Content uploaded by Terri Peters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Terri Peters on Jun 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEA 2020 A CORUÑA
Planning Post Carbon Cities
Using Architectural Assessment to Evaluate User Experience
in a Pre- and Post-Move Study of an Office Environment
TERRI PETERS,1 MIMI CEPIC1 JENNIFER MCARTHUR1
1Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
ABSTRACT: This paper presents preliminary findings of the use an Architectural Assessment to und erstand user experience
in an office Case Study pre and post move. The paper reports on challenges encounter ed using this method, and the
authors share experiences collecting and interpreting Architectural Assessment data, with the goal of informing future
studies. The analysis was intended to lead to a greater understanding of the influence of environmental design on worker
productivity and building performance. This paper concludes that Architectural Assessments can be a valuable tool in the
context of analyzing work environments but that there are limitations inherent to this method, and caution should be
taken in drawing specific conclusions. Architectural Assessments have potential to be of benefit to researchers planning
future work and to offices as a way of gaining insights into how spaces are used but are not reliable as singular sources of
data for comparing spaces as researchers plan a pre- and post- assessment.
KEYWORDS: Architectural Assessment, Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE), Environmental Design, Performance
Gaps, Observational Methods
1. INTRODUCTION
In sustainable design, there is a need to better
understand how people experience their
environments, and the potential synergies and trade-
offs between occupant comfort and building
performance. Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE) are
established methods that evaluate the discrepancies
between predicted and actual performance [1]. Hadjri
and Crozier (2008) traced a history of POE and report
that researchers use a range of definitions,
interpretations, and approaches to POE [2]. POE can
address what researchers have identified the various
“performance gaps” between a design’s intentions
and the actual experience people have in buildings,
and/or the building’s performance in use [3]. The data
collected in a POE depends on who is carrying out the
evaluation, the program type, and the desired
outcomes. Accepted POE methods include user
surveys, visual and participatory tools, focus groups
and interviews, building walk throughs, and more [4].
POE are considered important tools to understand
various aspects of how a building performs including
how it meets the functional requirements, social and
psychological performance and visual quality and
satisfaction [5]. A POE can be defined as more than
“an appraisal of the degree to which a designed setting
satisfies and supports explicit and implicitly human
needs and values of those for whom abuilding is
designed” [6]. Details of challenges encountered
when using POE are not typically published. This paper
shares challenges and notes the benefits of collecting
data using this method, to inform future studies.
2. METHODOLOGY
Collecting and interpreting various kinds of data
rather than relying on a sole metric is more effective
to understand people’s range of behaviours and
experiences in spaces. An Architectural Assessment
was carried out to gather data about occupant comfort
and use of workspaces in two locations occupied by an
office, before and after they moved. In this case, the
Architectural Assessment provided insights into
certain aspects user behaviour spaces that were not
evident in the other data collection methods used. The
Architectural Assessment was an observation of
aspects of the work environment that studies have
shown relates to employee satisfaction, including
personalization, use and availability of personal
storage and clutter, dishes and food providing
evidence of eating at the desk, and a variety of
adaptive thermal behaviours including heaters and
sweaters.
The Architectural Assessment is one aspect of a
larger study carried out over the course of a year to
better understand the impacts of environmental
design on worker productivity and building
performance. This larger study collected, analysed
and compared numerous sources of data including:
environmental data using desk sensors; online
qualitative surveys of user comfort relative to location
in the office; employer provided productivity data and
sick days; and, the focus of this paper, an architectural
assessment of the spaces in the office.
2.1 Architectural Assessment
The Architectural Assessment is based on a walk-
through observational method and was designed
specifically to understand occupant comfort and uses
of the office shared and desk spaces. The walk-through
observational method has been identified as useful in
POE and many benefits and challenges were found.
The Architectural Assessments were carried out in two
office spaces: the pre-move environment and the
post- move environment. These were structured 3-
hour walk-throughs of the building where
environmental aspects were observed and
documented in notes and photographs. Key data
collected includes: evidence of adaptive comfort
behaviors such as sweaters on chairs, personal fans,
plants, desk personalization, clutter, headphones,
blinds use, and use of standing or sitting desks.
2.1 The Role of this Architectural Assessment:
User behaviors in office environments are
important to consider for multiple reasons including
worker productivity, employee wellbeing, and impacts
on a building’s environmental performance. The role
of the Architectural Assessment was to collect data
that was not being collected in the other ways and to
use focused observation, photography, notetaking and
walking through a space to gain insights and give
context to the other data.
There is a clear business case for providing optimal
indoor environmental quality and comfort. Reports
estimate that typically 1% of a business operating cost
going to energy, 9% to rental costs, and 90% to staff
costs, salaries and benefits [7]. The quality of the office
environment and its impact on employee satisfaction
and productivity can thus significantly affect the
commercial performance of an organization, as
demonstrated through significant research [8,9].
quantifying the negative impact of poor thermal
comfort on productivity.
Despite the use of thermal comfort standards such
as ASHRAE 55 to inform building system design, the
ability to measure thermal comfort as perceived by
occupants is a complex challenge. There has been
significant research investigating thermal comfort
models and their relationship with occupant-
perceived comfort [10,11,12]. The research
undertaken addresses this latter impact; if workers are
relying on personal fans for comfort, it is reasonable to
assume the environmental conditions need improving,
perhaps even if the sensor data shows otherwise.
Critical management studies have shown that from
a management perspective, space serves three
functions: emplacement – activity-specific spatial
design, enchantment –design to ‘win the hearts and
minds’ of employees, and enactment – the use of
symbols, routes, and routines to create social meaning
[13]. Within this context, it is important to consider the
use of the space by employees, the impact of the design
quality and its perception by occupants, and the use of
symbols and cues directing movement within the
office as elements impacting occupant behaviour [13].
Desk personalization – where employees bring in their
own symbolic elements to their workspace – and
broader architectural design considerations have
significant value from a management perspective.
Traditional methods of POE engage minimally with
these aspects of workspaces, and this is another way
in which where the value of the Architectural
Assessment is evident.
3. RESULTS
The results of the Architectural Assessment are
presented in terms of the pre-move observations, the
post move observations of the new office, the
comparison between certain environmental design
elements and some findings relating to the difficulty of
comparing spaces directly.
3.1 Pre-move Observations
The old office is in an urban setting, occupying one
floor of a multi-story office building. Most employees
sit together with colleagues in one of eight
departments. Each department had a long, shared
desk for collaborative work. There were two
kitchenettes and a small lobby space with communal
seating near the entry. The office colour scheme used
mainly neutral colours with white desks, grey carpet
and light grey walls. Collaborative desks were limited
within the departments and were often used as
storage. The private areas were restricted to 4 meeting
rooms and a couple smaller spaces for discussions
between 2-3 people. This office had a total of 157
desks and a total area of 1660m2.
Figure 1: The first office space (pre-move). The red dots a re
the location of sensors used to evaluate environmental
conditions. The green shows the work spaces and the orange
colour shows the shared work areas.
The open plan office had large windows around the
perimeter with manually operable blinds. There was
non-adjustable fluorescent ceiling mounted lighting
and during the walk-through it felt uncomfortably
bright. We observed only one task lights on a desk.
During the walk-through we observed that the office
feels cold. We observed many sweaters and scarfs left
by employees on chairs suggesting dissatisfaction with
thermal comfort. The windows do not open.
Figure 2: The interior of the first office space (pre-move) was
well used and seemed that employees needed more space.
Some areas were very cluttered.
The desks were arranged largely along the perimeter,
perpendicular to the windows, and each employee
desk area appears equal in size. All desks have daylight
and a view, although view quality varies greatly. There
were four semi-private meeting rooms. Almost all
desks had personal items such as shoes, and boxes,
stored underneath, and most also had work items such
as binders, and boxes, suggesting that there is
insufficient nearby storage provided per employee.
We observed that most desks had a box of tissues on
the desk. Many desks had coffee cups and also open
food items such as chips, candy and other snacks. Solid
grey partitions are used behind the desks, they are
128cm high.
3.2 Post-move Observations
The new office is also in urban setting, near to the first
office, occupying three floors of a multi-story office
building. As with the first office, the new office is open
plan and has large windows around the perimeter with
manually operable blinds. An LED circadian lighting
system has been installed in the desk areas. This new
lighting system varies the spectrum of color
temperature and intensity to follow a specific light
curve, adapting the quality of light based on the time
of day, as well as the local conditions. This means the
colour temperature changes through the course of the
day, bluer in the morning and warmer in the
afternoon. When we visited there were issues with the
lighting and we were told it was not working as
planned yet. The office still seemed cold and as with
the first office, the windows do not open. There were
many sweaters and scarfs left by employees on chairs.
The area of each floor was consistently 1520m2, the
number of individual workstations varied between
each floor to accommodate for more communal space.
The new office consisted of a total of 314 desks,
double the amount of the previous office.
Figure 3: The new office space (post-mo ve). The red dots are
the location of sensors used to evaluate environmental
conditions. The green shows the work spaces and the orange
colour shows the shared work areas.
Figure 4: The interior of the new office space (post-move) has
new lighting, new desks, a new colour scheme and is much
larger than the old office.
The desks are arranged along the perimeter, with
several semi-private, corner meeting rooms. In total
there are 24 meeting areas in the new office. The
chairs have remained the same in the new office but
new dark tinted, transparent panels are used to cover
the bottom of the desks, and are also dividers between
individual workstations. The 3-drawer lockable under
desk storage units have been replaced with the same
size but black in colour. The new ones have cushions
on top and wheels on the bottom, allowing for desk
discussions and collaborative work. Rather than
Individual garbage cans under desks as in the old
office, there are now small, black bins at the end of
every few aisles. We observed a number of food and
drinks are left at desks, this may be because it is more
effort to get up and walk to the shared garbage bins.
3.3 Observed Findings Relating to Both Office Layouts
and Furnishings.
In each of the old and new offices, there were a high
degree of uniformity in the office furniture. In the old
office employees had the same standard issue chair,
desk, headphones, wheeled storage, monitors and
laptops. In the new office when new furniture was
introduced it too was for everyone, such as the new
desks. There is clearly a desire to make all of the work
stations seem equal, despite the variety in the views.
In the old office, the shared tables were mainly used
for storage and seemed like much needed surfaces.
They were the same size in all departments, and
always located behind people’s chairs and offered no
visual or acoustic privacy. In the new office, the
shared tables are more public, facing the walkway
around the core of the office. These also seemed well
used but rather dark, as the partition that offers visual
privacy is a dark colour.
Figure 5 Co mparisons of personal desks. The old office (left)
and the new office (right).
Figure 6 Comparison shared tables in the departments. The
old office (left) has a long middle table within each
department behind people’s chairs. The new office (right) has
the shared table in a dark colour, facing the corridor.
The new office saw the introduction of all desks being
adjustable as sit-stand. In addition, the common area
layout is different with new furniture. Now for each
department, there is a dedicated common desk facing
onto the corridor providing a visual buffer to the desks
and also a shared desk area for layout and informal
meetings. It was observed in the Architectural
Assessment that people were using these desks and
that they seem needed. Also, many people are using
the sit-stand desks and this leads to a different work
experience.
Post-move, the new office provided an increase in
private work areas of various size and although the
collaborative desks for the departments became
smaller, more were provided, making it easier to work
collaboratively. Each floor had collaborative zones
from a cafeteria, to work booths to informal meeting
spaces with lounge seating.
3.4 Difficulty in Comparing Spaces:
The Architectural Assessment did not yield clear
and comparable results relating to occupant
experience in these office spaces for various reasons.
There were significant challenges to collecting,
comparing and analyzing this data via an architectural
analysis related the fact that the new office is so much
larger than the old one, and also the new office is
better equipped with new lighting and wayfinding.
The employees moved from a single level in an office
building to a nearby building but this time having three
floors. Numerous changes in the office layout and
structure saw departments move relative to one
another and – in some cases – split up and integrate
with other department. This makes the data hard to
decipher and impossible to clearly compare a person’s
experience in a department in the pre- and post- move
study.
Environmental Design Improvements in the new
office
In the new office, due to the larger space, there are
many improved opportunities for people to sit
together and collaborate.
Figure 7 Comparison of spaces for collaboration are arranged
differently and in different locations. The old office (left) and
the new space (right).
The old space had only a few spaces for employees to
sit together informally while working. The red chairs
shown in Figure 7 were located in the old office near
to the entry and to the dining area. The new office has
several new collaborative areas near to the desks. As
well, there are also other seating amenities in the new
office such as booth seating away from the
department, that offer visual and acoustic privacy.
Figure 8 Comparison of spaces for coffee and eating. The old
office (left) had two kitchenettes and a lunch ro om with
plenty chairs and tables. The new office (right) has 3
kitchenettes each with bar seating areas.
The old office had a large meeting room/lunch room
with a shared kitchen for employees. It was near to the
lobby and away from the desks. The new office has
open coffee areas on each level and the bar
encourages people to eat and drink there, rather than
bring food and drink back to their desks.
We observed 65 personalized desks in the old office
and 188 personalized desks in the new office. We
observed 19 small plants in the old office and 65 plants
in the new office.
Figure 9 Comparison of personalization observed at desks.
The desks in the old office (left) had fewer personalized items
than the desks in the new office (right).
Figure 10 Comparison number of plants observed in the
office. The old office (left) had fewer plants than the new
office (right)
4. DISCUSSION
The Architectural Assessment provided valuable
insights into how people used the spaces. In both
offices many desks had signs of personalization, which
is positively linked to a sense of feelings of productivity
and health [14] and also related to creating a sense of
privacy and avoiding emotional exhaustion at work
[15]. Studies show that employee personalization of
desk spaces can reduce negative impacts of low
privacy at work [15], and this is relevant as both the
old and new office have no full height partitions. Some
personalization looks like clutter. The Architectural
Assessment showed how different employees used
their personal storage, as each workspace had the
same locked cabinet under the desk yet some desks
were extremely cluttered (mostly with papers not
personalization) and others were nearly empty.
Studies have shown that there are differing views of
personalization and clutter in office cultures, and
Wells (2000) found variations in personalization and
desk clutter linked to gender and office policy [16].
There were some coffee mugs and dishes and a few
food wrappers visible on desks, more in the old office,
than the new one which had visible coffee stations
from more workspaces.
There were significant challenges in comparing the
impact of indoor environmental quality in the two
office environments: size differences, location and
view differences, and interior design characteristics.
First, the new office is substantially larger, arranged
over three floors, with a significantly increased staffing
complement, reorganized into more than twice as
many departments. This size difference alone poses
challenges for comparison because rather than all
employees on a single floor, people’s interactions
change as they are spread out and work on different
floors. This increases the mobility of workers within
the office, and while this may have positive impacts,
they are different and hard to compare. Second, the
new office is in a different building, and therefore
there are different views and fundamentally different
interior organization, which would provide different
experiences for employees. Third, the new office
interior design is significantly different, with bright
colours and varied furnishings used to effectively
distinguish spaces from one another, and provide
wayfinding as opposed to the monochromatic design
of the previous office. This is evident in the themes of
the meeting rooms, to the new kitchens, and new
social areas. In addition, employees all have standing
desks and there is more space to move around.
5. CONCLUSIONS: ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENTS
THE VALUE OF OBSERVATION
This study found that this structured observation of
the architectural and sensory qualities of the space
provided an effective way to collect data not normally
considered. The study collected data about adaptive
thermal comfort and other aspects that have been
linked to worker wellbeing. The study also found that
while this data is important to collect and relatively
straightforward to interpret, it is difficult to compare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partly supported by a grant from
the Dean’s Research Fund Undergraduate Research
Experience Program at Ryerson University.
REFERENCES
1. Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E., & Watson, C.
(2012). Enhancing building performance. Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Hadjri, K. and Crozier, C. (2009), "Post-occupancy
evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers", Facilities, Vol. 27
No. 1/2, pp. 21-33.
3. Coleman, S., Touchie, M., Robinson, J., & Peters, T. (2018).
Rethinking performance gaps: A regenerative sustainability
approach to built environment performance assessment.
Sustainability, 10(12), 4829.
4. Hay, R., Samuel, F., Watson, K. J., & Bradbury, S. Post-
occupancy evaluation in architecture: Experiences and
perspectives from UK practice E & FN Spon.
5.Preiser W.F.E and Schramm, U. (1997) “Building
Performance Evaluation” in Watson D et al (Eds) Time Saver
Standards, 7th ed. McGraw-Will, New York, NY.
6. Friedman, A., Zimring, C. and Zube, C. (1978),
Environmental Design Evaluation, Plenum, New York, NY.
7. United Kingdom Green Building Council, 2014 “Health,
Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices: The Next Chapter For
Green Building”. Available https://www.worldgbc.org/news-
media/health-wellbeing-and-productivity-offices-next-
chapter-green-building
8. Tanabe, S.-i., Haneda, M., & Nishihara, N. (2015).
Workplace productivity and individual thermal satisfaction.
Building and Environment, 91, 42-50
9. Veselý, M., & Zeiler, W. (2014). Personalized conditioning
and its impact on thermal comfort and energy performance
–A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
34(2014), 401-408.
10. Antoniadou, P., & Papadopoulos, A. (2017). Occupants’
thermal comfort: State of the art and the prospects of
personalized assessment in office buildings. Energy and
Buildings, 105, 369-389.
11. Enescu, D. (2017). A review of thermal comfort models
and indicators for indoor environments. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 1353-1379.
12. Mishra, A., Loomans, M., & Hensen, J. (2016). Thermal
comfort of heterogeneous and dynamic indoor conditions
An overview. Building and Environment, 109(2016), 82-100.
13. Burrell, G., & Dale, K. (2014). Space and organization
studies. In P. d. Adler, G. Morgan, & M. Reed, The Oxford
Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization
Studies: Contemporary Currents.
14. Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L., & de Dear, R. (2016).
Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-
territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction,
perceived productivity and health. Building and
Environment, 103, 203-214.
15. Laurence, G. A., Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2013). “My
space”: A moderated mediation model of the effect of
architectural and experienced privacy and workspace
personalization on emotional exhaustion at work. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 36, 144-152.
16. Wells, M. M., Thelen, L., & Ruark, J. (2007). Workspace
personalization and organizational culture: Does your
workspace reflect you or your company? Environment and
Behavior, 39(5), 616-634.
