Search results

Over the past 30 years, both the governmental and private sectors have made use of a feedback mechanism, which helps improve the quality of environments: post‐occupancy evaluation (POE) or similar systematic processes, which gauge the satisfaction with, and importance of, the designed and built environment. How does this process work, what kind of input does it require? What value, if any, does it add to the core business of an organisation? When should it be carried out, and how should the resulting data be used in enhancing the quality of existing and future buildings? Who should commission POEs and who should be in charge of developing databases, which can be used for benchmarking and the development of building performance criteria for future projects? What is the cost of these POEs in relationship to the benefits to be derived? All of these questions will be addressed in this paper.

Outlines building evaluation methodology and instruments, which will facilitate comparative, cross‐cultural evaluation of the performance of a building type which is common worldwide; i.e. intelligent office buildings. States that failure to obtain feedback on building performance can have serious consequences. Focuses on post‐occupancy evaluation (POE) an evaluation methodology. Concludes that there is a need for an evaluative stance throughout the building delivery process and cycle and POE appears to be of critical importance in the area of inter‐cultural differences in order to achieve better quality intelligent buildings.

The purpose of this article is to report on the methodological approach taken in a project which was to create a Facilities Master Plan for the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County in the United States. Libraries are changing drastically: they function as community centers, where programs and classes are held; they provide access to the internet to socio‐economically weaker groups; and they accommodate the needs of different age groups, such as children, teens, adults and seniors.

Innovative in the approach to the project is the combination of geographic information system (GIS) and building performance evaluation (BPE) methods. This project assigned comprehensive scores for each of the libraries and grouped them into groups of high, medium and low performing libraries. The rankings are based on composite scores made up of eight weighted performance indicators: staff survey, facility evaluation, service area, usage, building, site, staffing output, and capacity. Project data are benchmarked and compared with those of library systems around the USA in similarly sized cities.

The outcomes of the project are recommendations, as well as medium‐ to long‐term projections, with primary emphasis on branch libraries. Specific recommendations for each branch focused on: needed improvements; closure and/or consolidation with other branch libraries; and the creation of new full‐service “hub” libraries.

Practical implications of this project include a rational decision making tool for library facility master planning in the future.

The data gathering and analysis approach applied in this project shows promise as an innovative way of combining quantitative and qualitative methods in evaluation research measuring library performance.

Post‐occupancy evaluation (POE) is a diagnostic tool and system which allows facility managers to identify and evaluate critical aspects of building performance systematically. This system has been applied to identify problem areas in existing buildings, to test new building prototypes and to develop design guidance and criteria for future facilities. Outlines the numerous benefits of POE, including better space utilization, as well as cost and time savings. Describes a conceptual framework and evaluation data‐gathering techniques. Presents examples of the outcomes of a case study POE on a medical facility. Highlights the primary effect of a POE database development project on FM software and summarizes the outcomes of an IFMA Pilot Survey on Academic Facility Performance Feedback.

Activation is the process of preparing people, equipment and facilities for moving and start‐up. It is little understood, but integral to the success of facility. It starts well before and extends beyond the phases of commissioning and start‐up. Activation is described in six stages as it interacts with the traditional facility delivery cycle: long‐range planning; prioritization/budgeting; facility planning/design; facility completion; Operation; and criteria update/post‐occupancy evaluation. The outcome was a two‐volume, “user‐friendly” Activation Guide that describes activation for large complex projects in a straightforward way, and which is being used by the 172 major hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the USA. The process is generic and it could be adapted for use in activations of complex facilities in Europe.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.