Bordass, B; Leaman, A and Ruyssevelt, P (2001) Assessing building performance in use 5: Conclusions and implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), pp. 144-157. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The implications of the Probe post-occupancy survey project are discussed (methods and findings have been discussed in papers 1 to 4). Recent pressures to improve the UK building industry and its products have so far focused on production and not performance in use. Feedback, however, reveals successes which are not immediately apparent even to experts (when newly completed, the best all-round performer in Probe did not make the shortlist for an environmental award), and that innovations can easily have unintended consequences. Meanwhile, persistent chronic low-level problems need to be tackled if we are to move towards the triple bottom line of more sustainable practice and create a base of sound practice upon which innovations can flourish. Factors for success include making sure essential features are in place; seeking simplicity, usability, manageability and responsiveness; identifying and managing downside risks; a culture of feedback with better benchmarking and constant review against client and design intentions; and more involvement of the supply side in improving and learning from the performance of buildings in use. Seven main themes are explored and initial actions suggested for the key industry players, clients and government.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarks; briefing; chronic problems; continuous improvement; design factors; factors for success; feedback; innovation; productivity |
| Index terms: | usability, continuous improvement, building performance, productivity, survey, unintended consequence, sustainable practice, design factor, benchmarking, briefing, building industry |
| Subjects: | sustainable practices, quality assurance, industry analysis, management, design practice, performance measurement, user-centered design, data collection methods, risk assessment, scope management |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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