Way, M and Bordass, B (2005) Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings: involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research & Information, 33(4), pp. 353-360. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Once a building is physically complete, designers and builders move on to the next project. Few of them stay around to learn from what they have done and pass on their insights to the occupants. 'Soft Landings' aims to extend the scope of service so that feedback and follow-through can become natural parts of the delivery of a project. It increases designer and constructor involvement before and after handover, and points the 'supply side' to more involvement with users and a careful assessment of building performance in use. The objective is more certainty in delivering buildings that achieve a close match between the expectations of clients and users and the predictions of the design team. A Soft Landings team (designer and builder) is resident on site during the move-in period in order to deal with emerging issues more effectively. It then monitors building use and energy performance for the first three years of occupation: identifying opportunities both for fine-tuning the building and for future projects. This process also creates a coordinated route to post-occupancy evaluation. The cost of the extra work is relatively small and can be balanced against gains from the learning process, less rework and better client references. Soft Landings does not require wide-scale revision of industry-standard documentation: a licensed Scope of Service document set can stand alongside most existing procurement processes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; client satisfaction; design quality; feedback; innovation; involvement; learning; predictability; process improvement; professional services; project delivery; quality control |
| Index terms: | soft landing, procurement process, routine, energy performance, design quality, project delivery, building performance, documentation, process improvement, design team, builder, occupation, professional service, quality control, rework, designer, post-occupancy evaluation, design and building, client satisfaction |
| Subjects: | energy systems, operations management, professional development, contractual arrangements, project delivery, management, profession, client relations, practitioner, organization, design practice, professional practice, design process, sociology, quality assurance, evaluation methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Sustainability, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Procurement, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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