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.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 or write to Director, Federal Facilities Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., HA-274, Washington, DC 20418 or call 202-334-3374. Printed in the United States of America 2001

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1
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

OCR for page R1
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