|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS
A State-of-the-Practice Summary of
Post-Occupancy Evaluation
Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 145
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
OCR for page R3
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
OCR for page R8
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE
The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) is a continuing activity of the Board on Infrastructure and the
Constructed Environment of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of the FFC is to
promote continuing cooperation among the sponsoring federal agencies and between the agencies
and other elements of the building community in order to advance building science and technol-
ogy—particularly with regard to the design, construction, acquisition, evaluation, and operation of
federal facilities. The following agencies sponsor the FFC:
Department of the Air Force, Office of the Civil Engineer
Department of the Air Force, Air National Guard
Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Department of Defense, Federal Facilities Directorate
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior, Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Department of State, Office of Overseas Buildings Operations
Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Facilities Management
Food and Drug Administration
General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service
Indian Health Service
International Broadcasting Bureau
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Facilities Engineering Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institutes of Health
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution, Facilities Engineering and Operations
U.S. Postal Service, Engineering Division
As part of its activities, the FFC periodically publishes reports that have been prepared by committees
of government employees. Because these committees are not appointed by the NRC, they do not
make recommendations, and their reports are considered FFC publications rather than NRC publi-
cations.
For additional information on the FFC program and its reports, visit the Web site at
FEDERAL FACILITIES COUNCIL
Chair
Henry J. Hatch, U.S. Army (Retired)
Vice Chair
William Brubaker, Director, Facilities Engineering and Operations, Smithsonian Institution
Members
Walter Borys, Operations and Maintenance Division, International Broadcasting Bureau
John Bower, MILCON Program Manager, U.S. Air Force
Peter Chang, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, National Science Foundation
Tony Clifford, Director, Division of Engineering Services, National Institutes of Health
Jose Cuzmé, Director, Division of Facilities Planning and Construction, Indian Health Service
David Eakin, Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Architect, Public Buildings Service, General Services
Administration
James Hill, Deputy Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology
John Irby, Director, Federal Facilities Directorate, U.S. Department of Defense
L. Michael Kaas, Director, Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, U.S. Department of the Interior
Joe McCarty, Engineering Team Leader, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
William Miner, Acting Director, Building Design and Engineering, Office of Overseas Buildings Operations,
U.S. Department of State
William Morrison, Chief, Structures Branch, Facilities Division, Air National Guard
Get Moy, Chief Engineer and Director, Planning and Engineering Support, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, U.S. Navy
Robert Neary, Jr., Associate Facilities Management Officer, Office of Facilities Management, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Juaida Norell, Airways Support Division, Federal Aviation Administration
Wade Raines, Maintenance and Policies Programs, Engineering Division, U.S. Postal Service
James Rispoli, Director, Engineering and Construction Management Office, U.S. Department of Energy
William Stamper, Senior Program Manager, Facilities Engineering Division, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Stan Walker, Division Chief, Shore Facilities Capital Asset Management, U.S. Coast Guard
Staff
Richard Little, Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE)
Lynda Stanley, Director, Federal Facilities Council
Michael Cohn, Program Officer, BICE
Kimberly Goldberg, Administrative Associate, BICE
Nicole Longshore, Project Assistant, BICE
iii
Preface
At the most fundamental level, the purpose of a and courthouses. POE began to be used for office build-
building is to provide shelter for activities that could ings and other commercial real estate in the mid-1980s
not be carried out as effectively, or carried out at all, in and continues to be used for a variety of facility types
the natural environment. Buildings are designed and today.
constructed to (1) protect people and equipment from As POE has been applied to a larger range of build-
elements such as wind, rain, snow, and heat; (2) pro- ing types and as expectations for buildings have
vide interior space whose configuration, furnishings, evolved, POE has come to mean any and all activities
and environment (temperature, humidity, noise, light, that originate out of an interest in learning how a build-
air quality, materials) are suited to the activities that ing performs once it is built, including whether and
take place within; and (3) provide the infrastructure— how well it has met expectations and how satisfied
water, electricity, waste disposal systems, fire suppres- building users are with the environment that has been
sion—necessary to carry out activities in a safe envi- created. Although POEs are still focused on determin-
ronment. ing user comfort and satisfaction, organizations are
Today, people and organizations have even higher attempting to find ways to use the information gathered
expectations for buildings. Owners expect that their to support more informed decision-making about space
investments will result in buildings that support their and building investments during the programming,
business lines or missions by enhancing worker pro- design, construction, and operation phases of a
ductivity, profits, and image; that are sustainable, facility’s life cycle. To do this, organizations need to
accessible, adaptable to new uses, energy efficient, and establish design criteria, databases or other methods
cost-effective to build and to maintain; and that meet for compiling lessons from POEs and for disseminat-
the needs of their clients. Users expect that buildings ing those lessons throughout the organization, from
will be functional, comfortable, and safe and will not senior executives to midlevel managers, project man-
impair their health. A building’s performance is its agers, consultants, and clients.
capacity to meet any or all of these expectations. The federal government is the United States’ largest
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a process for owner of facilities, with approximately 500,000 facili-
evaluating a building’s performance once it is occu- ties worldwide. Federal agencies that own, use, or pro-
pied. It is based on the idea that finding out about users’ vide facilities have a significant interest in optimizing
needs by systematically assessing human response to their performance. The General Services Administra-
buildings and other designed spaces is a legitimate aim tion, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities
of building research. Early efforts at POE focused on Engineering Command, U.S. Postal Service, State
housing needs of disadvantaged groups to improve Department, and Administrative Office of the U.S.
environmental quality in government-subsidized hous- Courts have been leaders in the development and prac-
ing. The process was later applied to other government tice of POEs. They and other federal agencies are try-
facilities such as military housing, hospitals, prisons, ing to find ways to share information about effective
v
vi PREFACE
processes for conducting POEs, to capture and dissemi- processes could be used to help inform decisions made
nate lessons learned, and to increase the value that in the programming, budgeting, design, construction,
POEs add to the facility acquisition process. and operation phases of facility acquisition in a useful
The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) is a coopera- and timely way. To complete this study, the FFC com-
tive association of 21 federal agencies with interests missioned a set of papers by recognized experts in this
and responsibilities for large inventories of buildings. field, conducted a survey of selected federal agencies
The FFC is a continuing activity of the Board on Infra- with POE programs, and held a forum at the National
structure and the Constructed Environment of the Academy of Sciences on March 13, 2001, to address
National Research Council (NRC), the principal oper- these issues. This report is the result of those efforts.
ating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and Within the context of a rapidly changing building
the National Academy of Engineering. In 1986, the industry and the introduction of new specialty fields
FFC requested that the NRC appoint a committee to and technologies into the building process and new
examine the field and propose ways by which the POE design objectives for buildings that are sustainable,
process could be improved to better serve public and healthy, and productivity enhancing, and with ever-
private sector organizations. The resulting report, Post- greater demands on limited resources, POE constitutes
Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the Building a potentially vital contribution in the effort to maintain
Process: Opportunities for Improvement, proposed a quality assurance. Within the federal government, the
broader view of POEs—from being simply the end downsizing of in-house facilities engineering organi-
phase of a building project to being an integral part of zations, the increased outsourcing of design and con-
the entire building process. The authoring committee struction functions, and the loss of in-house technical
recommended a series of actions related to policy, pro- expertise, all underscore the need for a strong capabil-
cedures, and innovative technologies and techniques to ity to capture and disseminate lessons learned as part of
achieve that broader view. a dynamic project delivery process. We hope this report
In 2000, the FFC funded a second study to look at will help federal agencies and other organizations to
the state of the practice of POEs and lessons-learned enhance those capabilities.
programs among federal agencies and in private, pub-
lic, and academic organizations both here and abroad.
The sponsor agencies specifically wanted to determine Lynda Stanley
whether and how information gathered during POE Director, Federal Facilities Council
Contents
1 OVERVIEW: A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
Introduction, 1
Organization of This Report, 1
Summary of Findings, 2
References, 8
2 THE EVOLUTION OF POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: TOWARD BUILDING
PERFORMANCE AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN EVALUATION 9
Wolfgang Preiser, Ph.D., University of Cincinnati
Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview, 9
Types of Evaluation for Building Projects, 10
Purposes of POEs, 11
Types of POEs, 11
Benefits, Uses, and Costs of POEs, 12
An Integrative Framework for Building Performance Evaluations, 13
Universal Design Evaluation, 15
Universal Design Performance, 15
Performance Levels, 16
Toward Universal Design Evaluation, 19
Possible Strategies for Universal Design Evaluation, 20
Education and Training in Universal Design Evaluation Techniques, 21
Conclusions, 21
About the Author, 21
References, 22
3 POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: A MULTIFACETED TOOL FOR BUILDING
IMPROVEMENT 23
Jacqueline Vischer, Ph.D., University of Montreal
What Is Post-Occupancy Evaluation?, 23
The Pros and Cons of POE, 23
Current Status of POE, 24
Best Practices, 29
Managing POE Information, 30
The Future of POE: Recommendations for an Unobtrusive POE Process , 32
vii
viii CONTENTS
About the Author, 33
References, 34
4 POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION PROCESSES IN SIX FEDERAL AGENCIES 35
Survey Questions, 35
Summary of Findings, 36
Descriptions of POE Programs, 37
5 POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 42
Craig Zimring, Ph.D., Georgia Institute of Technology, and
Thierry Rosenheck, Office of Overseas Buildings Operations, U.S. Department of State
Brief Introduction to Post-Occupancy Evaluation, 44
Do Organizations Do POE-Enabled Organizational Learning?, 45
Ways to Create the Appropriate Conditions for Learning Through POE, 46
Creating a Knowledge Base for Building Delivery and Management, 49
Building on Existing Evaluations, 50
Lessons from POE Programs: Enhancing Organizational Learning, 51
About the Authors, 52
References, 52
6 THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR BUILDING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 54
Audrey Kaplan, Workplace Diagnostics Ltd.
Introduction, 54
Cybersurveys, 55
Response Rate, 56
Sampling, 56
Lessons Learned, 56
Conclusions and Discussion, 58
About the Author, 59
References, 59
APPENDIXES
A FUNCTIONALITY AND SERVICEABILITY STANDARDS: TOOLS FOR STATING
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EVALUATING FACILITIES 63
Francoise Szigeti and Gerald Davis, International Centre for Facilities
B A BALANCED SCORECARD APPROACH TO POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: USING
THE TOOLS OF BUSINESS TO EVALUATE FACILITIES 79
Judith Heerwagen, Ph.D., J.H. Heerwagen and Associates
C Supplemental Information to Chapter 3 88
D Supplemental Information to Chapter 4 95
E Supplemental Information to Chapter 6 116
F Chapter 5 from Post-Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the Building Process:
Opportunities for Improvement 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY 126
