Schoenefeldt, H (2020) Delivery of occupant satisfaction in the house of commons, 1950–2019. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 141-163. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The debating chamber of the House of Commons was rebuilt and completed in 1950. It has acted as a learning laboratory for 70 years for occupant satisfaction. Although trials and experiments were undertaken to assess and refine its design empirically, under real-life conditions it did not perform as the design consultants had envisaged. The present study of its history between 1950 and 1954 illustrates that its performance was scrutinised by users, became the subject of scientific investigations, and underwent further physical and operational changes. These critical engagements with performance in use are ongoing. A second period of use is also examined covering the period 1995–2019 using archival research and interviews. This reveals the sociotechnical nature of day-to-day operational procedures, involving collaboration between users and staff as well as between technical and non-technical staff. This process enabled a strong engagement with technical, environmental and human aspects of performance. Insights into the practical reality of building operation are illustrated along with process of continual learning and active stewardship. Practice relevance The post-occupancy history of the House of Commons provides a unique-case, rich study on continual institutional learning about environmental control in public buildings. It sheds a critical light on the nature of facilities management as a practice, and also challenges the traditional boundaries drawn between those responsible for the design, post-occupancy evaluation and routine operation of buildings. Facilities management could not be confined to the technological operations administered by technical staff, but depended on collaboration with occupants and non-technical staff, enabling the integration of social and technological processes. Much understanding was based on ephemeral knowledge that staff had acquired through social interactions and practical experience. The paper illustrates how such practical knowledge of performance was acquired, retained and used in facilities management practice. This expanded approach is also critical for design consultants to gain more appropriate knowledge about the actual use and performance of buildings. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural science; environmental control; facilities management; feedback; parliament; post-occupancy; thermal comfort; user satisfaction; workplace |
| Index terms: | science, post-occupancy evaluation, experiment, laboratory, interview, archival research, routine, building operation, history, facilities management, public building, boundaries, commons, social interaction, integration, environmental control, collaboration, user satisfaction, occupant satisfaction, thermal comfort, investigation |
| Subjects: | architectural and construction history, evaluation methods, property law, specialized education, user-centered design, client relations, research design and methodology, data collection methods, construction type, environmental engineering, sociology, research management, organizational analysis, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Quality Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Education, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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