Building Evaluation pp 127-134 | Cite as
Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Research Paradigm or Diagnostic Tool
Abstract
POE (Post-Occupancy Evaluation) has existed, in some form, since people began occupying buildings. Its association with relatively systematic assessment of how well a building performs on explicit criteria is more recent, but has existed for at least 25 years. This chapter argues that the role of POE in improving building performance has been inadvertently undermined by trying to make POE an academically acceptable form of evaluation research. POE as a diagnostic tool (essentially a clinical technique) and environment-behavior research (intended to help develop a solid research tradition to guide architecture and interior design practice) are both useful. They share common concerns, but they are not synonymous. The development of facility management, a client-based professional discipline whose foremost concern is for buildings-in-use, has shifted attention from the architecture and design (as well as academic) communities as direct beneficiaries of POE results to the organization paying for and occupying the building. In doing so it has created a set of conditions that is beginning to make POE an acceptable management tool with potential for significantly improving building performance.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Allen, T. J., 1976, The Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Altman, I., 1976, Privacy: a conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8:7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Becker, F., 1974, Design for Living, Residents View of Multifamily Housing, Ithaca, New-York, Program in Urban and Regional Studies.Google Scholar
- Becker, F., 1981, Workspace, Creating Environments in Organizations, New York, Praeger.Google Scholar
- Becker, F., January 1988a, Managing facility management, Premises Management, 18–19.Google Scholar
- Becker, F., February 1988b, FM pressure points, Premises Management, 14–15.Google Scholar
- Becker, F., 1988c, Defining quality, Premises Management, 20–21.Google Scholar
- Becker, F., 1988d, The Changing Facilities Organization, Haverhill, England, PROJECT.Google Scholar
- Becker, F. and Sims, W., In press, Facility management, in: F. Duffy, C. Cave, J. Worthington (Eds.), Planning Office Space, 2nd. Edition. London, Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Brill, M., 1984, Using Office Design to Increase Productivity, Buffalo, New York, Workplace Design and Productivity.Google Scholar
- Cooper, C., 1975, Easter Hill Village, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Marans, R. W., and Spreckelmeyer, K. F., 1982, Evaluating open and conventional office design, Environment and Behavior, 14, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Perin, C., 1972, With Man in Mind, Cambridge, MIT Press,Google Scholar
- Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., and White, E. T., 1988, Post-Occupancy Evaluation, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
- Sommer, R., 1969, Personal Space, The Behavioral Basis of Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969.Google Scholar
- Sommer, R., 1983, Social Design, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
- Steele, F., 1986, Making and Managing High Quality Workplaces, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., Kamp, D., 1980, Privacy at work, Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sundstrom, E., 1986, Workplaces, The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
- Zeisel, J., 1974, Fundamental values in planning with the non-paying client, J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. Moleski, and D. Vachon (Eds.), Designing for Human Behavior, Stroudsburg, PA., Dowden Hutchinson & Ross.Google Scholar