Post-Occupancy Evaluation:

A Case Study of the Evaluation

Process

Jacqueline Elder

George E. Turner

Arthur I. Rubin

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

July 1979

Issued August 1 979

' _|

00- •]

100

.1156

79-1780

1979

Sponsored by

General Services Administration

Washington, D.C. 20405

NBSIR 79-1780

I • * POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION:

A CASE STUDY OF THE EVALUATION

PROCESS

FEB 8 1980

f\o^b (\rc -fj/cc

&CUCO

U Slf

p|£j w \\y}fi

i Oi na

c .

Jacqueline Elder

George E Turner

Arthur I. Rubin

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

July 1979

Issued August 1 979

Sponsored by

General Services Administration

Washington, D.C. 20405

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although as authors of this report we take complete responsibility for

its contents, we still would like to acknowledge assistance provided

by others.

Ron Reinsel of the General Services Administration provided invaluable

information input, coordinated meetings and made arrangements for the use of documentary materials.

Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, architects of the Richard H. Poff

Courthouse and Federal Building and Jack DuVall, the building manager, were most generous of their time and resources in giving us an historical account of their role in the building’s design.

The authors wish to thank agency representatives and the building's

occupants for responding to our questions.

We also wish to thank Stephen Kliment for his editorial and organizational suggestions and Ralph Schofer for his thorough and helpful

review.

iii
ABSTRACT

Within the past decade, growing numbers of architects, educators, building users and researchers have begun to question the state-of-the-art

of building design. The most common complaint is that buildings do not

adequately fulfill the needs of their users. This report addresses the

problem by examining the need to identify, develop and apply user information as an integral part of the design process.

The study reported here was conducted for GSA at the Richard H. Poff

Courthouse and Federal Building in Roanoke, Virginia. This was a limited

study examining: (1) the design process, (2) the information available

to those making design decisions, (3) how that information was used and

(4) the effects of selective design decisions. In addition, design

problems of particular interest to GSA were considered from the viewpoint

of several groups involved with the design and use of the building —

GSA, the architect, the building manager, the agencies and the employees.

Keywords: Building evaluation; design process; man/environment research;

post-occupancy evaluation; questionnaire; user needs.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. BUILDING EVALUATION 3

2.1 BACKGROUND 3

2.2 A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION 4

3. RESEARCH APPROACHES 5

3.1 OVERVIEW 5

3.2 REVIEW OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS 8

3.3 INTERVIEWS 8

3.4 OBSERVATIONS 8

3.5 QUESTIONNAIRE 8

4. THE BUILDING 9

5. THE BUILDING PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS 12

5.1 INTERVIEW WITH GSA REPRESENTATIVE 12

5.2 SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECT 16

6. BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS 16

6.1 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT 16

6.2 INTERVIEW WITH TENANT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES 17

7. EVALUATION OF THE BUILDING IN USE 17

7.1 EMPLOYEE CRITIQUE 17

7.2 TENANT AGENCY CRITIQUE 19

7.2.1 The Design Process 19

7.2.2 The Building 19

7.3 BUILDING MANAGER'S CRITIQUE 21

7.4 ARCHITECT'S CRITIQUE 22

7.5 GSA REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S CRITIQUE 22

7.6 COMPARISON OF USERS' VIEWS OF POFF BUILDING 22

7.7 OBSERVATIONS BY RESEARCHERS 23

v
Page

8. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 26

8.1 INFORMATIONAL PROBLEMS — COMMUNICATIONS 26

8.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS 27

8.2.1 Underfloor Duct System 27

8.3 EARLY DESIGN DECISIONS 29

8.3.1 Direction Finding 29

8.3.2 Non-Standard Components 32

8.4 DESIGN/COST TRADEOFF DECISIONS 32

8.4.1 Elevators 32

8.4.2 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

(HVAC) System 35

8.4.3 Loading Dock Design 35

8.4.4 Summary - Information and Design Decisions ...... 35

9. THE GSA DESIGN PROCESS AND THE POFF BUILDING 36

10. CONCLUSIONS 36

11. POST-OCCUPANCY RESEARCH 38

11.1 THE GSA BUILDING PROCESS 39

12. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 40

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 42

APPENDIX B: SPACE REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET 56

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

FIGURE 1. RICHARD H. POFF COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING,

ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 10

FIGURE 2. OPEN OFFICE 10

FIGURE 3. PARTITIONED OFFICE 11

FIGURE 4. OUTLETS FROM UNDERFLOOR DUCT SYSTEM 11

FIGURE 5. PARKING GARAGE 13

FIGURE 6. EXTERIOR SCULPTURE 13

FIGURE 7. BUILDING DIRECTORY . 14

FIGURES 8 AND 9. REPAIRS ALONG PATH OF UNDERFLOOR DUCT SYSTEM ... 24

FIGURE 10. EXAMPLE OF INTERIOR DESIGN 25

FIGURE 11. EXAMPLE OF INTERIOR DESIGN 25

FIGURE 12. CHANGES OF ELECTRICAL OUTLET LOCATIONS SINCE

OCCUPANCY 28

FIGURE 13. LOOSE AND UNEVEN CARPETING 30

FIGURE 14. FLOOR-MOUNTED ELECTRICAL OUTLET BOXES 30

FIGURES 15 AND 16. FLOOR-MOUNTED ELECTRICAL OUTLET BOXES 31

FIGURES 17 AND 18. CORRIDOR SIGNS 33

FIGURES 19 AND 20. CORRIDOR SIGNS 34

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. USERS OF GSA BUILDINGS 2

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE GOALS AND GENERAL APPROACH 3

TABLE 3. EVALUATION MATRIX 6

TABLE 4. INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 7

TABLE 5. SEQUENCE OF THE GSA BUILDING PROCESS 15

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE LIKES AND DISLIKES 18

TABLE 7. RANK ORDER OF BUILDING FEATURES MENTIONED AND

RESPONSES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM 19

TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF TENANT AGENCY LIKES AND DISLIKES 21

TABLE 9. BEHAVIORAL AND DESIGN FEATURE RELATIONSHIPS 26

TABLE 10. ELECTRICAL OUTLET USAGE . 29

TABLE 11. EXAMPLES OF IMPACTS OF THE DESIGN PROCESS 37

viii
1 . INTRODUCTION

Within the past decade, growing numbers of architects, educators, building users and researchers have begun to question the state-of-the-art of

building design. The most common complaint is that buildings do not

adequately fulfill the needs of their users. This assessment comes from

informal critiques by laymen and experts, as well as from formal research

studies into users' satisfaction with buildings.

One major shortcoming in today's design process is that buildings are seldom evaluated after they are built and occupied. Consequently, not

enough is known about the extent to which buildings serve their intended

users and function as envisioned by the architect. Without this type of

feedback, how can we ensure that future buildings will be any more responsive to their users than those in use today?

This report addresses these issues. It examines the need to identify,

develop and apply user information as an integral part of the design

process. A major purpose of the study is to document the process used

to develop user-related information — a precondition for both effective

building design and evaluation. This approach enables "before” information to be compared with the findings of post-occupancy evaluations —

"after" information. Such analyses may be used to test the information,

as well as the process, employed to develop user data for design. The

findings can serve to progressively upgrade the quality of user-related

design data as well as the design process.

This work is an outgrowth of earlier work performed by the American

Institute of Architects/Research Corporation (AIA/RC) and supported by

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The aim of this work was to see whether effective links could be developed between social and

behavioral science research and architectural design decision making.

Post-occupancy evaluation is seen as one of the means for accomplishing

this "linking." Researchers at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

participated in the project in order to develop a standardized methodology for post-occupancy evaluation and to explore a model for linking

behavioral studies and the design process.

The research study started with four Federal agencies as sponsors: the

General Services Administration (GSA), the National Institutes of Health

(NIH), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). A building was chosen from each

participating agency and evaluated for one or two environment/behavior

aspects of interest to the researchers and the agency. The involvement

of agencies with different functions, but similar facility problems,

made for a common project research framework. The National Bureau of

Standards was given the task of evaluating GSA and NIH buildings.

The work described in this report (one project within the program) was performed for GSA. GSA is accountable for the design, construction,

1
leasing and space management of most buildings occupied by the Federal

government and therefore serves several classes of users each with some what different requirements (Table 1).

Table

Users

GSA

Tenant Agencies

Building Occupants

Visitors

Users of GSA Buildings

Requirements

Design, Maintenance, Security,

Administration

Performance of Missions

Performance of Work

Access to Building

Since user requirements vary widely, GSA needs information to determine

° How well GSA buildings perform,

° How effective is GSA's design process.

This study, which dealt with a number of these topics, was carried out

at the Richard H. Poff Courthouse and Federal Building in Roanoke,

Virginia. The study was not intended as a comprehensive evaluation of

the Poff Building. Rather, its goal was to explore several critical

issues that are a part of post-occupancy evaluation studies and, while

doing so, to evaluate a limited number of design features of special

interest to GSA.

The goals and general approach of the study are summarized in Table 2.

2
Table 2. Summary of the Goals and General Approach

Activity Purpose

Examination of GSA user-information

development process

Identification of problems related

to the use of the Poff Building

Evaluation of specific designs

Development of building evaluation model

Determination of bases for design

decisions which resulted in

problems

Trace how good and bad user-related

design decisions are developed

Evaluate building performance from

standpoint of several user groups

Limited test of design decisions

e.g. install movable electrical

outlets

Preliminary test of model describing relationship between the design

process and development of user

information

Identify linkages between decisions

and user problems

This was a limited study. It looked at: (1) the design process, (2) the

information available to those making design decisions, (3) how that

information was used and, finally (4) the effects of selective design

decisions on building users. Design problems of special interest to GSA

were considered from the viewpoint of the various groups taking part

in the design and use of the building — GSA, the architect, the building

manager, the agencies and the employees.

2. BUILDING EVALUATION

2.1 BACKGROUND

Michael Brill [3]*, a poineer of the building performance concept, sees

two basic aspects of building evaluation — (1) gaining information

about the adequacy of buildings and (2) using that information in the

design of new buildings. Evaluation, he says, is the first stage of a process which ends only when information is fed back in a useful form

to those making later design decisions.

The payoff of a post-occupancy evaluation, according to Brill, depends

on the nature (quality) and amount of useful data available to designers.

Types of data can occur at each of three levels:

0 Traditional design and construction documents — building codes,

architectural programs, working drawings and specifications.

* References are located in Section 12.

3
° Materials assembled for presentations and for design competitions — photographs of completed projects, architectural

renderings and commentary by the architect.

0 Research documentation — behavioral program, post-occupancy

surveys of the building in use and site visits by interdisciplinary teams.

The first level of information is usually available for all postoccupancy evaluations. The second level is sometimes available and the

third is almost never found. Fortunately, for the present study, information was available at all three levels.

Even though post-occupancy building evaluation research has been largely

neglected, in recent years a number of such studies has been undertaken.

Unfortunately, these investigations have typically been very narrowly

defined — concerned as they were with evaluating particular buildings

or building features. Informational needs in such cases are highly

specific, as are the research methods employed. Consequently, a review

of post-occupancy evaluations reveals many detailed critiques of buildings, but a lack of information applicable to other evaluation studies.

Of even greater importance is the lack of standardized methods for collecting information to be used, tested and refined by man/environment

(M/E) researchers. It is only through the development of standardized

methods that the quality of building user information can be upgraded

in an orderly way.

Another major difficulty with past evaluations is that they dealt with

general attitudes and preferences of respondents to environments,

without adequately describing or measuring specific design characteristics of the building being evaluated. It is hard to determine, therefore,

any relationship between the responses of people to the buildings examined

and the particular design features of the buildings.

As Fields [7] indicates, "An evaluation, to be useful, should allow

changes to be made to improve the performance of a particular building

and provide information which can improve the design of and/or evaluation of other buildings. Regardless of its use, evaluation can achieve

its potential only if the basis on which decisions were made can be

traced and examined analytically."

2.2 A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION

Post-occupancy evaluation entails the determination of the quality of

performance of a particular building in use. The building in use can

be thought of as an "occupant/building system." This is analogous to

the man/machine system concept in human factors work, and the analysis

and evaluation may be performed in much the same way. The occupant/

task/building relationships can be evaluated in terms of a set of measures of how well the goals, performance requirements, etc., are being

met. In any evaluation effort, the first issues to be resolved are:

4
0 Which performance qualities are to be judged?

° To what extent are qualities to be examined?

° What is the observation/measurement method by which the

examination will be carried out?

0 How are the evaluation data to be used?

Once the performance qualities to be evaluated have been selected, the

particular building characteristics associated with these performance

qualities must be determined. For example, the building may be evaluated in terms of its performance with respect to fire safety, accident

safety, economics of operation and/or any of several other characteristics. In much the same way, occupant behavior can be evaluated in terms

of the efficiency with which tasks are performed, aesthetic satisfaction,

comfort etc.

Table 3 represents a matrix for defining a particular evaluation effort.

The framework lists many of the occupant /building concerns important in

an evaluation. It indicates what is not being considered as well as what i^s being considered. The code (x) indicates the focus of the

evaluation in this report. The evaluation took up occupant/building

relationships mainly in terms of the capability of building users to

perform required tasks, although particular design features were examined in some detail to see how effective they were.

3. RESEARCH APPROACHES

3.1 OVERVIEW

A narrow set of research approaches was used to collect the required

data, due to the limited nature of the study. The methods used had to

respond to two general questions directly affecting the links between

building design and the user:

0 How was user-related information developed?

° How well did the building work at the time the study was undertaken — both in overall terms and with respect to

specific design features?

To answer the first question, information was needed as to the planning,

programming and design processes used for the Poff Building. The second

question required an examination of the building in use. Fortunately,

both aspects of the problem could be studied by using similar research

methods, namely, review of project documents, interviews, casual observations and a questionnaire. Table 4 summarizes the research methods

used. These methods are described in more detail in subsections 3.2,

3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

5
Table 3. Evaluation Matrix

SUBJECT OF THE EVALUATION

FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION

BUILDING

SUBSYSTEMS

INDEPENDENTLY

OCCUPANT

ACTIVITIES

INDEPENDENTLY

OCCUPANT/BUILDING

RELATIONSHIP

BUILDING

DESIGN

PROCESS

Programming Decisions X

Design Decisions X

Working Drawing Decisions

Building Regulations

Zoning

Construction Decision

ACTIVITY

SUPPORT

Air Quality X

Illumination X

Acoustic Quality X

Accessibility X

Dimensional Quality Aesthetic Quality X

Maintainability

Occupant Satisfaction X

SAFETY

Crime Safety

Accident Safety X

Fire Safety

Natural Disaster Safety

Reliability

HEALTH

Biological Attack Management

Air Toxicological Quality

Ingestive Water Quality

Liquid Borne Waste Removal

OTHER

ISSUES

Economic Characteristics Occupant Organizational Structure

Relationships with Other Issues

Similar Project Comparison

Growth and Change

Surrounding Social Environment

Surrounding Physical Environment

Climate

Energy Consumption

6
Table 4. Information Development Process

INFORMATION SOURCES

INFORMATION GATHERING

METHODS

GSA

HEADQUARTERS

ARCHITECT

TENANT

AGENCIES

BUILDING

MANAGER

INDIVIDUAL

OCCUPANTS

REVIEW OF PROJECT

DOCUMENTS

X X

INTERVIEWS X X X X

OBSERVATIONS OF THE

BUILDING

X X

QUESTIONNAIRE

X

7
3.2

REVIEW OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS

A limited number of documents on the planning and design of the Poff

Building was provided by GSA and the architect. Obtaining more complete

information was not feasible considering the scope of the present study.

The building manager commented on the operating records that are kept by

him and provided the researchers with examples of several of them.

3.3

INTERVIEWS

The research team talked to a number of different people in order to try

to understand issues from as many viewpoints as possible.

A representative from the GSA Space Management Office reviewed the GSA

planning/programming process as it related to a specific building. The

amount and type of information requested by GSA from the various tenant

agencies and the sources of such information were discussed.

The architect discussed the extent of programmatic information available

for design of the Poff Building. He also talked about his impressions

of the completed building.

Conversations with the building manager dealt with background information

on the Poff Building and with his perspective in determining successes and problems in the planning, design and operation of the building. The

manager was asked about areas of specific interest to GSA such as:

(1) functioning of the underfloor duct system, (2) experiences of occupants and visitors in finding their way about the building and

(3) employee reactions to the open office concept.

Following the meeting with the building manager, the research team met

with representatives of the various agencies occupying the Poff Building.

Each agency head or his representative was invited to attend. The positive and negative aspects of the building were covered from the point of

view of an agency's ability to function in the building.

3.4

OBSERVATIONS

The research team visited Roanoke and, with the building manager, walked

through the Poff Building. Particular attention was paid to: general

appearance, including condition of carpeting around the underfloor duct

system; outlet locations; directional signs and building directory.

Photographs were taken to illustrate pertinent aspects of these features.

3.5

QUESTIONNAIRE

The research team developed and pretested a questionnaire to assess employee reaction to the various aspects of the building. The questionnaire included open-ended questions (to which the individual could

respond in any way judged appropriate), and multiple choice questions

(which assessed response to specific aspects of the building). The

8
questionnaire was a broad one which dealt with most aspects of the

sensory enviornment as well as with the topics which were of particular

interest to GSA. (A copy of the questionnaire is included in

Appendix A.

)

The questionnaire was distributed to some 150 employees. Individuals

employed by the courts (located on the 2nd and 3rd floors) and the Post

Office (ground floor) were not included due to the special nature of

the spaces occupied and activities performed. Those employees included

in the survey worked in the five largest agencies: the Veterans Administration with about 300 employees, the Department of Agriculture (Forest

Service) with about 50 employees, the Department of Health, Education

and Welfare (Social Security Administration) with about 30 employees

and the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms with approximately

15 employees. The head of each of these agencies used an alphabetical

listing of employees and distributed a questionnaire to every third

employee on that list. This sampling allowed us to assess the reaction

of a variety of employees on five different floors, while at the same

time limiting the total number of questionnaires administered to manageable proportions in terms of scoring and analysis. All the questionnaires were returned — a rarity in studies of this type.

4. THE BUILDING

The Poff Building (Figure 1) is a general purpose Federal building.

It houses 25 Federal agencies and contains Federal court space as well

as office space. Prior to moving to the Poff Building, the various

agencies occupied space leased by GSA. The building was completed in

December 1975, is 13 stories high, contains 190,000 square feet of space

and houses some 650 employees.

Six major tenants occupy 50% of the building area. The remaining tenants

include smaller agencies, several of which have only one or two employees.

The U.S. Courts (not a part of this evaluation) are on the second and

third floors. The other floors house various Federal agencies, the

largest being the Veterans Administration located on the 10th through

13th floors. The Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), uses twothirds of the 6th floor. Finally, the Department of Health, Education

and Welfare (Social Security Administration) occupies part of the 8th

floor. The remaining agencies are distributed over the remaining floors.

The building was designed using the open office concept (Figure 2) and

laid out in five foot modules. About one-third of the space is still

open; the rest has been subdivided by partitions into smaller spaces

and/or private offices (Figure 3). Two sides of the building consist of

single pane reflective glass. The windows cannot be opened, but there

are drapes which can be opened and closed.

Utility services for the offices are provided by an underfloor duct

system (Figure 4). The system contains three ducts; for electricity,

telephone and a system for fire safety and FM radio reception. This

9
Figure 1. Richard H. Poff Courthouse and Federal

Building, Roanoke, Virginia
Figure 3. Partitioned Office

Figure 4. Outlets from Underfloor Duct System

11
utility system was intended to provide flexibility in locating desks and

other equipment to conform to the open plan concept. Ducts run along the

floor within five foot strips covered with carpeting which can be removed

as needed to install, modify or remove telephone or electrical outlets.

The following features are not standard: (1) the size of ceiling tiles,

(2) the thickness of partitions and (3) the placement of doorknobs (they are three inches higher than normal).

Several other aspects of the building are worth noting. The size and

design of the parking garage (Figure 5) and the location of an exterior

sculpture (Figure 6) were prescribed by GSA. The parking garage is

accessible only from the outside of the building for security reasons having to do with moving prisoners to and from the courtrooms. Music

from a local FM radio station is broadcast to the office spaces throughout the building. The building directory is table-top style (Figure 7)

and located in the lobby directly across from the elevators. Agencies

are listed by floor not alphabetically.

5. THE BUILDING PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS

5.1 INTERVIEW WITH GSA REPRESENTATIVE

The interview with a representative from the Space Management Division

at GSA focused on the planning process. Different groups within GSA

have different responsibilities for the overall building process. A

request for a new building, for additional space or for space within an

existing building may be initiated by the Planning Group or Space Management Group within GSA, or by the agency desiring space. GSA Regional

Space Planning and Management Groups have responsibility for assessing

the space situation in their regions. The Poff Building was built in

response to the need, in the Roanoke, Virginia area, for: (1) reducing

the diversity of leased space and (2) providing additional space for

agencies with growing space needs.

A building project usually starts with development of a Federal Space

Situation Report by a Regional Space Planning Group. This report indicates a need for additional or combined space for one or more Federal

agencies, and recommends that space needs be met either through lease

acquisition or new construction.

Next, the Space Management Group contacts the agencies involved in the

proposed change. Each agency is asked to help determine its space needs

by completing GSA Form 1476, Space Requirements Worksheet. (A copy of

this form is included in Appendix B.) The way this form is completed

differs considerably from agency to agency. This variation is accounted

for by the fact that some agencies have their own space planners who

complete the form while in other agencies the form is filled out by

individuals less familiar with the space planning process.

The GSA building process is summarized in Table 5.

12
Figure 5. Parking Garage

Figure 6. Exterior Sculpture
Figure 7. Building Directory

14
1 CO CO

ai

G 4-J 1 CO 00

g

X rH rH

G <D c 3 > x •H TO G O Ui •H X QQ H G 3 CO CJ CO oo G o 4-1 U 4-1 00 CO 0) •H c •H 4-1 G u c o Ui <D o G o

00 0) •H (1)

a SIG o 4-J -G 00 4-1 CO u a. x o 4J 4-) C -O M 3 (0 c •M o 4J ui c G G O •H •H •H

H

Q rHa a) CM c S TO Z 6 g L-l e O CO c0 CM i—

0)

a

a> > o

is

G Ui o z CO •H > s C u a> u CO G cq o G 3 o

CL o CO

G

g o 4-J 00G oo

M

G

X 0 o H a. rH o G Ui G o CO G H G

-J •u COC CO 4-1 o c O <C cfl 3 a o •H a CO 4h eg o a- g c2 G <0 > G 0) OB 4J G UH s 4-J Ui G a O >4-1 •1—1 a u 4-J a 4J G G G a, •H o o Q M 4-) •H g G CJ G G CL *M o 4-J (0

00 c •*-)

G (1)

O a) CJ 0) 00

H c 0) - CO o a. -C *H 4-J

G 4-J

Q

G Ui oo 3 U o > CO Ui C0 4-) 4-J G x: U Ui 3 3 •H a u H G G a. o o 0) 4-1 (1) <0 4-J > G "0 G CL Ui 6 G CO *»“> CO •H Ul tH o < - G O 00 CL. O Ui G Ui o a G i—C C 3 •H

oc CO 0) c CJ c Ui 4-) Ui o Ui

a o 3 a 03

G

cu o U CO DO •H CO CM CO CL 4-1 CL

U TO

O 3 X) CO o O CD O o o •» CU o X X X G c X Ui <V Ui 1 i G •H G o 00 X

CU

X

G

a Jx! •H 4-J •HG

G

OO o Ui <D

O cO 00 X3 o 4-1 •H

G Ul 00 o G cj O O c G e O G a Ui 4-1 o c 4-J c 0) 3 G <D cu •H •r-) rH 3 G G M z m X3 o Q- 00 u G 4-1 G Ui G *H X G o X E 4-J cc X G 3 •H 4-1 r-l G X 4-J 4-J CJ M 1—

•H

O 4-1 TO c 3 X COX •H cu

H

GM

G c < G Q) o X <u CO 4-1 Ul 3 G

GX

G < u

G (U

a

G SI Ui

G 0 cu

O

O oo •H •H

CC z o G

X

M e O

G 4-J CL

G 3 Ui

A 4-1 CJ

G

X H-

G G. G X <u G U 4J CJ G G CJ < V CL X •H G u >> 4-1 >. CO C o CO Ul G CO X3 X

C/3 CC CO CJ

G •w X3

C Sj

u TO 4-1 o Ui 3 o 3 O a < G CT 3 01 i—

e M 4-1 •H H rH C/3 G 0 cr TO s G 00 i—1 <u cu M G 00 G G CU 0) a G O Ui <0 0) O- a> cO G > 0 G O <u G a X x: Q G G ai 1-1 X3 c •H 3 O XI G X

4-1

O * 0)

—

G ert <M 4-1 z CJW

G

Q •M

G

G Ul <0 O. cr Ui

B

O

u o o G

X

X

O - CM a 4-1 O — G o O. a) a CU M TO < X o G •H C

X o a •H M M CO 3 X CU G Ui H 4-1 •T-) O 4-J a o z G u X a CO <D O 4-J 1-1 U <u G •H O O X

0)

G

G

w 0)

a -G

G CO *H

Q 30 x:

X

G CU 4-J

G CJ - s-< G Ui CJ TO M CO 4-J a X oi 4-1 4-J G X G Ui X 3 c o 4-1 G 3 o 0) 4-1 X CO o CU H G X Ui 4J <u X

0) z G

X 4-1 CO c 4-1 <D

a

G CL

U

a X5

aG

X

X

X

Ga 0) c C 3 (1) <u QJ o a) < a CO z 4-1 o G Ul 4-J

GX 3

cr o SI o o O 00 1—

XT Ui <u

a o a o •H

u o rH

O •H o G < z o cj X G Q. CO M c o u a u 3 <M <4-1 G u CU CJ

C/3• CM o O o in o o 0) X3H A 4-J iM G rH 3 G *H 3 Ut 3 O •H o i

—1 cu

G si

00 CJ cr Ui <u 3 G o o X a Ui Ui 4-J 3 •H 3 G

IX

G TO

X

X

G o < -C 3 •H G X a 4-1 3 G G

>1u e G

G

G

G

X

G 3 O

G Ui rH

H o a 4-1

a

G CQ *H Z X X G a E G Ui a 3 G G 3 X cr G E 3 CJ O X CJ a > G G 3 rH *H G 4-1 a 3 P. > a G •H a 1-1 X G 3 G G G G a o O a <U 00 00 1—

4-1 •H

X

<C

X

G Ui 3 *H

X *H *H

X •H

G 3 G •H i-H

a

G

COG CJ •HG o 0 rH c •H G G O < o •H G 00 G G

cu

XG *H CU *M 4-1a

a IX -C CL

X •H

G •H

X o O o 3 G 3 X O

X TO o CJ 3 <4-4 3 X O 3 O CJ

n

X

G 3 3 G X o sz g TO G •H X X 4-J 3 x o a G 0 X o X a G a 3 3 Ui X <x Cl 3 o G Ui 3 •i-> o X M *M •H o <M TO 3 3 3 > 3 X 3 X > OO 0i X 3 Q. G 3 X •H 3 a •H W O *H 4-J 3 a '

>. rH 3 Ui 3 3 U

4-1 <J

X

XG

X •rH

G

g

CJ CJ

X 4-J 3 Ui

G

G 3 *H 3 3 •H 3

IX •“>

G

X 3 Ui 0 X

Q CJ o O 4-J X X CJ 3 3 3 H Ui o 3 CJ CJ 3 G CL u CL G 3 3 0K O 0 CJ 3 a «—

•H CL TO TO 3 G

HG

G

X 3 X CL 3 w X 3 3 oo X •H CO X X G 3 3 CJ G X q U G > < 3 3 cr G

oi

G ,G •H

aX

G >4 < O 4-» 00 o 0 X Ui 4-J X ICO TO X qj 3 Ui G > CO O CA G G X G CJ

CJ o. > G G a •H CL O 3 4-J CO ^ ° O

15

design

solution

is
5.2 SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECT

The GSA Construction Management Group is responsible for selection of

the architectural/engineering (A/E) firm for each building project. The

firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern of Roanoke, Virginia was chosen to design the Poff Building. According to the architects, the

firm has had a great deal of experience in designing office buldings,

along with a broad background in dealing with the Federal government

as a client. The A/E firm was chosen after most of the initial planning,

including development of the program, had been completed. For the most

part, the A/E firm had no role in the planning and programming phase of

the project.

6. BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS

6.1 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT

After the A/E firm was selected, GSA provided the firm with the following documents:

° A contract that covered the scope of the services to be rendered.

° Instructions to Contract Architects/Engineers , PBS P3410.1B.

° Architectural Criteria and Drawing Requirements , PBS P3410.5.

° The Space Directive for the project.

These documents defined the procedural demands and space program as required by GSA. At a later date, a revised Space Directive was issued

to the architect. (According to the architect, these documents and the

procedures specified by them did not hamper creativity or innovation

in the design process.

)

The architect did point out that some agency as well as general building

requirements were not identified until the building was under construction — in some cases, even after construction was completed. An example

was the late addition of an employee cafeteria which had to be located

on a middle story of the building. This location called for running

additional venting up several floors, causing a loss of valuable floor

space and adding needlessly to the cost.

To meet the GSA requirement for flexibility, the building was designed

for open plan office space. Light switches and thermostats were placed

on columns, and electrical power and telephone service distribution systems were located in ducts in the floor.

In order to save money, the heating, ventilating and air conditioning

(HVAC) system designed by the architect was replaced at GSA's request.

This change was called for after most of the building design had been

16
completed. The contractor for the HVAC system produced and submitted

to GSA a report that called for a system different from the one GSA

had originally asked the architect to incorporate.

The architect also said that one bank of elevators planned for the building was an optional bid item. (The contractors bidding for the construction contract for the building were required to bid a separate price for

one elevator bank so that GSA would have the option of deleting it if

overall bids came in too high.) GSA’s reasoning was that the building

would not be 100% occupied for some time, and that one bank of elevators

would suffice.

The architect also stressed that at the time the building was designed,

requirements for the handicapped were minimal and there were no prescribed energy conservation requirements.

6.2 INTERVIEW WITH TENANT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES

At a meeting with representatives from the tenant agencies and the

research team, the representatives critiqued the way in which information on their user needs was gathered as well as the effectiveness of

the building itself. Their comments dealt both with the experience of

individual employees and with that of agencies with missions to perform.

The discussion, which was very open and lasted about two hours, reflected

considerable agreement by participants as to the major shortcomings of

the building as well as its positive features.

As might be expected, the major tenants (such as the Veterans Administration which occupies several floors) provided more information than did

agencies with smaller staffs and occupying less space. The main reason

for the correlation between the amount of feedback information (mostly

negative) and agency size, may be attributed to the greater complexity

and variety of activities performed by the larger tenant organizations.

7. EVALUATION OF THE BUILDING IN USE

7.1 EMPLOYEE CRITIQUE

The data for this category of users are based on responses to the questionnaire. The employees who work in the building day after day, usually

in one specific location, have strong feelings about it. Although the

questionnaire findings indicated that most of these responses relate to

the physical and environmental aspects of the Poff Building, other factors, such as organizational structure, often affect employee responses

to questionnaire surveys.

This section briefly reviews the questionnaire results. (Appendix A contains a copy of the questionnaire, with the response percentages listed

beside each part of each question. Due to the limited scope of this project, not all responses were analyzed.)

17
Questions 1 and 2 asked employees what they particularly liked or disliked

about the building. The questions were written so the responses were not

structured in any way. Employees were free to answer a question in any manner they felt appropriate. The most prominently mentioned likes and

dislikes about the building are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of Employee Likes and Dislikes

Likes Dislikes

1 . Exterior design and appearance 1 . Heating, cooling and ventilating system

2. Nothing 2. Elevator service

3. View 3. Parking facilities

4. Lack of health facilities

Responses to the more specific questions indicated that, on the whole,

employees liked the lighting in the building, the amount of space, the

general office environment (colors, carpet, decoration, etc.), the size

of windows and appearance of the lobby.

Employees were particularly dissatisfied with the thermal environment.

Respondents expressed this dissatisfaction on both open-ended questions,

such as question 2, and on questions specifically related to the office

environment. The offices were often cold (or warm) enough to make the

employees uncomfortable. Employees also said their offices were often

uncomfortably stuffy.

When asked about three physical features they felt made an office a pleasant place in which to work (question 10), the employees responded

as follows: (1) comfortable temperature, (2) good light and (3) good

ventilation. Freedom from noise ranked fourth and its relatively high

ranking may be due to the fact that over 80% of the respondents worked

in some type of open office. Of those who wished to change their

office, most wanted more privacy—almost always in the form of walls

or partitions. These results are summarized in Table 7.

18
Table 7. Rank Order of Building Features Mentioned and

Responses Associated with Them

Importance of Physical Features

in an Office

Employee Response to Physical

Features in Poff Building

1. Comfortable temperature Dissatisfaction

2. Good light Satisfaction

3. Good ventilation Dissatisfaction

4. Freedom from noise Dissatisfaction

7.2 TENANT AGENCY CRITIQUE

We have already cited tenant agency representatives' opinion as to the

design process and the building itself. Let us consider these two

points in turn.

7.2.1 The Design Process

The major source of dissatisfaction was the lack of adequate communication between those responsible for designing the building and the tenant

agencies who occupy it. Tenant agency personnel were asked to evaluate

and fill out forms which described floor layouts (prepared by others).

These forms were to be used to locate desks, electrical outlets and telephones. Many of the individuals (and agency representatives) asked to

do this did not understand how to use the layout forms, and they made

decisions that were later found to be inappropriate — calling for costly

changes late in the design process. Representatives from agencies did

not see the physical space they would occupy. In general, tenants

occupying the most space (such as the Veterans Administration) had less

say in the design of their spaces than did other agencies, since their

layouts were planned by staff architects in a central agency office in

Washington, D.C.

The lack of communication between tenant agencies and GSA (as well as with the architect) led to many problems, which will be discussed later

(Section 8.1). One decision made by GSA merits special attention: The

architect was required to use the open plan office concept. Several

agency representatives felt this concept was not compatible with their

mission’s requirements, for reasons to be discussed in the next section.

7.2.2 The Building

The VA representative declared the open plan office design was inappropriate for his agency which deals with "clients" on highly personal

19
issues that demand privacy and freedom from disturbances such as noise.

These clients can best be served in an informal rather than a bureaucratic setting.

Unfortunately, the interviews revealed that the VA clientele as well

as agency functions were hampered by several building features:

0 Outer doors to the lobby are difficult to open. Specif icially

,

some elderly and handicapped people are unable to open the doors.

° The automatic doors in the lobby are frequently out-of-order

(or blocked in the closed position), making it difficult for

visitors in wheelchairs to enter through the front of the

building.

° Elevator service to the building was said to be inadequate for

moving people and/or materials. (The VA’s activities call for

moving substantial amounts of records and supplies as well as accommodating many visitors.

)

0 The loading platform was designed to accommodate tractor trailers,

yet many deliveries to the VA are by means of small trucks, which

must be manually unloaded, since the elevation of the platform,

while appropriate for tractor trailers, is too high for small

trucks.

° The movement of materials is also hampered because two sets of

doors must be opened to reach the elevator from the loading area.

The most general cause for complaint by tenant agency representatives was

the thermal comfort conditions. They pointed out that during periods of

direct sun exposure, the north side of the building becomes very cold,

while the south side is too hot. Numerous compliants were also made about

inadequate air circulation, especially during the summer, when on several

occasions conditions were so bad that building occupants were released

early.

The parking situation also raised several comments. The research team

learned that the garage roof leaked caustic materials on several cars,

resulting in considerable damage. Another source of dissatisfaction was

that the garage is restricted to use by government vehicles only.

Finally, several agency representatives said that the piped-in sound

system was disruptive. The system is tuned to a local FM station which

transmits news, weather, advertisements and commentary as well as music.

The voice broadcasts are said to disrupt work. The signals, which are transmitted by the communication system lines (also used for emergency

warnings), cannot be turned off, nor can the volume be lowered.

On the positive side, one participant praised GSA for its foresight in

including expansion space in the building.

20
Near the end of the discussion, agency representatives were asked to

identify "one best” and "one worst" feature of the building. Table 8

summarizes responses to this request.

Table 8. Summary of Tenant Agency Likes and Dislikes

Likes Dislikes

1 . Attractive 1 . Heating/cooling system

2. Colorful 2. Inflexibility caused by

underfloor duct system

3. Good delivery of supplies* 3. Temperature control

4. Nice people 4. Elevator service

5. Clean 5. Design of garage

6. Conference rooms 6. Parking

7. Convenience of Post Office 7. Lack of volume control on piped-in radio music

8. Snack bar/cafeteria

* Not true for VA

7.3 BUILDING MANAGER’S CRITIQUE

The building manager felt that, in general, the building was successful.

He especially stressed his feeling that the fire safety system and automated monitoring system are excellent. He added that during a recent

bomb scare, the building was evacuated in approximately six minutes

using elevators as the primary means of exit. This is considered fast

for a building the size of the Poff Building. According to the manager,

complaints over elevator service usually have to do with the wait when

leaving the building at the close-of-business, rather than at other times

of the day.

A negative aspect, according to the building manager, is the fact that

the deck above the garage was not properly sealed and a corrosive substance which destroys paint leaks onto cars in the garage.

21
7.4

ARCHITECT'S CRITIQUE

In the architect's opinion the complaints by building users as to the

thermal environment stemmed from installation of a different HVAC system

from the one originally specified. Also, the architect stressed that the

building was designed for an open plan office layout, and this led to

placing light switches and thermostats on columns. Not all agencies were agreeable to the open plan, however, and fixed, ceiling-high partitions

have been installed. As a result, light switches and thermostats for some areas of space do not coincide with the fixed wall layout. This

has caused a variety of thermal problems linked with temperature and

air movement.

The architect assumed that any complaints about noise could be attributed in part to GSA's strict acoustical standards for the mechanical

system. The system is required to be so quiet that the background masking sound such a system normally provides is missing. Thus, typewriters,

telephone rings, telephone conversations and normal speech are more readily heard, causing distraction or annoyance.

The architect also thought that complaints as to waiting times for, and

inconvenient access to, elevators resulted from the fact that the building was constructed with one bank of elevators rather than the two originally intended.

Finally, the architect thought that if energy conservation requirements

had been called for at the time the building was designed, the final

design would have been substantially different.

7.5

GSA REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S CRITIQUE

A GSA regional employee conveyed to the research team some views on the

planning, operation and maintenance of the building. He confirmed that

the problem with the garage was that the "deck had not been properly

sealed," thereby leaking corrosive material on the cars in the garage.

He also cited examples of problems associated with the non-standard

design features of the building. Thus, one difficulty has been that

replacements for (or new) ceiling tiles, wall partitions, doors and even

doorknobs cannot be purchased through GSA and GSA's suppliers. Instead,

when changes are required, replacement parts have to be virtually custom

made. Hence, modifications are subject to extended delays, and are much more costly than if they could be obtained through GSA.

7.6

COMPARISON OF USERS' VIEWS OF POFF BUILDING

The research team's evaluation of users' views of the Poff Building was based upon the results of personal interviews and a questionnaire survey.

The data reveal major disagreements among these varied groups as to the

building's effectiveness. Reasons for the judgments are understandable

when one considers the varying responsibilities and/or viewpoints of

these users.

22
The one user who, on the whole, liked the building was the building manager who is responsible for its day-to-day operation.

The architect acknowledged several shortcomings but attributed these to

GSA's decision to go to open space planning; and with GSA's design decisions associated with acoustics, the HVAC system and elevators.

Representatives of tenant agencies and employees of the building were

in agreement over the major problem in the building — the lack of

thermal comfort, including deficiencies in air circulation.

A look at the thermal environmental problems highlights the differing

viewpoints of several user groups. The architect sees the problem as caused by the design change from the originally specified HVAC system.

The building manager explained the "perceived" problems as being caused

by a combination of newly prescribed thermostat settings, the wearing

of inappropriate clothing and a minority of employees who are chronic

complainers. The tenant agencies and employees are less concerned with

the cause of the problem. They want a remedy because they claim the

conditions result in discomfort, which in turn leads to poor job performance.

The GSA regional representative was aware of most of the problems cited

by tenant agency representatives. He also recognized the difficulties

that arose when changes had to be made — mostly due to lack of standardization.

7.7 OBSERVATIONS BY RESEARCHERS

Two of the study authors (Elder and Rubin), accompanied by the building

manager and the GSA representative, spent several hours on a walk-through

of the building. This permitted them to make a few very general observations as to its appearance.

One major and obvious problem noted in the tour of the interior was the

carpeting. There were numerous repairs and patches along the paths of

the underfloor duct system (Figures 8 and 9). Many of the patches rose above the level of other parts of the carpet, appearing as potential

safety hazards. The variety of styles, ages and finishes of furniture

and equipment in some of the open space areas gave an impression of

visual disharmony and lack of order (Figure 10). (Many of the tenant

agencies brought their furniture to the Poff Building from previous

locations.) Other areas, particularly those occupied by the smaller

agencies, appeared more oderly (Figure 11).

The team's visit to the garage area revealed the problems caused by the

leaky ceiling. The interior of the structure was badly stained and

several cars were in need of repainting, reportedly due to leakage

damage.

23
Figures 8 and 9. Repairs along Path of Underfloor Duct System

24
Figure 10. Example of Interior Design

Figure 11. Example of Interior Design

25
8. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Using interviews, a questionnaire survey and observational research procedures, the research team identified a number of problem areas in the

performance of the Poff Building. The team also succeeded in identifying some of the design features which caused or contributed to problems.

Table 9 summarizes these findings.

Table 9. Behavioral and Design Feature Relationships

Problems

(Behavioral/Performance)

Design Features

Thermal discomfort HVAC system

Difficulty in moving materials Ramp design

Difficulty in moving people Single elevator

Lack of privacy Open plan office concept

Safety and appearance of covering for underfloor duct system

Underfloor duct system

Disruption of work due to delays

in making alterations or repairs

Selection of non-standard

sizes: doors, panels

Having identified which design features led to problems for individuals

and tenant agencies, the research team sought to determine how design

decisions were made which resulted in these features. More specifically,

the team wanted to find out the bases of making these decisions — i.e. , criteria, informational content and sources. The evaluators hypothesized

a close link between the quality of design information and building performance. (Quality is defined in terms of accommodating user activities.)

Naturally, information quality per se is not going to ensure buildings

that serve their users better. The data must be used in a timely and

appropriate way in the design process.

Most of the data dealing with development of design information stemmed

from follow-on interviews with the architect and GSA central and

regional office personnel. Documentation was scarce. The team, therefore, had to rely for source material on recollections by a number of

major participants. Fortunately, these people generally agreed as to

the major issues.

8.1 INFORMATIONAL PROBLEMS — COMMUNICATIONS

The chief difficulty seemed to be the quality of communications among

those persons making initial design decisions (and modifications) at the

26
user agencies. The procedure which requires tenant agencies to fill out

forms as a means of determining office layouts appears to be questionable from the standpoint of user agencies. Representatives from the user agencies said they did not understand how to use the forms; nor did they

visualize the effects of their choices. They suggested that a walkthrough of spaces assigned to them before furniture arrangements were

made, would be a good way of making such decisions.

In the case of the larger agencies, the problem was different, but the

results seemed to be the same. The central office (with personnel who

apparently knew how to fill out the forms) served as a connection between

the actual tenants and the architect/GSA team making design decisions.

This process did not appear to meet the needs of the tenant agencies any

better than had the approach described earlier.

8.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

Two of the problem areas which the team identified apparently stemmed

from initial decisions about the building which in turn resulted from

GSA policies.

The open office concept, while acceptable to several tenant agencies,

was judged inappropriate by others. In addition, while the underfloor

duct system seemed to be a logical choice (assuming open office planning),

tenant agencies were generally displeased with the system, for the reasons discussed below.

8.2.1 Underfloor Duct System

The underfloor duct system was intended by GSA to provide service outlet

flexibility as required for open office planning. (The architect felt

that ceiling poles would have accomplished the same result at lower

cost. )

When asked about the effectiveness of the system, agency representatives

described its inflexibility , especially when it was necessary to partition spaces. Desk locations, for example, were fixed by the location of

outlets. Although outlets could be relocated (at a cost of $50 each),

after an initial burst of activity (e.g. thirty changes by the VA) , few

changes were made (Figure 12). Agency spokesmen, when required to

propose outlet locations on the original architectural plans, remember

the forms to be filled out as something they did not understand. They

stressed the need for a walk-through for making decisions about outlet

locations.

On the other hand, the employees are not concerned with the system as long as they have adequate outlets suitably located. The employee

questionnaire findings showed that almost all the respondents had an electrical outlet located in the floor. When asked if they would like

to have the outlet moved, most employees responded "no." (Many of

27
them said a number of the inconvenient outlets had been removed just

prior to the survey.

)

Figure 12. Changes of Electrical Outlet Locations

Since Occupancy

DATE

28
Table 10 lists equipment which the electrical duct system served, along

with the average number of hours per day during which the equipment was

used.

Table 10. Electrical Outlet Usage

Average Number of Hours % of Respondents

Equipment Per Day Used Having Item

Desk-top Calculators 4 47

Typewriters 6 38

Hand-held Calculators 3 21

The major safety problem observed was the loose and uneven carpet sections which covered the duct system (Figure 13). Molding (covering

underfloor electrical lines) was not properly replaced to prevent

carpeting from pulling loose, and this became a safety hazard. Whenever

telephone lines were modified, telephone company employees seldom

bothered to cover the duct at all.

A secondary observed hazard was caused by the floor-mounted electrical

outlet boxes (Figures 14, 15 and 16). In most cases, carpet sections

over the ducts were firmly taped down and outlet boxes were placed under

items of furniture. There were, however, instances where both the carpet

and the boxes posed the potential hazard of tripping people walking in

the area.

8.3 EARLY DESIGN DECISIONS

Two early design decisions appeared to create some difficulties for

building occupants and visitors. One was the choice of a table-top

building directory; the other was the selection of non-standard module

sizes, wall widths and doors. The research team has not been able to

determine the basis for these decisions, other than that of aesthetic

preference.

8.3.1 Direction Finding

The building users were asked about finding locations within the building. Responses differed widely:

0 The architect and building manager said the directory was effective and created few problems.

0 Employees indicated that they soon learned their way around

the building and therefore made little use of the directory.

Those employees who had visitors said visitors "often" or "sometimes" had trouble reaching their destinations.

29
Figure 13. Loose and Uneven Carpeting

Figure 14. Floor-Mounted Electrical Outlet Boxes

30
Figures 15 and 16. Floor-Mounted Electrical Outlet Boxes

31
° Agency representatives wanted the name and locations of their

organization to be displayed prominently in the lobby; the

table-top directory did not achieve this purpose. (Agencies were listed by floor, not alphabetically.

)

Many respondents felt the directory was hard to find and to use. The

table-top format found little favor. Most users favored a wall location. The VA representative pointed out that many of the visitors to

his agency were handicapped and people in wheelchairs were unable to use the directory.

As for content, agency respondents preferred an alphabetical listing of

agencies, as opposed to the existing floor-by-floor listing. Several

agencies use corridor signs to supplement the information provided by

the directory (Figures 17, 18, 19 and 20).

8.3.2 Non-Standard Components

The decision to use non-standard sizes (not available through GSA procurement) for walls, doors and other building features makes changes difficult, time consuming and costly. For example, several agencies have

changed from an open plan office layout to the construction of private

offices. To do this, many items had to be procured on the open market

as they were not available through GSA. These items often require custom manufacture, which adds to costs and leads to excessive delays.

It appears that many of the original design decisions did not take into

account long term cost factors (life cycle costing). Such costs should

account for extended disruption of service to the general public, as well

as the additional expenses necessary to perform required activities.

8.4 DESIGN/COST TRADEOFF DECISIONS

As noted, several design decisions said to hinder performance of the

Poff Building were made early in the design process. But there was also

a number of other decisions, made later in the design process which were intended to save on first costs, but led to additional operating costs.

Three items will be examined to explore the rationale (and assumptions)

that led to the final decision.

8.4.1 Elevators

The Poff Building contains one bank of elevators, situated at one end of

the building. A second bank of elevators was included as an optional

bid construction item, but was dropped in the final design, with the

intent of adding it later, as building occupancy increased. The rationale appeared to be that the building would be only two-thirds occupied

at first, making a single bank of elevators sufficient in the short term.

Discussions with agency representatives, especially from the VA, showed

that their activities are severely disrupted because of insufficient

32
Figures 17 and 18. Corridor Signs

33
Figures 19 and 20. Corridor Signs

34
elevator capacity. They point out that available elevators cannot handle

the people entering the building at the opening and close of business.

They also point out that a good deal of material is moved to and from

their offices (e.g. personnel records), requiring a service elevator.

Furthermore, this material must now be moved the length of a building

corridor, disrupting the activities of many employees.

In short, they claim the decision to save money initially has led to

increased operating costs by making many activities unduly time consuming

and difficult. (A bank of two elevators is now to be installed as a result of tenant agency requirements.

)

8.4.2 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System

The building's thermal environment is the major source of dissatisfaction

for building occupants and agency representatives. The most likely cause

of this problem was substitution of the initially specified HVAC system

for another, which was intended to serve the same function . Substitution

resulted from a "value engineering report" which, as in the case of the

elevator decision, stressed initial dollar costs. The responses by building occupants suggest that not enough attention was given to the need of

the system to meet the thermal requirements of building users. What

criteria were used to show that the installed system was equivalent to

the one originally specified are unclear.

8.4.3 Loading Dock Design

The loading dock ramp was designed to conform to the height of large

tractor trailers. Initial plans had called for a levelling device to

accommodate smaller trucks, so the load could be lifted to the platform

mechanically. In order to save initial construction costs, the levelling

device was not purchased.

At present, most deliveries are made by small trucks. Unloading them

is a time-consuming, inefficient manual operation with potential safety

hazards due to the amount of lifting required. Agency representatives

feel the present system uses more people and time for loading and

unloading than would be the case if a levelling device were available.

8.4.4 Summary - Information and Design Decisions

The decisions to "save money" on the elevators, HVAC system and loading

ramp share several characteristics:

0 They stress first costs .

0 They do not take into sufficient account the potential impact

on building performance and user activities.

0 They were made without including agency users in the decision

process.

35
° They led to difficulties which might have been avoided if user agencies had been consulted in advance.

9. THE GSA DESIGN PROCESS AND THE POFF BUILDING

If the architect is working with inappropriate or insufficient information, he is forced to make decisions based on his best judgment and

previous experience. While making a decision in this manner is acceptable professionally, it may, on occasion, not be the right decision for

a particular situation.

The GSA process appears to run the risk of allowing the architect to

make unsuitable design decisions by not having any mechanism for integrating directly with user agencies.

The most notable apparent shortcoming in the design process has to do

with poor communication and not enough involvement by user agencies.

One problem area seems to be the nature of information developed on the

Space Requirements Worksheets, which consist of a listing of furniture

and a description of actual space usage. These data describe the state

of activities and functions performed in an agency's previous location,

which does not necessarily relate to requirements for performing present

job activities. For example, those who have worked in a job for a long

time tend to accumulate equipment and materials which may or may not

be relevant to their present assignment.

Table 11 shows hypothesized links between design features and the process

used to make design decisions.

10. CONCLUSIONS

Buildings built for or leased by GSA should be designed and managed so they effectively support the work of tenant agencies and provide a satisfactory work environment for employees. The planning and design

process used by GSA makes it difficult to achieve these goals, because

of

° The many organizational units within and outside GSA that are involved in the design process.

° The lack of good communication among participants in the

design process.

0 The relatively minor role played by the tenant agencies

whom GSA buildings serve.

° The procedures and methods of documentation used to develop

required user related program information.

° The emphasis on first cost instead of long term (life cycle)

cost.

36
Table

11.

Examples

of

Impacts

of

the

Design

Process

37
° The lack of a systematic approach for evaluating buildings

and incorporating the findings into future designs and

procedures.

The research team's findings support the hypothesis that the quality of

information used to make decisions influences their effectiveness. More

specifically, when tracing the process used to make the design decisions

which ultimately led to problems for building users, the team found that user agencies were virtually ignored as potential sources of such information.

The evaluators' attempt to identify and document linkages between design

decisions and user impact by focusing on problem areas was only in part

successful. While the methods of examining documents and interviewing

participants seem appropriate for gathering this information, the lack

of adequate documentation often hampered reconstruction of the rationale

for making design decisions.

This study points to the need to establish and test design criteria based

on the performance of user activities. Even though a clearcut relationship between design decisions and impaired task performance (e.g., lost

dollars or work days) was not proven, the interview and questionnaire

findings indicate strongly that the two sets of factors are closely

related.

11. POST-OCCUPANCY RESEARCH

The evaluative procedure used to study the Poff Building proved feasible.

It should be expanded, further tested and refined, and developed into a general building evaluation methodology. Above all, the development of user information and the identification of linkages between user behavior

and design decisions must become part of an overall design process model

(including such factors as site selection and economic analysis; operations and building programming). To meet this general objective, the

following activities should be pursued:

° Exploration of means to improve interaction between architects, users and clients that will produce information needed

to ensure a building design responsive to the needs of all

building users.

° Further work to revise, test and standardize measurement

methods when collecting data on user needs and building

performance requirements.

° A detailed study of the building design process to better

identify linkages between design decisions and their ultimate influence on building users.

38
0 Development of a feedback mechanism so information about a building's operation may be incorporated in the design of new buildings and the operation of existing ones.

° Simplify and clarify procedures to enable user agencies to

participate effectively in defining their needs to GSA and

architects.

11.1 THE GSA BUILDING PROCESS

For the most part, a Space Management Group (SMG) in a GSA Regional

Office provides architectural programming for building projects. A more systematic, analytical and controlled process for programming is needed

if the types of problems encountered in the Poff Building evaluation are

to be avoided.

Such an approach calls for a close link between the development of user information and the design process, by actively involving user agencies

while the design program is being formulated (and modified). User

requirements should be developed and incorporated into programming

decisions.

A major criterion should be the potential impact of decisions on the way user agencies (and individuals) perform required activities.

User information should be collected by trained people who must not only

focus on what data are required, but also know how to avoid errors due to

lack of familiarity with methods used to collect information.

The information collected in post-occupancy evaluations should be fed

back at once for use in correcting existing buildings or planning new

buildings. Programming and post-occupancy evaluation processes must

therefore be linked, and their information collection methods must be

compatible.

Procedures should be developed to involve user agencies in the architectural programming and design process and to clarify the responsibilities of the many groups (within and outside of GSA) that take part in

making design decisions.

The bases for architectural programming and design decisions should be

better documented.

Post-occupancy evaluations of GSA buildings should continue, in order

to determine what user information is needed, how its quality and

usefulness can be improved and how it may be applied to all GSA activities.

The use of life cycle costing could have avoided a number of major problems encountered at the Poff Building.

39
Finally, GSA should have a central repository for post-occupancy evaluations of its buildings. The repository would serve as a key resource

for all who require such information.

12. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. AIA Research Corporation, Post-Occupancy Evaluation - Linking . Washington, D.C. : AIA Research Corporation, 1976.

2. Altman, I. , Some Perspective on the Study of Man-Environment Phenomena. In W. Prieser (Ed.), Environmental Design Research (Vol. II).

Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1973.

3. Brill, M. , Evaluating Buildings on a Performance Basis. In J. Lang

et al. (Eds. ) Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the

Behavioral Sciences . Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and

Ross, 1974.

4. Brolin, B.C. and Zeisel, J., Massing Housing: Social Research and

Design. The Architectural Forum . July/August 1968, 66-71.

5. Cooper, C.C., Easter Hill Village . New York: The Free Press, 1975.

6. Cooper, C.C. and Hackett, P. , Analysis of the Design Process at Two

Moderate-Income Housing Developments (Center for Planning and Development Research, Working Paper No. 80). Berkeley, California:

University of California, June 1968.

7. Fields, H.H. et al. , Evaluation of Hospital Design — A Holistic

Approach . Boston, Mass.: Tufts-New England Medical Center, 1971.

8. Fried, M. and Gleicher, P. , Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction

in an Urban Slum. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , November 1961, 4.

9. Gutman, R. and Westergaard, B. , Building Evaluation, User Satisfaction and Design. In J. Lang et al. (Eds. ) Designing for Human Behavior : Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences . Stroudsburg, Pa.

Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1974.

10. Sommer, R. , Design Awareness . San Francisco, California: Rinehart

Press, 1972.

11. Turner, G.E. et al. , The National Cancer Institute's Emergency Virus

Isolation Facility: A Case Study for Use in Developing a Methodology of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (NBSIR 77-1402). Washington, D.C:

National Bureau of Standards, 1977.

12. Van der Ryn, S. and Silverstein, M. , Dorms at Berkeley: An Environmental Analysis. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories,

1967.

40
13. White, E.T., Introduction to Architec ling . Tucson,

Arizona: Architectural Media.

41
APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

42
• Percentage Summaries of Responses

Number of

Responses

(N)

1

N

144

144

146

146

N

149

148

149

142

134

149

149

149

ROANOKE FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING - BUILDING ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Is there anything you particularly like about the Roanoke Federal

Office Building?

O Yes 72

O' No 28

If yes , what do you like? Design/Exterior appearance (31), View (13),

Cleanness (12), Location (7), Windows (7), Music/Radio (6)

Is there anything you particularly dislike about the Roanoke Federal Office

Building?

O Yes 92

O No 8

If yes , what do you dislike? HVAC system (temperature) (57),

Elevators (32), Parking (19), Lack of health facility or lounge (13),

Ventilation (12)

About how satisfied are you with the following aspects of the building?

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

satisfied satisfied Indifferent dissatisfied dissatisfied

a. Lobby n 23 n 29 /_/ 31 /_/ 9 /_/ 7

b. Building

Directory in

Lobby n 14 n 22 n 28 n 24 n 12

c. Elevators n 5 n 19 n 6 n 31 n 38

d. Parking n 5 n 7 n 11 n 15 n 62

e. Parking Garage n 5 n 4 n 47 n 10 n 34

f. Snack Bar/

Cafeteria n 19 rj 42 n 14 n 19 n 5

g* Exterior

Appearance n 57 n 32 n 9 n 3 n 0

Please comment No comments (54) Can’t find directory (10), Dislike sculpture (8) ,

Dislike snack bar (6), Lack of parking for visitors and handicapped (5).
4. N118

149

Do visitors to your office have trouble finding their way?

/_/ Often 29

/”/ Sometimes 45

/”/ Only occasionally 23

/_/ Never 3

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

Please comment No comments (71) . Can't find directory (6).

5. How does your office or work area in this building compare with the last

office you had?

Suitability for

147 Appearance Comfort Performance of Job

n Better 88 143 u Better 26 142 /“/ Better 35

n Same 6 n Same 22 n Same 26

n Worse 5 n Worse 52 n Worse 39

6 . Would you like to change your present: office in any way?

138 /_/ Yes 78

/“/ No 22

138 If yes , how? Temperature (32), More privacy (24), Ventilation (11),

Less noise (8), More space (7), Closer to window (7)

7. Please read all the categories and then check the kind of office you are in.

143 10

6

15

/_/ A private office enclosed with full height walls.

/_/ An office, enclosed with full height walls, shared with one other person

/_/ An open office (no dividers or furniture that blocks the view) shared

with 2 or more other people.

19 /_/ An individual space enclosed (or mostly enclosed) by dividers, plants

or file cabinets etc. in an otherwise open office. Have little or no view of other workers.

50 /_/ Have some dividers, plants, file cabinets that tend to break up an open office but do not enclose the work space. Can readily see other workers.

44
N

137

149

147

145

148

147

132

145

149

146

In your last office, how many people shared your room or work area?

n Had an office alone

n Less than 4 people

n 5-10 people

ij 11-20 people

n More than 20 people

How' many people share your current room or work area?

o Have an office alone

O Less than 4 people

n 5-10 people

fj 11-20 people

n More than 20 people

. Check the three physical features that are most important to you in making

an office a pleasant place for you to work.

88 u Comfortable temperature 20 /_/ Privacy

61 fj Good light 10 /_/ Plenty of space

40 n Freedom from noise 18 II General environment

(colors, carpet, decoration)

42 / / Good ventilation

3 II Other (please specify)

20 /_/ A window

11. About how satisfied are you with the following aspects of your office?

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

satisfied satisfied Indifferent dissatisfied dissatisfied

a. Lighting IJ 62 IJ 31 IJ 3 IJ 3 IJ i

b. Noise level IJ 20 fj 31 IJ 5 IJ 24 IJ 20

c. Odor of office IJ 33 IJ 26 IJ 28 n 8 rj 6

d. Ventilation n 4 Ij 19 n 5 fj 31 n 41

e. Temperature n 1 fj 10 O i ri 28 rj 59

f. Window size O 54 IJ 17 n n O 3 n 15

g- Privacy n 18 IJ 25 IJ 18 rj i6 rj 23

h. Plenty of Space rj 34 n 38 n s rj io n 11

i. General Environment

(Colors, carpet,

decoration) ij 29 Fj 44 Fj i4 Fj n rj 3
N

148

12. Does It ever get cold enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/_/ Often 56

/_/ Sometimes 24

/_/ Only occasionally 14

/”/ Never 6

/”/ Don’t know/no opinion

147 13. Does It ever get warm enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/_/ Often 56

/_/ Sometimes 31

/_/ Only occasionally 10

/_/ Never 3

/_/ Don’t know/no opinion

147 14. Does it ever seem uncomfortably stuffy?

/_/ Often 46

/_/ Sometimes 31

/_/ Only occasionally 19

/_/ Never 5

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

129 15. Does it ever seem uncomfortably humid?

/_/ Often 16

/_/ Sometimes 24

/_/ Only occasionally 31

/_/ Never 29

/ / Don't know/no opinion

46
Do you ever notice unpleasant odors in your office or work area?

/_/ Often 7

/”/ Sometimes 14

t~/ Only occasionally 42

/_/ Never 37

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

17. What do you do if your office gets too cold?

too warm?

too stuffy?

too humid?

149 18. How does the noise level in this office compare with that of other offices

in which you have worked?

/I More noise in present office 36

/J About the same ^ H Less noise in present office 28

147 19. Does your office ever become so noisy that you find it difficult to work?

IJ Yes 54

/J No 46

/ 7 Don't know/no opinion

N

139

16 .

47
20 . N

147

What noises bother you most as you work?

/_/ None 14

o Office machines 29

o Outside noise 3 o Background music 12

o Telephones 29

o Voices 66

u People walking around

u Other (please specify)

(Check as many as apply.)

21 .

133

Do you prefer working by natural light, artificial light or a combination

of natural and artificial?

/_/ Prefer natural 13

/_/ Prefer artificial 7

/_/ Prefer combination 80

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

22. In general, do you think the light level, artificial and natural combined,

is about right for your work?

140 _

/_/ About right 89

fj Too little light 11

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

23. Does the artificial light ever cause enough glare to bother you?

144 /_/ Often 3

/_/ Sometimes 17

/_/ Only occasionally 26

/_/ Never 53

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

48
N

149

120

119

117

24. Do you have an electrical outlet associated with your desk?

/“/ Yes 81

/“/ No 19

/_/ Don't know

If yes , please answer a, b and c.

If no , skip to question 25.

a. Is the electrical outlet located on the wall or on the floor?

/_/ On the wall 13

/_/ On the floor 96

b. Please check those items for which the electrical outlet is used

and indicate for approximately how many hours each day the checked

item is used.

39 /_/ Typewriter for 5.9 hours/day

21 /_/ Hand-held calculator for 3.2 hours/day

47 /_/ Desk-top calculator for 4 .

3

hours/day

5 /_/ Desk lamp for 6.0 hours/day

11 /_/ Coffee pot for 4 .8 hours/day

14 /_/ Clock for 17 .

0

hours/day

3 / / Electric pencil sharpener for hours/day

21 /_/ Other (please specify)

for * hours/day

6 /_/ None of the above

c. Would you like to have your outlet moved?

/“/ Yes 15

FI No 85

If yes , why

*Less than five in sample.

49
25a.

N144

144

142

142

26.

143

27.

147

Have you personally had any accidents which have occurred as a result

of the electrical outlet boxes on the floor? Include even minor accidents

such as tripping.

Q Yes 21

Q No 79

If yes , please comment Sidestepping tripping on outlet and cord (14 )

,

All others less than 2% each.

b. Do you know of any accidents which have occurred as a result of the

electrical outlet boxes on the floor? Include even minor accidents

such as tripping.

/_/ Yes 26

u No 74

If yes , please comment Tripping (17), All others less than 2% each.

How important is it to you to have a window in your office or immediate

work area?

/_/ Very important 50

/_/ Moderately important 36

/_/ Not important 13

/_/ Don’t know/no opinion

Do you have a window or windows in your office or work area?

/_/ Yes 71

fj No 29

If yes , answer all questions.

If no , skip to question 36.

50
N

104

28.

Are you able to see as much of the outside world as you would like from

your desk?

IJ Yes 71

/J No 29

/ / Don't know/no opinion

105

29.

Which of the following best describe the view out of the window closest

to you? (Check as many as apply.)

0 satisfying 58 IJ open 28

IJ limited 11 u bright 27

n simple 6 0 uncluttered 7 O pleasant 58 0 frustrating 2 O confined 7 0 complex 1 O dim 1 0 boring 4 n stimulating 18 0 unpleasant 0

O cluttered 4 0 spacious 35

104

30.

Do you ever work using only the light from the windows?

/_/ Often 5

/_/ Sometimes 5 fj Only occasionally 10

rj Never 81

n Don't know/no opinion

31.

How about the light from the windows, does it ever cause enough glare to

bother you?

! 0 3 fj Often 3

/_/ Sometimes 17

/_/ Only occasionally 21

/”/ Never 58

/ / Don't know/no opinion

51
32.

Does your office ever become too hot because of the sunshine coming in the

windows?

n Often 30

n Sometimes 36

n Only occasionally 9 n Never 25

n Don't know/no opinion

33.

Do you ever notice cold drafts near the windows?

i /_/ Often 32

/_/ Sometimes 33

/_/ Only occasionally 20

/_/ Never 13

/__/ Don't know/no opinion

34.

Do you think the noise level near the window is noticeably greater than

in other areas of the room?

^ /_/ Often ®

/_/ Sometimes ^

/_/ Only occasionally

/_/ Never ® 2

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

35.

94

How about the size of your window,

/_/ About right 86

/_/ Too big 13

/_/ Too small 1

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

is it:

52
36. Listed below are some of the advantages of windows. Check the three that

N are most important to you.

121 n Let you tell time of day 3 o Let sunshine in 50

tj Let you know what the weather is 67

ij Let in warmth 7 o Let you see what's going on outside 18

u Provide a way for fresh air to enter 19

fj Give a change of view to break monotony 78

n Provide light for plants 7 n Make a room seem more spacious 42

/“/ Other (please specify) 8

37. Listed below are some of the disadvantages of windows. Check the three that

you feel are the biggest disadvantages.

82 ,j Let in too much heat in summer 82

U Let in too much cold air in winter 76

O Cause glare 48

U Reduce privacy 1 fj Let in outside noises 18

n Limit ways furniture can be arranged 24

n Give too much sunlight 22

/_/ Present a hazard (might get broken) 20

/_/ Present a hazard (person might fall) 5

/ / Other (please specify) 5

53
38.

Which of the following activities are a normal part of your job? (Check

each one you usually do as a part of your job.)

/_/ Reading

/”/ Writing (including shorthand)

i~J Typing

/_/ Using other keyboard machines (calculator, key punch, computer

terminal, etc.)

O Filing

/_/ Working with numbers

/_/ Making drawings

/_/ Laboratory work

/_/ Using the telephone

l~J Interviewing or holding small meetings

rj Supervising the work of others

rj Other (please specify)

39.

In general, how much time do you spend in your office or immediate work area?

/__/ All the time (7-8 hours a day)

r_l Most of the time (4—6 hours a day)

/_/ Very little (less than 4 hours a day)

/_/ Other (please specify)

40.

Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the

Roanoke Federal Office Building? No comments (48) , Improve HVAC

149 (temperature) system (17), More elevators (9), IMprove parking (7).

Please go on to the next page.

54
The following information is needed for data analysis only . It will not be

used to identify any individual respondent.

41.

How long have you worked in the Roanoke Federal Office Building?

42. Which floor is your office on?

Floor number

43. Where was your last office?

Number Street

City State

44. Sex

/_/ Male

/_/ Female

45 . Age

tj 17-25

/”/ 26-35

l~J 36-50

/_/ Over 50

46. In general terms, what type of job do you have? (For example, clerk typist,

supervisor, physician, etc.)

Thank You Very Much

55
APPENDIX B

SPACE REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET

56
SKMVW3M

57

Total

Space

Required

I

i

See

other

sioe

r

oR

symbols

&.

general

instructions
SYMBOLS. USE THE FOLLOWING SYMBOLS TO ITEMIZE FU«N I TU»E AND EOUIPMENT On G5A FOPM 1476. DESCRIBE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IF NOT SHOWN. * INOICATE DIMENSIONS IN PROPER COLUMN IF NON-STANDARD OR NOT SHOWN. IIZlflSLS

ILLUSTRATIOR SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

size

MM

0 Stahoaro si/c o c s

34*60 CD Co«re»e*cc ocs* 40*7 a

1 1 S PD SlftClC -COUt.L OCSH 34.45 TDL Toimirn gist (iNDltATE LEFT OR R 1 GMT

)

34.60 TDft o UDL UniTIZCO DESK WITH FIXED

S 1 OE UNIT.

( 1 NO I C* T C Ltrr on «ioht)

68.66

UMfTIZEO UDR

j

5c ! MTU Modular table unit -

1 NO 1 V 1 OUAL “ 18.661 W1 g; ; a- s CR CREOENZA - INDIVIDUAL 16.66

MISCELLANEOUS TABLES

TABLES T Standard size table 34.60

1 1 TCONF Conference tablc 36.72 TS Small size table 24.36

1 1 TM Medium size table 34.45 TT Telephone table 18.24 TWT Typewriter table ie.42

caJ UE3 F Letter s i zc f i lc 15.27 E3 LF Legal size file 18.27 S F S*rc filc •

V)

3= o C All except lounge types. - o LC Lounge chairs

ILLUSTRATION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

• SIZE

BOOKCASE SECTIONS BC 3 BC4

StANCAPO Size BOOKCASE

(indicate Ho. of tiers}

14.34 Max

i $

O N- M- ° * £

1 1 ST Storage cabinet t m * V s w * - X c •* 0 3 -

£ * l

18.36 5S Srtci. »«ti.vC5 15.36

1 TC ICtC-OSC C»BI»tT 16.24 M £

S-S

-4- + Hit tscc - CM 6 Costumer

(tMOICATC 6 0» 12 «*>.««) 21.30

1 CM l CM 12 21.51

MISCELLAHEOUS

L^lJ

DBS Drawing board - 5 foot 40.60 DB6 ORAWING board - 6 FOOT 45.72

I MC 1 MC Map cabinCT or flat plan

File. 42.54

di 1 Dl

Divan, sofa, couch,

lounge, ETC.

• m 5 S.rc (also see s.rc tile) •

OTHERS

AS REOO . OCSCRIBC OTHER Furnishings

OR EQUIPMENT in notes

•

SPACE SYMBOLS - UTILITY SYMBOLS o Open area e- OuPLCX OUTLET, IIOY. PO Private office s> Telephone outlet ®

Special Outlet - (iNOlCATE VOLTAGE OR SPECIAL requirement) CH Cciling*high partition BT Bank-Ttpe partition

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Furnish a oetaileo listing of space rcouircmcnts sasco on p»;c«*w authorized fcr current fiscal »tA«, »lus ant expansion

CR REDUCTION WHICH H*3 BCCN IwCLUOCO IN BuOGCT RCOUIRCmCnTS FOR The st«T 2 WhCRC AVAILABLE, OCCUPANCY CliOCS ARC MtLPruL IN ASSEMBLING INFORMATION. PlEASC iOCnTIFt SRCCiriC NCCOS: SHCwlNu ORGAN I z AT I CNAL unit; AREA N t E OE 3 FOR C A C •« ROOM, UNIT, CR WORK "STAY I ON; ANO TtP£ OF SPACC ANO PARTITIONING. (StE Samp L £ BClCw.J

Show ALL AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, LISTING PCRSOnNCl By NAME, GR A 0 C ANO SEX (F-7 FCR FCmalE, M-7 FOR “ALE, ETC.), ANO TITLE.

Ir POSITION is VACANT, INDICATE IF IT IS AuTnORlZCD IN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR CEILING OR FCR which YCAR IT WILL BC 6UOGCTED

List FURNITURC hh.cn WILL BE PROvIOCO for EACH employee, POSITION, or RQCm, USING The APPROPRIATE SYMBOLS (if AODITICNAL JYMBClS are NECESSARY, PLEASE OCSCRIBC AT BOTTOM OF SmCET). AlSO LIST RCCmS with NO PERSONNEL A 5 S 1 CNC C , AND T«E FURNITuRC FOR SAME. Omit FURNITURE which IS TO BC OISPOSCO OF. Dimensions ShCUlO BE Shown FCR NCN-STANOARO ITEMS. NOTE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN LAST COLUMN AND DESCRIBE AT BOTTOM OF FORM.

NOTE WEIGHT OF HEAVY ITEMS WHICH MIGHT AFFECT FLOOR LOADING.

SPACE EOUlRE.EHTS

• ORKShEET

6*a*.» llyi^.iar

« ©

j M..II ’i r : rill OSUBI JaTiOBiL .air 2

** - Mir l r T? JT . V 2 r.acnoaiL uni o Z • (63 L_JVpi u t.i LI rm If ^ \ ‘ J U« • J. - $

i-. Q 1 1

|: o LJ u i „ -1 t: (

• - rn iU tcc.r i.a* !' t -,.T

AIKDTISTOAnVE: M

John Doe PO 225 CD LC 2 T 2BC3 (1) DTVXSI05 lL Dlv-l6lon Chief CH 3C Soerctoj-y F Mies Mary Jones

0 75 TDL CP 3 1 IT ST cm6

5 Clerk-steno Reception Ra - 0

100 3C T

• CH12 DI 28.72

• (2)

Conference fbn . PO 150 6c

I CCNF CH LC

OPERATIOtC BfU-NCH M Jin Jams 150 D rc 2 TS 5C

13 Brunch Chief Ciork-Steno F Mill- '•tiles P 65 TCF i

l»

Statistical V Vacant 0 75 D c 2 T (3) Clerk 7 Statistical Cl. - FT 1432

— '

i »:iti

( ’) Locate nert to cnnf'Tencv fca, with connect

r 7) Bookkeeping Kachi rw? &od T*ble 30x**2. Ing doom. (2) Deparnt'' rr**ci wra) offlc*' bv roll.
NbS-ll 4 A . . J 7

U.S. DEPT. OP COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 79-1780

2.Gov't Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE

EVALUATION PROCESS

5. Publication Date July 1979

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR Si Jacqueline Elder, George E. Turner, and Arthur I. Rubin8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, St*te, zip

)

General Services Administration

Washington, D.C. 20405

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

IS. ABSTRACT .4 20 »- v '. »r leas factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography nr

literature survey, mention it here.) 9 Within the past decade, growing numbers of architects, educators, building users

and researchers have begun to question the state-of-the-art of building design.

The most common complaint is that buildings do not adequately fulfill the needs

of their users. This report addresses the problem by examining the need to

identify, develop and apply user information as an integral part of the design

process

.

The study reported here was conducted for GSA at the Richard H. Poff Courthouse

and Federal Building in Roanoke, Virginia. This was a limited study examining:

(1) the design process, (2) the information available to those making design

decisions, (3) how that information was used and (4) the effects of selective

design decisions. In addition, design problems of particular interest to GSA

were considered from the viewpoint of several groups involved with the design

and use of the building — GSA, the architect, the building manager, the agencies

and the employees.

17. KEY WORDS -six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter ol the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Building evaluation; design process; man /environment research; post-occupancy

evaluation; questionnaire; user needs.

18. AVAILABILITY [Xj Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 66

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED $5.25

USCOMM-DC