Bordass, B and Leaman, A (2005) Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 3: Case studies of the use of techniques in the feedback portfolio. Building Research & Information, 33(4), pp. 361-375. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Although there is increasing interest in building performance, the people who procure, design and construct buildings seldom engage closely with the performance of the buildings they have created. This paper outlines the results of 14 case studies where designers and their clients used one or more techniques chosen from a portfolio of ten to evaluate their buildings or processes at any stage in the life cycle of a project. It is revealed that considerable value could be obtained for relatively low effort, helping to improve both the performance of the building concerned and the skills and insights of the participants; and that there was value in using established techniques that were robust, cost-effective and had benchmarks available where appropriate. It proved easier to undertake a survey than to get people together to discuss their experience. However, after the procurement process had started, it proved difficult to incorporate feedback, because everyone was already committed to a particular mode of operation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case studies; client satisfaction; design quality; feedback; innovation; learning; post-occupancy evaluation; process improvement; professional services; quality control; techniques; user group |
| Index terms: | professional service, client satisfaction, quality control, process improvement, routine, design quality, procurement process, case study, user group, building performance, life cycle, post-occupancy evaluation, designer, survey |
| Subjects: | sociology, quality assurance, management, contractual arrangements, professional practice, evaluation methods, project delivery, profession, data collection methods, organization, client relations, value management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Design Practice, Quality Management, Organizational Design |
| 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