Hay, R; Samuel, F; Watson, K J and Bradbury, S (2018) Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: Experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Building Research & Information, 46(6), pp. 698-710. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The importance of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is widely acknowledged in the academic literature, industry press and, increasingly, by professional institutes. Learning from previous projects systematically is central to improving building performance, resulting in a built environment that better fits the needs of clients, end users, wider society and the environment. The key role of architects in pushing forward this agenda has been recognized, however evidence suggests that take up of POE is low across the profession. Whilst research has investigated barriers to POE across the construction industry, very little has considered the unique perspective of architects. In-depth interviews with UK-based architects are presented to explore their experiences in relation to POE and their perspectives on its potential to be a standard part of architectural practice. The findings indicate that a considerable amount of practical work is being undertaken, but uncertainty over what constitutes POE means it is often excluded from the POE label – with significant implications for the development of a rigorous evidence base. An appetite is identified for more holistic evaluation measures that move beyond the current preoccupation with energy efficiency to consider other aspects of building performance, and thereby sustainability, in a wider value framework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architects; architectural practice; building performance evaluation; post-occupancy evaluation; practice-based research; sustainability |
| Index terms: | interview, evidence, building performance, built environment, construction industry, building performance evaluation, post-occupancy evaluation, architectural practice, architect, energy efficiency, society, profession, end user |
| Subjects: | stakeholder, evaluation methods, institututions, industry analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, communities and social development, business, sustainability and energy, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, building performance, profession, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions |
| 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