Işıklar Bengi, S and Toprakli, A Y (2025) Assessing experiential performance in basketball halls: a comparative measure through post-occupancy evaluation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 21(4), pp. 621-641. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Designing architectural spaces that effectively cater to the dynamic and evolving needs of diverse user groups is a complex and challenging task. This complexity is especially pronounced in public spaces like basketball halls, which must accommodate a wide range of user needs and have specific spatial requirements to ensure optimal functionality and user satisfaction. This study introduces a novel measure for comparing qualitative data obtained from Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) studies in basketball halls. POE is a powerful tool for assessing how well a building meets its intended purpose and user needs after a period of occupancy. However, comparing the success of different buildings can be challenging when evaluations are based on qualitative data. To address this issue, our measure incorporates the perspectives of key decision-makers involved in different stages of the building's lifecycle: the designer, facility manager, and sports manager. These perspectives are integrated using the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method SWARA. The validity of the proposed measure was tested through a field study. Results demonstrate its effectiveness in enabling the comparison of user-based qualitative data, offering a valuable tool for evaluating the experiential performance of basketball halls, a building type underrepresented in POE studies to date.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | basketball facilities; bibliometric analysis; measure for performance comparison; performance; performance measure; post-occupancy evaluation; swara |
| Index terms: | complexity, user need, decision-making, public space, user satisfaction, bibliometric analysis, performance measure, functionality, user group, manager, field study, effectiveness, lifecycle, designer, validity, post-occupancy evaluation |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, decision analysis, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, performance measurement, evaluation methods, project delivery, user-centered design, profession, urban design and public space, research methods, design features, practitioner, client relations, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here