This tool explains the level of risks and failures in the renovation chain, allows the different stakeholders (in particular investors) to evaluate risk of investment, responsibilities, achievable performance results and relative uncertainty, as well as related costs.

Further development of the ranking tool and the underlying repository may com­­prise a more direct connection of the tool with, e.g., the simulations via the repo­si­tory. This can pro­vide more tailor-made KPI values such that the user can ad­just, e.g., buil­­ding-archetype features to make them fit better with their actual building. Then, the tool may calculate so­­me values rather than read pre-calculated values from the repo­si­to­ry. This may, for ex­amp­le, be relevant for KPIs that are easi­ly scal­able (e.g., costs for air handling units whose number depends on the num­ber of apart­ments) or that can be adjusted to longer lifeti­mes or in­terest rates (e.g., NPV). More or more detailed indicators may help to uncover the DRPs’ potential for ener­gy saving, peak shaving or the like by separating production and demand better. The division of the KPIs into the five topics of interest may be replaced by a version where the user can choose freely between all KPIs and assign priorities to them. The displayed KPI values may also be compared against, e.g., cur­rent po­li­cies or ener­gy-sa­ving re­qui­rements. However, this may po­se similar chal­lenges as for the “Fi­nan­cial instru­ments” topic: often such policies or re­qui­re­ments are specific to other fea­­­tures and con­tain more dimensions and con­ditions than handled by the tool. They are pro­ne to fre­quent chan­ges and up­dates. It may also be challenging to set simp­le num­bers against which the re­no­va­tion packages can be compared, not at last since the tool re­fers only to generalized buil­­ding ar­che­types. Possibilities for the user to add more geocluster-specific in­for­ma­tion to see effects on va­ri­ous tech­­no­logy set-ups may be worth-while to con­si­der.