ABSTRACT

Post Occupancy evaluation

Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is widely acknowledged but rarely practised. The RIBA and ARB have introduced it into their professional syllabus. A recent survey of newly qualified architects identified POE as one of the topics for which they felt least prepared.

The Leicester School of Architecture (LSA) was commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) through the Higher Education Design Quality Forum (HEDQF) to develop and pilot a system of POE for higher education buildings.

Three ‘styles’ of POE were identified. The first, a ‘factual building report’, records basic parameters about area, cost etc. in order to make rudimentary comparisons between projects. The second, concentrating on ‘measurable parameters’, was used by the Strathclyde School and more recently by Building Use Studies in its ‘PROBE’ analyses of area, energy, emissions, user satisfaction and so on. However, HEDQF and HEFCE were determined to identify ‘quality’ issues and promote ‘design quality’. The consensus was that even simple grading systems would lead inexorably to rigid bureaucratic systems and divert attention from design quality towards defensive documentation. A third style, based on ‘non-recriminatory forums’ was proposed and has been developed and piloted.

The ‘Forums’ have evolved into four round-table discussions in single day with teams involved in ‘context and design’, ‘construction and cost’, ‘space and management’, and ‘environment and sustainability’. Each forum brings together the professionals, members of the client body, and users, each with entirely different perspectives. The question, ‘what did you do right?’, may never have been asked. The aim is to draw out the expertise gained, often unconsciously, and to disseminate it in a publicly available report. Without POE, that expertise is largely lost.

The greatest obstacle to POE studies is that professionals must guard their reputation and avoid litigation. Within these forums, ‘mistakes’ are turned into positive recommendations, the institutions have editorial rights, the insurance agencies have welcomed the approach, and no case has yet been brought following a POE. Five forums conducted to date have been surprisingly celebratory although these have admittedly been with enthusiastic professionals on successful projects. Nevertheless, each has had its problems and clear lessons have been learned and reported.

The proposed system of POE has been published on the HEFCE website for consultation across the sector and a training programme is being planned to prepare ‘facilitators’ who will be placed on a register and available to conduct future POE studies. After consultation, HEFCE expects to make POE a condition of future funding of about 200 projects annually.

It is one of too many new topics being proposed for educational institutions to undertake but unless education takes a lead, the problems that have held back the development of POE in the past will surely persist.