Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ISSN: 1745-2007 (Print) 1752-7589 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

Quality assessment of student housing facilities

through post-occupancy evaluation

Muizz O. Sanni-Anibire & Mohammad A. Hassanain

To cite this article: Muizz O. Sanni-Anibire & Mohammad A. Hassanain (2016): Quality
assessment of student housing facilities through post-occupancy evaluation, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2016.1176553

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1176553

Published online: 25 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taem20

Download by: [Florida Atlantic University] Date: 02 May 2016, At: 16:39
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1176553

Quality assessment of student housing facilities through post-

occupancy evaluation
Muizz O. Sanni-Anibire and Mohammad A. Hassanain
Architectural Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research employs the use of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) to Received 24 January 2016
assess the quality of an existing conglomerate of student housing Accepted 6 April 2016
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

facilities in a university campus in Saudi Arabia. The assessment

KEYWORDS
methods used include walkthroughs, questionnaire surveys and focus Post-occupancy evaluation;
group meetings. The key performance issues identified include the residential satisfaction;
performance and control of thermostats, quality of building support student housing quality;
services, size of rooms, furniture and proximity to the cafeteria. Quality Saudi Arabia
score calculations showed that the design quality and indoor
environmental quality were moderate, while building support services
was of low quality. This study provides recommendations to serve as
feedback, and feed forward, to improve the design and management of
student housing facilities. Thus the research has practical value to
potential stakeholders in the design, construction and management of
these facilities.

Introduction
Campus housing is a model that became a fully fledged establishment in the fourteenth century with
the provision of new college dormitories by Oxford University in the United Kingdom (Hassanain,
2008). In the United States, campus housing started with Harvard University’s initiative of accommo-
dating students and faculty in an academic village. Also, in the United States, the ‘1963 higher edu-
cation facilities act’ supported a diversity of housing types, including single and family students’
housing and faculty condominiums (Neuman, 2013).
Student housing facilities offer fully equipped amenities and facilities for comfortable living
experience, security, privacy and a serene study environment. It also fosters strong relationships
and friendships (Najib, Yusof, & Osman, 2011). The provision of student housing is meant to serve
three major objectives, including attaining intellectual competence, forming personal character
and forming a pattern of behavior, thought and imagination (Hassanain, 2008). This will help to
ensure the development of a well-rounded personality in the student. Student housing includes facili-
ties such as bedrooms, which can serve the dual purpose of study and sleeping, washrooms (bath-
rooms and toilets), kitchen, laundry, recreational areas and access to internet services, as these
further enhance the study-learning experience (Toyin Sawyerr & Yusof, 2013).
Quality of student housing facilities is a critical and integral part of the overall educational experi-
ence. It establishes a sense of belonging, essential to retain highly motivated and good-quality stu-
dents (Hassanain, Sedky, Adamu, & Saif, 2010; Neuman, 2013). Education depends on students being
supported, not frustrated, by buildings and systems (Watson, 2003). Therefore, all students have the
right to a quality learning environment (Abend et al., 2006).

CONTACT Mohammad A. Hassanain mohhas@kfupm.edu.sa

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

Construction is plagued with failed projects due to inadequate consideration for consumers’
needs and desires (Jiboye, 2012; Preiser & Ostroff, 2001). The two most widely quoted construction
industry reports in the United Kingdom highlight the need to improve areas of efficiency, quality and
customer satisfaction in the construction industry (see McGrath & Horton, 2011). The quality of con-
struction projects in Saudi Arabia is influenced by issues of under-achievement in project perform-
ance (Al-Hammadi, 2015), communication gaps during construction, insufficient construction
details (Arain, Pheng, & Assaf, 2006), and faulty design and construction (Al-Hammad et al. 1997;
Assaf, Al-Hammad, & Al-Shihah, 1996). Increasing the efficiency, quality and level of productivity of
housing is a pressing need of the construction industry in Saudi Arabia (Al-Hammadi, 2015). Thus,
a research need arises, which is aimed at assessing the quality of student housing facilities with
the use of post-occupancy evaluation (POE). The objective of this study is to demonstrate the use
of POE to assess the quality of newly constructed student housing facilities in one of the university
campuses in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

Quality of student housing facilities through POE

Higher education institutions are particularly concerned about the availability of quality student
housing facilities (Hassanain, 2008; Toyin Sawyerr & Yusof, 2013). According to Abend et al. (2006),
experts agree that:
all individuals have a right to a quality educational facility, a physical space that facilitates the learning process
and demonstrates cost-effectiveness over time; one that respects and is in harmony with the environment;
and one that encourages social participation, providing a healthy, comfortable, safe, secure and inspirational
setting for its occupants. (p. 18)

Therefore, functionality, comfort and safety are some of the expectations of building users when
building performance is discussed (Council, 2001).
The desire for quality in educational facilities can be attributed to the fact that it has a direct con-
nection with the performance of students (Akinyode, 2014; Amole, 2009; Hassanain, 2008; Hassanain
et al., 2010; Li & Lim, 2013; Najib et al., 2011; Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault, & Duval, 2004). Thus, the
strong correlation that exists between housing satisfaction, efficiency and productivity necessitates
that a performance evaluation of student housing be carried out (Amole, 2009). The cornerstones
for continuous improvement sought by the higher education sector are evaluation and feedback
(Blyth, Gilby, & Barlex, 2006). This usually takes the form of POEs. POEs are crucial in improving the
‘status quo’, establishing ‘best practices’, ‘lessons learned’ and avoiding reoccurring design mistakes
(Alborz & Berardi, 2015).
POE is a long-standing traditional practice in developed countries of the world. In the past decade,
it has gained popularity in developing countries such as Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria
(Adewunmi, Omirin, Famuyiwa, & Farinloye, 2011; Akinyode, 2014; Amole, 2009; Fatoye &
Odusami, 2009; Hassanain, 2008; Hassanain, Mathar, & Aker, 2016; Hassanain, Mohammed, & Cetin,
2012; Hassanain et al., 2010; Jamaludin, Keumala, Ariffin, & Hussein, 2014; Jiboye, 2012; Khalil &
Husin, 2009; Khalil, Husin, Adnan, & Nawawi, 2009; Najib & Abidin, 2011; Najib et al., 2011; Sanni-
Anibire, Hassanain, & Al-Hammad, 2016a). Preiser, Rabinowitz, and White (1988) define POE as ‘the
process of systematically evaluating the extent to which a facility, once occupied for a period of
time, meets the intended organizational goals and user-occupant needs’.
Some of the benefits of POE specific to student housing facilities include determining if the build-
ing supports the needs of the students, suggesting ways to reduce discomfort, contributing to more
efficient design in subsequent student facilities, and providing valuable feedback to stakeholders
including planners, designers, facilities managers and housing administrators (Hassanain, 2008).
The most important benefit of POE, however, is continuous improvement of quality and performance
of facilities. This is particularly beneficial in projects with reoccurring construction programs or where
a significant number of facilities are typical (Preiser, 1995), such as a university campus.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 3

Theoretically, quality is a comparative assessment between an expected performance and the

actual performance (Lai, 2013). A number of models exist to assess quality issues in the built-environ-
ment. Some of these models include the Housing Quality Indicator (HQI), the Construction Industry
Council Design Quality Indicators (CIC DQIs) and Design Quality Method (DQM) (Sanni-Anibire,
Hassanain, & Al-Hammad, 2016b). While there is no single best approach for evaluating quality,
POE is a viable tool for evaluating the quality of the built-environment (Abend et al., 2006). Recent
research geared toward improving the quality of constructed facilities, reducing waste and ensuring
a sustainable outcome under the umbrella of lean construction feature POE as a feedback loop
between customers and suppliers (Ballard & Howell, 2003; Forbes & Ahmed, 2010; Koskela, Howell,
Ballard, & Tommelein, 2002).

Previous studies on the POE of student housing facilities

The quality of student housing facilities is an issue that cannot be over-emphasized since it affects the
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

well-being and productivity of the students. Amenities such as lighting, ventilation and noise control
measures are amongst the most important elements investigated in student housing facilities (Lai,
2013). POE studies focusing on student housing have started to receive prominent research consider-
ation in the last 10 years. A POE study on the satisfaction of students of a Saudi Arabian university was
presented by Hassanain (2008). The study employed a user satisfaction survey based on past main-
tenance work orders of the building and published literature. Another study in Asia by Lai (2013) used
gap theory. The study presented a POE of a large hostel building of a University in Hong Kong with
the use of walkthroughs and focus group meetings.
A number of studies have been carried out in Malaysia. Najib et al. (2011) investigated the level
of resident satisfaction with living accommodations at one of the leading universities in Malaysia.
Their evaluation framework was based on previous studies and expanded to address physical and
social variables. Najib and Abidin (2011) also presented similar research which covered three research
universities. Similarly, Bashir, Sarki, and Samidi (2012) carried out a study to evaluate students’
perception on the service quality of three Malaysian universities’ hostel accommodation. Another
POE study by Jamaludin et al. (2014) concerned two residential colleges at the University of
Malaya. The objective of the study was to investigate residential satisfaction with the implementation
of bioclimatic design strategies. Recently, a study by Krishnan, Engku Abu Bakar, and Mat Kasim
(2015) proposed a new hybrid multi-attribute decision-making model for student hostel satisfaction
analysis.
There are significant contributions from Nigeria as well. Amole (2009) presented a study of resi-
dential satisfaction of student housing in Nigeria, suggesting that residential satisfaction is influenced
by the morphological configuration of the student hostel. Adewunmi et al. (2011) employed 29 per-
formance criteria assessed through a self-administered survey in a POE of a university post-graduate
hostel facility. Olatunji (2013) carried out an investigative POE of a polytechnic facility in Lagos. The
study combined the use of self-administered questionnaires and personal interviews. Deficiencies in
noise levels and conveniences were the key issues identified.
The construction industry has also witnessed increasing development of building construction
systems, techniques, and methods, and also the rising trend of sustainability and energy conserva-
tion. Student housing facilities built to incorporate these systems and technologies present
avenues for further research in POE. Alborz and Berardi (2015) developed and implemented a POE
framework for Higher Education for leadership in energy and environmental design-certified resi-
dence halls. Their study addressed a range of parameters using quantitative and qualitative data col-
lection methods. McGrath and Horton (2011) presented a POE of a student housing that employs a
new modular building construction system. The study aimed at identifying the influence of the con-
struction system used on residential satisfaction.
It is reasonable that the rising concern for improved quality of housing through lean construction
will result in research studies that are more directly related to assessing the quality of built facilities.
 4 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

Although continuous development through feed forward to construction projects is a fundamental

objective of POE, previous studies have not demonstrated the application of this objective; a point
this research addresses.

Methodology
Building description
At the time of the study, the student housing facilities had been occupied for five years, housing
about 6888 students of a university in Saudi Arabia. A typical building is three storys in height.
The building is L-shaped, and contains 26 rooms of double occupancy on each floor. There are
three washrooms on each floor and three stairwells. The dimension of each room is 4.8 m by 5.2
m. Figure 1 provides a floor plan of a typical building. Construction of more of these student
housing facilities is ongoing. Hence, a POE conducted on the already occupied student housing facili-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

ties will provide feedback for continuous improvement.

Figure 1. Typical ground floor plan of the student housing.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 5

POE approaches
There are three levels of effort to POE studies as established by the literature (Hassanain, 2008; Preiser
et al., 1988). These are classified as indicative, investigative and diagnostic approaches. The selection
of any of these approaches will depend on the level of information required and resources available.
This will also influence the data collection techniques that will be employed simultaneously (Turpin-
Brooks & Viccars, 2006). Different data collection techniques exist including walkthroughs, question-
naire surveys, focus group meetings and physical measurements. The combination of a variety of
techniques presents a ‘rich picture’ of the viewpoints of the primary stakeholders (Sanni-Anibire
et al., 2016b). Since this study employs an investigative approach, a walkthrough, questionnaire
survey and focus group meeting have been used to collect data.

Walkthrough
This is a tour around the entire facility to identify issues that can be addressed immediately or issues
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

that require further investigation. A walkthrough helps to identify building deterioration and associ-
ated problems. To obtain an overview of the conditions at the student housing facilities, a walk-
through exercise was carried out by moving from floor to floor within the building, and wing to
wing on each floor. Three buildings were assessed in the walkthrough exercise. Notes and photo-
graphs were taken to record the observations.

Data collection by questionnaire survey

The walkthrough inspection provided some insight into the drawbacks and strong points of the
facility and formed the basis for developing a questionnaire survey. The performance elements
highlighted in the survey questionnaire were presented in the form of questions. The questions
were short and simple so that it was easy for the occupants to understand what was intended.
A pilot survey was conducted with six senior students from the Department of Architecture to
ensure the clarity and inclusiveness of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed with a
Likert scale, where 5 points represent strongly satisfied (SS), 4 points represent satisfied (S), 3
points represent neutral (N), 2 points represent dissatisfied (D) and 1 point represents strongly dis-
satisfied (SD).
The newly constructed student housing facilities contain 41, three-story housing units. Each
housing unit accommodates 168 students, and thus a total student population of 6888. Sloven’s
formula (Kanire, 2013) was used to determine the minimum number of respondents (n) to render
the study statistically valid, as follows:
N
n= .
1 + Ne2
The effective population size (N) for this study was 6888. The sample error (e) was considered to be
0.1 in this study. This means that there is 90% confidence that the sample size will accurately rep-
resent the population. This will result in a sample size (n) of 99 respondents. A total of 120 question-
naires were administered to the students at various gathering points, such as the student mall, main
library and snack bars at various academic buildings. This distribution strategy ensured that
responses were obtained from students residing in various buildings. One hundred and ten
responses were received, while 100 valid responses were adopted in the study. These valid responses
ensured that respondents had spent more than a year in the student housing facility.

Focus group meetings

Focus group meetings were used to draw out more qualitative information from students. These
meetings are usually conducted when key problem areas have been identified through walkthroughs
and questionnaire surveys. For easy facilitation of a focus group meeting, and effective derivation of
feedback to all participants, the group size should be in the range of six to eight people (Blyth et al.,
 6 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

2006). In this study, a focus group meeting was convened in the form of a brainstorming session; this
involved six senior students from the Department of Architecture. The selection was based on the fact
that these students are able to better appreciate, and reflect upon, building performance and quality
issues. The focus group discussed key issues of performance and provided more qualitative feedback.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the participants were asked to verify the summary.

Data analysis
Satisfaction Index
Calculations of the Satisfaction Index (SI) and the ratings were computed using excel spreadsheets.
The calculated values of the SI, the total number of respondents according to the level of satisfaction,
the ratings and weights are presented in Tables 1–3. SI values were calculated using the following
formula (Dominowski, 1980):

5
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

i=1 (ai )(xi )

Satisfaction Index (SI) =
× 100%,
5 5i=1 (xi )
where ai is the constant representing the weight assigned to any indicator (i), and xi is the variable
representing the frequency assigned to any indicator (i). The response for (i) is 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A scale
was used to determine the level of satisfaction of the investigated performance indicators. The scale
was adopted from Mohit, Ibrahim, and Rashid (2010) as follows:

. An SI within (20–39)% implies that the occupants are strongly dissatisfied.

. An SI within (40–59)% implies that the occupants are dissatisfied.
. An SI within (60–79)% implies that the occupants are satisfied.
. An SI within (80–100)% implies that the occupants are strongly satisfied.

Quality score
Forbes and Ahmed (2010) provide an equation for the determination of a ‘quality score’ for each sur-
veyed facility or project. The questionnaire responses were combined to obtain the mean rankings (R)

Table 1. Satisfaction levels, indices, rates, ranking and weight for DQ.
Rate of
DQ Level of satisfaction SI satisfaction Ranking Weight
SD D N S SS % R W
Building layout
Adequacy of circulation routes within the building 2 5 41 35 17 72 Satisfied 3.6 4
Size of rooms 13 27 34 22 4 55.4 Dissatisfied 2.77 5
Ceiling height of the rooms 0 5 28 41 26 77.6 Satisfied 3.88 3
Interior and exterior appearance
Quality and size of furniture in the room 10 32 31 20 7 56.4 Dissatisfied 2.82 4
Quality and presentation of landscaping and pavements around 2 14 35 32 17 69.6 Satisfied 3.48 4
the building
Overall quality and presentation of the building’s interior and 4 14 41 31 10 65.8 Satisfied 3.29 5
exterior finishes
Access to facilities on campus
Nearness to sports facilities 9 21 28 28 14 63.4
Satisfied 3.17 5
Nearness to the student cafeteria 13 29 22 27 9 58
Dissatisfied 2.9 5
Nearness to campus shuttle bus stops 3 12 26 38 21 72.4
Satisfied 3.62 4
Nearness to car parking facilities 10 21 21 24 24 66.2
Satisfied 3.31 4
Nearness to places of worship 2 5 16 30 47 83
Strongly 4.15 4
Satisfied
Overall satisfaction with nearness to facilities on campus 5 19 25 41 10 66.4 Satisfied 3.32 5
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 7

Table 2. Satisfaction levels, indices, rates, ranking and weight for indoor environmental quality.
Rate of
IEQ Level of satisfaction (%) SI (%) satisfaction Ranking Weight
SD D N S SS SI R W
Thermal comfort
Performance and control of thermostats 7 23 31 25 14 63.2 Satisfied 3.16 5
Overall satisfaction with thermal comfort 2 20 41 27 10 64.6 Satisfied 3.23 5
Indoor air quality
Quality of air in rooms (smelliness, dryness, etc.) 2 20 33 32 13 66.8 Satisfied 3.34 5
Quality of air in washrooms (toilets and bathrooms) 42 32 18 4 4 39.2 Dissatisfied 1.96 5
Quality of air in the lobby 5 16 46 28 5 62.4 Satisfied 3.12 4
Overall satisfaction with indoor air quality 2 32 35 23 8 60.6 Satisfied 3.03 5
Acoustic comfort
Noise from people between rooms 8 18 38 30 6 61.6 Satisfied 3.08 3
Noise from the air/HVAC system 5 21 35 25 14 64.4 Satisfied 3.22 5
Noise from lighting fixtures (bulbs, lamps etc.) 3 15 44 16 22 67.8 Satisfied 3.39 3
Noise from outside the building 7 18 36 22 17 64.8 Satisfied 3.24 4
Overall satisfaction with noise 4 16 41 29 10 65 Satisfied 3.25 4
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

Visual comfort
Adequacy of lighting levels in rooms (brightness, 8 22 20 34 16 65.6 Satisfied 3.28 4
quality etc.)
Adequacy of lighting levels in the lobbies 4 13 32 32 19 69.8 Satisfied 3.49 4
Overall satisfaction with the quality and adequacy of 5 17 27 32 19 68.6 Satisfied 3.43 4
lighting in the building

for each question. The rankings were calculated using the following formula (Mohit et al., 2010):

N
i = 1 ai xi
Ri = ,
N
where Ri is the rating for the indicator (i), xi is the level of satisfaction given for the indicator (i), ai is the
number of respondents that select xi for an indicator (i) and N is the total number of respondents.
A weight (W ) was assigned to reflect the importance of a particular indicator with respect to the
element under investigation. Performance indicators were weighted according to three categories:
design quality (DQ) which was evaluated by three architects; indoor environmental quality (IEQ)
which was evaluated by three architectural engineers and quality of building support services
(QBSS) which was evaluated by three facilities and maintenance managers. These nine professionals
were selected due to their experience profile, which exceeded five years of experience in the design
and construction of buildings. The quality score was computed using the equation below (Forbes &
Ahmed, 2010), where R represents the ranking of each performance indicator, and Wjk represents the
weight of performance indicator j with respect to element k.

n
j=1 R j ∗W jk
Quality score (QSk ) =
n .
j=1 W jk

Table 3. Satisfaction levels, indices, rates, ranking and weight for QBSS.
Rate of
QBSS Level of satisfaction SI satisfaction Ranking Weight
SD D N S SS % R W
Quality and adequacy of washroom facilities 40 31 16 12 1 40.6 Dissatisfied 2.03 5
Quality of doors and windows in the building 8 20 26 37 9 63.8 Satisfied 3.19 4
Quality of security system of rooms and private spaces (keys to 12 25 32 23 8 58 Dissatisfied 2.9 4
doors, drawers, cupboards, etc.)
Availability and quality of support services for disabled persons 14 21 43 14 8 56.2 Dissatisfied 2.81 4
Availability and quality of drinking water 57 26 12 4 1 33.2 Strongly 1.66 5
Dissatisfied
The number and position of electrical sockets 22 20 29 25 4 53.8 Dissatisfied 2.69 3
Overall satisfaction with building support services 0 14 34 45 7 51 Dissatisfied 2.55 4
 8 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

Similar to the Satisfaction Indices, the quality scores can be judged as ‘very low’ if it falls within (20–
39)%, of low quality if it falls within (40–59)%, of moderate quality if it falls within (60–79)% and of
high quality if it falls within (80–100)%.

POE performance indicators

Design quality
This includes the quality of all architectural attributes of the building such as the design and configur-
ation of space, building location relative to other facilities in the campus, landscaping and general
esthetic appearance (Preiser et al., 1988).

Building layout
The layout of space, furniture and storage and the convenient circulation and accessibility to various
usable spaces within a building are of utmost importance to residential satisfaction. Spatial attributes,
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

the sequence, location, relationships, shape, size and detail of spaces have been shown to affect
occupant behavior (Preiser et al., 1988). The interior layout of the building should be efficient in
terms of the arrangement of rooms in each level in the building, the width of the corridors for circu-
lation, and the location and number of stairs (Hassanain, 2008).

Interior and exterior appearance

Appearance is one of the most important aspects of building performance. It pertains to the esthetic
perception of the building by the occupants (Preiser et al., 1988). Common problems that impact
exterior walls are color fading, moisture and wind infiltration, spalling, buckling, delamination, crack-
ing, cleanability and erosion. The quality of construction and selection of building materials should be
compatible with, and complement, the existing physical environment (Hassanain, 2008).

Access to facilities on campus

This refers to the building’s closeness to the facilities on the campus, usually within a walkable dis-
tance to teaching, recreational, food-consuming and car parking facilities. These facilities include
sport facilities, parking lot, campus shuttle stations, worship centers, grocery stores, food courts,
medical center, libraries and also the academic buildings (Hassanain, 2008). The location of a building
and its proximity to places of interest are major factors in the satisfaction of its occupants (Fatoye &
Odusami, 2009; Hassanain, 2008).

Indoor environmental quality

IEQ of a building is a primary concern today as it influences the health, well-being and productivity
level of its occupants (Fisk, 2001). IEQ consists of thermal comfort, indoor air quality (IAQ), acoustic
comfort and visual comfort.

Thermal comfort
ASHRAE 55 (2004) defines thermal comfort as ‘the state of mind that expresses satisfaction with the
surrounding thermal environment’. The major influencers of thermal comfort in an indoor space are
the HVAC system and natural ventilation system through windows and other openings. Thus, comfort
will be determined by the ability to control both systems (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2016b).

Indoor air quality

IAQ is the quality of air within a facility or the built-environment. Anderson, Cheung, and Lei (2014)
define IAQ as ‘the comfortable range of the temperature, humidity, ventilation and chemical or bio-
logical contaminants of the air inside a building’. The major concern is indoor air pollution, which can
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 9

be the cause of asthma, allergies and irritation. Two of the most dreaded implications of poor IAQ are
sick building syndrome (SBS) and building-related illnesses (BRI) (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2016b).

Acoustic comfort
‘Acoustic criteria cover the ambient level of sound, the transmission of sound between areas and
rooms, reverberation, and specific areas such as machine noise and auditorium acoustics’ (Preiser
et al., 1988, p. 42). Indoor and outdoor factors influence acoustical comfort. While indoor factors
can be controlled, outdoor factors are the primary causes of discomfort, and its control depends
on the filtering level of the building envelope (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2016b).

Visual comfort
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA, 2000) defines visual comfort as ‘an
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

essential human need that can affect task performance, health and safety, and mood and atmos-
phere’. The design of housing facilities creates balance between artificial and daylighting, whereby
sufficient natural light is allowed through transparent parts of the building envelope (Hassanain,
2008).

Quality of building support services

Housing services and infrastructure is an integral part of the housing environment and a major influ-
ence on residential satisfaction as well as quality of life of residents. They include water supply, wash-
rooms (bathrooms, showers and water closets), laundry, information technology (IT) and electrical
services (Hassanain, 2008; Ibem, 2011). These facilities should be properly designed, installed,
easily maintained and managed. Services such as electricity supply and hot water must be adequate
for the level of use. The availability and adequacy of these facilities coupled with issues of cleanliness
of washroom facilities are of utmost concern (Hassanain, 2008).

Findings
Design quality
The issues investigated in this category include the building’s layout, interior and exterior appearance
and access to facilities on campus, as presented in Table 1. Twelve indicators that influence the
overall DQ were investigated. Respondents were satisfied with all indicators except the size of the
rooms, quality and size of furniture in the room and nearness of the building to the student cafeterias.
These performance indicators have satisfaction indices of 55.4%, 56.4% and 58%, respectively, and
thus were rated as ‘dissatisfied’. Nearness to places of worship was rated as ‘strongly satisfied’.
The initial walkthrough confirmed that there is a place of worship close to all the buildings. It was
also observed that the student cafeteria is quite a long way from the newly constructed student
housing facilities. This can be attributed to the fact that the cafeteria was built in the 1980s, while
the newly constructed student housing facilities were built in the last five years. Respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with the nearness of the student cafeteria to their accommodation,
although this issue is not general to all students. The results were also confirmed through focus
group meetings carried out after the survey.
Participants of the focus group meetings assert that the quality of furniture used is satisfactory, but
it was perceived to be too large and thus took up most of the space in the room. They also high-
lighted that the study chairs caused back pain to users. The overall DQ is calculated to be 66.47%,
which is of moderate quality and corroborates the discussions of the focus group meetings.
 10 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

Indoor environmental quality

This category pertains to 14 indicators grouped in various IEQ elements such as thermal comfort,
indoor air quality, acoustic comfort and visual comfort. These are presented in Table 2. A walkthrough
of some of the buildings confirmed the need to improve the maintenance of some of the washroom
facilities. Students were generally satisfied with all performance indicators related to indoor environ-
mental quality, except the quality of air in the washrooms with an SI of 39.2%.
Despite the level of satisfaction recorded for the performance and control of thermostats, focus
group meetings revealed that some of the occupants were not able to set the thermostat to the pre-
ferred temperature range. This could explain why a significant number of students expressed dissa-
tisfaction with this performance indicator in the survey. Regarding the quality of lighting, it was
suggested that more than one light switch should be available to control the two lamps in the
rooms. This could improve the satisfaction level of the students. The overall quality score for IEQ
was calculated to be 67.27%, which is of moderate quality.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

Quality of building support services

Seven indicators were used to assess the students’ satisfaction with building support services as pre-
sented in Table 3. Respondents were dissatisfied with all the performance indicators, except the
quality of doors and windows in the building which was judged to be satisfactory. However, the
focus group meeting confirmed that despite the general satisfaction of the students, doors’ expan-
sion and contraction in summer and winter, respectively, may be the reason for dissatisfaction
expressed by some. It is worthy to note that most of the students have considered it as a minor
issue, and thus have either expressed satisfaction or remained neutral.
Respondents were dissatisfied with a number of performance indicators, including the quality and
adequacy of washroom facilities, quality of the security system of rooms and private spaces (keys to
doors, drawers and cupboards), availability and quality of support services for disabled persons, the
number and position of electrical sockets. These performance indicators have SIs of 40.6%, 58%,
56.2%, 53.8% and 51%, respectively. It is noted from the focus group meeting that the quality of facili-
ties provided in the washrooms is above average; thus it can be concluded that the reason for a low
satisfaction rating by the students is inadequate maintenance of the facilities provided.
As for the provisions made for disabled persons, one of the washrooms had been designed in line
with the standards for disabled persons. Ramps were provided at major exits. However, the students
considered this to be inadequate. The number of electrical sockets was confirmed to be adequate by
the students in the focus group meeting, but they expressed dissatisfaction with the type of sockets
used, since most appliances are designed with the three-pin plugs.
Students have expressed strong dissatisfaction with the availability and quality of drinking water.
This had an SI of 33.2%. The overall satisfaction with building support services is also rated as dissa-
tisfied, with an SI of 51%. The result of the quality score for building support services is 49.88%; thus it
is considered as being of low quality.

Summary of findings from the focus group meeting

The issues identified from the focus group meeting include the performance of the thermostat and
the HVAC system, air quality in washrooms, quality of water, quality of furniture, size of room and
availability of car parking. The results of the discussions about these issues are summarized as follows:

. Performance of the thermostat and the HVAC system: it was discovered that noise and control of
the thermostat are the main issues with the HVAC system. The thermostat cannot be set by the
occupants to the desired temperature preferred. Also, there is a lot of noise from the HVAC system.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 11

. Quality of water: the dispensers provided do not function regularly, and most of the times the
water is unfit for drinking.
. Quality of furniture: doors expand and contract in summer and winter, respectively, making it dif-
ficult to close or open them during these periods. The type of chairs used in the rooms is also
identified as unsatisfactory and causes back pain. The carpets are also perceived to be of low
quality.
. Size of room: students insist that the size of the room is small with inadequate circulation space.
They prefer to remove furniture to create more space for circulation within the room. They gen-
erally agree that a single occupant per room is much better.

Discussion
A number of previous studies have been carried out in the last ten years on the POE of student resi-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

dential housing facilities. It has been established that an individual’s immediate environment has a
direct influence on his or her health, well-being and productivity. The quality of student housing
facilities is of paramount significance to ensure that students reach their optimum academic poten-
tial. It is also established through literature that POE has been included in quality frameworks for
leaner production of buildings.
In this study the quality of student housing facilities is divided into three categories, including DQ,
IEQ and quality of building support services. These categories contained a total of 33 indicators used
to assess residential satisfaction on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The facilities studied are a conglomerate of
student housing facilities of a university in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The buildings are
typical, and thus have the same kind of facilities provided and maintenance services.
Feedback on the performance of the building has been derived from the immediate users of the
facility, which in the context of this study are the students. Therefore, feedback on the performance of
the building was not solicited from the facilities management team and university administration to
avoid conflict of interest, in terms of defending the quality and the management of the provided
facilities to the students.
Results of the survey, walkthrough investigation and focus group meeting have been combined
and corroborated for more qualitative results. The findings show that the major issues include the
performance and control of thermostats, quality of building support services, size of rooms, furniture
and nearness to the cafeteria. Quality scores were calculated for DQ, IEQ and quality of building
support services. This resulted in scores of 69.91%, 67.27% and 49.88%, respectively. These quality
scores can be qualified as being of moderate quality for DQ and IEQ and low quality for building
support services. The quality score converts the feedback of the occupants into scores that can be
understood in the context of quality and not just satisfaction.
There are a number of recommendations that can be proposed for the quality improvement in
student housing facilities through design and management. These recommendations were formu-
lated based on the corroborated findings of the study:

. Ensure immediate replacement of light bulbs in corridors and lobbies whenever necessary.
. Improve the quality of general housekeeping in the facility.
. Subsequent renovations should ensure adequate ventilation in washroom facilities.
. Provide high-quality doors to ease their closing in summer and opening in winter. They should
also prevent dust and sand infiltration.
. The HVAC should be well maintained to reduce noise.
. Thermostats should be selected for ease of controllability during the design and procurement
stages.
. Water dispensers should be maintained regularly, and the quality of water should be regularly
tested.
 12 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

. Carpets and furniture should be selected based on a general survey of students’ preferences,
heights and sizes to ensure comfort and satisfaction.
. The sizes of rooms should be reviewed in subsequent designs to be more spacious based on stu-
dents’ preferences.

Conclusion
This study sought to present the assessment of the quality of student housing facilities through POE.
It is based on the fact that performance assessments and lessons learned are the back bone of leaner
and sustainable production of housing facilities. Furthermore, it is established that student housing
facilities have a direct link to the efficiency, productivity, health and well-being of students who use
them. This study acknowledges the fact that continuous quality improvement is a fundamental objec-
tive of POE. It is however noted that most studies carried out so far have not fully emphasized this
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

core objective. In this research, a case study approach has been used to fulfill this objective; this pre-
sents limitations in the level of generalization that can be made. This study demonstrates the use of
POE as an effective tool in assessing the quality of housing facilities. Another unique feature of this
study is its employment of multiple techniques including walkthroughs, questionnaire surveys and
focus group meetings. The authors are of the opinion that to capture the ‘real picture’ of a building’s
performance, it is necessary to use multiple techniques for data collection. This will allow the deri-
vation of more qualitative feedback. Thus, in this study, it was noticed that despite the general sat-
isfaction of occupants with some of the building performance indicators, the walkthrough
observations and focus group meetings highlighted the reasons why other occupants may have
expressed dissatisfaction. The list of recommendations serves as feedback and feed forward to
improve the design and management of student housing facilities. It is hoped that this study will
be of significant value to potential stakeholders in the design, construction and management of
these facilities.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for the support and facilities that made this research
possible.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abend, A., Ornstein, S.W., Baltas, E., de la Garza, J., Watson, C., Lange, K., & von Ahlefeld, H. (2006). Evaluating quality in
educational facilities. Paris: PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building, 2006/1, OECD Publishing.
Adewunmi, Y., Omirin, M., Famuyiwa, F., & Farinloye, O. (2011). Post-occupancy evaluation of postgraduate hostel facili-
ties. Facilities, 29(3/4), 149–168.
Akinyode, B. F. (2014). Students’ satisfaction and perception on rented apartments in Nigeria: Experiment of Lautech stu-
dents. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 4(7), 58–70.
Al-Hammad, A., Assaf, S., & Al-Shihah, M. (1997). The effect of faulty design on building maintenance. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, 3(1), 29–39.
Al-Hammadi, S. (2015). An investigation into current tendering process in Saudi construction projects. Proceedings of the 5th
international/11th construction specialty conference, Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved December 12, 2015,
from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/53503
Alborz, N., & Berardi, U. (2015). A post occupancy evaluation framework for LEED certified US higher education residence
halls. Procedia Engineering, 118, 19–27.
Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students’ housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76–85.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 13

Anderson, A., Cheung, A., & Lei, M. (2014). Evaluation of Hong Kong’s indoor air quality management programme:
Certification scheme, objectives, and technology (Bachelor of Science Project Report). Worcester, MA: Polytechnic
Institute.
Arain, F. M., Pheng, L. S., & Assaf, S. A. (2006). Contractors’ views of the potential causes of inconsistencies between design
and construction in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(1): 74–83.
ASHRAE 55 (2004). Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Assaf, S., Al-Hammad, A. M., & Al-Shihah, M., (1996). Effects of faulty design and construction on building maintenance.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 10(4), 171–174.
Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (2003). Lean project management. Building Research and Information, 31(2), 119–133.
Bashir, S., Sarki, I. H., & Samidi, J. (2012). Students’ perception on the service quality of Malaysian universities’ hostel
accommodation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15), 213–222.
Blyth, A., Gilby, A., & Barlex, M. (2006). Guide to post occupancy evaluation. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.smg.ac.uk/documents/POEBrochureFinal06.pdf
Council, F. F. (2001). Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation (Vol. 145).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Dominowski, R. L. (1980). Research methods. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

Fatoye, E. O., & Odusami, K. T. (2009). Occupants’ satisfaction approach to housing performance evaluation: The case of
Nigeria (Vol. 10). Paper presented at the RICS COBRA research conference held at the University of Cape Town,
South Africa.
Fisk, D. (2001). Sustainable development and post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research and Information, 29(6),
466–468.
Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Modern construction: Lean project delivery and integrated practices. New York: CRC
Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Hassanain, M. A. (2008). On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities. Journal of Facilities
Management, 6(3), 212–225.
Hassanain, M. A., Mathar, H., & Aker, A. (2016). Post-occupancy evaluation of a university student cafeteria. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 12(2), 67–77.
Hassanain, M. A., Mohammed, M. A., & Cetin, M. (2012). A multi-phase systematic framework for performance appraisal of
architectural design studio facilities. Facilities, 30(7/8), 324–342.
Hassanain, M. A., Sedky, A., Adamu, Z. A., & Saif, A. W. (2010). A framework for quality evaluation of university housing
facilities. Journal of Building Appraisal, 5(3), 213–221.
Ibem, E. O. (2011). Evaluation of public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation). Covenant University, Ogun
State, Nigeria.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. (2000). IESNA lighting handbook (9th ed.). New York: Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America.
Jamaludin, A. A., Keumala, N., Ariffin, A. R. M., & Hussein, H. (2014). Satisfaction and perception of residents towards bio-
climatic design strategies: Residential college buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 23(7), 933–945.
Jiboye, A. (2012). Post-occupancy evaluation of residential satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria: Feedback for residential
improvement. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1(3), 236–243.
Kanire, G. (2013). Social science research methodology: Concepts, methods and computer applications. Germany: GRIN
Verlag.
Khalil, N., Husin, H. N., Adnan, H., & Nawawi, A. H. (2009). Correlation analysis of building performance and occupant’s sat-
isfaction via post occupancy evaluation for Malaysia’s public buildings (pp. 1035–1042). Proceeding of the fifth inter-
national conference on construction in the 21st century (CITC-V), Istanbul, Turkey.
Khalil, N., & Husin, H. N. (2009). Post occupancy evaluation towards indoor environment improvement in Malaysia’s office
buildings. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(1), 186.
Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean construction. In R. Best, & G. de Valence
(Eds.), Design and construction: Building in value (pp. 211–226). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Krishnan, A. R., Engku Abu Bakar, E. M. N., & Mat Kasim, M. (2015). A hybrid multiattribute decision making model for
evaluating students’ satisfaction towards hostels. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2015, 1–14, Article ID 801308.
Lai, J. H. (2013). Gap theory based analysis of user expectation and satisfaction: The case of a hostel building. Building and
Environment, 69, 183–193.
Li, B., & Lim, D. (2013). Occupant behavior and building performance. In R. Yao (Ed.), Design and management of sustain-
able built environments (pp. 279–304). London: Springer.
McGrath, P. T., & Horton, M. (2011). A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) study of student accommodation in an MMC/
modular building. Structural Survey, 29(3), 244–252.
Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost
housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 34(1), 18–27.
Najib, N. U. M., & Abidin, N. Z. (2011). Student residential satisfaction in research universities. Journal of Facilities
Management, 9(3), 200–212.
 14 M. O. SANNI-ANIBIRE AND M. A. HASSANAIN

Najib, N. U. M., Yusof, N. A., & Osman, Z. (2011). Measuring satisfaction with student housing facilities. American Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(1), 52–60.
Newsham, G., Veitch, J., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C. (2004, July 25–28). Effect of dimming control on office worker satisfaction
and performance (pp. 19–41). Paper presented at the proceedings of the IESNA annual conference, Tampa, FL.
Neuman, D. J. (2013). Building type basics for college and university facilities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons Inc.
Olatunji, A. A. (2013). Post-occupancy evaluation of Lagos state polytechnic facilities: A user-based system. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(2), 229–236.
Preiser, W. F. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13(11), 19–28.
Preiser, W. F., & Ostroff, E. (2001). Universal design handbook. Berkshire: McGraw Hill Professional.
Preiser, W. F., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Hassanain, M. A., & Al-Hammad, A. M. (2016a). Holistic postoccupancy evaluation framework for
campus residential housing facilities. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000875
Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Hassanain, M. A. & Al-Hammad, M. A. (2016b). Post-occupancy evaluation of housing facilities: An
overview and summary of methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000868
Toyin Sawyerr, P., & Yusof, N. A. (2013). Student satisfaction with hostel facilities in Nigerian polytechnics. Journal of
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 16:39 02 May 2016

Facilities Management, 11(4), 306–322.

Turpin-Brooks, S., & Viccars, G. (2006). The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/
6), 177–196.
Watson, C. (2003). Review of building quality using post occupancy evaluation. In PEB exchange, programme on edu-
cational building (Vol. 2003/3). Paris: OECD.