POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT AND

A PROCESS TO ASSESS OCCUPANT SATISFACTION IN RENOVATED

UNIVERSITY OFFICE SETTINGS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

By

Sagata Bhawani

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE

Construction Management

2011
 ABSTRACT

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT AND

A PROCESS TO ASSESS OCCUPANT SATISFACTION IN RENOVATED
UNIVERSITY OFFICE SETTINGS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

By

Sagata Bhawani

The increasing importance of continuous improvement in the building industry

has rendered post occupancy evaluation (POE) as an essential tool to examine the success

of building design and performance after occupancy. POE has not been in the forefront

for several decades but there is renewed interest due to emergence of facilities

management as a major discipline in the procurement and management of buildings,

especially, amongst large owners. This revived interest has resulted in research endeavors

to further enhance POE methods for users in various settings and identification of

function specific evaluation factors.

This study focused on determination of functional and indoor environment

performance factors specific to renovated office facilities in university settings. These

factors were used to develop a trial POE survey that would assess occupant satisfaction

level in a facility. The trial POE survey was tested in two university buildings at

Michigan State University. The results were used to modify the POE survey. This

research also provided a methodology to develop a survey and a process to conduct POE

in university settings for faculty and staff occupied spaces.

This thesis is dedicated to

God, my heavenly father

Ma, Pa, and Boni

iii
 Prayer:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high

Where knowledge is free

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic walls

Where words come out from the depth of truth

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit

Where the mind is led forward by thee

Into ever-widening thought and action

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

-A Poem by

Rabindranath Tagore

iv
 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In life, I have learned that people are our most precious treasure, most insightful

resource, and the most amazing source of inspiration. Our world is what we make it, yes,

but partially; and partially it becomes who we have and who have us. This thesis

document is my memento of this deep realization and of my days at Michigan State

University (MSU) as a graduate student and professional. The little acts of kindness and

words of encouragement from known persons and, even strangers has been my unique

teacher along this way.

First of all, I am grateful to God for giving me a bountiful life and a supportive

family. I thank my dad, whose faith in me has always given me strength and conviction

in myself; my mom, whose love, perseverance, and patience has made me the person I

am; my little sister, who is my best friend and my rescue angel, and my cousins who have

been my moral support.

The most important person and the one who contributed immensely to this thesis

is my principal advisor, Professor Tim Mrozowski. However, his contribution to my life

goes beyond this thesis. I am forever grateful to him for guiding me, for having faith in

me, and for helping me overcome all kinds of challenges throughout my master’s

education. His encouragement and affection continues to contribute to my confidence,

enthusiasm, determination, and realization of my true potential, in professional and

personal life.

A constant pillar of love, support, and encouragement is my co-advisor, Dr. Tariq

Abdelhamid. When it got a little weary along the way, his cartoon strips and YouTube

v
videos would fill me with more vigor than I can express in mere words. He is like a

guardian angel for me. I am also extremely grateful to my third committee member, Dr.

Patricia Huddleston, whose patience and support has been a priceless contribution to this

research and my confidence.

I am thankful to my professor, Dr. Matt Syal for sharing his knowledge and war

stories thereby helping me prepare for the eventful days to come as I shall step into the

industry once again. I am grateful to Dr. Elgafy who is my professor and a good friend.

His “Lake Lansing Summer Parties” have always been a great source of fun and

relaxation. His personal recommendations have always helped me to confidently

introduce myself to various industry professionals.

I wish to offer a very special and warm thanks to Dr. Joanne Westphal and Dr.

John Schweitzer for being my mentors and parent-like figures, thereby teaching me bit

and pieces of research while letting me have a good time with them. They hold a very

special place in my heart.

I wish to thank Ms. Kathy Lindahl for providing timely input and direction to take

this study from one level to another. Her role in this study was most unique and

irreplaceable. My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Jack Mumma for being a mentor, Ms. Cherie

Shorman, and all my colleagues at Campus Planning and Administration for being

considerate and supportive all throughout my last two semesters at MSU. I wish to

acknowledge all those individuals who provided valuable insight in the initial phase of

this study: Ms. Barbara Kranz, Mr. Jeff Kacos, Ms. Christine Carter, Dr. Scott Whitter,

Ms. Judy Pardee, Dr. Bill Latta, Mr. Brad Bull, Shari Margraves, and Ms. Christine

Lockwood. Thank you all.

vi
 I thank you Cathy for all your candies and warm wishes through the hungry cold

evenings after classes. I am thankful to Mary Ann for accepting my time sheets way past

due dates and, to Pat and Judy for helping with all the career fair organization and travel

vouchers. I thank you Valerie for finding me my first roommate in U.S. and, for the

timely guidance throughout the duration of my degree. I thank you Pooja for being my

inspiration since I first decided to come to MSU.

Next, I wish to thank the MSU writing center representative: Hiep, who spent

hours helping me refine the language and structure of this document, before submission

to my advisor. Additional thanks to the Graduate school for its time and consideration to

review the format and graphic of the thesis document. Further, this acknowledgement

would be incomplete without the mention of our respected OISS Director: Mr. Peter

Briggs, the School of Planning, Design and Construction, and the Graduate School, who

supported me by approving emergency funds towards enrollment in my second last

semester.

Here on, I would like to thank all those people who have contributed in one way

or other to my overall growth, who have been my constant support behind the scenes:

- Kipa Architects, India: Kirit, Archana, Anupama, Atul, Beck, Sneha, Apekshit

- National Association of Women in Construction, Lansing Chapter, (especially Karen

and Tracy).

- Clark Construction Company, Lansing, MI (especially Loic Couraud, Duane Wixson,

Paul Clark, and Karen Kelly).

- MSU Physical Plant (especially Leisa Williams Swedberg, Brad Bull, and Jessica).

vii
- My friends, who have been my family away from home as I sailed through the last

four years: Sanil, Roveena, Nandini, Aman, Sonko, Rajat, Pranav, Lipika, Sam, Don,

Surabhi, Ankur, and Ali. Thank you all for your affection, encouragement, and

support.

Thank you all!

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………...…………xiii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..xiv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Post Occupancy Evaluation…………..…………………………………………...1
1.2. Need Statement……………………………………………………………………3
1.3. Research Project Establishment…………………………………………………...6
1.4. Research Goal and Objectives…………………………………………………….7
1.5. Research Methodology…………………………………………………………....8
1.6. Research Scope and Limitations…………………………………………………..9
1.7. Research Deliverables……………………………………………………………11
1.8. Chapter Summary……………………………………..…………………………12

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Chapter overview………………………………………………………….……..13
2.2. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)………………………………………………15
2.2.1 Levels of POE……………………………………………………………17
Indicative Level………………………………………………………….18
Investigative Level……………………………………………………….19
Diagnostic Level…………………………………………………………19
2.2.2 Benefits of POE………………………………………………………….21
2.2.3 Barriers to Conducting POE……………………………………………..23
2.2.4 Phases of POE……………………………………………………………25
2.2.5 Dimensions of POE………………………………………………………28
2.3. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Factors……………………………………...29
2.3.1 Functional Performance Factors…………………………………………32
2.3.2 Indoor Environment Factors……………………………………………..34
2.4. Post Occupancy Evaluation: Application………………………………………..36
2.5. Post Occupancy Evaluation Instruments……………………………...…………39
2.6. Significant POE Studies using Survey Questionnaires………….……………….45
Center for Built Environment……………………………………………46
Guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation, HEFCE and AUDE, 2006………47
CABE 2005 Study……………………………………………………….48
CSBR 2004 Study………………………………………………………..49
Levermore and Leventis, 1997……………………………………..……50
Menzies and Wherett, 2004……………………………………………...50
2.7. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………..51

ix
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Chapter Overview………………………………………………………………..53
3.2. Overall Methodology…………………………………………………………….54
3.3. Research Project Establishment………………………………………………….58
3.4. Literature Review: Identification of Evaluation Factors and POE Methods………...58
3.5. Interviews………………………………………………………………………...59
3.6. Development of Initial or Trial POE Survey Questionnaire.…………………….61
3.7. POE Survey Review and University Approval...……………………………………62
3.8. Distribution and Collection of POE Surveys…………………………………….62
3.9. Description of Trial POE Survey………………………………………………...63
3.9.1 Functional Performance………………………………………………64
3.9.2 Indoor Environment Performance…………………………………….66
3.9.3 Participant Information……………………………………………….67
3.9.4 Survey Feedback...........................................................................…...67
3.10. Data Recording and Arrangement…………………………………………………...68
3.11. Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….68
3.12. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………..69

CHAPTER 4
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Chapter Overview………………………………………………………………..70
4.2. Interviews…………………………………………………………………..……70
4.2.1 Analysis of Interview Responses…………………………………..…71
4.3. Post Occupancy Evaluation: Application of Trial Survey……………………….78
4.3.1 Case Study No.1 School of Planning Design and Construction...........79
4.3.1.1 Overall Survey Response………………………………….…….79
4.3.1.2 Survey Participant Information………………………………….80
4.3.1.3 Building Specific Information and Analysis…………………....82
A. Functional Performance…………………………………...82
B. Indoor Environmental Performance……………………….84
C. Discussion of Open-ended Responses…………………….86
4.3.1.4 Survey Feedback Analysis:
(Section 4 of the POE Questionnaire) ………………………....89
4.3.1.5 Occupant Observations, Suggestions, and Recommendations….92
4.3.2 Case Study No.2 Spartan Way………………………..………………93
4.3.2.1 Overall Survey Response……………………..……..………….94
4.3.2.2 Survey Participant Information…………….……..….…………94
4.3.2.3 Building Specific Information and Analysis………………........97
A. Functional Performance…………………………………...97
B. Indoor Environmental Performance………………...…….99
C. Discussion of Open-ended Responses…………………..101
4.3.2.4 Survey Feedback Analysis:
(Section 4 of the POE Questionnaire)…………………………107
4.3.2.5 Occupant Observations, Suggestions, and Recommendations...110

x
4.4. Comparative Analysis of Survey Feedback from S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way….112
4.5. Conclusions………………………………..……………………………..……..118
4.6. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………118

CHAPTER 5
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION SURVEY
5.1. Chapter Overview………………………………………………………………119
5.2. Researcher’s Observations………………………………………………….…..119
5.3. Respondent’s Recommendations…………………………………………….…125
5.4. Modified POE Survey Questions...……………………………………………..130
5.5. Conclusion……...………………………………………………………………131
5.6. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………131

CHAPTER 6
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION PROCESS
6.1. Chapter Overview………………………………………………………………132
6.2. Post Occupancy Evaluation Process….……………………………………..…132
6.2.1 Project Establishment Phase……………………………………………..136
6.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis Phase……………………………………..137
6.2.3Reporting Phase…………………………………………………………...138
6.2.4 University Standards and Corrective Action Phase……………………….139
6.3. POE Process Limitations……………………………………………………….139
6.4. Conclusion………………..…………………………………………………….140
6.5. Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………140

CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Chapter Overview………………………………………………………………141
7.2 Research Overview…………………………………………………………..…141
7.3 Accomplishment of Research Goal and Objectives…………………………….143
7.4 Lessons Learned………….…………………………………………………….144
7.4.1 Lessons Learned from Literature Review………………………………..144
7.4.2 Lessons Learned from Interviews………………………..………………146
7.4.3 Lessons Learned from Surveys…………………………………………..147
7.4.4 Lessons Learned from Data Analysis…………………………………….148
7.4.5 Lessons Learned from Application of POE Process……………………..149
7.4.6 Lessons Learned about POE Project Team………………………………152
7.4.7 Lessons Learned about POE factors……………………………………...153
7.4.8 Lessons Learned about POE Questionnaire……………………………...153
7.5 Conclusion and Inferences………..……………………………………………154
7.6 Research Benefits and Contribution…..………………………………………..155
7.7 Future Research Directions……………………………………………………..156
7.8 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………………157

xi
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interviews
Appendix A1: Interview Participant Consent Form……………………………160
Appendix A2: Project Abstract…………………………………………………162
Appendix A3: Interview Questionnaire………………………………………...164
Appendix A4: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative Analysis……170
Appendix B: Post Occupancy Evaluation Survey
Appendix B1: Consent Form…………………………………………………...200
Appendix B2: Trial POE Questionnaire………………………………………..202
Appendix B3: Survey Response Code Sheet………………………………...…211
Appendix B4: Survey Response Record Sheet for SPDC……………………...214
Appendix B5: Survey Response Record Sheet for Spartan Way……………....225
Appendix B6: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis Sheet………...250
Appendix B7: Modified POE Questionnaire…………………………………...262
Appendix C: Sample Post Occupancy Evaluation Questionnaires
Appendix C1: CBE Sample POE Questionnaire...……………………………..276
Appendix C2: AUDE Sample POE Questionnaire...…………………………...285
Appendix C3: CSBR Sample POE Questionnaire...…………………………....292

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………295

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Features that Influence Staff Retention (CABE 2005)…………………....4

Table 2.1 Levels of Post Occupancy Evaluation

(Preiser 1995)……………….…................................................................ 18

Table 2.2 Levels of Post Occupancy Evaluation

(Brooks and Viccars 2006)…….................................................................20

Table 2.3 Benefits of Post Occupancy Evaluation………………………………….22

Table 2.4 Comparison of POE Methods

(Brooks and Viccars 2006)……………………………………………....40

Table 2.5 Comparison of POE Questionnaires

(Brooks and Viccars 2006)……….............................................................41

Table 2.6 Comparison of POE Method

(AUDE and HEDQF 2006)………………………………...……………..42

Table 2.7 Types of Reviews

(AUDE and HEDQF 2006)……………………..………………………...44

Table 4.1 Count of Open-ended Responses at the S.P.D.C…………………………86

Table 4.2 Count of Open-ended Responses at Spartan Way………………………101

Table 4.3 Survey Feedback: Comparative Analysis of Response Summary………113

Table 4.4 Survey Feedback Section: Suggestions for Functional and Indoor
Environment Aspects and Questions to be included in Evaluation
(Verbatim)……………………………………………………………….116

Table 4.5 Survey Feedback: Comments on Unclear, Confusing, and Unnecessary

Questions (Verbatim)…………………………………………………….117

Table 5.1a S.P.D.C. Responses to Questions 1 – 8 (Verbatim)……………………..120

Table 5.1b Spartan Way Responses to Questions 1 – 8 (Verbatim)………………...121

Table 5.2a S.P.D.C. Responses to Questions 18 – 23……………………………….124

Table 5.2b Spartan Way Responses to Questions 18 – 23………………………...…124

xiii
Table 5.3 Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended Aspects and Actions
Taken Towards POE Survey……………………………………………..126

Table 5.4 Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended Questions and Actions
Taken Towards POE Survey……………………………………………..127

Table 5.5 Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Comments for Unnecessary/ Confusing
Questions and Actions Taken Towards POE Survey……………………129

Table A4.1 Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative Analysis……………..171

Table B3.1 POE Survey Response Coding Plan……………………………………...212

Table B4.1 POE Survey Record Sheet for S.P.D.C…………………………………..215

Table B5.1 POE Survey Record Sheet for Spartan Way……………………………..226

Table B6.1 Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis Sheet for SPDC and
Spartan Way……………………………………………..……………….251

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Literature Review Structure Overview……………………………………13

Figure 2.2 Detail Structure of Literature Review…………………………………….14

Figure 2.3 Structure of Section 2.2: Post Occupancy Evaluation…………………….17

Figure 2.4 Phases of Post Occupancy Evaluation

(Source: Keys and Wener, 1980)….............................................................26

Figure 2.5 Relationship between Environment Conditions, Occupancy Satisfaction,

Productivity and Motivation (Source: Keys and Wener, 1980)…………. 30

Figure 2.6 Phases of POE (Source: Preiser, 2002)…………………………………...37

Figure 2.7 Post Implementation Review Process

(Source: New South Wales Treasury, 2004)…...........................................38

Figure 2.8 POE Process Overview

(Source: AUDE and HEDQF, 2006)……………….…………….……….39

Figure 2.9 Snapshot of CBE Web-based Survey, 2009………………………………47

Figure 2.10 Snapshot of Occupant Survey in Guide to POE, HEFCE and AUDE,
2006……………………………………………………………………….48

Figure 2.11 Snapshot of Occupant Survey Form, SWMCB POE: Carver County Public
Works Department (Source: CSBR 2004)……………………………......50

Figure 3.1 Overview of the Research Methodology…………………...…………….53

Figure 3.2 Phase 1 Overview……………………………...…………………………54

Figure 3.3 Phase 2 Overview………………………...………………………………55

Figure 3.4 Phase 3 Overview………………...………………………………………56

Figure 3.5 Phase 4 Overview……………………………...…………………………57

Figure 3.6 Structure of ‘Satisfaction’ and ‘Open-ended’ Questions ………………...65

xv
Figure 3.7 Structure of “Yes-No” Questions …………………………...…………...65

Figure 4.1 Snapshot of Interview Record Spreadsheet………………………...…….71

Figure 4.2 Overview of Survey Utilization process………………………………….78

Figure 4.3 Participant and Workspace Information at S.P.D.C……………...............81

Figure 4.4 Occupant Satisfaction with Functional Performance at the S.P.D.C….....82

Figure 4.5 Occupant Satisfaction Level with Functional Performance Aspects at the
S.P.D.C…………………………………………………………………..83

Figure 4.6 Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Performance Aspects at

S.P.D.C…………………………………………………………………..84

Figure 4.7 Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environment Performance at the
S.P.D.C…………………………………………………………………..85

Figure 4.8 Q1: How satisfied are you with the format of the survey? ..........……….90

Figure 4.9 Q2: How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of the questions?.....90

Figure 4.10 Q3: Please comment on the balance of open ended to closed response
questions………………...………………………………………………90

Figure 4.11 Q4: In the future, which method of interaction would you prefer for this
kind of study? ……………………………………………………...……91

Figure 4.12 Q5: In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover aspects that you
would like to comment upon about your office? …………………...…..91

Figure 4.13 Q6: In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover aspects that you
would like to comment upon about your office? …................................91

Figure 4.14 Q7: Do you consider that right questions are being asked of building
occupants?.................................................................................................92

Figure 4.15 Q8: Does the survey allow you to effectively indicate your satisfaction
with the design of your workspace? ……………………..……………..92

Figure 4.16 Participant and Workspace Information at Spartan Way…………….....96

Figure 4.17 Occupant Satisfaction with Functional Performance at the Spartan

Way……………………………………………………………………..97

xvi
Figure 4.18 Occupant Satisfaction Level with Functional Performance Aspects at
Spartan Way……………………...……………………………………...98

Figure 4.19 Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environmental Performance

aspects at Spartan Way………………………………………..………..99

Figure 4.20 Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environment Performance at

Spartan Way…………….…………………………………………..….100

Figure 4.21 Q1: How satisfied are you with the format of the survey? …………...108

Figure 4.22 Q2: How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of questions? …..108

Figure 4.23 Q3: Please comment on the balance of open ended to closed response
questions……………………………………….……………………...108

Figure 4.24 Q4: In the future, which method of interaction would you prefer for this
kind of study? ……………………………………………….………..109

Figure 4.25 Q5: How satisfied would you feel if these questions were asked in a
focus group of persons occupying adjacent workspaces as compared to
this survey? ………………………………………………………..….109

Figure 4.26 Q6- In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover aspects that you
would like to comment upon about your office?...................................109

Figure 4.27 Q7- Do you consider that right questions are being asked of building
occupants?……….……………………………………………...……...110

Figure 4.28 Occupant Perception: Does the survey allow you to effectively indicate
your satisfaction with the design of your workspace?...………………110

Figure 4.29 Snapshot of Worksheet with Combined Responses from the S.P.D.C. and
Spartan Way……………………………………...…………………….112

Figure 6.1 Post Occupancy Evaluation Process……………………………….…...133

Figure 7.1 Suggested Literatures Database “Post Occupancy Evaluation”…….….145

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a background of post occupancy evaluation, which is the

heart of this project. It also introduces the need for this research followed by a discussion

of the goal and objectives, methodology, scope and limitations, and deliverables of this

study.

1.1. Post Occupancy Evaluation:

Post occupancy evaluation (POE) may be defined as the process of systematically

evaluating buildings after they have been built and occupied for some time. POE differs

from other building evaluations in that it focuses on the comfort and requirements of

building users, with regard to aspects such as their health, safety, security, functionality

and efficiency, psychological comfort, aesthetic quality, and satisfaction (Preiser 2002).

Traditionally, POE concentrates on the effect of the “built environment” on users

rather than the organizational culture or work processes. The broader purpose of POE is

to understand the environmental-behavioral aspects of human perceptions, to measure the

appropriateness of building design, to provide better spatial solutions for users, and to

determine the effectiveness of decisions made towards the utilization of resources during

building design and construction (Preiser 2001 as cited in Lee, 2007).

POE is an outcome of the culmination of interests among social scientists,

building designers, and planners during the 1960s and the 1970s (Friedmann et al. 1978;

Preiser et al. 1988; Preiser et al.1997; Shipley 1982 as cited in Zimring 2001). It

1
originated in the United Kingdom and spread to the United States of America, Australia,

New Zealand, and several developed nations. By the 1980s, it had significantly advanced

in theory, method, strategy, and applications; it became the center of attention and the

meeting point for discrete research areas such as the built environment, facility

management, and building delivery process (Preiser 1988; Zimring 2001; Kooymans and

Haylock 2006). Since its inception, several studies have been conducted to identify the

diversity and variety in application of POE.

The Kooymans and Haylock 2006 study assessed four newly renovated financial

institutions using building user surveys with a focus on staff attitude and productivity.

Their study found that staff productivity was related to the “built environment”. They

also found that for the best results, POE must be designed and analyzed by a team of

professionals from multiple disciplines familiar with building design, construction,

operation, and maintenance. In this thesis study, the overall POE process and the

instrument were designed by the researcher using the perceptions of building providers

and building users.

POE originally started in government and private organizations; however, in the

last few decades it has also been adopted for health care, commercial, institutional, and

other large facilities. It is recommended that POE should be an integral part of the

building delivery process and lead by facility owners and managers (Preiser 2002 as cited

in Carthey 2006; Duffy 1998; Horgen et al. 1999 as cited in Zimring 2001; Preiser 2008;

Marans 1984; RIBA 1991; Shepley 1997; Schneekloth and Shipley 1995; Zimmerman

and Martin 2001). Existing research shows that POE is particularly beneficial for large

organizations that have recurring construction programs or significant volumes of

2
facilities which require periodic remodeling and renovations. Universities are a good

example of such facilities; where POE instruments can serve as tools for continuous

improvement by facilitating feedback on the delivery process and facility management

(Guide to POE by AUDE and HEDQF 2006; Preiser 1995).

Some of the institutional organizations that apply and encourage POEs are: the

Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE), the Higher Education Design

Quality Forum (HEDQF) in the U.K., the Estates at Scotland’s Colleges and Universities,

and the Center for Built Environment at Berkley, California, U.S.A. In spite of repetitive

attempts by POE proponents to make POE routine across all facility types, it is still not

routine to the building delivery process among universities, due to lack of standardized

processes and limitations in resources (Bordass and Leaman 2005).

1.2. Need Statement

The purpose of this research is to provide a tool to continuously improve building

design performance for occupants and facility management for owners. This research

study contributes to the ability of university administrators’ to have a positive influence

on the attitude and productivity of university faculty and staff by providing a process to

track their satisfaction levels with regard to their personal work spaces. The need for this

study was established based on the findings from several existing POE studies. These

studies are presented briefly in the next two paragraphs and elaborately in chapter two,

“Literature Review”.

The 2005 study by CABE (Commission for Architecture and Built Environment)

in the U.K. addressed the impact of building design on the performance of occupants in

3
higher education buildings. The CABE study found that the staff in higher education

buildings considered building design features to have a positive impact on their decision

to work at their chosen university. As shown in Table 1.1, the staff indicated that

situational features such as the external views and surroundings and, specific building

features such as cleanliness and spacious, bright working areas had a strong influence on

the way they feel and behave at work.

STAFF PERCEPTION: OVERALL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION

STAFF %
CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE
POSITIVE
STRUCTURAL AND
Function/facilities 76%
FUNCTIONAL
Office and work space 70%
Size/proportion/openness 60%
Lighting 58%
Stimulating character 55%
Accessibility/entrance 53%
Materials 52%
Teaching rooms 52%
Flexible spaces 49%
Research facilities 37%
Acoustics 31%
All features 54%
COSMETIC AND
Decoration/furnishings 64%
ENVIRONMENTAL
WOW factor 62%
Health/safety/security 58%
Staff rooms 49%
Air quality/ventilation 32%
Heating/cooling 25%
All features 48%
SITUATIONAL External views, surroundings 61%

Table 1.1: Features that Influence Staff Retention (CABE 2005)

4
 The CABE 2005 study also contended that higher education facilities should be

designed to accommodate the various spatial functions for faculty, staff, and students;

however, the environmental needs of the staff and faculty may be different than those of

the students due to the separate functional roles and requirements. For office areas used

by faculty and staff, priorities may be thermal comfort, furniture layout, storage space,

and ease of interaction; whereas for classrooms and libraries, used by students, priorities

may be lighting and acoustic conditions. Therefore, POE must be conducted separately

for faculty, staff, and students to determine their satisfaction specific to their

requirements and preferences. Based on the finding above, this thesis study was designed

to focus on satisfaction of faculty and staff with their personal workspaces. Student

populations have been excluded in the scope of this study and their inclusion is suggested

for follow-up research.

The Kooymans and Haylock 2006 study found that the built environment, work

processes, and work culture, influence productivity and satisfaction of staff in

organizations. The Watson 1996 study found that evolving laws, market trends, and

information technology have changed the activity description and corresponding design

requirements for many organizations. This information should lead to changes in

perspective for large facility administrators, with regard to the function, and of work

environments from short-term to long-term consideration as well as recognizing the links

between organizational performance and the physical work environment.

This thesis study will help university organizations identify the elements of the

physical work environment that will further enhance the work experience of faculty and

staff, and if implemented, will generate higher satisfaction and productivity levels. This

5
study develops a POE survey for university office renovation which facilitates a periodic

dialogue between the building occupants and managers about their environmental and

functional needs and preferences. Additionally, the POE survey will act as a tool for

gathering feedback that will support future decisions about expenditure toward design

and construction for university facilities. According to Kincaid (1994) and Preiser (1995),

the data collected across universities could also facilitate a benchmarking process among

diverse universities for best practices.

1.3. Research Project Establishment

This research study is a portion of a larger project envisioned and funded by the

Michigan State University Office of Vice President of Finance and Operations. The

purpose of the larger project is to develop a comprehensive post occupancy evaluation

system to assess the performance of all types of buildings on campus with regard to their

design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The research team defined the smaller

project scope and focus based on the evidence found during preliminary literature review.

It was decided that the goal of this research would be to contribute to the improvement of

functional and indoor environment performance of university faculty and staff work

spaces. The fact that this study focuses only on the functional and indoor environment

performance of only university office spaces may be a limitation for the smaller study but

is the starting point for the larger project envisioned. It is predicted that in the future the

larger project will encompass similar smaller studies to evaluate other area types within

universities such as student spaces, research laboratories, parking spaces, and sport

spaces. Each of the smaller studies can follow a methodology similar to this study and

6
reveal the function, user, or area type-specific preferences that differ from one to the

other.

1.4. Research Goal and Objectives

The goal of this research is to improve the functional design, the indoor

environment, and the operation of work spaces in university buildings. Objectives

designed to help achieve the overall research goal are presented below:

1. To develop a survey using identified evaluation factors that can help determine the

functional and indoor environment performance of university office settings from the

building users’ perceptions

2. To develop a methodology for universities to conduct post occupancy evaluation

studies for other settings

These research objectives were accomplished with the help of the following research

steps:

A. Identification of functional and indoor environmental factors that affect faculty

and staff satisfaction in university work spaces

B. Development of a preliminary POE survey with the help of identified evaluation

factors or performance indicators

C. Proposition of a methodology to assess functional and indoor environment

performance of university work spaces, including the developed POE survey

D. Development and application of an initial POE survey

7
 E. Development of a final survey based on feedback from university administrator

interviews and surveys of occupants

F. Presentation of the POE findings from the case study facilities

1.5. Research Methodology

The methodology for this study included a review of literature related to post

occupancy evaluation, project performance evaluation, post-construction evaluation, and

occupant-satisfaction; all with a focus on functional and indoor environment performance

of university work spaces. Based on the literature review, the need for this study was

established. From the literature, it appeared that universities would benefit from

conducting post occupancy evaluation surveys that would assess occupant satisfaction

with functional and indoor environmental performance characteristics of renovated

facilities in university office settings. This was followed by interviews with university

owners, administrators, staff, and architects to confirm the need for this study and to

gather insights and recommendations for use in developing the survey.

The interview responses were mainly used to identify the functional and indoor

environmental aspects that affect faculty and staff satisfaction and that should be included

in the evaluation of university work spaces. The interviews also sought to determine

perceptions of: (a) the reliability of building occupants in building performance

evaluation, (b) the identification of the person who should be responsible for conducting

post occupancy evaluations, (c) the acceptable costs for conducting evaluations, and (d)

the formats and resources that would be most effective.

8
 Using the information from the interview responses, a post occupancy evaluation

survey was developed and distributed to university owners, administrators, and staff for

review and pilot testing. Based on feedback, the survey was further refined and converted

into the web based format. Occupants from renovated facilities at Michigan State

University were contacted and requested to participate in the POE survey. The survey

addressed both building specific questions and also questions that sought feedback from

respondents about the form, structure, and POE questions in order to gain user feedback

on the survey. From the survey responses, revisions were made to the trial survey and the

final form is presented in chapter 5.

1.6. Research Scope and Limitations

The focus of this study was the assessment of occupant satisfaction with regard to

functional and indoor environmental performance evaluation of renovated office spaces

in universities. Aspects that were excluded from the research scope are as follows:

1. Universities accommodate various functional areas for various population groups

including students, faculty, and staff. This study was directed to staff and faculty

work spaces and office areas. Other specific student areas such as classrooms,

libraries, laboratories, studios, and conference rooms; common areas such as

cafeterias, auditoriums, restaurants, parking ramps, outdoor interaction spaces, toilets,

storage areas, and student lounges have been excluded. It is recommended that the

methodology and survey developed and used in this study be further validated and

modified for evaluation of other identified areas.

9
2. Building performance evaluation may be conducted to assess different aspects such as

functional, technical, indoor environment, and maintenance. Also, evaluations may be

conducted at different stages in the life cycle of a building, such as the programming,

planning, design, construction, and occupancy phases to determine the different

components related to the existence of a building. This study focused on the

functional and indoor environment aspects; other aspects are excluded from the

scope. This study is most suited to the occupancy phase since the functional and

indoor environment evaluations would be incomplete without the inclusion of

occupant perception.

3. The literature review indicated that building performance assessed from the

perspective of owners, administrators, and managers was different from the

perspective of building occupants. The order of priorities is different between the two

groups even though the set of parameters may be the same. This study incorporated

the perspective of the building owner group within the evaluation criteria and

captured the feedback and satisfaction of the occupant group to gauge the

effectiveness of the building design and operation.

4. Most large universities have future master plans that include new construction

projects and periodic remodeling and renovation of existing facilities. This study was

directed towards renovation projects within universities.

5. The post occupancy evaluation criteria for this study was established qualitatively

based on literature review and responses from the exploratory administrator

interviews that were conducted among university owners, administrators, staff, and

10
 architects. It is recommended that further research be conducted using quantitative

methods to verify the evaluation criteria.

6. The developed survey was tested in two renovated facilities within one university. To

enhance and validate the survey, it should be tested in more facilities within the same

or other universities.

1.7. Research Deliverables

The primary product of this research is a customized survey to assess occupant

satisfaction with regard to functional and indoor environmental performance of renovated

work spaces in university settings, and also to determine staff and faculty preferences.

Other deliverables of this research are as follows:

1. Literature reviewed and presented with regard to the post occupancy evaluation of

university office environments and identified future research areas

2. Evaluation criteria identified and presented to assess functional and indoor

environmental quality of university offices

3. An interview questionnaire for university owners, administrators, staff, and architects

to gain insights and identify evaluation criteria to assess occupant satisfaction with

regard to functional performance, indoor environment design, and the operation of

renovated facilities in university settings

4. A standard methodology for developing customized surveys to assess functional and

indoor environmental performance of other types of buildings using occupant

perception

11
5. An analysis of case study facilities and an assessment of their performance for staff

and faculty focusing on functions performed and indoor environmental quality

1.8. Chapter Summary

This chapter presented an overview of post occupancy evaluation, followed by a

discussion of the project need, the research goal, and objectives. The research scope and

limitations explained in this chapter provided direction for future research. Finally, this

chapter contended that this current study will help university organizations identify the

elements of the physical work environment that will enhance the work experience of the

staff and generate higher satisfaction and productivity levels. The process and survey will

help facilitate a periodic dialogue between the building occupants and managers about

their environmental needs and preferences.

This chapter is followed by Chapter 2, which presents the review of literature.

Chapter 3 presents the research method, Chapter 4 presents the data collected and

analyzed, Chapter 5 presents the modified POE survey, Chapter 6 presents the POE

process, and Chapter 7 presents the findings of the overall project, recommendations, the

project summary, and conclusions.

12
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Chapter Overview

Chapter two presents the summary of the literature reviewed for this study, which

has been divided into three sections as shown below in Figure 2.1. The first section,

“Section 2.2: Post Occupancy Evaluation”, discusses the fundamentals of POE. The

second, “Section 2.3- Post Occupancy Evaluation Factors”, presents the various

functional and indoor environment evaluation factors found in literature and their relation

to workplace productivity and occupant satisfaction. These were used to identify the

evaluation factors for this study. The third section, “Section 2.4- Post Occupancy

Evaluation: Application”, presents similar studies found in the literature that include post

occupancy evaluation. This literature was used to identify successes and failures of

methodology and to derive insight in order to minimize obstacles and challenges, which

might have otherwise been experienced by this study.

Figure 2.1: Literature Review Structure Overview

13
 As shown above in Figure 2.1, the information presented in the first section (2.2)

and second section (2.3) are vital in order to thoroughly understand the information and

discussion presented in the third section (2.4) with regard to the application of POE. As

shown below in Figure 2.2, Section 2.2: Post Occupancy Evaluation presents the different

levels, benefits, phases and dimensions of POE, which provides the rationale for the POE

focus, scope, and limitations in this study; Section 2.3: POE factors present the various

studies that were used to identify the evaluation factors pertaining to the scope of this

study; and, Section 2.4: POE: Application presents a discussion of the various existing

POE processes reviewed in order to develop a tailored POE process for this study.

Figure 2.2: Detail Structure of Literature Review

14
2.2. Post Occupancy Evaluation

POE is an outcome of a culmination of interests among social scientists, spatial

designers, and planners in the 1960s and 1970s. It originated in the United Kingdom and

spread to the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, and several developed

nations. By the 1980s, it had significantly advanced in theory, method, strategy, and

applications; it became the focal point for discrete research areas such as the built

environment, facility management, and building delivery process. Since then, studies

have been conducted to identify the diversity and variety in the application of POE

(Preiser 1988; Zimring 2001; Kooymans and Haylock 2006).

POE has multiple definitions that represent different facets. Two definitions that

are considered for this study are as follows: POE is an examination of the effectiveness of

occupied built environments for human users that focuses on the assessment of occupant

satisfaction and functionality of space; where, “effectiveness” corresponds to the

achievement of personal and organizational goals by the enhancement of physical and

organizational factors (Bechtel and Srivastava 1978; Brill l974; Friedmann et al. 1978;

Gutman and Westergaard 1974; Ostrander and Connell 1975; Brooks and Viccar 2006;

Zimmerman and Martin 2001). “POE is measurement of building performance

throughout the life cycle of building from initial concept through occupancy such that the

information gathered is used to improve future building designs” (Marans 1984; RIBA

1991; Shibley 1995; Duffy 2000; RIBA 1991; MARU 2001; Vischer 2001; Zimmerman

and Martin 2001; Preiser 2002 as mentioned by Carthey 2006; AUDE and HEDQF 2006;

Preiser 2008).

15
 The literature suggested that post occupancy evaluation refers to evaluation

conducted after the occupancy phase and is different from other evaluations relevant to

other phases of “the building life cycle”. “The building life cycle” is comprised of the

following six phases: planning, programming, design, construction, occupancy, and

recycling. Each of these phases has corresponding assessments, namely: effectiveness

review, program review, design review, post construction evaluation, post occupancy

evaluation, and market analysis respectively. POE focuses on evaluation when the

building is occupied.

POE differs from other building evaluations in four ways (Preiser 2001, 2002).

First, the evaluation target is building performance from the occupants’ point of view.

Second, an evaluation criterion comes from the stated design criteria. Third, the main

measure in POE is the occupants’ perception and satisfaction, and whether the designed

environment supported their ability to perform. Fourth, POE can include various issues

about functionality of the environment as well as the occupants’ satisfaction based on

their psychological and social needs due to the method that involves human subjects.

As shown below in Figure 2.3, this section presents a discussion of levels,

benefits, phases, and dimensions of POE which provide the background and rationale for

the research project scope and limitations. The information provided by “Section 2.2:

Post Occupancy Evaluation”, in addition to “Section 2.3: Post Occupancy Evaluation

Factors”, leads to a better understanding of the existing POE application methods and the

one used for this study.

16
 Figure 2.3: Structure of Section 2.2: Post Occupancy Evaluation

2.2.1 Levels of Post Occupancy Evaluation

There are three levels for POE as shown below in Table 2.1, which have been

summarized in Table 2.1. The first level is indicative if the building under consideration

has issues; the second level is investigative, which focuses on the specific issues if there

are any; the third level is diagnostic, which comprises of corrective actions to the issues

17
identified (Preiser 2002; Carthey 2006; AUDE and HEDQF 2006). These levels are

based on the purpose of conducting the evaluation and availability of resources such as

budget, time, and work force (Carthey 2006; Preiser 2002; Brooks and Viccar 2006).

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Level I:
Conducting
Level of Effort

Planning
Indicative Applying
Level II:
Planning Conducting Applying
Investigative
Level III:
Planning Conducting Applying
Diagnostic
1.1- 2.1- 3.1-
Reconnaissance Initiating on-site data Reporting finding
and feasibility collection process 3.2-
1.2- 2.2- Recommending
Steps

Resource Planning Monitoring and actions

1.3- managing data 3.3-
Research Planning collection procedures Reviewing outcomes
2.3-
Analyzing data

Table 2.1: Levels of Post Occupancy Evaluation (Preiser 1995)

The next three paragraphs are based on the discussions from Preiser 2002 on the

three levels of POE which affect application efforts and costs.

Indicative level POEs usually present an overview of building performance. It

usually involves an interview with the facility owner or manager, accompanied by a

walk-through to record the positive and negative aspects of building performance. The

evaluator may also use graphic images or photographs to substantiate physical

observation. Typically, the time required for this level of evaluation depends on the size

and complexity of the facility. A 10,000 square foot facility can be completed in less than

18
half a day by a team of one to three persons who are familiar with the building type under

consideration.

Investigative level POEs require more involvement from the evaluators; more

rigorous evaluation techniques are employed to produce more reliable data compared to

the first level. Investigative POE must be preceded by an indicative POE; such that a

detailed evaluation is carried out of particular problems within the building in general.

For this level, the results from the indicative study are incorporated in survey

questionnaires, which are administered to building occupants at all levels of the

organization. A study conducted by Preiser in 2002 indicated the cost of investigative

POE ranged from USD 1.00 to 2.50 per square foot for large and complex organizations

up to 15,000 square feet. This type of POE can extend over several weeks and months

depending on depth of investigation if the study involves evaluation through different

periods or seasons.

Diagnostic level POEs are most intense reviews of building performance that

correlate and verify the physical performance data with occupant responses. These

consume the maximum resources in terms of time, money and labor among the other two

levels. Per a study conducted by Preiser 2002 with focus on POE levels, diagnostic POEs

cost more than USD 2.50 per square foot and extend over longer durations as compared

to the other levels. The outcomes of this level of POE conducted across comparable

facility types and sizes, thereby acquiring highly generic and valid data over a period of

time will have great value and potential to transform into guidelines for organizations.

According to the same study, it was also found that federal agencies reported costs

ranging from USD 1800 for a simple standard questionnaire that could be completed in

19
one hour to USD 90,000 for an in-depth survey analysis, including several days of

interviews and use of multi-disciplinary teams, site visits and report writing.

Table 2.2 shown below presents the summary of POE levels with regard to

methods that may be employed, time that is required and general comments assembled by

Brooks and Viccar in 2006:

POE LEVELS AIMS METHODS TIME COMMENTS

SCALE
Indicative Assessment ƒ walk through evaluation Short ƒ Quick, simple,
by ƒ structured interviews Inspecti not too
experienced ƒ group meetings with end on intrusive/
personnel users period disruptive to
to highlight ƒ general inspection of daily operation
POE issues building performance of building.
ƒ archival document ƒ Judgmental and
evaluation overview only.
Investigative In-depth ƒ Survey Questionnaires One ƒ In-depth/ useful
study of ƒ Interviews week to results
building’s ƒ Comparison of results several ƒ Can be
performanc with similar facilities months intrusive/ time
e and ƒ Report appropriate consuming
solutions to solutions to problems depending on
problems the number of
personnel
involved
Diagnostic Show up ƒ Sophisticated data Several ƒ Greater value in
any gathering and analysis months usability of
deficiencies techniques to results.
(to rectify) ƒ Questionnaires several ƒ More time
and collect ƒ Surveys years consuming
data for ƒ Interviews
future ƒ Physical measurements
design of
similar
facilities

Table 2.2: Levels of Post Occupancy Evaluation (Brooks and Vicar, 2006)

20
 In the current thesis study, the level of POE that has been delved into is partly

indicative and partly investigative. The level of occupant satisfaction is considered as a

dependent variable which indicated if the targeted/ desired performance for the renovated

building has been achieved with regard to office layout, storage space, thermal comfort,

air quality, etc which were considered as independent variables and broadly categorized

as functional and indoor environmental performance aspects. The methods used are

interviews and surveys which were conducted in two stages/ phases during the study. The

purpose of the interviews was to capture perception of owners, administrators, managers

and designers and surveys to capture perception of occupants.

2.2.2 Benefits of Post Occupancy Evaluation

Considering the costs associated with conducting post occupancy evaluations, the

returns/ benefits are significant but specific to the stakeholder (AUDE and HEDQF,

2006; Watson, 1996; Baird et al. 1996 as in Carthey, 2006; Preiser, 2002). The short,

medium and long term benefits of POE for stakeholders are summarized in Table 2.3.

The POE benefits to this current thesis study are three-fold. One, the owner group

received first-hand information of the occupant’s (faculty/staff) level of satisfaction or

dissatisfaction with respect to their work-space, which is a strong motivational factor

towards staff productivity and retention; two, occupants were able to contribute to

identifying ways to improve the performance of their work-space; three, designers of

renovated facilities could be informed of the pros and cons of their design on building

users. These benefits are specific to each stakeholder.

21
 The method developed will provide for university owners to save on a technical

evaluation which is more expensive and appropriate for conducting detailed investigation

if occupants were found to be dissatisfied with their facility. This method provides

occupants with an opportunity to express their grievances and appreciation towards their

personal workspace confidentially. This approach increases the chances of feedback

being more frank and genuine. This method also provides designers with feedback on the

performance of their designs without application of additional resources and efforts.

Stakeholders Short term benefits Medium term benefits Long term benefits
Owners x POE helps x POE is conducted x POE serves as a
Administrators identify problems periodically, therefore continuous-
Managers and solutions in it captures changing measurement and
design and functional needs of improvement tool in
operation of building occupants and facility management
buildings within a since it involves and measure overall
year from occupants, there is performance of
substantial minimum conflict from buildings
completion users in later stages x POE, with all the
x POE helps test x POE tracks flexibility of information that it
new building building towards can extract over a
design concepts organizational growth period of time may
and technology or change be used to prepare or
soon after x POE tracks building update master plans
application/ performance on a for universities
installation regular basis, the x Improved staff-
x POE is a proactive information gathered productivity and
approach on part can be used to justify satisfaction
of facility owners, large investments x POE database could
managers with x POE helps maintain contribute to
focus on user maintenance records generate and
needs which, which keeps building improve planning,
impress users managers informed of design guidelines and
the next scheduled construction
maintenance. standards

Table 2.3: Benefits of Post Occupancy Evaluation

(Brooks and Vicar, 2006)

22
 Table 2.3 continued: Benefits of Post Occupancy Evaluation
(Brooks and Vicar, 2006)

End users x POE extracts first x POE generates x POE generates

hand information improved attitude and improved attitude
on specific user productivity and productivity
needs x POE enables users to x POE facilitates
x POE helps inform managers periodic
improve space about building issues communication
utilization experienced between users, and
through feedback building managers
directly from
users
Project team/ x POE enables x POE lead to an x POE becomes a
designer designers and improved relationship process of ‘lessons
managers to fine- between designers, learnt’ for designers
tune design and managers and building and thus help them
operation of occupant build and update
substantially x POE investigates if the their design library of
complete intent of the design successful or
buildings program was achieved unsuccessful features
x POE enables as planned by x This information
designers to measuring space/ gathered from POE
receive first hand building performance over a period of time
feedback from using various will enhance
users of new parameters such as designers knowledge
design concepts functional and thus ability to
that may have performance, indoor make more efficient
been used in the environment quality, designs
renovation of a health and well-being,
building or work productivity and
space satisfaction of
occupants.

2.2.3 Barriers to Conducting Post Occupancy Evaluation

This section flows from the discussion of POE benefits in the previous section.

Since all stakeholders benefit from POE, it becomes difficult to decide who will bear the

responsibility for corrective action and cost of evaluation.

23
 Designer’s perspective: In spite of being co-benefactors, there is very little

incentive for designers to bear costs or consider making POE part of the standardized

approach due to the notion that they may be blamed for problems in the building. These

problems may be due to design follies but they may also be due to lack of

communication, maintenance or proper use on the part of the occupants.

Owner/Client’s perspective: The owners may not be in favor of getting their

building evaluated due to the concern that the building value may depreciate if problems

are discovered. This is also followed by the responsibility of having to take corrective

measures which may be costly. Often, owners are also concerned about revelation of

unwanted facts or expression of extreme emotions on part of the occupants during the

evaluation. In a university setting, there are many levels of hierarchy in authority and

decisions may be made by an individual at a higher level but the occupants may consider

the person communicating the decision responsible for their dissatisfaction if it does not

serve their interests.

Facility Manager’s perspective: As for facility managers, they may not be

willing to spend their time, effort and resources to conduct a process unless convinced of

cost-effectiveness and deliverables that will improve performance of the facility and

thereby satisfaction and productivity of occupants.

In the current research study, 90% of the interview responses from university

owners, administrators, managers and architects confirm that they believe POE to be

highly useful in assessment and improvement of building functional and indoor

environment performance.

24
2.2.4 Phases of Post Occupancy Evaluation

The Keys and Wener 1980 study defined that POE can be conducted without

impediment by addressing issues specific to the four phases of POE and helps to

systematically tackle intervention at various levels of organization hierarchy, to avoid

waste of efforts made by evaluator teams to ensure actual application of the process as

planned and to maximize acceptance of recommendations and suggestions for corrective

actions derived from the process amongst all stakeholders. The four phases are presented

in Figure 2.4.

The first phase- “entry into the social system” refers to the researcher’s first

attempt to contact the client organization. Two main issues in this phase are the need for

project-support from all hierarchy levels of client organization and pre-history of POE.

The Keys and Wener 1980 study suggested that higher levels of organizational hierarchy

have a more pronounced control over project initiation as compared to the lower levels

that has subtle control over project execution; especially when there may be a doubt on

management’s motive for allowing or conducting POE. Prehistory of POE refers to the

events that occurred in the organization prior to POE start that have significantly affected

the relationship between the different population groups or levels. The intervention issues

were prevented in this thesis study by participant-involvement and consensus using

thorough communication with all levels of client organization and informing them of the

purpose and process of this evaluation and encouraging all to provide input to make it

most allied and efficient for the entire organization.

25
 POE PHASE I- ENTRY INTO ORGANIZATION

PREHISTORY MULTIPLE LEVELS

POE PHASE II- NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH PLANNING

CULTURAL GAP REALISTIC GOALS

POE PHASE III- DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

LOGISTICS RSEEARCHER HIBERNATION

POE PHASE IV- DATA FEEDBACK

FEELING AMBUSHED PLANNING TIME

Figure 2.4: Phases of Post Occupancy Evaluation

(Source: Keys and Wener, 1980)

In the second phase- “need assessment and research planning”, project need,

plan of action and project deliverables are decided. The Keys and Wener 1980 study

suggested that POE can be conducted by researchers for organizations to maintain a

nonbiased approach. During the second phase the issue may be the difference between

researcher’s academic setting and client’s organizational setting. This difference is often

client’s lack of knowledge of efforts that go into a POE process. Interviewed subjects or

26
administrators may have suggestions that may have potential for future research but may

not work if all ideas are used in one process. This is because the purpose of POE can vary

based on the desired outcome. At this point, the client must be informed of limitations

associated with time, efforts and resources and thereby set realistic and project specific

goals. Since this is a research study there were no real clients but the researcher kept the

case study organization informed through all phases of the POE process.

The third phase- “data collection and analysis” during which, challenges

experienced may be minimized by making use of a good working relationship with client

organization administrators and staff. Once the data are successfully collected, the

researcher begins analysis. It is during this phase that, “Researcher hibernation” causes

client suspicion which may be avoided by keeping the client organization updated with

the progress of data analysis.

The fourth phase, “Data feedback” is crucial to the researcher’s future

relationship with the client organization and the inter-personnel relationships within the

client organization. The researcher must provide feedback such that when findings are

presented in a group situation, those that are most affected must be informed in advance,

particularly if the findings are negative. This gives everyone time to prepare their

responses for a group presentation. Usually these individuals are authorities at the client

organization and are most vulnerable in a group. Also, there may be those, who are in

positions that can influence the plan of action after the POE. The researcher can increase

the probability that effective action be taken based on POE findings by setting aside

sufficient time for the research findings to be considered by organization authorities.

27
 In order to enhance the quality and impact of their POEs, the researcher must

address the various issues through the different phases of the process. In the current thesis

study, the last two phases of POE have been directly considered. The first two phases

were incorporated in an informal manner. The different phases of the current study have

been discussed in detail in chapter three: methodology.

2.2.5 Dimensions of Post Occupancy Evaluation

Three dimensions of POEs were discussed by Zimring and Reizenstein in 1980.

The first dimension discussed was: generality and specificity, refers to the nature of the

POE data collected. For example, a study based on impact of floor-plan configurations on

users is driven by generic data collection, whereas a study based on specific apartment

complex for quadriplegic adults is targeted towards specific settings.

The second dimension discussed by Zimring and Reizenstein in 1980 was:

breadth of focus which refers to the extent of review during an evaluation. The focus of

review can be a single physical characteristic of a single setting versus multiple settings.

It can also be evaluation of holistic systems such as the social and physical workings of a

combination of settings or influence of social trends on the organizational structure that

operates in those settings.

The third dimension discussed by Zimring and Reizenstein in 1980 was: timing

of application which suggested that while some studies can be conducted on a short term

basis to inform design and planning decisions, some may be conducted long term to

develop heuristics and facilitate future planning. Although most POEs have a primary

28
goal, a single study may have multiple goals or multiple studies may have a common

goal.

The current research study focused on the functional and indoor environment

performance of faculty and staff work-spaces in university settings especially for

renovated projects which makes the focus of this POE specific in terms of the first two

dimensions. With regard to the third dimension, this study is intended to assist

universities and provide short and long term benefits. The method used in this study can

be employed to conduct similar studies for other university settings such as classrooms,

libraries, common areas, etc.

2.3. Post Occupancy Evaluation Factors

As mentioned in chapter one, since 1980s, POE has significantly advanced in

theory, method, strategy and applications, and has become the center of attention and

meeting point for discrete research areas such as, built environment; facility management;

building delivery process, etc (Preiser 1988; Zimring and Rosenheck, 2001; Kooymans

and Haylock, 2006). This phenomenon led to several studies that identified built

environment characteristics that affect human behavior and comfort. The Keys and

Wener 1980 study outlined the relationship between physical environment, organization

setting of the workplace and staff perception and behavior as shown in Figure 2.5. These

relationships were helpful in determining the POE factors for the current study.

29
 Organization:
Strategy
Culture
Corporate Image

Physical Conditions: Space: Ergonomics: Aesthetics:

Temperature Plan & Layout Work Station Color
Light Privacy Controls Quality
Noise,
Air quality

Environmental
Conditions:
Physiology: Environmental
Gender & age Satisfaction
Ethnic group
Psychology: Environmental
Personality Job Satisfaction Satisfaction
Expectations (Comfort)
Experience, etc
Motivation
Intrinsic reward:
Craftsmanship
Pride
Work itself

Extrinsic reward:
Pay
Job Security
Responsibility
Job Skills:
Training
Job Fit
Experience
Goal setting

Figure 2.5: Relationship between Environment Conditions, Occupancy

Satisfaction, Productivity and Motivation
(Source: Keys and Wener, 1980)

Studies by Kincaid (1994), Gonzalez et al. (1997), Bottom et al. (1997) and

Tarricone (1999) identified factors that impact the functional performance and indoor

30
environments in offices which thereby influence staff satisfaction and productivity. These

factors are summarized as follows: aesthetics, temperature, noise, air, space, lighting,

storage, layout and circulation, adjacency of space, privacy, project management process,

equipment areas, teaming areas, meeting spaces, construction quality, accessibility and

user friendliness.

Horgen et al. study in 1996 at the Taubman Building of Harvard University’s

John F. Kennedy School of Government employed two methods: survey questionnaires

and participatory workshops to assess user satisfaction and building performance of

recently occupied and remodeled buildings. The study concluded that user satisfaction

was a strong performance indicator for facilities with regard to environment factors such

as air quality, thermal comfort, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, spatial

arrangements, furnishings and materials used for office interiors.

Since 2000, several other researchers investigated these physical environment

factors such as privacy, lighting, storage, and thermal comfort for their impact on staff

productivity and concluded that good quality built environment, work processes and work

culture has positive influence on staff productivity and satisfaction in organizations

(Leaman, 2003; Bordass & Leaman, 2005; Preiser, 2002; Way & Bordass, 2005;

Kooymans & Haylock, 2006; and, Brooks & Viccar, 2006).

The functional and indoor environment factors identified from the different

studies mentioned in the above paragraphs were used to determine evaluation factors for

this thesis study. The next two sections present the description of each of these functional

and environmental factors.

31
2.3.1 Functional performance evaluation factors

For the purpose of this thesis study, the functional evaluation factors have been

defined with regard to the literature reviewed (Tarricone 1999, Bottom et al. 1997,

Gonzalez 1997, Kincaid 1997, Farrenkopf and Roth 1980, Proceedings of Healthy

Buildings 2006) and the interviews conducted as follows:

1. Office Layout- refers to the placement and orientation of office components such

as furniture, equipment, storage units, reference material, user-seating, etc with

relation to the physical space, such that their design enhances the temperament

and productivity of the office-occupant.

2. Location of Work Space or Office- refers to the placement of a particular work

area or room occupied by an individual in relation to the bigger work area or

room or building occupied by a group of individuals such that they belong to the

same unit or department or organization.

3. Amount of Space- refers to the availability and sufficiency of space due to work-

space design for an individual such that they can comfortably conduct their work

responsibilities.

4. Ease of Interaction with Co-workers- refers to that aspect of work-space design

which enables and facilitates office users to socialize to an extent that it benefits

and not hampers their work responsibilities.

5. Privacy- refers to the ability of office users to feel sufficient personal space such

that they can comfortably conduct their work responsibilities and not feel either

too lonely or crowded. This feature has two aspects: visual privacy and sound

32
 privacy. Sound privacy seems to be of greater importance for office-occupants

than visual privacy.

6. Office Furniture and Furnishings- refers to the quality, make, design, look and

overall feel of the furniture and furnishings that are present in an individual’s

work-space which influence the temperament and productivity of office-

occupants.

7. Office Equipment- refers to computers, printers, phone, fax, copier or scanner,

etc, which is instrumental in completing the respective work responsibilities of

office-occupants.

8. Accessibility- refers to the ability of office-occupants to easily travel from the

parking to their individual work-space without any obstacles.

9. Access and Ability of Personal Control- refers to the ability and flexibility

given to an individual to control their personal work-space internal environment

aspects such as temperature, humidity, noise-control, light-control, etc. Personal

control over environmental conditions (e.g., thermostat or operable window) has a

significant positive impact on occupant satisfaction. One means of achieving

higher occupant satisfaction would be to provide such control to more occupants.

10. Window Location and View- refers to the presence or absence of an external

window in an individual’s work-space and how it may impact their temperament

and productivity.

11. Renovation Process- refers to the overall process of building renovation, which

includes project phases starting from the program-phase, plan, design,

33
 construction, and up to occupancy. This factor includes any and all the good and

bad experiences that office-occupants may have had during any of these phases.

12. Construction Quality- refers to the perceived quality of construction based on

the experience of the office occupants.

2.3.2 Indoor Environment Evaluation Factors

Building occupants are a rich source of information about indoor environmental

quality and its effect on comfort and productivity (Zagreus et.al, 2004). The following

indoor environment evaluation factors have been identified based on the literature

reviewed.

1. Lighting (Menzies & Wherrett, 2004) - refers to the natural and artificial lighting

that is present in an individual work-space. It includes the quality, intensity,

flexibility to adjustment (quantity) available to office-occupants. Daylight levels,

lighting and glare have previously been found to be very important in determining

comfort and productivity in the workplace.

2. Thermal Comfort (Olesen and Brager, 2004) - Thermal comfort is essentially a

subjective response, or state of mind, where a person expresses satisfaction with

the thermal environment. While it may be partially influenced by a variety of

contextual and cultural factors, a person’s sense of thermal comfort is primarily a

result of the body’s heat exchange with the environment. This is influenced by

four parameters that constitute the thermal environment (air temperature, radiant

temperature, humidity and air speed), and two personal parameters (clothing and

activity level, or metabolic rate). People may be dissatisfied due to general (whole

34
 body) thermal comfort and/or due to local (partial body) thermal discomfort

parameters (radiant asymmetry, draft, vertical air temperature difference, and

floor surface temperature). Presently, no methods exist for combining the

percentage of unsatisfied people due to various factors to give an accurate

prediction of the total number of people finding the environment unacceptable.

For example, we don’t know if the dissatisfaction resulting from general thermal

discomfort is additive with the percentages of those who are dissatisfied due to

local discomforts, or whether the total dissatisfied may be less than the sum of the

individual percentages (i.e., some people complaining about more than one

particular problem simultaneously).

3. Air Quality (Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006) - refers to the indoor air

quality that the university office occupants are subjected to on a daily basis. The

different IAQ aspects identified as perceived by occupants are: “air is stuffy and

stale”; “air is not clean”; “air smelling bad (odors)”. The three most frequently

identified sources of odor are food, carpet or furniture, and other people.

ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 defines acceptable air quality as conditions in

which more than 80% of people do not express dissatisfaction.

4. Acoustics (Jensen et al. 2005) - acoustics is an important attribute of commercial

office building design, that noise is probably the most prevalent annoyance source

in offices and can lead to increased stress for occupants. Speech privacy may have

a more significant effect than noise and yet, acoustics in most cases do not receive

the same level of design attention as thermal, ventilation and other architectural

and engineering considerations. The causes and consequences of poor acoustical

35
 performance are perhaps not adequately understood by designers and building

owners. It would therefore be valuable to determine from a large population of

office buildings how occupants perceive their acoustical environments, and what

aspects of office building design are influencing these perceptions.

2.4. Post Occupancy Evaluation: Application

Three significant studies were identified during the literature review, which

discuss the POE process. All these three studies have been jointly helpful towards

development of the POE process followed in the current thesis study. This process is

presented and elaborately discussed in Chapter Six, “Post Occupancy Evaluation

Process”. The next three paragraphs present a discussion of the individual process steps

from the three studies: Preiser 2002, NSW Treasury 2004, and AUDE&HEDQF 2006

followed by a brief discussion of the common steps.

The Preiser 2002 study, as shown in Figure 2.6 identifies 3 phases and 9 sub-

phases in a POE process. The first phase: ‘planning’ involves review for feasibility, and

planning for the resources and the research that may be needed for a particular level of

POE. The second phase: ‘conducting’ starts with collection of data from the evaluation

site which is followed by the analysis of the collected data. The third phase: ‘applying’

involves documentation of the results and suggestion of corrective action based on the

results.

36
Feed forward into
Next building cycle
2
Resource
planning
1 3
Reconnaissance Research
& feasibility PLANNING planning

4
9 Initiating on-site
Reviewing data collection
outcome process

APPLYING CONDUCTING
8 [Type a quote from the 5
Recommendingdocument or the summary of Monitoring,
actions 6
an interesting
7 point. You can managing data
the text box Analyzing
positionReporting anywheredata collection
findings Use the Text
in the document. procedures
Box Tools tab to change the
formatting of the pull quote
text box.]
Indicative level of POE

Investigative level of POE

Diagnostic level of POE

Figure 2.6: Phases of POE

(Source: Preiser, 2002)

The NSW Treasury 2004 study outlined a PIR (post implementation

review) process that consists of seven steps as shown in Figure 2.7. The first step is to

establish the objective and structure of the review which lays the grounds for the

37
following steps: further research, resource allocation, and evaluation framework

development. Once the framework is ready, the next steps are to collect data, conduct

analysis and comparison of data, identify major issues, report findings, and finally

provide findings to generate feedback.

• Define review objective and structure

STEP 1

• Undertake background research

STEP 2

• Alocate resources and determine evaluation framework

STEP 3

• Collect field data

STEP 4

• Analyze and Compare Data

STEP 5

• Identify major issues and findings

STEP 6

• Link findings to feedback mechanism

STEP 7

Figure 2.7: Post Implementation Review Process

(Source: New South Wales Treasury, 2004)

The AUDE & HEDQF 2006 study laid out a seven step process similar to the

NSW Treasury 2004 PIR process as shown in Figure 2.8. The first step is to identify the

need and the probable aspects for the evaluation. The second step is to identify which

issues the evaluation must address and whether it will be carried out internally or by

external consultant. The third step is to succinctly define the purpose of the POE and how

it is to be achieved. The fourth step is to select approaches that will meet your needs. The

fifth step is to distribute and collect survey questionnaires, carry out interviews, meetings

38
and observations. The sixth step is to prepare a report containing feedback from findings.

The last step is to develop an action plan in response to POE results, which will feed

information into university policies and into future projects.

IDENTIFY POE STRATEGY

DECIDE POE APPROACH

PREPARE POE BRIEF

PLAN POE (If in-house)

CONDUCT POE

PREPARE REPORT

ACTION IN RESPONSE TO POE

Figure 2.8: POE Process Overview

(Source: AUDE and HEDQF, 2006)

The above mentioned three processes can be summarized in the following

common steps: review feasibility, plan process, identify level of effort, allocate resources,

collect data, analyze data, report findings, and recommend corrective actions. These steps

were salient in the development of the applied POE process in the current study.

2.5. Post Occupancy Evaluation Instruments

Two studies: Brooks and Viccars, 2006 and AUDE 2006 compared

existing POE instruments to outline their advantages, disadvantages, most suitable timing

of application, suitable scope, usefulness, and level. The findings of the two studies are

39
presented in Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. Partial information in these tables is employed in

the current study and is indicated in bold.

METHODS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES USEz in COMMENTS

POE

Walk- Cheap and Can be too judgmental Yes Essential for

through simple and subjective technological
survey review of
systems

Diary Detailed data Hard to administer. Only if no

Analysis over time Respondent’s response other
flags. Data intensive alternative
Focus Cost effective; Needs skilled facilitator Yes Especially for
Group Picks up details design team
left out by review
questionnaires

Individual Excellent for Time consuming. Yes Essential for

interviews senior Needs skilled detail
management interviewer. Note-
taking burdensome
Plan and Excellent data Information overload Yes
analysis source
Supplied Can be a cheap Can be in poor form or Yes Good for
Data source of data imprecise or hard to energy data
interpret without help
Monitored Accurate. Cost. Sampling Unknown
Data Quantitative methods

Surveys Comprehensive Tend to miss out fine Yes Essential for

coverage. points and context base data. Also
Quantitative extremely
and Qualitative useful to
involve as
many people
as possible

Table 2.4: Comparison of POE Methods (Brooks and Vicar, 2006)

40
 The Brooks and Viccar 2006 study also presented various questionnaire types and

their use in POEs as shown in table 2.4. The second and the third column show the

number of questions and number of pages of the questionnaire respectively.

SECTION HEADINGS No. Pg. RESPONSE CRITIQUE

of Nos. CATEGORIES
Qs.

NHS TOOLKIT:
1. Use
Specific to NHS
2. Access
buildings. Many
3. Space
1:Very poor/ sections are
4. Character and innovation
disagree/ relevant to
5. Citizen satisfaction
65 12 to occupancy comfort.
6. Internal environment
6: Excellent/ Lack of comparable
7. Urban and social
agree questionnaires
integration
available without
8. Performance
cost implications
9. Engineering
10. Construction
DESIGN QUALITY INDEX
‘Strongly
QUESTIONNAIRE: No midpoint
disagree’
1. Use answer available.
to
2. Access Many questions are
‘strongly agree’
3. Space not relevant to this
with six possible
4. Performance study (e.g.
responses
5. Engineering 97 10 construction
and
6. Construction process). Too
two additional
7. Character and innovation onerous for the
response of
8. Form and materials respondent- low
‘do not know’
9. Internal environment rate of return
and
10. Urban and social predicted
‘not applicable’
integration

Table 2.5: Comparison of POE Questionnaires (Brooks and Vicar, 2006)

41
Table 2.5 continued: Comparison of POE Questionnaires (Brooks and Vicar,
2006)

May come across as

BUS QUESTIONNAIRE: ambiguous, as tiers
1. Background are not described.
2. Building overall 7 tier answer Interpretation could
3. Personal control scheme, be 2 or 3 as slightly
4. Quickness of response each with its own uncomfortable, or
5. Response to problems parameters, respondents could
6. Comfort which is based interpret the
66 2
7. Noise upon the Bedford midpoint no. 4 as
8. Lighting scale (e.g. for slightly
9. Overall comfort temperature: 1- uncomfortable.
10. Productivity uncomfortable to Rating answer
11. Health 7-comfortable scheme allows for a
12. Personal work space richer response
13. Travel to work than a simple yes/
no scheme

The AUDE 2006 study compared various POE instruments and their application

and usefulness as shown below. Methods adapted from this study into the current thesis

study are indicated in bold in the table 2.6 below:

FORMAT &TECHNIQUES FOCUS TIME POINT OF

APPLICATION

DE MONTFORT METHOD Process review; 1 day 1 year after

1. Forum Functional occupation
2. Building walk-through performance

DQI METHOD Functionality; 20-30 minutes Design stage

(Design quality indicators) Building quality for web-based after
1. Questionnaires and impact questionnaires completion

OVERALL LIKING SCORE Diagnostic 10 minutes for 12 months

METHOD (7 point scale) evaluation each occupant after
1. Paper-based surveys occupation
2. Web-based surveys

Table 2.6: Comparison of POE Methods (AUDE and HEDQF, 2006)

42
 Table 2.6 continued: Comparison of POE Methods
(AUDE and HEDQF, 2006)

FORMAT &TECHNIQUES FOCUS TIME POINT OF

APPLICATION

PROBE User satisfaction/ Overall 12 months

1. Questionnaires occupant survey; process time
2. Focus groups Productivity; varies from 2
3. Visual surveys Systems days to about
4. Environment performance; 2 months
performance systems Development of
5. Energy assessment benchmark

BUS OCCUPANT SURVEY Occupant 10-15 minutes After 12 months

1. Building walk-through satisfaction; for 1
2. Questionnaire backed up Productivity questionnaire
by focus groups

ENERGY ASSESSMENT & Energy use and Full Once building is

REPORTING savings assessment up completed
1. Energy use survey assessment to 1 person
2. Data collection from week
energy bills

LESSONS LEARNT Learn from Single seminar Can be used

1. Facilitated group experience of to continuous before, during
2. Discussions or interviews project team evaluation and after project
as foresight,
insight and
hindsight
reviews

Generally, the instrument used in a POE may be more or less effective based on

the focus and aspects of the review being conducted by universities (AUDE and HEDQF,

2006). The different review types identified by the AUDE & HEDQF 2006 study are

summarized below in Table 2.7:

43
 Operational Review Project Review Strategic Review
Timing of 3-6 months 9-18 months 3-5 years
application
Main focus x Process of x Performance evaluation x An organizational
delivering the for specific areas/ change and
project from functions building
inception to x Functional and technical response
occupation of the performance evaluation
building x Identification of
adjustments/
corrections needed to
School of Planning
Design and Construction
and its systems
x Determination of cost in
use
Use of Process review- feed To make adjustments to To feed into future
information into future projects existing buildings and feed project planning
Building review- into future project planning and operations
prepare to make and operations
changes in existing
plan
POE level Indicative Investigative/ diagnostic Investigative

Table 2.7: Types of Reviews (AUDE and HEDQF, 2006)

The current thesis study focused on project review to assess functional and indoor

environment performance of renovated work-spaces in university settings such that the

information obtained is useful to plan similar renovations in a more efficient manner and

occupants are more satisfied.

The Brooks and Viccar 2006 study and the AUDE and HEDQF 2006 study

indicated that occupant surveys were extremely useful to capture occupant perception in

terms of building performance, their productivity and satisfaction. Therefore, for this

thesis interviews were conducted to obtain insight from university owners,

44
administrators, managers and designers; following which, survey questionnaires were

developed to assess occupant satisfaction for offices in university settings with regard to

functional and indoor environment performance.

2.6. Significant POE Studies using Survey Questionnaires

Among several reviews, the following were identified to be of great significance

to this study:

1. Berkley’s Center for the Built Environment research on indoor environment

quality (http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/research_ieq.htm, 2008)

2. AUDE and HEDQF (Association of University Directors of Estates and Higher

Education Design Quality Forum, 2006): A Guide for Post Occupancy

Evaluation. (http://www.aude.ac.uk/home, 2008).

3. CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2005). Design

with Distinction: The Value of Good Building Design in Higher Education.

(www.cabe.org.uk, 2009)

4. The Center for Sustainable Building Research in the College of Architecture and

Landscape Architecture at University of Minnesota: Post Occupancy Evaluation

of Carver County Public Works Facility for the Solid Waste Management

Coordinating Board (2004).

5. Levermore G. J. and Leventis M. (1997): Occupant feedback using a

questionnaire rating the liking and importance of up to 24 factors, Clima 2000

Conference.

45
 These studies were useful in identification and comparison of commonalities and

differences of POE factors, methods, and questionnaires. The content, structure, format,

and composition of these questionnaires and the information were salient in the

development of the trial POE survey for the current thesis study. Copies of these

instruments are attached in Appendix D.

Center for the Built Environment, 2008

In 1997 a group of industry and government leaders teamed up with faculty and

researchers at the University of California, Berkeley to address these challenges. This

effort led to the creation of the Center for the Built Environment (CBE), a collaborative

research organization serving a consortium of firms and organizations committed to

improving the performance of commercial buildings. The Center for the Built

Environment (CBE) operates under the National Science Foundation (NSF)

Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC) program. CBE’s mission is

to improve the design, operation, and environmental quality of buildings by providing

timely, unbiased information on building technologies and design techniques.

The visual format and design of the trial POE questionnaire used in the current

thesis study is similar to that used in the CBE study since it has already been widely

accepted and used. A snapshot of the survey is presented in Figure 2.9.

46
 Figure 2.9: Snapshot of CBE Web-based Survey, 2009

(http://www.cbesurvey.org/CBESurvey/Instrument1003/officelayout.asp?locale=en_US&LID=1&PN=offi

celayout.asp&SID=1003&IID=1003&PID=4&NP=20&UID=570129&PL=x11110001101010101011&Stat

us=1&pmode=undefined&yScale=undefined)

Guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation, HEFCE and AUDE, 2006

Findings from the HEFCE and AUDE, 2006 study have been referred to

throughout this thesis and especially in chapters 2 and 3. A snapshot of the survey is

presented in Figure 2.10 below. A full version of the survey is included in the appendix.

47
 Figure 2.10: Snapshot of Occupant Survey in Guide to POE, HEFCE and
AUDE, 2006

CABE 2005 study

The overall aim of the CABE 2005 study was to assess whether links exist

between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment and retention of students, staff

and quality of teaching, research and other outcomes. In addressing the aim of the study,

a number of key research questions were posed, namely: What features of buildings

influence recruitment, morale and retention and performance of staff and students? Are

staff and students satisfied with the quality and functionality of their buildings and

associated facilities, and do they equate good quality with better performance? In this

study, 51% of the features identified as being influential in recruiting staff could be

classified as cosmetic and environmental. This included cleanliness, a feeling of space,

48
having a well-lit foyer and reception area, a minimalist appearance, or light and bright

working areas.

In addition, 40 per cent of the features identified by staff as potentially

influencing their choice of university could be classified as structural or functional. These

included lecturing and teaching rooms, automatic doors, computer terraces, internal

layout and design, whether or not the building was aesthetically pleasing, and the overall

shape and structure of the building.

The remaining nine per cent of the features identified by staff were classified as

situational. These related to the proximity of the building to the city centre, and the

proximity to other major university buildings, as well as accessibility to main transport

routes and links. Additional comments from staff also illustrated the importance of

specific building features when people choose a place of employment. In addition, some

staff identified features that might have a negative influence on their choice of

employment. These included a bad use of space, noisy buildings, and buildings that look

unattractive.

CSBR 2004 study

The Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and

Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota in December 2004 conducted a POE of

Carver County Public Works Facility and prepared a report for the Solid Waste

Management Coordinating Board. A snapshot of the CSBR survey is presented in Figure

2.11 below. A full version of the survey is included in the appendix.

49
 Figure 2.11: Snapshot of Occupant Survey Form, SWMCB POE: Carver
County Public Works Department (Source: CSBR 2004)

Levermore and Leventis, 1997

A study by Levermore and Leventis conducted in 1997 was reviewed to acquire

more information and support rationale for the chosen POE factors. The factors identified

by Levermore and Leventis were: “noise level, electric lighting, daylight, glare level in

the room, office temperature, ventilation, draught level, freshness of your room,

humidity, smell in the building, colors of the room, attractiveness of the room, control

you have over your local environment, your privacy in the room, outward appearance of

your building, your distance away from the window”.

Menzies and Wherrett, 2004

Menzies and Wherrett conducted post occupancy evaluations of four buildings in

2004 using survey questionnaires administered to building occupants. Their study

50
focused on windows in buildings and contended that “windows are responsible for a

disproportionate amount of unwanted heat gain and heat loss between buildings and

environment”. The questionnaire had three sections and included (1) personal

information, such as age and gender; (2) room information including the proximity of the

nearest window to the occupant; and (3) occupant satisfaction with regard to thermal

comfort, acoustic comfort, window controllability, and lighting. As indicated in the study

conducted by Menzies and Wherrett in 2004, location and access to a personal window

had an impact on building occupant satisfaction. Therefore a question about window

location and access was included in the POE survey developed for this thesis study and a

similar structure of sections and sub-sections was patterned after those used by Menzies

and Wherrett study.

2.7. Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the summary of the literature reviewed for this study,

which was divided in three sections as shown earlier in Figure 2.1. The first section,

‘Section 2.2: Post Occupancy Evaluation’ discussed the fundamentals of POE. The

second section 2.3- ‘post occupancy evaluation factors’ presented the different functional

and indoor environment evaluation factors found in literature and its relation to

workplace productivity and occupant satisfaction, which helped to identify the evaluation

factors for this study. The third section 2.4- ‘post occupancy evaluation: application’

presented significant POE studies found in literature that include post occupancy

evaluation. This was used to identify the evaluation aspects and questions and to identify

51
the successes and failures of each methodology and derive insight that minimized

obstacles and challenges, which may have been experienced in this study otherwise.

52
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Chapter Overview

This chapter presents a discussion of the research methodology, which consists of

four phases and sixteen detailed steps. First, the four phases of the study are explained

generally, and then each phase and step is described in detail. Figure 3.1 presents an

overview of the research methodology. Figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 present the various

detailed steps to be followed in each phase to achieve the research goal and objectives.

PHASE 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
RESEARCH PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT

PHASE 2
INTERVIEWS
DATA COLLECTION AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INITIAL POE
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PHASE 3
SURVEYS
DATA COLLECTION AND POST OCCUPANCY
EVALUATION

PHASE 4
ANALYSIS
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL POE
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Figure 3.1: Overview of the Research Methodology

53
 This chapter is divided into seven sections that present the chapter overview, the

methodology overview, the four phases of this study, and the chapter summary. Each

section is further divided into sub-sections that discuss the detailed steps and focal

aspects of each phase in the study.

3.2. Overall Methodology

As shown in Figure 3.2, during the first phase, literature review was conducted to

determine the significance for a study such as this. Then, the research project was defined

in terms of its goal and objectives, scope and limitations, and deliverables. Next, existing

literature was reviewed thoroughly with regard to post occupancy evaluation studies in

order to identify functional and indoor environmental aspects that impact occupant

satisfaction in university office environments, and to review existing evaluation (data

collection) methods. The details of the literature review are discussed in Chapter 2. It was

found from the comparison of similar studies that POE surveys were appropriate in

determining building-user perception and satisfaction with regard to their personal work

space performance.
STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 3

STEP 4

Preminary Interview
literature Detail literature Identification of questionnaire
review review POE factors and +
+ methods POE process
Research map
project
establishment

Figure 3.2: Phase 1 Overview

54
 However, the literature was not sufficient enough in determining the university

environment specific evaluation factors, such as preferences and requirements of users

(staff and faculty). The information from the literature review was extremely helpful in

accumulating a set of evaluation factors and methods which further led to the

development of an interview questionnaire.

Once the interview questionnaire was complete and approved by the university,

Michigan State University owners, administrators, managers, and designers were

contacted. This was the onset of Phase two. Among 25 individuals contacted, eight

agreed to participate and were interviewed. The interviews were exploratory and the

purpose of them was to gain insight from experienced university administrators, owners,

designers, and managers who are regularly involved with design, construction, and the

operation of facilities. The interview responses were recorded and analyzed qualitatively.

Figure 3.3 presents an overview of Phase two.

STEP 5

STEP 6

STEP 7

STEP 8

POE Survey
University Interviews Analysis Questionnaire
Approval +
POE process

Figure 3.3: Phase 2 Overview

The interviews were a way to capture the perceptions of university providers

about POE. The idea was to later map/speculate/investigate the acquired

occupant/university user perceptions of POE for consistency with that of the providers.

55
The interview findings were fundamental to the development of the POE survey and the

POE process. The initial POE survey and the process are presented in section 3.5.

This led to Phase three, which is most significant in this study. As shown in

Figure 3.4, once the POE survey questionnaire was ready, it was reviewed for fine-tuning

by a group of university personnel recommended by the Michigan State University

Assistant Vice President of Finance and Operations. This group consisted of university

facility owners, administrators, managers, designers, and occupants, who belonged to

various offices that design, build, and maintain buildings on campus. A second review

was conducted with a smaller group of university administrators. Following this,

modifications were made to the POE survey questionnaire, and it was ready for

evaluation.
STEP 9

STEP 10

STEP 11

STEP 12
Reviews of POE Distribution Record, arrange Data analysis
survey and collection and clean data
questionnaire of POE surveys

Figure 3.4: Phase 3 Overview

In the meantime, two university renovated projects were selected as case studies

to test the trial POE survey: the School of Planning Design and Construction and the

Spartan Way. The trial survey was delivered to both building occupants in three days.

Building occupants were requested to return the completed survey within seven days.

Survey responses were then recorded and analyzed. The method of data collection and

analysis is described later in section 3.5. The data and analysis are discussed in Chapter

Four.

56
 As shown in Figure 3.5, the final POE survey questionnaire was developed during

the last phase. The findings from the data analysis were divided into two categories:

building specific and survey specific. Building specific findings were a result of analysis

of responses to sections one, two, and three in the survey and survey specific findings

were a result of analysis of responses to section four in the survey.

STEP 13

STEP 14

STEP 15

STEP 16
Report building Conclude for Final POE Convert to
and survey revisions and survey web-based
specific findings modifications questionnaire format
to the POE
survey

Figure 3.5: Phase 4 Overview

Researcher’s Learning:

The researcher learned from the responses to the survey feedback section that a

web-based survey format was preferred over a paper-based format as used in this current

study to gather responses, especially if a large population was under consideration. A

paper-based format, although preferred by many office users who work mostly on

computers, was only beneficial when a smaller sample was being evaluated for

satisfaction. The survey feedback responses also indicated that the use of a web-based

format could also reduce the efforts of the evaluators which could instead be well-spent

making an analysis and recommendations towards corrective actions. This would also

facilitate the creation of a database and it’s integration with a larger database system that

would store and use data from all buildings on campus and would be useful in tracking

57
previous problems encountered, corrective actions taken, their supporting rationale, and

final effects.

3.3. Research Project Establishment

The first phase consisted of four steps as shown earlier in Figure 3.2. The

deliverables from this phase were the interview questionnaire and the POE process. Once

the research project was defined, literature was reviewed in detail to develop an idea of

the-state-of-the-art information about existing POE factors and methods.

3.4. Literature Review: Identification of Evaluation Factors and POE Methods

Literature written between the 1980s and 2008 was reviewed to identify the

factors that impact functional and indoor environmental performance and to locate

significant POE factors and methods that exist. Several studies were reviewed for this

purpose. Five significant studies were found, whose findings are summarized in Chapter

two- literature review. The POE instruments found in the literature were reviewed and

compared to establish a set of interview questions. Additional questions were formulated

from interviews, with input from the rest of the research team and selective university

administrators (who were involved in the research project establishment phase).

Interviews were conducted in order to investigate consistency with the findings of the

literature in a present day context for large universities and are discussed in the following

section.

58
3.5. Interviews

The purpose of the interviews was to obtain exploratory information and the

valuable insight of experienced professionals about aspects that they consider salient for

building performance evaluation, as well as aspects that provide measures of building

occupant satisfaction level for renovation projects in universities. The interviews also

helped to obtain insight from university personnel about the kind of POE instruments that

are preferred and the answers to other research questions such as: how useful POE is

from the perception of university owners, administrators, managers, and designers; what

cost should be associated with POE; and how reliable building occupants are as a source

of data for POE.

The interview questionnaire was divided into three sections: evaluation processes,

evaluation aspects, and POE. The first section, “evaluation processes”, explored if the

focal university had established post-construction or post-occupancy evaluation processes

for buildings. Why aren’t there processes? What are the barriers? But if there are

processes established by the organization, then, is it a standardized process? How is the

information used, and what resources are required? The second section, “evaluation

aspects”, sought the opinion of interviewees with regard to functional, technical, and

indoor environmental aspects that must be included in the assessment of user satisfaction

and building performance. The third section is specifically on “post occupancy

evaluation”, which sought the insight and opinion of facility owners, managers, and

designers with regard to the value of POE, its uniqueness of role in facility performance

measurement, POE instruments, and costs. The interview questionnaire is discussed in

detail along with the responses in Chapter Four (Section 4.2).

59
 The interview questionnaire was subjected to the Michigan State University

Institutional Review Board to obtain permission to interview university personnel. On

receiving approval, approximately 25 university professionals involved directly with the

facility design, operations, and construction project delivery at Michigan State University

were contacted, and those willing to participate were interviewed. Each of these

interviews took about 30-45 minutes. Personnel who did not respond were contacted

again, and after a third attempt, interviews were closed for analysis.

The interview responses were first typed verbatim for qualitative analysis of

perception and then responses were coded to facilitate quantitative analysis to determine

preferred evaluation factors. Evaluation factors determined from the analysis were

included in the POE survey along with those from the literature review. The interview

analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter four: data collection and analysis (Section 4.3).

The interviews were also helpful in determining the interviewees’ views on the reliability

of building occupants’ perceptions towards building performance evaluation. The

interview responses were analyzed to obtain information about who should conduct a

POE, analyze, report findings, arrange for corrective measures, determine the acceptable

costs, and decide the formats and resources that are most effective in reporting the results.

The interview findings represented the perceptions of the university personnel and their

expectations from POE.

Selection of Interview Participants

Based on the research project scope and literature review, it was concluded that

interviews of university personnel would be helpful in obtaining their insight and

60
understanding their perceptions, needs, and expectations with regard to POE. Therefore,

the Michigan State University Office of Vice President for Finance and Operations was

contacted for approval to interview university personnel who are closely involved with

day-to-day design, maintenance, and operation of facilities.

Confidentiality of Interviewees

The identities of interview participants have been, and will be, kept confidential.

The personnel contacted for interviews were informed about the project using a

participant consent form, a copy of which is attached in Appendix A of this document.

3.6. The Development of the Initial POE Survey Questionnaire

The POE questionnaire included questions that resulted from the literature review

and the interview analysis. First, various POE studies were compared to determine a

comprehensive list of factors and then to determine a comprehensive list of questions

related to those factors. The findings of previous studies are discussed in Chapter Two.

Second, the interview responses were reviewed for insights about the development of the

POE survey. The interview analysis is presented in Chapter Four. This resulted in a total

list of evaluation factors and questions that were sorted in categories: functional

performance and Indoor environmental performance. Each category further contains

numerous sets of questions, and each set includes about two to three questions that

addressed a particular evaluation factor.

61
3.7. POE Survey Review and University Approval

The interview responses and literature review findings indicated that a survey

would be the most appropriate option to assess occupant satisfaction. The evaluation

factors determined from literature review and interview analysis were incorporated in the

POE survey questionnaire. This phase was critical and salient in giving direction to the

remaining phases of this thesis study.

The first draft of the POE survey was prepared and mailed to Michigan State

University administrators for review. The survey was then modified and sent to the Vice

President’s office to request final approval for distribution. The survey was then also

submitted to the University Institutional Review Board for approval. This review is

required in order to ensure research participants’ protection. After approval of the

research, facility administrators were requested to provide contact information of

building occupants who occupied office spaces. The surveys were then delivered to

occupants in two buildings on Michigan State University campus; including, the School

of Planning Design and Construction and Spartan Way.

3.8. Distribution and Collection of POE Surveys

The survey was distributed to 50 occupants in the School of Planning Design and

Construction (SPDC) and 120 occupants in Spartan Way (SW). The respondents were

informed about project details and the protection of their rights by a participant consent

form attached to the distributed surveys. Respondents were requested to return completed

surveys within seven days in a collection box that was placed in their mailrooms. Non-

respondents were sent reminders and were requested to respond in additional seven days;

62
following which, the survey collection was closed for analysis. The survey distribution

was first conducted in the SPDC, where it was hand-delivered to the occupants. Though

this method of distribution was very effective, it was very time consuming and not an

efficient process. This experience was accepted as a “lesson learned” from the project.

For next distribution for SW, the surveys were delivered to the respective mail boxes of

occupants. The surveys were collected back in the same way from both facilities. The

surveys were coded by random unique numbers which were assigned to each occupant in

order to track responses and track data.

3.9. Description of the Pre-final POE Survey

The survey was comprised of four sections. The first section focused on the

functional aspects of a building, the second section focused on the indoor environmental

aspects of a building, the third section focused on the general information of building

occupants, and the last section focused on the feedback about the overall survey. For

reference, a copy of the survey is attached in Appendix B. The primary objective of the

initial POE survey in this study was to receive feedback with regard to the survey itself;

the secondary objective was to assess occupant satisfaction in these two buildings.

Therefore, a survey feedback section to receive feedback was presented after the

satisfaction assessment sections. Although the arrangement of the sections may continue

to be the same in the final survey, the primary objective of the final POE survey would be

to assess satisfaction and to gather survey feedback. A detailed discussion of the trial

questionnaire is presented in the subsections 3.9.1 to 3.9.4.

63
3.9.1 Functional Performance

The Functional Performance section has a total of 38 questions, which relate to

sixteen functional aspects that directly or indirectly impact the satisfaction of occupants.

Questions 1-11 and 17-29 are related to the physical and visible aspects of space.

These aspects are as follows: office layout, location of workspace, amount of space for

work and storage, office furniture, office furnishing, office equipment, accessibility to

personal workspace from entrance, ability of personal control, and the window location

and view. Evidence was found in the literature and from the analysis of interviews in this

study that these factors greatly impact occupant satisfaction (Kooymans and Haylock

2008; Horgen et al. 1997; Gonzalez et al. 1997). The satisfaction rating of items on a

seven point-likert scale was further expanded using open-ended questions that inquired

about changes occupants would recommend if they were dissatisfied.

Questions 12-16 were related to the aspects that impact occupants’ psychological

satisfaction with the functionality of building design. Questions 12 and 13 inquired how

easy it was for staff and faculty to interact with their co-workers, where Question 13 was

open-ended and inquired about changes occupants would recommend if they were

dissatisfied. It was found in the literature that occasional interaction with co-workers

facilitates essential communication also provides a break from the tedious and routine

work hours (CABE 2005). It was concluded from the surveys that average staff-work-

hours varied from 35-40 hours per week and faculty-work-hours varied from 15-60 hours

per week.

64
 Questions 14-16 investigated how satisfied occupants were with their privacy

(overall and visual). Question 16, which was open-ended, enquired about the changes that

occupants would recommend if they were dissatisfied with their privacy.

The two major types of questions that were used in the survey are demonstrated in

Figures 3.6 and 3.7, which focus on satisfaction and yes/no questions.

Figure 3.6: Structure of ‘Satisfaction’ and ‘Open-ended’ Questions

Figure 3.7: Structure of “Yes-No” Questions

65
3.9.2 Indoor Environmental Performance

The indoor environment section had 22 questions. Most questions in this section

were “satisfaction questions” based on indoor environmental aspects that directly or

indirectly impacted satisfaction and work performance of building occupants.

Questions 39-60 assesses how satisfied or dissatisfied occupants felt with regard

to the lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, and acoustic comfort of their personal

workspace.

Questions 39-43 were grouped under the “lighting” category and focused on:

natural lighting, artificial lighting, visual comfort, and overall comfort. Question 43 was a

question that needed an open-ended response from occupants with regard to what they

would change about the lighting of their personal workspace if they were dissatisfied.

Questions 44-48 were grouped under the “thermal comfort” category and focused

on: temperature, humidity, ventilation, and overall thermal comfort. Question 48 is an

open-ended question which asked occupants what they would change about the thermal

comfort of their personal workspace if they were dissatisfied.

Questions 49-51 were grouped under the “air quality” category. Question 51 was

a question that needed an open-ended response from occupants with regard to the

changes they would recommend to enhance the air quality of their personal workspace if

they were dissatisfied.

Questions 52-54 were grouped under the “acoustic” category. Question 54 was a

question that required an open-ended response from occupants with regard to their level

of satisfaction with the acoustic quality of their personal workspace.

66
 Questions 55 and 56 inquired if occupants considered that the overall indoor

environment of their workspace would have an impact on their work performance and

productivity and, if they agreed, what was the extent of the impact?

Questions 57-60 asked if any new technology had been implemented in the

personal workspace of building occupants, and if yes, how satisfied they were with it.

3.9.3 Participant information

This section had nine questions, which gathered information about respondents

and included the following: demography, length of time that they have been working in

their current personal workspace, number of hours that they would work per week, and a

description of their workspace and activities. The purpose of this section was to

understand the population characteristics of the people who occupy university office

spaces, the kinds of activities they performed, and the evaluation factors that impacted

their satisfaction.

3.9.4 Survey Feedback

This section in the survey had eleven questions that solicited user input about the

survey. Question one asked for the amount of time taken by a respondent to complete the

survey. The purpose of this question was to determine the average and maximum time

taken by respondents to complete the survey, and to see if it was necessary to modify the

survey such that the time for survey completion was minimized while the depth of

satisfaction assessment was maximized.

67
 Question two to five directly inquired about the format and structure of the

survey. For example, questioned if the respondents were satisfied with the survey format,

appropriateness of questions, the balance of closed versus open-ended questions and, the

method of interaction preferred in future. Questions six inquired about occupants’

preference between participation in focus groups of adjacent workspace occupants and

surveys. Question seven asked, “To what extent did the survey cover aspects that the

respondent would like to comment upon about their office?” Questions eight to eleven

gathered occupants’ opinion with regard to the additional factors and questions that must

be included in the POE survey to achieve its primary objective.

3.10. Data Recording and Arrangement

The survey responses were recorded verbatim in Excel spreadsheets and then

analyzed based on the range and pattern of responses. The data collected with the help of

the POE survey was recorded and organized in Excel spreadsheets in numeric code and in

an open-ended format to facilitate a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data.

3.11. Data Analysis

The surveys received from the SPDC and SW were first analyzed separately to

understand how each building performs for its users; and then the responses were

summarized to develop conclusions with regard to the evaluation factors and to help

develop additional questions from the survey open-ended responses. The survey findings

from both of the buildings were presented in two categories: building performance and

survey feedback.

68
 The building performance results were directly related to the POE of the building

itself and the survey feedback was related to the occupant responses specific to the survey

itself. The survey feedback results were the focus of the analysis in this thesis study.

Next, the building performance results and the survey feedback results were combined to

develop overall conclusions with regard to individual buildings. The findings from

individual buildings were then merged again to develop final conclusions with regard to

the survey modifications based on the commonalities, differences, and speculations of

this study. The overall conclusions for the survey were useful in making changes to the

trial POE survey to develop the final version. The overall data analysis is discussed in

detail in Chapters Four and Five.

3.12. Chapter Summary

Chapter 3 presented a detailed discussion of the methodology followed to

accomplish the research goal and objectives, and how the data collection tools were

developed, how the data was collected and analyzed. Chapter Four, Data Collection and

Analysis, discusses the data collection tools developed in this study, the data collected

and analyzed, and the findings.

69
 CHAPTER 4

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Chapter Overview

This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the data collected and analyzed

during this study which includes interviews, surveys, analysis, and conclusions. First, the

interview and related analysis are presented. Next, the post occupancy evaluation is

explained separately for both buildings: the S.P.D.C. and the Spartan Way. Then, the

survey specific findings from both buildings are presented together to determine the

commonalities, differences, and uniqueness of responses. Following this, the overall

analysis and conclusions are presented.

4.2 Interviews

As mentioned in Chapter 3: Methodology, the purpose of the interviews was to

obtain exploratory information and valuable insights from experienced university

professionals with regard to a POE. Though it was not a conscious attempt, it was later

realized that interviewing the university providers and surveying the university users

made the study more holistic, since the researcher was able to acquire perceptions from

both administrators and users. The questionnaire had three sections consisting of 26

questions. The purpose of each section in the questionnaire was explained earlier Chapter

3 (Section 3.5). The interviewer gathered responses with regard to the presence or

absence of a POE process within the university. If such a process was absent, what were

barriers? What measures could be taken to ensure sufficiency of resources? What

70
evaluation factors should be considered? What kind of questions should be asked of the

building occupants? When should a POE be conducted and how often? How useful and

accurate were occupants as a source of information about building performance? What

could be the benefits from a POE? What should be the basis for POEs? What POE

measures could be effective in evaluating building performance? What percentage of the

overall project budget should be reserved for a POE? The response to the above

mentioned questions are discussed in the following section.

4.2.1 Analysis of Interview Responses

The interview responses were recorded verbatim in adjacent columns in Microsoft

Excel spreadsheets as shown in the snapshot below in Figure 4.1 for comparative

qualitative analysis.

Figure 4.1: Snapshot of Interview Record Spreadsheet

71
 The interview responses were analyzed as free flowing text using the methods:

key-word-in-context and word count to identify patterns of ideas and opinions in the body

of responses to open-ended questions (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). Additionally, several

lists were extracted from the review of responses (for example: list of perceived POE

benefits, and POE evaluation factors). A summary is provided of the interview findings

in the order of the questions asked:

Presence of a formal process: Out of 25 individuals contacted, eight responded to the

interview questionnaire. Six out of the eight personnel indicated the presence of an

informal evaluation process but also an absence of a formal POE process (Question one).

The remaining two participants did not address presence of either a formal or informal

process.

Usefulness of a POE: The open-ended responses included: (a) “POE would be highly

useful to universities”, (b) “POE would initiate a process of continuous learning towards

changes required in buildings due to changing working relationships between people to

better support work activities of future occupants”, (c) “POE is useful for future space

planning and captures the information that may not surface physically (for example:

emotional reactions)”, (d) “POE adds value to building performance so that current

problems can be detected and future problems can be avoided”, (e) “POE promotes the

feeling that the central university or university leaders care about their employees”. A

comment from an interview respondent was, “We do not see any value in conducting it,

72
which is an added expense, unless we know that the users are dissatisfied” (Question

thirteen).

Benefits of a POE: As stated in the open-ended responses: (a) “POE could lead to

incremental changes in quality control, staff productivity and employee attitude, which

affects employee outcomes”, (b) “POE can provide a feedback loop, which is presently

missing and can help correct problems in buildings and create alerts for future projects”,

(c) “POE can communicate to users that their organization cares for their satisfaction and

well-being, which will develop good will amongst customers and may be beneficial for

both users and owners” (Question 14).

The usefulness and accuracy of building occupants’ perceptions towards building

performance evaluation: Six out of eight interview respondents consider occupants to be

a highly accurate and useful source of information with regard to building performance

evaluation. One of the respondents considered occupants to be an accurate and useful

source of information in a group, but not as individuals. Another respondent considered

occupants to be a great source of information with regard to only building areas that they

regularly use (Question 11 and 12).

Time and frequency of application: It was concluded from the interviews that a POE

should be ideally conducted between six to twelve months after occupancy. Three out of

eight interviewees stated that POE can be conducted once every five years throughout the

building life cycle. Others did not state any specific time frame. One of the respondents

73
stated that most problems are revealed within the first year and after that it depends on

overall building use and maintenance.

Evaluation factors: The various functional and indoor environmental performance

factors that came up from the interview responses are: the physical flow of people traffic

and communication, layout of furniture, furnishings, office equipment and appliances,

lighting, thermal comfort, acoustic, storage space, cleanliness, spatial orientation,

adequacy of personal workspace, maintenance accessibility, proximity and adjacency of

related function areas, accessibility, air quality, productivity measures, occupant

satisfaction, etc. These factors along with those identified in the literature were later

included in the POE survey (Tarricone 1999; Bottom et al. 1997; Gonzalez 1997; Kincaid

1997; Farrenkopf and Roth 1980; Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006; Zagreus et.al.

2004).

POE questions: Similarly, interviewees suggested the kind of questions that may be

asked in the POE survey. Did the office function for users function as intended in terms

of people traffic and communication? If given a chance, what would users redo about

their office space? Is the project within the planned budget? What other options did users

have that affects the costs? Is the perceived privacy satisfactory? Is the acoustic quality

satisfactory and are the lighting levels supportive of their functions? Does the space

perform as envisioned and support all of your functions? Does the space work for you as

anticipated? Did the space meet the user’s organizational goals and objectives? How do

we do it better? Do users have positive feelings about their space? Is the office size and

74
layout working for users? Is the office furniture and furnishing ergonomically

comfortable and functionally useful? Since MSU has a fixed percentage that is reserved

for artwork, should it be inquired if it is truly appreciated or if it goes unnoticed, thereby

justifying the investment made? Does the space have good quality? Overall, does the

space perform as intended? Is any particular area too far or too close to user’s space and

interfere with their task performance? Do users consider themselves more efficient now?

These questions were reworded to formulate more comprehensive questions in the POE

survey with a focus on occupant satisfaction.

What should be the basis of a POE? How these are usually developed? The

interviewees stated that in order to plan and conduct a POE, the following documents

may be considered as a basis: construction standards, general planning requirements or

design guidelines, design program, etc. In this study, the basis of the POE was the

expectations of university personnel, which was determined from the interviews.

How much should POEs costs? With regard to this question there was no unanimous

response from the interviewees. The different numbers stated were: less than 0.1%, 0.1%,

0.25%, and less than 0.5% of project cost and 2% of project closeout costs. Considering

what was found during the literature review, the exact POE costs is not a straight number

and it depends on many factors. These factors may be: building complexity in terms of

design or systems involved the availability of resources to conduct POE such as time and

money, the expected outcomes of POE, etc. The cost of the evaluation involved in this

75
study was covered by the research team which was a total of $1000 including both

facilities (this cost does not include the cost of the research team).

Who should plan and conduct POEs? Seven out of eight interviewees stated that

internal staff should be responsible to plan and conduct POEs. It was contended that the

internal staff is preferred because: “an outside consultant will be more expensive, he or

she will develop certain amount of resident knowledge pertaining to MSU buildings and

for information sharing”. This evaluation was planned and conducted to meet the

objectives of this study by the researcher. Although university personnel provided

feedback, however, the resources were primarily expended by the research team.

What POE methods/tools are considered useful? According to interviewees, walk-

throughs, physical observation, structured interviews, building inspection, assessment of

facility maintenance records, web-based surveys, progress photos, and focus groups are

all efficient building evaluation tools. Considering that a POE involves occupant

perceptions, structured interviews, web-based surveys, and focus groups remain as

effective POE specific methods. Further considering the building type, occupant

category, number of occupants, and expected outcome of evaluation; web-based surveys

were concluded as inexpensive and effective POE tools that reveal significant issues in

less time with less effort. All interviewees agreed that these tools, if used in combination,

will be helpful because one method may be more effective in looking at a specific area or

aspect than another, give a broader picture about the building's performance, or help

gather perceptions of occupants and managers. The purpose of this question was to

76
inquire about the significance of a survey questionnaire and if developing it would be

valuable to the university system.

Overall, it was determined from the interviews that large universities like MSU

believe that there is a need for a POE process in their system to periodically assess the

performance of buildings on campus and to determine occupant satisfaction. The

interview data indicates that university personnel would prefer a formal process instead

of an informal one. They considered the POE to be useful and beneficial and consider

occupants to be a reliable source of information with regard to building performance. It

was mostly indicated that the POE should ideally be conducted after six to nine months,

and before one year from the day of occupancy. The interviewees suggested evaluation

factors and related questions, which were incorporated into the trial POE survey. The

following sections in this chapter will discuss the survey data, the analysis, the findings,

and the conclusions from the POE of the two buildings: the S.P.D.C. and the Spartan

Way. Figure 4.2 presents an overview of the structure and analysis for the initial POE

survey.

77
 POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION:
APPLICATION OF TRIAL SURVEY

SCHOOL OF PLANNING SPARTAN

DESIGN AND WAY
CONSTRUCTION

BUILDING PERFORMANCE BUILDING PERFORMANCE

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

SURVEY FEEDBACK SURVEY FEEDBACK

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

CHANGES TO FINAL POE SURVEY

Figure 4.2: Structure of the Data Analysis

4.3 Post Occupancy Evaluation: Application of the Trial Survey

The trial POE survey was tested/used/applied in two buildings at MSU, and then

modified based on survey feedback. A detailed discussion of the post occupancy

evaluations at the School of Planning Design and Construction and Spartan Way is

presented in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 respectively.

78
4.3.1 CASE STUDY NO.1

THE SCHOOL OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

This section and following sub sections present a discussion of the survey

feedback and analysis from the School of Planning Design and Construction (S.P.D.C.).

This information is arranged in two main categories: building performance/occupant

satisfaction and survey analysis.

The S.P.D.C. is located on the upper three levels of the “Human Ecology”

building on Michigan State University campus. The school houses offices, classrooms,

studios, and common areas for the following departments: construction management,

interior design, landscape architecture, and urban planning. For the data collection in this

thesis study, the staff and faculty offices were included and all other spaces were

excluded.

4.3.1.1 Overall Survey Response

The trial/initial POE survey was distributed to 50 faculty and staff members in the

School of Planning Design and Construction. The due date for the return of completed

survey was a week from the day of distribution. Of the 50 surveys delivered, 29 surveys

were completed and returned. The response rate for the S.P.D.C. was 56%. The

remaining 21 surveys were not received due to some faculty/staff members travelling in

the week when the surveys were distributed, some being on leave, and some because of

having left the job or the building.

79
4.3.1.2 Survey Participant Information

The third section of the POE survey solicited specific information and is

summarized in Figure 4.3. The purpose of collecting this information is to understand the

occupant population in the building evaluated. Additionally, it also helped to understand

the description of respondents’ workspaces, their job descriptions, and the maximum

hours they typically spent in the building working from within their personal workspace.

This helped to better understand their functional requirements.

Overall, the responses were received from two broad categories. One, where 55%

of survey respondents were full-time employees, who have spent more than thirteen years

in the same building and about a year in their present personal workspace. The others

have been in the building for less than three years and have been in their new workspaces

for more than a year.

Most respondents (59%) were faculty who had enclosed private offices. The rest

are administrators and staff who have either shared offices or cubicles with high

partitions. The primary work activities of faculty involved: long hours of teaching and

grading student’s submissions, meetings with other faculty and students, telephone

conversations, preparing for a class, frequent movement to classrooms and the mailroom,

long hours of personal research work, and responding to emails. On the other hand, 41%

of the staff would mostly spend time on computer related work and phone conversations.

Most of them would also access the mailroom once a day.

80
 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Number of years Number of years Number of years Hours/Week Personal
in building in current in previous (n=25) workspace
(n=28) workspace workspace (n=28)
(n=28) (n=27)
1: >2 Years 2: >2 Years 3: 50 Years 4: 60 Hours 5: Others

1: 2 Years 2: 2 Years 3: 40 Years 4: 50 Hours 5: Workspace in open

office without partitions
1: 1.5 Years 2: 1.5 Years 3: 30 Years 4: 40 Hours 5: Cubicles with low
partitions
1: 1 Year 2: 1 Year 3: 20 Years 4: 30 Hours 5: Cubicles with high
partitions
1: 0.5 Years 2: 0.5 Years 3: 10 Years 4: 20 Hours 5: Enclosed office, shared

1: <0.5 Years 2: <0.5 Years 3: <10 Years 4: 10 Hours 5: Enclosed office, private

Figure 4.3: Participant and Workspace Information at S.P.D.C.

"For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is
referred to the electronic version of this thesis"

81
4.3.1.3 Building Specific Information and Analysis

This section presents a discussion of the building specific findings from the

analysis of the S.P.D.C. survey responses. These findings are laid out in the order of the

different sections in the survey.

A. Functional Performance

Functional performance in this study encompasses all those physical and visible

aspects that may impact the satisfaction of university faculty and staff. It was found that

54% of occupants were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall functional performance

of their workspace and 10% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The remaining 36%

were a little satisfied, little dissatisfied, or neutral. This assessment was based on space

performance, ease of interaction with co-workers, privacy, office interiors, and

accessibility. Individual responses with regard to the functional factors are summarized in

Figure 4.4.

Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Slightly Dissatisfied Very Satisfied Very Satisfied
4% 6%
5% 29%
Satisfied
Neutral
12% Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied Satisfied
19% 25%

Figure 4.4: Occupant Satisfaction with Functional Performance at the

S.P.D.C.

82
 In order to simplify the assessment of occupant satisfaction, certain similar factors

were combined together. The first factor, space, in Figure 4.5 includes office layout, the

amount of space for function, storage, and location of personal workspace. The third

factor, privacy, includes overall and visual privacy. The fourth factor, office interiors,

includes furniture layout, furnishing, and office equipment.

Functional Performance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Office Interiors(Furniture,
Privacy (Overall privacy,
Ease of interaction with co-

Accessibility (n=28)
space and Location) (n=32)

Furnishings, Equipment)
Space (Layout, amount of

Very Dissatisfied
Visual privacy) (n=28)

Dissatisfied
workers (n=28)

(n=28)

Slightly Dissatisfied

Neutral

Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Figure 4.5: Occupant Satisfaction Level with Functional Performance

Aspects at the S.P.D.C.

83
 B. Indoor Environmental Performance

Indoor environmental performance in this study encompasses all those

environmental aspects that may impact the satisfaction of university faculty and staff. As

shown in the Figure 4.6, 45% of occupants were satisfied or very satisfied with the

overall indoor environmental performance of their workspace and 15% were dissatisfied

or very dissatisfied. The remaining 40% were little satisfied, little dissatisfied, or neutral.

This assessment was based on lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, acoustic, and access

and ability of personal control. The details of individual responses are presented in Figure

4.7.

Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 6%
Slightly 9% Very Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Dissatisfied 19%
8% Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Neutral
11% Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied 26% Very Dissatisfied
21%

Figure 4.6: Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Performance

Aspects at S.P.D.C.

In order to simplify the assessment of occupant satisfaction, certain similar factors

were combined together. The first factor, lighting, in Figure 4.7 includes natural lighting,

artificial lighting, visual comfort, and overall lighting comfort. The second factor,

thermal comfort, includes temperature, humidity, ventilation, and overall thermal

comfort. The third factor, air quality, includes air quality and ventilation. The fourth

84
factor, acoustic, includes noise level and sound privacy. The fifth factor was access and

the ability of personal control for HVAC had the highest dissatisfaction level.

Indoor Environmental Performance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Air Quality (Air Quality, Ventilation) (n=28)
Lighting (Natural, Artificial, Visual comfort,

Thermal Comfort (Temperature, Humidity,

Access and ability of personal control for

Acoustics (Noise level, Sound privacy)
Ventilation, Overall comfort) (n=28)

Very Dissatisfied
Overall comfort) (n=28)

HVAC (n=28)

Dissatisfied
(n=28)

Slightly Dissatisfied

Neutral

Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Figure 4.7: Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environment

Performance at the S.P.D.C.

85
 C. Discussion of Open-Ended Responses

This section presents a discussion of the open-ended responses from the S.P.D.C..

The open ended responses highlight occupants’ perceptions with regard to the different

existing building problems. A count of the total number of open-ended responses in each

category is presented in Table 4.1.

Functional Performance Evaluation Factors Number of Responses

Space: Office layout, amount of work and storage

10
space, location of workspace

Ease of interaction with co workers 8

Accessibility 3

Access and ability to personal control 12

Corporation of user needs 12

Indoor Environment Performance Evaluation Factors Number of Responses

Light: Natural lighting, Artificial lighting, Overall

3
comfort

Thermal Comfort: Temperature, Humidity, Overall

17
comfort

Air Quality: Air quality, Ventilation 1

Acoustic: Noise level, Sound privacy 8

Table 4.1: Count of Open-Ended Responses at the S.P.D.C.

86
Space: Overall, ten occupants perceived that the physical space for work and storage in

offices was not enough. The workspace layout did not perform well for some occupants

to feel satisfied. Faculty members complained that space was not sufficient enough to

store students’ assignments or teaching materials.

Ease of interaction with co-workers: The ease of interaction with co-workers for some

faculty and staff is not satisfactory. Faculty members who work with graduate students on

research stated that they would prefer being in close proximity to their respective students

so that effective communication can happen without time and tempo being wasted in

movement. For some faculty and staff members, the layouts of offices prevent necessary

communication. Often there is a sense of isolation among certain members. For staff,

since they have a regular set of activities, their ability to quickly interact with others gives

them a sense of connection and relaxation without wasting too much time being wasted.

Overall, eight occupants mentioned the need for improvements that would facilitate

necessary and effective interaction between staff and faculty.

Accessibility: Occupants on the fourth floor expressed dissatisfaction with regard to lack

of elevator access to the fourth floor of the building. However, any modification for

access to the elevator was not a part of the renovation scope at S.P.D.C.

Access and ability to personally control temperature: This is a very sensitive aspect

among most occupants and is the greatest factor for occupant dissatisfaction (Figure 4.4).

87
Twelve occupants stated that there is no personal control and that it is either too hot or

too cold in their workspace.

Incorporation of user needs: Twelve occupants indicated that they did not feel their

needs were incorporated as they were still dissatisfied with the lack of physical space and

storage space after renovation. This finding should ideally be compared with the

renovation scope which was defined in the beginning of the project.

Light: Most occupants are satisfied with overall lighting of their workspace. Only three

occupants indicated a problem with the light sensors in certain areas which causes the

light to turn off in workspace or surrounding corridors due to lack of movement when

most faculty are within their offices or are away in classrooms.

Thermal Comfort: This factor is the second greatest cause of occupant dissatisfaction

(Figure 4.4). Seventeen occupants stated that they either needed individual HVAC units

or personal control for adjusting the temperature in their workspaces, but only if a

centralized unit was being used.

Air Quality: A majority of occupants are satisfied with the air quality and no significant

responses were noted in the open-ended section.

Acoustics: Eight occupants who responded to the open-ended section for this factor

stated that they were not satisfied with the acoustic of their workspace. Occupants stated

88
that telephone or in-person conversations could be overheard due to poor acoustics,

which hinders work performance. The data showed that most of these occupants were

seated in open-offices.

New Technology: The data indicated that there were no special new technologies

installed or used in the S.P.D.C. The only element installed were light sensors, which

turned out to be a source of dissatisfaction for some occupants.

4.3.1.4 Survey Feedback Analysis: (Section 4 of the POE Questionnaire)

This section presents the summary of findings from the survey feedback analysis.

The total percentage of positive response to the overall trial POE survey was 70%, which

is the average of responses to Questions 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 in section 4 of the POE survey.

A portion of the trial survey was used to improve the final survey presented in Chapter 5

using the suggestions given by the occupants during the POE.

85% of the S.P.D.C. occupants completed the survey in less than 30 minutes. The

remaining population took more than 30 minutes or did not respond to the question. On

average, the S.P.D.C. occupants completed the POE survey between 20-30 minutes.

As shown in the following figures, 56% were very satisfied or satisfied with the

format of the survey (Figure 4.8), 55% were satisfied with the appropriateness of

questions (Figure 4.9), 89% were satisfied with the extent to which the aspects are

covered in the POE survey (Figure 4.13), 82% said yes to the question, “Are the right

questions being asked?” (Figure 4.14), and 67% said yes when asked if the POE survey

89
allowed them to effectively indicate their satisfaction with the design of their workspace

(Figure 4.15).

Slightly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

0% 7% 0% Very Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Neutral 26% Satisfied
19%
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
30%
18%

Figure 4.8: Q1: How satisfied are you with the format of the survey?

Slightly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

4% 0% 0% Very Satisfied Very Satisfied
Neutral 26%
15% Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied

Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

26% 29%

Figure 4.9: Q2: How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of the
questions?

Just right for me Need more open-

4% ended
8% Need more open-ended
Need fewer open-ended
Need fewer Just right for me
open-ended
88%

Figure 4.10: Q3: Please comment on the balance of open ended to closed
response questions.

90
 Interviews,
7% Paper based
36%
Paper based
Web based
Interviews
Web based
57%

Figure 4.11: Q4: In the future, which method of interaction would you
prefer for this kind of study?

Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Slightly Dissatisfied 7% 0% Very Satisfied
4%
22%
Very Satisfied
Neutral Satisfied
11%
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
30%
26%

Figure 4.12: Q5: In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover
aspects that you would like to comment upon about your office?

To some extent To little extent Not at all

11% 0% 0%

To a great extent
To some extent
To little extent
Not at all

To a great extent
89%

Figure 4.13: Q6: In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover
aspects that you would like to comment upon about your office?

91
 Others
18% Yes
No
No
0% Yes Others
82%

Figure 4.14: Q7: Do you consider that right questions are being asked of
building occupants?

Others
22% Yes
In between
yes and no No
6% In between yes and no
No Others
Yes
5%
67%

Figure 4.15: Q8: Does the survey allow you to effectively indicate your
satisfaction with the design of your workspace?

4.3.1.5 Occupant Observations, Suggestions and Recommendations

This section presents excerpts from the survey feedback section to bring forth the

observations, suggestions, and recommendations of the S.P.D.C. occupants:

ƒ One faculty member stated, “The use of ‘satisfaction’ phrase is vague to me. It

does not capture my feelings although there is plenty of opportunity to relate

concern in the open-ended portion. Ask questions about what occupants like,

since all questions encourage respondents to find faults. Space satisfaction is

closely related to overall management and job duties more questions about this.”

ƒ Another faculty member mentioned that “generally the likert scale starts from

‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ rather than ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very

dissatisfied’ as given in the trial POE survey”.

92
 ƒ Two other faculty members suggested that questions be added in the POE survey

for evaluation of teaching spaces, studios, computer lab space, common areas, and

lunch rooms. With regard to the building they stated that student meeting rooms

should be provided on every floor to avoid time wasted in unnecessary

movement. Please note that student spaces were not in the scope of this study.

ƒ One said-“The workspace overall is not fully encouraging for interaction. It does

not provide full privacy when needed. The building does not give common study

areas to students or faculty. Please consider flexibility of the space for use in

future.

ƒ One of the faculty members suggested that in order to give more flexibility to

respondents, question 38 in the first section should have a fifth option which will

represent negative impact on performance.

ƒ In the fourth section, another faculty member commented in response to Question

6 -“Why would I be satisfied about it? If you are asking if I would volunteer for

it- Yes”, and Question 10-“In between yes and no”. All yes-no questions

4.3.2 CASE STUDY NO.2

SPARTAN WAY

This section and following sub sections presents a discussion of the survey findings

from Spartan Way with regard to building performance and survey.

Spartan Way is located in the stadium facility on Michigan State University campus.

Spartan Way consists of offices, conference rooms, multipurpose rooms, and common

areas for various groups that support multiple services provided for and by MSU

93
employees, students, alumni, sponsors, etc. For the data collection in this thesis study,

only the staff offices on third floor were included and all other spaces were excluded.

4.3.2.1 Overall Survey Response

The trial/initial POE survey was distributed to 115 occupants in Spartan Way, of

which, 62 occupants (54%) responded. The time given to participants was one week from

the day of distribution. Another week extension was given to occupants who had the

intention but did not have the time to respond to the survey earlier. Out of remaining

occupants some chose not to participate, some were on leave and some were visiting

alumni. Unfortunately, it was realized after all the returned survey was recorded that the

second page was missing for 19 occupants. Therefore, the survey second page was re-

sent the next morning (Tuesday) with a letter of apology and requesting respective

occupants to complete it and send it back if possible by Friday of that week. Finally,

when no responses came back, the surveys were closed for analysis.

The 19 surveys that had the second page missing, consequently were missing

responses for questions 8 through 19. Therefore, those surveys were completely excluded

in the analysis of “Function performance” as shown in Figure 4.17. The survey responses

were included in the “Indoor Environmental Performance” which is shown in Figure

4.19.

4.3.2.2 Survey Participant Information

This section presents the Spartan Way respondent information gathered and

summarized in Figure 4.16. As mentioned, the purpose of collecting this information was

94
to understand the occupant population in the building that was being evaluated.

Additionally, it also helped to understand the description of their workspace, their job

description, and the maximum hours they spend in the building working from their

personal workspace. This also helped to understand the occupants’ functional

requirements.

The Spartan Way occupant population was 79% female and 15% male; the rest

6% chose not to respond to that question. 82% of the occupants (n=62) were between 30-

70 years of age. All occupants were full-time staff workers with no faculty

responsibilities. 84% of the occupants had spent one year or more in their respective

workspaces and 92% in their building. 68% of the occupants were located in cubicles or

open office areas and 31% were located in enclosed private offices. Enclosed private

offices were mainly provided for administrators. The primary work activities of

occupants involved long hours at the computer, frequent and intense telephone

conversations, long hours of reading, researching, writing, meetings, walking to and from

the mail room, technical assistance, walking across campus to other departments,

frequent movement within building, auditing, etc. Unlike S.P.D.C., the overall activities

for occupants in this building were more uniform.

95
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Number of years Number of years Number of years Hours/Week Personal
in building (n=59) in current in previous (n=56) workspace (n=61)
workspace (n=54) workspace (n=54)

>2.0 Years >2.0 Years 50 Years 60 Hours Others

2.0 Years 2.0 Years 40 Years 50 Hours Workspace in open office with no
partitions
1.5 Years 1.5 Years 30 Years 40 Hours Cubicles with low partitions

1.0 Year 1.0 Year 20 Years 30 Hours Cubicles with high partitions

0.5 Years 0.5 Years 10 Years 20 Hours Enclosed office, shared with others

Figure 4.16: Participant and Workspace Information at Spartan Way

96
4.3.2.3 Building Specific Information and Analysis

This section presents a discussion of the building specific findings from the

analysis of the Spartan Way survey responses. These findings are laid out in the order of

the survey sections.

A. Functional Performance

Functional performance in this study encompasses all those physical and visible

aspects that may impact the satisfaction of university faculty and staff. As shown in

Figure 4.17, it was found that 50% of the occupants were satisfied or very satisfied with

the overall functional performance of their workspace and 12% were dissatisfied or very

dissatisfied. The remaining 38% of the occupants were little satisfied, little dissatisfied,

or neutral. This assessment was based on space performance, ease of interaction with co-

workers, privacy, office interiors, and accessibility. Individual responses with regard to

the functional factors are summarized in Figure 4.18.

Slightly
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
7% 5% Very Satisfied
7% Very Satisfied
25%
Neutral Satisfied
16% Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied Satisfied
15% 25%

Figure 4.17: Occupant Satisfaction with Functional Performance at the

Spartan Way

97
In order to simplify the assessment of occupant satisfaction, certain similar factors were

combined together. As shown in Figure 4.18, the first factor, space, includes office

layout, amount of space for function and storage and location of personal workspace; the

second factor is ease of interaction with co-workers; the third factor, privacy, includes

overall and visual privacy; the fourth factor, office interiors, includes furniture layout,

furnishing and office equipment; the fifth factor is accessibility.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Ease of interaction with co-workers

Office Interiors(Furniture, Furnishings,

Privacy (Overall privacy, Visual privacy)

Accessibility (n=62)
Space (Layout, amount of space and

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied
Equipment) (n=53)
Location) (n=74)

Slightly Dissatisfied
(n=37)

(n=37)

Neutral

Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Figure 4.18: Occupant Satisfaction Level with Functional Performance

Aspects at Spartan Way

98
 B. Indoor Environmental Performance

Indoor environmental performance in this study encompasses all those

environmental aspects that may impact the satisfaction of university faculty and staff. As

shown in the Figure 4.19, 38% of the occupants were satisfied, very satisfied with the

overall indoor environment performance of their workspace, and 19% were dissatisfied or

very dissatisfied. The remaining 43% were slightly satisfied, slightly dissatisfied or

neutral. This assessment was based on lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, acoustics,

and access and ability of personal control. The responses with regard to each factor are

presented in the Figure 4.20.

Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

9% Very Satisfied
10%
13%
Slightly
Very Satisfied
Dissatisfied
10% Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral Satisfied
13% 25% Very Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
20%

Figure 4.19: Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environmental

Performance Aspects at Spartan Way

In order to simplify the assessment of occupant satisfaction, certain similar factors

were combined together. The first factor, lighting, in Figure 4.20 includes natural

lighting, artificial lighting, visual comfort and overall comfort. The second factor,

thermal comfort, includes temperature, humidity, ventilation and overall comfort. The

third factor, air quality, includes air quality and ventilation. The fourth factor, acoustics,

99
includes noise level and sound privacy. The fifth factor was access and the ability of

personal control for HVAC.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Lighting (Natural, Artificial, Visual comfort,

Thermal Comfort (Temperature, Humidity,

Air Quality (Air Quality, Ventilation) (n=62)

Access and ability of personal control for HVAC

Accoustics (Noise level, Sound privacy) (n=61)
Ventilation, Overall comfort) (n=62)

Very Dissatisfied
Overall comfort) (n=62)

Dissatisfied
(n=61)

Slightly Dissatisfied

Neutral

Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Figure 4.20: Occupant Satisfaction Level with Indoor Environment

Performance at Spartan Way

100
 C. Discussion of Open-Ended Questions

This section presents a discussion of the open-ended responses from the Spartan

Way. The open-ended responses highlight occupant’s perception with regard to the

different existing building problems. A count of the total number of open-ended

responses in each category is presented in Table 4.2.

Functional Performance Evaluation Factors Number of Responses

Space: Office layout, amount of work and storage space,
25
location of workspace
Ease of interaction with co workers 8
Privacy 13
Office Interiors 29
Accessibility 4
Access and ability to personal control 26
Window view and location 16
Corporation of user needs 26
Indoor Environmental Performance Evaluation Factors Number of Responses
Light: Natural lighting, Artificial lighting, Overall comfort 14
Thermal Comfort: Temperature, Humidity, Overall
27
comfort
Air Quality: Air quality, Ventilation 15
Acoustic: Noise level, Sound privacy 23
Work activities 39
Survey 18

Table 4.2: Count of Open-Ended Responses at Spartan Way

Space: A total of 25/62 occupants responded when asked about the aspects that they

would change to improve the functional performance of their personal workspace and

101
stated that they need “complete departments to reside alongside each other within talking

or seeing distance”, that the desk and movement area within each cubicle is insufficient,

that distance between particular work spaces and office equipment areas containing

printers, fax machine, and mail boxes is too large, that the storage space and units are

insufficient, and that the space allocation is disproportionate; as quoted by one of the

occupants, “huge offices vs. tiny cubicles”. Another occupant commented, “This office is

poorly laid out. I think it is odd that this place was designed with so many cubical

designated for people who are not fundraisers nor supervisors and so few offices. We

have areas with many empty cubes and then areas where we can’t even have all the staff

of the unit together. I also think it’s odd that so many small conference rooms were

designed without having one large one. We have to spend money to rent other facilities

every time we have a meeting with more than maybe five people, which is quite

ridiculous for a unit as large as ours”.

Ease of interaction with co-workers: This is one of the most significant causes for

occupant dissatisfaction with functional performance. Occupants stated, “The long

hallway design isolates people” and “it would be nice to be in an area all together, where

we can interact without worrying about disturbing others around us.”

Accessibility: Some of the occupants consider the main entrance to be very far from their

personal workspace and some stated, “It is a long walk from the parking lot and up a lot

of steps. It is okay for a young healthy person but could be difficult for an old or injured

person”. One of the occupants considers that the building has higher than usual security.

102
Access and ability of personal control: This is another one of the most significant causes

of occupant dissatisfaction among all other evaluation factors in Spartan Way. Out of the

26 open-ended responses received, some occupants stated the following:

ƒ “We have no control on temperature of office, so therefore it can be too cold or

too warm at times.”

ƒ “I need to purchase a heater (my own). I seem to be cold most days.”

ƒ “There is no control for heating and ventilation, even if we all agree we are hot,

we can’t change the thermostat.”

ƒ “It is always too hot in winter likewise in summer. No personal control is

available.”

ƒ “Only problem is temperature. Personal heaters are a must.”

ƒ “We constantly have heating/ cooling issues. Generally too cold all year round.”

ƒ “Personal office thermostat would be great.”

Incorporation of user needs: Only 5/26 occupants responded positively to the

incorporation of user needs. The rest of them stated the following:

ƒ “We were not given an opportunity to provide input. Ladies restroom location is

not convenient or adequate. Always better to work in better surroundings.”

ƒ “I am not sure the needs of employees were considered at all. Functionality of

location, storage, counter-space for project meetings.”

ƒ “No. Not really. The space is pretty generic.”

103
 ƒ “I have no idea what renovations occurred. If this is about Spartan way, then my

major concern is the terrible acoustics in the café lounge.”

ƒ “No. Privacy issues, noise levels and layout of computer were all ignored.”

ƒ “No. There no privacy, the work area is too small, the lighting is too bright. When

we first came here they said that we in cubes could use the chat rooms when we

need a bit of privacy. However, because they designed so many cubes in relation

to offices, the chat rooms have long ago been converted to offices.”

Light: Though Spartan Way occupants are fairly satisfied with this aspect, some of them

stated that the glare was too much due to the overhead lighting or when all the lights were

switched on and that sometimes the glare from the sun was too bright during the

afternoons. At least 5 occupants stated that they would prefer natural light.

Thermal comfort: The lack of access and ability to personally control temperature and a

bad ventilation system has resulted in occupants being dissatisfied with the thermal

comfort at Spartan Way. It seems from the comments of most occupants that this aspect

is affecting the overall quality of the indoor environment at this building. Some of these

comments are as follows:

ƒ “I don’t like not having some control of my workspace temperature.”

ƒ “Add humidity in the winter. Humidity is lower than 20% or less. A little more

heat would help in cool weather.”

ƒ “Ventilation is poor and there is no control over temperature.”

104
 ƒ “No control over temperature and ventilation. I just keep a sweater and try to

dress in layers but the thermostats area joke.”

ƒ “The air conditioning can be too cold and I feel it is a waste of energy.”

ƒ “Eyes burn every day. Too hot one day, too cold the next.”

ƒ “Can be hot, seems dry, smoke fumes and exhaust fumes come into private office-

difficult when it happens due to asthma. Individual office controls for heating and

cooling.”

Air quality: This aspect as well is a secondary cause of dissatisfaction as it is a result of

the ventilation system. This has been concluded from the following comments:

ƒ “Figure out where the ventilation is piped. Kitchen and bathroom odors are very

prominent. Air does not seem to circulate well.”

ƒ “Air purifier to remove dust would help. Some of us developed eye allergies.

Being able to open windows in nice weather would help. More custodial service

staff would be of help.”

ƒ “The air quality in the bathroom on the third floor is terrible. It always smells bad.

It smells like sewer back up air. This has been bad since day 1. Nothing seems to

make it better.”

ƒ “The first year or so, the odors from catering downstairs were almost a daily

occurrence and sometimes we would actually see a haze in the air. This has been

corrected and now there are only occasional aromatic days. Some days it is very

humid and stuffy in here.”

ƒ “Vent outside and have intake outtake apart from each other. Cold air returns.”

105
Acoustic: The open office plan and crowded layout is a cause of poor acoustical

performance for this building. Most occupants were very concerned about the lack of

sound privacy and noise level, which affected their work performance to some extent.

Some of the comments that substantiate this conclusion are as follows:

ƒ “You can hear every conversation in the office unless you are in one of the closed

offices- even closed offices you can hear conversations.”

ƒ “Any change would help sound privacy. We can hear people breathe. Phone

conversations are impossible. Therefore, one has to leave workspace to go to a

chat room- what if we need computer for conversations.”

ƒ “It is not possible to professionally interview donors in an open space. Yet it is

also not possible to interact with colleagues in order to consult on projects

(disturbs others).”

ƒ “Do not like the white noise machine. It needs to be turned down. It is not

necessary.”

ƒ “Everything echoes. You can hear conversations from down the hall and around

the corner. Very hard to concentrate because of the noise. We were told we would

have the state of the art noise reduction system- it doesn’t work.”

ƒ “White noise is not covering the noise from co-workers and turning the white

noise up has resulted in feeling like your working in an airplane all day.”

ƒ “Not only can I all hear other people's conversations but mine are heard by others.

Also often, I am interrupted by others during phone conversations. As much as I

do not like my office environment, but I do not let it affect my work.”

106
 ƒ “Office size is wonderful but in high traffic area so need to close door. Windows

(clear) in door would be good. Then I appear sociable accessible but can get down

on high traffic noise. To work productivity and to be able to concentrate and

focus, I need to shut door to shut out noise.”

New technology: As seen in the above mentioned comments, the white noise system

which was suppose to act as a noise reduction system is actually causing additional noise

in the office area which disturbs the workers and leads to a dissatisfied temperament.

This leads to the understanding that the new technology has failed to accomplish the

intended purpose.

4.3.2.4 Survey Feedback Analysis: (Section 4 of the POE Questionnaire)

This section presents the summary of findings from the survey feedback analysis.

The total percentage of positive response to the overall trial POE survey was 71%, which

is the average of responses to Questions 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 in section 4 of the POE survey.

This trial survey will be further improvised using the suggestions given by the occupants

during the POE.

In Spartan Way, 41% were satisfied with the format of the survey (Figure 4.21),

53% were satisfied with the appropriateness of questions (Figure 4.22), an overall 94%

consider that aspects are covered to a great extent/some extent by the POE survey (Figure

4.26), 82% said yes to the question, “Are the right questions being asked?” (Figure 4.27),

and 85% said yes when asked if the POE survey allowed them to effectively indicate

their satisfaction with the design of their workspace (Figure 4.28).

107
 Dissatisfied Very Satisfied
Very Dissatisfied
7% 10%
2% Very Satisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied
5% Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
24%
Slightly Satisfied 31%
21%

Figure 4.21: Q1: How satisfied are you with the format of the survey?

Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Slightly Dissatisfied 3% 0%
Very Satisfied
2% Very Satisfied
Neutral 16% Satisfied
23% Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied 37%
19%

Figure 4.22: Q2: How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of
questions?

Need more
Just right Need fewer open-
open-ended
for me ended
18%
78% 4%
Need more open-ended
Need fewer open-ended
Just right for me

Figure 4.23: Q3: Please comment on the balance of open ended to

closed response questions.

108
 Interviews
8%
Paper based
20%

Web based Paper based

72%
Web based
Interviews

Figure 4.24: Q4: In the future, which method of interaction would you
prefer for this kind of study?

Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Slightly Very Satisfied
9% 3%
Dissatisfied 16%
Very Satisfied
3%
Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Neutral
Slightly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
26%
Slightly Satisfied 25%
18%

Figure 4.25: Q5: How satisfied would you feel if these questions were
asked in a focus group of persons occupying adjacent workspaces as
compared to this survey?

To little extent Not at all To a great extent

3% 3% 35%

To a great extent
To some extent
To some extent
59% To little extent
Not at all

Figure 4.26: Q6- In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover
aspects that you would like to comment upon about your office?

109
 Others
No 18%
0% Yes
No
Others

Yes
82%

Figure 4.27: Q7- Do you consider that right questions are being asked of
building occupants?

In between Others
yes and no 2%
Yes
2%
No No
11%
In between yes and no
Others

Yes
85%

Figure 4.28: Occupant Perception: Does the survey allow you to effectively
indicate your satisfaction with the design of your workspace?

4.3.2.5 Occupant Observations, Suggestions, and Recommendations

This section presents excerpts of open-ended responses from the survey feedback

section to bring forth the observations, suggestions, and recommendations of the Spartan

Way occupants:

ƒ When asked if the right questions were being asked, an occupant stated, “Need

additional questions on layout of units, accessibility to conference rooms, desk

suitability, space issues, good use of current locations etc”.

110
ƒ When asked if any aspects were not included that occupants consider important

and which impact their satisfaction with their workspace, occupants stated,

“Ladies restroom needs much attention - in terms of location, number of stall,

odor, common areas, café lounge, ease and location of restroom facilities. Other

comments were:

- “Building security. Inability to feel safe in a cubicle environment during

night and weekend work when building is mostly empty.”

- “More regarding privacy (noise level in cubicle environment).”

- “Restrooms, cleanliness, kitchen facilities and how it supports staff who

bring lunches, lighting in common areas.”

- “The building is new- it would cost a tremendous amount of money to

implement changes for best comfort and work style of workers. If the

office design changes are to be made, workers from all levels need to be

included not just the leadership teams.”

ƒ When asked if any questions were confusing or unclear, to some occupants it

seemed that the same questions were being asked but in different use of verbiage,

to another occupant it was difficult to figure out what was being asked in Q31.

Other comments were as follows:

- “Q28 should state- "If No, skip to Q7 which is on page 4, but not

numbered. Q36- NA if not long-term employee of unit, likewise for Q38.

Q56 needs likert scale. #58-60 also NA to employees new to the unit.”

- “On Q58-61, not sure if you meant HVAC or computer technology.”

111
 - “Questions refer to renovations- this was a new building. Q58-60- not sure

what is meant by new technology.”

ƒ Only one occupant stated, “This survey took longer than stated and I did not take

any calls during this time.”

4.4 Comparative Analysis of Survey Feedback from S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way

In order to be able to compare the survey feedback responses from the S.P.D.C.

and the Spartan Way, both excel worksheets were combined into a single one as shown in

Figure 4.29 below:

Figure 4.29: Snapshot of Worksheet with Combined Responses from the

S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way

112
 This new spreadsheet containing the S.P.D.C. and the Spartan Way Responses

was used to determine the commonalities, differences, and uniqueness of responses from

both buildings. The combined findings are summarized in Table 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Table

4.3 presents the mean and percentage of values for each response category from both

buildings.

SECTION 4: POE RESPONSE S.P.D.C. SPARTAN MEAN

SURVEY EVALUATION CATEGORIES WAY
QUESTIONS
Q1. How satisfied are Very satisfied 26% 10% 18%
you with the format of Satisfied 30% 31% 30.5%
the survey? Slightly satisfied 18% 21% 19.5%
Neutral 19% 24% 21.5%
Slightly dissatisfied 0% 5% 2.5%
Dissatisfied 7% 7% 7%
Very dissatisfied 0% 2% 1%
Q2. How satisfied are Very satisfied 26% 16% 21%
you with the Satisfied 29% 37% 33%
appropriateness of the Slightly satisfied 26% 19% 22.5%
questions? Neutral 15% 23% 19%
Slightly dissatisfied 4% 2% 3%
Dissatisfied 0% 3% 1.5%
Very dissatisfied 0% 0% 0%
Q3. Please comment on Need more open- 8% 18% 12%
the balance of open- ended 88% 4% 46%
ended vs. closed Need fewer open- 4% 78% 41%
responses. ended
Just right for me
Q4. In future, which Web-based 57% 72% 64.5%
method of interaction Paper-based 36% 20% 28%
would you prefer for a Interviews 7% 8% 7.5%
similar study? Any other? Please 0% 0% 0%
Specify.

Table 4.3: Survey Feedback: Comparative Analysis of Response Summary

113
Table 4.3 Continued: Survey Feedback: Comparative Analysis of Response
Summary

SECTION 4: POE RESPONSE S.P.D.C. SPARTAN MEAN

SURVEY EVALUATION CATEGORIES WAY
QUESTIONS
Q5. How Satisfied Very satisfied 22% 16% 19%
would you feel if these Satisfied 30% 25% 27.5%
questions were being Slightly satisfied 26% 18% 22%
asked in a focus group Neutral 11% 26% 18.5%
of persons occupying Slightly dissatisfied 4% 3% 3.5%
adjacent area as Dissatisfied 7% 9% 8%
compared to this Very dissatisfied 0% 3% 1.5%
survey?
SECTION 4: POE SURVEY RESPONSE S.P.D.C. SPARTAN
EVALUATION QUESTIONS CATEGORIES WAY
Q6. To what extent did the survey To a great extent 89% 35%
cover the aspects you would like to Some extent 11% 59%
comment on related to your office? To a little extent 0% 3%
Not at all 0% 3%
Q7. Do you consider the right Yes 82% 82%
questions are being asked? No 0% 0%
Other, please specify 18% 18%
Q9. Do you think the survey allows Yes 67% 85%
you to effectively indicate your No 5% 11%
satisfaction with the design of your In between yes and no 6% 2%
workspace? Other, please specify 22% 2%

As seen in Table 4.3, the percentage of occupants responding to particular

categories varies to some extent between the S.P.D.C. and the Spartan Way. For example,

88% of the S.P.D.C. occupants need fewer open ended whereas 78% of the Spartan Way

occupants consider the number of open-ended questions just right. The majorities of

occupants in both buildings are satisfied with the survey format, the appropriateness of

questions, and have recommended the use of a web-based approach for future interaction.

114
 When it comes to the extent to which the survey has covered aspects that

occupants would like to comment on, only 35% of the Spartan Way occupants as

compared to 89% in the S.P.D.C. choose the option, “to a great extent”. The reason for

this difference can be explained on the basis of responses received from Spartan Way in

the open-ended sections, as shown in Table 4.4, and, which is discussed earlier in section

4.3.2.3 C. It seems that satisfaction with common areas (restrooms, lunch room,

conference room, etc) strongly contribute to their overall satisfaction with their

workspace. However, for the question- Do you think that the survey allows you to

effectively indicate your satisfaction with the design of your workspace? 67% in the

S.P.D.C. and 85% in the Spartan Way said yes. This means in S.P.D.C., 89% of the

occupants consider the survey covers aspects to a great extent, but 67% think that the

survey allows them to effectively indicate satisfaction with the design of their workspace.

In Spartan Way, 35% of the occupants consider the survey covers aspects to a great

extent, but 85% think that the survey allows them to effectively indicate your satisfaction

with the design of their workspace.

115
 QUESTIONS S.P.D.C. SPARTAN WAY
Q8. (Follow up questions 1. Ask about overall 1. Space issues, good use
to Q7) If No, what staffing concept of current locations etc
questions should be 2. Social interaction 2. Need additional
asked? questions questions. Layout of
3. Ask us about teaching, units, accessibility to
studios & computer lab conference rooms
space 3. What we need? How we
4. Consider flexibility of the work best? What type of
space for use in future environment do we
5. Process questions work best in?
related to how they 4. Desk suitability
selected their space and
work
Option: Others-please 6. For IEQ purposes- yes. 5. Ladies restroom needs
specify for Q9. Do you Use of common spaces, much attention - in
think the survey allows lunch room, etc. meeting terms of location,
you to effectively indicate rooms with students on number of stall, odor
your satisfaction with the each floor etc.
design of your 6. Access to building (from
workspace? parking lot #79)
7. This survey took longer
than stated and I did not
take any calls during this
time.
Q10. Please mention any 7. Space satisfaction is 8. Sufficiency and location
aspects that may not closely related to overall of common areas such
have been included for management and job as lunch rooms,
evaluation of your duties- more questions cafeterias, meeting
satisfaction but which about this. rooms, rest rooms
may be representative of 8. More regarding privacy 9. Access to building from
performance of your (noise level in cubicle parking
workspace function and environment) 10. Cleanliness
environment in your 9. Sufficiency of study areas 11. Building Security
opinion.

Table 4.4: Survey Feedback Section: Suggestions for Functional and

Indoor Environment Aspects and Questions to be included in Evaluation
(Verbatim)

116
 Table 4.4 presents the functional and indoor environmental aspects and related

questions suggested by building occupants. Table 4.5 presents the questions that both

building occupants find unclear, confusing, and/or unnecessary. Based on this, the POE

questions were refined in the final survey presented in Chapter 5.

QUESTIONS S.P.D.C. SPARTAN WAY

Q11. Please list by 1. The use of the phrase 1. Q31 I couldn't quite figure out
number the "satisfaction" is what you were asking
questions that you vague to me. It does 2. After Q31 and Q32, the italicized
find unclear or not capture my text doesn’t tell you what to do if
confusing and feelings- although you have no previous office space
explain why? there is plenty of 3. Q28 should state- "if No, skip to
opportunity- to relate Q31 which is on page 4,
concern in the open 4. Q36- NA if not long-term
ended portion employee of unit, likewise for
2. The scale generally Q38.
starts from very 5. Q57 needs likert scale
dissatisfied to 6. Q59-Q62 also NA to employees
satisfied in a survey new to the unit
3. Need NA option 7. Questions refer to renovations-
4. Q51-53, Q24-25, this was a new building.
Q59-62 8. Q58-60- not sure what is meant
5. Q 58-61, not sure if by new technology.
you meant HVAC or
computer
technology.
Q12. Please list by 6. Age 9. It seems that the same questions
number any 7. Q48 and Q52 same were asked but in different uses
questions that you question- ventilation of verbiage
feel were
unnecessary?

Table 4.5: Survey Feedback: Comments on Unclear, Confusing, and

Unnecessary Questions (Verbatim)

117
4.5 Conclusions

The information extracted and summarized in the above tables has been used to

make changes to the POE survey and create the modified version which is discussed in

Chapter 5.

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the data collected and analyzed to accomplish the goal and

objectives of this research study. The following chapter will discuss the changes made to

the POE survey based on findings from its application in the case study facilities/

(analysis of the survey feedback responses from the S.P.D.C. and the Spartan Way) and

also present the final POE survey.

118
 CHAPTER 5

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION SURVEY

5.1. Chapter Overview

This chapter presents a discussion of the changes made to the trial POE survey

followed by the modified final POE survey. These changes were based on findings from

the performance evaluation of the case study facilities and the analysis of survey

feedback responses from Stadium and Spartan Way occupants. The trial POE survey was

constructed based on the information obtained from literature review and administrator

interviews.

First, the changes flowing from the open-ended responses are presented as a part

of the researcher’s observation and analysis in Tables 5.1a-b and 5.2a-b. Next, the direct

recommendations are quoted from the open ended sections and the changes flowing from

those are discussed in Tables 5.4 and 5.5.

5.2. Researcher’s Observation:

This section presents the researcher’s observation with regard to the occupants’

responses to the open-ended questions in the tested POE survey. Considering questions

from one to seven that cover personal workspace layout, workspace location, and the

amount of space available for work and storage; respondents have stated reasons for their

satisfaction or dissatisfaction interchangeably as shown in Tables 5.1a and 5.1b.

Therefore, the three separate paired questions on each of these aspects have been replaced

119
by a single pair of questions to inquire about all three aspects collectively in the revised

POE survey. The modified pair of questions is as follows:

™ How satisfied are you with your personal workspace layout, workspace location

and the amount of space available to you for work and storage?

™ If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RESPONSES

AMOUNT OF SPACE
OFFICE LAYOUT (Q2) WORKSPACE LOCATION (Q4)
(Q8)
More work space needed.
Faculty rooms are all over NA Need additional 100
the place and difficult to SF for my office.
find.
No place to move really- but
better shades to protect from
the sun.
Removed from faculty with Same as Question 2 Need more closed
whom I have most contact- general storage. We
organize faculty by major. lack storage for hard
copies- student
portfolios, etc.
More storage space. More storage for
Computer screen not students’ drawings
facing the door. and projects.
It’s a bit small- 50% bigger Overall everything’s is See Question 2
would be convenient everywhere. Grad student’s
office all the way upstairs. Main
office downstairs. A more
controlled layout in the overall
has been better for
communication purposes. Also
all CM profs are all over in the
buildings. Can't get to see them
often if not personally aiming it.
Low interaction due to layout.
Bigger, more workable Not sure, but feel the overall
area space for workers not designed
to the best use of the space.

Table 5.1a: SPDC Responses to Questions 1 - 8 (Verbatim)

120
 SPARTAN WAY RESPONSES
WORKSPACE AMOUNT OF
OFFICE LAYOUT (Q2)
LOCATION (Q4) SPACE (Q8)
Design to allow complete departments Remain fairly neutral
to reside alongside each other within on location. Has been
talking or seeing distance. More removed from main
occupied offices. Chat rooms wasted office areas, but that
valuable space. is okay at times, as
the cubicle layout,
noise, and
disturbance make it
hard to concentrate
to write or have
phone conversations.
More privacy. Sound travels very easily Too far from copy
through our work area and it is different machine and supplies
to conduct confidential business when too. Far from main
everyone around can hear. reception area.
Needed to be contiguous with colleagues I would not locate
with whom I frequently interact. offices in a dark
corner
The curve desk area makes it hard to use
keyboard- need straight area for this
(like office desks). Not enough space to
back up in chair (run into back desk).
Must keep both front plus back desk at
some height to use keyboard (defeats
purpose). Cannot see co-workers from
my space.
Adequate arrangement seems like no
real creative design effort expended.
With some consultations the workspace
could be more inspired, interesting. Look
a bit more like university rather than
institution. I would like to see the
university being forward thinking-
making staircases a center piece for first
2 floors as a option for fitness. The
building is nice but unimaginative.

Table 5.1b: Spartan Way Responses to Questions 1 - 8 (Verbatim)

121
 Table 5.1b Continued: Spartan Way Responses to Questions 1 - 8
(Verbatim)

SPARTAN WAY RESPONSES

WORKSPACE
OFFICE LAYOUT (Q2) AMOUNT OF SPACE (Q8)
LOCATION (Q4)
Put a door on my cubicle. Put Need more space. I'm a
helpdesk behind a closed door. techie and need to work on
So disruptive. Reconfigure area 3-4 personal computers at a
and build offices for system time to setup in my area.
group.
Cubicles are too close together, Need more storage space
you can hear everything going (drawers and bigger desk
on in other cubicles sometimes area to spread work out).
making it hard to focus.
Our storage room isn’t big
enough- very crowded. We
store the shredder bin-
which everyone uses. We
also store all of the toners
for all the printers/copiers
including photocopy. All
centrally placed printers,
also kitchen supplies and
share with 2 other units.
I get bored and would like the I think the cubicles are Workspace functions well
ability to rearrange the desk too small and for job responsibilities but
and other office furniture. The awkward. Make our not to conduct business
colors are drab and don’t keep cubicles a little bigger conversations. A little more
you motivated. and put more space space/ bigger storage
between the cubicle cabinet would be nice.
groups or just give me
an office.
Out of the way of noise+ passer Huge offices vs. tiny Room to lock up secure
bys. cubicles documents
Need more space for storage,
within office space. I have kind
of high jacked rolling file
cabinets from unoccupied work
stations.

122
 Table 5.1b Continued: Spartan Way Responses to Questions 1 - 8
(Verbatim)

SPARTAN WAY RESPONSES

WORKSPACE
OFFICE LAYOUT (Q2) AMOUNT OF SPACE (Q8)
LOCATION (Q4)
I think such a narrow design is Actually, I guess I am I would very much
not conducive to efficient work quite fortunate to be appreciate more surface
or to fostering a collegial near the middle of the area& more drawer space. I
atmosphere. A copier/ printer long office. Close to have a lot of paper and a lot
is located at each end if you the bathroom & of things going on at one
walk to one & if it’s being used mailroom & office once. So my cube always
it’s about the length of a entrance. On the looks like a disaster area.
football field to go to the other other hand, there
one. You hardly ever see quite a lot of traffic
people who are housed at the because my cubicle is
ends of the offices. between most
popular conference
room and the
bathrooms.
We do not have enough space
so that everyone on our team/
unit is all together. Cubes
spaced apart in different areas
of building.
Size of office is good but it is in Quieter location with
a high traffic noisy area that assistant in adjoining
requires door to be closed in but private office- but
order to focus on work. Co- stadium tower does
workers may think I am anti not appear to give
social but not so. Windows CT's private offices.
clear in door would help. Ideal which we had
previously.

Similarly, considering questions from 18 to 23 that cover office furniture,

furnishing, and equipment; respondents have stated reasons for their satisfaction or

dissatisfaction interchangeably as shown in Tables 5.2a and 5.2b. Therefore, the three

separate paired questions on each of these aspects have been replaced by a single pair of

123
questions to inquire about all three aspects collectively in the revised POE survey. The

modified pair of questions is as follows:

™ How satisfied are you with your personal workspace furniture, furnishing, and

equipment?

™ If you are highly satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why.

SCHOOL OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RESPONSES

OFFICE FURNITURE (Q19) OFFICE FURNISHING (Q21) OFFICE EQUIPMENT (Q23)
Ugly I brought my own carpet and no place for models and
office furniture drawings; the office is like a rat
in a small cage.
Furniture is very light duty. It does See #19 for furniture.
not seem durable for long haul.
furniture is heavy and low quality,
hard to move
Old furniture Blinds are outdated and dusty
Rocks, sticks, difficult to move,
small drawer, only open certain
drawers if others are closed
The finish could have been
better.

Table 5.2a: SPDC Responses to Questions 18 - 23 (Verbatim)

SPARTAN WAY RESPONSES

OFFICE FURNITURE
OFFICE FURNISHING (Q21) OFFICE EQUIPMENT (Q23)
(Q19)
I don’t like the carpet because it The printer is always jamming and
doesn’t have any padding. It is hard breaking down.
on the feet.
It works; it's just ugly- Change color scheme. I would make the temperature
make a better color higher but this is something that no
selection. one will ever be happy with
someone is always cold someone
else hot.

Table 5.2b: Spartan Way Responses to Questions 18 - 23 (Verbatim)

124
 Table 5.2b continued: Spartan Way Responses to Questions 18 - 23
(Verbatim)

SPARTAN WAY RESPONSES

OFFICE FURNITURE
OFFICE FURNISHING (Q21) OFFICE EQUIPMENT (Q23)
(Q19)
Chairs do not roll without major effort
because of bumpy patterned carpet.
Colors are drab and patterns are
ridiculous. Work surface corners are
sharp or edged with hand rounded
pieces not good for computer use.

Put padding under carpet; pick a Too far to go to make a copy and
smoother carpet that vacuum easily. took a year but finally got us a
printer in our area.
I wish we had personal printers in
our offices.
Brought our own Could use carpet cleaning overall & Need a higher quality printer, Need
furniture over from the stain removal. upgraded computer- grinding noise,
Kellogg center. I picked it have been told by IT that my
out it works well, was computer is dying- might crash.
brought over from
Kellogg center.
Our printers commonly have
problems and the other printer that
we can use is all the way down on
the south end of the building.

Keyboards should be in I think way too much money was I very much appreciated my
ledges that are height spent on the décor of our office, computer double screens. I really
adjustable. considering this is an university. Why dislike the printer copiers. I have to
do we need sculpted carpets or frequently make a small set of copies
marble topped conference tables, and often have to wait for print jobs
those ridiculous round things on the coming through as a copy did the
top of the cabinets? When we moved one dedicated to the copier.
in here, there was such a sense of
office being way more important than
the people in it. Plus the design of the
bathroom sink area is horrible.
There’s standing water on the
counter constantly- sometimes so
bad, it is dripping on the floor.

5.3. Respondent’s (Direct) Recommendations

This section presents the changes made to the tested POE survey based on the

responses (recommendations) in the survey feedback section. As shown earlier in Table

125
4.4, there are additional evaluation factors suggested by respondents. Table 5.3 shows

those evaluation factors and questions suggested, if they were accepted or rejected,

reason for their acceptance or rejection, and the action taken. Mostly POE factors and

questions were rejected if they were out of the research scope or beyond the study goal

and objectives. The recommended aspects mentioned in Table 5.3 are derived from

Tables 4.4 and the recommended questions mentioned in Table 5.4 are derived from

Tables 4.5.

RECOMMENDED ASPECTS ACCEPTED/ REASON ACTION TAKEN

FROM SPDC AND REJECTED
SPARTAN WAY
(TABLE 4.4)
SPDC comment no.1 Rejected Beyond current study No action taken
Overall staffing concept goal and objectives.
SPDC comment no.2 Rejected This aspect has already No action taken
Social interaction been included in
questions 11 and 12.
SPDC comment no.3 Partially A part of research goal No action taken
Teaching spaces, study accepted and objectives. Out of within the
areas, studios and research scope. Will be current study
computer lab spaces considered in follow-
up projects.
SPDC comment no.4 Accepted Within research scope Included in the
Flexibility of space for use and could be POE
in future considered as a part of questionnaire
the study goal and
objectives.
SPDC comment no.5 Accepted Within research scope Included in the
Method of selection of and could be POE
workspace considered as a part of questionnaire
the study goal and
objectives.

Table 5.3: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended Aspects and

Actions Taken Towards POE Survey

126
 Table 5.3 continued: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended
Aspects and Actions Taken Towards POE Survey

RECOMMENDED ASPECTS ACCEPTED/ REASON ACTION TAKEN

FROM SPDC AND REJECTED
SPARTAN WAY
(TABLE 4.4)
SPDC comment no.6 Partially A part of research goal Will be
Performance of common accepted and objectives. Out of considered in
areas (lunch rooms, research scope. Will be follow up
restrooms, conference considered in follow- projects
rooms) up projects.
SPDC comment no.7 Rejected Beyond current study No action taken
Overall management and goal and objectives.
job duties
SPDC comment no.8 Rejected Within research scope Privacy is
Privacy in cubicle and would be already included
environment considered a part of in the POE
the study goal and questionnaire
objectives.
Spartan Way comment Partially A part of research goal Will be
no.9 Access to building accepted and objectives but, out considered in
from parking of research scope. Will follow up
be considered in studies
follow-up projects.

RECOMMENDED QUESTIONS ACCEPTED/ REASON ACTION

FROM SPDC AND SPARTAN WAY REJECTED TAKEN
(TABLE 4.5)
Table 4.5: Comment 1 from SPDC Rejected The primary purpose No Action
The use of the phrase of the POE survey is Taken
"satisfaction" is vague to me. It to assess overall
does not capture my feelings- satisfaction and
although there is plenty of therefore the use of
opportunity- to relate concern in the phrase
the open ended portion. “satisfaction”

Table 5.4: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended Questions

and Actions Taken Towards POE Survey

127
 Table 5.4 continued: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended
Questions and Actions Taken Towards POE Survey

RECOMMENDED QUESTIONS ACCEPTED REASON ACTION TAKEN

FROM SPDC AND SPARTAN WAY / REJECTED
(TABLE 4.5)
Table 4.5: Comment 2 from SPDC Accepted Recommended Response options
The scale generally starts from by MSU’s reversed in
very dissatisfied to satisfied in a Statistics revised POE
survey Consultants survey
Table 4.5: Comment 3 from SPDC Accepted This option Not applicable
Need NA option when added option added to
gives more all “yes-no”
flexibility to questions in the
respondents. POE questionnaire
Table 4.5: Comment 4 from SPDC Rejected Outlier No Action Taken
Q24-25, Q51-53, Q59-62 response.
Table 4.5: Comment 5 from SPDC Partially Instruction Questions 56
Q 58-61, not sure if you meant Accepted could be more through 60
HVAC or computer technology. specific modified for
clarity
Table 4.5: Comment 1 from Accepted Instruction Question modified
Spartan Way could be more for clarity
Q31 I couldn't quite figure out specific
what you were asking
Table 4.5: Comment 2 from Accepted Instruction Question modified
Spartan Way could be more for clarity
After Q31 and Q32, the italicized specific
text doesn’t tell you what to do if
you have no previous office space
Table 4.5: Comment 3 from Accepted Instruction Question modified
Spartan Way- could be more for clarity
Q28 should state- "if No, skip to specific
Q31 which is on page 4”
Table 4.5: Comment 4 from Accepted Instruction Question modified
Spartan Way could be more for clarity
Q36- NA if not long-term specific
employee of unit, likewise for
Q38.

128
Table 5.4 Continued: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Recommended
Questions and Actions Taken Towards POE Survey

RECOMMENDED QUESTIONS ACCEPTED REASON ACTION TAKEN

FROM SPDC AND SPARTAN WAY /
(TABLE 4.5) REJECTED
Table 4.5: Comment 5 from Accepted Instruction Question
Spartan Way could be more modified for
Q57 needs likert scale specific clarity
Table 4.5: Comment 6 from Accepted Instruction Question
Spartan Way could be more modified for
Q59-Q62 also NA to employees specific clarity
new to the unit
Table 4.5: Comment 7 from Partially Limitations in Not Applicable
Spartan Way Accepted building
Questions refer to renovations- this selection
was a new building.
Table 4.5: Comment 8 from Partially Instruction Question
Spartan Way Accepted could be more modified for
Q58-60- not sure what is meant by specific clarity
new technology.

UNECESSARY/CONFUSING ACCEPTED/ REASON ACTION TAKEN

QUESTIONS REJECTED
Table 4.5: Comment 6 from Rejected Outlier No Action Taken
SPDC- Age response
Table 4.5: Comment 7 from Partially Question seems Removed from
SPDC- Q48 and Q52 same accepted repetitive thermal comfort
question- ventilation category and
retained under air
quality.
Table 4.5: Comment 9 from Rejected No particular No Action Taken
Spartan Way- It seems that questions
the same questions were asked referred in
but in different uses of verbiage response

Table 5.5: Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting Comments for

Unnecessary/Confusing Questions and Actions Taken

129
5.4. Modified POE Survey Questions
Based on the recommendations from the Spartan Way and the SPDC occupants,

the following changes were made to the POE survey:

1. The likert scale was reversed from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” in all

questions inquiring about occupants’ satisfaction level.

2. The evaluation factors, “flexibility of space for use in future” and “selection of

workspace” were added to the first section of the POE survey.

3. Questions inquiring about occupants’ satisfaction level with regard to new

technologies implemented in the case study facilities were rephrased for clarity.

4. The question inquiring about occupants’ satisfaction with “ventilation of their

workspace” was previously mentioned in two sections, “thermal comfort” and

“air quality”. This question was deleted from the “thermal comfort” section to

avoid repetition.

5. A “not applicable” option was added to all the “yes-no” questions based on

recommendation of statistics consultant at Michigan State University.

6. In the last section of the POE survey, the question inquiring about opinion of

respondents with regard to focus groups versus survey was modified. The likert

scale format was replaced with a multiple choice format.

7. The final and most significant modification made to the survey was to convert it

from a paper-based to a web-based format. This was based on the analysis results

that 57% of the SPDC and 72% of the Spartan Way occupants would prefer a

web-based survey in the future as a method of interaction for this kind of study.

130
5.5. Conclusion

The modifications made to the POE survey were to enhance the simplicity and

efficiency of the overall questionnaire and to make it more user-friendly. The POE survey

from this study was not entirely but partly different from those already available in the

literature in the following way: it is a stand-alone survey, focuses on evaluation of indoor

environmental and functional performance, unlike the AUDE 2006 survey, that

additionally investigates the technical performance of facilities and the overall

performance of project in the design and construction phases, using a set of

questionnaires; or unlike CBE, where, the questionnaire mainly investigates indoor

environment. The most unique feature of this survey is that it allows university

administrators to capture individual occupants’ perception of their personal work space

performance, of the related issues, and of what changes could be made to make the space

more efficient and satisfactory for them. This automatically gives a direction for

corrective action in future, which takes care of occupants’ opinions.

5.6. Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed changes made to the POE survey based on findings from

its application in the case study facilities (analysis of the survey feedback responses from

Stadium and Spartan Way). The modified final POE survey is included in appendix B7.

The next chapter presents the recommended POE process, which is the second main

deliverable of this study.

131
 CHAPTER 6

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION PROCESS

6.1 Chapter Overview

This chapter presents the recommended POE process that was developed based on

the lessons learned from the application of a POE in this study, the information found in

the literature from a comparison of the POE phases identified in the Key and Wener’s

1980 study (Figure 2.5), the POE process models developed by Preiser in 2002 (Figure

2.7) and AUDE in 2006 (Figure 2.9), and the post implementation review process by

New South Wales Treasury in 2004 (Figure 2.8).

6.2 Post Occupancy Evaluation Process

The recommended POE process as shown in Figure 6.1 comprises of four phases,

namely, project establishment phase, data collection and analysis phase, reporting phase,

and university phase for incorporation and corrective action. These four phases further

comprise of various intermediate steps.

132
 PARTICIPANTS A. PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT

UNIVERSITY
Does university and facility
owner want to conduct POE or Exit Process
not?

Get involved 1. Establish POE goals and Gather

FACILITY between 9-12 objectives general
months from 2. Determine POE outcomes project
occupation and Appoint
project 3. Conduct feasibility review information
help initiate POE 4. Identify scope and
program coordinator
limitations
5. Determine POE
POE TEAM timeframe
(INTERNAL STAFF) 6. Ask internal questions
7. Determine instrument/s
to be used
Appoint POE team

CONSULTANT
(EXTERNAL STAFF) Engage consultant?

Appoint consultant

Figure 6.1 Post Occupancy Evaluation Process

133
 Figure 6.1 Continued Post Occupancy Evaluation

PARTICIPANTS A. PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

UNIVERSITY
University
approval
Select
stakeholder
representatives
FACILITY Gather
Facility
general
director’s
project
approval
information Building
data
POE TEAM
(INTERNAL Select method
STAFF) Apply POE Record,
for data POE
methods: arrange, sort,
collection method
occupant and analyze
surveys, the collected and
CONSULTANT
structure data and add application
(EXTERNAL
interviews, information feedback
STAFF)
focus groups, to an existing
POE physical or newly
RESPONDENTS observation, created Occupant
(Survey etc database data
respondents,
interviewees)

134
 Figure 6.1 Continued Post Occupancy Evaluation

DATA
PARTICIPANTS COLLECTION AND REPORTING UNIVERSITY
ANALYSIS

Feed into university

standards and guidelines
UNVERSITY for use in improving
building design, planning,
operation, maintenance,
and project

Building Inform facility managers

data and building users about
FACILITY
Document POE their building
Document
findings, performance
POE feedback on
method conclusions, and POE application
POE TEAM recommendations POE evaluation team
and
(Internal staff) with or without external
application
feedback Generate consultant receive
CONSULTANT feedback in terms of
reports
(External staff) lessons learnt to refine
POE Occupant process for future use
RESPONDENTS data

135
This recommended POE process involves four departments within the university:

1. The University administration (finance and planning departments especially)

2. Facility-to-be evaluated administration

3. Appointed POE team

4. Building occupants/ POE participants/respondents.

Additionally, an external POE expert/consultant may be employed if required.

Detailed description of the four POE phases (project establishment, data collection and

analysis, reporting, and university corrective action) are presented below:

6.2.1 Project Establishment Phase

In this phase of the recommended POE process, the project is to be established in

terms of the POE method (data collection tool to be used) to be followed, the timeline to

be considered, the goals and objectives to be accomplished, the outcomes to be attained,

and the budget allocated. All of this is decided after a careful feasibility review and an

identification of the overall POE scope, limitations, and the internal

issues/questions/expectations. The information thus outlined is fundamental towards the

rest of the phases of the process. All methods, tools, and strategies are to be based on the

project plan established from now on.

The first step is for the university administrators to decide if they want to conduct

a POE for a particular facility. The findings of this study indicate that this decision should

be preferably taken between nine to twelve months from when the renovated or

constructed facility has been occupied. This gives sufficient time for the occupants to

have experienced the building’s indoor environment and functional performance through

136
most of summer and winter to and from a more accurate/reliable/consistent opinion about

the building’s performance. At this point the facility manager/personnel should be

included to appoint an internal POE project officer who participates with university

administrators to appoint the POE team consisting of designers, consultants, planners,

facility personnel, contractors, and occupants. This contributes to a holistic feasibility

review which contributes to a reliable project plan. Once the internal team has reviewed

all the details with regard to project establishment, the need for an external consultant is

investigated. From this point on, if an external consultant is appointed, he or she can take

responsibility for the entire POE process or work with internal personnel to choose

methods to conduct the POE, or follow this method and report results to university

administrators. If the external consultant is not required then the internal team takes

responsibility for the following steps through the next phases. Once the POE team and

the POE objectives are established, general project information is gathered, which is

helpful in the analysis and reporting phase. At this point stakeholder representatives are

selected and contacted. Next, the POE method for data collection is decided.

6.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis Phase

In this phase, the first step would be to get approval from university and facility

administrators for the chosen POE method. Next, the POE is executed and relevant data

is collected, recorded, sorted, and analyzed. In this phase the data collected using the

approved POE method is categorized to serve the objective and purpose of the POE.

For example, in this study the data is collected using interviews and surveys,

recorded in excel spreadsheets in numeric and open ended form, and analyzed using

137
descriptive statistic methods under the categories: building data, occupant data, and

feedback data. The interviews were conducted among university administrators to obtain

their insight on POE and to understand their expectations from POE. The surveys were

conducted among building occupants to capture their perceptions towards their facility’s

functional and indoor environment performance, how it affects their satisfaction levels,

and to obtain feedback on the distributed survey. The objectives of this study are: to

develop a POE survey questionnaire for use by building occupants, to establish a POE

process for universities, and to determine occupants’ perceptions about building

performance and their related satisfaction levels.

According to the literature reviewed for this study, POE data can be collected

using walkthroughs and physical observation, structured interviews, surveys, focus

groups, maintenance record review, energy assessment, etc. Table 2.3, Table 2.4, and

Table 2.5 in Chapter Two presents a summary of the kinds of POE instruments that have

been used, their advantages and disadvantages, their foci, and their preferred time of

application. Based on the type of data collection instrument selected, data may be

recorded and analyzed qualitatively or quantitatively.

6.2.3 Reporting Phase

In this phase, the findings of the data analysis are reported to the university and

facility administrators. The findings may be presented in two categories: building

performance and POE feedback. The building performance information can be further

presented in sub-categories such as project performance, functional performance, indoor

environment quality, technical performance, and energy performance with regard to

138
different groups and area types. It mainly flows from the ways in which the data is

recorded, arranged/sorted and analyzed. The method and categories of reporting sets very

strong grounds for the direction and extent to which the corrective actions are suggested

in the next phase. The purpose of the POE feedback usually is to improve and streamline

the evaluation process. The reporting formats will depend on the objective of the POE

and the people to whom the findings are to be reported. For example, in this research

study, the findings of the building performance have been presented in the form of a

histogram.

6.2.4 University Standards and Corrective Action Phase

This is the phase where corrective actions may be taken against the problems

reported. Additionally, the building performance and the feedback information are used

to feed into the university standards database for improvement in design, construction

and operation. Depending on the objective and nature of the information gathered with

the help of the POE, it may contribute to the improvement or refinement of the technical

standards, the project management standards, the design standards, the construction

standards or it may just add to the building records, construction history, maintenance

history, etc.

6.3 POE Process Limitations

The recommended POE process is generic and emphasizes the application of

standard POE instruments in universities. The development of customized POE

instruments is beyond the scope of this process. The process presents an overview of the

139
entire evaluation and does not elaborate individual phases as because, it will vary with

other building types. The process may also need modification and elaboration of

particular steps depending on the data collection instrument and the method of analysis

used. The parameters of the feasibility review may vary depending on the purpose and

the desired outcome of the POE. Since the POE process is generic, it does not present any

categories for building performance or feedback data.

6.4 Conclusions

The POE process discussed in this chapter is intended to assist/guide facility

managers or university administrators in creating their own process based on the purpose

and desired outcome of the POE. This process caters to the first level of POE which is

indicative of the buildings’ performance. In order to further investigate or provide

diagnosis of the buildings’ performance or problems, the process may be made more

intense in the appointment of a POE team, process feasibility review, application of POE

instrument (data collection), and reporting of findings.

6.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented a discussion of the recommended POE process and its

limitations. The following chapter presents the lessons learned from this study, the

recommendations for POEs in universities, and the conclusions from this study.

140
 CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Chapter Overview

This chapter provides a discussion of the overall research scope, the accomplished

research goal and objectives, research conclusions, the limitations experienced in this

study, and also provides for a direction for future research. The following section

presents an overview of the research project narrated through the chapters 1 to 6.

7.2 Research Overview

This research developed a process for universities to conduct post occupancy

evaluation for renovated facilities with a focus on functional performance and indoor

environment quality. This study also developed a survey questionnaire specific to office

settings at universities. This was accomplished with the help of interviews and feedback

surveys, which was intended to capture the perception of university providers and users.

The method adopted for these deliverables was also intended to set an example for

universities to be able to generate survey questionnaires specific to different settings

within universities such as classrooms, common indoor , and outdoor spaces, research

laboratories, computer laboratories, parking ramps etc.

Chapter 1 presented the need and significance of this study, how it will assist

university organizations to identify and improve the elements of the physical work

environment that will further enhance the work experience of faculty and staff, thereby

generating higher satisfaction and productivity levels. This is followed by a discussion of

141
the overall research goal and objectives based on the research scope, limitations and the

deliverables. Though the kind of setting used in this study is staff and faculty spaces in

university office environments, it is not restricted to it and may also be used for other

kinds of office settings within universities as well.

Chapter 2 presented a discussion of the literature reviewed for this study in order

to identify the post occupancy evaluation factors to assess functional and indoor

environment performance of office settings in universities. Additionally, the basics of

POE were discussed, and studies similar in scope were identified in past research to

compare existing POE methods and instruments.

Chapter 3 presented a detailed explanation of the methodology followed for

establishment of the research project, identification of the functional and indoor

environmental aspects and POE instruments, execution of interviews, development, and

implementation of surveys, data analysis, and finally the development of the final POE

survey, and documenting findings.

Chapter 4 presented the most salient part of this research which includes detailed

explanation of all phases of data collection and analysis to accomplish the research goal

and objectives.

Chapter 5 presented the overview and details with regard to development of the

final web-based POE survey. This chapter discussed each section of the survey in detail

and provided the rationale for the question content.

Based on the literature reviewed, methodology followed, data collected and

analyzed during the study, this last chapter draws conclusions and provides

recommendations related to the accomplishment of the research goal and objectives.

142
7.3 Accomplishment of Research Goal , and Objectives

The goal of this research was to contribute to the improvement of functional and

indoor environment design and operation of work spaces in university facilities. This goal

was achieved with the help of two research objectives. The first objective was to develop

a survey using identified evaluation factors that would indicate the functional and indoor

environment performance of university renovated office settings. The second objective

was to develop a method/process for universities to conduct post occupancy evaluation

studies for different settings. The above mentioned objectives were accomplished with

the help of the following research steps:

1. Identification of functional and indoor environmental aspects that affect faculty

and staff-satisfaction in university work spaces. This was mainly accomplished

with the help of literature review, and analysis of interviews.

2. Development of trial POE survey comprised of questions about the identified

evaluation factors. This was completed by comparison of existing POE

instruments , and coming to the conclusion

3. Proposing a method/process to assess functional and indoor environment

performance of university work spaces which included the developed POE

survey.

4. Application of the developed POE survey along the lines of the proposed

methodology.

5. Development of final survey based on feedback from case study facility

administrators, and occupants.

6. Presenting the POE findings for the case study facilities.

143
7.4 Lessons Learned

This section presents a discussion of the lessons learned from research that was

conducted to develop a specific tool and process to assess the functional and indoor

environmental performance of university offices using occupant-satisfaction as an

indicator. The objective behind sharing the lessons learned is to assist university

administrators or other researchers in improving future POEs. The limitations of this

study such as target population group, space-type, and evaluation factors form the basis

of recommendations for future research directions or follow-up studies in the realm of

POE at universities.

7.4.1 Lessons learned from Literature Review

In this study, a wide variety of POE-related literature was reviewed in order to

study existing POE processes, methods, and instruments especially applicable in

university or higher education environments. Considering that literature is extremely

significant in this type of study and that university campuses consists of a variety of

facility types, literature reviewed must be paraphrased/summarized and documented in an

organized fashion from the start. For example, information may be sorted or arranged in

categories such as: POE building type, POE factors, POE processes POE questionnaires,

POE raw literature, and POE studies on campus. This sorted-out information will support

future research in many ways and may be referred to by facility/building/organization

managers/administrators throughout the building life cycle. A comprehensive literature

review can be an efficient way to learn from experience and efforts of others, which will

save costs and also provide for benchmarking through publications. Initially a few main

144
categories may be created under which relevant/corresponding information attained from

literature may be stored chronologically and according to type. In the future, sub

categories may be created based on need to do so. This may be a collection of Excel

spreadsheets, MS word files, and or PDFs or images stored in electronic folders

categorically and chronologically as shown in the illustration below:

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION (POE) LITERATURE

ORGANIZATION STRUCTIURE OVERVIEW

Building Type POE Factors POE Process POE Literature

Classrooms Functional POE Questionnaires

Laboratories Indoor Physical Observation

Environment Checklist
Libraries
Technical Energy Assessment
Offices Data

Cafeterias Focus Groups

Storage areas Interviews

Miscellaneous Surveys

University housing POE Studies at

Michigan State University
Utility structures
Operational Review at 3-6 months
Sports facilities

Parking ramps Project Review at 12-18 months

Entertainment areas Strategic Review at 3 to 5 years

Figure 7.1 Suggested Literatures Database “Post Occupancy Evaluation”

145
7.4.2 Lessons learned from Interviews

The timing for interviews in universities is a very significant factor that may

influence the responsiveness of participants. It was observed during this study that winter

was the best time to conduct interviews of university administrators, managers, and

inspectors. Most university representatives are busy from late-spring through mid-fall

since most of the construction planning and execution happens during this time. On the

other hand, planners and designers have a fairly similar schedule all year round. This is

especially true in colder climatic areas due to extreme weather conditions where most

construction is planned around summer and fall.

In this study it was observed that in-person individual interviews were extremely

effective for university representatives/administrators especially those in high profile

positions. It gives a sense that it is more interactive and personalized and allows the

respondent to feel more comfortable and share un-tainted opinions due to protected

privacy by terms of confidentiality (research protocol).

Although it seemed that some questions in the questionnaire were irrelevant or

repetitive depending on if the respondent was a designer or a administrator or a manger

or a construction inspector. Therefore, it was concluded that a questionnaire tailored to

each group such as designers, facility managers, and administrators may be of additional

help. Some questions for all groups must be similar to enable comparative analysis and

some questions must be particular to their roles and responsibilities towards university

facilities. Overall, the interview phase is significant in that it sets the momentum for the

remaining phases of the POE process and that it captures opinion and expectations of the

university providers.

146
7.4.3 Lessons learned from Surveys

The findings of this study confirmed that building occupants preferred a web-

based survey format over a paper-based format as used in this current study. This was

helpful to gather responses, especially if a larger population was being surveyed,

although a few occupants preferred a paper-based format. The survey feedback responses

also indicated that the use of a web-based format could also reduce the efforts of the

evaluators in the analysis phase. This would also facilitate the creation of a reporting

database and its integration with a larger database system that would store and use data

from all buildings on campus and would be useful in tracking previous problems

encountered, corrective actions taken, their supporting rationale, and final effects.

Based on the literature, the best time for survey distribution is after the occupants

have experienced both seasons at least once. At the same time, if more than a year passes

by then occupants adjust to the present conditions, may have surrendered to temporary

remedies/ solutions, and may not be able to distinguish the real problems. Often any

building’s present conditions depend on the way it’s been used and maintained by

occupants and, it may not be a design or construction issue. Surveys can be conducted

independently or in combination with other data collection methods such as focus groups,

structured interviews, physical observations, and walk-through. For universities, POE can

be conducted both among staff/ faculty and students to compare perceptions of

performance of common areas.

147
7.4.4 Lessons learned from Data Analysis

During the analysis of the survey responses, it was concluded that the experience

and results from a POE may be enhanced by conducting a separate and prior study to

determine the order of preference of evaluation factors for occupants. This is helpful to

customize and organize the survey questions according to occupant groups.

A more detailed study of individual buildings could be used to determine which

design features offer the best value. This type of investigation may be able to show the

difference between early design expectations, as-built expectations, and operations. For

example, with energy, compare design modeled data, number of LEED credits received,

measured energy data, and Energy Star score. The ability to collect consistent data from

each site is critical for building-to-building comparisons to industry baselines and for

building to building comparisons. The impact on building performance needs to be

accounted for when there are occupancy changes, lack of required maintenance, and/or

unplanned uses of the buildings. The snapshot view of these sustainably designed

buildings provides a valuable picture of the overall performance for one year of use. This

study is an important first step to making inferences about whole building performance.

Future work to identify year-to-year variation in whole building performance could

improve the accuracy and depth of this assessment. Future analysis would benefit from

multiple years of data for each metric in order to be able to average the data and

investigate potential trends.

During the analysis, it was concluded that web-based survey format would have

made reporting more efficient and that it would have been easier to record or transfer raw

data into formats necessary for statistical analysis. The manual distribution and collection

148
of surveys was time consuming and cumbersome, although the feedback time was

remarkable. It seemed to be very inefficient if any participants lost their copy of the

survey, especially if the survey was completed. If it were an online survey, it can be

easily retrieved. Additionally, by delivering paper surveys to occupants in their mail

boxes, a day was lost as most faculty and staff members check their mail boxes once or

twice a day, on their way in or out.

With regard to the type of responses it was felt that responses to close-ended and open-

ended questions may be recorded in separate Excel sheets to enable different filter and

sort combinations for statistical analysis. The questionnaire in this study may be modified

to include additional questions about the particular facility, the nature of the occupant

populations, and the project itself (desired outcomes), which would contribute to more

accurate and reliable conclusions.

7.4.5 Lessons learned from Application of POE Process

POE must be conducted in a systematic and planned fashion in order to derive

maximum benefit from what the process has to offer/ potential from the process. Since

the campus has various kinds of facilities in terms of: type of use, nature of population,

amount of square footage, level of complexity, and number and type of resources

involved. POE for each building must be preferably a distinct separate project with the

required resources (budget, staff time, concerned authority permissions, etc) assigned and

clearly outlined objectives such that no resources are wasted on diversions which must

149
not be considered in the first place. The best idea may be to assign small, consistent, and

core team to several projects of similar type/kind.

Depending on the resources available, the level of effort may be decided for the

POE, which therefore also lays the path for the POE method selection/strategy. The

survey method can be used for all three levels of effort depending on the content and

structure of questions. A strategic investment in a (periodic) POE may save the unwanted

costs of expensive renovation and repair; for example in the Spartan Way, people still

complain about white noise, which was actually a noise correction strategy. Similarly in

SPDC, motion sensors were installed with the lighting which was intended to save energy

but has now become a factor of dissatisfaction among several occupants. Their concern is

that this makes the corridors dark when no one is walking around, which is usually the

case when people are working continuously at the same time or if one person is in his or

her office working continuously without movement. For some faculty members, even

their room lights would go off on occasions and this causes tremendous dissatisfaction. In

SPDC, doors were installed between corridors and the stairwell for security purposes. In

reality this also causes the corridors to become warmer than comfortable and

claustrophobic for users as it prevents air circulation that was there previously without

the doors.

POE may be conducted in two stages to capture the problems and the impact of

the solutions. The first POE can be designed to conduct an investigation of problems.

Once the findings/ results are analyzed and the issues are clearly defined/outlined, the

corrective actions ought to be implemented. Following this, the second POE can be

conducted after considerable time has passed and when occupants have experienced

150
major seasons in their personal work space. This second POE is more to capture, if what

was done worked right and if the corrective action impacted an increase in the

satisfaction levels of building occupants.

At universities, where many "hierarchical levels" and departments are involved,

communication can be either becomes a great source of help or obstacle towards the POE

process. Good working relationships are greatly required, which will go a long way in

conducting several POEs on campus. This is unlike a single and typical office building or

any other kind of single facility. Relations built with occupants on first encounter will

impact the quality of data collected. Additionally with regard to the "Dimensions of

POE", the breadth of focus can be different for different population groups even if in the

same building. Therefore, data collection for common shared spaces from all population

groups will yield a more comprehensive perception of occupants.

"Given that each facility occupies a unique place and time, there is more art than

science to this. Because a building is inherently complex, an evaluation of building

performance can cover an overwhelming array of technical, functional, social, and

aesthetic issues. However, it is rarely practical or necessary to evaluate all aspects of a

facility, so there are many varieties of POE, based on the purposes they serve and the

level of effort involved." Stefani Danes

Even though a standard process may be laid out, certain aspects are still very

specific to the project scope, facility type, etc. There may be many trial and errors before

a scrupulous and comprehensive process may be laid out. It is important that the existing

project delivery process of the concerned university may be laid out first to tailor-fit the

process with consideration to available resources and desired outcomes, and the long-

151
term goals of the campus (master plan). The process must be flexible enough that it can

be modified to enhance the evaluation experience for each facility.

7.4.6 Lessons learned about POE Project Team

It would contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of POEs if the project team

represented all departments that must be kept informed at all stages about all aspects of

the evaluation. The best way to do that would be to have individual representatives from

all departments that are involved in the planning, design, construction, and operation of

university facilities regularly. The POE team must include a design representative (or his

assistant/subordinate who are aware of design concepts) as it adds direct learning from

projects. In universities, multiple departments are involved in the design, construction,

and maintenance of facilities and as more and more POEs are conducted, uniform/

consistent communication and documentation can become a challenge. This can be

overcome in the start when a system is being put in place so that this aspect is in control,

by appointing an exclusive POE team.

Costs of the POE may be distributed among the various stakeholders in more than

one form. For example, the university administration can assign a budget and hire a third

party/researcher/consultant to appoint a single point of contact as the POE coordinator

who will be responsible for the overall POE and coordination. The designer along with

the facility manager can contribute manpower to the POE team for data collection. They

will report and coordinate with the project coordinator. Once the problems/issues in the

building are identified and a corrective action is decided, then the constructors can

supervise the execution of the same. The resources required at this point can be funded by

152
the university administration. Designers can take responsibility for reporting the details of

the process throughout.

7.4.7 Lessons learned about POE Factors

A study of order of preference of evaluation factors must be conducted prior to

planning and design of a new or renovated facility, which must then be used to outline

the factors for measurement of occupants’ satisfaction. For example, based on occupant

response, the order of preference at SPDC was different from that of the Spartan Way. At

SPDC, 20% of the respondents, mainly faculty, complained about lack of sufficient

storage space for student material. The concern for staff in the same facility was mostly

about lack of personal control of HVAC. In the Spartan Way, 21% of the respondents

complained about too many cubicles and no conference room in the building. Also for

example, “Ease of interaction with co-workers” is a factor in both facilities but in SPDC,

“Ease of interaction with students” becomes a factor too in SPDC as occupants also

consist of faculty and not only staff as in Spartan Way.

7.4.8 Lessons learned about POE Questionnaire

Based on occupant responses it was concluded that satisfaction with common

areas impact overall satisfaction of occupants. Therefore questions regarding other areas

must be included in POE questionnaires. Additionally, correlation questions must be

included with consideration to occupants’ satisfaction with organization culture/ structure

and individual work responsibilities. To be able to locate or identify if there are any

secondary issues independent of functional and indoor environmental performance.

153
Design must be laid out depending on the primary work activities and order of preference

of factors can be paired or grouped to better understand and cater to occupants’

requirements through design. Also, primary work activities and order of preference of

factors can be paired or grouped to better understand and cater to occupants' requirement

from design. New technology in both buildings is a concern and a factor of

dissatisfaction, therefore, designers can look for/implement more constructive approaches

for implementing new technology. For example, may be testing any new technology first

in a smaller area with a few occupants. If this small number of occupants is dissatisfied,

then the problems can be corrected with lower costs and application on a larger area can

be avoided. Additionally, if it’s a very small percentage dissatisfied, then the corrective

action can begin from smaller and/or simpler problems, which will also allow more time

to plan an action/method/strategy, to put together resources, and to negotiate costs for

complex and larger problems.

The data collection methods/ strategies/ instruments should be an opportunity for

appreciation as much as it is for constructive criticism for the building design. It is very

important to know what kind of information is being targeted here and accordingly,

questions/ instruments must be designed. Additionally, data analysis methods must be

employed in order to satisfy the required report format.

7.5 Conclusions and Inferences

This section summarizes the conclusions drawn from the literature review,

interviews of university personnel, and the feedback obtained on the trial POE survey

from building occupants. The literature of post occupancy evaluation and the interviews

154
emphasized the evaluation factors/aspects and methods that are significant while

conducting evaluation studies. Most of the POE factors and methods stated in the

literature were also reported by the interviewees. These factors and examples of similar

methods were used to develop the trial POE survey. This trial POE survey was used in

two university facilities to gather occupant feedback with regard to its usefulness and

effectiveness. Next, occupant feedback was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to

derive conclusions with regard to changes needed in the trial POE survey to make the

modified version more comprehensive and efficient.

The data collected from the application of the trial POE survey emphasized the

significance of this study. However, it was realized that a survey would be more useful

and seem comprehensive to occupants if common areas were also evaluated along with

their personal workspace. The data indicated that faculty members were affected by

performance of student spaces in addition to their own. Finally, it was found that a web

based survey version would be most useful for universities since they use several kinds of

databases that maintain building performance records, and this will only add to that pool.

7.6 Research Benefits and Contribution

This study renders a two-dimensional benefit for university providers and users

by providing them with a method (process flowchart and recommendations) and tool that

would add value to building design and operation, and also continuous improve process

of facility management.

This study contributes to the ability of universities to identify the elements of the

physical work environment that will further enhance the work experience of their

155
occupants and also have positive influence on recruitment, retention, and work

performance or productivity of faculty, staff, and student populations by providing a

processes were used to develop a trial POE survey to continuously track occupant

satisfaction and thereby enhance performance of their building design for users.

Additionally, the process and survey developed during the study will facilitate a

periodic dialogue between the building occupants and managers about their changing

environmental need and preferences. The survey will be instrumental in collecting user

feedback that will support future decisions, and expenditure towards design and

construction for university facilities.

7.7 Future Research Directions

This focus of this study was to evaluate the performance of function and indoor

environment in renovated office spaces within universities by investigating the

satisfaction level of users. The limitations of this study form the basis of suggestions for

future research.

Universities accommodate various functional areas due to the different population

groups such as students, faculty, and staff. Therefore as a direction for future research, it

is recommended that the methodology, and survey used in this study be further enhanced

to evaluate other specific areas such as classrooms, libraries, laboratories, studios,

conference rooms, custodial and common areas such as cafeterias, auditoriums,

restaurants, parking ramps, outdoor interaction spaces, toilets, storage areas , and student

lounges that have been excluded in this study.

156
 Buildings may be evaluated for functional, technical, indoor environment or

overall performance which may be conducted at any phase during its life cycle such as

programming, planning, design, construction or occupancy. This study focused on the

functional and indoor environment factors/aspects only. Excluded factors/aspects are

considered to be potential directions for future research.

The post occupancy evaluation criteria for this study was established qualitatively

based on literature review, and responses from exploratory interviews that were

conducted among university owners, administrators, staff , and architects. It is

recommended that further research be conducted using quantitative methods to verify the

evaluation criteria. Also, the developed survey was tested in two renovated facilities

within one university. To further enhance the survey, it may be tested among more

facilities within the same or among different universities.

7.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter concludes this research by discussing the overall research scope,

accomplished research goal and objectives, lessons learned, recommendations, final

research conclusions, study limitations, and directions for future research.

157
APPENDICES

158
 APPENDIX A

INTERVIEWS

A1: Interview Consent Form

A2: Project Abstract

A3: Interview Questionnaire

A4: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative Analysis

159
Appendix A1: Interview Participant Consent Form

160
 PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
University Owners, Administrators, Staff and Architects

DEVELOPMENT OF A POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT TO

ASSESS OCCUPANT SATISFACTION IN UNIVERSITY RENOVATION
PROJECTS

Principal Investigator: Tim Mrozowski and Tariq Abdelhamid

Research Assistant: Sagata Bhawani

The Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement

(C2P2Ai) from the School of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State
University is conducting research in order to develop a Post Occupancy Evaluation
(POE) method for assessing user satisfaction in recently completed university
construction projects with emphasis on university office renovations. As an experienced
administrator or designer your insight will be valuable as we develop an instrument.
Your responses will be used to help identify important questions that a POE process
should address. The outcome of the project will be a POE tool which is useful in
operating facilities, identifying necessary corrective actions and providing feedback for
future design projects.
As a participant in this research, you will be asked a series of open ended questions
relating to post occupancy evaluation in an interview setting. Your participation is
voluntary and you may choose to terminate your involvement in this study at any time
during this project. If you are uncomfortable at any time during the questioning, you may
terminate and withdraw from the interview. You may refuse to answer any particular
interview question. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. If you are employed by a commercial firm, neither you nor your company will be
identified by name in any reporting. However, your title (e.g. Project Manager) may be
reported. If you are employed by a university, your name and title will not be used but
the university you work for will be identified. The estimated time to complete this
interview is approximately 45-60 minutes. As a participant, you may request a copy of
this consent letter for your records.
Funding for this project is indirectly being provided by the MSU Office of the Vice
President for Finance and Operations as C2P2Ai funding comes from that office. The
researchers are employed by Michigan State University. The findings of the study will
be available at the end of the research through a report. If you request a copy of the report
it will be furnished to you. The data collected will also be used for a graduate Master’s
thesis.
If you have any questions about this project, you may contact:
Tim Mrozowski, A.I.A., LEED ® AP
Professor of Construction Management, School of Planning, Design and Construction,
Michigan State University, (517) 353-0781- [email protected]
Sagata Bhawani
Graduate Student and Research Assistant, Construction Management Program, School of
Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University,
(517) 648-6277- [email protected]

161
Appendix A2: Project Abstract

162
 Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement (C2P2AI)
School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University

PROJECT ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT OF POST OCCUPANCY INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS

OCCUPANT SATISFACTION IN UNIVERSITY RENOVATION PROJECTS

Principal Investigators: Tim Mrozowski and Tariq Abdelhamid

Research Assistant: Sagata Bhawani

Post occupancy evaluation (POE) can be defined as the process of evaluating buildings in
a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied for some time.
It is any and all activities that originate out of an interest in learning how a building
performs for its occupants. The results provide architects with information about the
performance of their designs and building owners with information useful for operating
and improving their facilities.

The goal of this research is to improve functional performance and indoor environment
design and operation of work places in university buildings. The primary product of this
research will be a step-wise POE process and instrument for measuring occupant
satisfaction relative to functional and technical performance and indoor environmental
quality.

The methodology for the study includes: 1) review of literature relating to POE, project
post-mortems, post construction assessments and occupant-satisfaction 2) Interviews of
up to ten university owners, administrators, staff and consulting architects to obtain
insight and recommendations for development of the POE instrument and process, 3)
development of a POE instrument to assess building occupant satisfaction an and 4)
evaluate the POE tool through use in two case study projects 5) The data will be analyzed
to modify the POE and to develop conclusions and recommendations about the POE
process. Administration of the POE tool in the case will be by separate IRB or an
amendment to this IRB.

The outcome of the project will be the development of a POE process tool applicable to
university settings with a focus on office environments and renovation projects. The tool
if utilized should help to facilitate improved design and more effective operation of
buildings through assessing the performance of completed buildings.

163
Appendix A3: Interview Questionnaire

164
 Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement (C2P2AI)
School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University

POE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

University Owners, Administrators, Staff and Architects

Evaluation processes:

1) Do you currently conduct any of the following? Explain/identify.

a) Project post mortems/ project performance evaluation (description of items:

contract, schedule, budget, procurement, safety, change orders, punchlists, etc)

b) Post occupancy evaluation (POE) (building performance evaluation after

occupancy)

Technical

Functional

Indoor environment

2) If you conduct any of the above processes do you have a standardized approach? Is
this process written? If so may we obtain a copy of any instruments used or process
descriptions?

3) If you do conduct such processes, how is the information used? Does information
collected serve primarily as a facility management tool, diagnostic tool, to identify
corrective measures for the specific project or is it used for information for improving
future projects or processes.

4) If your organization does not typically conduct POE, why not? What barriers do you
experience or anticipate?

165
5) If your organization does not typically conduct Project Post Mortems, why not? What
barriers do you experience or anticipate?

6) If you decide to conduct a post occupancy evaluation to determine user-satisfaction,

what will be the steps that you will take to ensure the process has sufficient resources
(e.g. budget, evaluators, evaluation tools, etc) for execution?

Evaluation aspects:

7) In your capacity as a university building or facility owner list aspects in the following
categories which you would like to have evaluated after occupancy? Explain.

a) Functional evaluation

b) Technical evaluation

c) Indoor environment quality (IEQ) evaluation

8) What kind of questions would you like to be asked of building users?

a) Functional performance

b) Technical performance

c) Indoor environment performance in buildings

9) When would you like to have this evaluation conducted for the first time and why?

10) How often would you like to have evaluation done in the life cycle of your building
or facility?

166
11) How useful as source of information do you consider surveying building occupants
to be with regard to building performance?

Types of To great To some To little Not at all Do not know

performance extent extent extent
Functional
Technical
Indoor
environment

12) How accurate do you consider building occupants with respect to assessment of
building performance?

Types of Highly Moderately Little Not accurate Do not know

performance accurate accurate accurate
Functional
Technical
Indoor
environment

Post occupancy evaluation:

13) Please indicate your belief about the usefulness of POE to assess

a) Functional performance

b) Technical performance

c) Indoor environment performance in buildings

14) What do you believe are the specific benefits that you perceive from conducting
user satisfaction studies?

15) Does your organization use clear program statements or owner project
requirement statements which describe the functional objectives of projects?

167
16) How are these program statements developed? (I.e. design team, user oriented
committees, professional programming consultants or experts, any other. Please
specify.

17) Are these program and owner project requirements used as a basis for any POE
processes?

18) Are Owner Project Requirements (OPR) and technical Basis of Design (BOD)
statements established for any technical performance or indoor environmental
quality objectives?

19) Does any technical POE or performance evaluation process utilize these OPR or
BOD documents as a basis for assessment?

20) How are these BOD statements developed? (Codes, technical data, organizational
standards, any other. Please specify.)Who develops them?

21) Do you use “commissioning” on your major projects? If yes, do you believe it has
led to improved occupant satisfaction in your buildings? Explain.

21) Does using commissioning have any influence on the need to conduct POE or
how a POE should be conducted? Explain.

168
23) How feasible are the following while conducting POE studies?

a) Walk-throughs/ physical observation

b) Progress photos

c) Structured interviews

d) Focus groups

e) Web-based surveys

f) Paper-based surveys

g) Building inspection

h) Workshops

i) Financial analysis

j) Assessment of facility maintenance records/ work orders

k) Any other. Please specify.

24) Would using any of these tools in combination be helpful? (Refer to Q23).

25) Who should collect and analyze the information from occupants? (Internal staff,
outside consultant, design consultant, any other, please specify)

26) In terms of cost, what percentage of overall project budget should be reserved for
POE? Why?

169
Appendix A4: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative Analysis

170
 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2
1 Do you currently conduct No
any of the following?
Explain/identify.
a Project post mortems/ We have started some:
project performance development of
evaluation (description scorecards for various
of items: contract, project participants such
schedule, budget, as suppliers, architects,
procurement, safety, customers. We also have
change orders, punch a questionnaire for
lists, etc) contractors that evaluate
EAS performance. Also,
the CPA provides
quarterly and annual
reports for Fred Poston's
office.
b Post occupancy No formal process.
evaluation (POE) During past year we did
(building performance technical evaluation for 4
evaluation after large projects: Computer
occupancy) center, Duffy Daugherty,
i Functional public spaces in Holden
Hall and Engineering
ii Technical Building lobby. Also, we
iii Indoor environment do commissioning which
satisfies the technical
and IEQ but exclude the
functional evaluation.

2 If you conduct any of the NA Refer copies of score

above processes do you cards provided
have a standardized
approach? Is this
process written? If so
may we obtain a copy of
any instruments used or
process descriptions?

Table A4.1: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative Analysis

171
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

3 If you do conduct such NA NA
processes, how is the
information used? Does
information collected
serve primarily as a
facility management
tool, diagnostic tool, to
identify corrective
measures for the specific
project or is it used for
information for
improving future
projects or processes.
Indoor environment quality (IEQ) evaluation
4 If your organization does The organization does not In universities, physical
not typically conduct or cannot conduct POE or plant maintains space. In
POE, why not? What Post Mortems due to MSU, Athletics and
barriers do you absence of a leader who Housing pay PP for
experience or anticipate? will bring together all the maintenance for others;
components and execute cost is a barrier which
the process; and, absence must be embedded in
5 If your organization does of the process itself. Due the project. There is no
not typically conduct to lack of information funded source of
Project Post Mortems, with regard to what revenue to pay for this
why not? What barriers would be the evaluation kind of activity yet in
do you experience or components, who will MSU.
anticipate? conduct it and which all
other disciplines should
be involved in order to
facilitate interaction and
communication related to
the project in one room.
For example, how do we
evaluate steam tunnels or
roads on campus?

172
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

6 If you decide to conduct There are resources; what Project budgets will have
a post occupancy is absent is a process and to carry POE costs. Also,
evaluation to determine the sense of appropriate it should be determined
user-satisfaction, what time-lines. The if POE truly adds
will be the steps that you organization needs a significant value to
will take to ensure the process with appropriate building performance.
process has sufficient time-lines such that it For example, if we are
resources (e.g. budget, makes the whole system working towards energy
evaluators, evaluation more effective and cost reduction, then it’s
tools, etc) for execution? accordingly distributes difficult to maintain the
the people-time over reduced costs if the
activities. building square footage
increases in a
renovation.
Evaluation aspects:
7 In your capacity as a Physical flow of people
university building or traffic and Office space assignments
facility owner list aspects communication; layout of and program adequacy;
in the following furniture and other user comfort; occupant's
categories which you furnishings; cables and understanding of what is
would like to have cords for computer and being built; assessment
evaluated after other appliances; location of spatial relationship in
occupancy? Explain. of equipments and buildings; user
a Functional evaluation appliances; condition of involvement in design
equipments and phase using BIM since
appliances. Color they do not understand
selection; Carpet 2D well.
selection and color;
b Technical evaluation lighting levels, thermal These aspects are taken
comfort levels, acoustics; care of by commissioning
storage and its form;
location of miscellaneous
things like the waste
baskets, paper recycle
boxes.

173
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

8 What kind of questions "Did the office function
would you like to be for users as intended in
asked of building users? terms of people traffic
a Functional performance and communication? If Does the space perform
given a chance, what as envisioned and
would you redo about support all your
your office space? Are we functions?
b Technical performance in or out of planned Occupants can only
budget? What other experience the effect of
options did users have technical problems
that affects the costs? Is which disturbs their
the perceived privacy comfort level and
satisfactory, Is the complain that it’s too
acoustic quality cold or too hot, but
satisfactory and are the cannot point out the
lighting levels supportive cause. To find out the
of the staff functions" cause or assess technical
performance, the HVAC
room or electrical room
has to be checked on a
regular basis. Therefore,
I am not sure if technical
questions may be asked
of occupants.
c Indoor environment
performance in buildings
The respondent has
provided with questions
that have been previously
used for evaluations.
9 When would you like to 4-6 months which is 6-12 months, before that
have this evaluation neither too early that the its waste of time and
conducted for the first occupants have not resources; as because,
time and why? settled or too late that occupancy takes place
they have completely got after substantial
used to their new space. completion and there is
still work being done
until final completion
and then we have the
punchlist

174
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

9 Continued Can we verify occupant
responses with punchlist
items? If aspects not
performing well
indicated by occupants in
their surveys match the
punchlist items will that
demonstrate accuracy of
information provided by
occupants with regard to
building performance?
10 How often would you May be 5 years that is if Depends on the
like to have evaluation we have the money. It is complexity of building. In
done in the life cycle of money driven. retro-commissioning we
your building or facility? do evaluation every 2
years for complex
buildings and every 5
years for less complex
buildings.
11 How useful as source of
information do you
consider surveying
building occupants to be
with regard to building
performance?
Functional To a great extent To great extent
Technical To some extent
Indoor environment
12 How accurate do you Highly accurate; since
consider building they live in it.
occupants with respect
to assessment of
building performance?
Functional Highly accurate
Technical Little accurate
Indoor environment

175
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

Post occupancy evaluation:
13 Please indicate your
belief about the
usefulness of POE to
assess
Functional performance Highly useful Very useful and effective
Technical performance Already considered in
Indoor environment commissioning
performance in buildings
14 What do you believe are The benefits of POE are: Correct existing
the specific benefits that Incremental changes in problems; influence
you perceive from QC, staff productivity and future designs
conducting user employee attitude which
satisfaction studies? affects the organizational
outcomes.
15 Does your organization Do not know FPSM prepares program
use clear program statements and EAS has
statements or owner construction standards
project requirement which has a section for
statements which general planning
describe the functional requirements which are
objectives of projects? considered to achieve
project objectives
16 How are these program FPSM develops it
statements developed?
(I.e. design team, user
oriented committees,
professional
programming
consultants or experts,
any other. Please
specify.

176
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

17 Are these program and Usually shortcomings in
owner project projects represent
requirements used as a shortcomings in program
basis for any POE statement or standards;
processes? which are used to
improve future project
performance
18 Are Owner Project Standards specify IE
Requirements (OPR) and limits and design
technical Basis of Design program specify special
(BOD) statements needs; in addition it also
established for any depends on the nature
technical performance or of the building that is to
indoor environmental be constructed. For
quality objectives? example, Art museum
will have different IEQ
standards as compared
to office areas
19 Does any technical POE Design program and
or performance construction standards
evaluation process
utilize these OPR or BOD
documents as a basis for
assessment?
20 How are these BOD Updated constantly
statements developed? based on experience in
(Codes, technical data, maintenance and repair
organizational of buildings
standards, any other.
Please specify.)Who
develops them?
21 Do you use Yes, definitely
“commissioning” on your
major projects? If yes, do
you believe it has led to
improved occupant
satisfaction in your
buildings? Explain.

177
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 RESPONSE 2

22 Does using commissioning Yes, all except functional
have any influence on the performance
need to conduct POE or
how a POE should be
conducted? Explain.
23 How feasible are the
following while
conducting POE studies?
a Walk-throughs/ physical x
observation
b Progress photos
c Structured interviews x
d Focus groups x
e Web-based surveys x
f Paper-based surveys
g Building inspection x
h Workshops x
i Financial analysis x
j Assessment of facility x x
maintenance records/
work orders
k Any other. Please specify.
24 Would using any of these yes yes
tools in combination be
helpful? (Refer to Q23).
25 Who should collect and CPA 2 parties: FPSM should be
analyze the information involved in functional
from occupants? (internal performance assessment
staff, outside consultant, and PP in tech and IE
design consultant, any performance
other, please specify)
26 In terms of cost, what CPA has reserved Commissioning has 0.5%
percentage of overall budget for evaluations. reserved which includes
project budget should be They are the tech and IEQ, therefore,
reserved for POE? Why? responsible unit but for functional another
now we need a 0.25%
process.

178
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

1 Do you currently conduct No
any of the following? Evaluation of project
Explain/identify. participants are done with
a Project post mortems/ score cards; also, 'project
project performance de-briefing' is done by
evaluation (description of design and construction
items: contract, schedule, representatives; We do
budget, procurement, an informal session for
safety, change orders, 'lessons learnt' to
punchlist, etc) highlight the good and
bad experiences during a
project. Many things are
done but none of it is
formally documented and
that a formal process is
required.
b Post occupancy We do not have a No but a building user's
evaluation (POE) formalized process as we evaluation is required to
(building performance get calls whenever there obtain knowledge of the
evaluation after is problem and it is true experience and
occupancy) resolved immediately. We feelings of occupants.
i Functional do not see any value in There is no formal
ii Technical conducting unless we process. In the past, we
iii Indoor environment know that the client/ have gleaned some
users are dissatisfied. knowledge but it is not
documented
systematically and
thoughtfully.
2 If you conduct any of the NA Score cards
above processes do you
have a standardized
approach? Is this
process written? If so
may we obtain a copy of
any instruments used or
process descriptions?

179
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

3 If you do conduct such NA For Contractors-
processes, how is the scorecards help keep
information used? Does track of contractor's
information collected performance. If a
serve primarily as a contractor is consistently
facility management performing below
tool, diagnostic tool, to average, they are
identify corrective warned on the basis of
measures for the specific prior data and not
project or is it used for whimsical analysis. For
information for owners- contractors
improving future evaluate and identify
projects or processes. areas where owner is not
performing well and may
be impeding the
progress of construction.
It is envisioned that this
will strengthen owner's
performance.
4 If your organization does We do not do it because it The worry on part of
not typically conduct is not a part of the some potential
POE, why not? What process that we presently improvement as failure.
barriers do you follow. Other than this Trust is required among
experience or anticipate? there is not specific project participants to
answer to this question understand that the
intention is not to
criticize but to get jobs
done more efficiently.
The anxiety towards the
process; building
occupant's time;
Investment towards
evaluator's time and that
of planning team,
because of the present
workload.

180
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

5 If your organization Score cards are done to
does not typically evaluate performance of
conduct Project Post project participants.
Mortems, why not?
What barriers do you
experience or
anticipate?
6 If you decide to conduct Make sure we have The questions have to
a post occupancy sufficient budget; that we have quality. If all
evaluation to determine have a direction from the answers are positive
user-satisfaction, what University Engineer. then maybe the
will be the steps that Presently there is a questions are not right.
you will take to ensure disconnect between the Since the university
the process has three main areas: the already considers this
sufficient resources (e.g. estimates, design and process will be an
budget, evaluators, construction, therefore, a important part in the
evaluation tools, etc) for connection between project delivery process,
execution? estimate, design and the VPFO has
construction from project committed to a finite
initiation until completion amount that may be
will be of great help. We required to conduct
must also ensure a project POE. Also, the university
feedback loop from plans to establish a staff
construction to design and position for POE in the
estimates which is absent recent future to track
now. building performance
evaluation and maintain
a repository of findings
from projects.
Evaluation aspects:
7 In your capacity as a
university building or Evaluation of building or Planning goals that were
facility owner list space specific function established at the
aspects in the following project start and if those
categories which you were transformed to
would like to have reality; Envisioned
evaluated after spatial relationship,
occupancy? Explain. function and circulation;
a Functional evaluation Floor plan layout

181
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

b Technical evaluation Technical decisions (e.g. If the mechanical system
lighting control systems, is performing as
heating cooling systems); intended, was it
energy commissioned properly,
performance/consumption; are the building users
or any new technology satisfied by its
introduced for the first performance. If a new
time must be evaluated technology is specified,
(for e.g. College of Human it is functioning well, did
Medicine, Secchia has it meet the user's need,
Lutron system must be and was the investment
evaluated to verify if it’s and risk worth.
true intended purpose is
met.
c Indoor environment User comfort; effect of Energy usage, carbon
quality (IEQ) evaluation space on attitude; relation footprints and
with space as human; compliance with LEED
individual perception standards, if the
university meets their
own predictions that
originated from the
initiative towards
sustainability. Impact of
IEQ on occupant health.
Indoor space ergonomic
quality, natural light
quality, etc; cost versus
benefit analysis.

182
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

8 What kind of questions
would you like to be
asked of building users?
a Functional performance Does the space work for If spaces provided are
you as anticipated? Did the working as intended? Is
space meet your the office size and
organizational goals and layout is working? is
objectives? How do we do it the office furniture and
better? Do you get positive furnishing
feelings about your space? ergonomically
If the building owner is comfortable and
anticipating user's needs functionally useful?
and expectations during Special Q: For MSU a
design, this may cause a fixed percentage is
disconnect post-occupancy reserved for artwork is
when the predicted needs it truly appreciated or
and expectations do not does it go unnoticed,
match the actual. thereby justifying the
investment made?
b Technical performance Since users are not Was the mechanical
technically as system checked after
knowledgeable, not sure completion of
they can be asked technical construction?
questions.
c Indoor environment If their space IEQ supports How is the lighting?
performance in buildings their job functions and Heating and cooling?
comfort level Acoustical quality?
Extent of privacy?
Accessibility? Ability to
recycle products?
The questions should
mainly focus on capturing
the occupants’ perception
of their space. Sometimes,
unit supervisors speak for
occupants which may be a
cause for concern as there
was no actual user-
participation and user-
specific details are lost.

183
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

9 When would you like to 9-12 months which may 9-12 months for POE,
have this evaluation be sufficient time for occupants settled by
conducted for the first occupants to have then and will be aware
time and why? realizations over time of more serious
about the design intent. problems than initial
Also, the occupants will reaction to the good and
have mostly experienced bad aspects of renovated
extreme seasons to know facility. For PPM, shortly
the overall building after completion/ final
performance. payment
10 How often would you Depends on: what the Not too many times
like to have evaluation building was intended
done in the life cycle of for? Mostly, problems will
your building or facility? be revealed within the
first year and after that it
also depends on how
users have treated their
space and the overall
facility. % years may be a
good time duration after
which another evaluation
may be considered for
complex/ large projects.
11 How useful as source of Users are not of one type
information do you therefore they are very
consider surveying useful to collect
building occupants to be information with regard
with regard to building to one particular space
performance? type and function. For
example, in residence
halls, students will be
target users for dorm
rooms, lobby, cafeteria,
reading rooms, etc
whereas, the staff will
have to be contacted to
determine requirements
for kitchen, office areas,
etc.

184
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

Functional between great and some great extent
extent useful
Technical some extent
Indoor environment great extent
12 How accurate do you As a group they are highly
consider building accurate, as individuals
occupants with respect little accurate.
to assessment of
building performance?
Functional between high and moderately accurate
moderately accurate
Technical little accurate
Indoor environment moderately accurate
Post occupancy
evaluation:
13 Please indicate your Useful in providing Highly useful and
belief about the feedback for designs and profitable for all three
usefulness of POE to their impact on users. At
assess the same time, we do not
see any value in
conducting it which is an
added expense unless we
know that the client/
users are dissatisfied
Functional performance Physical plant must be
Technical performance included in evaluation as
Indoor environment they are responsible for
performance in buildings building maintenance
14 What do you believe are We are missing the POE can help correct
the specific benefits that feedback loop at present problems in buildings
you perceive from which POE may provide. and create alerts for
conducting user Since we have never tried future projects and
satisfaction studies? POE, we do not know the thereby help develop
exact benefits, but we goodwill amongst
perceive that it will customers.
capture lessons learnt
from projects.

185
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

15 Does your organization Yes. Yes. Detail program
use clear program statements
statements or owner
project requirement
statements which
describe the functional
objectives of projects?
16 How are these program Usually the estimator Colleges or units that
statements developed? interviewees the client need space contact the
(I.e. design team, user to determine what the FPSM. Under the
oriented committees, client wants and what guidance of the FPSM the
professional his budget is, then this design program is
programming information is passed on prepared by the planning
consultants or experts, to the designer who team. Then, user oriented
any other. Please prepares the final design committees, architects
specify. program. For some large and engineers challenge
projects, we conducted the planning team about
user participation the design program which
surveys and student further refines it. We
focus groups. Multi- have checklist of
disciplinary teams come disciplines that may be
together with the core included in the planning
design team, users to team. After the design
form the planning team program is established
and establish the the physical plant
program requirements engineer is contacted.
specific to the project.
The planning team
includes a wider range of
people who are
contacted by an email at
the project inception.
17 Are these program and Not yet but would want Not yet but we would like
owner project it to be that way. to make them the basis.
requirements used as a Project specific evaluation
basis for any POE can be only done with
processes? due consideration to the
special needs that were
included in the program
due to particular reasons.

186
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

18 Are Owner Project Yes. We use the Construction standards
Requirements (OPR) and construction standards are used for energy
technical Basis of Design and the general planning efficiency evaluation
(BOD) statements requirements now called
established for any the design guidelines to
technical performance or ensure the project
indoor environmental abides the minimum
quality objectives? requirements of MSU
19 Does any technical POE Yes. BOD is viewed as No
or performance minimum requirement
evaluation process for buildings constructed
utilize these OPR or BOD on campus. Based on
documents as a basis for work done previously
assessment? with CM faculty, we
have now started to
design and construct
LEED certifiable
buildings. Engineers and
Architects are required
to report energy
statements to MSU.
Also, now we have
contracts between
project participants.
20 How are these BOD The BOD is formed from Codes; organization
statements developed? the codes, construction standards; fire marshal
(Codes, technical data, standards, general reviews; parking
organizational planning requirements standards; material
standards, any other. (design guidelines), standards; design
Please specify.)Who standard operation program influence BOD
develops them? practices, senior staff and EAS is responsible to
and sometimes best ensure compliance of
practices identified from design guidelines and
feedback from past construction standards.
projects are considered
while developing the
BOD.

187
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

21 Do you use Yes. Starting to use Yes but without asking
“commissioning” on commissioning and occupants in real it’s only
your major projects? If believe that improve a guess. Retro-
yes, do you believe it has occupant satisfaction. commissioning evaluates
led to improved the technical
occupant satisfaction in performance of existing
your buildings? Explain. buildings. We have
recognized that POE has
value but we do not have
a standard procedure to
apply it.
22 Does using Influences the questions Yes. Commissioning will
commissioning have any you want to ask; Since influence POE and vice
influence on the need to HVAC is commissioned versa and it will be useful
conduct POE or how a and electrical and to compare data and
POE should be plumbing are not, POE correlate between
conducted? Explain. may be used for those. functional and technical
We also have a group of performance.
inspectors who supervise
and evaluate installation
and maintenance of
building systems. Our
commissioning agent will
be able to provide you
with more information in
this regard.
23 How feasible are the All, but it will be
following while important to know which
conducting POE studies? ones are most effective;
it will also depend on the
project type
a Walk-through/ physical x
observation
b Progress photos x we already do this
c Structured interviews x with users
d Focus groups x during design
e Web-based surveys x most useful
f Paper-based surveys

188
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4
g Building inspection contractors, designers,
university team already
does it therefore of not
value in relation with POE
h Workshops
i Financial analysis difficult because of the
way projects are funded
(donation, sponsorships)
j Assessment of facility X SQUIRE is an initiative in
maintenance records/ this regard.
work orders
k Any other. Please
specify.
24 Would using any of Yes depending on the May have to use in
these tools in value of the information combination because
combination be helpful? collected one method may be
(Refer to Q23). more effective in looking
at a specific area or
aspect than another
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 RESPONSE 4

25 Who should collect and Internal staff. Internal staff will be first
analyze the information Appointment of evaluator preference, or, outside
from occupants? must consider time consultant but that will
(internal staff, outside constraints and person be more expensive. We
consultant, design hours cannot have design
consultant, any other, consultants since there
please specify) will be bias towards
success.
26 In terms of cost, what Depends on who is Occupant focused
percentage of overall providing the funding for evaluation costs:
project budget should be POE; It should be a part of $15,000-20,000; in
reserved for POE? Why? the cost of the operation. percentage form not
Before adding any more than 0.5% of
percentage, we must project cost. Do not
verify how much value know what will be a fair
POE adds to the project amount.
performance.

189
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

1 Do you currently conduct No The organization has an
any of the following? informal process which is
Explain/identify. anecdotal but not well
a Project post mortems/ planned. It includes a
project performance questionnaire with open
evaluation (description ended questions which
of items: contract, record responses with
schedule, budget, regard to weakness in
procurement, safety, planning. The process
change orders, punchlist, includes feedback from
etc) department heads and
b Post occupancy physical plant
evaluation (POE) representatives.
(building performance Sometimes, a complain
evaluation after call is also the reason to
occupancy) trigger the assessment.
i Functional
ii Technical
iii Indoor environment
2 If you conduct any of the NA NA
above processes do you
have a standardized
approach? Is this
process written? If so
may we obtain a copy of
any instruments used or
process descriptions?
3 If you do conduct such NA NA
processes, how is the
information used? Does
information collected
serve primarily as a
facility management
tool, diagnostic tool, to
identify corrective
measures for the specific
project or is it used for
information for
improving future
projects or processes.

190
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

4 If your organization does Lack of resources: time, Time; present workload;
not typically conduct manpower; lack of a clear shortage of staff; lack of
POE, why not? What well defined process experience with a similar
barriers do you process; lack of
experience or anticipate? realization of value of
POE on part of the
persons who may be
involved; lack of
knowledge to use the
information gathered in
the most effective way;
lack of consideration to
details of the process.
5 If your organization does Lack of resources: time, Same as above
not typically conduct manpower; lack of a clear
Project Post Mortems, well defined process
why not? What barriers
do you experience or
anticipate?
6 If you decide to conduct It should be assigned as a To make time for such a
a post occupancy duty of a single individual process, will need
evaluation to determine who should also belong to additional staff;
user-satisfaction, what the third party additional finances; a
will be the steps that you cross functional team
will take to ensure the that will comprise of
process has sufficient lead representatives
resources (e.g. budget, from FPSM, physical
evaluators, evaluation plant, architect's firm
tools, etc) for execution? and client; right
questions; right people
to ask; right information
collected; right way to
use the information
gathered.

191
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

EVALUATION ASPECTS
7 In your capacity as a It must be evaluated if Space quality; sufficiency
university building or the building functions of space utilization; size;
facility owner list have been achieved as spatial arrangement;
aspects in the following intended. For sufficiency of spatial
categories which you universities, particular functions; Office layout
would like to have areas are more and effect on required
evaluated after important such as communication between
occupancy? Explain. common areas. Other occupants; proximity of
a Functional evaluation aspects: adequacy of right functional areas;
office space, mechanical space support towards
spaces, maintenance task performance; impact
accessibility. of space on confidence
and competence of users;
representation or
organizational values.
b Technical evaluation Aspects: temperature,
humidity, lighting,
flexibility, connections
(amount and location),
technology applications.
c Indoor environment IEQ is a perspective Thermal comfort and
quality (IEQ) evaluation oriented and it depends more.
on how good a person
feels in his or her space.
8 What kind of questions Does the building
would you like to be enhance your ability to How is the space quality?
asked of building users? get your work done in an Does the space size, layout
a Functional performance effective and productive arrangement, location,
manner? If given the features, furnishing
chance, what would you support and enhance your
change about your ability to get your work
space? done in an efficient
manner? Overall, does the
space perform as
intended? Is any particular
area too far or too close to
your space and interferes
with your task
performance?

192
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

b Technical performance
c Indoor environment
performance in buildings
9 When would you like to Ideal time may be 6-12 6 weeks from occupancy
have this evaluation months after occupancy; at least so changes can
conducted for the first because if it is earlier be made if required
time and why? then people are already before users settle
exhausted with the move completely.
in efforts so they have
mixed feeling about their
place; if it is later, then
they have settled already
and also the
organizational goals
change with time.
10 How often would you 3-5 years ideally. The For new and renovated
like to have evaluation efforts should be justified projects- 6 weeks from
done in the life cycle of with regard to values occupancy and then a
your building or facility? such as, how will the year later for all physical
gathered data be used? systems. The FPSM has a
Are the people involved process called 'space
committed enough? request process' which
collects user feedback
one year after
occupancy. Sometimes
users re quest more
space but when we
investigate, it may be
only spatial
rearrangement that they
need.
11 How useful as source of
information do you
consider surveying
building occupants to be
with regard to building
performance?
Functional to a great extent To a great extent
Technical to some extent To a great extent
Indoor environment to a great extent To a great extent

193
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

12 How accurate do you While gathering
consider building information, the right
occupants with respect amount of sample must
to assessment of be considered or
building performance? appropriate
representatives must be
approached.
Functional Highly accurate Moderately accurate
Technical Moderately accurate Moderately accurate
(They may not be able to
provide information
about the amount of
energy wasted, etc)
Indoor environment Moderately accurate Moderately accurate
Post occupancy
evaluation:
13 Please indicate your Informative towards
belief about the future space planning;
usefulness of POE to captures information
assess that may not surface
physically (for example:
emotional reactions); it
adds value such that
current problems are
detected and future
problems are avoided.
Items beyond punchlist
can be identified. This
kind of a process may
also promote the feeling
that the central
university or university
leaders care for their
employees.
Functional performance Extremely useful
Technical performance Lesser useful
Indoor environment Very useful and subjective
performance in buildings

194
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

14 What do you believe are Tells users that Good information from
the specific benefits that organization cares for building users which may
you perceive from their satisfaction and help to identify current
conducting user well-being; users are building issues and
satisfaction studies? more productive which contribute in future
means more dividends for planning. Help solve
the organization problems when they are
small such that they do
not become bigger
issues in the long run. It
helps capture
organizational values.
15 Does your organization Program statements that yes
use clear program comprise of list of space
statements or owner needs from clients but
project requirement not necessarily does it
statements which trickle down to functional
describe the functional objectives.
objectives of projects?
16 How are these program Facility planning space All of the mentioned.
statements developed? management; Designer Initially the architects
(i.e. design team, user teams, user oriented makes a preliminary
oriented committees, committees, professional design program
professional programming consultants following which, FPSM
programming or experts. along with key occupants
consultants or experts, and owners finalize it.
any other. Please They conduct a
specify. feasibility analysis and
then an external
consultant.
17 Are these program and No, but it should be. Informally
owner project
requirements used as a
basis for any POE
processes?
c Structured interviews Useful X
Along with walkthroughs
will be very useful

195
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

18 Are Owner Project Yes, used as a part of No
Requirements (OPR) and commissioning process
technical Basis of Design
(BOD) statements
established for any
technical performance or
indoor environmental
quality objectives?
19 Does any technical POE Design documents are Informally physical plant
or performance used as baseline for uses it
evaluation process commissioning
utilize these OPR or BOD
documents as a basis for
assessment?
20 How are these BOD All of the mentioned; Part of the planning team;
statements developed? user input; designer or design standards; reviews
(Codes, technical data, corporate experience; of planning process
organizational design professional
standards, any other.
Please specify.)Who
develops them?
21 Do you use Commissioning is being Not responded
“commissioning” on used more consistently
your major projects? If on most projects now
yes, do you believe it has and more than
led to improved 'satisfaction', a more
occupant satisfaction in prominent measure is
your buildings? Explain. 'less dissatisfaction'.
22 Does using POE still has value with Not responded
commissioning have any regard to
influence on the need to communication. A lot of
conduct POE or how a useful information as per
POE should be how the building
conducted? Explain. functions is gathered
from communication
which is the starting
point of POE.
23 How feasible are the
following while
conducting POE studies?

196
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

a Walk-through/ physical Essential and feasible X (means yes)
observation
b Progress photos Helpful to record building X
problems, with some
write-up or comments but
not directly for evaluation
c Structured interviews Useful X
Along with
walkthroughs will be
very useful
d Focus groups Useful Not very useful
e Web-based surveys Useful to some extent; Moderately useful and
may not capture the kind must have limited
of feedback we may be questions
f Paper-based surveys looking for Not very useful
g Building inspection Very useful and important Already done by
physical plant and is
useful
h Workshops Not very useful
i Financial analysis Part of the energy
consumption
calculations and already
done by building
maintenance group
j Assessment of facility Already being done Done already
maintenance records/
work orders
k Any other. Please specify.
24 Would using any of these A, c, g together may be Yes, walkthroughs and
tools in combination be very helpful structured interviews.
helpful? (Refer to Q23).
25 Who should collect and Internal staff dedicated Space planning team
analyze the information solely for POE or outside
from occupants? (internal consultant. Evaluators can
staff, outside consultant, work with design
design consultant, any consultants but design
other, please specify) consultants should not be
the evaluators.

197
 Table A4.1 continued: Interview Response Record Sheet for Qualitative
Analysis

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5 Response 6

26 In terms of cost, what Guess: 0.1% Depends on how much
percentage of overall does a POE cost; It
project budget should be should be expressed in
reserved for POE? Why? % for small budget
projects and "% and not
to exceed amount" for
large projects.

198
 APPENDIX B

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION SURVEY

B1: Consent Form

B2: Trial POE Questionnaire

B3: Survey Response Code Sheet

B4: Survey Response Record Sheet for SPDC

B5: Survey Response Record Sheet for Spartan Way

B6: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis Sheet

B7: Modified POE Questionnaire Paper-based Version

199
APPENDIX B1

Consent Form

200
 Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement (C2P2AI)
SPDC/ Spartan Way Michigan State University
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Building Occupants

DEVELOPMENT OF A POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT TO

ASSESS OCCUPANT SATISFACTION IN UNIVERSITY RENOVATION
PROJECTS

Principal Investigator: Tim Mrozowski and Tariq Abdelhamid

Research Assistant: Sagata Bhawani

The Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement

(C2P2Ai) from the School of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State
University is conducting research in order to develop a Post Occupancy Evaluation
survey to assess user satisfaction in university office renovations.

Post occupancy evaluation (POE) can be defined as the process of evaluating buildings in
a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied.

As a participant in this research, you are being requested to complete a survey

questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to assess your satisfaction level with the
functional and indoor environment aspects of your work space. Your participation is
completely voluntary. The estimated time to complete this survey is approximately 15-20
minutes. Each survey is coded with unique random numbers to protect the privacy of
respondents.

You indicate your voluntary participation by completing and returning the survey
in the box marked ‘POE STUDY’ and placed in your mailbox area/room.
If you have any questions about this project, you may contact:

Tim Mrozowski, A.I.A., LEED ® AP

Professor of Construction Management, School of Planning, Design and Construction,
Michigan State University
(517) 353-0781, [email protected]

Sagata Bhawani
Graduate Student and Research Assistant, Construction Management Program
School of Planning Design and Construction, Michigan State University
(517) 648-6277, [email protected]

If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant
or would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint
about this research study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, Michigan State
University Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503,
or e-mail [email protected], or regular mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

201
 APPENDIX B2:

Trial POE Questionnaire

202
 Post Occupancy Evaluation 2009
School of Planning, Design and Construction
Building Occupant’s Survey

The purpose of this survey is to identify important evaluation aspects that a post occupancy
evaluation survey should address. Your response from this survey will be useful as we develop
the final survey instrument.

Please record your start and end time for completing the survey:
Start time: __________________________________ End time: __________________________________

Section 1: Occupant Satisfaction with regard to Functional Performance

Please note: Functional performance refers to the performance of the design components
of your workspace towards your task performance.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1=very satisfied, 2=satisfied, 3=slightly satisfied, 4=neutral,

5=slightly dissatisfied, 6=dissatisfied and 7=very dissatisfied, please indicate your level of
satisfaction with regard to the following aspects:

1. How satisfied are you with your office layout i.e. the placement of your workspace/ cubicle/ rooms
with regard to your surrounding workspaces/ cubicles/ rooms?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
2. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about your office layout? Please explain.

3. How satisfied are you with the location of your workspace in relation to the remaining office area?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
4. If you are located in an open office, how satisfied are you with your office location in relation to the
rest of the functional areas?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
5. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about your office location? Please explain.

6. Does your personal work space function well for your job responsibilities?
o Yes
o No
7. How satisfied are you with the amount of space available for individual work and storage?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

203
8. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about the amount of space available for individual
work and storage? Please explain.

9. Does the individual work space function well for the overall office?
o Yes
o No

10. If your answer is No, what would you change?

11. If you have a shared workspace does it work well for you?
o Yes
o No

12. If your answer is No, what would you change?

13. How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction with co-workers?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
14. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about the ease of interaction with co-workers? Please
explain.

15. How satisfied are you with the privacy of your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
16. How satisfied are you with the visual privacy of your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
17. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change to improve the visual privacy of your workspace?
Please explain

18. How satisfied are you with your office furniture in terms of comfort, flexibility, sufficiency, overall
appearance?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
19. If you are dissatisfied, what would you like to change about your office furniture? Please explain.

204
20. How satisfied are you with your office furnishings (for e.g. carpet or curtain color. finish, function,
overall appearance)?
Very Dissatisfied
Very Satisfied
21. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change to improve the appearance and utility of your office
furnishings? Please explain.

22. How satisfied are you with your office equipment and their contribution to your task
performance? (For example: printer, phone, fax machines, computer accessories, etc)
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
23. If you are dissatisfied, what would you like to change about your office equipment? Please explain.

24. How satisfied are you with the ease of accessibility to your personal work space from the entrance of
your building?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
25. If you are dissatisfied, what would you like to change about ease of accessibility to your personal
workspace from the entrance? Please explain.

26. How satisfied are you with the access and ability of personal control in your workspace for heating,
ventilation, connection points, and power supply stability?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
27. If you are dissatisfied, what would you like to change about the access and ability of personal control
in your office building? Please explain.

28. Do you have a window in your personal workspace?

o Yes
o No

29. If yes, how satisfied are you with the window location and view in your personal workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

30. If you are dissatisfied, what would you like to change about the window location and view in your
workspace? Please explain.

205
If No, to what extent does absence of window affect your overall satisfaction with your personal
workspace?

o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

31. How satisfied are you with your overall current personal workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

If, this is not your first office and if your first office was in a university setting, please answer the
question #31 or proceed to question #32:

32. How satisfied were you with your overall previous personal workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
33. How satisfied are you with your overall building renovation?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
34. How satisfied are you with your overall workplace environment?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
35. How satisfied are you with the construction quality (example: product finishes, installations of
hardware, etc) of your building after renovation?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

36. How satisfied are you with the process/ how satisfied were you with the process of renovation?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

37. Do you consider that your needs were incorporated into the design? If not, what was omitted?

38. How has the renovations affected your work performance?

o Great improvement
o Moderate improvement
o Little improvement
o No affect

39. Other aspects that may affect your overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with your workspace
may be the organization structure of your department or your changed job-description.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree

206
Section 2: Occupant Satisfaction with regard to Indoor Environment Quality:

Please note: Indoor environment refers to the overall feel and quality of the space inside
your office.
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1=very satisfied, 2=satisfied, 3=slightly satisfied, 4=neutral, 5=slightly
dissatisfied, 6=dissatisfied and 7=very dissatisfied, please indicate your level of satisfaction with
regard to the following aspects:

LIGHT

40. How satisfied are you with the natural lighting at your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
41. How satisfied are you with the artificial lighting at your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
42. How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of the lighting at your workspace (e.g. glare,
reflections, and contrast)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
43. How satisfied do you feel with the overall lighting comfort at your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
44. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about your overall workspace lighting? Please
explain.

THERMAL COMFORT

45. How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
46. How satisfied are you with the humidity in your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
47. How satisfied are you with the ventilation in your workspace?
Very Dissatisfied
Very Satisfied

48. How satisfied are you with the overall thermal comfort of your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
49. If you are dissatisfied, what would you change about your overall workspace thermal comfort?
Please explain.

207
 AIR QUALITY

50. How satisfied are you with the air quality at your workspace (stuffy/stale air, cleanliness, odors)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
51. How satisfied do you feel with the ventilation of your office?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
52. If you are dissatisfied with air quality, what changes would you recommend? Please explain.

ACOUSTIC

53. How satisfied are you with the noise level of your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
54. How satisfied are you with the sound privacy of your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
55. If you are dissatisfied, please explain causes for your discomfort.

56. Do you think that the overall indoor environment of your workspace affects your work performance
and productivity?
o Yes
o No

57. To what extent do you think that indoor environment affects work performance and productivity?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

58. Was there any new technology implemented in your workspace?

o Yes
o No

59. If yes, how satisfied are you with the implemented technology?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
60. Was there any new technology implemented in your building?
o Yes
o No

61. If yes, how satisfied are you with the implemented technology?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

208
Section 3: General Information
62. How long have you been working in this building? Please indicate your answer in number of
years.

63. How long have you been working at your current personal work space (open workspace/ cubicle/
cabin/ office area)? Please indicate your answer in number of months/ years.

If, this is not your first office and if your first office was in a university setting, Please answer the
following question:
64. How long did you work at your previous personal workspace/ cubicle/ cabin/ office area? Please
indicate your answer in number of months/ years.

65. In a typical week, how many hours do you spend in your personal workspace? Please indicate
your answer in number of hours/week.

Which of the following best describes your personal workspace?

Enclosed office, private
Enclosed office, shared with other people
Cubicles with high partitions (about five or more feet high)
Cubicles with low partitions (lower than five feet high)
Workspace in open office with no partitions (just desks)
Other, please specify:

66. What is your gender?

Please indicate your age in number of years below.

67. How would you describe the work you do? Please select all options that apply to you.
Administrative
Staff
Technical
Professional/ Faculty
Other, please specify.

68. Please list at least five activities that may be part of your role and responsibility. For example, frequent
movement within different areas and levels of the building, numerous telephone conversations, and
long hours of reading).

209
Section 4: Post Occupancy Evaluation Survey Evaluation
1. How satisfied are you with the format of the survey?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
2. How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of the questions?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
3. Please comment on the balance of open ended to closed response questions.
o Need more open-ended
o Need fewer open-ended
o Just right for me
4. In the future, which method of interaction would you prefer for this kind of study?
o Paper-based (similar to this one)
o Web-based
o Interviews
o Any other? Please specify_____________
5. How satisfied would you feel if these questions were asked in a focus group of persons occupying
adjacent workspaces as compared to this survey?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied
6. In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover aspects that you would like to comment
upon about your office?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all
7. Do you consider that right questions are being asked of building occupants?
o Yes
o No
Other, please specify________________
8. If ‘No’, what questions should be asked?

9. Do you think that the survey allows you to effectively indicate your satisfaction with the design of
your workspace?
o Yes
o No
o Other, please specify________________

10. Please mention any aspects that may not have been included for evaluation of your satisfaction
but which may be representative of performance of your workspace function and environment in
your opinion.

11. Please list by number any questions that you find unclear or confusing and explain why.

12. Please list by number any questions that you feel were unnecessary.

13. We request you to go back to the start of the survey and enter the ‘end time’ of the survey before
sending this.

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

210
 APPENDIX B3:

Survey Response Code Sheet

211
Question nos. Response Code
Sections 1, 2, and 3- 1,
Very Dissatisfied 1
3, 4, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18,
Dissatisfied 2
20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 32,
Slightly Dissatisfied 3
33-37, 41-44, 46-49,
Neutral 4
51-52, 54-55, 60, 62
Slightly Satisfied 5
and
Satisfied 6
Section 4-
Very Satisfied 7
1, 2, 5
Sections 1, 2, and 3- 6,
Yes 1
9, 11, 28, 57, 59, 61
No 0
Section 4- 7, 9
Sections 1, 2, and 3- To a great extent 1
31, 58 To some extent 2
Section 4- To little extent 3
6 Not at all 4
Great improvement 1
Sections 1, 2, and 3- Moderate improvement 2
39 Little improvement 3
No affect 4
Strongly agree 1
Agree 2
Sections 1, 2, and 3-
Neutral 3
40
Disagree 4
Strongly disagree 5

Table B3.1: POE Survey Response Coding Plan

212
 Table B3.1 Continued: POE Survey Response Coding Plan

Question nos. Response Code

Enclosed office, private 1
Enclosed office. Shared with other people 2
Cubicles with high partitions 3
Section 3- 66
Cubicles with low partitions 4
Workspace in open office with no partitions 5
Other 6
Administrative 1
Staff 2
Section 3- 69 Technical 3
Faculty 4
Other 5

213
 APPENDIX B4:

Survey Response Record Sheet for School of Planning Design and Construction

Open-ended Responses for:

Section 1: Functional Performance

Section 2: Indoor Environment Performance

Section 3: Participant Information

214
 OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION OF WORK SPACE AMOUNT OF SPACE
2 5 8
1
2
3
4
5 MSU has no idea
about the
requirements to
complete the job
assignment
6
7 more work space
8 Faculty rooms are NA Need additional
all over the place 100 SF for my office
and difficult to
find
9 No place to move really- but better
shades to protect from the sun
10
11 removed from same as #2 Need more closed
faculty with whom general storage.
I have most We lack storage for
contact- organize hard copies-
faculty by major student portfolios,
etc.
12
13 More storage more storage for
space. Computer students drawings
screen not facing and projects
the door
14 More project
storage space.
More book shelf
space. More
window space.

Table B4.1: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

215
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION OF WORK SPACE AMOUNT OF

SPACE
2 5 8
15 It’s a bit small- 50% Overall everything is See Q2
bigger would be everywhere. Grad student’s
convenient office all the way upstairs.
Main office downstairs. A
more controlled layout in the
overall has been better for
communication purposes. Also
all profs are all over in the
buildings. Can't get to see
them often if not personally
aiming it. Low interaction due
to layout.
16 We have created our own
space, nothing to do with
renovations
17
18 No response
19

20 bigger, more workable Not sure, but feel the overall

area space for workers not
designed to the best use of
the space
21 This comment was omitted to
maintain privacy but was
included in analysis and
development of
recommendations.
22 NA

216
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION OF WORK SPACE AMOUNT OF SPACE

2 5 8
23 Technology or
computers will
always have items
to be stored. We do
not have a room
dedicated for this.
Currently it is
temporary usage of
another room.
24
25 This comment was omitted to maintain privacy but was included in analysis and
26 development of recommendations.
27

ACCESSIBILITY ACCESS & ABILITY INCORPORATION OF COMMENTS

OF PERSONAL USER NEEDS
CONTROL FOR
HVAC
25 27 37
1 Data & power in rooms
HE 309/208; data in
109/110 were omitted
without our knowledge
and assumed we would
use wireless for data
2
3 There is no control No I was never asked
of the heat in our what my needs are
office
4 This comment was
omitted to maintain
privacy but was
included in analysis and
development of
recommendations.

217
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

ACCESSIBILITY ACCESS & ABILITY INCORPORATION OF COMMENTS

OF PERSONAL USER NEEDS
CONTROL FOR
HVAC
5 Heating or AC is a Very little
joke; the light participation, so much
sensors make me was just dictated
quite angry, going
off all the time
6 Does not function for
the students
7
8 Fix the HVAC unit
and have individual
control units in
every room
9 No control over heat Color of counter- wish
or air conditioning it was wood like desk
and sun in summer and not like kitchen
counter
10 Heat in office is
high. Thermostats
do not seem to
control. Have to run
AC even in winter
11 We have constant yes
temperature
problem. Controls
don’t seem to
control anything.
Motion detectors
often terminate the
outer lighting. Light
switches for
individual offices are
good.
12 No personal control. yes
Heating not reliable

218
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

13 It is too hot always. Lockers for students.

Temperature cannot Not enough display
be controlled. a space. More needed
thermostat that on both sides of
works corridor. Shelves or
cables for boards.
14 No Thermostat. No Adequate number of
control at all. At the design studio spaces.
whim of those next Adequate number of
to me who do have general storage
thermostat or the
main system. Right
now it is 48° and
raining out and the
air conditioner is on.
15 No controls in the Limited choice for My level of
room. Always too furniture satisfaction with
hot or too cold. my workspace is
only related to
my workspace
characteristics. I
don’t get caught
up on hierarchy,
inter-
departmental
relations, etc.
especially in
considering
space.
16 Fourth floor- Too hot no room
no elevator controls
17
18 Fourth floor; Absolutely not; doors,
love the storage in studios/
exercise halls; display boards in
gallery
19
20 Temperature not
consistent with, too
hot or too cold

219
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

21 This comment was

omitted to maintain
privacy but was
included in analysis
and development of
recommendations.
22 yes
23 yes
24 The choices and point
system were poorly
explained and
designed. Extra points
for desk drawers,
please!
25
26 Pretty much
27 workspace is I do not feel our
not needs were included
handicapped in design nor is it
accessible functional

LIGHT THERMAL AIR QUALITY ACOUSTICS WORK

COMFORT ACTIVITIES
44 49 52 55
1 Shared Always warm
office. Light in winter
sensor is
blocked on
my side by
partition; the
lights are
always
shutting
down from
the partition
and lack of
movement
to the
sensor. I
work in the
dark 60% of
my day

220
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

LIGHT THERMAL AIR ACOUSTICS WORK ACTIVITIES

COMFORT QUALITY
44 49 52 55
2 Computer work at
desk; meeting
with people in
office
3 Actual control There is no
of heat would sound privacy
be great for my
workspace
4 Long hours of
reading; grading;
student
conferences;
frequent
telephone
conversations;
class prep
5 Eliminate the Give me actual Sorry the list is
switch, bring control of heat too long
my own and AC
lighting, the
purchase
office lamp is
quite poor
6 frequent
movement within
different areas
and levels of the
building; standing
in studio for 8-12
hours/ week
7 Clerical
8 More lighting Fix the heating Regular faculty
unit and duties
individual
room control

221
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

LIGHT THERMAL AIR QUALITY ACOUSTICS WORK

COMFORT ACTIVITIES
9 Sometimes it Everyone can Receptionist.
feels so "stuffy" hear my Computer
that I can't phone work. Travel
breathe. Sun conversations vouchers. Sort
made it warm or speaking to mail
no control of visitors
thermostat
10 Office is hot As far as I Loud co Customer
and thermostat can see there workers and service.
does not seem is no air noise carries Review of
to control heat. movement even with documents.
Need to run AC or ventilated door to Interaction
in winter system in personal with others.
office. office closed. Computer
work.
11 System does Frequent
not work movement to
properly. It has classrooms.
frequent Advising
performance office.
problems Computer
work. Use
conference
room,
frequent
meetings.
12 Settings do not
seem to work,
sometimes is
too hot, other
times too cold
13 Too hot. Like in Too much Mainly
an oven in all dust- not teaching-
seasons cleaned preparing
regularly class material,
grading

222
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

LIGHT THERMAL AIR ACOUSTICS WORK ACTIVITIES

COMFORT QUALITY
14 I have no control. Can hear Reading; writing
The heat has a mind conversation (exams, lectures);
of its own. Some s from grading (papers,
mornings it feels like offices on projects, models,
90, other times its either side at art); electronic
cold. A thermostat times. Not communication
to control the bad though (email); student
temperature in my for the most advising/ class
office part office hours
15 It’s either too hot or Q 49 I can hear Frequent
too cold. No everyone. movement within
personal controls Not different areas and
within the room. I comfortable levels of the
have to open the at all. building, numerous
door for ventilation. telephone
Its good in terms of conversations, and
natural ventilation long hours of
but then it affects reading.
the privacy of
personal space
when needed.
16 Keep windows open
and its fine. Loss of
energy due to lack
of room thermostat.
17 Need personal Very Long hours using
control uncomfortab computer;
le to talk on frequent use of
the phone scanner; piling up
due to poor student projects
acoustics
18 frequent
movement within
different areas and
levels of the
building; time in
studio; meetings
with students in
office

223
 Table B4.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for S.P.D.C.

LIGHT THERMAL AIR ACOUSTICS WORK ACTIVITIES

COMFORT QUALITY
19 Window AC is Grade
noisy and assignments, assist
oversized students
20 not sure- noise is not mostly word
temperature not an issue but processing,
steady you can hear copying, calling for
what others information
are saying
21 if it could frequent visits to
be placed the main office to
on the drop stuff that
wall need to be signed
instead of or approved, also
directly going to the mail
under room at least twice
where I sit a day
22
23 We don’t have air Tech support for
flow vented in the school- some
the ceiling but do individual offices,
open our others in my office
windows. This
works for us.
24
25 Small meetings,
movement around
floor
26 long hours writing
at computer
(reports, emails,
correspondence);
meetings
throughout the
building and
outside; phone
calls
27 Thermostat does Hot office is very Phone calls,
not work, office is busy, can’t emails, meetings,
constantly hot! be helped moving around

224
 APPENDIX B5:

Survey Response Record Sheet for Spartan Way

Open-ended Responses for:

Section 1: Functional Performance

Section 2: Indoor Environment Performance

Section 3: Participant Information

225
 AMOUNT
OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION
OF SPACE
Q. 2 5 8
1 More space, windows, privacy
2-4 No Response
5 Window
6 No Response
7 Design to allow complete Remain fairly neutral on
departments to reside alongside location. Has been removed
each other within talking / seeing from main office areas, but
distance. More occupied offices. that is okay at times, as the
Chat rooms wasted valuable cubicle layout(noise,
space. disturbance) makes it hard
to concentrate to write or
have phone conversations.
8 More privacy. Sound travels very Too far from copy machine
easily through our work area and and supplies too. Far from
it is different to conduct main reception area.
confidential business when
everyone around can hear.
9-11 No Response
12 Curved desk area makes it hard
to use keyboard. Not enough
space to back up in chair. Must
keep both front plus back desk at
some height to use keyboard
(defeats purpose).
13 No Response
14 Not enough desk space Closer to all my unit people
15 needed to be contiguous with Offices in a dark corner
colleagues with whom I
frequently interact
16-17 No Response
18 Adequate arrangement seems like no real creative design effort
expended. With some consultations the workspace could be
more inspired, interesting. Look a bit more like university rather
than institution. I would like to see the university being forward
thinking- making staircases a center piece for first 2 floors as a
option for fitness. The building is nice but unimaginative.

Table B5.1: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

226
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION AMOUNT OF SPACE

19-22 No Response
23 Reconfigure area and This comment was omitted
build offices for system to maintain privacy but
group. was included in analysis
and development of
recommendations.
24-25 No Response
26 Would be closer to
others in my office.
27-28 No Response
29 Our storage room isn’t big
enough- very crowded. We
store the shredder bin-
which everyone uses. We
also store all of the toners
for all the printers/copiers
including Xerox. All
centrally placed printers,
also kitchen supplies and
share with 2 other units.
30 This comment was I get student help twice a
omitted to maintain day- there is not space for
privacy but was both of us. Also, there is
included in analysis and not enough leg room for
development of both of us.
recommendations.
31 I get bored and would I think the cubicles Workspace functions well
like the ability to are too small and for job responsibilities but
rearrange the desk and awkward. Make not to conduct business
other office furniture. Large cubicles a little conversations. A little
The colors are drab and bigger and put more more space/ bigger
don’t keep you space between the storage cabinet would be
motivated. cubicle groups or just nice.
give me an office.
32 Need more space for
storage. I have kind of
high jacked rolling file
cabinets from
unoccupied
workstations.

227
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION AMOUNT OF SPACE

33 We need more book
shelves and file cabinet.
Closet needs to be bigger
and have a shelf for small
personal items.
34 Need larger cubicle
35 No Response
36 Cubicles are too close Need more storage space
together, you can hear (drawers and bigger desk
everything going on in area to spread work out).
other cubicles
sometimes making it
hard to focus
37 Need to have entire
team together
38-39 No Response
40 Close to copier
41-44 No Response
45 I think such a narrow This comment was I would very much
design is not conducive omitted to maintain appreciate more surface
to efficient work or to privacy but was area& more drawer space.
fostering a collegial included in analysis I have a lot of paper and a
atmosphere. A copier/ and development of lot of things going on at
printer is located at recommendations. one once. So my cube
each end if you walk to always looks like a disaster
one & if it’s being used area.
its about the length of a
football field to go to
the other one. You
hardly ever see people
who are housed at the
ends of the offices.
46 Out of the way of Huge offices vs. tiny Room to lock up secure
noise+ passer bys. cubicles documents
47 We do not have enough
space so that everyone
on our team/ unit is all
together. Cubes spaced
apart in different areas
of building.

228
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

OFFICE LAYOUT LOCATION AMOUNT OF SPACE

48 Desire center desk
drawer, more under
desk file space
49
50 Size of office is good but it is Quieter location with
in a high traffic noisy area assistant in adjoining
that requires door to be but private office- but
closed in order to focus on stadium tower does
work. Co-workers may think not appear to give
I am anti social but not so. private offices.
Windows clear in door
would help.
51 No response
Q. 10 12 14 17 19 21
1-4
5 Carpet is unraveling and has for quite
sometime
6
7 Curve of table top and placement of monitors
seems to have lead to nerve issues in arm,
elbow, shoulder limited by outlet plug
location I assume.
8 I would prefer a desk with drawers attached.
9-10
11 Being near a window, after many years
without a window, is absolutely wonderful.
However, on a bright, sunny day there is an
or two when the sun shines in my eyes as
there is no window shade.
12-14
15 Not enough room for meeting with vendors.
Not enough space for storage. Colors are very
dull and uninviting. No work space.
16-17
18 Poor carpet choice in one area-heels or
anyone with joint problems.
19 Can’t be
changed
20-21

229
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

Q. 10 12 14 17 19 21
22 love the paint
color in my
office
23 This comment was Hate the
omitted to texture of the
maintain privacy carpet. Tech
but was included cart does not
in analysis and roll well over
development of the carpet.
recommendations
24 I don’t like the
carpet because
it is hard on
the feet.
25
26 Need
to be
closer.
27 I would The way the desk
have the is set up, it makes
computer it difficult to use
keyboard on the keyboard &
a tray under mouse.
the desk
that could
be pulled
put to use.
28 This
comment
was
omitted
to
maintain
privacy
but was
included
in
analysis

230
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

Q. 10 12 14 17 19 21
29 No windows-
doors on our
cubicles
30 This comment
was omitted to
maintain privacy
but was included
in analysis
31 You hear If we must be in It works; Change color
everything cubicles, can the it's just scheme
everybody walls be higher ugly-
says. You and how about a make a
shouldn’t door, they do better
have to leave make them for color
your office to cubes. selection.
have a private
conversation.
Higher cubicle
walls please.
32 This comment
was omitted to
maintain privacy
but was included
in analysis
33 Too Close off the Chairs do not
close windows roll without
and too between major effort
noisy. cubicles. Have a because of
White door to close. bumpy
noise is Walls that go to patterned
not the the ceiling would carpet. Colors
answer. be really nice. are drab and
patterns are
ridiculous.
Work surface
corners are
sharp or edged
with hand
rounded pieces
not good for
computer use.

231
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

Q. 10 12 14 17 19 21
34-
35
36 Make the
cubicles
less out in
the open
37 Need to be
closer to co -
workers
38-
44
45 The very long I would Keyboar Too much money was
hallway type like the ds spent on the décor of
design opening should our office, considering
isolates of my be in this is a university. Why
people. Also, cube not ledges do we need sculpted
there is to face that are carpets or marble
always a the height topped conference
feeling of window of adjustab tables, those ridiculous
people the office le. round things on the
listening to opposite. top of the cabinets?
your When we moved in
conversations here, there was such a
because we sense of office being
are so close way more important
together. than the people in it.
Plus the design of the
bathroom sink area is
horrible. There’s
standing water on the
counter constantly-
sometimes so bad, it is
dripping on the floor.
46 Privacy Privacy used to an Uneven carpet pattern
office make lunch room less
noisy
47 Have to do a Put padding under
lot of walking carpet; pick a
smoother carpet that
vacuum easily.

232
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

Q. 10 12 14 17 19 21
48-49
50 People just need to see #15 Brought Could use carpet
get up& walk to see our own cleaning overall &
co-workers. My furniture stain removal
assistant could be
closer to my office
in an ideal situation.
Would like window
in door so door can
be closed but I still
appear sociable and
accessible.
51 It would be nice to A door
be in an area all
together, where we
can interact without
worrying about
disturbing others
around us.
OFFICE ACCESSIBILITY PERSONAL WINDOW
EQUIPMENT CONTROL LOCATION & VIEW
23 25 27 30
1
2 Copier and printer We have no I wouldn't mind
is always breaking control on having some kind of
down. temperature of window covering to
office, so therefore prevent sun from
it can be too cold causing computer
or too warm at glare at certain times
times. of the year.
3 Copiers require I need to purchase
assistance from IT- a heater (my own)
but because it I seem to be cold
didn't help procure most days
copier they are
unable to service/
assist
4
5 Phone system
seem cumbersome

233
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

Q. 23 25 27 30
6 Would like printer
at each work
station
7 Phone system. I don’t believe we have Very few
Phone tree- any control. Especially in cubicles. If the
answering ability cubicles. I have a fan- but windows
from other limited power outlets. could open in
locations when fresh air.
ringing. Seems to Cubicles
have a lot of positioned in a
maintenance manner as not
issues. Printers, to "see" out
copiers- jamming, window.
breaking, Ventilation in
overloading server- this building is
not sure how to fix. horrible.
8 Printers that don't
breakdown at
crucial times.
9 I have no control usually
too hot in summer.
10 The document The main Temp is either freezing
centers fax, print & entrance is or hot- it is very hard to
copy all in one totally on the control.
machine. If opposite side if
someone has sent where I sit.
a huge print job &
you need to copy-
you are waiting
forever.
11 It is a long walk My desk is small and It is a blessing
from parking having the computer box most of the
lot and up a lot under my desk is not time I feel
of steps. It is very handy. Chain needs very fortunate
okay for a replacing- cushion to be near a
young healthy packed down. An window.
person but ergonomic evaluation
could be would help.
difficult for an
old or injured
person.

234
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

23 25 27 30
12 There is no control for
heating and ventilation,
even if we all agree we are
hot, we can’t change the
thermostat.
13
14 Would love to have a This comment was omitted
printer at my desk to maintain privacy but was
included in analysis and
development of
recommendations
15 Always too hot in winter
likewise in summer. No
personal control is
available.
16 Cooling and heating are not No blinds- late
constant. afternoon sun
obscures the
computer
monitor
images.
17
18 It would be nice to be Only problem is temp.
able to pick up phone@ Personal heaters are a
any desk in the area. Pick must.
up has long been an
option in office.
19 Always busy Way too hot
20
21
22 I am always a warm person
some days it is freezing in
my office
23 Get a window.
24 The printer is always Very little control over Windows are
jamming and breaking HVAC. Still get food smells near enough to
down in building work station.

235
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

25 It is okay that we have a I think temperature

group copier in a central control during the
location. I understand workday is ok. If one
why and as a side it gives is working on a
me some exercise nut pressing project
when you have a bog job, after 5pm or on the
lose time and lots of weeks, the
problems, the central temperature creeps
copier doesn’t work well. up. In the summer,
the temperature
would regularly hit
90 degree.
26 We need a more efficient Only problem
copier/printer. Does not is during fall,
like to do large jobs and if sun hits my
it does work without desk
jamming it is too slow. computer;
viewing is
difficult in
the
afternoon.
27-
28
29 There is very
little that can
be done.
30 This comment was Other than
omitted to maintain being cold in
privacy but was the winter, I
included in analysis am very OK. I
have two
double glass
doors to the
patio.
31 I would make the
temperature higher but
this is something that no
one will ever be happy
with someone is always
cold someone else hot.

236
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

23 25 27 30
32 This comment was Due to higher We constantly Is it not a window
omitted to maintain than usual have heating/ to the outdoors
privacy but was security within cooling issues but that’s okay.
included in analysis our building, I
and development of am ok as I have
recommendations my ID on me
before 7:45 am
or after 5:00pm
33 Generally too Window looks
cold all year into cubicles on
round. Need to either side of me.
use power
strips because
outlets are not
close enough to
computer
equipment.
34-35
36 This comment was omitted to maintain privacy but was included in analysis
and development of recommendations
37 Need more space at
monitor location,
have to get up to file
most things.
38-39
40 I would like to be
able to see a
window.
41 I wish we had
personal printers in
our offices.
42
43 Temperature I have no view
can be too from my office to
variable, a window
ventilation/ air
flow from
catering
downstairs is
terrible.

237
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

23 25 27 30
44 Our printers There is only one outlet to use
commonly have besides my computer outlet.
problems and
the other
printer that we
can use is all
the way down
on the south
end of the
building.
45 I very much I have no say in any of these.
appreciated my
computer
double screens.
I really dislike
the printer
copiers. I have
to frequently
make a small
set of copies
and often have
to wait for print
jobs coming
through as a
copy did the
one dedicated
to the copier.
46 Very windy plus Sometimes too hot, Face it
cold in front of sometimes too cold. Horrid
building. Also fumes from kitchen below.
sun reflection
from building
blinding.
47 Too far to go to There is no ventilation in the
make a copy women's restroom, always
and took a year smells, always cold, blowers
but finally got always blowing cold air down
us a printer in on you. Can always smell what
our area. they are cooking in the
kitchen.

238
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

23 25 27 30
48 Heating/ cooling
controls regulate 3
offices. One office is
freezing while 3rd office
is boiling hot and vent
over desk is very drafty.
50 Need a higher No control of temp & Windows for offices would
quality printer, ventilation. Personal be great but I understand it
Need upgraded office thermostat would was more important to give
computer- be great. natural light and windows
grinding noise, to those workers in
have been told by cubicles- this seems fair.
IT that my Absence of window affects
computer is dying- my overall satisfaction.
might crash.
51 I am always cold We don’t have windows
regardless of season. that open. Its forced air.
Cannot regulate

INCORPORATION OF USER NEEDS

37 44 49
1
2 We were not given an
opportunity to provide input.
Ladies restroom location not
convenient or adequate.
Always better to work in
better surroundings.
3 This comment was
omitted to maintain
privacy but was included
in analysis and
development of
recommendations
4
5 Sure
6 Desk fluorescent
lighting

239
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

INCORPORATION OF USER NEEDS

37 44 49
7 I am not sure the needs of Make natural light Circulate the stale
employees were considered available to more stagnant air. Allow for
at all. Functionality of workspaces so as not cooler temperatures
location, storage, counter to be operating in a
space for project meetings. cave like storage
Office numbers- tiers of who closet like a cube
deserved one-all call short. more control of light
in personal space.
8 It would help if It’s always too cold
curtains were on the
windows to block out
the late afternoon
sun.
9 I don’t like not having
some control of my
workspace temp.
10 No- we were not shown the Place in some
layout & that was it opinions warmer colored
were not considered. lighting. Way too
much glare
everywhere.
11 Operable windows Add humidity in the
winter. Humidity is lower
than 20% or less. A little
more heat would help in
cool weather.
12 Direction before Q32 not I would like natural Ventilation is poor and
worded correctly. No. I am light there is no control over
not located near co-workers temp, so would like
in my department. There is change these.
no work area close to us. Q
38- option 5- negative effect
on performance
13 Smells from cooking
upstairs
14 No work space, not enough It is always freezing
room to work efficiently.

240
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

INCORPORATION OF USER NEEDS

37 44 49
15 The work of my team is Too hot in winter and
fundamentally different than that summer. Very dry.
of all others in the unit. Our needs
did not seem to be considered or
understood. I wasn't in the unit
prior to renovations.
16
17 Restrooms are very bad; water
comes out of wash basin.
18 No. Not really. The space is pretty No control over temp &
generic. ventilation. I just keep a
sweater and try to dress in
layers but the thermostats
area joke.
19 Overhead Always too hot winter or
lighting too summer
bright
20 I have no idea what renovations
occurred. If this is about Spartan
way, then my major concern is the
terrible acoustics in the café
lounge.
21 Yes, generally speaking
22 More lamps,
overall lights
are too bright
23 Nope. We need offices. This comment was omitted
to maintain privacy but
was included in analysis
24 Often too hot. The
ventilation makes a lot of
noise- vibration of vents.
25
26 Area was designed, no inputs Sometimes too hot others
were needed. too cold.
27
28 If there is a problem it is
resolved very quickly.
29 Yes

241
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

INCORPORATION OF USER NEEDS

37 44 49
30 No-space/ location of mail room
31 I would prefer more Less noisy ventilation
natural light system
32
33 No. Privacy issues, noise levels Almost always too cold
and layout of computer were all no matter what time of
ignored. year. Move the blower
event away from me.
34 Too bright Everyone around can
hear everything and I
am saying that I can
hear everyone else.
35
36 How much storage space is
needed?
37 No- open workspaces were not
provided. Also, employees lost
private offices.
38
39 Its either too hot or too
cold
40 Warmer please.
41
42 yes
43 More natural light.
44 yes Many employees in The air conditioning
the people find the can be too cold and I
overhead lights to feel it is a waste of
be uncomfortable energy.
and glaring. Many
have resorted to
lamps.
45 There no privacy, the work area It’s too bright but It s almost always too
is too small, the lighting is too because we are in warm for me.
bright. We in cubes could use cubes, it can’t be
the chat rooms when we need a modified for
bit of privacy. However the chat individuals.
rooms have long ago been
converted to offices.

242
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

INCORPORATION OF USER NEEDS

37 44 49
46 Privacy Eyes burn every day.
Too hot one day, too
cold the next.
47 Construction quality is terrible. Dry- eyes burn. You
Floors not level, water leaks in can smell what they
building from rain cabinets are cooking in the
came off walls. Use of all plugs kitchen. Change the
at same time in kitchen came way the air blows
off; doors not hung properly, down, diffuse and
bathroom sinks countertops not make it warm air. Don't
functional but looks pretty! blow down on you.
Paper towel dispensers don't
work; Handles broke off sinks
already. Big crack in entrance
wall near second floor.
48 The creation of two types of There is too much
cubicles based on employee fluorescent lighting
classification was not a good
idea.
50 In my previous office I had No natural lighting Can be hot, seems dry,
complete control over in offices. Have exhaust fumes come
renovations and furniture lighting professional into private office-
design and layout. look at desk/ difficult when it
computer layout happens due to
and make asthma. Individual
recommendations office controls for
for proper overhead heating and cooling
lighting.
51 It’s very dry and I am
usually cold
ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
1 Long hours at keyboard/
computer, long work to file
room, long walk to copier.
2 We tend to receive Sometimes difficult
kitchen odors when when others are
they prepare food in having conversations.
stadium.

243
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
3 You can hear every Telephone calls- copier,
conversation in the computer data entry in adv-
office unless you access preparing mailings for
are in one of the travel tours away game tailgates
closed offices- or other program events.
4 Frequent telephone
conversations, email 200+/ day,
Engagement with personnel,
Reviewing document.
5
6 Telephone conversations, proof
reading, work on computer
monitor, printing letter and
envelopes
7 Figure out where the Any change that Long hours of reading and
ventilation is piped. would help sound researching. Frequent phone
Kitchen and bathroom privacy. Phone calls to university units. Long
odors are very conversations are hours of computer work.
prominent. Air does impossible. Analysis. Meetings.
not seem to circulate Therefore, one has
well. to leave workspace
to go to a chat
room- what if we
need computer for
conversations.
8 Everyone can hear Writing, reading, telephone
everything you say conversations, gathering items
for events, computer work
9 Telephone, reading, researching
on computer, proposal writing.
10 Frequent movement, long
computer hours
11 Air purifier to remove All of the mentioned, computer
dust would help. Some work, some files still on paper,
of us developed eye meetings, computer intensive
allergies. Being able to work.
open windows in nice
weather. More
custodial service staff.

244
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
12 Better There is little privacy. I can Many hours of reading and editing,
ventilation hear others conversations numerous phone conversations,
so I am sure they can hear many hours of computer usage-
mine. creating documents, websites, using
email, etc. Brain storming with co-
workers about projects. Visiting with
vendors regarding project details.
13 All mentioned + many hours on
computer
14 Everyone is so close
together, you can hear
everything going on in all
offices/ cubicles around
your area.
15 It is not possible to Writing, lengthy phone
professionally interview conversations, visitors/ vendors
donors in an open space. coming by, need to interact with
Yet it is also not possible to colleagues, need to spread out
interact with colleagues in materials.
order to consult on projects
(disturbs others)
16 Meeting with others, printing
materials.
17 Telephone conversations, Looking a
lot into computer screen, discussion
with team members.
18 Too close to other staff Hours at terminal, movement to
members. meetings-samefloor-1-2 hours each,
UP & down to collect printed
materials. Minimum if 1 hour/ day
reading printed materials, frequent
interactions one on one- quite so
don’t disturb others.
19 To loud once, two or three Phone, computer, paperwork,
people are on the phone. meetings throughout building.
You can’t hear your own
call. Always hear everyone
else's conversation (phone/
person)

245
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
20 Word processing, emailing, meeting
with other departments across
campus, research and other reading,
walking to think.
21 Technical assistance (phone & other
offices), meetings (various projects),
server management, attend
department events, attend training.
22 phone, internet, email, travel,
meetings
23 We get exhaust This white noise Answer phone helpdesk. Take
fumes, kitchen thing is ridiculous, so classes. Read. General knowledge
smells 2-3 times a noisy. improvement. Talk to others on
week. phone. Heads down deep thought
work, power shell, active directory,
some coding.
24 The air quality in Do not like the white Computer works, phone work,
the bathroom on noise machine. It assembling meeting material,
the third floor is needs to be turned training in conference room,
terrible. It always down. It is not introducing new staff- take them
smells bad. It necessary. around the building.
smells like sewer
back up air. This
has been bad
since day 1.
Nothing seems to
make it better.
25
26 White noise is too Computer work - 60%
loud. This can be Meeting people - 5-10%
adjusted for areas Phone conversations - 10%.
with special controls.
Does not have to be
set the same for the
whole building.
27 You can hear Numerous telephone conversation
everything that is (some confidential), Meeting with
said in each cubicle. folks in my area, reading for accuracy
of documents.

246
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
28 Everything echoes. You Phone conversations, balancing
can hear conversations monies received, processing credit
from down the hall & cards transactions, depositing checks.
around the corner. Very
hard to concentrate
because of the noise.
We were told we would
have the state of the art
noise reduction system-
it doesn’t work.
29 No sound privacy
30
31 You can hear everyone Numerous telephone conversations,
else's conversations and coding data manipulation website
all other noises updates, meetings with end users/
managers, website design, trouble
shooting PC problems/ help desk.
32 Whenever Frequent movement within different
they grill down areas and floors of building, meetings
in catering within various offices on second and
(first floor), we third floor, phone conversations
get the smells (open and closed door), full face
up here. This is private conversations, several hours
bothersome to at desk in front of computer.
a couple of our
staff members.
33 At times we White noise is not Long hours of computer work, data
have cooking covering the noise from analysis, and limited phone
odors and a co-workers and turning conversations some interactions with
smoky haze the white noise up has co-workers, to many meetings.
hangs in the resulted in feeling like Majority of activities require quite
air. your working in an uninterrupted concentration.
airplane all day.
34 Telephone conversations, computer
work.
35 Computer data entry/ assisting
others going to their areas, using
various tools for looking up data both
in books on shelves & computer.

247
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
36 Cubicles are too Computer work, filing, telephone
close together- can use, lots of reading, lots of typing.
hear everything
going on around
you.
37 Attend meetings, work on
computer, make phone calls, most
meetings in office.
38
39 Numerous meetings within building.
Numerous phone conversations.
Many hours on computer.
40
41 We often smell the Managing people, email, computer
caterers downstairs work, letter composition, numerous
telephone conversations
42
43 Venting from
catering, restroom
ventilation.
44 Horrible odor in the Numerous phone conversations,
restroom at times. meetings in office, meetings in
Sewage odor. conference rooms, tours of building,
long hours of research.
45 The first year or so, Not only can all hear Hours of auditing vouchers and
the odors from other people's reports, Frequent trips to copier,
catering downstairs conversations but numerous phone conversations,
were almost a daily mine are heard by long hours of looking at computer
occurrence- others. As much as I monitor- spreadsheets, reports, etc.,
sometimes we do not like my office Answering lot of questions from
would actually see a environment, but I colleagues and donors.
haze in the air. This do not let it affect
has been corrected my work.
and now there are
only occasional
aromatic days.
Some days it is very
humid and stuffy in
here.

248
 Table B5.1 continued: POE survey record sheet for Spartan Way

ACOUSTIC
52 55 68
46 Fumes from Can hear everything in On computer.
kitchen still come area- voices, etc.
unto floor. Eyes
burn.
47 Vent outside and White noise helps café Frequently go between floors
have intake lounge echoes too much. and walks to copy areas long
outtake apart If your fingers are frozen hours on computer, long desk
from each other. you can’t type. hours.
Cold air returns.
48 Extensive computer work,
telephone donor calls, walking
to second, travel up & down 3rd
floor to meetings
50 Smoke fumes and Office size is wonderful Researching, writing, editing,
exhaust fumes but in high traffic area so interviewing, hiring staff/
come into private need to close door. faculty, communicating with
office spaces, find Windows (clear) in door staff donors, on & off campus
out why and would be good. Then I partners, customers & public.
where smoke and appear sociable accessible Interviewing face to face hiring
exhaust fumes are but can get down on high faculty instructors, staff for
entering system in traffic noise. To work evening college courses,
spelling out in productivity and to be curriculum development,
office space. able to concentrate & researching, reading, email and
focus, I need to shut door phone communication with
to shut out noise. faculty and vendors and
donors& off-campus partners,
customers, registered students
& public and colleagues.
51 This comment was
omitted to maintain
privacy but was included
in analysis and
development of
recommendations

249
 APPENDIX B6:

Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis Sheet

S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way Responses Combined

250
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
For Appro open- Survey Focus Covera Right If No,
mat priaten ended Group ge Questi What
ess Extent ons Questions
1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1
2 3 3 3 2 4 2 1 1
3 3 2 3 1 1
4 2 2 3 2 2 1 1
5 2 2 3 1 6 2 1
6 6 4 1 1&2; 1 3
no
intervi
ews
7 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
8 2 2 3 2 2 2 1
9 2 2 3 2 1 1 1
10 3 3 3 2+3 4 1 1
11 4 4 3 1 6 2 1 Ask about
overall
staffing
concept
12 4 4 1 2 2 Social
interaction
questions
missing
13 1 1 3 1 2 1 1
14 3 2 1 3 1 1 Ask us
about
teaching,
studios &
computer
lab space
15 4 3 3 1+4 Why would I 1 1 Consider
be satisfied flexibility
about it? If of the
you are space for
asking if I use in
would future.
volunteer
for it- Yes.

Table B6.1: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis Sheet for

S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

251
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Format App open- Survey Focus Cover Right If No,
ropr ended Group age Questions What
iate Extent Question
ness s
16 6 5 2 2 3 3 Too
many
questions
require
uninform
ed
opinion
17 4 3 3 2 2 2 1
18 2 2 3 3 1 1
19 1 1 3 1 4 2 1
20 2 1 3 2 2 1 1
21 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1
22 1 3 3 2 3 2 1
23 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
24 4 4 3 2 5 2 1 1
25 3 3 3 2 3 3 1
26 2 2 3 2 3 1 1
27 2 3 1 2 1 1 Process
questions
related
to how
they
selected
their
space
and work
28 3 2 4 2 1 1

252
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Format Appro open- Survey Focus Coverage Right If No, What
priate ended Group Extent Quest Questions
ness ions
1 2 2 2
2 3 3 1 2 3 2 0
3 5 4 2 3 Space issues,
good use of
current
locations etc.
4 3 4 2 2 1 4 Not sure what
overall
objectives
5 2 2 3 1 2 1 1
6 6 4 2 1 4 3 1
7 2 2 3 2 2 2 1
8 3 2 1 2 2 2 1
9 2 2 3 2+3 1 1 1
10 3 2 3 1 2 1 1
11 1 1 3 2 4 2 Need
additional
questions.
Layout of
units,
accessibility
to conference
rooms
12 2 2 3 1 4 2 1
13 6 2 3 2 4 2 1
14 4 4 3 2 4 2 1
15 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 What we
need? How
we work
best? What
type of
environment
do we work
best in?

253
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Format Appro open- Survey Focus Cover Right If No,
priate ended Method Group age Questio What
ness Extent ns Questions
?
16 5 5 1 2 4 2 0 Desk
suitability
17 3 3 3 3 3 2
18 6 6 1 1 6 2 1
19 3 3 3 1
20 2 2 3 3 1 1
21 2 2 3 1+2+3 2 2
22 2 2 3 2 2 1 1
23 3 3 1 2 2 1 1
24 1 1 3 2 2 2 1
25 4 3 2 4 2 1
26 1 1 3 2 1 1 1
27
28 2 1 3 2 1 2 1
29 2 2 2 6 1 1
30 4 4 3 1 4 2 1
31 2 2 3 2 2 2 1
32 3 3 3 1 1 4 1
33 2 2 3 1 4 1 1
34 How will 2 1 1
we
know
the
outcom
e of the
surveys?
35 4-
survey
too long
36 2 2 3 2 3 1 1
37 1 1 3 2 1 1 1
38 4 4 1 1 2 1 1
39 4 2 2
40 2 2 3 2 4 2 1
41 4 2 3 2 4 1 1

254
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forma Appro open- Survey Focu Coverage Rig If No, What
t priate ended Method s Extent ht Questions?
ness Grou Qu
p esti
ons
42 3 2 3 2 3 1 1
43 2 2 3 3 5 2 1
44
45 6 6 1 2 5 2 1
46 4 1 3 2 1 2 1
47 1 1 3 2 3 1 1
48 4 3 2 2 2
49 2 3 3 2 6 2 1
50 4 4 3 2 3 1
51 2 2 3 2 4 1 1
52 4 4 3 2 4 1 1
53 4 4 1 3 2
54 1 1 3 2 7 1 1
55 2 2 3 2 7 2 2

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effectiven Missing Aspects Unclear & Unnecessary
ess of Confusing Questions
Survey Questions
1-2
3 1
4 1
5-7
8 1 NA NA NA
9 1
10 1

255
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

11 Sort of Space The use of Ask questions

satisfaction is "satisfaction" that ask about
closely related phrase is vague what uses like
to overall to me. It does about things. All
management not capture my questions
and job duties- feelings- encourage
more questions although there respondents to
about this. is plenty of find faults. As k
opportunity- to about overall
relate concern satisfaction with
in the open renovation
ended portion process
12 More or less
13 1
14 1 67 part 2
15 In For IEQ The workspace 13
between purposes- overall is not
yes and yes. Use of fully
no common encouraging for
spaces, interaction. It
lunch room, does not provide
etc. meeting full privacy when
rooms with needed. The
students on building does
each floor. not give
common study
areas to
students or
faculty.
16 0 fourth floor too many
17 1 The scale 47 and 51 as
generally starts same question
from very
dissatisfied to
satisfy in the
survey!
18
19 1
20

256
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effectivene Missing Aspects Unclear & Unnecessa
ss of Confusing ry
Survey Questions Questions
21
22
23 1
24
25 1
26 1 Need NA
option.
27
28
1 0 Common areas,
bathrooms
2 0
3 In between Ladies restroom needs
yes and no. much attention - in
terms of location,
number of stall, odor
etc.
4 1 It seems that the age
same questions
were asked but
in different uses
of verbiage
5 1
6 1
7 1
8
9 1 Q31 I couldn't
quite figure out
what you were
asking
10 1 My only concern is
temp, bathrooms on the
second floor. During
summer, it is very hot.
No air is circulated at
all.

257
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effectiv Missing Aspects Unclear & Unnecessa
eness Confusing ry
of Questions Questions
Survey
11 1 We do not have enough
large conference rooms to
use. We end up having
meeting off-site, therefore,
spending additional funds.
12 1 Access to building (from
parking lot #79) and
restrooms is not good for
persons with walking
disability. The second floor
break room is not cleaned
or maintained very well.
13 1 After Q31, 32, the This survey
italicized text took
doesn’t tell you longer
what to do if you than
have no previous stated and
office space. I did not
take any
calls
during this
time.
14 1
15 1
16 0 I completed the survey Q28 should state- #50-52,
based on workspace I was "if NO, skip to Q7 #24-25,
originally assigned. I moved which is on page #58-60
six months ago into another 4, but not
space being adequate for numbered. Q36-
the teams needs. NA if not long-
term employee of
unit, likewise for
Q38. Q56 needs
likert scale. #58-
60 also NA to
new employees

258
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effectiv Missing Aspects Unclear & Unnecessa
eness Confusing ry
of Questions Questions
Survey
17 1
18 1 Restrooms, café lounge,
cleanliness.
19
20 1
21
22 1
23 1
24 1
25 1
26 1
27
28 1
29 1 Does not include ease of On 58-61, not
restroom facilities, which sure if you meant
this building is not good. So HVAC or
far from workplace. computer
technology.
30 1
31 1
32
33 1
34 1
35
36 1
37 1
38 1 Building security. Inability Questions refer
to feel safe in a cubicle to renovations-
environment during night this was a new
and weekend work when building. Q58-60-
building is mostly empty. not sure what is
meant by new
technology.
39
40 1

259
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effective Missing Unclear & Unnecessa
ness of Aspects Confusing ry
Survey Questions Questions
41 1
42 1
43 2 More regarding privacy (noise level
in cubicle environment)
44 Restrooms, cleanliness, kitchen
facilities and how it supports staff
who bring lunches, lighting in
common areas.
45 0
46 1 There should have been bathrooms
at both ends of third floor. They
are too far away.
47 1
48
49 1 The
instruction
s after
question
31 and 32
50 1 This office is poorly laid out. I think
it is odd that this place was
designed with so many cubes/
designated for people who are not
fundraisers nor supervisors & so
few offices. We have areas with
many empty cubes & then areas
where we can’t even have all the
staff of the unit together. I also
think its odd that so many small
conference rooms were designed
without having one large one. We
have to spend money every time
we have a meeting with more than
maybe 1 people to rent other
facilities. Quite ridiculous for a unit
as large as ours.

260
 Table B6.1 continued: Survey Feedback Section Comparative Analysis
Sheet for S.P.D.C. and Spartan Way (combined)

9 9-other 10 11 12
Effectiveness Missing Unclear & Unnecessary
of Survey Aspects Confusing Questions
Questions
51 1 You have covered them.
52 1
53 0
54 The building is new- it would
cost a tremendous amount of
money to implement changes
for best comfort and work
style of workers. If the office
design changes are to be
made, workers from all levels
need to be included not just
the leadership teams.
55

261
 APPENDIX B7:

Modified Final POE Questionnaire

262
 Post Occupancy Evaluation
Building Occupant Survey

The purpose of this survey is to assess your level of satisfaction with regard to the
functional and indoor environment performance of your personal workspace and capture
your recommendations to all things that you would like changed such that you are
satisfied with your personal workspace.

Please record your start and end time for completing the survey:
Start time: ______________________End time:
__________________________________

Section 1: Occupant Satisfaction with regard to Functional Performance

Please note: Functional performance refers to the performance of the design components
of your workspace towards your task performance.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1=very satisfied, 2=satisfied, 3=slightly satisfied,

4=neutral, 5=slightly dissatisfied, 6=dissatisfied and 7=very dissatisfied, please
indicate your level of satisfaction with regard to the following aspects:

1. How satisfied are you with your office layout i.e. the placement of your workspace/
cubicle/ rooms with regard to your surrounding workspaces/ cubicles/ rooms?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

2. How satisfied are you with the location of your personal workspace in relation to
the remaining office area?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

3. How satisfied are you with the amount of space available for individual work and
storage?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

4. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

263
5. Does your personal work space function well for your job responsibilities?
o Yes
o No
o Not applicable

6. If your answer is No, please explain why?

7. Does your personal workspace work well for your work performance?
o Yes
o No
o Not applicable

8. If your answer is No, please explain why?

9. Does your overall building work well for your work performance?
o Yes
o No
o Not applicable

10. If your answer is No, please explain why.

11. How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction with co-workers?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

12. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

13. How satisfied are you with the overall privacy of your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

264
14. How satisfied are you with the visual privacy of your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

15. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

16. How satisfied are you with your office furniture in terms of comfort, flexibility,
sufficiency, overall appearance?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

17. How satisfied are you with your office furnishings (for e.g. carpet or curtain color.
finish, function, overall appearance)?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

18. How satisfied are you with your office equipment and their contribution to your
task performance? (For example: printer, phone, fax machines, computer
accessories, etc)

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

19. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

20. How satisfied are you with the ease of accessibility to your personal work space from
the entrance of your building?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

265
21. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

22. How satisfied are you with the access and ability of personal control in your
workspace for heating, ventilation, connection points, and power supply stability?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

23. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

24. Do you have a window in your personal workspace?

o Yes
o No
o Not Applicable

25. If yes, how satisfied are you with your window location and view?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

a. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied
what would you change?

26. If No, to what extent does absence of window affect your overall satisfaction with
your personal workspace?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all
o Makes it worse

27. How satisfied are you with your current personal workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

266
28. How satisfied are you with your overall building renovation/new construction?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

29. How satisfied are/were you with the process of renovation/new construction?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

30. How satisfied are you with the construction quality (example: product finishes,
installations of hardware, etc) of your building after renovation/construction?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

31. How satisfied are you with your overall workplace environment?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

32. To what extent do you consider that your needs were incorporated into the design of
your workspace?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

a. If ‘to a little extent/not at all’, what was omitted?

33. How has the renovations affected your work performance?

o Great improvement
o Moderate improvement
o Little improvement
o No affect
o Made it worse

34. Other aspects that may affect your overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
your workspace may be the organization structure of your department or your
changed job-description.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree

267
Section 2: Occupant Satisfaction with regard to Indoor Environment Quality:

Please note: Indoor environment refers to the overall feel and quality of the space inside
your office.
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1=very satisfied, 2=satisfied, 3=slightly satisfied,
4=neutral, 5=slightly dissatisfied, 6=dissatisfied and 7=very dissatisfied, please
indicate your level of satisfaction with regard to the following aspects:

LIGHT

35. How satisfied are you with the natural lighting at your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

36. How satisfied are you with the artificial lighting at your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

37. How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of the lighting at your workspace (e.g.
glare, reflections, and contrast)?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

38. How satisfied do you feel with the overall lighting comfort at your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

39. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

THERMAL COMFORT

40. How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

268
41. How satisfied are you with the humidity in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

42. How satisfied are you with the ventilation in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

43. How satisfied are you with the overall thermal comfort of your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

44. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

AIR QUALITY

45. How satisfied are you with the air quality at your workspace (stuffy/stale air,
cleanliness, odors)?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

46. How satisfied do you feel with the ventilation of your office?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

47. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

269
 ACOUSTIC

48. How satisfied are you with the noise level of your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

49. How satisfied are you with the sound privacy of your workspace?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

50. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what
would you change?

51. Do you think that the overall indoor environment of your workspace affects your
work performance and productivity?
o Yes
o No
o Not applicable

52. To what extent do you think that indoor environment affects work performance and
productivity?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

53. Was there any new computer or HVAC related technology implemented in your
building?
o Yes
o No
o Do not know
o Not applicable

54. If yes, how satisfied are you with the implemented technology?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

270
55. Was there any other kind of new technology implemented in your building?
o Yes
o No
o Do not know
o Not applicable

56. If yes, how satisfied are you with the implemented technology?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

57. If you are satisfied or dissatisfied about any new technology implemented in your
building, please explain why. If you may be dissatisfied what would you change?

Section 3: General Information

58. How long have you been working in this building? Please indicate your answer
in number of years.

59. How long have you been working at your current personal work space (open
workspace/ cubicle/ cabin/ office area)? Please indicate your answer in number
of months/ years.

60. In a typical week, how many hours do you spend in your personal workspace?
Please indicate your answer in number of hours/week.

61. Which of the following best describes your personal workspace?

o Enclosed office, private
o Enclosed office, shared with other people
o Cubicles with high partitions (about five or more feet high)
o Cubicles with low partitions (lower than five feet high)
o Workspace in open office with no partitions (just desks)
o Other, please specify

62. What is your gender?

271
63. Please indicate your age in number of years below.

64. How would you describe the work you do? Please select all options that apply to
you.
o Administrative
o Staff
o Technical
o Professional/ Faculty
o Other, please specify

65. Please list at least five activities that may be part of your role and responsibility. For
example, frequent movement within different areas and levels of the building,
numerous telephone conversations, and long hours of reading).

Section 4: Post Occupancy Evaluation Survey Evaluation

1. How satisfied are you with the format of the survey?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

2. How satisfied are you with the appropriateness of the questions?

Very dissatisfied Very satisfied

3. Please comment on the balance of open ended to closed response questions.

o Need more open-ended
o Need fewer open-ended
o Just right for me

4. In the future, which method of interaction would you prefer for this kind of
study?
o Paper-based (similar to this one)
o Web-based
o Interviews
o Any other? Please specify_____________

272
5. Would you prefer if these questions were being asked in a focus group
containing persons from adjacent workspaces instead of this survey?
o Yes
o No
o May be
o Do not know
o Not applicable

6. Would you prefer if these questions were being asked in an interview setting
instead of this survey?
o Yes
o No
o May be
o Do not know
o Not applicable

7. In your opinion, to what extent did the survey cover aspects that you would like
to comment upon about your office?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

8. To what extent do you think that right questions are being asked of building
occupants?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

9. If ‘To a little extent/not at all’, what questions should be asked?

10. To what extent do you think that the survey allows you to effectively indicate
your satisfaction with the design of your workspace?
o To great extent
o To some extent
o To little extent
o Not at all

273
11. Please mention any aspects that may not have been included for evaluation of
your satisfaction but which may be representative of performance of your
workspace function and environment in your opinion.

12. Please list by number any questions that you find unclear, confusing, and
unnecessary. Please explain why.

We request you to go back to the start of the survey and enter the ‘end time’ of the survey
before sending this.

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

274
 APPENDIX C

SAMPLE POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES

C1: CBE Sample POE Questionnaire

C2: AUDE Sample POE Questionnaire

C3: CSBR Sample POE Questionnaire

275
C1: CBE Sample POE Questionnaire

276
Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) SurveyTM

How many years have you worked in this building?

Less than 1 year
1-2 years
3-5 years
More than 5 years

How long have you been working at your present workspace?

Less than 3 months
4-6 months
7-12 months
More than 1 year

In a typical week, how many hours do you spend in your workspace?

10 or less
11-30
More than 30

How would you describe the work you do? (check all that apply)
Administrative support
Technical
Professional
Managerial/supervisory

Other:

What is your age?

30 or under
31-50
Over 50

What is your gender?

Female
Male

277
Which of the following best describes your personal workspace?
Enclosed office, private
Enclosed office, shared with other people
Cubicles with high partitions (about five or more feet high)
Cubicles with low partitions (lower than five feet high)
Workspace in open office with no partitions (just desks)
Other:

Office Layout

How satisfied are you with the amount of space available for individual
work and storage?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with the level of visual privacy?

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with ease of interaction with co-workers?

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Overall, does the office layout enhance or interfere with your ability to get
your job done?
Enhances Interferes

Please describe any other issues related to the office layout that are
important to you.

Office Furnishings

How satisfied are you with the comfort of your office furnishings (chair,
desk, computer, equipment, etc.)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with your ability to adjust your furniture to meet your
needs?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

278
How satisfied are you with the colors and textures of flooring, furniture and
surface finishes?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Do your office furnishings enhance or interfere with your ability to get your
job done?
Enhances Interferes

Please describe any other issues related to office furnishings that are
important to you.

Thermal Comfort

Which of the following do you personally adjust or control in your

workspace? (check all that apply)
Window blinds or shades
Operable window
Thermostat
Portable heater
Permanent heater
Room air-conditioning unit
Portable fan
Ceiling fan
Adjustable air vent in wall or ceiling
Adjustable floor air vent (diffuser)
Door to interior space
Door to exterior space
None of the above

Other:

How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace?

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Overall, does your thermal comfort in your workspace enhance or interfere

with your ability to get your job done?
Enhances Interferes

279
Air Quality

How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace (i.e. stuffy/stale
air, cleanliness, odors)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Overall, does the air quality in your workspace enhance or interfere with
your ability to get your job done?
Enhances Interferes

Lighting

Which of the following controls do you have over the lighting in your
workspace? (check all that apply)
Light switch
Light dimmer
Window blinds or shades
Desk (task) light
None of the above

Other:

How satisfied are you with the amount of light in your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of the lighting (e.g., glare,
reflections, contrast)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Overall, does the lighting quality enhance or interfere with your ability to
get your job done?
Enhances Interferes

Acoustic Quality

How satisfied are you with the noise level in your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

280
How satisfied are you with the sound privacy in your workspace (ability to
have conversations without your neighbors overhearing and vice versa)?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Overall, does the acoustic quality in your workspace enhance or interfere

with your ability to get your job done?
Enhances Interferes

Cleanliness and Maintenance

How satisfied are you with general cleanliness of the overall building?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with cleaning service provided for your workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with general maintenance of the building?

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Does the cleanliness and maintenance of this building enhance or interfere

with your ability to get your job done?
Enhances Interferes

Building Features

Considering energy use, how efficiently is this building performing in your

opinion?
Very energy Not at all energy
efficient efficient

Comments:

Please note that the list provided here is for demo purposes only, a
maximum of four building features will be included on this page as part of a
standard survey. For each of the building features listed below, please

281
indicate how satisfied you are with the effectiveness of that feature: Floor
air vents
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Thermostats
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Light switches
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Automatic daylight controls
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Occupancy sensors for lighting
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Window blinds
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:

282
Roller shades
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Exterior shades
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Low flow faucets
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Private meeting rooms
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
Security system
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

I have no experience with it

Comments:
How well informed do you feel about using the above mentioned features in
this building?
Very well informed Not well informed

Please describe any other issues related to the design and operation of the
above mentioned features that are important to you.

283
General Comments

All things considered, how satisfied are you with your personal
workspace?
Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Please estimate how your productivity is increased or decreased by the

environmental conditions in this building (e.g. thermal, lighting, acoustics,
cleanliness):

Increased - - - Decreased
20% 10% 5% 0%
5% 10% 20%

How satisfied are you with the building overall?

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Any additional comments or recommendations about your personal

workspace or building overall?

Thank you for participating in this Survey!

284
C2: Template 6 in the Guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation-

Sample Occupant Survey Questionnaire

285
 Sample Occupant survey Questionnaire

This questionnaire is about occupant reaction to their environment. This is a

basic questionnaire which can be used to explore user reactions to a building or
part of building. The General section is about the respondent, the Location
section is about responses to building or campus in general and reveals insights
about the respondent’ s wellbeing. The Final section about specific locations and
should be copied for each location that the review is to cover.

However, many situations will have unique characteristics and these will need to
be added. There is merit in keeping the core of your questionnaire the same with
project specific attributes being added in another section. This is so that it can be
used across an estate in different buildings comparisons can be made.

Occupancy Questionnaire

Institution:

Building address:

Date: Time:

Focus of review (if part of a building):

Introduction
We are conducting an evaluation of your building to assess how well it performs
for those who occupy it. This information will be used to assess areas that need
improvement, provide feedback for similar buildings and projects and to help us
better manage the environment. Responses are anonymous. Please answer all
the relevant questions.

General

1. Gender
Male Female
(Please tick)
2. Occupation (Please tick most relevant or state in ‘other’)
Administrative staff
Researcher
Lecturer
Student
Other: ………..
Full-time
Part time

286
3. Time in building
a. How long do you spend in the building during the day?
(Please tick)
Hours >1 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 >8

4. Hours at VDU
a. How long do you spend working at a computer (average hours per day)
(Please tick)
Hours >1 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 >8

Location in building

5. Location
In an average week how much time do you spend in the following types of
space? (if you are a student assume during term time)

a: Office (Please tick)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

b: Lecture room (Please tick)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

c: Laboratory (Please tick)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

d: Library (Please tick)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

e: Café (Please tick)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

f: Other (Please state)

Hours 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

>35

287
5. Please rate the overall quality of the following areas:
(Please tick)

a: Office
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

b: Lecture room
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
c: Laboratory
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

d: Library
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

e: Café
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

f: Other (Please state):

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

Building Generally

6. Security

a. Personal safety: How safe do you feel in the building?

(Please tick)
Unsafe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very safe

b. What aspects of the environment contribute to feeling safe?

i). Visibility of security personnel (Please tick)
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

ii). Access control to the building

Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

iii). Security zoning (access controls to parts of building)

Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

iv).Lighting
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

v) Spatial configuration (i.e. relatively large uncluttered spaces)

Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

288
7. Accessibility (can you get into it, can you get around the building /
campus easily)

a). How accessible is the building from the street i.e. to the reception
door?
(Please tick)
Not accessible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very accessible

b). How easy is vertical circulation?

Very difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very easy

c). How easy is horizontal circulation?

Very difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very easy

8. Cleanliness

How clean is the building?

(Please tick)
Dirty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Clean

Location specific

9. Air quality
(Please tick)

a). Does the quality of the air in this part of the building have a negative effect on
your work performance?
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

b). Is the air fresh or stale?

Stale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fresh

c) Is the air humid or dry?

Too humid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too dry

d) Is there air movement?

Still 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good circulation

e) Do you have control over ventilation?

No control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full control

10. Temperature
(Please tick)

289
a). Does the temperature in this part of the building have a negative effect on
your work performance?
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

b) Is the temperature in winter too cold or too hot?

Too cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too hot

c) Is the temperature during the summer too cold or too hot?

Too cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too hot

11. Noise

a). Does the distraction from noise in this part of the building have a negative
effect on your work performance?
(Please tick)
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

b) Is there significant distraction from noise outside the space?

Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

c) Is there significant distraction from background noise?

Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

12. Light

a). Does the quality of light in this part of the building have a negative effect on
your work performance?
(Please tick)
Not significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very significant

b) Is there too much or too little natural light?

Too little 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too much

c) Is the sun/natural light too bright?

Not bright 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too bright

d) Is the level of artificial light too high or low? (Please tick)

Too low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too high

e) Is the artificial light to bright?

Not bright 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Too bright

f) Are the blinds/shutters effective in blocking out natural light?

Not effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective

290
g) Do you have control over artificial lighting?
No control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full control

13. IT / Data projection

Is the electronic data projection equipment effective?

Does not work well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Works well

14. Comments

If you have any additional comments that you would like to make about any
aspect of your work environment. Please note them here. If relevant to a
particular question please give the question number.

291
 C3: Sample POE Questionnaire

Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape

Architecture, University of Minnesota

292
 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
Post Occupancy Evaluation: Carver County Public Works Facility
Occupant Survey Form

(1) What is your primary workspace?

For the following questions please circle a number from 1-7 that best reflects
your response to the question.

(2) How healthy do you feel after completing your work in the building each day?

Very unhealthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very healthy

(3) How healthy do you feel when you are not in the building?

Very unhealthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very healthy

(4) To what extent do you think your productive work is affected by the interior
environmental conditions of the building?

Greatly decreased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Greatly increased

No effect

(5) How satisfied are you with the quality of sound environment in your
workspace? This includes sounds like echoes, equipment, HVAC, foot traffic,
furniture movement, etc.?
Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(6) Do you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building?
(Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No

If you checked “Yes”, go to Question 7. If you checked “No”, go to Question 8.

(7) If you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building how
annoying is it?

Not at all annoying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly annoying

(8) How satisfied are you with your workspace furnishings?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(9) What kind of view of the outdoors do you have when you are seated in your
workspace?
No view 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Panoramic view
Very slight Expansive

293
(10) Do you have an operable window in your workspace?

(Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No

(11) To what extent are you satisfied with the overall lighting in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(12) How much natural light do you have in your workspace?

None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost like the outdoors

(13) How much glare do you experience in your workspace?

No glare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very noticeable glare

(14) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the
heating season (winter months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(15) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the
cooling season (summer months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(16) How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace during the
heating season (winter months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(17) How satisfied are you with air quality in your workspace during the cooling
season (summer months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(18) How satisfied are you with the ventilation system in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied

(19) Do you have any additional comments on building performance? Do you

have any suggestions for how the building and/or landscape could be improved?
If so, please explain them and rank the improvements in order of importance to
you.

294
BIBLIOGRAPHY

295
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ang G., Wyatt D., and Hermans M. (2001). A Systematic Approach Define Client
Expections of Total Building Performance During the Pre-design Stage. CIB World
Building Congress, ellington, New Zealand. Paper CLI 26.

AUDE and HEDQF (Association of University Directors of Estates and Higher

Education Design Quality Forum). (2006). A Guide for Post Occupancy Evaluation.
University of Westminster. (http://www.aude.ac.uk/home) as viewed in December 2008

Baird G., Gray J., Isaacs N., Kernohan D., and McIndoe G. (1996). Building Evaluation
Teachniques. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bechtel R., Marans R.W. and Michelson W. (1987). Methods in Environmental and
Behavioral Research. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Bechtel, R., and Srivastava, R. (1978). Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Housing, US

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., USA.

Bordass, W., 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, Vol. 33 No.4, pp.361-75.

Bordass, B. 2003, ‘Learning more from our buildings or just forgetting less?’, in
Building Research and Information, vol.31, issue 5, pp. 406-411

Bottom C., McGreal S. and Heaney G. (1997). Evaluating office environments using
tenant organization perceptions. Facilities, Vol. 15(7/8), pp.195-203

Brager G. S. and R.J.de Dear. (1998). A Standard for Natural Ventilation. ASHRAE
Journal.

Brager G. S. and R.J.de Dear. (1998). Thermal Adaptation in the built environment: a
literature review. Energy and buildings, Vol. 27(1), pp. 83-96

296
Brill M., Margulis S.T., Konar E. (1984). Using office design to increase productivity.
Buffalo, N.Y. Workplace Design and Productivity, Inc.

Brooks S. Turpin and Viccars G. (2006). The development of robust methods of post
occupancy evaluation. Facilities 24(5/6): 177-196

CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). (2005). Design with
distinction: the value of good buildings design in higher education.
(www.cabe.org.uk) as viewed in August 2009

Capital projects: post-occupancy evaluation guidance. November 2007.

Carthey Jane. 2006. Post occupancy evaluation: development of a standard methodology

for Australian health projects. The international journal of construction management,
2006, 57-74

Chiang Che-Ming and Lai Chi-ming. 2002. A Study on the Comprehensive Indicator of
Indoor Environment Assessment for Occupants’ Health in Taiwan. Building and
Environment 37 387-392

Citherlet S. and Hand J. 2002. Assessing Energy, Lighting, Room Acoustics, Occupant
Comfort and environmental impacts performance of building with a single simulation
program. Building and Environment 37 845-856.

Collins Belinda L., Will Fisher, Gillette Gary, and Robert W. Marans. 1990. Journal of
the Illimminating Engineering Society. 21-25

Duffy, F. (2000), "Design and facilities management in a time of change", Facilities, Vol.
18 No.10-12, pp.371-5.

Evans GaryW. and Johnson D. (2000). Stress and Open-Office Noise, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 85, 5, 779-783.

Farrenkopf Toni and Roth Vicki. 1980. The university faculty office as an environment.
Environment and Behavior 12(4):467-477

297
Fleming David. 2005. The application of a behavioral approach to building evaluation.
Facilities, Vol. 23(9/10), pp. 393-415

Friedman A., Zimring C., and Zube C. (1978). Environmental Design Evaluation,
Plenum, New York, NY.

Garris Leah B.. 2003. Playing: solving the space planning puzzle. Buildings 97(10): 56
Green S.D. and Moss G.W. (1998). Value management and post-occupancy evaluation:
closing the loop. Facilities, Vol. 16(1/2), pp. 34–39

Gonzalez Maria Soledad Rodriguez, Fernandez Constantino Arce and Cameselle Jose
Manuel Sabucedo. 1997. Empirical validation of a model of user satisfaction with
buildings and their environments as workplaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology
17:69-74.

Gossauer Elke and Wagner Andreas. 2007. Post-occupancy Evaluation and Thermal
Comfort: State-of-the-art and New Approaches. Volume 1: 151-175

Gutman R.and Westergaard B. (1 974). Building evaluation, user satisfaction and design.
In J. Langet al. (eds.) Designing for Human Behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross.

Hassanain Mohammad A. and Mudhei Ali A.. 2006. Post-occupancy evaluation of

academic and research library. Structural Survey. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
24(3):230-239

Hitchcock Robert J. Piette Mary Ann, and Stephen E. Selkowitz. 1998. Documenting
Performance Metrics in a Building Life-cycle Information System. Green Building
Challenge ’98 conference. 26-28
Horgen, T.H., Joroff, M.L., Porter, W.L., and Schon, D.A. 1999. Excellence by Design:
Transforming Workplace and Work Practice. New York: Wiley.

Horgen Turid, Frewald Dori, Smith Bonne, Vischer Jacqueline. 1996. Post occupancy
evaluation of facilities: a participatory approach to programming and design. Facilities 14
(7/8):16-25
http://www.aude.ac.uk/home

http://www.capital.dhs.vic.gov.au/capdev/ThePOEStudy/
As viewed in April 2008

298
Huizenga C., Zagreus L., Arens E., and Lehrer D. Measuring indoor environment quality:
a web-based occupant satisfaction survey. Center for the Built Environment.
Huizenga C., Zagreus L., Arens E., and Lehrer D. Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor
Environment Quality in Green Buildings. Center for the Built Environment. Proceedings
of Healthy buildings 2006, Lisbon. Vol. III, pp. 365-370.

Jensen K.L., Arens E. and Zagreus L.. 2005. Acoustical quality in office workstations, as
assessed by occupant surveys. Proceedings: Indoor Air 2005

Kantrowitz Min and Nordhaus Richard. 1980. The impact of post occupancy evaluation
research: a case study. Environment and Behavior 12(4):508-519

Keys Christopher and Wener Richard. 1980. Organizational intervention issues: a four
phase approach to post occupancy evaluation. Environment and Behavior 12(4)533-540

Kincaid David G. 1994. Measuring performance in facility management. Facilities

12(6):17-20

Kooymans R. and Haylock P. (2005). Post occupancy evaluation and work place
productivity. Pre-published version.

Leaman, A. (2003) Post-occupancy Evaluation, Prepared for Gaia Research CPD

Seminars on Sustainable Construction, January.

Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (1993) Building design, complexity and manageability,

Facilities, 11.

Leaman, A., Bordass, W., Cohen, R. and Standeven, M. (1997) The Probe Occupant
Surveys, Buildings in Use’97: How Buildings Really Work, London, Commonwealth
Institute.

Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-occupancy

Evaluation. 2002. Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 145, Washington,
D.C.

299
Lee Y.S. (2007). The relationship between indoor environmental quality and worker
satisfaction and performance in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (L
EEDRTM) certified buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Levermore G. J. and Leventis M. (1997) Occupant feedback using a questionnaire rating

liking and importance of up to 24 factors. In Clima 2000 Conference, Brussels,
September.

Marans, R. (1984). “Evaluation Research in Architecture”. Snyder, J. (ed.) Architectural

research, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 113-124.

Menzies G.F. and Wherrett J.R. 2004. Windows in the Workplace: Examining Issues of
Environmental Sustainability and Occupant Comfort in the Selection of Multi-glazed
Windows. Energy and Buildings 37 (2005): 623–630

Moezzi Mithra and Goins John. April 2010. Using Text Analysis to Listen to Building
Users. Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort.
Cumberland Lodge, Windor, U.K.

Nicol, F. & Roaf, S. 2005, ‘Post-occupancy evaluation and field studies of thermal
comfort’, in Building Research and Information, vol.33, issue 4, pp.338-346

Olesen, B.W., Brager, G.S. (2004), A Better Way to Predict Comfort: The New
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, ASHRAE Journal, August 2004 p20-26.

Peretti Clara, Schiavon Stefano, Goins John, Arens Edward A., and De Carli Michele.
January 2010. Evaluation of Indoor Environment Quality with a Web-based Occupant
Satisfaction Survey: A Case Study in Northern Italy. Center for the Built Environment
(CBE), University of California, Berkeley.

Pfafferott J.U., Herkel S., Kalz D.E. and Andreas Z. (2007). Comparison of low-energy
office buildings in summer using different thermal comfort criteria. Energy and Buildings
39 (2007) 750-757

CSBR (Center for Sustainable Building Research). 2004. University of Minnesota. Post
Occupancy Evaluation of Carver County Public Works Facility. Prepared for the Solid
Waste Management Coordinating Board by the CSBR.

300
Preiser W.F.E. and Nascar J.L. (2008). Assessing building performance: its evolution
from post occupancy evaluation. Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 2(1), pp. 84-99

Preiser W.F.E. (2002). Continuous quality improvement through post occupancy

evaluation feedback. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 5(1), pp. 42-56

Preiser W.F.E., and Schramm U. (2001). Intelligent office building performance

evaluation in the cross-cultural context: A methodological outline. Intelligent Building I
(1).

Preiser, W.F.E. (1999). Post-occupancy evaluation: Conceptual basis, benefits and uses.
In: Stein, J.M., and Spreckelmeyer, K.F. (Eds.) Classical Readings in Architecture. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Preiser, W.F.E., and Schramm, U. (1997). Building performance evaluation. In: Watson,
D., et al. (Eds.) Time-Saver Standards: Architectural Design Data. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Preiser W.F.E. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better.
Facilities, Vol.13(11), pp.19-28

Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z., and White, E.T. (1988). Post-Occupancy Evaluation.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Preiser, W.F.E. (1983). The habitability framework: A conceptual approach toward

linking human behavior and physical environment. Design Studies 4(2).

R.I.B.A. (Royal Institute of British Architects). (1991). A Research Report for the
Architectural Profession. Architectural knowledge: the idea of a profession, E & FN
Spon, London.

Royal children’s hospital post occupancy evaluation. (2001). Report by Queensland

Health & Royal Children’s Hospital Health District.

Salter C., Powell K., Begault D. and Alavarado R. (2003). Case studies of a method for
predicting speech privacy in the contemporary workplace, Center For The Built
Environment, UC Berkeley.

301
Schakib-Ekbatan Karin, Wagner Andreas, and Lussac Cedrine. April 2010. Occupant
Satisfaction as an Indicator for the Socio-cultural Dimension of Sustainable Office
Buildings- Development of an Overall Building Index. Cumberland Lodge, Windor, U.K.

Schneekloth L.H. and Shibley R.G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practise of building
communities. New York: Wiley

Shibley, R. (1982). Building evaluations services. Progressive Architecture 63(12): 64-

67.

Sundstrom E., Town JP., Rice RW., Osborn DP. and Brill M. (1994) Office noise,
satisfaction and performance, Environment and Behavior, Vol 26, No. 2, 195-222.

Tarricone P. (1999). The power of POE. Facilities Design and Management, pp. 52-54

Van der Voordt, T.J.M 2004, ‘Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible
workplaces’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 133-148

Vischer, J. (2001). “Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaceted Tool for Building

Improvement”, Learning from our buildings: a state-of-the-practice summary of post-
occupancy evaluation, Washington DC, National Academy Press, 23-34.
Watson Christopher G. 1996. Evolving design for changing values and ways of life. A
paper for IAPS 14 Conference in Stockholm on July 30 1996.

Way M. and Bordass B. 2005. Soft Landings: a fresh scope that ensures users and clients
get the best out of a new building. Journal of Facilities Management 4(1):23-39

Web-based survey to measure occupant satisfaction with building indoor environment

quality (thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, air quality), building quality and features.
Center for built environment. As viewed in March 2008.

Zagreus L., Huizenga C., Arens E., and Lehrer D. (2004). Listening to the occupants: a
Web-based indoor environmental quality survey. Indoor Air. Vol. 14(8), pp. 65–74

Zimmerman, A., and Martin, M. (2001). “Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and

Barriers”, Building Research & Information, 29(2), 168.

302
Zimring, C. and Rosenheck, T. (2001) Post occupancy evaluations and organizational
learning, In: Federal Facilities Council, Technical Report 145: Learning From our
Buildings: a State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-occupancy Evaluation. Washington.
National Academy Press, pp. 42–53.

Zimring C. and Reizenstein J.E. (1980). Post occupancy evaluation: an overview.

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 12(4), pp. 429-450

303