Content uploaded by Aliyu Ahmad Aliyu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aliyu Ahmad Aliyu on Jul 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
A REVIEW OF POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION AS A TOOL AND CRITERIA FOR
ASSESSING BUILDING PERFORMANCE
ALIYU AHMAD ALIYU1, MARYAM SALIHU MUHAMMAD1, MOHAMMED GIRGIRI
BUKAR1, AND IBRAHIM MUSA SINGHRY1
1Department of Estate Management and Valuation, Faculty of Environmental Technology,
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, P.M.B. 0248, Bauchi, Bauchi State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Building occupants are a valuable source of information on building performance as well as
indoor environmental quality and their effects on comfort and productivity. A large number of
different studies have been carried out over recent decades focusing on various aspects of the
broad field of comfort, well-being and health at workplaces. This study examines previous
literature on post occupancy evaluation, origins, theories, benefits and approaches used in
conducting POE. The purpose of the study is to harmonize the current literature on field of
research, hence helping the understanding of POE as an appraisal framework. This is because
the concept of post occupancy evaluation (POE) has attracted much attention in recent years
and that researchers and research bodies, be it corporate or government that try to develop
residential buildings should begin with an understanding of the determinants of POE. The
study is conducted with reference to existing theoretical literature, published and unpublished
research. The study is mainly a literature review/survey on the determinants of POE. Where
residents are dissatisfied with a particular facility, such could signal the non
functionality or inefficiency of a particular facility or in some rare cases the irrelevancy of
such. A brief analysis of current studies shows that most of the POEs are focused mainly on
technical performance of buildings. Current post-occupancy evaluation methods are limited in
their ability to capture significant socio-cultural determinants of user experience in buildings.
However, there remain many more issues to be considered for an effective and comprehensive
building evaluation. Findings on the levels of satisfaction of respondents with the housing
units revealed that the respondents were dissatisfied with certain elements namely, space,
size, interior finishes and position of the toilet/bathroom of the housing units in which they
resided. Occupants’ knowledge of a building can significantly influence their comfort levels,
when knowledge is gained primarily through involvement.
Keywords: Building Performance Assessment, Critical Success Factors, Occupant Comfort,
Post Occupancy Evaluation and User Satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
According to Abdul Mohit et al. (2010) as cited by Husin, Nawawi, Ismail and Khalil (2011),
there is a need to determine satisfaction with households’ housing conditions that enable
someone to indicate the absence of any complaints and a high degree of congruence
between actual and desired situations. Hence, the best application that can be related to
these specific human needs is described as Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). The concept
of POE comprise the evaluation of the performance of buildings after being used and
occupied in order to understand the mutual interaction process between buildings and the
user needs. In POE, the end-user or the building occupants are used as the benchmark of
building performance evaluation.
Post occupancy evaluation (POE) as put forward by Eke, Clinton and Wellington, (2013), is a
general term for a broad range of activities aimed at understanding how buildings perform
once they are built (Hewitt, Higgins, Heatherly and Turner, 2005). Over the years many
theorists and practitioners have grown uncomfortable with the term “POE”. The literal
meaning of the term seems to suggest that it occurs after people leave the building and it
seems to emphasise evaluation done at a single point in the process. Despite the diversity of
the practice, the term “post-occupancy evaluation” remains common for historical reasons
and it will be used in this study (Darkwa, 2006). To be most effective, building performance,
evaluation must happen throughout the lifecycle of the building. In this guidance, the term
POE is used as an umbrella term that includes a review of the process of delivering the
project as a review of the technical and functional performance of the building during
occupation ((Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
In the words of Enright (2002), post-occupancy evaluations of buildings ask questions and
provide answers on how buildings actually work in technical, social and management terms
for the end-users. They can have a significant impact on creating change in terms of
improving use of any building in two ways: Firstly, by providing lessons and feedback for
the architect and the construction industry (Enright, 2002). They can lead to improved
building design and improved procurement and can influence and change the roles of
professionals involved in a building project so that flaws in design or construction-related
mistakes are not repeated. Secondly, by empowering end-users as post-occupancy
evaluation provides benchmarks and a pool of research on architecture and buildings to
show how the end product (the building design and its management) meets the needs of its
clients (Enright, 2002).
According to Zimring et al. (2007), POE is a continuous process of systematically evaluating
the performance and effectiveness of one or more aspects of buildings in relation to various
issues such as accessibility, aesthetics, cost-effectiveness, functionality, productivity, safety
and security, and sustainability (Husin, et al., 2011). POE studies are performed on
buildings for a variety of reasons such as; to solve problems that occur in buildings after
being occupied; to correct unforeseen problems in building use (Vischer, 2002; Hewitt et al.,
2005); to fine-tune the building through continued feedback; to assess specific building
performance aspects; to document successes and failures in building performance; to
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
justify new construction or remodel existing buildings; to specify design guidelines for the
improvement of existing facilities and the design of new ones (Husin, et al., 2011)..
According to Oluwunmi, Akinjare, and Oluwatoyin (2011), satisfying users of any facility
(including staff resident facility) should be one of the main objectives of providing such
facility in the first instance. Singh (2006) believes that user satisfaction has a positive
effect on an organisation’s profitability, educational institution inclusive. Some authors
further state that it is not enough to merely satisfy users but importantly, ensure
users are extremely satisfied (Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt, 2000; Bowen and Chen, 2001).
Despite the importance of satisfying users including users of all type of buildings, not much
literature is available on users' satisfaction on residential and commercial buildings, unlike
those of office residents (Amole, 2009; Adewunmi et al, 2011). This study, therefore
seeks to investigate and review users' satisfaction with residential facilities in selected
case study areas.
Based on the literature review as revealed by Husin, et al. (2011), it was found that none of
previous studies challenge on the safety issues for low cost housing (LCH) when using POE
method or similar like POE method. Majority of the researchers conduct POE study to
determine occupants’ satisfaction level, which is too general and not providing specific
issues, for example, safety provision or safety requirement. There are few studies that
include social environment issues in the POE study with variables such as noise, crime,
accidents, security and community relations. However, safety for this research is not
pertaining to social or environment issue but it is merely to technical attributes that seeks
the effect of the housing’s performance towards safety to the occupants; for example, crack
issues, leaking of pipes and others. Quality issues of LCH programme were concerns in
previous studies, but majority of the studies did not relate quality factors towards building
safety, after the occupancy period of housing. Therefore, this research intends to identifyl
the gap that currently exists in the public low-cost housing in the field of study (Husin, et
al., 2011)
From the foregoing, it is obvious that there is little or no research efforts on user
satisfaction with residential facilities in many countries in Nigeria. Hence, there is an urgent
need for research efforts to be devoted towards this direction in order to ascertain if users
are satisfied with their residential facilities or not (Oluwunmi, Akinjare, and
Oluwatoyin, 2011). This research therefore seeks to undertake an in-depth
investigation and review on occupants’ satisfaction with residential facilities in different
regions of the world.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Building performance and its evaluation have earned increased attention in recent years,
particularly with respect to residential and commercial buildings (Brown, 2009). As noted
by Brown (2009), much of the emphasis to date in meeting building performance objectives
has been on optimizing energy and resource efficiency, as reflected in mainstream building
rating systems such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). However,
buildings need to do more than effectively use natural resources within economic means.
They must also support the health and wellbeing of their occupants so that the ‘human
resource’ can contribute to (rather than impede) the building’s sustainability (Weisset
al.,2004).
According to Brown (2009), evidence from recent post-occupancy evaluations suggests
that, although both residential and commercial buildings have the potential to enhance
indoor environmental quality, they often fall short. While some of the best sustainable
buildings can rank higher than the best conventional buildings in terms of user experience
(comfort, health and productivity), a few of the lowest scoring buildings on user experience
are also reported as being sustainable (Abbaszadeh et al., 2006; Leaman and Bordass,
2007). This has important implications since occupant comfort and comfort-related
behaviour can impact a building’s energy and environmental performance, particularly in
sustainable buildings which are thought to be “more fragile in their performance, so it is
more important that everything works well together” (Leaman and Bordass, 2007).
In practice, very little is known about user perception and behavioural responses to
feedback in sustainable buildings (Brown, 2009). Those who view occupants as active
participants in facilitating comfort assume they understand building systems and controls
with which they are expected to engage and will make appropriate and intelligent choices
when opening and closing windows, blinds, switches and other manual controls. Those who
view occupants as passive recipients of indoor comfort conditions assume they will trust
building automated systems to deliver the expected and desired outcomes. Rarely do post-
occupancy evaluations take into consideration occupants’ knowledge of the building they
inhabit or their expectations of how the building should or ought to perform (Brown,
2009).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF POE
According to Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013), post occupancy evaluation actually
originated from UK where the British Ministry of Education in conjunction with local
governments first undertook evaluations of building in the post-World War II period
(Preiser, Rabinowitz and White, 1988). The roots of POE are based in academia in the mid
1960s with “… the growth of research focusing on the relationships between human
behavior and building design, which led to the creation of the new field of environmental
design research …” (Preiser et al. 8). The 1960s show an institutional setting focusing on
misfits between users and buildings, especially in college dormitories and hospitals. The
1970s have systematic and multi-method POEs with an increase in use and more emphasis
on the application of survey, interview and observation techniques, especially with regard
to housing satisfaction. The mid 1970s witnessed the formation of design guides in military
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
schools and office buildings. The first book on POE was published by the end of 1970s
(Akman, 2002).
Until the end of 1970s, most POEs considered user satisfaction, with little attention to the
physical environment. In the 1980s, POE practice in the public and private sectors gave
emphasis to the effect of the physical and organizational effects of work environment on
occupant behavior and satisfaction. By the end of the 1980s, the following definition took
its place in Post Occupancy Evaluation by Preiser, Rabinowitz and White: Post occupancy
evaluation is the process of evaluating buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after
they have been built and occupied for some time (Akman, 2002). POEs focus on building
occupants and their needs, and thus they provide insights into the consequences of past
design decisions and the resulting building performance. This knowledge forms a sound
basis for creating better buildings in the future. … POEs are intended to compare
systematically and rigorously the actual performance of buildings with explicitly stated
performance criteria; the differences between the two constitute the evaluation (Akman,
2002).
In the 1990s, building types and clients become more sophisticated and demanding. In the
United States, large private sector firms started to utilize POE, and this situation resulted in
changes in the building industry and rise of facilities management (Akman, 2002). In recent
years, POEs have become more comprehensive, embracing economics, cost-estimating,
health effects, and other concerns as well as aesthetics. Defining POE as “a diagnostic tool
and system which allows facility managers to identify and evaluate critical aspects of
building performance systematically”, Preiser puts the aims of the POE as: “to identify
problem areas in existing buildings, to test new building prototypes and to develop design
guidance and criteria for future facilities” (Akman, 2002).
Evaluations of an existing facility and its operations are a common means of collecting data
on which to base future programs. Post-occupancy evaluations inform programmers where
the client is coming from, clarify the client’s perspective of reality, and provide a wealth of
information on how the client currently does everything … For clients with recently
completed or older buildings who want a closer fit between design and operations, a POE
can be used to fine-tune the facility. (Goldman and Peatross as cited by Akman, 2002)
At the end of 1990s and in the 2000s, the renaissance of POE has materialized in the UK,
focusing on the interrelationship of energy, engineering, and comfort. Warner and Reid
Associates mention their most common types as follows: “… there are many forms of
measuring energy use, user satisfaction and environmental conditions. Systems used in the
UK, other parts of Europe and the US include PROBE (Post-occupancy Review of Buildings
and their Engineering), BASE (Building Assessment Survey Evaluation), EARM (Energy
Assessment and Reporting Methodology), and LEO (Low Energy Office)” (Akman, 2002).
Having been introduced in the UK in 1995, “PROBE focuses on aspects of the building that
can be technically measured, e.g. permeability to air ex-filtration, and measures that can be
documented, such as energy consumption. PROBE also uses a standard occupant survey
questionnaire developed by Building Use Studies (BUS) to learn from a sample of occupants
about their physical comfort, and their satisfaction with the building” (Leaman and Bordass
2001 qtd. in Szigeti and Davis 47). PROBE studies focus mainly on building performance,
occupant satisfaction, occupant productivity, environmental impact and energy efficiency,
and “… perhaps the most comprehensive attempt ever to conduct POE from a variety of
perspectives, namely technical performance, energy performance, and occupant surveys of
the PROBE buildings” (Preiser, “Feedback, Feed forward” 457 as cited by Akman, 2002).
Especially for facility managers, this kind of information based on performance data is
potentially a strong and useful concept to improve technical, economic and environmental
performance, together with occupant satisfaction and productivity (Akman, 2002). “PROBE
has been internationally acknowledged as a successful way of undertaking and reporting
post occupancy evaluations of buildings quickly and reliably. … Ultimately we think that
post occupancy evaluation and benchmarking should become a standard follow-up to the
design and construction of all new buildings, and the alteration and enhancement of
existing buildings” (Cohen et al. as cited by Akman (2002).
POE have been used by number of researchers over the years as a tool for documenting,
evaluating and improving a building as well as environmental condition (Rubin and Collins,
1986). Most researchers would appear to be in general agreement that POE should be an
integral component of the building performance procurement process (Marans, 1984,
Shepley, 1997, Duffy, 1998, Zimmerman, and Martin, 2001, Preiser, 2002). POE was derived
from the “occupancy permit”, a document that is issued once the building has been
inspected and is declared free from all defects and ready for occupation. During the early
years of POE, academics decided to research the topic in-depth to determine the
effectiveness of the POE because the profession of architecture had elected not to embrace
POE as a field of study in its entire ramification (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
As submitted by Eke, Clinton and Wellington (2013). The idea of POE was established in
relations to the problems arising from the building industry, more especially in the care
facilities such as mental hospital, nursing homes, school residence and correctional services
(Riley, Kokkarinen and Pitt, 2010). The rapid housing development in the Second World
War has led to the adoption of POE in the built environment (Eke, Clinton and Wellington,
2013). Due to the urban renewal projects, many houses which were built in Northern
America, has forced the designers to accommodate the need of the lifestyle of the occupants
(Riley, Kokkarinen and Pitt, 2010). Having POE as a measuring tool in any building will be
able to detect which elements in building performs or which elements in building
underperforms and affecting the worker satisfaction and productivity (Schwede and
Davies, 2008).
According to Riley, Kokkarinen and Pitt (2010) as cited by Eke, Clinton and Wellington
(2013), POE is used to consider the extent to which a building meets the needs of its end-
users while also recognizing ways in which design, performance and fitness for purpose can
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
be enhanced. Preiser and Nasar (2008) view post occupancy as a tool and system which
allows facility managers to identify and evaluate critical aspects of building performance
systematically, once occupied for a period of time, meets the intended goals and user-
occupant needs (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013). This system has also been applied to
identify problem areas in existing buildings, to test new prototypes and to develop
guidance and criteria for future facilities (Khalil and Husin, 2009). The building should be
designed with the aim of producing a high-quality interior environment so that the health
and safety of the occupants are not compromised. POE is the process whereby a building
has to be evaluated in an accurate manner after it has been built and occupied for some
time (Carthey, 2006). Kirk and Stirrett (2011) described POE of a building as a formal study,
that tests whether the building has met goals and objectives set forth in the original
programme (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was carried out with particular emphasis on existing and current conceptual
and theoretical body of knowledge and published in addition to unpublished previous
studies. The study reviewed and analysed literature on post occupancy evaluation (POE)
and Building Performance Assessment, with the sole purpose of discovering building
performances concept of POE as this has attracted much attention in recent years to
researchers and research bodies which include corporate or government. (Eke, Clinton and
Wellington, 2013).
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT LITERATURE
Post Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview
According to Tanyer and Pembegül (2010), evaluating the performance of buildings after
they have been occupied is an important step of project life cycle that provides feedback to
the professionals related to the building (Zimmerman and Martin, 2001). This systematic
and detailed inspection, carried out with the users of the building, is called Post Occupancy
Evaluation (POE). POE provides credible evidence about the positive and negative aspects
of the buildings from the users’ point of view (Tanyer and Pembegül, 2010). As a result of
ensuring that feedback is applied throughout the process, building quality is protected
during planning and construction and later, during occupation and operations (Preiser and
Vischer, 2005).
Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), as forwarded by Tanyer and Pembegül (2010), has been
an active research area for many disciplines (Preiser, 2002 and Preiser, Rabinowitz, White,
1988). As a result of this, different interpretations of the topic have been provided by
researchers. One of the most cited definitions was provided by Preiser et al. (1988): Post-
occupancy evaluation (POE) is the process of evaluating buildings in a systematic and
rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied for some time. As quoted in Hadjri
and Crozier (2009), the Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) Research Steering
Group defined Post-Occupancy Evaluation from an architectural perspective as “a
systematic study of buildings in use to provide architects with information about the
performance of their designs and building owners and users with guidelines to achieve the
best out of what they already have” (RIBA, 1991 as cited by Tanyer and Pembegül, 2010).
Friedman et al.(1978), on the other hand, stressed the anthropological side and defined
POE as an appraisal of the degree to which a designed setting satisfies and supports explicit
and implicitly human needs and values of those for whom a building is designed. As Hadjri
and Crozier (2009) explain, this anthropocentric perspective is related to the examinations
of the effectiveness for human users of occupied design environments (Tanyer and
Pembegül, 2010).
Today, POE has become a mostly discussed research topic in an academic context but it is
getting popular in private sector as well (Hadjri and Crozier, 2009). In the UK, POE has
gained its credibility again after the publication of Latham (Latham, 1994) and Egan (DTI,
1998) reports. These reports were sponsored by UK Government and Industry following
several poorly performing projects and examined how the quality and efficiency in UK
construction could be improved (Tanyer and Pembegül, 2010). For example, the Egan
report (DTI, 1998) indicated that companies do little systematic research on what the end-
user actually wants, nor do they seek to raise customers’ aspirations and educate them to
become more discerning. According to Egan as cited by Tanyer and Pembegül (2010), a
focus on the customer could be a new driver on achieving a more effective construction
industry.
Until now, as reported by Tanyer and Pembegül (2010), several researchers have carried
out different POE assessments for different building types. These assessments have started
with individual building types in 1960s (Preiser, 2002). While POE evaluations carried out
in the 1970s and 1980s targeted at performance of buildings, more recent developments in
POE have focused on building performance evaluation (BPE) and universal design
evaluation (UDE), emphasizing a “more holistic and process-oriented evaluation” (Preiser,
2002). Hospitals (DHFP, 1990; QHRS, 2001; Carthey, 2006; Ornstein et al., 2007) and
schools (see, 2005; Watson and Thomson, 2005; Mumovic et al., 2009 as cited by Tanyer
and Pembegül, 2010)) are two of the mostly examined facilities.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation Process
According to Darkwa (2006), post-occupancy evaluation is a systematic evaluation of
opinions about buildings in use, from the perspective of the people who use them. It is an
assessment of how well the building matches the users’ needs, and identifies ways to
improve building design, performance and how it can fit the purpose for which it was built
(Darkwa, 2006). POE systematically analyses a particular environment to gain
understanding of the impact it has on occupants of a building and its environment, hence
how it facilitates or inhibits daily activities of the occupants (Watson, 2003). POE is
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
conducted after the building has been occupied for some time so that occupants are
accustomed to the new space and the experience of moving does not bias the results
(Huizengaet al., 2003:4 as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
Furthermore, Darkwa (2006) highlighted that systematic analysis is important for various
interest groups as it assists them in realizing the potential and limitation of their building
and environment (Watson, 2003:1). POE gives managers of buildings a new, efficient
diagnostic tool which can be applied to any building type, size and which provides both
negative and positive data on building performance (Tseckares & Monis, 1993). An
environment for POE can be an individual building and its setting or a particular group of
buildings and their settings. It can also be an individual urban space (Watson, 2003, as cited
by Darkwa, 2006).
In post-occupancy evaluations of buildings, as stated by Darkwa (2006), occupants ask
questions and also provide answers to design professionals. Occupants can have a
significant impact on creating change in terms of improving the use of buildings. Their
input is two-fold. Firstly, they provide information and feedback to the architect and the
construction company responsible for the design of the building environment (Darkwa,
2006). This can lead to improved building design and can influence and change the roles of
professionals involved in a building project so that flaws in design or construction-related
mistakes are not repeated. Secondly, by empowering end-users through post-occupancy
evaluation occupants help to provide benchmarks and contribute towards research on
architecture and buildings to show how the end product (the building design and its
management) will meet the needs of the occupants (Darkwa, 2006). Post-occupancy
evaluations can show what works and what does not work in the design of a building as
could be seen in Figure 1 below (Enright, 2002:26 as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
Figure 1: Building Performance Evaluation Process Model
Source: Adapted from Preiser (2005)
As cited by Darkwa (2006), occupants, designers and owners of buildings all benefit from
POE. POE empowers the occupants because it gives them an opportunity to air their views,
perceptions and opinions, as indicated in Figure 1 above, on how the building performs and
how they think it should perform. According to the School of Works Ltd (2004), if occupants
feel that they have been fully involved in planning and all decision making related to the
building they are much happier with the finished product. As the design is applied, the
occupants begin to understand the implications of the spaces and facilities they asked for
(Darkwa, 2006). Designers get a view of the occupants’ perceptions and opinions. Through
this process the designers become aware of what users need and what is important to
them. Owners of buildings can benefit from POE as it allows for occupant participation. This
helps occupants accept facilities and adjust their activities to suit the new building as
indicated in Figure 2 below (Enright, 2002, as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Decision-Making Factors In Building Adaptation
Source: Adapted from Preiser (2005)
Post-occupancy evaluation uses the direct experiences of occupants of an environment as
the fundamental principle to evaluate the intended use of a building (Darkwa, 2006). As it
could be seen in Figure 2 above, the occupants and other people with an interest in a
building, evaluate the setting as a matter of fact. This includes managers, customers or
clients, visitors, owners, design and maintenance teams, and particular interest groups such
as the disabled. All of the above are affected by the performance of the building because
they will use the building at one stage or another (Enright, 2002, as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
Universal Design Principles and Performance Criteria in POE
Post occupancy evaluation, as cited by Oladiran, (2013), is the process of evaluating
building systematically and comprehensively after it has been occupied (Lee and Oh, 2007;
Hewitt et. al, 2006; FFC, 2001). There is no industry-accepted definition for post
occupancy evaluation; nor is there a standardized method for conducting it (Federal
Facilities Council(FFC), 2001).However, POE can be defined as any process geared
towards determining and improving building performance in relation to users’
satisfaction and the built environment (Oladiran, 2013).
Although there exist no generally acceptable protocol of POE but one of the commonest
ones that have been used extensively in the last 27 years are Post Occupancy Review
of Buildings and Engineering (PROBE) in Great Britain and many countries. The second
commonest one is the survey tools developed and supported by the Center for the
Built Environment at UC- Berkeley (Hewitt, Higgins, Heatherly & Turner, 2006). Moreover, it
has been observed that the application of POE depends largely on the drivers and one of
such is users’ satisfaction (Oladiran, 2013). In the words of Eke, Clinton and Wellington
(2013), many organisations around the world are now adopting the POE as a tool for
evaluating their building’s performance. There is, however, a challenge related to using POE
as tool because at the end of the day it does not detect the exact problem fully in such a way
that it can assist the client with the diagnosis of the problem (Konara and Sandanayake,
2010).
Implementing the use of POE in an organization will help to identify a measurable link
between the quality of the building and the performance outcomes of the occupants (Eke,
Clinton and Wellington, 2013). It is crucial to conduct a POE because it indicates how well
the building is performing in order to satisfy the occupants’ needs and achieve
organizational goals (Chandrasekar, 2011). POE was initiated because of the challenges and
changes in the building environment due to the fact that even continual improvement was
not sufficient to solve the problems that occupants face every day. POE will then assess to
the responses of the occupants with regard to the residential environment where they live
every day. The relationship between the building and its occupants must be understood by
designers prior to designing the building in order to understand the impact that the
building will have on the occupants with regard to workplace set-up, health and safety as
indicated in Figure 3 below (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Figure 3.6: Universal design principles and performance criteria
Source: Preiser and Vischer (2005)
If the environment is not conducive to human health as observed by Eke, Clinton and
Wellington (2013), it is going to have an effect on the efficiency of the building’s
performance and the occupants’ satisfaction (Kamaruzzaman, Zawawi, Pirtt and Don,
2010). It is important to conduct a POE in the residential building or any other building so
that the results can be used to gauge the level of satisfaction of designers, occupants and
owners of the building, and to determine whether the occupants are happy or not (Eke,
Clinton and Wellington, 2013). As the purpose of the building is to serve the needs of the
owners and it is critical that the building should be evaluated from time to time to ensure
that it is serving its intended purposes (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013). The building is
an immovable asset, and it is affected by external factors such as exposure to the climate,
which leads to the necessity for maintenance (Konara and Sandanayake, 2010)
Various Types of Post Occupancy Evaluation
As pointed by Eke, Clinton and Wellington (2013), POE may be classified in three levels; The
Indicative POE, Investigative POE and Diagnostic POE (Palm, 2007). Indicative POE gives an
indication of the success or failure of the overall building performance. By applying this
method it is easy to collect the data, as one can quickly interview few occupants who will
quickly give the results that one wants (Palm, 2007). Investigative POE is once the problem
has been identified; the POE will carry and start investigating to find out what the problems
are (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
Once the process has been completed, the data will be presented for a solution. In the
aspect of diagnostic POE, at this level, the evaluation will be focusing on the critical
elements of the building such as the safety of the staircases, lighting and overcrowding in
the building (Chandrasekar, 2011). Diagnostic POE is a comprehensive and very lengthy
investigation that is done with care. After conducting this kind of POE, it may take some
time to formulate and conclude its findings, probably months or years. The findings
revealed by the evaluation will improve the performance of the building (Eke, Clinton and
Wellington, 2013).
Importance Conducting of Post Occupancy Evaluation
According to Watson (2003:3) as cited by Darkwa (2006), there are many benefits of post-
occupancy evaluation. By understanding how buildings support or inhibit activities,
buildings can be fine-tuned and management practices can be adjusted. The smallest
adjustments to buildings and the ways these buildings are used impact the most and it
benefits occupants more than drastic measures. Through POE designers can discover how
similar buildings perform once they are in use (Darkwa, 2006).
Designers can capitalize on successful design features and learn to avoid past mistakes.
Post-occupancy evaluation is also a valuable tool for assessing building quality, since
designers, owners and building managers are held accountable for the success or failure of
the building. Furthermore, POE identifies ways people can use buildings and equipment
more efficiently and more cost-effectively. Dysfunctional or seldom-used building features
can be eliminated or replaced and mistakes corrected in future designs. This way money is
saved because there will be no need to spend money on renovating or making repairs to the
newly designed building (Watson, 2003:3 as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
According to Darkwa (2006), post-occupancy evaluation is an important tool in planning
the refurbishment of existing buildings. It helps to clarify perceived strengths and
weaknesses of an existing setting to focus where they are needed. It is also used to identify
where building design adjustments are needed to support changing practices, markets,
legislation and social trends (Darkwa, 2006). POE involves the occupants (users of
buildings) by requiring them define how buildings work for them. Participation in
evaluation identifies ways to design and use buildings and equipment more effectively. The
way a setting supports or inhibits the occupants’ activities will impact on how they relate to
the building (Watson, 2003:3 as cited by Darkwa, 2006).
Preiser, Rabinowitz and White (1988:5) as cited by Darkwa (2006) differentiate between
short-term, medium-term and longterm benefits of POE. Short-term benefits result from
the immediate use of the POE findings, namely the successes and failures in the building.
Medium-term benefits relate to the major decisions made about the re-use and remodelling
of the new construction (Darkwa, 2006). These decisions are used to solve the existing
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
problems of the building. Long-term benefits involve findings that will improve the entire
building construction industry. According to Strategic Assessment Management (2003)
benefits of POE are to improve project briefings, thus promoting the functionality and cost
effectiveness of the building, to improve the management of buildings by identifying
maintenance and other recurrent costs and to improve the operational process by
providing better services that meet the needs of occupants resources (Darkwa, 2006).
Through POE, as noted by Eke, Clinton and Wellington (2013), designers can discover how
similar buildings performs once they are in use, policy makers can also apply it to help in
developing and improving on the existing programmes and projects being delivered
(Watson, 2003). POE is also a valuable tool for assessing building quality, since building
designers, owners and even the government, in the case of state subsidized buildings are
held accountable for the success or failure of the building and policies creating the
buildings (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013). POE identifies ways people can use buildings
and equipment more efficiently and more cost-effectively. POE also eliminates
dysfunctional and seldom-used areas in a building and mistakes can be corrected in future
design and policies (Darkwa, 2006). The greatest benefits from POEs are determine when
the information is made available to as wide an audience as possible, beyond the
organisation whose building is evaluated, to all sector and construction industry (Eke,
Clinton and Wellington, 2013). Information from POEs can provide not only insights into
problem resolution but also provide useful benchmarking data to which other people
projects can be compared (Barlex, 2006).
Salient Accomplished Indicators in Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building
Performance
According to (Woon, et. al, 2015), unlike other industries, the construction industry has
not developed a culture of critical examination and evaluation for the buildings they
delivered (Carthey, 2006). This is due to the fact that practitioners are not trained in
building performance evaluation and are not paid to carry out the evaluation process
(Bordass and Leaman, 2005; Izran, 2011; Riley et al., 2009). Cooper (2001) in Riley et
al. (2009) also stated that, in the early 1990s the concept of POE was nearly removed
from the curriculum of architecture because of the lack of regard for POE within the real
estate industry (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Zimmerman and Martin (2001) in Riley et al. (2009) further noted that the “ignorance
is bliss” mentality exists within the practitioners in the construction industry and it is
totally in contrast with concepts such as POE (Woon, et. al, 2015). Building owners on the
other hand refuse to conduct POE which they fear would extract shortcomings and reveal
the weaknesses of the building, which may lead to the tenants moving out from the
building (Izran, 2011). Building owners often assume that the POE activities will
reduce their asset value as a matter of fact (Vischer, 2001; Brooks and Viccars, 2006).
Support from the top/ senior management is one of the vital factors that have to be
fulfilled for a successful POE (Zimring, 2010; Palm, 2007; Federal Facilities Council,
2001; Bordass, Leaman and Eley, 2006; Heerwagen, 2001). Support and commitment
from the senior management is important and is required throughout the
implementation in order to provide and allocate sufficient resources (Federal Facilities
Council, 2001; Eley, 2001; Zimring, 2001 and 2010; Zimring and Rashidi, 2008). Support
also motivates the team to work harder in creating new ideas to expedite the processes and
to face obstacles such as resistance to change (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Knowledge on POE is a fundamental aspect for POE to be undertaken successfully
(Kooymans and Haylock, 2006; Izran, 2011; Vischer, 2001; Zuriati, 2005; Brooks and
Viccars, 2006; Kincaid, 1994; Becker, 1990). POE has been around for more than 50
years and there are numerous materials (journals, research works, etc.) on POE.
However, the level of knowledge among the practitioners on how to carry out POE is
extremely low (Woon, et. al, 2015). It is of great regret to see developing countries still
struggling to foster the knowledge on how to systematically learn from building
occupants (Izran, 2011). The study conducted by Zuriati (2005) shows that building
practitioners in the Malaysian construction industry have little knowledge on POE.
Palm (2007) similarly found that building practitioners in the Swedish real-estate
sector possess limited knowledge on POE. The lack of knowledge on what to be
evaluated, feedback techniques to apply, how the techniques should be applied, how
the results should be used, are recognised as deficiencies that in turn affect the success
of POE (Woon, et. al, 2015).
To ensure POE success, the methods employed need to be standardized. Existing methods
and those that are benchmarked against established methods should be applied where
possible (Cohen et al., 1999). Standardisation in the data collection methodology
(including the selection of data collection instrument), data analysis and the reporting
is necessary to ensure the result is consistent (Queensland Department of Housing and
Public Works, 2012; Carthery, 2006). Jaunzens et al. (2002) have also suggested that the
most accurate evaluation can usually be gained from employing existing techniques in
effective combinations (Woon, et. al, 2015). A sizeable number of data-collection
strategies and techniques have been developed as stated by Woon, et. al (2015),
including questionnaire, walkthrough observations, mapping of activities and behaviors,
interviews, focus groups, visual selection and perception (Baird et al., 1996; Vos and
Dewulf, 1999; Bordass and Leaman, 2001; Groat and Wang, 2002; Preiser and Vischer,
2004; Van der Voordt and van Wegen, 2005)
The importance of POE process used in carrying out POE cannot be underestimated
(Vischer, 2001; Zimring, 2001). Lessons learned from past real life successful POE projects
indicate that a standardised POE process is important to ensure effective flow of feedback
(Mastor and Ibrahim, 2010). However, most POE projects fail to achieve the potential
benefits of POE due to the lack of standardised and established process (Federal Facilities
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Council, 2001; Vandenberg, 2006; Meir et al., 2009). In order for POE to be successful,
each step of the project should be managed efficiently and effectively (Woon, et. al,
2015). Correspondingly, managing the POE process has become a challenge for
building practitioners as it requires extensive financial, human resources and is time
sensitive (Woon, et. al, 2015). As with any venture, a POE project requires thorough
understanding of what is to be achieved and why it should be executed. Careful
planning and meticulous considerations on who to carry out the survey, required data and
data collection techniques, respondents to be targeted, time to be completed, and what to
do with the information are essential for the success of the project, all of course considered
within approved budget as a matter of fact (Izran, 2011).
The information obtained from POE studies can be used to avoid repeating mistakes and
improve future building design (Federal Facilities Council, 2001). Unfortunately, the
feedback is not well used because most designers and builders tend to be territorial
in defending their perceived areas of expertise (Woon, et. al, 2015). Once the project has
been completed, the designers and builders simply move on to the next project
without learning from the buildings they have delivered (Leaman, 2004). Ideally, feedback
and knowledge gained from POE projects provide the necessary information for good
briefing, which in turn contributes to high building performance and overall organisational
effectiveness (Okolie, 2011). Thus, a POE database is needed which will allow the
information to be accessed by different parties (Vischer, 2001).
User Perception and Comfort Due to Post Occupancy Evaluation
As noted by Akman (2002), evaluation of buildings and their environments has an effective
role in the building process in order to assess the efficiency of designed environments. Both
at the academic and professional level, the most practical, systematic and effective feedback
tool available for building evaluation is post occupancy evaluation According to Preiser,
POE should operate throughout the life of a building, continuous feedback. This is needed
since the building use is often changing and evolving. The POE acts like a doctor carrying
out a check up looking at functional issues, assessing buildings in terms of both positive and
negative performance aspects, i.e. comparing performance criteria with actual performance
(Akman, 2002). POE was probably carried out 1000 years ago, but informally. Only recently
have building types become specialized. You need feed forward and feed backward. POE
feeds backward into all stages of building such as planning, occupying etc. (“Post-
Occupancy Evaluation”).
Post Occupancy evaluation (POE), which is a sub process of BPE, can be defined as ‘the act
of evaluating buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been
built and occupied for some time’ (Preiser & Vischer, 2005). Sometimes POE is confused as
another technical evaluation of buildings. It is believed by some that it is an evaluation
during the use of buildings, where their systems are being evaluated. However, it is not a
pure technical evaluation and differs from main technical evaluations in several ways
because it focuses on the role of the human factor and the users (Mamalougka, 2013).
It addresses the needs, activities, goals, expectations and perspectives of the people
and organizations using a building, including maintenance and building operations.
Measures used in POE include indicators related to performance. This performance can
be divided regarding organizational and occupant aspects, as satisfaction and
regarding the building performance itself, which can be summarized in the building
systems as heating, ventilation, lighting, acoustics, etc (Mamalougka, 2013.
According to Mundo, Valerdi, Sosa and Arenalde, (2009), people’s perception regarding the
built environment has been studied for the past thirty years. However, very recently
these Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) studies have taken a new perspective and a
greater importance for designers, developers and clients (Mundo, 2008)The reason is
the increasing awareness of people towards the preservation of our natural
environment, the imperative reduction of fossil fuels as energy sources, the importance
of energy efficient design of buildings and users´ comfort. The latter is highly important
in order to design for people, minimising absenteeism, sick building syndrome symptoms
and reducing energy consumption by knowing how and when people use certain spaces
(Heerwagen, 2000).
According to Mamalougka (2013), the origins of POE were in UK. While building evaluation
theory is not new, the concept of POE probably was created from the need to base
buildings and construction with more scientific guidelines in the 1950s and 1960s. ‘In its
‘plan of work for design team operation’, the Royal Institute of British Architects broke
down the sequence of briefing/programming, design, specification, tendering,
construction, completion and use into clearly defined stages. This included a final
Stage M (feedback), when the architects would examine the success of what they had
done’ (Preiser & Vischer, 2005).
In the beginning as stated by Mamalougka (2013), POE seemed to be successfully
integrated. Later on, and even if there were signs that such an evaluation concept could
be useful in the construction industry by evaluating and improving buildings, it was
left aside for many decades. The causes were numerous. No capital or other resources
were invested in building projects after being delivered. Neither the owners nor the
designers nor the project managers were willing to invest in feedback mechanisms or
concepts as POE. The most important cause is maybe the high impression of possible costly
consequences (Mamalougka, 2013). Other causes, except for the lack of money at the end of
a project that led to no further involvement in the occupancy phase, were the lack of extra
time due to another upcoming project and the importance of undertaking huge risks and
responsibilities if things went wrong. The years have passed and nowadays, after having
realized the problem of the ‘performance gap’ and while users’ needs have increased over
time, the focus has started to turn on the users as a crucial factor and their influence more
than ever (Mamalougka, 2013).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Criteria and indicators should be built during the whole building cycle. Taking into
account the fact that performance criteria at each stage are constituted of both
quantitative and qualitative performance evaluation, it is necessary to utilize qualitative
and quantitative research. For instance, expected building performance in an area, such as
temperature levels inside a building, can be compared with levels of thermal comfort
as rated by users. Users can give feedback on either feeling too cold or too hot and this
could seem vital for the system to make this comparison (Mamalougka, 2013).
Although for this comparison to be effective, both the expected and actual performance
must use the same or comparable units of measurement. This is where indicators and
criteria have to be integrated and function as comparable units. ‘One of the
challenges of the BPE approach inside the phase of occupancy is, to encourage more
precise measures of users’ experience of environmental comfort than have
conventionally been used’(Preiser & Vischer, 2005). Conducting occupant comfort
surveys may give answers to many questions that POE includes (How is the building
working, How can it be improved, How can future buildings be improved) and to the huge
question of the ‘performance gap’ (Mamalougka, 2013).
An occupant comfort survey provides a quantitative rating (for instance statistical analysis)
of what is essentially a qualitative measure. It can be conducted for several conditions
as thermal comfort, air quality, acoustic comfort, lighting quality and spatial comfort.
These conditions are closely related to the building itself as they correspond to the
building systems of heating, ventilation, acoustics, lighting and office layout
respectively (Mamalougka, 2013).
Furthermore, considering the large amount of existing topics, the challenge is to
select performance indicators and criteria from a myriad of possible indicators
available at the building level, which will constitute the comparable units in order to
monitor, measure and evaluate the building performance. During the occupancy phase,
while conducting a POE, it is important to identify and categorize the most useful criteria
that will help answer similar questions as the ones raised above. Case studies have been
conducted in the Netherland in order to find out how occupants can easier accept
innovative concepts in offices and in addition, what makes occupants satisfied. The
result of the case studies was the identification of criteria that should be included in a POE.
Some of them are less or more frequently measured.
Mamalougka (2013) observed that all of the above criteria contribute to the determination
of the final performance criteria, which will constitute first the basis of POE and further of
BPE. Efforts have been made in the last decades to create principles for a universal design
performance evaluation framework that could apply on every type of building in any
country. ‘Building performance evaluation can be structured according to three levels of
performance criteria pertaining to user needs (Mamalougka, 2013). The first level is health,
safety, and security performance The second level is functional, efficiency, and workflow
performance while the third level is psychological or social, and cultural
performance’(Preiser & Vischer, 2005). For different type of goals, performance levels may
interact, overlap and conflict with each other, requiring appropriate solutions. These
solutions depend a lot on the type of goals that a client may have (as the example earlier ‘to
build the most sustainable town hall in the Netherlands’). The relationships and
correspondence between evolving performance criteria and the principles of creating also a
universal design framework that can be implemented in any office building around the
world.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND LESSON LEARNT FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
According to Eke, Clinton and Wellington (2013), lessons learnt from the study revealed
that most organizations around the world are adopting POE as a tool for evaluating their
building’s performance. Since the building is an immovable asset, and it is affected by
external factors such as exposure to the climate, which leads to the necessity for
maintenance; it is important to always evaluate a building because it helps the designers or
stakeholders to dictate the problem affecting the building performance (Eke, Clinton and
Wellington, 2013). Again, it is was found that conducting a POE in a residential building or
any other building enables the building owners’ or the facilitating management firms to
gauge the level of satisfaction of designers because if the environment is not conducive to
human health, this will impact the users’ efficiency and the eventual satisfaction with the
building (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
POE studies are done to evaluate the effectiveness of designs of buildings and their
environments. They are efficient tools in order to provide information on what works and
what does not work in architecture and the allied professions (Akman, 2002). A brief
analysis of current studies shows that most of the POEs are focused mainly on technical
performance of buildings. The criteria of evaluation in twenty-six selected case examples
show that these studies assess the building performance in terms of general user
satisfaction. However, there remain many more issues to be considered for an effective and
comprehensive building evaluation (Akman, 2002).
Akman (2002) concluded that current POEs are highly effective to provide feedbacks and
establish design guidelines for problems related with physical performance issues. But,
there are also problems related to socio-cultural issues, sustainability of environments,
perceptual issues and the likes. It is concluded that every kind of occupant should
participate in a comprehensive evaluation of the facility, regardless of their knowledge,
function in the building, and native language. Thus, the survey can be in different forms for
different user groups according to their background knowledge in architectural discipline,
their culture and language, and their acquaintance with the building. For example, the
survey can be in two forms for experts, and laymen, in which both would focus on the same
subject, but one with a simplistic approach (Akman, 2002).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
The current studies pointed out that post occupancy evaluations of buildings can be more
comprehensive by integrating new criteria into this system, without changing its nature
(Akman, 2002). Akman’s study provides new aspects to be considered. However, the
building industry is in a highly accelerating development process with the involvement of
new technology. Intelligent buildings, green buildings, and open buildings are on the way.
Therefore, there will always be new criteria to be considered in building evaluations. The
model developed here opens a way to a wider perspective of POEs, and can be seen as
limited with the current situation. A further step may be to work on such kinds of buildings
in order to discuss various approaches (Akman, 2002).
In the words of Darkwa (2006)s, there have been many initiatives to improve the living
conditions of the residents in Kayamandi, but the infrastructure that is in place in the
community is not sufficient and does not accommodate the entire community. Municipal
services such as running water and electricity are available on a prepaid basis in most
households. However, in the informal settlements, water taps are provided at some
distance, often as far as 200m from the homes. A total of 207 households have no access to
sanitation (Darkwa, 2006).
Moreover, Darkwa (2006) disclosed that findings on the levels of satisfaction of
respondents with the housing units revealed that the respondents were dissatisfied with
certain elements namely, space, size, interior finishes and position of the toilet/bathroom of
the housing units in which they resided. It can be established, according to Darkwa (2006)
that the Stellenbosch Municipality and the developers did not succeed in meeting and
addressing all the housing needs of the occupants. With regard to the evaluation of levels of
satisfaction with 22 different elements of the housing units, respondents indicated
satisfaction with only six elements (Darkwa, 2006). This included the position of the unit,
the number and position of doors, and the number and position of windows and lights in
the unit. Respondents’ dissatisfaction with the housing units were predominately centred
on the lack of interior and exterior finishes, security and layout, and especially the position
of the bathroom/toilet in the unit. Units were too small and they lacked space and privacy.
This conclusion is supported by the observations made by Darkwa (2006).
Structural defects, for example cracked walls, may be attributed to poor workmanship
and/or the use of poor quality materials. Despite the majority of the respondents’
dissatisfaction with certain elements of the housing units, they were satisfied with moving
to these housing units and they indicated that it had been good for their family (Darkwa,
2006). Further findings of Darkwa’s (2006) survey revealed that this housing complex was
well located with regard to accessibility to shops and other communities. Respondents’
social networks were intact because they could still keep in touch with previous social
networks in other communities (Darkwa (2006). Further findings on the levels of
satisfaction with the housing complex revealed that most respondents were dissatisfied
with the lack of play areas for children, parking lots, social interaction areas and sanitation.
It is required by national government that play areas for children and social interaction
areas should be integrated in the development of housing for low-income groups (Breaking
New Ground, 2004:13).
According to Darkwa (2006), although respondents were dissatisfied with sanitation in the
housing complex, they indicated that they had moved to a better environment in terms of
services and infrastructure such as roads and walkways. However, respondents were
dissatisfied with services at the clinic. When services are in place the occupants are happier
in their living environment and quality of life is improved (The right to adequate housing,
2002). The findings further revealed that, apart from dissatisfaction with sanitation in the
housing complex, respondents were dissatisfied with sanitation and storm water drainage
in the community (Darkwa, 2006).
It is noteworthy that the overall satisfaction of most of the users with the accommodation
and facilities is “good”; but their satisfaction with the services is topmost with the cleaning
services (Oladiran, 2013). This is followed in descending order by refuse disposal,
internet facilities, minimarket, parking lots, CCTV, cafeteria, first aid, ATM and
telephone services. Currently, the accommodation and facilities in the hostels require
improvement (Oladiran, (2013).
CONCLUSION
Conducting a POE in an organization or residential building is beneficial by equipping it
with valuable information that will help the executive managers or decision makers to
assess the performance of the building (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013). If the POE is
applied correctly, the level of satisfaction for the occupants can easily be assessed. Having
the POE in place will facilitate detection of the building’s defects at an early stage, and
remedial action can be implemented as early as possible. It is imperative to conduct the
POE process, as it will enhance the development of design standards that will allow
occupants to carry out their duties comfortably in their building (Eke, Clinton and
Wellington, 2013).
Benchmarking of the existing residential complex will be used as a point of departure to
identify the current performance of the building in relation to other relevant best practices
in the commercial property market (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013). Having POE as part
of the organizational knowledge base will assist in the development of future projects. If
POE is applied strategically, it will help the organization with regard to the building’s
performance and the utilisation of energy in a more productive way (Eke, Clinton and
Wellington, 2013). If the POE is applied in a more holistic way, this will assist the corporate
managers to fully analyse the organisational/business needs, perceptions of building users
and the economic evaluation of any productivity including energy audits. Future projects or
buildings will be designed to accommodate the issues of safety, comfort, cost-effectiveness
and sustainability (Eke, Clinton and Wellington, 2013).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Brown (2009) concluded that Occupants’ knowledge of a building can significantly
influence their comfort levels, when knowledge is gained primarily through involvement.
When knowledge is gained primarily through personal observation/experience, occupants’
comfort levels correlate to perceived building performance. Brown (2009) equally
established that cultural and contextual factors relating to a building’s design and operation
may play an equally important role in shaping occupant comfort as the quality and
characteristics of a space itself. Current post-occupancy evaluation methods are limited in
their ability to capture significant socio-cultural determinants of user experience in
buildings.
The study of Tanyer and Pembegül (2010) was an attempt to provide a POE of a large
convention centre. In order to achieve this, three user groups, i.e. attendees of conventions,
convention organizers and employees of the venue, have been taken into consideration and
the study have been conducted among these user groups. The importance assigned by the
users were compared with the performance value and results were presented with a two
dimensional matrix, which is called the Importance - Performance Analysis (IPA) Matrix.
Moreover, some similarities and differences in expectations among these groups also have
been drawn attention in this evaluation (Tanyer and Pembegül, 2010).
The information presented in Tanyer and Pembegül’s (2010) study about the identification
of facility features of convention centres and suggested method for evaluating the users’
perception of these features can help architects and designers in order to make effective
and user-oriented planning in the design phase of projects. This can also be useful for
facility managers in order to determine how to allocate the resources to create better
experiences in buildings and share the information with building’s investors who also have
a vested interest in the continued success of the convention centre (Tanyer and Pembegül,
2010). Other constituencies associated with the meeting industry that market convention
centres can also make benefit of the results of this study. While the study was conducted in
a single convention centre, inferences could be drawn to other facilities in Turkey or
elsewhere. The suggested method, the importance-performance analysis, can be developed
in order to evaluate other types of facilities, such as hotels, hospitals etc. for the future
studies as a matter of fact (Tanyer and Pembegül, 2010)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Gossauer and Wagner’s (2007) exploratory study shows that office buildings should be
constructed in a manner that is environment friendly; meets occupants’ IEQ
requirements, and supports their activities. Evaluating IAQ in the office building is very
important with the intended goal of ensuring that air pollutants, which are harmful to the
human body, do not emerge in buildings. Designers and other stakeholders should
persuade one another to use building materials that have low emissions to minimize
the potential development of air pollutants. Ventilation systems that are in need of
maintenance must be serviced regularly to avoid occupants inhaling stale air which
puts occupants in an uncomfortable situation as a matter of fact (Gossauer and Wagner,
2007).
Lighting systems that are used in the office building should comply with the indoor lighting
requirements to avoid a decrease in performance when it is too dim or too bright. If lighting
in the office building is used according to POE, this may save as much energy as possible, as
results may improve organisational productivity. To improve privacy in workstations,
designers should increase the wall height of partitions, which may also reduce the noise
from adjacent workstations. For natural lighting to penetrate more successfully into the
buildings, designers should evolve more options when designing or altering existing
buildings (Gossauer and Wagner, 2007).
In order to ensure a high level of satisfaction for users of facilities within the
residential area of sampled neighbourhoods (which is also an indicative of the optimal
functionality of these facilities), the study of Oluwunmi, Akinjare, and Oluwatoyin (2011)
suggests that there is the need to map out an effective internal evaluation system in order
to build a feedback mechanism by which the state of facilities and their performance can
be monitored periodically. Where residents are dissatisfied with a particular facility,
such could signal the non functionality or inefficiency of a particular facility or in some
rare cases the irrelevancy of such (Oluwunmi, Akinjare, and Oluwatoyin, 2011).
It is therefore recommended that more housing accommodation with functional state of the
art facilities should be provided in order to combat shortage of accommodations.
Additionally, there should be effective POE and maintenance management practices for the
sustainable buildings to improve the users’ comfortability and performance (Oladiran,
2013).
AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
According to Gossauer and Wagner (2007), in order to unearth far reaching perspectives
and contribute substantially to knowledge, a future multidisciplinary research is
recommended. The future study could entail the use of more than one case study as its unit
of analysis. In the words of Brown (2009), further research in the area of social dynamics of
comfort and comfort-related behaviour represents a new and exciting area of inquiry. Social
aspects addressed in this work are limited to acknowledging the role of workplace and
organizational culture in providing a common set of rules to guide occupant behaviour.
Future work could apply an evolving understanding of how occupants learn about buildings
(in particular through personal experience and interaction with others) towards designing
effective educational and feedback mechanisms (Brown, 2009).
Similarly, Brown (2009) also revealed that much could be learned from asking occupants to
vote for where they would like to be seated in a building if they had the choice and why. The
social dimensions of comfort represent an exciting new frontier of research particularly for
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
commercial, green-designed buildings, where technologies are new and users share the
space they can control with a greater number of people.
Finally, as pinpointed by Brown (2009), given the combined contexts of climate change,
improved access to reliable building performance data, and the rise of pervasive computing
and ‘smart environments’, the scenario of ubiquitous building energy monitoring is
becoming increasingly likely. As the measurement of buildings becomes more
commonplace, the potential for learning about occupant behaviour and other dynamics
from large databases of building energy information is significant (Brown, 2009).
Important lines of inquiry should include examining trends and patterns in building energy
data so as to determine whether observed energy anomalies is derived from design error,
technical error (e.g. the BMS system), or human error (e.g. building manager or building
occupants), and developing the capacity to predict common energy discrepancies before
they become a problem (Brown, 2009).
More post-occupancy evaluation research should be conducted to evaluate the successes of
low income housing development. It is recommended that the researchers themselves are
involved in conducting the evaluations and gain insight into the respondents’ reasons for
viewpoints. These evaluations will give the developers and national government more
insight into the housing satisfaction of occupants in state-subsidised housing units. The
research results of these surveys should be widely published and made available to national
government and local authorities (Darkwa, 2006).
Therefore it would be interesting to do research that compares the levels of housing
satisfaction of occupants that reside in state-subsidised houses with different designs and
layout. Local authorities and developers need to be aware of the elements that influence
levels of housing satisfaction (Darkwa, 2006). It is recommended that research should be
conducted on the participation of beneficiaries and the community during the housing
process. This will identify the levels at which housing consumers are allowed and
encouraged to participate. Shortcomings of the participation process will be identified and
this should be avoided in any housing process (Darkwa (2006).
REFERENCES
Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D. & Huizenga, C. (2006), Occupant satisfaction with
Indoor Environmental uality in green buildings. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, 2006,
3:365-370, Lisbon, Portugal, June 2006.
Abdul Mohit, M., Ibrahim, M. & Rashid, Y.R. (2010), Assessment of Residential Satisfaction in
Newly Designed Public Low-cost Housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of
Habitat International, 34 (1), pp: 18-27.
Adewunmi, Y., Omirin, M. and Famuyiwa, F. (2011) Post Occupancy Evaluation of
Postgraduate Hostel Facilities, Facilities, 29(3/4), pp: 149-168.
Akman, E. (2002), Post Occupancy Evaluation with Building Values Approach, Unpublished
M.Sc Thesis, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design and the
Institute of Fine Arts, Bilkent University.
Amole, D. (2009), Residential Satisfaction in Students’ Housing, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 2(9), pp: 76-85.
Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D., & McIndoe, G. (1996), Building Evaluation
Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bandara, W. (2006), Using NVIVO as a Research Management Tool: A Case Narrative,
Proceedings of 3rd international Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in
Qualitative Research.
Bandara, W., Miskon, S., & Fielt, E. (2011), A Systematic, Tool Supported Method for
Conducting Literature Reviews in Information Systems. Proceedings of the 19th
European Conference of information Systems, Helsinki, Finland.
Barlex, M. J. (2006), Guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation, University of Westminister
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). London.
Becker, F.D. (1990), The Total Workplace. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Becker, F. D, and Sims, W. 1990. Assessing Building Performance. In The Total Workplace.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp: 261–290.
Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. (2005), Making Feedback and Post Occupancy Evaluation
Routine 3: Case Studies of The Use of Techniques in The Feedback Portfolio,
Building Research and Information, 33(4), pp: 361-375.
Bordass, W., Leaman, A., & Eley, J. (2006), A Guide to Feedback and Post-Occupancy
Evaluation, The Usable Buildings Trust.
Bowen, J.T. & Chen, S.L. (2001), The Relationship Between Customer Loyalty and
Customer Satisfaction, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, pp: 213-217.
Breaking New Ground, (2004), A Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable
Human Settlements, South Africa, Accessed oo February 19, 2016.
http:///www.gov.za/housing.htm.
British Council for Offices, (2007), Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation, British Council
for Offices.
Brooks, S.T., & Viccars, G. (2006), The Development of Robust Methods of Post Occupancy
Evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/6), Pp: 177-196.
Brown, Z.B. (2009), Occupant Comfort and Engagement in Green Buildings: Examining the
Effects of Knowledge, Feedback and Workplace Culture, Unpublished, PhD Dissertation,
The University of British Columbia.
Bullen, C.V. & Rockart, J. F. (1981), A Primer on Critical Success Factors, Center for
Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Carthey, J. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Development of a Standardized
Methodology for Australian Health Projects, The International Journal of Construction
Management, 2(4), pp: 57–74..
Chandrasekar, K. (2011), Workplace Environment and its Impact on Organisational
Performance in the Public Sector Organisations, International Journal of Enterprise
Computing and Business Systems, 1(1), pp: 1-17.
Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B., Leaman, A. (1999), Final report 1: Review of the
PROBE Process, Accessed April 1, 2016, from http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk.
Cooper, I. (2001) Post-occupancy Evaluation: Where Are You? Building Research and
Information, 29(2), Special Issue: Post-occupancy Evaluation, pp: 158-63.
Darkwa, I. (2006), Post-Occupancy Evaluation of State-Subsidised Housing Units in
Kayamandi, Stellenbosch, Unpublished M.Sc Thesis, University of Stellenbosch.
Darkwa, I. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation of State-subsidized Housing Units in Kayamadi,
Stellenbosch, Unpublished Masters in Consumer Science (Housing) Thesis, University
of Stellenbosch.
DTI (1998), Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, Department
of Trade and Industry.
Duffy, F. (1998), Architectural knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, E & FN Spon, London:
New York.
Eke, C., Clinton, A. & Wellington, T. (2013), An Exploratory Literature Review of Post
Occupancy Evaluation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil and
Environmental Engineering (CEE'2013) Nov. 27-28, 2013 Johannesburg (South Africa),
pp. 170-173.
Eley, J. (2001), How Do Post Occupancy Evaluation and the Facilities Manager Meet?
Building Research and Information, 29(2), pp: 164-167.
Enright, S. (2002), Post-Occupancy Evaluation of UK Library Building Projects: Some
Examples of Current Activity, LIBER QUARTERLY 12 (1), pp: 26-45.
Federal Facilities Council, (2001), Learning from Our Buildings: A State of the Practice
Summary of Post Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No.
145, National Academy of Science.
Françoise, S. & Davis, G. (2002), The Turning Point for Linking Briefing and POE, Building
Research and Information, 30(1), pp: 47-53.
Friedman, A., Zimring, C. & Zube, C. (1978), Environmental Design Evaluation, Plenum, New
York, NY.
Goldman, M. & Peatross. F.D. (1992), Planning for a Captive Audience: Approaches and
Problems in Programming Correctional Facilities. Professional Practice in Facility
Programming, Ed. Wolfgang F. E. Preiser. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992. 357-
380.
Gossauer, E. & Wagner, A. (2007), Post Occupancy Evaluation and Thermal Comfort: State of
the Art and New Approaches, Advances In Building Energy Research, Volume 1(1), pp:
151–175
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002), Architectural Research Methods, New York: Wiley.
Hadjri, K.A. & Crozier, C. (2009), Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Purpose, Benefits and
Barriers, Facilities, 27(1-2), pp: 21-33.Evaluation: Using the Tools of Business to
Evaluate Facilities. In Learning From Our Buildings: A State of The Practice
Summary of Post Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report
No. 45. Washington: National Academy Press.
Heerwagen, J., (2000), Green Buildings, Organizational Success, and Occupant Productivity,
Building Research and Information, 28(5), pp: 353-367.
Heerwagen, J.H. (2001) A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Post Occupancy.
Hewitt, D, Higgins, C., Heatherly, P. & Turner, C. (2005), Market Friendly Post Occupancy
Evaluation, New Building Institute, Portland, Building Performance Report Number: C.
10091.
Hewitt, D., Higgins, C., Heatherly, P. & Turner, C. (2006), A Market-friendly Post Occupancy
Evaluation: Building Performance Report. Report Prepared for Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, Portland, Oregon, 17th March.
Huizenga, C, Zagreus, L, Arens, E. & Lehrer, D. (2003), Measuring Indoor Environment
Quality: A Web-based Occupant Satisfaction Survey, Centre for the Built Environment.
Berkeley. Wurster Hall.
Husin, H.N., Nawawi, A.H., Ismail, F. & Khalil. N. (2011), Preliminary Survey of Integrated
Safety Elements into Post Occupancy Evaluation for Malaysia’s Low Cost Housing,
Proceedings of theASEAN Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, Savoy Homann
Bidakara Bandung Hotel, Bandung, Indonesia, 15-17 June 2011, pp. 583-590.
Izran, S.M. (2011), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building Performance in Malaysia,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Jaunzens, D., Cohen, R., Watson, M., & Piston, E. (2002), Post Occupancy Evaluation; A
Simple Method for the Early Stages of Occupancy.
Jaunzens, D., Grigg, P., Watson, M., & Picton, E. (2003), Building Performance Feedback:
Getting Started, BRE Digest 478, BRE Bookshop, London, UK.
Joubish, M.F. & Khurram, M.A. (2011), Outlook on Some Concepts in the Curriculum of
Social Studies, World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(9), pp: 1374–1377.
Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Zawawi, M.A.E. Pirtt, M. & Don, Z.M. (2010), Occupant Feedback on
indoor environmental quality in refurbished historic buildings. International Journal of
Physical Sciences, Vol. 5 (3): 192-199.
Khalil, N. & Husin, H.N. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation Towards Indoor Environment
Improvement in Malaysia’s Office Buildings, Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(1),
pp: 187-191.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Kincaid, D.G. (1994), Measuring Performance in Facility Management, Facilities, 12(6), pp:
17-20.
Kirk, S.J. & Stirrett, C.M. (2011), Post Occupancy Evaluation for Added Value at Trail’s End.
In: Lean Construction Institute of Michigan, Michigan State University, USA, pp: 1-17.
Konara, K.M.G.K. & Sandanayake, Y.G. (2010), Building Post Occupancy Evaluation
Framework, Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, pp:
218-228.
Kooymans, R.R. & Haylock, P. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation and Workplace
Productivity, In the Proceedings of the 12th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference,
22nd-25th, January, 2006. Auckland.
Latham, Sir M. (1994), Constructing the Team: The Latham Report, London: HMSO.
Leaman, A. & B. Bordass, B. (2007) Are users more tolerant of green buildings? Building
Research and Information, 35(6) L662-673.
Lee, C. & Oh, C. (2007), Post occupancy Evaluation as One Approach for User-focused
Space Design. Proceedings of International Assciation of Societies of Design
Research, 12th -15th November, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T.J. (2006), A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature
Review in Support of Information Systems Research, Informing Science Journal,
9(1), pp: 181-212.
Mamalougka, A. (2013), The Relationship Between Sser Satisfaction and Sustainable Building
Performance: The Case Study of Leiderdorp’s Town Hall, Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geo-sciences, Delft University of Technology.
Marans, R. (1984), Evaluation Research in Architecture, In: Snyder, J. (ed.), Architectural
Research, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp: 113-124.
Mastor, S. H. & Ibrahim, N. (2010), Post Occupancy Evaluation Practices: A Procedural
Model for A Successful Feedback. Proceedings of the CIB 2010 World Congress, 10-13
May, 2010.
Meir, I.A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable
Step toward Sustainability. Advances in Building Energy Research, 3(1), pp: 189-220.
Miskon, S., Bandara, W., Gable, G.G. & Erwin, F. (2011), Success and Failure Factors of
Shared Services: An IS Literature Analysis, In Osman, Abu, Alias, Rose Alinda, and
Manaf, Azizah Abd (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Research
and Innovation in Information Systems, IEEE, Seri Pacific Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, 1-6.
Mumovic, D., Davies, M., Ridley, I., Altamirano-Medina, H. & Oreszczyn, T. (2009), A
Methodology for Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Ventilation Rates in Schools, Building
Services Engineering Research and Technology, 30(2), pp; 143-52.
Mundo, J., Valerdi, M., Sosa, J. & Arenalde, B. (2009), Post-Occupancy Evaluation Study of an
Educational Building in Mexico: Occupant’s Perception vs. Occupancy Survey,
Proceedings of the PLEA2009 - 26th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture,
Quebec City, Canada, 22-24 June 2009.
Mundo, J., (2008), Evaluación Post-ocupacional en la arquitectura: definiciones y
metodologías, Pragma espacio y comunicación visual, 02: p. 23-36.
Nawawi, A.H., & Khalil, N. (2008), Post Occupancy Evaluation Correlated with Building
Occupants’ Satisfaction: An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Government and
Public Buildings, Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(2): 59–69
Neo, B.W. (2013), Critical Success Factors for Post Occupancy Evaluation of Hospital
Building Performance in Malaysia. Unpublished PhD Research Proposal Report,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Obradovic, V., Jovanovic, P., Petrovic, D., Mihic, M., & Mitrovic, Z. (2013), Project Managers’
Emotional Intelligence: A Ticket to Success, 26th IPMA World Congress, Crete, Greece,
2012. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74: 274–284.
Oladiran, O.J. (2013), A Post Occupancy Evaluation of Students’ Hostels Accommodation,
Journal of Building Performance ,4(1), pp: 33-43.
http://spaj.ukm.my/jsb/index.php/jbp/index
Oluwunmi, A.O., Akinjare, O.A. & Oluwatoyin, I.O. (2011), User’s Satisfaction with
Residential Facilities in Nigerian Private Universities: A Study of Covenant University,
Transnational Journal of Science and Technology, 2(11), pp: 89-112
Ornstein, S.W., Ono, R., Lopes, M.E., Monteiro, R.Z., Gill, A.A. & Machry, H.S. (2007), Health
Care Architecture in São Paulo, Brazil Evaluating Accessibility and Fire Safety in Large
Hospitals, International Journal of Architectural Research, 1(1), pp: 13-25.
Palm, P. (2007), Closing the Loop: The Use of Post Occupancy Evaluation in Real Estate
Management, Licentiate Thesis. Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan.
Preiser, W. (2002), The Evolution of Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Toward Building
Performance and Universal Design Evaluation. 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.; 9-22.
Preiser, W.F.E. (2002), Continuous Quality Improvement Through POE Feedback, Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 5(1), pp: 42-56.
Preiser, W.F.E. & Vischer, J.C. (2005), The Evolution of Building Performance Evaluation: An
Introduction, In Preiser, W.F.E. & Vischer, J.C. (eds.), Assessing Building Performance,
First Edition, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford; 3-14.
Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (eds.) (2004), Assessing Building Performance, Oxford, UK,
Elsevier.
Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (2005), Assessing Building Performance, Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1995), Post-Occupancy Evaluation: How to Make Buildings Work Better,
Facilities, 13(11), pp: 19-28.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Preiser, W.F.E. (2001), Feedback, Feed Forward and Control: Post-occupancy Evaluation to
the Rescue, Building Research and Information, 29(6), pp: 456-459.
Preiser, W.F.E. & Nasar, J.L. (2008), Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution from Post
Occupancy Evaluation, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), pp: 84-99.
Preiser, W.F.E., & Postell, J. (1993), Post-occupancy Evaluation Feedback: Making the Office
Work, Haworth Office Journal, 7(1), pp: 6-7. http://www.haworth.com/help/index.asp?
page=index.html, 19 Nov. 2001
Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz H.R. & White E.T. (1988), Post Occupation Evaluation, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
QHRS, (2001), Royal Children’s Hospital Post Occupancy Evaluation, Queensland Health and
Royal Children’s Hospital Health Service District.
Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works, (2012), Strategic Asset Management
Framework: Best Practice Guidelines for the Management of Queensland Government
Buildings.
Riba, R.S.G. (1991), A Research Report for the Architectural Profession, In Duffy, F.W., (ed.),
Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, London: E. & F.N. Spon.
Riley, M., Kokkarinen, N. & Pitt, M. (2010), Assessing Post Occupancy Evaluation in Higher
Education Facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), pp: 202-213.
Riley, M., Moody, C., & Pitt, M. (2009), A Review of the Evolution of Post-Occupancy
Evaluation as a Viable Performance Measurement Tool, Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Conference Liverpool, BEAN.
Rockart, J.F. (1979), Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs, Harvard Business
Review, Mar-April. 85.
Rohaniyati, S. (2009), Critical Success Factors of Project Management for Brunei
Construction Projects: Improving Project Performance, Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.
Rubin, A.I., & Collins B.L. (1986), Evaluation of the Working Environment at selected U.S.
Army Field Stations: Suggestions for Improvement, Gaithersburg, MD: NBSIR 88-3827
National Bureau of Standards.
Scottish Executive, (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation Workshop, Our Dynamic Earth,
Edinburgh, 10 June 2005.
School of Works Ltd, (2004), Post-occupancy Evaluation for Secondary Schools: Summary of
the Pilot Study Findings, London: Pringle Brandon Consulting.
Schwede, D.A. & Davies, H. (2008), Occupant Satisfaction with Workplace Design in New
and Old Environments, Facilities, 26(7/8), pp: 273-288.
SEE, (2005), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Braes High School, Falkirk, Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive.
Shepley, M.M.S. (1997), Design Evaluation. In: Marberry, S.O. (ed.), Healthcare Design, New
York: John Wiley, pp: 73-104.
Singh, H. (2006), The Importance of Customer Satisfaction in Relation to Customer Loyalty
and Retention, pp: 1-7.
Sivadass, E. & Baker-Prewitt, J.L. (2000), An Examination of the Relationship Between
Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Store Loyalty, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, 28(2), pp: 73-82.
Stevenson, F. (2008), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Housing, Proceedings of the Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) Conference. 15th January 2008.
Stevenson, F. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation and Sustainability: A Review, Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 162(DP3): 123–130.
Strategic Assessment Management, (2003), Post-occupancy Evaluation, Retrieved from the
interneton 25 April 2005, http://www.build.qld.gov.au/
sam/sam_web/content/75_cont.htm
Tanyer, A.M. & Pembegül, T. (2010), Post Occupancy Evaluation in the Practice of
Architecture: A Case Study of Lütfikirdar Convention and Exhibition Centres, METU JFA
2010/1, 27(1), pp: 241-265), DOI.10.4305/METU.JFA 2010.1.13, PP.
The PMBOK ® Guide, (2008), Newton Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute,
4th Edition.
Vandenberg, M. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Incorporating Hindsight to Facilitate
Foresight.
Van der Voordt, D.J.M., & Van Wegen, H.B.R. (2005), Architecture in Use, An Introduction to
the Programming, Design and Evaluation of Buildings, Oxford, Elsevier, Architectural
Press.
Vischer, J.C. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaceted Tool for Building
Improvement. In Learning From Our Buildings: A State of The Practice Summary of Post
Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 45. Washington:
National Academy Press.
Vischer, J. (2002), Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaced Tool for Building Improvement.
Federal Facilities Council, US: The National Academy Press (in Chapter 3), pp. 23-34
Vos, P.G.J.C., & Dewulf, G.P.R.M. (1999), Searching for Data, A Method to Evaluate the
Effects of Working in an Innovative Office, Delft, Delft University Press.
Watson, C. (2003), Review of Building Quality Using Post Occupancy Evaluation, Journal of
programme Educational Building, 3(5), pp: 1-5.
Watson, C. (2003), Review of Building Quality Using Post-occupancy Evaluation, Journal of
Programme Educational Building, 3(5), pp:1-5.
Woon, N,B., Mohammad, I.S., Baba, M. & Nazri, N.Z.A. (2015), Critical Success Factors for
Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building Performance: A Literature Analysis, Jurnal
Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 74(2), pp: 41-49.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 1. 28th April, 2016 –University of
Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Yasin, M.F.M. & Egbu, C.C. (2010), Harnessing Knowledge Management in the Process of
Performance Evaluation of Facilities in Malaysia: A Critical Success Factor, Proceedings
of the CIB World Congress 2010, 10–13 May 2010, The Lowry, Salford Quays, United
Kingdom.
Zimmerman, A. & Martin, M. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and Barriers,
Building Research and Information. 29(2): 168-174.
Zimring, C. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation Processes in Six Federal Agencies. In
Learning From Our Buildings: A State of The Practice Summary of Post Occupancy
Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 45. Washington: National
Academy Press.
Zimring, C. 2010. Facility Performance Evaluation (FPE). Whole Building Design Guide
(WBDG), National Institute of Building Sciences. Available at:
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/fpe.php (Accessed 15th October 2013).
Zimring, C. & Rashidi, M. (2008), Facility Performance Evaluation (Online), Available at:
www.wbdg.org/Resources/Fpe.Php (Accessed 8th February, 2016).
Zimring, C., Rashid, M. and Kampschroer, K. (2007), Facility Performance Evaluation (FPE).
Whole Design Building Guide (WDGS), Retrieved march 11, 2016 from
www.wbdg.org/resources/fpe.php
Zuriati, A. (2005), Current Practice of Post Occupancy Evaluation in Facility Management
Organisation of Malaysia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia.