See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313594426

Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects to generate value for

municipal governments

Article  in  AEJ - Alexandria Engineering Journal · June 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2017.01.015

CITATIONS READS

13 420

5 authors, including:

Xavier Brioso Antonio Humero

Pontifical Catholic University of Peru Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
36 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Danny Murguía Jaclyn Corrales

Loughborough University Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
9 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A systemic BIM diffusion model View project

Information Resilience in a Digital Built Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xavier Brioso on 05 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Alexandria Engineering Journal (2018) 57, 885–896

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing

projects to generate value for municipal
governments
Xavier Brioso a,*, Antonio Humero b, Danny Murguia a, Jaclyn Corrales a,
Johana Aranda a

a
Construction Management & Technology Research Group (GETEC), Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Av. Universitaria
1801, Lima 32, Peru
b
School of Architecture, Technical University of Madrid, Av. Juan de Herrera, 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Received 15 July 2015; revised 23 December 2016; accepted 16 January 2017

Available online 10 February 2017

KEYWORDS Abstract This article presents a value-generation framework for municipalities through the adap-
Lean construction; tation of the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS) to the municipal management process. Said pro-
Lean project delivery system; cess includes the use of learning loops from previous projects to revamp municipal management
Value generation; during design revision, construction supervision and commissioning, and taking into account the
Municipality value; final user’s needs and values. This framework allows the municipal management to investigate
Post-occupation informa- the user’s value requirements and proposes the Number of Claims per Housing Unit (NCHU) as
tion; a performance indicator. A case study describing this method is presented. We analyze the post-
Learning loop occupation information recorded by the Peruvian National Bureau of Consumer Protection
(INDECOPI from its acronym in Spanish), classifying the claims according to their root cause. This
approach allows us to separate claims originating in the design phase from those originating in the
production phase. This paper proposes learning loops for improved project review in the licensing
system, with the aim of increasing the value in design, improving site inspection and control, and
optimizing the issue of ordinances. This article also includes a critique of current standards and reg-
ulations, since in some cases they do not allow municipalities to fulfill the value-in-design require-
ments.
Ó 2017 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author. Kotler [1,2] defined marketing as a mix of art and science,
E-mail addresses: xbrioso@pucp.edu.pe (X. Brioso), a.humero@upm. devoted to creating, communicating, and delivering value.
es (A. Humero), dmurguia@pucp.pe (D. Murguia), j.corrales@pucp. Marketing aims to generate long-term relationships with cli-
pe (J. Corrales), j.aranda@pucp.pe (J. Aranda).
ents, while being as cost-effective for the company as possible.
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
Hence, value is the most important concept for the company,
University.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.01.015
1110-0168 Ó 2017 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
886
Nomenclature
BIM Building Information Modeling
CAPECO Peruvian Construction Chamber
CDT Chile’s Technological Development Corporation
CD-D Claim of Design - Definition
CD-DD Claim of Design - Definitive Design
CD-U Claim of Delivery - Use
CII Construction Industry Institute
CP-A Claim of Production - Assembly
CP-S Claim of Production - Supply
Eq. Equation
DETR Department of Environment, Transport and
Regions
and by extension, for all of those participating in the business
activity. According to Kotler [2], ‘‘In terms of marketing, the
product or offering will be successful if it delivers value and
satisfaction to the target buyer. The buyer chooses between
different offerings on the basis of which is perceived to deliver
the most value. This value is defined as a ratio between what
the customer gets and what he gives. The customer gets bene-
fits and assumes costs, as shown in this equation.” Eq. (1) is
shown below.
Benefits
VALUE ¼
Costs
Functional benefits þ emotional benefits
¼ [3]. LPDS was developed as a philosophy, a set of interdepen-
Monetary costs þ time costs þ energy costs þ psychic costs
ð1Þ
Abstract and subjective formulas such as the one above are
numerous; they all represent value, and are linked to quality. A
lot has been said about quality, with investors, designers, or
constructors defined as the main stakeholders. Lean Construc-
tion Institute [3] defines value as ‘‘what the customer wants
from the process.” On the other hand, according to PRINCE2
[4], ‘‘The challenge that faces all organizations, whether they
be public or private sector, large or small, is to deliver change
through managing projects successfully and consistently. It
proposes that the project-management method adds real value,
as the globally recognized standard for delivering successful
projects.”
Frequently, we refer to value exclusively in terms of the
user, the final stakeholder in the supply chain in construction.
However, we often forget the entity responsible for authorizing
the building license, and for inspecting its correct construction:
the municipality. This stakeholder has the duty of ensuring
that the standards, codes, and regulations are complied with
to protect the final user, namely society. In other terms, if
we forget the municipality, we also forget that one of the key
values for clients lies in the building’s proper operation and
maintenance. This paradox suggests that the needs and values
of the users should be aligned with the needs and values of the
municipality.
This paper proposes a municipal-management system based
on Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS). Its main objective
was to introduce a value-generation methodology for munici-
palities, through the adaptation of tools and techniques based
on LPDS and the analysis of post-occupation claims of neigh-
X. Brioso et al.
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
INDECOPI Peruvian National Bureau of Consumer Pro-
tection
LPDS Lean Project Delivery System
NCHU Number of claims per housing unit
PRINCE2 Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2
(Manual)
TFV Transformation-Flow-Value
VDC Virtual Design Construction
VFE Value for Engineers
VFM Value for Municipalities
bors. Later, a case study is presented that includes the determi-
nation of root causes and the definition of corrective actions in
the municipal-management system, with emphasis on the root
causes linked to value in design.
2. Generating value for municipalities
2.1. Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS)
LPDS is an organized implementation of the Lean Principles
and Tools, combined to allow a team to operate in unison
dent functions; it includes rules for decision making, proce-
dures for execution of functions, and implementation aids
and tools, including software when appropriate. The domain
for LPDS is defined by the intersection of projects and produc-
tion systems [5].
LPDS uses an approach to project delivery that works to
analyze the interaction of design and construction in order
to remove waste and create value in each component [6]. LPDS
consists of 13 modules, nine organized in four interconnecting
triads or phases extending from project definition to design to
supply and assembly, plus two production-control modules
and the work-structuring module, both conceived to extend
through all project phases. The post-occupancy-evaluation
(learning-loops) module links the end of one project to the
beginning of the next [7] (see Fig. 1).
LPDS allows sequences and the adaptation of processes to
be carried out in a flexible way. For example, in the Project-
Definition Phase, the movement through three modules is nec-
essarily iterative, and does not need to follow any specific
sequence, although the project’s needs and values seem to be
the logical starting point. What’s important is to bring all three
into alignment. Only then should the Lean Design phase be
launched. But even then, it is possible that subsequent develop-
ment might lead back to project definition and an upgrading of
purposes (stakeholder needs and values), criteria, or concepts
[8].
LPDS uses a new strategy applied to the Operating System
that in turn calls for, but does not require, a different set of
organizational communication and authority protocols and
new forms of contract [9]. ‘‘To implement LPDS successfully,
collaboration, early involvement, aligned incentives, and inte-
Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects 887

Figure 1 Lean project delivery system [6].

gration of the project stakeholders are required” [10]. The free-
dom to choose tools and techniques and the flexibility to spec-
ify the processes’ inputs and outputs help overcome the typical
psychological barriers of specialists with deep-rooted prefer-
ences for a certain management system. [11].
In the words of Diekmann [12], ‘‘Lean cannot be reduced to
a set of rules or tools. It must be approached as a system of
thinking and behavior that is shared throughout the value
stream.. . .If successfully applied, however, Lean has the poten-
tial to improve the cost structure, value attitudes, and delivery
times of the construction industry.”
2.2. Municipality value
To provide an answer to the main aim of this study, an adap-
tation of Kotler’s mathematical expression (Eq. (2)) was
selected and applied:
other words, the cost is also partly funded by contributors’
taxes or fees and/or central government contributions.
The cost of time and energy invested by the municipality
must be minimized through a proper management system for
license approval, inspection, and standard compliance. This sys-
tem must guarantee the maximum benefit for both the munici-
pality and the neighbors—that is to say, it must generate value
in design. Therefore, if there are defects detected by the user in
the post-occupation phase, and their claims are not adequately
addressed by the seller and/or builder, the post-occupation
user-municipality relationship would suffer, and the benefit por-
tion in the proposed value formula would decrease. Additional
problems could arise from the administrative, civil, or penal
damages that could be charged to the municipality due to user
claims, alleging an inadequate management of the license-
approval or project-inspection processes. This would also affect
the municipality as a brand, reducing its benefit, and therefore
the final value in the formula.

Benefitðapproval of a quality product þ user-municipality relationship during the use of the product
þ municipality’s brandÞ
VFM ¼
Costðtime and energy invested in approving the project þ time and energy invested in monitoring the construction
þ time and energy invested in obtaining the compliance certificateÞ
ð2Þ

where VFM means ‘‘value for municipalities.”
The cost is partly covered by the fees that builders must pay
for their projects to be approved and later inspected by the
municipality throughout the process. Likewise, the municipal-
ity allocates part of its budget to cover the remaining costs. In
Since the aforementioned mathematical expression is sub-
jective, in order to correctly calculate it, we need an indicator.
In 2013, King Saud University did an exhaustive review of the
most common indicators worldwide [13]. The Construction
Industry Institute (CII), the Department of Environment,
888 X. Brioso et al.

Transport and Regions (DETR), the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), and Chile’s Technological Development Cor-
poration (CDT from its acronym in Spanish) were studied,
along with other leading institutions, and it was determined
that the number of complaints is a key indicator for measuring
customer satisfaction in the post-occupancy phase of a build-
ing [13].
According to this, for the building projects, we have the fol-
lowing expression (Eq. (3)):
Number of claimsðpost occupancyÞ
NCHU ¼
Number of housing units already finished
Bølviken et al. [14] call for a two-dimensional view of value
and waste from a TFV (transformation-flow-value) perspec-
tive. Value is a desired output, and waste is the use of more
materials than needed or an unwanted output. As such, it is
possible to correlate the value formula (2) with the perfor-
mance indicator NCHU (3). The greater the number of claims,
the greater the waste. The lower the number of claims, the
lower the waste—and the greater the value. For this reason,
we propose that the value improvement for the municipality’s
management is a reduction in NCHU (fewer claims, fewer
resources, less waste).
Consequently, it is essential for municipalities to compile
the claims filed by the users within a certain time frame and
connect them to projects that were approved and carried out
during a previous term. By doing so, we obtain the following
indicator (Eq. (4)):
Number of claimsðTtime þ KÞ
NCHU ¼
Number of housing units already finishedðTtimeÞ
ð4Þ
NCHU: Number of claims per housing unit
Ttime: Time considered for the case study, one year
K: Time elapsed between the housing project’s finish, and
the start of occupancy and claims filed the following year
This formula takes into account that housing projects are
usually executed in an average time frame of 18 months, and
that claims generally start to appear during the first 6 months
of use. The formula connects the claims in a one-year term
with the housing projects approved two years before that.
However, this formula must be adapted to the specifics of each
type of project and to the characteristics of each country.
2.3. Municipal value management system based on Lean Project
Delivery System (LPDS)
This approach uses the number of post-occupation claims per
housing unit as an indicator. After analyzing and defining the
ð3Þ root causes of those claims for the building projects approved
and constructed within a certain time frame, it will be possible
to take corrective actions to improve the management system.
As a consequence of those corrective actions, the indicator
would be expected to decrease in the next time frame.
2.3.1. Value during the project definition
In the LPDS, the first triad is the Project Definition. At this
stage, projects are developed out of a conversation between
needs and values, constraints and design criteria [6]. It is impor-
tant to make sure that the project fulfills all the users’ needs and
values, which in turn must be guaranteed by standards and reg-
ulations. Needs and values must be met in accordance with
property-value and client-satisfaction criteria. Orihuela and Ori-
huela [15] have proposed a list of quality requirements, which
are actually value requirements, grouped into three criteria: (1)
quality for the city; (2) quality for the neighborhood; and (3)
quality for the building itself. By the time the construction
license is requested, the analysis of the city-level requirements
is already finished. We propose a simple methodology or check-
list to allow the municipality to perform a quick verification of
the remaining requirements, using Table 1.
We can score each of the second-level factors above on the
Likert Scale (1–5) according to the performance on rules and
regulation compliance and the level of detail of each require-
ment on both drawings and specifications. Based on the results
obtained, the municipality may request more design specifica-
tions for the investors from two points of view: according to
the required level stated by the relevant legislation [16], and
according to the level developed in the project. This could min-

Table 1 Matrix of municipality evaluation of housing-value requirements (adapted from [15]).

Housing-quality requirements Performance on rules Performance on level of
and regulations compliance detail of said requirement
First level Second level Score (1–5) Score (1–5)
Regarding the neighborhood Security from natural events
Urban conditions
Regarding the building itself Structural safety
Fire safety
Salubrity
Functionality
Aesthetics
Safety in use
Property security
Legal security
Thermal, acoustic, luminance comfort
Durability
Impermeability
Environmental impact
After-sale guidance
Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects
imize post-occupation claims with root causes in project-
review failures, and therefore generate more value in the
design.
2.3.2. Value in lean design, supply, and assembly
In LPDS, the municipal-management system begins with the
review and approval of the preliminary design, between the
modules of Process Design and Product Design. In this first con-
tribution, some of the value-in-design requirements can already
be verified. After this approval, the design team finalizes the
design and executes the Detailed Engineering stage. Once the
drawings and specifications have been completed, they are sub-
mitted to the municipality for final review and the issue of the
work permit. At this point, the municipality must have com-
pleted the review of the value-in-design requirements. Subse-
quently, the municipality inspects the job site during the
structural work and the finishing phase. During these stages,
the inspector checks that the work is proceeding in accordance
with the building permit and oversees the construction relation-
ship within the neighborhood. At this point, the supervisor needs
a tool such as a checklist to monitor the construction process
and inspect critical products and processes, measuring them
against what was learned from previous projects.
During the commissioning phase, the municipality supervi-
sor inspects the finished work and issues the compliance certifi-
cate, a document that confirms the project has been
constructed according to the approved proposal. This docu-
ment declares that any changes introduced throughout the
process have been correctly performed and supervised. This
document guarantees to the final user and other stakeholders
(such as insurance companies or banks) that the project meets
all relevant construction codes and product-quality require-
ments. Municipal involvement is illustrated in Fig. 2.
2.4. Post-occupation claims management
During the post-occupancy phase, once the housing unit has
been delivered, users may file claims due to lack of product fit-
ness of use. It has been assumed in the present paper that this
Figure 2 Municipal actions and learning loops in the LPDS (adapted from [6]).
889
process is very similar to those in Peru, Chile, Spain [17–19],
and other countries.
The claims filed by users can follow three routes: (1) The
claim can be filed against the property developer and/or con-
tractor. (2) If the user is not satisfied with the resolution, he
or she can file a further claim with a consumer-protection
bureau or consumer-arbitration system. (3) In the last instance,
a claim can be filed with a court of law. The fastest and most
economical way to solve conflicts is (2). Obviously, only a part
of the initial claims will reach this stage, and for many claims
are addressed by the developer or constructor. In any case, the
user can request to impute blame to the municipality for poor
performance in the project approval, during the work inspec-
tion, and/or with the compliance certificate.
We here propose a taxonomy of claims according to three
types: (1) Design claims: These generate Learning Loops in
the triads of Project Definition & Lean Design; (2) Production
Claims: These generate Learning Loops in the triads of Lean
Supply & Lean Assembly; and (3) Delivery Claims: These gen-
erate Learning Loops in the triads of Use, implying adminis-
trative and legal issues related to the delivery. This can be
observed in both Fig. 3 and Table 2.
2.5. Root-cause analysis in the LPDS
Root-Cause Analysis can be summed up as an attempt to dis-
cover the fundamental causes of a problem, and so resolve it
[20,21]. This method is based on the premise that problems
are solved more efficiently by treating their original causes,
rather than their symptoms [22] (see Fig. 4).
We must note that each level of causal analysis brings with
it a new potential solution. However, note that first-level solu-
tions are often not permanent. We must keep in mind, that
each successive level of inquiry brings with it a greater chance
for a long-term solution. We can apply this methodology to
any problem [20,21]. The procedure of Root-Cause Analysis
can be shown through a flowchart [23]. Based on LPDS, this
analysis is reflected in Fig. 5, showing the root-cause flow to
determine the source of a lack of value. Likewise, the type of
890 X. Brioso et al.

Figure 3 Classification of user claims related to the project’s process.

Table 2 Codes for different types of claims. claim is determined from its code: CD-D, CD-DD, CP-S, CP-
Claim Type Code A, or CP-U, as indicated in Table 2.
Design Claim of Design - Definition CD-D
Rosenfield proposes that Root-Cause Analysis is not
Claim of Design - Definitive Design CD-DD merely an arbitrary expression, but instead a well-structured
methodology that can be used as part of the total quality-
Production Claim of Production - Supply CP-S management approach [24]. In this way, the causes of the main
Claim of Production - Assembly CP-A
problems in different stages of the project can be established,
Delivery Claim of Delivery - Use CD-U and preventive measures are devised to avoid them [22]. In
future projects, this method can be adopted as a corrective
measure for the management system.
Root-Cause Analysis can be done based on the data col-
lected in interviews with different participants in a project, in
which said participants are asked about the problems they
encountered [25,26]. Similarly, it can be done with documents
that explicitly detail the possible causes, including the judicial,
sentencing, or administrative resolutions of a Consumer Pro-
tection Bureau, as shown in Fig. 6. This is the procedure we’ll
be using for the present research.

2.6. Rules and regulations

First off, the municipality needs to review all the information

Figure 4 Root-cause analysis [22]. given by the owner, contractor, or the company representative
in the request for the license. The department in charge of

Figure 5 Root-cause flow in LDPS.

Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects
Figure 6 Procedure for root-cause analysis (adapted from [22]).
reviewing this information needs to be comprised of specialists
in their fields, such as architects, structural engineers, and san-
itary engineers. They need to verify that the drawings and all
the information registered in the municipality comply with
the national rules and regulations.
As a second step, this department needs to review in depth
all the information, giving each project the time it requires (this
does not always happen, due to lack of personnel or
resources). The department should also be able to give recom-
mendations for improvements to design or construction
methodology. Having professionals with enough background
experience in real projects, in different settings and environ-
ments, is an immeasurable benefit for the department as a
whole.
In developing countries, the lack of research and develop-
ment could mean that national codes are not the same as those
in developed countries, which must comply with numerous
quality regulations regarding materials and construction com-
ponents during both specification and installation. In addition,
very often such legislation ensures the user’s comfort or pro-
duct quality, among other needs and values. In this situation,
municipalities in developing countries may approve projects
that do not comply with these obligations, thus affecting users
and causing value to be lost. Municipal ordinances cannot
modify regulations; they are only allowed to control their
implementation at the level of parameters. Rules and regula-
tions can be improperly framed, and thus be prone to generate
designs that reduce value. Designers, municipalities, and con-
tractors can easily comply with only the minimum require-
ments, and argue that they have not broken the law.
Henceforth, it is essential to urge authorities to ensure regula-
tions that truly protect the user in accordance with the latest
international standards. In the present paper, it is assumed
that rules and regulations are adequate and do not affect the
claims registered. However, future research must analyze
whether national codes meet international standards in build-
ing construction.
3. The municipality framework
We propose the following steps to enhance the municipality’s
value:
3.1. Municipalities compile user claims on finished projects after
one year of use
During the post-occupancy phase, once the housing unit has
been delivered, users may file claims due to lack of product fit-
891
ness of use. Claims are initially submitted to the property
developer and/or constructor. If the claim is not satisfactorily
addressed, the user can appeal to the consumer protection
bureau (in this case, INDECOPI). Municipalities can compile
these claims within a certain time frame and connect them to
projects that were approved and carried out during a previous
term. Claims are classified according to type (design, produc-
tion, delivery).
3.2. Root-cause analysis of such claims is performed
Based on the post-occupancy claims, and using Root-Cause
Analysis, we determine the true reason behind the claim, in
order to rectify the situation, taking into consideration the
type of claim (design, production, or delivery), as well as the
corrective measure.
3.3. NCHU baseline is calculated
Calculate NCHU according to Eq. (4). This indicator will be
the baseline for the municipality for a specific time frame.
The expectation is that this value will be reduced, and thus that
the value for the municipality will be increased.
3.4. Optimization of project review
All the reviews led by the municipality could be optimized by
scheduling group meetings with designers. Moreover, an intra-
net system could be implemented to group all the latest regu-
lations to be considered during the design, and to register
the progress reports filed by each specialist [16]; this would
reveal the identity of the person responsible for delaying the
process, and for jeopardizing the quality of the review due to
poor planning and rushed work as the deadline approaches.
‘‘Restructuring the internal mechanisms of the permit-
issuing authorities to bring about efficiency in the processing
of permits can bring about elimination in a number of non-
value adding steps to speed up the process and enhance the
flow of construction project delivery.” [27]. Also, the phrase
‘‘making-do” refers to a situation where a task or processing
is started with incomplete information, without all its standard
inputs. Here the term ‘‘input” refers not only to materials, but
to all other inputs such as machinery, tools, personnel, external
conditions, and instructions [28]. Making-do must be analyzed
and eliminated.
Considering the municipality’s participation and responsi-
bility as a supervisory agent in the design and construction
process, it should have every available tool in order to do
892
the best possible job. The lack of the necessary tools slows
down the process, making it ever more difficult for both the
workers and the representatives from the companies in the
construction process. Municipalities do not use any type of
methodology in their process, and make do with what little
tools they have. The use of Building Information Modeling
(BIM) cannot be excluded; it is closer to the present than to
the future, in both public and private projects.
After the initial approval, the design team concludes the
final design and executes the Detailed Engineering phase. Once
the drawings and specifications have been completed, it is sub-
mitted to the municipality once again for final review, and the
work permit is finally issued.
3.5. Optimization of project inspection and compliance
Once construction starts, the municipality is required to
inspect the job site during the structural work and the finishing
phase. During these stages, the inspector checks the work’s
compliance relative to the initial project approved and oversees
the construction relationship with the neighborhood. Finally,
during the commissioning phase, the municipal supervisor
inspects the finished construction and issues the compliance
certificate, a declaration that confirms that the project has been
constructed according to the specifications initially approved.
Also, said document declares that any changes introduced into
the project throughout the process have been correctly per-
formed and supervised.
Project inspections are scheduled based on the available
budget; the purposes of these visits were to inspect the quality
of the execution and to request proof of quality control of
materials and components. As suggested by the analysis of
the claims, visits and quality-control inspections could be reor-
ganized to increase their frequency during the project stage
and activities in which problems commonly arise, while main-
taining the same cost. Making-do must be analyzed and elim-
inated. After optimizations, we would expect to see a reduction
in the NCHU during the subsequent measuring, and hence an
increased value for the user and the municipality.
It is important to emphasize that the municipal procedure
must guarantee the maximum benefit for both the municipality
and the neighbors, in terms of value in design. This, in turn,
will reduce the number of complaints lodged in the post-
occupancy phase.
3.6. Repeat the cycle, with regular updates to NCHU
This cycle should be continuous, incorporating the lessons
learned into future projects. In this way, the needs of the final
users are continuously accommodated by the municipality. As
a consequence of the corrective actions taken, the NCHU
would be expected to decrease in the next time frame.
4. The case study
The research strategy is a case study in the capital city of Lima,
Peru. To assess the feasibility of the recommendations of the pre-
vious section, claims data were collected, analyzed and classified
according to their nature. Root causes were then determined,
and their analysis will be the learning loop for the municipal
X. Brioso et al.
inspections in future projects. The NCHU indicator was calcu-
lated to set the baseline for future municipal management.
Lima has 43 districts of different socioeconomic strata. To
achieve a representative sample, it was recommendable to group
municipalities with similar characteristics. The municipalities of
San Isidro, San Borja, Miraflores, and Santiago de Surco, are
roughly comparable [29], so their householders’ claims were
the ones studied in this paper. Claims data were collected from
the Peruvian National Bureau of Consumer Protection during
the period from August 2013 to September 2014 [30]. The num-
ber of housing units 24 months prior to this time frame
(18 months of construction plus six months of use) was 8632,
according to the official statistics from the 2012 Peruvian Con-
struction Chamber [29] (CAPECO from its acronym in Spanish),
the country’s official constructors’ guild. This includes all the
housing units whose construction was initiated from August
2011 through July 2012 in the aforementioned municipalities.
5. Results and discussion
Taking the former claim description as an example—‘‘Onset of
structural and non-structural cracks and/or fissures”—we have
to ask why these claims occurred, with the answer being, ‘‘there
was probably an error in the construction.” Here we again have
to ask why, and the answer is ‘‘there wasn’t enough supervision
on site.” Again, we ask why, with the answer being ‘‘it was prob-
ably an error in either architecture or in the engineering design.”
This leads us to conclude that the municipality should have
reviewed the proposed project with trained professionals, in both
architecture and civil engineering, with enough background
knowledge to note any errors found in the design. In other cases,
too, the type of claim can be determined from its code: CD-D,
CD-DD, CP-S, CP-A, or CP-U. Fig. 7 presents a flow model
of the different types of root causes.
In our sample, 19 claims were filed under the heading of
‘‘Onset of structural and non-structural cracks and/or fis-
sures.” After analyzing each one, we found ten claims of the
type CD-DD with the root cause of ‘‘Deficient structural
design” and nine claims of the type CP-A with the root cause
of ‘‘Deficient construction process.” As a corrective measure
for future projects, it is recommended that ‘‘the municipality
will review the proposed design with professionals trained in
structural design and inspect the quality of the execution.”
This analysis was repeated with the remaining claims.
Based on the proposed method, and the information given
throughout the present paper, Table 3 shows the compilation
of claims registered in INDECOPI [30], their root causes,
and their corrective measures.
5.1. Calculation of the indicator
After the analysis of the root causes of the claims in our study,
we found that 39 of these (15%) were related to design require-
ments (value in design), 170 (67%) to production, and 44
(17%) to delivery. Using Eq. (4):
253
NCHU%ðTotalÞ ¼ ¼ 2:93%
8632
39
NCHU%ðDesignÞ ¼ ¼ 0:45%
8632
Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects
Figure 7 Root-cause flow of onset of structural and non-structural cracks and/or fissures.
170
NCHU%ðProductionÞ ¼ ¼ 1:97%
8632
44
NCHU%ðDeliveryÞ ¼ ¼ 0:51%
8632
In fact, the total number of claims is substantially higher,
but a good portion of them is addressed by the property devel-
oper and/or constructors. As previously stated, the 253 claims
are just the tip of the iceberg. From the consumer’s perspec-
tive, these claims could be classified as relevant, since if they
weren’t, the users wouldn’t have filed with the Consumer Pro-
tection Bureau, knowing these administrative procedures were
going to take up time and energy. A future study could develop
a methodology to estimate the total number of claims that
users file with either investors or constructors and compare
them with the number of ‘‘relevant claims,” which are claims
that are not processed, but which the users consider important.
6. Conclusions
This article proposes a value-generation framework for munic-
ipal management, based on LPDS tools and techniques. Said
process includes the use of learning loops from previous pro-
jects to revamp municipal management in design revision, con-
struction supervision, and commissioning, taking into account
the final user’s needs and values. This framework allows the
municipal management to investigate the user’s value require-
ments and proposes the Number of Claims per Housing Unit
(NCHU) as a performance indicator. The case study suggests
that the municipality does not have a methodology to assess
893
the compliance certificate at the end of the project. Learning
loops from this methodology are essential for continuous
improvement and value generation. The post-occupational
information must be recorded, analyzed, and taken as a base-
line for the continuous improvement of the license-approval
and project-inspection systems, as well as for the issuance of
optimized ordinances. In this context, the municipality
revamps its management to reduce the number of claims, thus
increasing the benefits in the value formula. As a result, the
relationship between user and municipality is reinforced
throughout the use of the product, and the municipality’s
brand is protected. The method could also be optimized and
adapted to national realities or different project types.
It is possible to correlate an increase in value in the munic-
ipal management with the reduction in claims per number of
housing units, as the two variables are interconnected. The
reduction in claims means a reduction in energy expended
and cost, which means a reduction in waste and thus an
increase in value.
This article argues that rules and regulations could be ill-
established, thus generating a lack of value from the design
itself. Designers, municipalities, and contractors could easily
comply with only the minimum requirements and argue that
they have not broken the law. However, this article has devel-
oped research that consists only the identification of design
claims. Future research projects may include a deeper analysis
on the suitability of rules and standards, with the purpose of
defining the responsibilities of designers, municipalities, con-
structors, and/or the State, in their duty of properly regulating
building construction. Therefore, it is essential to urge author-
 894
Table 3 Claims registered in INDECOPI, root causes, and corrective measures (August 2013 – July 2014).
Claims time frame From 2013 to 2014
Building delivery time frame From 2011 to 2013
Municipalities under study Miraflores/San Borja/San Isidro/S. Surco
Total sample 253 claims
Claim description Total Claim type Root cause/Corrective measures (Learning loops)
CD-D CD-DD CP-S CP-A CD-U
Flooring defects in the building 14 12 2 0 0 0 Quality control of design materials/The municipality will perform a general review
of the material samples
Onset of structural and non-structural cracks and/or 19 0 10 0 9 0 Deficient structural design and/or deficient construction process/The municipality
fissures will review the proposed design with professionals trained in structural design and
inspect the quality of the execution
Delivery delay of the building relative to the due date 19 0 0 0 0 19 Administrative and legal issues related to the delivery
Water filtration in walls, floors, and ceilings. Onset of 13 0 0 0 13 0 Lack of quality control over equipment, materials, or supervised elements/The
saltpeter municipality will inspect the quality of the execution and request proof of quality
control of materials and components
Non-compliance with building partition. Factory 17 0 0 0 0 17 Administrative and legal issues related to the delivery
declaration
Non-compliance with the delivery of documents and 8 0 0 0 0 8 Administrative and legal issues related to the delivery
blueprints
Non-compliance with the regulations regarding 2 0 2 0 0 0 Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the
mechanical facilities for handicapped people proposed design with professionals trained in mechanical facilities
Finishing has different characteristics and conditions 40 0 0 0 40 0 Lack of quality control over equipment, materials, or supervised elements/The
than those indicated in the Descriptive Report and municipality will inspect the quality of the execution and request proof of quality
approved blueprints control of materials and components
Finishing performed with materials of lower quality 19 0 0 19 0 0 Lack of quality control over equipment, materials, or supervised elements/The
than those agreed upon municipality will inspect the quality of the execution and request proof of quality
control of materials and components
Deficient finishing, with flaws or gaps, which do not 37 0 0 0 37 0 Lack of quality control over equipment, materials, or supervised elements/The
provide the durability and esthetic quality that was municipality will inspect the quality of the execution and request proof of quality
promised control of materials and components
Dimensions, measurements, or areas smaller than 6 0 0 0 6 0 Lack of quality control over supervised elements/The municipality will inspect the
those offered quality of the execution
Ramp dimensions do not comply with the building 2 2 0 0 0 0 Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the
regulations proposed design with professionals trained in building regulations
Installation of gas tank and other facilities without 2 0 2 0 0 0 Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the
informing the user (specifications, blueprints, etc.) proposed design with professionals trained in building regulations
Poor installation of equipment, materials and/or 46 0 0 0 46 0 Lack of quality control over equipment, materials, or supervised elements/The

X. Brioso et al.
elements in the building municipality will inspect the quality of the execution and request proof of quality
control of materials and components
Claims for elements in the building that defy the 5 0 5 0 0 0 Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the
national construction regulations proposed design with professionals trained in building regulations
Using post-occupancy evaluation of housing projects 895

ities to estipulate regulations that better protect the user, fol-

Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the

Non-compliance with standards and regulations/The municipality will review the lowing the latest international standards that generate value.

References

[1] P. Kotler, Kotler on Marketing: How to Create, Win and

proposed design with professionals trained in building regulations

proposed design with professionals trained in building regulations

Dominate Markets, Free Press, New York, 1999.

[2] P. Kotler, Marketing Management, Millenium Edition, Pearson
Custom Publishing, Boston, 2002.
[3] Lean Construction Institute, LCI Lean Project Delivery
Glossary 2014. Available at: <http://www.leanconstruction.
org/> [accessed 15 January 2015].
[4] Office of Government Commerce, Managing Successful
Projects with PRINCE2TM, The Stationery Office, Norwich,
UK, 2009.
[5] G. Ballard, Lean Project Delivery System. Lean Construction
Institute. White Paper-8 (Revision 1). Lean Construction
Institute, 2000.
[6] G. Ballard, The lean project delivery system, Update Lean
Construct. J. (2008) 1–19.
[7] R. Smith, A. Mossman, S. Emmitt, Lean and Integrated project
delivery, Lean Construct. J. (2011) 1–16.
[8] G. Ballard, T. Zabelle, Project Definition. Lean Construction
Institute. White Paper-9. Lean Construction Institute, 2000.
[9] L.F. Alarcon, H. Mesa, G. Howell, Characterization of Lean
Project Delivery, in: C.T. Formoso, P. Tzortzopoulos (Eds.),
21th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 31–2 Aug 2013.
[10] A. Schöttle, What is the Lean Project Delivery System? Lean
Construction Blog, 2015. Available at: <http://
delivery
Claims

leanconstructionblog.com/> (September 30, 2015).

17%
44
44

[11] X. Brioso, Integrating ISO 21500 guidance on project

of
0

management. Lean construction and PMBOK, Proc. Eng. 123

(2015) (2015) 76–84.
151

[12] J.E. Diekmann, et al., Application of Lean Manufacturing

production
0

Claims of

Principles to Construction. Construction Industry Institute -

The University of Texas at Austin, 2004.
67%
170

[13] H.E. Ali, I.A. Al-Sulaihi, K.S. Al-Gahtani, Indicators for

19
0

measuring performance of building construction companies in

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, J. King Saud Univ. – Eng. Sci. 25 (2)
Claims of design

(2013) 125–134.
25

[14] T. Bølviken, J. Rooke, L. Koskela, The Wastes of Production in

2

Construction–a TFV Based Taxonomy, in: B. Kalsaas, L.

Koskela, T. Saurin, 22nd Annual Conference of the
15%

International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway,

14
39
0

2014.
[15] P. Orihuela, J. Orihuela, Needs, values and post-occupancy
253

evaluation of housing projects customer: a pragmatic view, in:

2

M. Skibniewski, M. Hajdu, Creative Construction Conference

2014, Prague, Czech Republic, 2014.
[16] P. Orihuela, J. Orihuela, K. Ulloa, Tools for design management
in building projects, in: J. Rooke, B. Dave, 19th Annual
Design of adjoining sanitary and electrical

Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,

Lack of slope protection against rockfall

Lima, Peru, 2011.

[17] Ley N° 29571, Código de Protección y Defensa del Consumidor,
Diario Oficial El Peruano, Perú, 02 septiembre 2010.
[18] Ley N° 19.496, Ley de protección de los derechos de los
installations in the same wall

consumidores. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile. Chile.

Promulgada el 07 febrero 1997.
[19] Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007, Texto refundido de la Ley
General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios.
Boletı́n Oficial del Estado (BOE) No. 287. España, 2007. 30/11/
2007.
[20] J. Liker, The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the
World’s Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Total

[21] Z.K. Rybkowski, The application of Root Cause Analysis and

Target Value Design to Evidence-Based Design in the Capital
 896
Planning of Healthcare Facilities. PhD thesis. University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 2009.
[22] R. Garcı́a, Factores de riesgo que inciden negativamente en los
cumplimientos de tiempo y coste programados en la ejecución de
proyectos de edificios de uso hotelero en España. PhD thesis.
Technical University of Madrid, Spain, 2015.
[23] L. Spitler, T. Feliz, N. Wood, R. Sacks, Constructible BIM
Elements –a Root Cause Analysis of Work Plan Failures, in: O.
Seppänen, V.A. González, P. Arroyo (Eds.), 23rd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.
Perth, Australia, 29–31 Jul 2015, 2015, pp 351–360.
[24] Y. Rosenfeld, Root-cause analysis of construction-cost
overruns, J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 140 (1) (2014).
[25] M. Ammerman, The Roots Cause Analysis Handbook, Taylor
& Francis, 1998.
[26] G. Noordzy, R. Whitfield, Root causes of hotel opening delays
in Greater China, Cornell Hospitality Report 14 (10) (2014) 6–
18.
View publication stats
X. Brioso et al.
[27] E.Z. Kpamma, T. Adjei-Kumi, Construction Permits and Flow
of Projects Within the Sunyani Municipality Ghana, in: C.T.
Formoso, P. Tzortzopoulos (Eds.), 21th Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza,
Brazil, 2013.
[28] L. Koskela, Making-Do - the Eighth Category of Waste, in: S.
Bertelsen, C.T. Formoso (Eds.), 12th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, Helsingør,
Denmark, 2004.
[29] Cámara Peruana de la Construcción CAPECO, El Mercado de
Edificaciones Urbanas en Lima Metropolitana y el Callao –
XVII Estudio, CAPECO, Lima, Perú, 2012.
[30] Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la
Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual del Perú INDECOPI,
2015. Available at: <http://aplicaciones.indecopi.gob.
pe/portalSAE/> [Accessed 21 February 2015].