User requirement related performance attributes for

Journal of Facilities Management User requirement related performance attributes for government residential buildings Gopikrishnan Seshadhri, Virendra Kumar Paul,

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Gopikrishnan Seshadhri, Virendra Kumar Paul, (2017) "User requirement related performance attributes for government residential buildings", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 4, pp.409-422, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-11-2016-0047 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-11-2016-0047 Downloaded on: 27 September 2017, At: 19:43 (PT) References: this document contains references to 46 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11 times since 2017* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:Eprints:WNYU94B38XJQ8TFEURP2:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

User requirement related performance attributes for government residential buildings Gopikrishnan Seshadhri and Virendra Kumar Paul Department of Building Engineering and Management, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India

Performance attributes

409 Received 7 November 2016 Revised 23 December 2016 Accepted 28 December 2016

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Abstract Purpose – Present research on assessing performance of residential buildings is done for specific purposes and not holistically. The indicators, factors and attributes considered for evaluation are not consistent and are broadly based on knowledge base of the author. The purpose of this research is to identify building performance attributes based on user requirement. Design/methodology/approach – With ISO 6241-1984(E) as a basis for universal acceptance, user requirements have been listed and based on these user requirements, related building performance attributes have been identified. End-user satisfaction is of primary importance to gauge performance of a facility. A quantified approach in evaluation of performance of a facility will enable a facility manager to assess the efficacy of the present policies pertaining to operation and maintenance of the facility. It will also provide valuable inputs to policy makers in initiating measures toward the goal of achieving desired user satisfaction. Performance measurement is done to measure the value created by the services, to justify the investment made in creating the facility or to determine if any additional investments are required for improvement of the facility.

Findings – In this literature review, an attempt is made to identify user requirements based on an internationally renowned standard ISO 6241-1984 (E), as a base and group building performance attributes on these requirements. The identified attributes are grouped into physical, environmental and external factors for ease of garnering user satisfaction and subsequent flexibility in assessment of data based on requirement of the surveys carried out for evaluation. Research limitations/implications – The identified list of user requirement-related building performance attributes is limited to government residential buildings. The research needs validation through a full-fledged user satisfaction survey. Practical implications – It provides a comprehensive list of attributes for assessing performance from physical, environmental and external factors, enabling wholesome assessment of the performance of buildings. Moreover, as a universally accepted document ISO 6241-1984 (E), forms the basis of the paper, its application is not limited to a region. Originality/value – Lot of research is happening in the field of assessing building performance. User satisfaction by virtue of being difficult to quantify, it has not found much favor till now. This attempt is to furnish a comprehensive list of building performance attributes that will enable a multipurpose survey which will not be based on perception of the researcher but on a universally accepted document. The premise of research is that end-user satisfaction is of primary importance to gauge performance of a facility.

Keywords Evaluation, Measurement, Residential buildings, User satisfaction, Building performance, Attributes Paper type Literature review

Introduction Any type of facility constructed is required to efficiently satisfy the functions for which it has been constructed. The most ideal way to gauge performance of a facility is the degree of

Journal of Facilities Management Vol. 15 No. 4, 2017 pp. 409-422 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1472-5967 DOI 10.1108/JFM-11-2016-0047

JFM 15,4

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

410

end-user satisfaction. A quantified approach in evaluation of performance of a facility will enable a facility manager to assess the efficacy of the present policies pertaining to operation and maintenance of the facility. It will also provide valuable inputs to policy makers in initiating measures toward the goal of achieving desired user satisfaction. In an engineering context, a facility can be defined as a structure/feature designed/built/ installed to serve specific functions in providing service or convenience. The type of facility depends on the purpose it serves. It can be categorized as residential facilities, commercial facilities, public facilities, transportation facilities, educational facilities, research facilities, sports facilities, recreational facilities, common amenities, etc. It can also be categorized as buildings, roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, petroleum facilities, marine structures, etc. Buildings can further be classified as residential, commercial, educational, office, health care, hospitality, industrial, religious, etc. This research is confined to measurement of user satisfaction in respect of various types of residential accommodation under use in the Armed Forces of India. Any building can be divided into a number of individual systems to assess their individual performance. The cumulative effect of the performance of this building system will reflect the overall performance of the building. In all, building systems are divided into ten elements. The skeleton that indicates the frame of the building, the exterior envelope that indicates the walls that fill the frame of the building, interior finishes, electricity, sanitary system, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), fire protection, elevators, communication and any other system. These building systems are assessed for their physical state, typical failures or defects to assess their performance (Shohet et al., 2003). Research method As suggested by the literature, this study applies a research method that includes deriving a list of performance attributes from a rigorous literature review that are quantifiable and can express more than one aspect of a building’s performance. This paper builds on the earlier studies in which wide range of attributes was collected by surveying the literature. The main criterion for selecting these attributes was that the performance attributes should be directly influencing the user satisfaction. In addition, external factors not directly linked with residential buildings per se but likely to influence user satisfaction indirectly were also identified. Inputs from construction industry experts, academia, consultants and facility managers were useful particularly in shortlisting of attributes. Instead of relying on the perception of the researcher for user requirements, this paper takes on the user requirements identified by ISO 6241-1984 (E), for wide acceptance as well as applicability. Performance measurement Measurement of building performance has three main components, namely, physical, functional and financial. Physical performance relates to the behavior of the building’s fabric and physical properties such as structural integrity, heating, lighting, energy efficiency, maintainability, durability, etc. Functional performance concerns the relationship of the building with its occupants/users and embraces issues such as space, layout, ergonomics, image, ambience, communication, health, safety, flexibility, etc. Financial performance arises from physical and functional performance of the building and comprises capital costs, life cycle costing, depreciation, etc. Though financial performance will not have a major bearing with respect to residential buildings provided to the troops, variation in applicable rates for different cadre as rent and allied charges for occupation of residential accommodation still remains a factor.

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Functional performance is directly related to the core objectives for which the building is created, and hence, measuring the functional performance is essential to gauge the performance of the building as a whole. Loosemore and Hsin (2001) argue that it is extremely difficult to measure the impact of a facility based on emotions, attitudes and behavior of the occupants/users. However, contradictory opinions with respect to measuring user satisfaction also exist. Kotler (1997) defines satisfaction as a “person’s feeling of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparison of a product’s perceived performance or outcome in relation to his or expectations”. Many researchers consider satisfaction as an overall measure, while others feel that satisfaction is described best by a combination of facets or attributes. For instance, Day (1977) sees no difficulty in measuring individual’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the overall outcome. Also, Czepiel and Rosenberg (1977) agree that consumer satisfaction can be thought of as a single overall evaluative response that represents a summary of subjective responses to many different facets. Handy and Ptaff (1975), however, disagree with overall satisfaction measurement, arguing that response to an overall satisfaction measure only crudely measures overall satisfaction. Zickmund (1994) corroborates Handy and Ptaff’s views by contending that measures of cognitive phenomena (such as satisfaction) are often composite indexes of a set of variables. This research draws on views of Handy and Ptaff (1975) and Zickmund (1994) on the appropriate approach to measurement of satisfaction. Similarly, this research too bases on the view of Mbachu and Nkado (2006) with an approach of measuring user satisfaction with a set of attributes. This involves combination of facets or attributes, the measurement of which would give overall satisfaction level. Though Mbachu and Nkado used a two-pronged approach for comparison of user satisfaction for validation of internal consistency of the results, these results will follow satisfaction level based on multi-attribute measures. Performance measurement is essentially carried out by companies to remain competitive and cost-effective in construction business. In case of government agencies which are responsible for construction and management of assets through public funds, performance measurement is essential to ascertain outcome of constructing a facility and also to establish accountability of the service provider toward ensuring end-user satisfaction. But in both cases, performance measurement is essential, whereas indicators may vary depending on the goals for measuring the performance (Nik-Mat et al., 2011). Generally, performance measurement of facilities is done to measure the value created by the services, to justify the investment made in creating the facility or to determine if any additional investments are required for improvement of the facility. In this research, an attempt is made to measure performance of residential buildings in relation to meeting the user satisfaction, expectation and aspirations. User satisfaction Jiboye (2012) mentions user satisfaction as one of the best means to evaluate outcome of any facility. There are different approaches to measure or gauge user satisfaction depending on the type of facility being assessed and the purpose of assessment. Residential satisfaction is a reflection of the degree to which the inhabitants feel that their housing is helping them to achieve their goals. It is the measure of difference between occupants’ actual and desired housing and neighborhood situations whose judgments are based on their needs and aspirations. Some users measure satisfaction with absence of complaints. Satisfaction is the degree of contentment experienced by an individual or a family member with regard to current housing situation. Housing satisfaction is a complex attitude. It encompasses satisfaction with dwelling unit and satisfaction with neighborhood and the area.

Performance attributes

411

JFM 15,4

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

412

Habitability of a residential dwelling is influenced by not only engineering elements but also social, behavioral, cultural and other elements in the entire socio-environmental system. The house is only a link in a chain of factors that determine people’s relative satisfaction with their accommodation. Housing satisfaction is influenced by number of components in the system and background characteristics of occupant/user. Factors that have been found related to housing satisfaction include age, marital status, number of children, family size, socioeconomic status like income, education, employment, length of residency, housing physical characteristics, satisfaction with physical condition and management services, social participation, past living conditions as well as residential mobility (Jiboye, 2012). Existing studies carried out in Nigeria on public housing (Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; Olatubara and Fatoye, 2007; Fatoye and Odusami, 2009; Illesanmi, 2010; Ibem et al., 2012; Clement and Kayode, 2012) focus on general performance of public housing in meeting occupants’ needs and expectations. From these studies, it is established that physical characteristics of residential buildings have a significant influence on occupants’ satisfaction with their residential environment. This implies that the dwelling unit component plays a vital role in determining the quality of the residential environment in particular and performance of housing projects in general. Ibem et al. (2013) attempted to examine physical characteristics of buildings in public housing and assess residents’ satisfaction with physical, spatial, location, aesthetic and cost attributes of the buildings. User satisfaction and building performance evaluation Satisfaction is a subjective evaluation of the performance of products or services in meeting the needs and expectations of users or customers. Satisfaction is a measure of difference between the actual and expected performance of products or services in meeting users’ needs and expectations from users’ perspective. According to expectancy-disconfirmation theory, if performance of a product or service meets user expectation, the user is said to be satisfied with the product or service and vice versa (Jiboye, 2012). Buildings, like any other product, are also designed and constructed with lots of expectations by clients, professionals, users and the community. On the part of users and community, one crucial expectation is that buildings will support their needs and aspirations by supporting their daily activities (Preiser, 1995; Davara et al., 2006) and ultimately improve the quality of the built environment. Building performance evaluation (BPE) assesses the architectural, functional, technical and economic value of buildings (Van Der Voordt and Maarleveld, 2006). By identifying major weaknesses and strengths of buildings from end-users’ perspective (Preiser, 1995; Khalil and Nawawi, 2008), BPE contributes to improving quality of buildings and building project delivery process. In addition, BPE also provides feedback on causes and effects of environmental issues related to buildings and inform the planning and management throughout the building life cycle (Meir et al., 2009) and culminating in producing a sustainable environment (Zimring, 1988). BPE is important in understanding the actual performance of buildings in meeting various expectations of different stakeholders as compared to predicted performance. Depending on the objective and rationale of research, BPE may be intended for formulation of government policies, development of new theories or research tools and dissemination of information on the performance of buildings to professionals, contractors and building material manufacturers (Ibem et al., 2013). Extensive research has been carried out on BPE especially in developed countries, but mostly focusing on accommodation other than residential buildings (Ibem et al., 2013). In the past few decades, progress has been made in developing different BPE tools and approaches (O’Sullivan et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2005; Khair et al., 2012). The main categories of approaches

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

to BPE presented in more detail by Khair et al. (2012) include functional suitability, quality assessment, serviceability, environmental performance, energy consumption, design, construction and services and post occupancy evaluation (POE) on technical, functional and behavioral aspects of buildings. Similarly, a lot of research has been done on developing building performance indicators (BPIs) in the past few decades. Hasselar (2003) noted that an indicator is a sign that points to a condition to be measured, to evaluate specific qualities and performances. Criteria for measuring the performance of buildings should be derived from parameters that have direct bearing on the user satisfaction. Residents build various expectations on performance in terms of benefits it provides and needs it meet (Fatoye and Odusami, 2009). The expectations of the building occupants are likely to be wide ranging and influenced by technical and functional aspects of buildings as well as socioeconomic background of the occupant. In an attempt to garner satisfaction of all categories of users on building performance, Kian et al. (2001) and Kim et al. (2005) suggested use of six BPIs, viz., spatial comfort, indoor air quality, visual comfort, thermal comfort, acoustic comfort and building integrity. Meir et al. (2009) approached BPE as a concept based on user experience and emphasized on inclusion of occupant’s physiological and psychological comforts. Though many approaches exist in respect of evaluating building performance, the fact is established that there is a possibility of measuring satisfaction level of occupants in terms of performance indicators. Significance of attributes Any facility being constructed for a specific purpose is required to discharge certain desired functions. The factors that indicate such functions can be termed as attributes and these attributes are defined by a number of characteristics. Development of performance metrics is an important step in the process of performance evaluation, as it includes relevant indicators that express performance of a facility in a holistic manner (Lavy et al., 2010). Goals of such performance measurement using relevant indicators include determining the extent to which a facility caters to its user/occupants’ needs, expectations and aspirations (Douglas, 1996). Assessment of buildings could be in the form of functional quality (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2000), achieving organizational goals (Brackertz, 2006) and architectural and engineering aspects (Cotts and Lee, 1992). Performance assessment can also be for checking effectiveness of maintenance organizations (Shohet et al., 2003) and evolution of strategies for maintenance (Varcoe, 1996). Selection of attributes also depends on the type of users, such as occupants, facility managers, supervisors, etc. The attributes and their significance are different to different users. Hence, the purpose of performance measurement determines the performance metrics that need to be analyzed and attributes are required to be accordingly chosen. Choice of attributes Choice of attributes for evaluation of performance depends on the type of facility considered for evaluation. The type of facility depends on the purpose it serves. It can be categorized as residential facilities, commercial facilities, public facilities, transportation facilities, educational facilities, research facilities, sports facilities, recreational facilities, common amenities, etc. It can also be categorized into buildings, roads, bridges, marine structures, etc. Buildings can be further classified into residential, commercial, educational, office, healthcare, hospitality, industrial and religious buildings. Roads can be of unpaved/flexible or concrete pavements and marine structures include docks, harbors, ports, wharfs, jetties, etc. Sports facilities comprise gymnasiums, tennis courts, squash courts, basketball/ badminton courts, indoor/outdoor stadiums, swimming pools, etc. Amenities include

Performance attributes

413

JFM 15,4

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

414

shopping centers, community halls and recreational facilities such as auditoriums, parks, play areas, etc. Choice of attributes or indicators depends on the type of facility and the purpose of evaluation. In this research effort, attributes appropriate for carrying out residential BPE have been considered, which is in alignment with the research objective. Identification of attributes The primary purpose of buildings is to meet the needs/expectations of users/occupants in providing a conducive, safe, comfortable, healthy and secured indoor environment to carry out different kinds of activities ranging from work, study, leisure and family life to social interactions (Ibem et al., 2013). Buildings are constructed and managed based on standards and specifications established by governments, professionals and experts who are supposed to have adequate knowledge of users’ needs and expectations (Meir et al., 2009). But these standards and specifications do not conform to the changing needs and expectations of users (Kian et al., 2001). Building performance can be enhanced by regular evaluation and exploring and understanding users’ needs, expectations and aspirations (Kim et al., 2005, Khalil and Nawawi, 2008). Put succinctly, BPE primarily seeks to improve the quality of design, construction and management of buildings and, by extension, promotes a sustainable built environment (Ibem et al., 2013). It also helps us in understanding how occupants feel about their buildings and thus provide basic information on users’ preferences and satisfaction (Vischer, 2008). Users or occupants of residential buildings need not necessarily be technically well versant with engineering aspects of building. The various processes of construction like initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling and, finally, closing (PMBOK, 2013) are all carried out basically to translate the user requirements/needs into a building. Owner requirement is the genesis of any project, and there is a need to get a holistic measure of user satisfaction to, first, evaluate whether the needs of the users have been met and, second, to plot the trend in changing aspirations of the users. There has been a tremendous increase in awareness among the users with respect to understanding the reasons for dissatisfaction in use of a building. It is all the more reason to devise a means for holistic performance evaluation of residential buildings through such attributes that indicate user satisfaction. User satisfaction should be the most important criterion for choice of attributes. The building performance characteristics that affect the attributes indicating user satisfaction should be carefully identified and grouped so that outcome of the evaluation remains as close to the reality as well as a true reflection of the satisfaction level of users. Maintenance of a built facility alone will not satisfy the occupants, though it remains one of the criteria. Most of the research carried out in assessing building performance is either maintenance-oriented or health and hygiene-oriented or purely technically oriented. Ho et al. (2004) assessed a building based on health and hygiene and developed a Health and Hygiene Index. A healthy building is a built environment that encourages positive well-being of human beings. Ho et al. (2004) classified buildings as healthy and sick based on the internal environment provided by the building to physical health of occupants and vice versa. Though classical meaning of a sick building is the one that causes occupants to suffer from various illnesses, a sick building can be termed as a building that falls short of satisfying the user requirements. Based on the usual setting of apartment buildings, Ho et al. (2004) identified eight key environmental qualities that contribute to occupants’ health, namely, density, air, light, noise, thermal comfort, drinking water, waste disposal and cleanliness. The key environmental qualities were then translated into a list of building-specific attributes or building factors that can possibly be measured objectively. The building factors were grouped into two major heads, i.e. design and management, which were divided

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

into five subgroups, namely, architecture (five characteristics), building services (four characteristics), external environment (six characteristics), operations and maintenance (six characteristics) and, finally, building management (three characteristics). However, the entire assessment of the building remains uni-directional in assessing the extent to which these factors can affect occupants’ health. The index subsequently developed, also termed as the Building Health and Hygiene Index, clearly indicates the state of the building in relation to the effect it has on the physical health of the occupants. Unfortunately, outcome of such an index limits only to enhancing the performance of the building toward improving the physical health of occupants. Considering the premise of the World Health Organization (1946), which defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, the research falls short of holistic assessment encompassing other factors that influence user satisfaction apart from physical health. Moreover, out of the 14 user requirements listed in Table I of ISO 6241-1984(E), the research focuses only on one aspect of user requirement, i.e. hygiene, which seriously limits the application of the index. However, the paper lays down a principle framework that can be enhanced to incorporate other factors to arrive at a holistic assessment of building user satisfaction. In another extensive research, Aigbavboa and Thwala (2012) evaluated the performance of buildings by formulating relative satisfaction indices (RSIs) by grouping of different characteristics under physical and social factors. Confining only to the number and types of attributes chosen for arriving at the RSIs, more emphasis has been given to building spaces like position of various building elements, noise, ventilation, etc. Grouping of the attributes does not include important requirements like safety, lighting, waste disposal, drainage, accessibility, etc. Moreover, factors like amenities, neighborhood, parking, etc., do not find a mention in grouping of the characteristics to arrive at user satisfaction. It leaves an area for improvement in the research for more in-depth study of physical, functional, sociological and environmental aspects of buildings as well as social and behavioral aspects of occupants for holistic assessment and a true measure of user satisfaction. Literature survey on BPE indicates that a number of researchers have grouped various attributes together depending on purpose of evaluation of the building. While measuring residential satisfaction in a housing colony, Mohammad and Azim (2012) grouped 46 attributes in four components, namely, housing and physical features, services provided within housing area, public facilities provided and social environment within housing area. Seshadhri and Topkar (2016) have grouped 13 attributes together which indicate user satisfaction more on functional aspects from the facility maintenance perspective, while assessing maintenance aspects of a high-rise building complex. Nik-Mat et al. (2011) grouped 16 attributes in three different heads, namely, functional, technical and image characteristics. Ibem et al. (2013) listed 27 attributes under five factors while carrying out performance evaluation of residential buildings. Khalil et al. (2010) identified 19 attributes for building performance while carrying out post occupancy evaluation of public buildings. Meng and Minouge (2011) had used 11 indicators while measuring maintenance performance of buildings. Hashim et al. (2012) used 10 attributes under four heads, namely, space, comfort, serviceability and safety. There are other case studies (Olenrawaju et al., 2011; Shohet et al., 2003) available too, wherein performance of a building is assessed based on a number of factors. The modus operandi for all such assessments has been to obtain feedback from various agencies, including occupants/users, through a questionnaire. In all these methods, there is a scope for extensive study to group attributes under relevant heads so that there is no need for carrying out separate surveys for separate purposes. The success of such research shall lie in judicious selection and appropriate grouping of attributes under

Performance attributes

415

JFM 15,4

416

Category

Example

Stability requirements

Mechanical resistance to static and dynamic actions, both individually and in combination Resistance to impacts, intentional and unintentional abuse, accidental actions Cyclic (fatigue) effects Risks of outbreak of fire and spread of fire Physiological effects of smoke and heat Alarm time (detection and alarm systems) Evacuation time (escape routes) Survival time (fire compartmentation) Safety in respect of aggressive agents (protection against explosions, burning, sharp points and edges, moving mechanisms, electrocution, radioactivity, inhalation or contact with poisonous substances, infection Safety during movements and circulation (limitation of floor slipperiness, unobstructed passage, guard rails, etc.) Water tightness (rain, ground water, drinking water, waste water, etc.) Air and gas tightness Snow and dust tightness Control of air temperature, thermal radiation, air velocity, relative humidity (limitation of variation in time and in space, response of controls) Control of condensation Ventilation Control of odors Control of external and internal noise (Continuous and intermittent) Intelligibility of sound Reverberation time Natural and artificial lighting (required illuminance, freedom from glare, luminance contrast and stability) Sunlight (insolation) Possibility of darkness Aspect of spaces and surfaces (color, texture, regularity, flatness, verticality, horizontality, perpendicularity, etc.) Visual contact, internally and with the external world (links and barriers for privacy, freedom from optical distortion) Surface properties, roughness, dryness, warmth, suppleness Freedom from discharge of static electricity Limitation of whole body accelerations and vibrations Pedestrian comfort in windy areas Ease of movement (ramp slopes, pitch of staircases) Maneuverability (operation of doors, windows, controls on equipment, etc.) Facilities for human body care and cleaning Water supply Cleanability Evacuation of waste water, waste material and smoke Limitation of emission of contaminants Number, size, geometry, subdivision and interrelation of space Services and equipment Furnishability and flexibility Retention of performance over service life subject to regular maintenance Capital, running and maintenance costs Demolition costs

Fire safety requirements

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Safety in use requirements

Tightness requirements Hygrothermal requirements Air purity requirements Acoustical requirements Visual requirements

Tactile requirements Dynamic requirements

Hygiene requirements

Table I. User requirements listed in ISO 62411984(E)

Requirements of suitability of spaces for specific uses Durability requirements Economic requirements

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

different heads. This is of paramount importance because distortion of feedback owing to improper selection of attributes or inappropriate grouping shall lead to obtaining feedback which may reflect the reality on ground, thus failing the very purpose of this research. Moreover, the attributes, sub-attributes and characteristics chosen for user satisfaction and related building performance by various researchers were based on their perception and importance garnered by these factors that were identified through surveys. In this literature survey, which is a part of extensive research that will culminate into a viable building performance index based on user satisfaction linked to building performance attributes, effort has been made to standardize the user requirement based on ISO 6241-1984(E), a universally acknowledged document of standards. Table I lists out user requirements as mentioned in ISO 6241-1984(E) and is reproduced as under. Any type of building that is being constructed needs to care of these requirements. Whereas the degree of requirements may vary depending on the need to cater for a specific function, the requirements remain the same in all buildings. The fabric of any building can be divided into subsystems which have its components, and these components are supposed to take care of the user requirements mentioned in Table I of ISO 6241-1984(E). The subsystems as listed in the ISO are reproduced below (Table II).

Performance attributes

417

User requirement-related attributes Through extensive literature review, it is ascertained that the choice of attributes and its grouping has been done purely based on requirements for which performance assessment of a building is carried out. In this paper, ISO 6241-1984(E), a universally recognized standard, is taken as a baseline to define user requirements. In Table III, an effort is made to rearrange these 14 user requirements and match against attributes that can be used to measure the satisfaction level in building performance.

Subsystem Structure

Foundation Carcass

External envelope

Envelope below ground Envelope above ground

Spatial dividers outside envelope

External vertical divider External horizontal divider

Spatial dividers within envelope

External staircase Internal vertical divider Internal horizontal divider Internal staircase

Example of assemblies or components Shallow (ground beam, raft, etc.) Deep (deep footing, pile, diaphragm wall, etc.) Column, beam, panel, slab, shell, lattice structure, etc. Base, side and top envelope (solid floor, basement wall, underground roof, etc.) Openings (pipe entry, shaft, etc.) Base, side and top envelope (exposed floor over external space, wall, roof, etc.) Openings (door, windows, roof light, etc.) Partitions (walls, balustrade, etc.) Openings (doors, grills, etc.) Floors (terrace, balcony, porch roof, etc.) Openings (trap door, etc.) Stairs, ramps, etc. Partitions (walls, balustrade, etc.) Openings (doors, grills, etc.) Floors (terrace, balcony, porch roof, etc.) Openings (trap door, etc.) Stairs, ramps, etc.

Table II. Subsystems of the building fabric as listed in ISO 62411984(E)

JFM 15,4

Sr. no User requirement 1

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

418

Table III. User requirementrelated building performance attributes

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Building performance attribute

Requirements for suitability of spaces for specific use Spaces Furniture, fittings and fixtures Durability requirements Physical condition Tactile requirements Dynamic requirements Tightness requirements Visual requirements Lighting Hygrothermal requirements Air, noise and water Air purity requirements Acoustical requirements Stability requirements Safety Fire safety requirements Safety in use requirements Hygiene requirements Waste disposal Economic requirements Not being considered for government housing

Apart from the requirements/expectations from the residential building that a user occupies, there are certain other factors that influence user satisfaction, namely, the amenities that come along with the building and also the societal pattern in the locality of the residential complex. Location of the residential complex by itself can be a factor to influence user satisfaction. In spite of a high-quality construction, owing to difficulty in access to the residential area, the user satisfaction can get affected. Similarly, proximity to amenities like shops, walkways, parks, play areas, access to public transport, availability of adequate parking and uninterrupted electric and water supply also need to be incorporated while obtaining feedback on user satisfaction. Though the degree of congeniality and amenability of neighborhood, community participation, etc., also influences user satisfaction, as the facility providers as well as managers do not have any control over the societal factors, care should be taken to ensure that the feedback given by users does not get biased by societal requirements. Leaving out societal requirements may result in the effect of these factors getting distributed among other factors. Hence, it will be to garner feedback on societal requirements too but not to incorporate while evaluating user satisfaction. Another major factor that influences user satisfaction is the degree of expectation which will depend on the understanding of the users with respect to his/her entitlement based on current official, economical and social standing. In the case of a government employee, it will be safe to mention that user satisfaction should be measured against what is provided in comparison with entitlement. In spite of being aware of the entitlement and matching provisioning, if the user satisfaction still remains low, the exercise of garnering user satisfaction will provide an insight to policy makers regarding their growing aspirations. Grouping of attributes Literature review of various BPEs done over the years reveals that the BPE in the form of post occupancy evaluation or otherwise is mainly for two purposes, first, for evaluation of execution and, second, for maintenance management. In both the cases, the attributes identified based on the user requirements are relevant. Based on the above deductions, the building performance attributes can be grouped under following factors as shown in Table IV.

Sr. no

Factor

Attributes

User requirement

1

Physical

Spaces

Requirements for suitability of spaces for specific use Furnishability and flexibility Durability requirements Tactile requirements Dynamic requirements Tightness requirements Stability requirements Fire safety requirements Safety in use requirements Visual requirements Hygrothermal requirements Air purity requirements Acoustical requirements Hygiene requirements Community participation Congeniality and amenability of neighborhood Accessibility to public transport Location of the building Proximity to shops, walkways and play areas Availability of adequate parking Recreational facilities Uninterrupted electric and water supply

Furniture, fittings, fixtures Physical condition

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Safety 2

Environmental

3

External

Lighting Air, noise and water Waste disposal Societal Accessibility

Amenities

Conclusion This literature survey brings out the importance of choice of attributes that is of paramount importance for obtaining feedback on user satisfaction. As it is based on a universally accepted international standard, it has a scope for being applied all over the world, not confining to a particular region. As all three aspects of evaluation, i.e. physical, environmental and external, are covered, it provides a holistic assessment of the performance of a residential building. In the case of government-owned residential accommodation, economics does not matter to the user. Similarly, there is an essential requirement to account for the external factors while obtaining feedback on user satisfaction to avoid its influence in the other two. Moreover, the user feedback will comprehensively cover all aspects of user satisfaction and depending on the purpose of performance evaluation, conclusions can be drawn. A lot of research papers are available that provide a template for formulation of a questionnaire, establish its validity and subsequently undertake full-fledged surveys to obtain feedback on user satisfaction. But, the results are likely to be as close to reality as possible only in case the attributes brought out in this paper are incorporated in the questionnaire for evaluation. Assessment of performance based on the attributes identified in this paper will have multi-pronged benefits. It will not only enable future resource optimization decisions but will also bring out the efficacy of the maintenance management systems. As satisfaction has a bearing on performance of occupants, increased satisfaction will also result in enhanced performance of occupants. However, the approach proposed in this paper is not without its limitations with respect to its application. Choice of attributes is dictated by the type of building. It becomes restrictive in application only to

Performance attributes

419

Table IV. Grouping of attributes

JFM 15,4

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

420

government residential buildings, though by itself, government residential buildings provide a huge scope. Other types of building infrastructure used for training, sports, storage, medical, etc., will have certain more specific performance parameters in addition to the ones identified in this paper for residential buildings. However, as a future scope, the number of attributes can be escalated depending on the type of building being surveyed, keeping the identified attributes as core attributes. Economics also become a factor from users’ perspective in case of private residential buildings, which does not form part of the scope of this paper. References Aigbavboa, C.O. and Thwala, W.D. (2012), “An appraisal of housing satisfaction in South Africa low income housing scheme”, International Journal of Construction and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-21. Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000), “Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties”, Facilities, Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 293-301. Brackertz, N. (2006), “Relating physical and service performance in local government community facilities”, Facilities, Vol. 24 Nos 7/8, pp. 280-291. Clement, O.I. and Kayode, O. (2012), “Public housing provision and user satisfaction in Ondo State, Nigeria”, British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 103-111. Cotts, D.G. and Lee, M. (1992), The Facility Management Handbook, AMACOM (American Management Association), New York NY. Czepiel, J.A. and Rosenberg, L.J. (1977), “The study of consumer satisfaction: addressing the ‘so what’ question”, in Hunt, K.H. (Eds), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 92-119. Day, R.L. (1977), “Alternative definitions and designs for measuring consumer satisfaction”, in Hunt, K.H. (Ed.), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 72-91. Davara, Y., Meir, I.A. and Schwartz, M. (2006), “Architectural design and IEQ in an office complex, healthy buildings”, Proceedings of International Conference on Healthy Building, Vol. 3, pp. 77-81. Douglas, J. (1996), “Building performance and its relevance to facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 23-32. Fatoye, E.O. and Odusami, K.T. (2009), “Occupants’ satisfaction approach to housing performance evaluation: the case of Nigeria”, International Proceedings of RICS Cobra Research Conference, University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Handy, C.R. and Ptaff, M. (1975), “Consumer satisfaction with food products and marketing services”, Agri. Econ. Rep. 281, Econ. Res. Ser., US Department of Agriculture, New York, NY. Hashim, A.E., Aksah, H. and Said, S.Y. (2012), “Functional assessment through post occupancy review on refurbished historical public buildings in Kuala Lumpur”, Journal of Social Behavioural Science, Vol. 68 pp. 330-340. Hasselar, E. (2003), “Health performance indicators of housing”, International Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, ISIAQ. Ho, D.C.W., Leung, H.F., Wong, S.K., Cheung, A.K.G., Lau, S.S.Y., Wong, W.S., Lung, D.P.Y. and Chau, K.W. (2004), “Assessing health and hygiene performance of apartment buildings”, Facilities, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 58-69. Ibem, E.O., Aduwo, E.B. and Uwakonye, O. (2012), “Adequacy of incremental construction strategy for housing low-income urban residents in Ogun State, Nigeria”, Journal of Built Environment and Asset Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 182-194.

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

Ibem, E.O., Opoko, A.P., Adeboye, A.B. and Amole, D. (2013), “Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates of Ogun State, Nigeria: users’ satisfaction perspective”, Journal of Frontiers Architectural Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 178-190. Illesanmi, A.O. (2010), “Post occupancy evaluation and residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria”, Journal of Building Appraisal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 153-169. ISO 6241-1984(E) (1984), “Performance standards in buildings – principles for their preparation and factors to be considered”. Jiboye, A.D. (2012), “Post occupancy evaluation of residential satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria: feedback for residential improvement”, Journal of Frontiers Architectural Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 236-243. Khair, N., Ali, H.M., Wilson, A.J. and Juhari, N.H. (2012), “Physical environment for post occupancy evaluation in public low cost housing”, 3rd International Conference on Business and Economic Research. Khalil, N., Husin, H.N., Hamimah, A. and Nawawi, A.H. (2010), “Correlation analysis of building performance and occupants’ satisfaction via post occupancy evaluation for Malaysia’s public buildings”, Municipal personal RePEc archives. Khalil, N. and Nawawi, A.H. (2008), “Performance assessment of government and public buildings via post occupancy evaluation”, Asian School Science, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 103-112. Kian, P.S., Feriadi, H., Sulistio, W. and Seng, K.C. (2001), “A case study on total building performance evaluation of an intelligent office building in Singapore”, Civil Engineering Dimension, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 9-15. Kim, S., Yang, I., Yeo, M. and Kim, K. (2005), “Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multifamily residential building in Korea”, Journal of Building and Environment, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1103-1116. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Controls, 9th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A. and Dixit, M.K. (2010), “Establishment of KPIs for facility performance measurement: review of literature”, Journal of Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 9/10, pp. 440-464. Loosemore, M. and Hsin, Y.Y. (2001), “Customer based benchmarking for facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 19 Nos 13/14, pp. 464-476. Mbachu, J. and Nkado, R. (2006), “Conceptual framework for assessment of client needs and satisfaction in the building development process”, Construction, Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-44. Meng, X. and Minouge, M. (2011), “Performance measurement models in facility management: a comparative study”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 11/12, pp. 472-484. Meir, I.A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D. and Cicelsky, (2009), “Post occupancy evaluation: an inevitable step towards sustainability”, Advance in Building Energy Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 189-219. Mohammad, M.A. and Azim, M. (2012), “Assessment of residential satisfaction with public housing in Hulhumale, Maldives”, Journal of Social Behaviour Science, Vol. 50, pp. 756-770. Nik-Mat, N.E.M., Kamaruzzaman, S.N. and Pitt, M. (2011), “Assessing the maintenance aspect of facilities management through a performance measurement system: a Malaysian case study”, Procedia Engineering Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 329-338. Olatubara, C.O. and Fatoye, E.O. (2007), “Evaluation of satisfaction of occupants of the Abesan Public low-cost housing estate in Lagos State, Nigeria”, Nigerian Journal of Economics Social Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 5-9. Olenrawaju, A.A., Khamidi, M.F. and Idrus, A. (2011), “Validation of building maintenance performance model for Malaysian universities”, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 159-163.

Performance attributes

421

JFM 15,4

Downloaded by Mr Gopikrishnan S At 19:43 27 September 2017 (PT)

422

O’Sullivan, D.T., Keane, M.M., Kelliher, D. and Hitchcock, R.J. (2004), “Improving building operation by tracking performance metrics throughout building life cycle (BLC)”, Energy and Building, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 1075-1090. Preiser, W.F.E. (1995), “Post occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better”, Facilities, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 19-28. Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) (2013), Project Management Institute, USA. Seshadhri, G. and Topkar, V.M. (2016), “Validation of a questionnaire for objective evaluation of performance of built facilities”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 30 No. 1. Shohet, I.M., Lavy-Leibovich, S. and Bar-On, D. (2003), “Integrated maintenance management of hospital buildings in Israel”, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 197-208. Ukoha, O.M. and Beamish, J.O. (1997), “Assessment of residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria”, Habitat International, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 445-460. Van Der Voordt, T.J.M. and Maarleveld, M. (2006), “Performance of office building from users’ perspective”, Ambiente Construido, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 7-20. Varcoe, B.J. (1996), “Facilities performance measurement”, Facilities, Vol. 14 Nos 10/11, pp. 46-51. Vischer, J.C. (2008), “Towards a user centered theory of built environment”, Journal of Building Research and Information, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 231-240. Zickmund, W.G. (1994), Business Research Methods, 4th ed., Harcourt College Publishers, New York, NY. Zimring, C. (1988), “Post occupancy evaluation and implicit theories of organizational decision making”, International Proceedings of 19th Annual Conference of Environmental Design Research Association, California, pp. 277-280. Further reading Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Eggert, A. and Bindl, U. (2007), “Service quality and satisfaction: an international comparison of professional services perception”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 410-423. Corresponding author Gopikrishnan Seshadhri can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]