The House of Commons: A precedent for post-occupancy evaluation

Schoenefeldt, H (2019) The House of Commons: A precedent for post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research & Information, 47(6), pp. 635-665. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Building scientists have retraced the origins of modern post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) to the 1960s, but this paper shows that the use of POEs and their integration into the process of improving building performance has been a more longstanding practice. Focusing on the post-occupancy history of the House of Commons from 1854 until 1941 as a case study, this paper examines the nature and functions of these earlier precursors of modern POEs. A review of original archive material illuminates how POEs allowed Parliament as an organization to establish a large repository of knowledge on building performance, offering insights into technological, environmental and human factors. To understand the nature of these historic practices, however, it is critical to distinguish between POE functions that were embedded within the routine operational procedures, led by an in-house team of attendants, and those covered by several larger studies. The latter were more in-depth inquiries conducted by the Office of Works in collaboration with parliamentary committees, scientific researchers and in-house technical staff. These historic practices have also highlighted the role of institutional structures in enabling better collaboration between end users and facilities management in the process of operating, assessing and improving buildings in use.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building science; environmental design; facility management; feedback; historic environments; history; intelligent buildings; interdisciplinary collaboration; post-occupancy evaluation
Index terms: environmental design, building science, commons, facilities management, end user, human factor, collaboration, case study, integration, history, interdisciplinary collaboration, post-occupancy evaluation, intelligent building, routine, historic environment, building performance
Subjects: evaluation methods, sociology, heritage and conservation, engineering principles, stakeholder, organizational analysis, property law, sustainability and energy, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, architectural and construction history, quality assurance, management, research design and methodology, design practice
Topics: Roles and Professions, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

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