).

Maturity levels refer to a set of processes that organizationsmust implement as part of a defined improvement path. Asorganizations rise in maturity level regarding a specific dimensionof their activity, they will be operating more efficiently (Beckeret al., 2010).

Another important characteristic of maturity models is thatthey may have two types of representation: staged and continuous.According to the definition, a staged representation “(…)usesmaturity levels to characterize the overall state of the organization'sprocesses relative to the model as a whole” while the continuousapproach “(…)uses capability levels to characterize the state of theorganization's processes relative to an individual process area”(CMMI Product Team, 2010b). What this means in practice is that

Table 1Comparison table of the energy management activities in all of the analyzed energymanagement texts, from good practice guides to case studies and other scientificarticles (Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008; CarbonTrust, 2011; Van Gorp, 2004; Dusiand Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010).

Activities SEI CarbonTrust VanGorp

DusiandSchultz

Gonzalezet al.

Coppinger

Managementcommitment

� � � � �

Create energymanagementroles

� � � �

Understand energyusage

� � � � �

Benchmark currentperformance

� �

Identifyopportunities

� � � �

Establish policy � �Define energy

performanceindicators

� �

Set objectives andtargets

� � �

Create action plan � � � �Assign

responsibilities� �

Prioritizeinvestments

� �

Procurement �Training � �Documentation �Communicate

results� � � �

Allocate resources �Regulatory

compliance�

Metering,monitoring andanalysis

� � � � �

Managementreview

� �

Audit process � � �Plan continuous

improvement� �







organizations can decide which approach they want to take.Through the continuous approach, organizations choose the spe-cific processes they want to improve upon, based on their businessobjectives, and improvement of independent process areas canhappen at different rates. In the staged representation, the modelprovides a set of processes that establishes a defined proven pathfor improvement, which also facilitates benchmarking againstother organizations.

3.1. Maturity model comparison

Maturity Models can be compared according to a number ofvariables such as (i) its success, (ii) the approach (staged orcontinuous) taken by each model, (iii) the number of maturitylevels the model uses, (iv) the scope or relevant area of applicationof each model, (v) the level of detail that the model providesregarding objectives and processes, and (vi) whether or not thematurity model has served as basis for other maturity models(Pereira and Mira da Silva, 2011). A comparison between severalmaturity models is depicted in Table 2, contrasting distinctproposals for maturity models according to these variables.

Energy-related maturity models such as SGMM (SGMM Team,2011) establish several requirements and activities that apply onlyto energy providers, while EMMM (O'Sullivan, 2012) does not havea staged representation and is still a work in progress that cannotbe adequately studied. Thus, both analyzed energy related matur-ity models, SGMM and EMMM, are inadequate to serve as a basisfor our Energy Management Maturity Model.

Another maturity model, PMF for ITIL, establishes both repre-sentations but is focused on IT Services, and has a low level ofdetail with respect to the activities described. Moreover, it isunknown whether it has served as the basis for other maturitymodels. In contrast, CMMI-SVC addresses all the issues of PMF as itdescribes each process in a high level of detail, it is focused onservices and is widely used across organizations. Therefore it canbe used as a blueprint for a staged energy management maturitymodel, as we propose in this paper.

3.2. Opportunities for improvement

Despite the fact that a large number of organizations aremotivated to pursue energy efficiency and are informed in thismatter, very few have the capabilities to actually implementenergy efficiency measures or can actually demonstrate the resultsof their improvement actions (Chai and Yeo, 2012). Energymanagement efforts are frequently hindered by a number offactors (McKane et al., 2009) such as (i) lack of information,(ii) limited awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency mea-sures, (iii) inadequate skills, (iv) cultural or financial constraintsleading to investment in production capacity instead of energy

efficiency measures, and (v) larger importance on addressingupfront costs instead of overhead energy costs.

As previously mentioned, we can clearly see a gap betweenenergy management efforts and implementation, which is sup-ported by scientific literature. The energy efficiency gap, referringto the fact that energy improvement measures are not alwaysimplemented despite the need for increasing energy efficiency, isdue to three categories of barriers: economic, behavioral andorganizational (Rohdin et al., 2007). The first category (economic)describes barriers such as (i) hidden costs, which translates tocollecting and analyzing information costs, (ii) limited access tocapital, representing tight energy budgets that may affect theability to invest in energy efficiency measures, and (iii) riskaversion, caused by fear of production disruption. Behavioralbarriers refer to the lack of credibility and trust of informationtherefore impeding improvement efforts. Finally, factors such asorganizational culture can be described as organizational barriers.

There have been recent developments regarding energy manage-ment maturity models. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Irelandhas reported some preliminary work on the Energy ManagementMaturity Model (O'Sullivan, 2012). Their research follows a differentapproach from our proposed model, as each process is assessedindividually. Our model is based on a staged approach that providesa global vision of the main processes that an organization shouldimplement for managing energy more efficiently.

4. Proposal

In this section we propose a maturity model for energymanagement which provides an easy-to-understand staged modelthat enables organizations to gradually adopt energy managementpractices, guiding them along a clearly defined roadmap andhelping them reach compliance with energy management stan-dards. Our Maturity Model is based on a representative set of well-defined and well-understood activities. However, as discussedpreviously, existing energy management guides share commonactivities but the implementation of energy management pro-grams and efforts varies greatly. To obtain such a set of energymanagement activities we refer to the energy managementliterature analyzed in Section 2 as our basis. Table 3 details theactivities on which our model is based, along with a mapping tothe ones they were derived from. We will now detail the proposalfor an Energy Management Maturity Model and its preliminaryevaluation.

4.1. An energy management maturity model

The energy management activities derived from the litera-ture can be organized into five maturity levels following the

Table 2Maturity model comparison of Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM), Energy Management Maturity Model (EMMM), CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) and Process MaturityFramework (PMF).

Criteria SGMM EMMM CMMI-SVC PMF

Success Unknown Unknown High LowModel representationStaged No No Yes YesContinuous Yes Yes Yes YesNumber of maturity levelsStaged N/A N/A 1–5 1–5Continuous 0–5 1–5 0–3 1–5Scope Smart grid Energy management Services IT ServicesDetail High Unknown High LowBasis Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown







Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle framework on which most maturitymodels are based.

In the five-level Energy Management Maturity Model shown inFig. 1, the first maturity level, Initial, captures the starting stage ofevery organization. The next level, Planning, starts the cycle bygrouping together activities that are considered as the first steps inenergy management, when organizations merely understand theircurrent situation and lay out improvement plans. The next level,Implementation, based on the ‘Do’ step, focuses on performingimprovement measures. The following maturity level, Monitoring,aims for the ‘Check’ stage of the PDCA cycle. At this level, organizationsengage in tracking the effectiveness of the measures implemented in

the previous level. Finally, the fifth maturity level, Improvement, isbased on the ‘Act’ stage of the cycle, where organizations take actionto continue further improvement or corrections.

The activities that were included were the most relevant acrossthe analyzed guides. However, our model was also inspired byCMMI, taking into account other activities that are deemed as goodpractice in CMMI. For example, CMMI process areas Work Plan-ning, Supplier Agreement Management, Configuration Manage-ment, Measurement and Analysis and Organizational Training canbe coarsely mapped to our ‘Create action plan’, ‘Procurement’,‘Documentation’, ‘Metering, monitoring and analysis’ and ‘Train-ing’ activities.

Table 3Mapping between the activities supporting our proposed energy management maturity model and the source activities from the analyzed literature (Sustainable EnergyIreland, 2008; CarbonTrust, 2011; Van Gorp, 2004; Dusi and Schultz, 2012; Gonzalez et al., 2012; Coppinger, 2010; CMMI Product Team, 2010b), and organized according tothe Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle.

Proposed activity Source activities References

Plan Ensure management commitment Management commitment SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, CoppingerEstablish energy management roles Establish energy management roles SEI, CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, CoppingerAssign responsibilities SEI, CarbonTrustEnergy review Understand energy usage SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Gonzalez et al., CoppingerBenchmark current performance Benchmark current performance CarbonTrust, Van GorpIdentify improvement opportunities Identify opportunities SEI, CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al., CoppingerEstablish energy policy Establish policy SEI, CarbonTrustEstablish energy performance indicators Establish energy performance indicators CarbonTrust, Gonzalez et al.Set objectives and targets Set objectives and targets SEI, CarbonTrust, Van GorpCreate action plan Create action plan SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVCCheck regulatory compliance Regulatory compliance CarbonTrust

Do Investment Prioritize investments SEI, CarbonTrustAllocate resources CarbonTrust

Procurement Procurement CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVCTraining Training SEI, CarbonTrust, CMMI-SVCCommunication Communicate results SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and SchultzDocumentation Documentation Dusi and Schultz, CMMI-SVC

Check Metering, monitoring and analysis Metering, monitoring and analysis SEI, CarbonTrust, Van Gorp, Dusi and Schultz, Gonzalez et al., CMMI-SVCProgram audit Audit process CarbonTrust, Dusi and Schultz, Coppinger

Act Management review Management review SEI, CarbonTrustPlan continuous improvement CarbonTrust, Coppinger

Energy Management Maturity Model

Level 1INITIAL

Level 2PLANNING

Level 3IMPLEMENTATION

Level 4MONITORING

Level 5IMPROVEMENT

Time

Mat

urity

Maturity Level Activities1 - Initial stage No defined activities2 - Planning stage Energy review

Benchmark current performanceIdentify improvement opportunitiesEnsure management commitmentEstablish energy management rolesEstablish energy policySet objectives and targetsEstablish energy performance indicatorsCreate action planCheck regulatory compliance

3 - Implementation Investmentstage Procurement

TrainingCommunicationDocumentation

4 - Monitoring stage Metering, monitoring and analysisProgram audit

5 - Improvement stage Management review

Fig. 1. Proposed maturity model, with five levels of increasing maturity, representing the initial, planning, implementation, monitoring and improvement levels as depictedon the left side of the figure and an overview of the five levels of energy management, and their corresponding activities, as seen on the right side of the figure.







In particular, the maturity levels of our Energy ManagementMaturity Model and corresponding activities, shown in Fig. 1, arecharacterized as follows:

Initial is characterized mostly by ad-hoc processes andefforts. Energy usage is not being monitored,senior management does not have defined policiesor improvement goals, roles are not defined andenergy efforts are not being regularly reviewed. Inthe Initial level of maturity, the success of energymanagement efforts depends on certain indivi-duals and on their previous experience.

Planning is the second maturity level that organizationscan reach, representing a point where organiza-tions are undertaking the first organizationalefforts to understand energy usage: how isenergy being consumed, how is it related tothe core business, and how and what kind ofexternal constraints, such as legislation, apply toenergy efficiency. This is done by gathering andanalyzing data to understand current energyperformance in the organization, and creatinga baseline for future comparison that will assistthe identification of problematic areas whereimprovements can be made. The Planing level isdefined by a number of activities such as:� An initial review, that uses measurement andmonitoring data to (i) identify energysources and assess past and present energyuse, (ii) identify major areas of energy use byreviewing facilities, equipment, systems,processes and other factors that will play apart in energy use, (iii) create forecastson future energy use and consumption and(iv) identify opportunities for improvement.

� A commitment activity, where top manage-ment helps to define an energy policy andassign an energy manager role or team (Alam,2012), promote energy management insidethe organization, regularly review objectivesand project status and provide the essentialresources (human, financial, technological andothers) to improve energy performance.

� Laying out an Energy Policy, detailing thecommitment to energy performance, ensuringthe availability of the necessary resources,compliance with legislation, as well as regularand formal reviews. Energy Policy is a docu-ment that will also define goals, objectives,and performance indicators. An action plan isthen created to establish how the organization

will achieve the proposed goals, and whatactions are prioritized and assigned to indivi-duals, with clear responsibilities, budgets andtime. The Energy Policy also guides the orga-nization in the procurement of energy relatedservices, equipment and resources.

Implementation is a maturity level that characterizes organizationswhere intentional action is being taken to over-come inefficiencies detected. The Implementationlevel defines activities required for the implemen-tation of energy improvement measures, withprocurement and investment also playing animportant role. Without financial backing, projectsand teams are unable to implement defined mea-sures. Management needs to define an energybudget to ensure that efforts are not reduced ormade impossible by direct competition againstother internal departments. Energy procurementwill invest these financial funds with suppliers thatwill ensure the achievement of policy goals.Training and communication are also importantinside an organization at this point. Staff must betrained to understand energy management andacquire the required skills to understand the sub-ject and work with energy management systems.Everyone inside the organization must also beaware of the benefits and goals of the proposedenergy efficiency measures to promote usercooperation.

Monitoring defines a maturity level where organizationsactively and routinely collect, process and ana-lyze energy data to ensure that the definedgoals are met and to identify further improve-ment opportunities. Monitoring also providesmanagement with reports on the success ofenergy management efforts. This assessment ofmeasures taken is verified by the organizationalprogram audit activity.

Improvement is the final maturity level, where organizationsensure that taken measures are reviewed bysenior management, and adjustments intro-duced in the previously defined energy policy,action plan roles, and objectives.

4.2. Implementation challenges

Naturally, at each stage in the Energy Management MaturityModel, organizations face distinct challenges in their energymanagement efforts, as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4Identified challenges across each maturity level that organizations face in energy management implementation efforts.

Maturity level Challenges

Initial N/APlanning Getting top management approval and commitment

Establishing relevant performance indicatorsDefining feasible and obtainable goals

Implementation Staff support of energy policiesRaising awareness of energy improvementResources competition by other departments

Monitoring Ensuring systems can support data collection and analysis for established indicatorsPerforming unbiased internal audits

Improvement Providing necessary data to establish further improvement actions







In the second maturity level, organizations must achieve manage-ment commitment and define goals and appropriate performanceindicators. Without these, future energy management efforts will notbe able to properly advance from the planning stages, as these stepswill lay the foundation for improving performance, from ensuringfinancial resources and company awareness to establishing improve-ment goals and indicators, necessary for future measurement ofperformance. In the following maturity level, the awareness andsupport by the organization's staff is extremely important. Withoutthis support, which has the underlying goal of changing organiza-tional culture, energy improvement efforts will never be achieved.

In the fourth maturity level, in order to measure the effective-ness of improvement efforts, energy management systems that arein place must support the collection of data and must be able toanalyze it, so that results can be measured against previouslydefined goals and presented to top management. Finally, in theimprovement maturity level, the management review activitycannot be properly executed without the necessary information.If senior management does not have access to complete informa-tion about energy performance, from previously defined goals andindicators to achieved results, they will not be able to defineproper corrective measures.

5. Evaluation

Our proposed Energy Management Maturity Model was evaluatedfor completeness and clarity by performing an ontology matchingwith the most recent energy management standard, ISO 50001.The quality of the correspondences of the mapping is then evaluatedusing the Wand and Weber method (Wand and Weber, 1993).

5.1. ISO 50001

The ISO 50001 standard (ISO, 2011) is the most recent energymanagement systems standard, also based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) continual improvement framework. ISO 50001 enablesany kind of organization to improve energy performance,efficiency, use and consumption. Large organizations, from healthcare, aerospace, automotive and transportation product manufac-turers, energy generation companies, and others have adoptedcontinuous energy and quality improvement principles based onISO 50001 (Ranky, 2012).

Success stories concerning ISO 50001 abound. In a recentsurvey, it was mentioned that 75% of Turkish industrial organiza-tions welcome ISO 50001 as the new energy management stan-dard and 20% state that a standard is necessary for energymanagement (Ates and Durakbasa, 2012). Denmark, Sweden andIreland are also transitioning towards ISO 50001 (Goldberg andReinaud, 2012). Another case study has shown that the adoptionof this standard has proved to increase energy use efficiency by18.5% (Chiu et al., 2012).

As of December 2012, ISO 50001 certification has only beenachieved by approximately two thousand organizations, againstroughly 300 thousand that have achieved ISO 14001 compliance,or approximately 1 million that have achieved ISO 9001 compli-ance. The number of ISO 50001 certifications, despite being severaltimes smaller in comparison with the mentioned ISO standards,highlights the great growth potential for this internationalstandard.

ISO 50001 specifies several requirements (such as managementcommitment, effective monitoring, measurement and analysis ofseveral variables and management review of the results) of anEnergy Management System for organizations to develop andimplement an energy policy, establish objectives, targets and

action plans. The six main requirements established in ISO50001 are:

Managementresponsibility

whereby management displays commit-ment to energy management and supportscontinuous improvement in (i) creating anenergy policy, (ii) appointing managementroles, (iii) ensuring appropriate resources(human and financial), (iv) communicatingthe energy management importance to theorganization, (v) defining energy objectivesand targets and appropriate energy perfor-mance indicators, (vi) establishing a long-term plan for energy management, (vii)ensuring results are measured and reportedand (viii) conducting management reviews.

Energy policy that establishes how the organization willaddress energy management and improve-ment.

Energy planning that establishes an energy review to analyzeenergy use, identifying problematic areas interms of consumption and improvementopportunities and establishing an energybaseline for future comparison. The organiza-tion also needs to establish energy objectivesand targets, as well as an action plan thatdefines how the targets will be achieved.

Implementationand operation

consists of using the defined action plan andproviding training so that personnel has thenecessary skills, communicating internally andexternally about energy performance, andensuring that proper documentation is createdand maintained. Energy procurement anddesign of facilities and processes also need totake into account the energy policy andaction plan.

Checking effectiveness of action plans and significantenergy uses that will determine energyperformance by monitoring, metering andanalysis of energy performance indicators.

Managementreview

consists of periodic reviews of the energymanagement system, resulting, if necessary,in changes to the energy policy, objectivesand targets or allocation of resources.

5.2. ‘Mapping’ with ISO 50001

The mapping between our proposed maturity model and ISO50001 aims at validating if the proposed model supports ISOstandard activities.

Regarding the Planning maturity level, the ISO ‘Energy review’

requirement defines the need to analyze and identify the areas ofsignificant energy use and identify the opportunities to improveenergy performance. This can be directly mapped to the activities‘Energy review’ and ‘Identify improvement opportunities’ in ourmodel, respectively. Requirement ‘Energy baseline’ states that thisinitial energy review will create a baseline for future comparison,which can be mapped to the activity ‘Benchmark current perfor-mance’. ISO 50001 also addresses the importance of managementcommitment which will be essential to a successful energyprogram. Requirement ‘Top management’ of ISO 50001 states thatmanagement needs to demonstrate commitment to the energymanagement program. This requirement is directly mapped toour activity ‘Ensure management commitment’. Assignment ofresponsibilities is also directly mapped.







Requirement ‘Energy policy’ defines that an energy policyneeds to get organizational commitment in order to improveenergy performance by ensuring it is documented and regularlyassessed to provide a framework for setting and reviewing energytargets. This is mapped to our ‘Establish energy policy’ activity. Thedefinition of energy targets and energy management action planscomprehends establishing objectives at relevant functions, levels,processes or facilities, consistent with energy policy. This iscaptured in ISO 50001 by the ‘Energy objectives’; in our model,it is covered by the activities ‘Set objectives and targets’ and‘Create action plan’. Monitoring and baselining appropriate indi-cators ‘Energy performance indicators’ is also directly mapped toour model as well as ‘Legal and other requirements’, which issubsumed by our activity ‘Regulatory compliance’.

The Implementation maturity level defines the necessaryactivities for the support of energy efficiency measures. In ISO50001, we find that the requirement ‘Design’ states that organiza-tions must consider energy performance improvement opportu-nities in the design of new, modified or renovated facilities,equipment, systems and processes. Therefore this requirementcan be mapped to our ‘Investment’ activity. Next, the requirement‘Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy’states that suppliers are evaluated based on energy performance,as defined in the activity ‘Procurement’ of our model.

The requirement ‘Competence, training and awareness’ mapsdirectly to our activity ‘Training’. However, this requirement in ISO50001 also defines the awareness of energy policy, roles inside theorganization and the benefits of energy performance, whichtogether with requirement ‘Communication’, can be mapped toour ‘Communication’ activity. Finally, the ‘Documentation’ require-ment can also be directly mapped.

The Monitoring maturity level establishes activities for theevaluation of energy efficiency measures. Requirement ‘Monitor-ing, measurement and analysis’ is quite similar to the activity‘Metering, monitoring and analysis’ in our model, and the ‘Internalaudit of the EMS’ is focused on the review of the energy manage-ment system and its need to conform to energy objectives andtargets, which greatly overlaps with our ‘Program audit’ activity.

Finally, the Improvement Maturity Level is characterized by amanagement review, where current progress is evaluated andfurther continuous improvement is planned. This is done byevaluating the several artifacts, such as energy policy and mon-itoring data, by senior management, which is proposed in both onour model and ISO 50001. Management review, a requirement inISO 50001, and, in our proposed model in the Improvement stage,is essential for the continuous improvement of energy perfor-mance, since it corresponds to the Act stage of the PDCA cycle. ISO50001 ‘Management review’ requirement refers to regular topmanagement review of several elements of the energy program,which is similar to our activity ‘Management review’, thatdescribes the actions taken by to ensure further commitment toimprovement.

5.3. Analysis using the Wand and Weber method

To evaluate the mapping between our model and ISO 50001,regarding completeness and clarity, we will perform an analysisaccording to the Wand and Weber method (Wand and Weber,1993). Wand and Weber define an ontological evaluation of thegrammars method, where two sets of concepts are compared inorder to identify four ontological deficiencies, as shown in Fig. 2:

Incompleteness can every first set element be mapped to anelement in the second set? If there is not a totalmapping, it is considered incomplete.

Redundancy are there elements in the first set mapped tomore than one element in the second set? If so,the mapping is considered redundant.

Excess is every element from the first set mapped to asecond set element? The mapping is consideredexcessive if there are elements without arelationship.

Overload is every element of the first set mapped only toone element in the second set? The mappingis considered overloaded if any element in thesecond set has more than one mapping to thefirst one.

The ontological evaluation of the mapping of our proposal toISO 50001 is presented in Table 5. A first observation is that themapping is complete, since every proposed activity can be mappedto an ISO 50001 requirement. For the next defined attribute,redundancy, there is one activity in the first model that is mappedto more than one activity in ISO 50001. As for excess, we havepreviously identified several ISO 50001 requirements that couldnot be mapped to our proposal, which are described in moredetail in Section 6. Regarding overload, there are two ISO 50001requirements that are mapped to more than one activity inour model.

Regarding the four ontological deficiencies, using this method,our model can indeed be considered as complete, since everyactivity can be mapped to a requirement established in thestandard. This evaluation, however, clashes with the knowledgethat our model indeed does not fully cover ISO 50001, as explainedin Section 6.

For redundancy, there is only one activity in our model that ismapped to two different requirements. Excess is present in theproposed mapping. However, our model can also accommodatethe missing activities. Finally, overload is not considered a problemsince our model establishes ‘finer-grained’ activities by compar-ison with ISO's approach of grouping some requirements.

Incompleteness Redundancy

Excess Overload

Fig. 2. Illustration of ontological deficiencies as proposed by Wand and Weber.







6. Discussion

The staged approach of our proposed Energy ManagementMaturity Model is rooted on a clear set of activities that emergedfrom the best practices found in the literature, and organizedtaking into account the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle that focuses oncontinual improvement of processes and has been the underlyingbasis for several maturity models.

As shown in Section 5.2, our proposed model can be mappedand covers almost entirely the most recent industry standard inenergy management systems, ISO 50001. This mapping demon-strates that our model contains all the best practices in energymanagement.

Despite the similarities, the requirement ‘Operational control’in ISO 50001 states that the organization needs to identify andplan all operations related to energy use to guarantee that they arecarried out according to policy. However, ‘Operational control’ is amissing activity from the proposed model but nevertheless is avaluable process in energy management and should be object offurther study. Other requirements such as ‘Control of Records’(which establishes the need to maintain documentation thatexpresses conformity to the ISO standard), ‘Evaluation of legalrequirements and other requirements’ and other general ISOrequirements are not mapped to our model explicitly. Throughour analysis of energy management texts, we did not findany mention to these activities, so they were not included inour model.

Our model was established through the analysis of severaltexts, and therefore, is not an all-encompassing model, i.e., it doesnot feature every conceivable energy management activity. How-ever, we learned that, despite our model being based on energymanagement texts, it is possible to achieve an almost completemapping to ISO 50001, with the exception of three requirements,proving the proposed model is fairly complete. As a result,organizations can use our maturity model and rise through the

maturity levels by implementing the proposed activities and, asthey do so, they will be automatically working towards ISO 50001compliance.

Our work also addresses some of the previously identifiedbarriers to energy efficiency in Section 3.2. For instance, theproposed model promotes (i) changes in organizational culture,ensuring organizations communicate the benefits of energy man-agement measures to its employees, (ii) attempts to furtherminimize the effects of limited access to capital as the primarybarrier of energy efficiency (Rohdin et al., 2007), and (iii) will alsopromote individual values by establishing key individuals asresponsible for energy management inside organizations andensuring management commitment to energy management pro-grams. Therefore, it addresses the three previously identified kindsof barriers to energy efficiency but also promotes a long termstrategy, that is considered the main driver to energyefficiency (Rohdin et al., 2007).

7. Conclusion

An Energy Management Maturity Model will guide organiza-tions in improving their energy management performance, lead-ing to further energy performance improvements, that translate toeconomic gains, customer image improvement, and compliancewith regulations. Maturity models have been used in distinctdomains and are prevalent in the IT industry, enabling organiza-tions to continually improve their processes. Expectably, energymanagement will benefit, as did other fields, from the adoption ofmaturity models to achieve continuous process improvement forenabling organizations to better manage their energy manage-ment practices.

International standards, such as ISO 50001, are based on astrategy of defining a set of necessary requirements to achievecompliance, forcing organizations to comply with every single

Table 5Mapping of the activities in the proposed maturity model and ISO 50001 requirements, and the corresponding evaluation according to the Wand and Weber method,regarding ontological deficiencies.

Maturity model activities ISO 50001 requirements Wand and Weber ontological deficiencies

PlanningEnergy review Energy review OverloadBenchmark current performance Energy baseline CompleteIdentify improvement opportunities Energy review OverloadEnsure management commitment Top management CompleteEstablish energy management roles Management representative CompleteEstablish energy policy Energy policy CompleteSet objectives and targets Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans OverloadEstablish energy performance indicators Energy performance indicators CompleteCreate action plan Energy objectives, energy targets and energy management action plans OverloadCheck regulatory compliance Legal and other requirements Complete

ImplementationInvestment Design CompleteProcurement Procurement of energy services, products, equipment and energy CompleteTraining Competence, training and awareness OverloadCommunication Communication Redundant/Overload

Competence, training and awarenessDocumentation Documentation CompleteN/A Operational control Excess

MonitoringMetering, monitoring and analysis Monitoring, measurement and analysis CompleteProgram audit Internal audit of the EnMS CompleteN/A Evaluation of legal requirements and other requirements ExcessN/A Nonconformities, correction, corrective, and preventive action ExcessN/A Control of records Excess

ImprovementManagement review Management review Complete







defined practice—an all-or-nothing approach. Maturity models, incontrast, define a set of activities and establish several levels ofmaturity, by grouping these activities into specific levels. Thisapproach is not only compatible with the final goal in internationalstandards, but also alleviates the implementation of managementpractices by providing organizations with a well-defined incre-mental path for energy management.

Despite the publication of energy management guides andstandards by several entities, the gap between theory and real-world implementation still persists. To address these concerns,this paper proposes a Maturity Model for Energy Managementthat consists of several energy management activities, derivedfrom energy management guides, case studies and scientificarticles, organized into five maturity levels. The completenesswas evaluated against ISO 50001, demonstrating that virtuallyevery requirement of this industry standard is covered.

Regarding policy implications and recommendations, theimpact of our proposal is manifold. An Energy ManagementMaturity Model will enable organizations to pursue an incremen-tal improvement path, providing them with a roadmap forachieving higher energy efficiency. Indeed, the proposed maturitymodel aims at streamlining the approach to energy management,making energy efficiency strategy more easily understood andimplementable in a staged and gradual approach. Companies canbase their activities in our model to adopt the concept ofcontinuous improvement with respect to energy management,and can also be used as a framework for benchmarking and toshare best practices.

Our work also brings economic advantages by lowering thebarrier to adoption of energy efficiency practices, promotinghigher return on investment. The proposed model also promotesorganizational planning and long term strategy towards energymanagement, as established in our defined second level ofmaturity, focused on establishing a basis of performance indica-tors, benchmarks, leadership roles and efficiency objectives. Byextension, this work also improves environmental awareness andorganizational culture regarding energy management and the useof energy management systems.

Together with the literature analysis in this paper, our modelbrings to the table another instrument to address energy effi-ciency. In particular, the proposed model promotes efficiencythrough the adoption of several energy management activities,with implications in any organization that wishes to improve itsenergy performance, and contributes to energy policy by provid-ing guidelines for managing energy consumption. Finally, thiswork is also a stepstone to further academic research as theanalysis of several topics regarding energy management andthe achieved results can guide further efforts in the energymanagement area.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank professor Carlos Silva andprofessor Niina Elkarma for their valuable comments. This workwas supported by national funds through FCT—Fundação para aCiência e a Tecnologia, under project PEst-OE/EEI/LA0021/2013.

References

Alam, S., 2012. Energy management practice: office building in Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci.Res. 8 (7), 3792–3801.

ANSI, 2008. ANSI/MSE 2000:2008 A Management System for Energy.Ates, S.A., Durakbasa, N.M., 2012. Evaluation of corporate energy management

practices of energy intensive industries in Turkey. Energy 45 (1), 81–91.

Backlund, S., Thollander, P., Palm, J., Ottosson, M., 2012. Extending the energyefficiency gap. Energy Policy 51, 392–396.

Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, D.-W.I.J., 2009. Developing maturity modelsfor IT management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1 (3), 213–222.

Becker, J., et al., 2010. Maturity models in IS research. In: Proceedings of the 18thEuropean Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010).

BSi, 2009. BS EN 16001:2009. Energy Management Systems – Requirements withGuidance for Use.

Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integratingenergy efficiency performance in production management—gap analysisbetween industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6),667–679.

CarbonTrust, 2011. Energy management—a comprehensive guide to controllingenergy use.

Chai, K.-H., Yeo, C., 2012. Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systemsapproach: a conceptual framework. Energy Policy 46, 460–472.

Chiu, T.-Y., Lo, S.-L., Tsai, Y.-Y., 2012. Establishing an integration-energy-practicemodel for improving energy performance indicators in ISO 50001 energymanagement systems. Energies 5 (12), 5324–5339.

CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2010a. CMMI for Developmentv1.3. Carnegie Mellon University.

CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2010b. CMMI for Services v1.3.Carnegie Mellon University.

Coppinger, S., 2010. Developing a corporate-wide strategic energy managementprogram. In: 52nd IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE,pp. 1–8.

Curry, E., Conway, G., Donnellan, B., Sheridan, C., Ellis, K., 2012. A maturity model forenergy efficiency in mature data centres. In: SMARTGREENS. pp. 263–267.

De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M., 2005. Understanding the mainphases of developing a maturity assessment model.

Dusi, B., Schultz, R., 2012. Energy management and efficiency—a systems approach.In: 53rd IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1–8.

Goldberg, A., Reinaud, J., 2012. Promoting energy management systems throughenergy efficiency programmes, incentives and support—lessons learnt fromevaluations in Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. In: International Energy ProgramEvaluation Conference (IEPEC).

Gonzalez, A.J., Castrillón, R., Quispe, E.C., 2012. Energy efficiency improvement inthe cement industry through energy management. In: 2012 IEEE-IAS/PCA 53rdCement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1–13.

Hipkiss, R., 2011. Energy management systems and energy saving projects.IBE, 2012. 2012 Energy Efficiency Indicator: Global Results. Technical Report,

Institute for Building Efficiency.ISO, 2011. ISO 50001:2011 energy management systems standard—requirements

with guidance for use.Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Mettler, T., Winter, R., Wortmann, F., 2011. Inductive design

of maturity models: applying the Rasch algorithm for design science research.In: Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research. Springer, pp. 176–191.

McKane, A., Desai, D., Matteini, M., Meffert, W., Williams, R., Risser, R., 2009.Thinking Globally: How ISO 50001-energy Management can Make IndustrialEnergy Efficiency Standard Practice. Technical Report LBNL-3323E, LBNL.

Mettler, T., Rohner, P., 2009. Situational maturity models as instrumental artifactsfor organizational design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conferenceon Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. ACM,p. 22.

Molla, A., Ijab, M.T., Cooper, V., 2012. Information Systems Based Energy Manage-ment Practices at Telecom Acadia. Green IT Working Paper series.

O'Sullivan, J., 2012. Energy Management Maturity Model (EM3)—A strategy tomaximize the potential for energy savings through EnMS.

Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V., 1993. Capability maturity model,version 1.1. IEEE Softw. 10 (4), 18–27.

Pereira, R., Mira da Silva, M., 2011. A maturity model for implementing itil v3 inpractice. In: 2011 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Com-puting Conference Workshops (EDOCW). IEEE, pp. 259–268.

Piñero, E., 2009. ISO 50001: setting the standard for industrial energy management.Green Manufacturing News, pp. 21–24.

Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M., 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? Aframework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstra-tion in business process management.

Ranky, P., 2012. Sustainable energy management and quality process models basedon iso 50001: 2011 the international energy management standard. In: IEEEInternational Symposium Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST). IEEE,pp. 1–6.

Rohdin, P., Thollander, P., Solding, P., 2007. Barriers to and drivers for energyefficiency in the Swedish foundry industry. Energy Policy 35 (1), 672–677.

Scott, J.E., 2007. Mobility, business process management, software, sourcing andmaturity model trends: propositions for the is organization of the future. Inf.Syst. Manag. 24 (2), 139–145.

Software Engineering Institute, CMMI for Acquisition v1.3, Carnegie MellonUniversity, 2010.

SEAI, 2006. I.S. 393:2005 Energy Management Systems Standard.Seem, J.E., 2007. Using intelligent data analysis to detect abnormal energy

consumption in buildings. Energy Build. 39 (1), 52–58.SGMM Team, Software Engineering Institute, 2011. Smart Grid Maturity Model v1.2.

Carnegie Mellon University.Shen, B., Price, L., Lu, H., 2012. Energy audit practices in China: national and local

experiences and issues. Energy Policy 46, 346–358.



http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0301-4215(14)00383-8/sbref1
































Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2008. Energy management—a guide for small business.Thollander, P., Danestig, M., Rohdin, P., 2007. Energy policies for increased

industrial energy efficiency: evaluation of a local energy programme formanufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy 35 (11), 5774–5783.

Van Gorp, J.C., 2004. Enterprising energy management. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2(1), 59–63.

Vikhorev, K., Greenough, R., Brown, N., 2012. An advanced energy managementframework to promote energy awareness. J. Clean. Prod. 43, 103–112.

Wand, Y., Weber, R., 1993. On the ontological expressiveness of informationsystems analysis and design grammars. Inf. Syst. J. 3 (4), 217–237, Wiley OnlineLibrary.

Wendler, R., 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mappingstudy. J. Inf. Software Technol. 54 (12), 1317–1339.

Wesselink, B., Harmsen, R., Eichhammer, W., 2010. Energy Savings 2020—How toTriple the Impact of Energy Saving Policies in Europe.

Yin, A., Figueiredo, S., da Silva, M., 2011. Scrum maturity model. In: Proceedings ofthe 6th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA2011), Barcelona, Spain.



















Documents

Towards an energy management maturity model