Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. Objectives and methods op POE Lecture of Theo JM van der Voordt, August 1999, Brasil 0. Contents • What is POE • Objectives of POE • Link with the building process • Research items • Research methods • Indicators for success or failure • When POE and by whom • Reporting on POE • References Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. 1. What is POE? POE refers to Post-Occupancy Evaluation, i.e. evaluations of buildings in use. It is the end of the building process (SHEET). That's why we use the term 'post'. Evaluation afterwards can make it clear how the building is actually used and appreciated. This so-called Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) can be focused on the product - the characteristics of the site or building itself - and on the building process: who made the decisions and why, which information is used, which economic and legislatorial constraints affected these decisions and so on are important research questions here. The results can be used as input for following processes. Then the data is input for the so-called pre-design phase. Most POE's are focusing on user's perceptions, preferences and satisfaction. So 'occupancy' refers both to the building in use phase as well as to the users. When also technical aspects, costs, aesthetics etc. are included, we talk about 'Total building performance evaluation'. Sometimes both terms are used indifferently. 2. Objectives of POE and other research into user requirements The main objective of research is the development of knowledge as a basis for adequate design decisions, leading to an optimal quality of the built environment. Both for economical reasons for example to reduce vacancy rates or exploitation costs - and for ideological reasons: to promote the quality of life. Within this main objective we may distinguish two types of knowledge: case oriented knowledge and general knowledge. Case oriented knowledge can be used as a basis for improvement of the quality of the project itself. Pre-design research can be focused on e.g. preferred type of housing, number of rooms, internal layout, price/quality ratio and so on. Post-occupancy evaluation can be focused on e.g. the assessment of bottlenecks, misfits between spatial characteristics and user requirements, and preferences for alternative design solutions. The research data can be used as a guide for adaptations. One may think of: • spatio-functional adaptations (such as adding lifts, enlargement of rooms by combining two separate rooms, splitting up one big room into two smaller ones); • technical improvements (getting quit of maintenance still due); • social adaptations (other allocation policy focusing on different target groups); • adaptation of the price/quality ratio (e.g. by reducing rents). A broader objective of pre- and post-design research is developing general knowledge that can be used in other projects, too. For instance as a basis for a theory about the relationship between characteristics of the built environment and people's behaviour and preferences. An example is the development of a theory on the effects of design choices on crime and fear of crime. Another concrete objective may be the development of design guidelines and instruments for plandevelopment and testing of plans. An interesting example in this context is the meta-evaluation of about hundred POE's of residential environments by Claire Cooper Markus and Wendy Skarsissian (1986), leading to a great number of design guidelines for medium-density housing. Such research improves and extends present general design knowledge, the 'body of knowledge' of the design profession. As such development of knowledge is a cyclic process. This can be illustrated by a scheme of John Zeisel, a sociologist and consultant of architectural firms in the USA (SHEET). Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. Another reason for broadening the usefulness of user’s research is policy-oriented. National and local governments and housing organisations need a clear insight in preferred types of housing, priorities in consumer preferences, affordability of facilities and so on. Research into user’s preferences and post-occupancy evaluations of different sites and buildings can help to develop an adequate and knowledge-based policy with respect to urban planning and housing. The SHEET gives a brief summary of the objectives mentioned before. 3. Links with the building process In all phases of the building process user oriented research can help to make better decisions. On this SHEET five phases have been distinguished. a. Initiative Planning and designing starts with the statement of a spatial problem: more houses are needed, an existing environment should be improved, there is a lack of shopping facilities, etc. Research can help to understand what is needed (quantities, preferred quality), which location fits best with the requirements, how much money is needed for investment and exploitation, how the costs can be financed, etc. In this phase most research will be of a sociological and economical kind, but it may also include an investigation of adequate building locations. b. Programme of requirements In this phase the principal and/or the prospective users should formulate their requirements and expectations. Important questions are for example: On site level: which facilities are needed (how many houses, which types, which public buildings, which level of integration or separation of functions, which infrastructure (access routes, parking lots, greenery) etc. On building level: which concepts i.e. main spatial configuration could be successful, how many spaces are needed for which purposes, how big should these spaces be, which spatial interrelationships are preferred, etc. c. Design Assessment of design alternatives on aspects such as useability, efficiency, aesthetics, entrance of daylight and so on, 'on paper' or by testing design solutions in full-scale models or small-scale maquettes, and computer-based analyses are here of great value. With reference to the materialisation research into aesthetics, costs, sustainability and safety of building materials is important, too. d. Construction Both technical research - for example into building systems and production techniques - and socio-economical research - for example into safety en efficiency issues of production techniques - are important to guide the construction of sites and buildings. Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. e. Use and management Analysis of expected occupancy rates, favourable conditions for communal use of space or implications of use for different purposes, instruments for facility management, expectations about frequently occurring adaptations and so on can help to improve the use of a site or a building. 4. Scope of the research: research items A next question is, what one should investigate. It is often not necessary to establish a complete research on all possible issues. If for instance the motive of a case oriented POE is to reduce the vacancy rate, or to improve feelings of security, the POE may be focused to the causes for these problems and possible solutions. Evaluations of experiments will usually be focused on experimental issues, for example measures to reduce energy consumption, or measures to facilitate individual or collective adaptations simply and cheaply (flexibility/adaptability). For example a recent POE in the Netherlands of so-called sliding door houses was only focused on the use of sliding-doors and their appraisal (SHEET). It turned out that most users liked them very much and were willing to pay a bit more rent for it. However, it was also shown that the door between the kitchen and the 'deep room' is always closed, and households with more than two persons have all sliding doors closed all time. So one should be selective in application of cost flexible solutions. Examples a. Evaluation of use of energy Schools in Almere, a newtown in the north of the Netherlands. Before: expectations about use of energy for heating of the building and use of electricity for artificial lighting. Measures for reduction of energy consumption: strong insulation of facade and roof, extra attention for daylight entrance and automatisation of artificial. Results of POE: reduction of energy consumption for heating was higher than expected, but for lighting more energy was used than was expected. Second series of schools: extra measures, e.g. wind turbine for supply of electricity to the heating pump. The floor heating didn't work according to the expectations. Heating took too much time. Therefore later on a combination was applied of floor heating plus additional heating of ventilated air. b. Sliding door house In an experimental design of Margreet Duinker and Machiel van der Torre the current internal walls have been replaced by sliding doors. So tenants have a free choice between subdivision of space or a completely open space. Interviews with 11 respondents showed the following results: • 10 out of 11 were very positive. • 1-person households have often open doors; nevertheless the different spaces are furnished as if these were seperate rooms; • 2-person households more often use closed doors to demarcate a territory; • the more persons, the more chance that the doors are closed; • the big room is always used as the living room; the wide room often also as a living or sitting room, but by some residents as a working room, room for hobbies or sleeping room; the 'deep' room is mostly used for sleeping, sometimes for eating or hobbies; Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. • the sliding door between big room and kitchen is almost always open; the door between the kitchen and deep room is mostly closed (to separate kitchen and sleeping room and to reduce costs for heating; • the door between deep and wide room is used quite differently; • the door between deep and big room is mostly open, sometimes even get out; • the sliding doors lead to an increase of costs of about 2400 dollars; nobody wanted to cancel them in exchange for a reduction of the rent with 15 dollars per month. Conclusion: sliding doors are particularly welcome for small households. c. Flexible walls with cupboards In a series of houses for students and working youngsters flexible walls have been applied, in order to have more freedom in layout. The POE was focusing on its use and perception during 5 years. In one complex the opportunity for change was hardly used. Main reasons: • There was no user participation in the design phase: • Most users were not aware of the possibilities; • The fixed floor-covering was applied around the cupboards, so that by changing its position one had to buy new floor-covering. • It was forbidden to move the cupboards by oneself and the tenants had to pay 75 dollars for a professional. • The houses are quite small, so that the freedom of choice is almost limited to a bigger or smaller (sleeping)room at the side of the gallery. d. Kasbah, Hengelo This experimental housing estate was particularly designed in order to improve social contacts between tenants. For this reason the houses themselves were lifted above the ground. The space on ground level aimed to be used for common activities. By means of a questionnaire tenants were asked to judge the easiness of making contacts. It turned out that compared to high rise buildings social contacts were much easier, but compared to single family housing there were only slight differences. 5. Research methods In every research one has to decide which methods and instruments are most adequate for answering the research questions. Important criteria are reliability and validity of the instruments and cost-effectiveness: how to gather information as much as possible with limited costs. The SHEET gives an overview of current methods. Most researchers apply a multi-method approach and use a combination of techniques. Our own research team has nice experiences with a combination of comparative floorplan-analysis and Post-Occupancy evaluations. If possible at all we ask our respondents to compare their own situation with other design solutions and ask them to comment on it. Or, even better, by comparing a wide range of building layouts for similar organisations we try to achieve a sound understanding of the ways in which goals and values are or can be expressed in spatial solutions. We try to track down typologically different design variants, if possible leading to an overall typology of design solutions. A second step is to understand why differences occur, by linking design alternatives to data from Post Occupancy Evaluations. This gives insight in underlying arguments, user experiences with different design solutions, (dis)advantages for use and perception, and (dis)congruencies between spatial systems and social systems. This process is of an interactive and iterative nature and is passed in various orders. On the one hand the research is guided by hypotheses, questions and notions of designers Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. and their clients, review of literature, and our own hunches. On the other hand the plans themselves generate ideas and hypotheses which can be checked in the other sources. As a result of this process spatial architectural choices become more understandable, recognisable and debatable. Behavioural aspects can be connected to design variants, while sufficient freedom remains for making conscious choices on ones own for the most suitable design. The SHEET shows the interactive nature of the process and possible results. Every floorplan may be regarded as a reflection of the goals and activities of the users as interpreted by the architect. Of course flooplans are abstractions from the real buildings. Such important aspects as the fabric of the building is made of, its constructional system, its colours and finishes, the type of installations for heating, ventilation, lighting etc. and its costs are usually left out. These aspects deserve attention in any complete building evaluation study and a comparative approach can be very useful. But on the other hand floorplans do provide essential information on the most permanent parts of the building (its 'shell' and structural grid) whereas most of the earlier mentioned other parts have shorter life-cycles. In the second place, floorplans embody the social nature of the building, through which it localises people, and modulates their interactions. The next SHEET shows the relationship between socio-cultural goals and values on the one side and spatio-functional characteristics on the other side in a schematic way. Rows and columns should be described, analysed and evaluated both in itself and interconnected (the cells). Two routes may be taken: a. from row to column: what is the optimum spatial architectural translation of the socio-cultural goals of an organisation, in this case those of principal and users; this question is especially relevant for the development of a design; b. from column to row: to what extent will a certain design solution correspond with different socio-cultural goals; this question is particularly relevant to the evaluation of either a design or a building that has been realised. An example of this approach is a research into the functional quality of Dutch health centres. We gathered floorplans of 50 health care centres and disseminated questionnnaires in each of them, with additional interviews in 4 health centres. It turned out that on the scale level of the whole building three building types could be distinguished, with an increasing amount of integration and shared spaces between different disciplines (SHEET). In Type I there is a physical subdivision of the building in detached blocks. Communality is linked to the combined location of different disciplines on one spot. Each block has its own entrance, reception desk (if present) and waiting area. A variant of this type is characterised by a grouping of several blocks with shared walls. Sometimes these blocks are arranged next to each other (e.g. in a street), in other cases they are arranged around a courtyard. The Dauwendale Health Centre is an example of type I; here the circulation paths between the disciplines are located in the open air. Such centres look like shopping centres: together yet apart. In Type II there is still physical subdivision of the building into different blocks - horizontally into floors or vertically into wings - and most of the disciplines have their own waiting areas, but now the blocks are accessible from one shared and interior circulation area. An example is the Maarssen health centre. Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. Type III is characterised by one shared waiting area and a lot of shared circulation space, without subdivision by inner doors into separate compartments. In some centres waiting and circulation are separated, in other centres these two functions are combined into one shared area (type III1). It turned out that small teams are often housed in Type III buildings whereas in type I premises both small and larger teams are found. There is also a manifest correlation between team size, size of the building and degree of integration or differentiation of space. The majority of small buildings have one entrance with one communal reception area, whereas larger centres often have a main entrance with one or more additional doorways and several reception desks. So large organisations correspond with large-sized buildings and an increasing differentiation into more or less self supporting parts. Within each type there are different spatial configurations too. The various units of which a centre consists can be grouped together around a central hall ('centroid type'), along corridors ('linear type') or by a combination of both systems. A centroid type occurred especially in small buildings of functional type III or III1. Efficiency and privacy in the General Practitioner's area Another example of varying separation is that between the consulting and examination space of the General Practitioner. Three basic types were found (SHEET). In Type A the suite is subdivided into a dressing cubicle (DR), an examination space (EX) and a consulting space (CON), all surrounded by solid walls with heavy soundproof doors. In type B the dressing cubicle has disappeared, but sometimes a curtain can be drawn to separate a dressing space. In type C the solid wall with a door between with the examination and consulting space has been replaced by a curtain or a high book shelf. Door c has disappeared as well. What is the meaning and purpose of this variation? In earlier Dutch design guidelines, the provision of a separate examination room with sound proof doors (a and b) was strongly recommended as a time saving solution. The patient's flow can be settled then as follows. A patient is called into the consulting room through door a. When during consultation the need for closer examination arises, the patient is sent into the examination room through door b and asked to undress. In the meantime door b is shut and the next patient can be called into the consulting room and asked to wait, while the doctor returns to the patient waiting undressed in the examination room. Having finished examining, he asks the patient to dress and leave the room through door c while he returns through door b to the patient waiting in the consulting room, etc. Technical problems with this procedure arise when patients are escorted by one or more relatives or friends. In general this pipe-line procedure proved to be impractical and impersonal to both doctors and patients. Although door c still can be found in most health centres it is put out of use, by locking it, placing cupboards in front of it, or even sealing it permanently to improve sound isolation. The resulting relational pattern becomes the same as in type C. However, there still remain strong objections to combine consulting and examination into one room, even if they are separated by a curtain or high bookshelf. Part of the reasons are functional: some examinations require complete darkness, and odours generated by undressing should be confined to, and extracted from, the examination room. Another reason is that consulting and examination activities require a completely different 'decor': consulting either in a 'businesslike' office' surrounding or in a more informal 'living-room like 'atmosphere, whereas undressing and examination are more associated with and possibly facilitated by a Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. clinical, 'bathroom like' atmosphere. Since 'you don't undress in an office or living room', clear separation of these two atmospheres seems to be desired by most doctors and their patients. Again this analysis shows the link between different spatial configurations and their perceptual and behavioural effects. This information can be used in pre-design research to weight advantages and disadvantages of different design sketches, as a basis for an optimal final decision. Techniques and instruments SHEETS Scalings: • ITS-label for Integral Accessibility • Delft checklist on safe neighourhoods. • VAC-Kwaliteitswijzer • REN and Quick Scan • Building Quality Assessment Method (BQA) • Serviceability Tools and Methods (STM) • Healthy Building Quality (HBQ) • Manual for Sustainable Buildings Points of attention Social desirability Cognitive dissonance reduction 6. Indicators for success or failure In order to understand if there is fit or misfit between spatio-functional features and sociocultural goals, various indicators for success or failure can be used (SHEET). 7. When and by whom When Preferably by briefly monitoring continuously + an intensive POE 6-12 months later, so that the users have had time to get accustomed to their new situation. By whom Case based POE: the owner or manager should take the initiative. Focusing on general knowledge: universities and organisations such as an Institute of Architects or a Consumer's organization. Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. 8. Reporting on POE Clear language. Images and pictures. Use of multimedia (video, CD ROM 9. Concluding remarks Although POE has a long tradition, its application into practice is quite modest. In the Netherlands particularly the Women Advice Committees are active in this field. They judge by request or on their own initiative - functional aspects of new houses and houses which are renovated. They also pay attention to the residential environment. Important tools are their checklists and the so-called VAC-Kwaliteitswijzer or Guide for Quality. Voordt, D.J.M. van der (1999), Objectives and methods of POE. Lecture at FAU, Sao Paulo, Brasil, August 1999. Not published. References − Baird, G. en N. Isaacs (1994), A checklist for the performance evaluation of buildings and building services. In: Engineering for Better Building Performance. CIBSE Australia and N.Z. Third Regional Conference, Melbourne, Australia. − Baird, G., J. Gray, N. Isaacs, D. Kernohan en G. McIndoe (1996), Building Evaluation Techniques. McGraw-Hill, New York. − Becher, F.D., G. Davis, F. Duffy en W. Sims (1985), ORBIT-2: Organizations, Buildings and Information Technology. The Harbinger, Norwalk, Connecticut. − Bechtel, R., R. Marans en E. Michelson (1987), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. − Becker, F.D. en W.R. Sims (1990, Matching building performance to organizational needs in performance of buildings and serviceability of facilities. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. − Bruhns, H. (1996), CPBR Checklist. In: G. Baird et al, Building Evaluation Techniques. McGraw Hill, New York, 141-191. − Bruhns, H. en N. Isaacs (1996), Building Quality Assessment. In: G. Baird et al, Building Evaluation Techniques. McGraw Hill, New York, 53-58. − Davis, G. en F. Szigetti (1996), Serviceability Tools and Methods. In: G. Baird et al, Building Evaluation Techniques. McGraw Hill, New York, 58-68. − Hoogdalem, H. van, D.J.M. van der Voordt en H.B.R. van Wegen (1985), Comparative floorplan-analysis as a means to develop design guidelines. Journal of Environmental Psychology (5), 153-179. − Jonge, H. en J. Gray (1996), The Real Estate Norm. In: G. Baird et al, Building Evaluation Techniques. McGraw Hill, New York, 69-76. − Marcus, M.C. en W. Sarkissian (1986), Housing as if people mattered. Site design guidelines for medium-density family housing. University of California Press. − Preiser, F.E. en U. Schramm (1998). Building Performance Evaluation. Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Data. The reference of Architectural Fundamentals, 233-238. − Preiser, W.F.E. (1988), Advances in post-occupancy evaluation: kwowledge, methods and applications. In: H. van Hoogdalem et al (eds), Looking back to the future. Proceedings of IAPS 10. Delft University of Technology, 207-212. − Preiser, W.F.E., H.Z. Rabinowitz en E.T. White (1988), Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. − Stichting REN (1992), Real Estate Norm. Methode voor de advisering en beoordeling van kantoorlocaties en kantoorgebouwen. Nieuwegein. Tweede versie. − Stichting REN (1993), Real Estate Norm Bedrijfsgebouwen. Nieuwegein. Eerste versie. − Stichting REN (1994), Real Estate Norm Quick Scan Kantoorgebouwen. Nieuwegein. Eerste versie. − Vischer, J.C. (1989), Environmental Quality in Offices. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. − Voordt, D.J.M. van der, D. Vrielink en H.B.R. van Wegen (1998), Comparative floorplan-analysis in programming and architectural design. Design Studies (18), 67-88. − Zeisel, J. 1981), Inquiry by design. Tools for environment-behavior research. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, California. − Zimring, C. (1988), Post-Occupancy Evaluation and implicit theories of organizational decision-making. In: H. van Hoogdalem et al (eds), Looking back to the future. Proceedings of IAPS 10, Delft University of Technology, 240-248.