Journal of Corporate Real Estate Volume 5 Number 1
Continuous quality improvement through
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Vol. 5 No. 1, 2002, pp. 42–56.
䉷Henry Stewart Publications,
1463–001X
Page 42
post-occupancy evaluation feedback
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser
Received (in revised form): 17th September, 2002
PhD, Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Interior Design, University
of Cincinnati, PO Box 210016, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0016, USA;
Tel: ⫹1 513 556 6743; Fax: ⫹1 513 861 3889; e-mail: wolfgang.preiser@uc.edu
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser is a Professor of
Architecture at the School of Architecture and
Interior Design, University of Cincinnati. He
specialises in the evaluation and programming
of environments, health-care facilities, public
housing, design for special populations, and
design research in general. He has lectured at
more than 65 universities worldwide. As an
international building consultant, Wolfgang was
co-founder of Architectural Research Consult-
ants, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. He has
edited and written numerous articles and books,
including: Post-Occupancy Evaluation; Design
Intervention: Toward a More Humane Arch-
itecture; Pueblo Style and Regional Arch-
itecture; Programming the Built Environment;
Building Evaluation; Professional Practice in
Facility Programming; Design Review: Challeng-
ing Urban Aesthetic Control; New Directions in
Urban Public Housing; Directions in Person-
Environment Research and Practice; and, most
recently, Universal Design Handbook.
ABSTRACT
Over the past 30 years, both the governmental
and private sectors have made use of a feedback
mechanism, which helps improve the quality
of environments: post-occupancy evaluation
(POE) or similar systematic processes, which
gauge the satisfaction with, and importance of,
the designed and built environment. How does
this process work, what kind of input does it
require? What value, if any, does it add to the
core business of an organisation? When should
it be carried out, and how should the resulting
data be used in enhancing the quality of
existing and future buildings? Who should
commission POEs and who should be in
charge of developing databases, which can be
used for benchmarking and the development of
building performance criteria for future projects?
What is the cost of these POEs in relationship
to the benefits to be derived? All of these
questions will be addressed in this paper.
Keywords: post-occupancy evaluation,
building performance, office environ-
ments, productivity
INTRODUCTION
A state-of-the-practice summary on
post-occupancy evaluation project was
recently carried out by the Federal
Facilities Council1 at the National
Academy of Sciences. As part of this
project, a definition of POE was offered:
‘Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a
process of systematically evaluating the
performance of buildings after they have
been built and occupied for some time.
POE differs from other evaluations of
building performance in that it focuses
on the requirements of building
occupants, including health, safety,

security functionality and efficiency,
psychological comfort, aesthetic quality,
and satisfaction.’ Resulting in a one-day
symposium and a report, this effort
demonstrated increased POE activity in
federal agencies, compared with 15 years
ago, when the same body sponsored a
committee and publication on ‘Post-
Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the
Building Process: Opportunities for
Improvement’.2
Further evidence that POE is becom-
ing part of the mainstream ‘kit of tools’
architects and designers can avail them-
selves of, is that the National Council
of Architectural Registration Boards in
the USA has commissioned a monograph
on ‘Improving Building Performance’.3
This will allow architects to study and
get tested on the subject of POE as
part of their recertification credits. The
latter publication contains several case
studies by major architectural firms in the
USA, which routinely conduct POEs as
part of their in-house efforts to build
knowledge bases and to learn from the
lessons of past successes and failures in
building designs. Thus, it can be ex-
pected that in the not-too-distant future,
POE will, in fact, become part of the
national licensing exam for architects in
the USA.
POE is important, because it adds
local/contextual data to state-of-the-art
knowledge of a given building type. If
this were not so, standardised, one-size-
fits-all buildings could be produced for
use all over the world. This approach,
once prevalent in the military serv-
ices, ended up being very unsatisfac-
tory due to climatalogical, cultural and
other variations, and therefore, it has
been essentially abandoned. This does
not mean that standard design guides and
criteria are not important for organisa-
tions with global reach, but they require
a local ‘interpreter’ who can adapt or-
Preiser
ganisational standards and criteria to local
contexts. To quote the Federal Facilities
Council:
‘As POEs have become broader in
scope and purpose, POE has come to
mean any activity that originates out of
an interest in learning how a building
performs once it is built (if and how
well it has met expectations) and how
satisfied building users are with the
environment that has been created.
POE has been seen as one of a number
of practices aimed at understanding
design criteria, predicting the effective-
ness of emerging designs, reviewing
completed designs, supporting building
activation and facilities management,
and linking user response to the per-
formance of buildings. POE is also
evolving toward more process-oriented
evaluations for planning, programming,
and capital asset management.’4
From a real estate perspective, what works
in one context may not work at all in
another. For example, shopping centres
and malls in the USA are automobile-
oriented and spread out, and they typi-
cally comprise no more than two levels.
Due to the lack and cost of land in Japan,
this solution may not be workable in that
country. Instead, the author observed that
using the air rights of the Nagoya railroad
station, JR Towers was designed jointly
by Sakakura Associates of Japan and by
the New York firm of Kohn-Pedersen-
Fox (KPF). It features a skymall about 15
floors above the station level. This con-
cept, which would never work in the
USA, is very successful in Japan. It is also
interesting to note that from a universal
design perspective (accessibility for most
building users), office floors did not have
accessible toilet rooms, and persons with
disabilities have to travel long distances
up and down elevators to public toilet
Page 43
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
Figure 1 Building
directory for both
the sighted and
visually impaired
room areas — something that would not
be permissible in the USA, given cur-
rent ADA standards and guidelines. In
other words, while there may be more
stringent accessibility requirements in the
USA when compared with Japan, the
designers from the USA lowered their
expectations and designed to the mini-
mum requirements that one could get
away with in Japan. Universal design
evaluation (UDE), an extension of POE
with a focus on non-discriminatory acces-
sibility of the designed environment, can
be used to derive recommendations on
how to make such environments more
accessible.5 On a positive note, from that
Page 44
inclusionary perspective, JR Towers fea-
tures unique building directories for both
the sighted and visually impaired (Figure
1).
A further important consideration in
the use of POE, is the changing nature
of the workplace environment, which
is based on technological innovation,
changing space allocation, different modes
of working in and out of the office, as
well as changing organisational structures;
eg from hierarchical to matrix manage-
ment, ‘flattening’ the organisation, etc.
Using yet another interesting example of
office environment organisation from
Japan, innovative ways of working were

observed at Kokuyo, the equivalent of
Herman Miller or Steel Case in the USA.
In the above-mentioned tower by KPF,
this firm had a model floor equipped with
the typical reception area, lounge, con-
ferencing and exhibit facilities, all of them
networked with LAN, thus reducing
wired infrastructure to a minimum. Fixed
telephone lines were also reduced to a
minimum, and most office workers were
using several cell phones. They had
steel lockers assigned to them, where a
minimum of paper files were kept,
recharging facilities for cell phones and
communicators were installed, and their
laptops could be plugged in for recharg-
ing.
What was interesting with this or-
ganisation was the impact that categorisa-
tion of workers had on the assignment of
space and the actual work environment in
the office. They comprised four types of
workers:
Preiser
Figure 2 Walker
workstations
1 Sitters: These were people who had
relatively traditional office desks with
paper file storage, PC, and telephones.
They were ‘fixtures’ in the office with
non-changing locations, and distributed
strategically throughout.
2 Walkers: These were office workers
who did not have any firmly as-
signed space/work stations. Instead,
they would take their tool kit and
laptops out of their lockers, and sit
down and plug in wherever space was
available in the open office area. These
spaces were not scheduled in any way,
and as soon as work was completed, the
worker would vacate the workspace
(Figure 2).
3 Runners: People in this category did not
have any home base at all in this office
environment, but were people who
were travelling from office to office in
different cities, and they were not given
any support facilities at all, other than
Page 45
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
Figure 3 Space
saving team room
at Kokuyo
the use of copiers and the service area
plug-ins for their computers.
4 Teams: These were low-partition work
areas for four persons, with one in each
of the four corners, facing away from
each other. When a team meeting was
to be held, they would turn around on
their swivel chairs and face a round
table in the centre of the joint work
area (Figure 3).
Obviously, the bottom line of this type of
office environment is to save as much
space as possible and to get optimal space
utilisation and productivity from the
workers. A POE of this type of office
environment was recently carried out in
Japan on JR Towers.6
What the above discussion has at-
tempted to demonstrate is that it is not
advisable or useful to compare apples with
oranges. Just because a space or building
Page 46
is labelled ‘office’, does not mean that the
operations within are in any way com-
parable with other existing offices using a
benchmarking process, or to past offices
utilising different styles of accommodating
office workers.7,8
For the future, the International Building
Performance Evaluation (IBPE) consor-
tium, founded by the author (see later), is
considering the development of a POE-
based algorithm for the cost of space and its
utilisation, when the above argument will
be critical. A case in point is the post-
occupancy evaluation and reprogramming
(Figures 4 and 5) of the Primary Pediatric
Care (PPC) centre at Children’s Hospital in
Cincinnati.9 Through POE-based inter-
vention, the distances doctors and nursing
staff had to cover during routine operation
of the centre were almost cut in half,
meaning that the time and effort (and
implicitly, money) saved was significant, to
 Preiser

Figure 4 Process
analysis of patient
and paper flow

Page 47
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
Figure 5
POE-based,
efficient core area
redesign
the point where productivity and, there-
fore, projected cost savings, were enhanced
in measurable ways. If this example can be
replicated in other types of workplaces, it
could form the basis for measuring perfor-
mance, productivity and value added to the
core business.
As the Federal Facilities Council noted
in this regard:
‘For organizations seeking to link
facility design and business goals, a
POE approach could be used that
combines assessment of the physical
Page 48
condition of the building and its
systems with assessment of user comfort
on such topics as indoor air quality
and ventilation rates, lighting levels
and contrast conditions, building (not
occupant) noise levels, and indoor
temperature thermal comfort. Results
from subjective or instrument measures
could be plotted on floor plans using
geographical information systems. The
data could then be analyzed in-
dividually or as overlays showing the
spatial distribution of a range of
factors.’10

POST-OCCUPANCY/BUILDING
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
PROCESS MODELS
The conceptual basis for building perfor-
mance and evaluation has been widely
published11–13 and will not be repeated
here. The POE process model has been
adopted and used worldwide and the
1988 book has been translated into
Korean, Japanese and Arabic.
Figure 6 shows the POE process
model,14 which was transformed from the
1988 static model, with three phases and
nine steps, into a dynamic and evolving
model (circular, like a spiral), in which the
outcomes of one evaluation feed into the
next building delivery cycle.
This discussion emphasises the impor-
tance of explicitly stated performance
criteria on one hand, and objective and
quantifiable performance measures on the
Preiser
Figure 6
Post-occupancy
evaluation process
model
other. As the Federal Facilities Council
noted:
‘The use of performance-based ap-
proaches to facility acquisition and
evaluation is a worldwide trend.
Performance-based approaches require
greater attention to the definition and
description of purposes (demand and
results) of a project or program, both in
the short and long term, and to ways of
measuring whether the desired results
have been achieved.
Performance criteria for POEs for
individual buildings are based typically
on the stated design intent and criteria
contained in or inferred from a func-
tional program. Measures include in-
dicators related to organisational and
occupant performance, such as worker
satisfaction and productivity, and safety
Page 49
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
and security, but may also include
measures of building performance as
perceived by users such as air quality,
thermal comfort, spatial comfort, er-
gonomics, privacy, lighting comfort,
noise (from the building and offices),
and aesthetics.’15
For example, if the amount of space
provided to office workers for a particular
function is considered very inadequate
and the benchmark for space standards
for this function is much higher than
that provided, then the shortfall or dis-
crepancy between the two is a clear
measure that can be related to under-
performance. Similarly, if workers com-
plain about inadequate air circulation,
then physical measurements should be
undertaken to compare actual air changes
with existing standards for the type of
occupancy in question.16
In the building performance evaluation
process (BPE) model, POE is only one of
six review phases in the useful life of a
building. In other words, in addition to
the building delivery cycle, the entire life
cycle of a building is considered (Figure
7).
An important observation in this con-
text is that evaluations and reviews by
themselves do not necessarily provide use-
ful data or added value. Rather, they need
to be tied into a system which can filter
and store information for future utilisa-
tion; eg, programming of future similar
facilities in the client organisation. Thus,
the triad of POE database development
and facility programming (briefing in the
UK) has to be seen as the basis for
successful applications of evaluations.
Petronis demonstrated the practicality
and value of systematic evaluations of all
facilities operated by the State Police in
New Mexico, as well as the Albuquerque
Public School District,17 one of the largest
in the USA. In this instance, evaluations
Page 50
were part of strategic planning (see Figure
8), and the outcomes helped establish
priorities in planning for and funding
facilities that need to be remodelled or
replaced through new construction.
COSTS OF POST-OCCUPANCY
EVALUATIONS
While there are certain costs implied
in carrying out POEs at different levels
of sophistication and effort, the payoff
tends to be an indirect one, namely ac-
tions recommended and implemented as
a result of POEs. The following costs are
estimates, based on POEs carried out on
just about any imaginable building type.
Four levels of effort and implied costs are
suggested:
1 POE Training Workshops: POE Training
Workshops have proven to be very
cost-effective means of involving client
organisations in learning to evaluate
their own facilities after an initial train-
ing workshop has been conducted with
facilities personnel of the client or-
ganisation. Workshop participation has
ranged in numbers from 20 to 60. They
are broken down into sub-teams of five
to seven, which will cover different
areas of a building, or different build-
ings of the same client organisation.
The workshop format is as
follows18:
— Day 1: POE instruction and prepara-
tion for site visit.
— Day 2: On-site POE data collection
and focus group to prioritise and
format data for presentation on Day
3.
— Day 3: Presentation of findings and
recommendations to upper manage-
ment in the client organisation by
sub-team coordinators. The result:
executive summary style reports,
which management can use to plan

implementation of recommenda-
tions.
The cost of such workshops, as
far as workshop preparation, on-site
coordination and follow-up is con-
cerned, amounts to approximately
US$5,000, plus expenses, travel, ac-
commodation, etc on the part of
the workshop coordinator. In the
USA context, this translates into ap-
proximately US$7,500 per three-day
workshop, not counting the in-kind
contributions by the client organisa-
tion, including time spent by staff
participating in the workshop.
One great advantage of this POE
workshop format is that it in-
volves representatives of the agencies
responsible for planning, designing,
constructing and managing facilities
and thereby includes persons with
vested interests for improving the
quality of their facilities over time
by themselves, without necessarily
Preiser
Figure 7 Building
performance
evaluation process
model
hiring POE consultants in the fu-
ture.
2 Indicative POEs: These are quick facility
visits/walkthrough evaluations, typi-
cally involving an interview with the
person in charge of the facility, and a
guided walkthrough, during which
both positive and negative performance
aspects are pointed out and recorded on
notepads or voice recorders, and still
photography using digital or paper-
based cameras. Using this method,
a 10,000-square-foot facility can be
covered in less than half a day by a
team of one to three evaluators who are
familiar with the building type in
question. An example is the indicative
POE conducted on Great River Medi-
cal Center by NBBJ19 of Columbus,
Ohio, at a cost of US$8,000.
3 Investigative POEs: These involve more
extensive preparation on the part of the
evaluator team. They include the above
indicative POE step as a starting point.
Page 51
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
Figure 8 Strategic
asset management
(facility audit/POE)
The results are incorporated in POE
survey questionnaires, which are ad-
ministered to a stratified sample of
building occupants. They are adminis-
tered from the top down; ie start-
ing with supervisory personnel, most
of whom will be asked to complete
the survey. Representative samples of
lower-level staff will also need to be
covered. Often, this includes the clients
and/or visitors of a facility, such as
patients in a medical office building or
clients seeking a service, such as coun-
selling, banking, etc. The cost of inves-
tigative POEs ranges from US$1.00 to
2.50 per square foot, and it is con-
sidered to be appropriate for larger,
more complex organisations and their
Page 52
facilities, with facilities ranging upwards
of 15,000 square feet. This type of
POE can extend over several weeks
and months, depending on the depth
of investigation, the dissemination and
analysis of survey data, and other fac-
tors. Sometimes it is necessary to cover
different seasons of the year and dif-
ferent periods of time in a given day,
week or month, because of fluctuating
utilisation rates, commercial properties,
such as offices, shopping centres, and so
on. Two recent examples are inves-
tigative POEs conducted by: KMD
Architects20 of San Francisco, Califor-
nia, on Canon Kip Community House
at a cost of US$25,000; and SHP
Architects21 of Cincinnati, Ohio, on

Indian Trail Elementary School at a cost
of US$10,000.
4 Diagnostic POEs: These are the most
sophisticated, time and labour intensive
POEs. They cost from US$2.50 and
upwards per square foot, and they can
extend over long periods of time. Ex-
amples of such diagnostic POEs are the
Probe studies in the UK.22 In a case like
this, system-wide evaluations are carried
out on a number of comparable facility
types and sizes, thereby providing high
validity and generalisability of data col-
lected which, in turn, give prognostic
value and capability. Such outcomes of
diagnostic POEs have the potential of
being transformed into guidelines for
organisations doing repetitive building
over time. Again, a recent example is
a diagnostic POE23 conducted by Jay
Farbstein and Associates (JFA) for the US
Postal Service.
As the Federal Facilities Council ob-
served:
‘Federal agencies have reported costs
ranging from $1,800 for a simple stan-
dard questionnaire that could be com-
pleted in one hour, to $90,000 for an
in-depth analysis, including several days
of interviews, the use of multi-discipli-
nary teams, site visits, and report writ-
ing. Today the range of methods for
conducting POEs allows an organisa-
tion to tailor the technique to its ob-
jectives and available resources (time,
staff and money). Web-enabled surveys
are emerging, and these may provide
another technique that can be used at
a relatively low cost.’24
Benefits and payoff from
post-occupancy evaluations
While POEs do involve the kind of costs
outlined above, their payoffs can be sig-
nificant, because the results and recom-
Preiser
mendations from POEs are agents for
change and improvement in an organisa-
tion which, in turn, can result in savings
in time, effort and money. In several cases,
POEs were carried out on organisations
which were in the process of stream-
lining operations in the face of severe
budget cuts. In other words, the mere
process of evaluation resulted in a rethink-
ing of the clients’ work processes and
flow and, thus, triggered a reprogramming
and design of the facility, which best
accommodated those change processes.
Below listed are some case study examples
where POEs lead to significant benefits
to the client organisation, in terms of
dollars saved or gained and streamlined
operations. To quote the Federal Facilities
Council again:
‘Stakeholders in buildings include
investors, owners, operators, designers,
contractors, maintenance personnel,
and users or occupants. A POE process
that captures lessons can serve many
purposes and provide many benefits,
depending on a stakeholder’s goals and
objectives. These include the follow-
ing:
• Support of policy development as
reflected in design and planning
guides. The validity of underlying
premises used in recurrent designs can
be tested and evolutionary improve-
ments to programming and design
criteria can be identified and incor-
porated into standards and guidance
literature.
• Provision to the building industry of
information about buildings in use
by improving the measurement of
building performance by quantifying
occupant perceptions and physical
environmental factors.
• Testing of new concepts to determine
how well they work in occupied
buildings.
Page 53
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
• Generation of information needed to
justify major expenditures and inform
future decisions. Information gener-
ated by POEs can be used for deci-
sion-making in the pre-design phase
of a new project to avoid repeating
past mistakes. It can also be used to
educate decision makers about the
performance implications of design
changes dictated by budget cuts, and
to improve the way space is used as
determined by stakeholders or docu-
mented standards.
• Improvement of building perfor-
mance throughout the life-cycle.
POEs can be used to identify and
remediate such problems associated
with new buildings as uncontrolled
leakage, deficient air circulation, poor
signage, and lack of storage. For
facilities that incorporate the concept
of adaptability, where changes are
frequently necessary, regularly con-
ducted POEs can contribute to an
ongoing process of adapting the
facility to changing organisational
needs.
• Making decision professionals and
owners accountable for building
performance. POEs can be used to
measure the functionality and ap-
propriateness of a design and
establish conformance with explicit
and comprehensive performance re-
quirements as stated in the func-
tional programme. They can also
serve as a mechanism to monitor a
building’s quality and to notify
decision makers when the perfor-
mance of a building does not reach
an agreed standard.
• Aiding communication among
stakeholders, such as designers,
clients, facility managers, and end
users. Through active involvement
in the evaluation process, the attitude
of building occupants can be
Page 54
improved and proactive facility
management that responds to
buildings users’ values can be
facilitated.’25
Returning to performance-based ap-
proaches to facility acquisition and
evaluation, the Federal Facilities Coun-
cil discusses the role of performance
measures versus cost measures:
‘Performance measures for facilities of-
ten overemphasize costs because there
are few data to show linkages between
facility design and business goals. Cost-
focused strategies include reducing the
size of work stations, using a universal
plan with only a few work station
options, eliminating private offices or
personally assigned spaces, and tele-
commuting.
This approach can answer questions
such as the following:
• How can workplace design positively
influence outcomes that organizations
value?
• How can workplace design reduce
costs or increase revenue?
• How can workplace design enhance
human resource development?
• How can the physical workplace
enhance work processes and reduce
time to market?
• How can the physical work environ-
ment enhance customer relationships
and present a more positive face to
the public?’26
In summary, POEs and their recommen-
dations can trigger beneficial changes and
outcomes, including:
• saving dollars and energy
• improving the quality of facilities
• involving stakeholders in the process of
POE, and thus, improving the satisfac-
tion of building occupants.

SUMMARY
It is hoped that this paper has answered
frequently asked questions about POE:
1 How does the POE process work? The POE
process and levels of effort have been
highlighted above through Figures 6
and 7, and the accompanying references
about the evaluation of POE.
2 What benefits can be derived from POE?
Saving dollars, improving the quality of
facilities, and, by involving stakeholders
in the process, improving productivity.
3 What value does POE add to the core
business? POE adds strategic value in
terms of improvements in efficiency
and productivity on a short-, medium-
and long-term basis, through remodel
or improved new construction.
4 When should POEs be carried out? For
new facilities, they should be carried
out 6–12 months after occupancy, and
then in three–five-year cycles for exist-
ing facilities.
5 How should POE data be used? They
should be incorporated in new and
future facility programmes, as well as in
guideline development.
6 Who should commission POEs? Top
management should buy into the
concept of POE and, subsequently,
initiate the commissioning of projects.
7 Who should be in charge of database develop-
ment? The facilities group, in coordina-
tion with the client’s strategic planning
team should determine the focus.
8 What is the cost of POEs in relationship to
the cost benefits to be derived? While the
cost can be very low, the benefits may
have a multiplier effect of 300–1,000
per cent of funds invested.
CONCLUSIONS
As the Federal Facilities Council
reported,27 successful POEs and lessons
learned have been conducted by such
Preiser
federal agencies as: the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the US Postal Service and the
Massachusetts Division of Capital Plan-
ning. In the corporate world, the Disney
Corporation, Bell Canada, and the World
Bank have benefited greatly from POEs.
Similarly, in the future, POEs carried out
routinely in the private sector can not only
enhance the value of corporate real estate,
but, as a feedback mechanism, they should
also involve the actual building occupants,
thus giving them a voice in matters per-
taining to building performance. This, in
turn, can create good will, signalling that
management really cares about its tenants
and their requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author and Jay Yocis at the University of
Cincinnati prepared Figures 6 and 7. Figure 8
was provided by Architectural Research
Consultants, Inc. of Albuquerque, NM. The
remainder of the Figures were prepared by
the author.
REFERENCES
(1) Federal Facilities Council (2001) Learning
From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice
Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation,
National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
(2) Building Research Board, National
Research Council (1987) Post-Occupancy
Evaluation Practices in the Building Process:
Opportunities for Improvement, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
(3) Preiser, W. F. E. (2003) Improving Building
Performance, National Council of
Architectural Registration Boards
(NCARB), Washington, DC.
(4) See ref. 1 above.
(5) Preiser, W. F. E. (2001) ‘Toward universal
design evaluation’, in Preiser, W. F. E. and
Ostroff, E. (Eds) Universal Design
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
(6) LeRoux, P. C., Kato, A. and Tsunekawa,
K. (2002) ‘Post-occupancy evaluation of
a new office tower (JR Central Towers)’,
in Hecht, P. (Ed) Proceedings of EDRA
Page 55
Continuous quality improvement through post-occupancy evaluation feedback
33, Environmental Design Research
Association Inc., Edmond, OK.
(7) Vos, P. and van der Voordt, T. (2001)
‘Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes:
Effects of innovation in the working
environment’, Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 48–65.
(8) Preiser, W. F. E. and Schramm, U. (2002)
‘Intelligent office building performance
evaluation’, Facilities, Vol. 20, No. 7/8,
pp. 279–287.
(9) Preiser, W. F. E. and Stroppel, D. R.
(1996) ‘Evaluation, reprogramming and
re-design of redundant space for
children’s hospital in Cincinnati’, in
Proceedings of the EURO FM/IFMA
Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 5th–7th
May.
(10) See ref. 1 above.
(11) Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z. and
White, E. T. (1988) Post-Occupancy
Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY.
(12) Preiser, W. F. E. (1994) ‘Built
environment evaluation: Conceptual
basis, benefits and uses’, Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.
11, No. 2, Summer.
(13) Preiser, W. F. E. and Schramm, U. (1997)
‘Building performance evaluation’, in
Watson, D. (Eds) Time-Saver Standards,
7th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
(14) Preiser, W. F. E. (2001) ‘The evolution
of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward
building performance and universal
design evaluation’, in Federal Facilities
Council, see ref. 1. above.
(15) See ref. 1 above.
(16) Stitt, F. A. (1992) Architect’s Room Design
Data Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
(17) Petronis, J. P. (1993) ‘Strategic asset
management: An expanded role for
facility programmers’, in Preiser, W. F. E.
(Ed) Professional Practice in Facility
Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
(18) Preiser, W. F. E. (1996) ‘POE training
workshop and prototype testing at the
Kaiser-Permanente Medical Office
Page 56
Building in Mission Viejo, California,
USA’, in Baird, G.. Grey, J. Isaacs, N.,
Kernohan, D. and McIndoe, G. (Eds)
Building Evaluation Techniques,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
(19) NBBJ, Architects (Columbus, OH)
(2002) ‘Indicative post-occupancy
evaluation of Great River Medical
Center’, in National Council of
Architectural Registration Boards, Federal
Facilities Council, see ref. 1 above.
(20) KMD Architects (San Francisco, CA)
(2002) ‘Investigative POE of Canon Kip
Community House’, in Federal Facilities
Council, see ref. 1 above.
(21) SHP Architects (Cincinnati, OH) (2002)
‘Investigative POE of Indian Trail
Elementary School’, in Federal Facilities
Council, see ref. 1 above.
(22) Bordass, B., Leaman, A. and Ruyssevelt,
P. (2001) ‘Assessing building performance
in use 5: Conclusions and implications’,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp. 144–157.
(23) Farbstein, J., Kantrowitz, M. and
Prescott, E. Y. (2002) ‘Diagnostic
post-occupancy evaluation: USA postal
service retail space design’, in Federal
Facilities Council, see ref. 1. above.
(24) See ref. 1 above.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Ibid.
NOTE
The International Building Performance
Evaluation (IBPE) consortium and project
was created by the author in 1995,
to develop a ‘Toolkit’ of evalua-
tion methodology on a global basis.
Case study evaluation focused on
office buildings in participating countries
(Brazil, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan,
Netherlands, UK and the USA),
some of which can be viewed at
http://planner.tutrp.tut.ac.jp/ibpe.html. A
book is envisioned to be published on the
IBPE project. For further information,
please contact the author.