Is Automation Expensive? Debunking the Most Common Myths

Building systems automation is often perceived as an expensive option reserved for large office centres, shopping malls, or newly constructed high-tech buildings. This perception is especially common when a facility is already operational: why invest in controls, sensors, and software if the ventilation works, the heating provides heat, and the air-conditioning system keeps spaces cool?

The problem with this approach is that the cost of automation is immediately visible, while the cost of not having it is spread across dozens of operating expense categories. Unnecessary equipment runtime, excessive energy consumption, emergency repairs, manual staff workload, and deviations detected too late gradually become part of the normal operating budget.

The question should therefore be framed differently: not “How much does automation cost?” but rather, “How much does it cost to operate a building without an adequate level of automation?”

Myth 1. Automation Is Always a Large Capital Project

One of the most common misconceptions is that a building can only be automated as a whole: install a BMS, replace the existing controls, deploy new networks, add hundreds of sensors, and integrate every engineering system.

In practice, automation can be implemented in stages. The first step is to identify the systems that generate the highest costs or require the greatest amount of manual supervision. For example, a project may begin with energy monitoring, automated ventilation control, or monitoring of the most energy-intensive equipment.

Additional systems can then be connected after the results of the first stage have been assessed. This approach makes it possible to spread investment over time and direct capital first towards areas where automation delivers the strongest economic benefit.

Myth 2. If the Equipment Works, Automation Will Not Change Anything

Equipment can be fully operational and still perform inefficiently. An air-handling unit may operate without any technical faults for 14 hours a day, even though the space is actually occupied for only nine. A pump may continuously operate at unnecessarily high output. An air-conditioning system may cool unoccupied areas.

From a technical perspective, there is no failure. From an economic perspective, the building is wasting resources every day. Automation makes it possible to link equipment operation to actual demand: occupancy schedules, outdoor temperature, presence of people, CO₂ concentration, current load, and other parameters.

The objective is therefore not simply to keep equipment running, but to ensure that it operates only when needed and only at the level of output actually required.

Myth 3. Automation Is Only About Saving Electricity

Energy efficiency is important, but it is far from being the only reason to automate building operations. Automation also makes it possible to monitor equipment condition, record alarms, analyse operating modes, maintain historical data, and identify deviations more quickly.

For example, the system may indicate that a pump has started operating for longer periods, a fan is reaching maximum output more frequently, or a particular zone repeatedly fails to reach its temperature setpoint.

These conditions do not yet constitute a failure. However, they may be the first signs of a developing problem. The economic impact of automation should therefore be evaluated more broadly: energy consumption + maintenance + equipment service life + staff workload + downtime risk.

Myth 4. A BMS Automatically Makes a Building Efficient

Installing a Building Management System and achieving an energy-efficient building are not the same thing. A BMS can collect thousands of data points, display trends, generate notifications, and control equipment. But if the algorithms are configured incorrectly, the data is not analysed, or operators constantly switch equipment into manual mode, the economic benefit will be limited. Automation works when there is a clear control strategy.

Which parameters are monitored? Which deviations are considered critical? What actions should the system perform automatically? When should an engineer intervene? Which KPIs should be compared every month? Without clear answers to these questions, even an expensive BMS can become little more than an attractive interface for manual equipment control.

Myth 5. There Is No Point in Automating an Older Building

In fact, long-established buildings can sometimes offer the greatest potential for optimisation. Over the years, tenants, layouts, operating schedules, and loads change. Some equipment is upgraded, while other components remain original. Local automation systems from different manufacturers are added over time.

As a result, the building’s engineering infrastructure may consist of several generations of equipment that barely communicate with one another. Complete replacement of the entire system is not always necessary. In many cases, it is more practical to integrate existing systems, add metering devices and sensors, and gradually create a unified monitoring and control layer. The key is to begin not with the choice of technology, but with an audit of the facility’s current condition.

Myth 6. The More Sensors, the Better the Automation

The volume of data alone does not create value. A building may have hundreds of sensors generating millions of data points, yet the technical team may still have no clear understanding of how to use that information. Eventually, staff may simply stop responding to the resulting information overload.

Effective automation begins with a simple question: what decision do we want to make based on this parameter? If a parameter is not used for control, diagnostics, maintenance planning, or performance analysis, it is worth asking whether continuous monitoring is actually necessary.

It is better to have 50 carefully selected indicators that the technical team actively uses than 5,000 parameters that merely accumulate on a server.

Myth 7. Automation Will Replace Technical Staff

Automation reduces the number of routine operations, but it does not eliminate the need for professional facility management. A system can automatically adjust ventilation, issue an alert about a deviation, or identify abnormal energy consumption. But a qualified specialist is still required to determine the cause, assess equipment condition, and make the appropriate technical decision.

What changes is the nature of the work. Instead of spending most of their time on manual monitoring, engineers can focus more on exceptions, analytics, preventive maintenance, and optimisation. Automation should therefore not replace the engineer. It should provide the engineer with better information for decision-making.

Myth 8. The Effect of Automation Cannot Be Measured

It can — provided that baseline indicators are defined before the project begins. For example, a facility can record electricity and heat consumption, operating hours of key equipment, the number of emergency maintenance requests, repair costs, or the amount of staff time spent on specific tasks.

These indicators can then be compared after implementation. However, external factors must also be taken into account. Simply comparing two months may be misleading if outdoor temperatures, building occupancy, or operating schedules were different.

This is why professional performance assessment relies not on a single utility bill, but on normalised indicators and trends over time.

Not Everything Needs to Be Automated — Only What Makes Economic Sense

Automation does cost money. Sensors, controllers, software, integration, design, commissioning, and configuration all require investment. But choosing to change nothing can also be expensive. If a building wastes energy year after year, equipment operates in suboptimal modes, and the technical team only becomes aware of problems after a failure occurs, those losses also have a cost.

Automation should therefore be viewed neither as a collection of technologies nor as a requirement to modernise an entire facility. It is a tool for managing operating costs. And the starting point should not be “Which BMS should we install?” but rather. Where is the building currently losing resources, time, and money — and which of those losses can be eliminated through automation?