See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273457729

Post Occupancy Evaluation 'POE' of the Faculty of Architectural Engineering's

New Building, BAU Campus, Debbeih, Lebanon

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 3,455

1 author:

Khalid S. Al-Hagla
Alexandria University
51 PUBLICATIONS 445 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban management View project

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE CITY: BROWNFIELDS AS A POTENTIAL FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khalid S. Al-Hagla on 13 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Online: www.bau.edu.lb

Beirut Arab University (BAU),

Faculty of Architectural Engineering.

APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118

APJ

Post Occupancy Evaluation 'POE' of the

Faculty of Architectural Engineering's New Building,
BAU Campus, Debbeih, Lebanon

Khalid S. Al-Hagla *
Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
Faculty of Architectural Engineering, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon

Abstract

Recently there has been a visible widening in the scope of evaluations in the direction of building performance evalua-
tion or total building performance evaluation (BPE). This paper develops a set of criteria for setting up and carrying out a Post
Occupancy Evaluation "POE" to the new educational building of the Faculty of Architectural Engineering, Beirut Arab Uni-
versity as it is newly relocated at the university's new campus in Debbieh, Al-Kharoub Region, southern Beirut. It performs a
building's 'Operational review' to investigate its qualities, and makes use of the 'POE' findings in enhancing the building's
performance over its lifetime. Moreover, it aims to make use of these findings in the further set up of the University's new
educational buildings on the campus.
The paper develops two questionnaires; the first is configured to measure the user's satisfaction with the quality of
nine major evaluation aspects and their minor details 'Reachability and parking facilities, Efficiency, Accessibility, Flexibility,
Safety, Spatial orientation, Privacy, Territoriality and social contact, Health and physical well-being, and Sustainability'. The
second is to rank the user's priorities concerning these aspects. It investigates three major user groups; students, teaching staff,
and administration staff. Moreover, it uses a scale that reads six grades of quality to transform the qualitative scale into a
quantitative one. The paper uses statistical techniques to assign values to different evaluation aspects and uses the findings of
two questionnaires in determining a total building performance evaluation value regarding each group of users' point of view.

Keywords: Faculty of Architectural Engineering, BAU, Post occupancy evaluation, Operational review, Building
performance.

1. Introduction
Evaluation means determining a value or establish-
ing what something is worth. Originally the term came
from the financial world, where evaluation means cal-
culating a rate of exchange or determining the value of
money [1]. In the domain of architecture, evaluation is
mainly concerned with establishing the value of all or
part of the built environment (product evaluation) or
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khalid@pylon-group.com
the process of construction and management (process
evaluation). Apart from their subjects, evaluations can
be performed for different reasons and be intended for
different target audiences: they can differ in breadth
and depth, method of evaluation, time of evaluation
and the people involved in the evaluation such as
clients, research workers, daily users and so on [2].
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 2

However, in the world of architecture, product-

related evaluations can deal with matters such as a
programme of requirements, a plan or design, a speci-
fication or an unfinished building. Evaluation of a
programme of requirements or design is referred to as
evaluation ex ante or before the building is realized. It
could be thought of as an evaluation of a 'model' of the
building, whether on paper, in the form of a scale
model or, in the case of building components, a full-
size model. 'Evaluation after the event', when the
building has been completed and is in use, is referred
to as ex post evaluation or post-occupancy evaluation
(POE). The distinction between ex ante and ex post
can also be drawn for process-related evaluations (Ta-
ble 1). A process-related evaluation can be concerned
with the building process as a whole, from initiation
all the way through to use and management, or to
elements in that process, e.g. the design process. [1]

Ex ante
• Does the brief give a clear
and complete account of
the required or desired
user quality, visual quality
and technical quality?
• Do the requirements cor-
respond to the wishes of
the future users?
Product
Ex post
• Is the building being Figure 1. An integrative framework for building per-
used in the way antic- formance evaluation. Source: the author based on [3]
ipated by the client
and the architect?
• Are the users satisfied? 2. 'POE' for Educational Buildings
• How does the actual
energy usage compare The education environment plays a key role in any

• Can the design be ex-
pected to lead to a usable
building?
• Does the design have
sufficient visual quality?
• Is the design affordable?
• Does the design conform
with the building regula-
tions?
• How best can the building
process be organized?
• Who should be involved
in the process?
• What are the tasks and
powers of the various par-
ticipants?
• What input is required
from future users?
• How much time will be
needed for the program-
Process
with the usage esti- education process. As the education building draws
mated in advance? the main features of this environment, any quality
• What do experts and
assurance for education outcomes highlights the im-
laymen think about the
building's architecton-
portance of education building as a criterion.
ic quality? However, NEASC accreditation standards set the
• Does the building physical and technological resources as an aspect of
conform to accepted its evaluation criteria. It asks for the answers to three
quality standards?
questions: 'Are physical and technological resources
managed in a manner to sustain and enhance the reali-
• How was the decision-
zation of its purposes?'–regarding students perfor-
making organized?
Who took what deci- mance- 'Are they offered resources and services that
sions, when and on the provide an opportunity to achieve their goals?' and 'Is
basis of what informa- their interaction with the university characterized by
tion? integrity?' [4]. However, all of these questions are to
• How long did the be answered within the shadow of evaluating the
process take, in total 'Quality of Education Building'.
and by phase?
• What tools were used On the other hand, evaluation and feedback are the
to prepare the brief, to cornerstones for the continuous improvement in build-

ming phase, design, con-
tracting out and execu-
tion?
• What information is
needed, by whom and
when?
• What tools are available
to ensure that the process
runs efficiently and effec-
tively?
• What factors might affect
the success or failure of
the process?
Table 1: Ex ante and ex post evaluation of the buildings,
Source: the author based on [1]
develop and test plan ing procurement sought by the Higher Education sec-
variants, to coordinate tor in England. They assert that good feedback is an
different activities and intrinsic part of good briefing and design of buildings.
to monitor cost and A recent report produced by CABE shows that well-
quality? designed buildings are a significant factor in the re-
• What was done well cruitment of staff and students in Higher Education
and what went wrong? [5]. Consequently, the most effective building perfor-
• What lessons can be mance evaluation has to take place? throughout the
drawn?
lifecycle of the building [6]. However, HEFCE appre-
ciates the use of POE techniques as a way of provid-
ing feedback throughout a building’s lifecycle, from
initial concept through to occupation. The information
from feedback can be used to inform future projects,
whether it is on the process of delivery or technical
performance of the building [6].
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
3. Post Occupancy Evaluation 'POE' Types
Despite all the different starting points of each
'POE' initiative, they all broadly coalesce around de-
veloping and operating buildings in a better way, hav-
ing regard to the “whole life” of the building, its part
in the strategic management of the estate and the suc-
cess of the building in its business function for the
University[6]. Different types of 'POE' could be clas-
sified according to three different criteria; the level,
the scope, and the time. The relevance of a particular
approach to POE depends on what is to be reviewed,
the level of detail that is needed and when the evalua-
tion is to be carried out[6].
3.1. Evaluation Level
Three levels of investigation are defined. They
move from a quick, surface review to a more in-depth
investigative analysis, to a diagnostic review correlat-
ing physical and occupant perceptions.
An indicative review gives a quick snapshot of the
project. It is a broad brush approach where a few in-
terviews are combined with a walk-through of the
building. A short, simple questionnaire might also be
circulated. The aim is to highlight major strengths and
weaknesses. The value of this is to provide useful in-
formation quickly but also to form the basis of a more
in-depth study.
An investigative review is a more thorough inves-
tigation using more rigorous research techniques to
produce more robust data. In this type of review, rep-
resentative samples of staff are given questionnaires
backed up by focus group reviews and interviews to
tease out more information on problems identified by
the questionnaire responses.
A deeper diagnostic review is a very thorough
analysis which links physical performance data to
occupant responses. In this type of review, the evalua-
tors carry out analysis of the building’s environmen-
tal systems. Generally this includes: air-handling,
lighting, energy use, heating, measuring ventilation
rates, temperature, lighting levels, energy use, CO2
emissions and acoustic performance.
3.2. Evaluation Scope
The focus of a POE can be considered in terms of
three broad areas: Process, Functional Performance
and Technical Performance.
3.2.1. Process
There are two aspects to consider:
The first is the delivery of the project from inception
to handover; this looks at how the project was deli-
vered and how decisions were arrived at.
The second is the operational management; this
asks questions of the estates team about how they
manage the buildings.
3
Brief The way in which the team developed
the brief on which the design was based
including financial management as-
pects.
Procurement The way in which the team selection,
contractual and technical processes
were undertaken including time and
value aspects.
Design The way in which the team developed
and refined the design including space
planning, engineering and financial
management aspects.
Construction The way in which the construction
phase until handover was managed,
including financial and change man-
agement processes.
Commissioning The way in which the final commis-
process sioning of the building was managed,
including final adjustments and the
provision of documentation.
Occupation The way in which the handover process
was managed including the rectification
of last-minute snags and the remov-
al/relocation process.
Table 2: The areas covered in a Process evaluation, Source:
the author based on [6]
3.2.2. Functional Performance
This addresses how well the building supports
the institution’s organizational goals and aspira-
tions and how well the user needs are supported.
Strategic value Achievement of original business ob-
jectives
Aesthetics and Harmonious, neutral, iconic, powerful,
image bland
Space Size, relationships, adaptability
Comfort Environmental aspects: lighting, tem-
perature, ventilation, noise, user control
Amenity Services and equipment: completeness,
capacity, positioning
Serviceability Cleaning, routine maintenance, securi-
ty, essential changes
Operational Energy cost, water and waste, leases,
Cost cleaning, insurances
Life-cycle cost Initial construction cost, cost of operat-
ing, maintenance and repairs, replace-
ment costs, alterations, demolition
Operational Booking and space allocation systems,
management user support systems, help desks, ma-
nuals, training
Table 3: The areas covered in a Functional Performance
evaluation, Source: the author based on [6]
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
3.2.3. Technical Performance
This involves measuring how the physical
systems perform, for example lighting, energy
use, ventilation and acoustics.
Physical Lighting, heating, ventilation, acoustics
systems
Environmental Energy consumption, water consump-
systems tion, CO2 output
Adaptability Ability to accommodate change
Durability Robustness, need for routine extensive
maintenance, incidence of 'down time'
for unplanned technical reasons
Table 4: Areas covered in a Technical Performance review,
Source: the author based on [6]
3.3. Evaluation Time
A number of issues can't be tackled immediately
on handover; some may take several months to estab-
lish. However POEs address a number of co-related
questions: [6]
• Does the building perform as intended?
• Have the users’ needs changed?
• What problems need to be tackled quickly?
• How effective was the process from inception to
completion?
• What can be learned for future projects?
A variety of methods are used to collect this in-
formation from questionnaires, focus groups or data
monitoring. There are three stages of the review
process; the Operational Review, carried out 3- 6
months after occupation, a Project Review carried out
12 - 18 months after occupation, and a Strategic Re-
view carried out 3-5 years after occupation.
Once the users have got to know the building after
two or three months, they can be asked in an Opera-
tional Review about how well it is working and
whether there are any immediate problems that need
resolving. The next feedback stage, the Project Re-
view, would be carried out after at least a year of oc-
cupation when the building’s systems have settled
down and there has been a full seasonal cycle. This
gives the opportunity to see how the building performs
under a variety of conditions. It also gives users a
chance to identify where the building does not meet
their long term needs. The third POE stage, the Stra-
tegic Review, would take place several years after
initial occupation when the organizational need may
well have changed and the building no longer meets it.
[6]
The paper discusses the Operational review in much
more detail as related to the Faculty of Architectural
Engineering's new building case:
3.3.1. Operational review
While the focus of the ‘operational review’ is like-
ly to be part of the process, an early evaluation of the
actual building is important for identifying initial oc-
cupational and operational problems that need fixing.
4
Carrying out a review soon after completion is also
important where there is a programme of small
projects and it is necessary to get feedback into the
next project which starts a few months later. [Regard-
ing the new campus of Beirut Arab University a num-
ber of faculties are to be relocated at the new sit. Ur-
gent, feedback of the first faculty is needed because it
is to be relocated on the new campus as the Faculty of
Engineering's building is now under-construction] Is
this what you mean?
In situations where feedback from students is im-
portant – because they may be in the best position to
compare a new facility with the old one – then it may
be necessary to carry out a review early if they are due
to leave the institution soon.
Physical systems - Lighting, heating, ventilation,
acoustics
Environmental - Energy consumption, water con-
systems sumption, CO2 output
Adaptability - provides a snapshot view of wheth-
er the project improved work area
- provides an opportunity to correct
and make minor adjustments to
immediate problems
- enables a quick response to prob-
lems that emerge
Use of informa- - for the internal Estates department
tion and university, unlikely to publish
information to organizations out-
side the project
- process review: information fed
into next project
- process review: used to make ne-
cessary adjustment to building
Approach Indicative review
Table 5: Operational review: 3 to 6 months after handover,
Source: the author based on [6]
4. The Faculty of Architectural Engineering's New
Building
The new educational building of the Faculty of
Architectural Engineering is located on Beirut Arab
University's new campus in Debbeih, Kharoub region,
Lebanon. This site is planned to be the future alloca-
tion of the university extensions. The Faculty of Arc-
hitectural Building is the first to be erected on the new
Campus.
The building consists of three main terraced floors.
The functional activities are arranged in 'U' shape
spaces holding an atrium. The main vertical circula-
tion goes through this central continuous space. There
are two main entrances; the first [staff and visitors'
entrance] is on the ground floor and leads directly to
the atrium, and the second [students' entrance] is lo-
cated in the 1st basement going diagonally through the
building, leading to the main vertical circulation ele-
ment. The service access is in the 2nd basement di-
rectly leading to the technical services' zone. The
functional spaces are arranged as shown in the draw-
ings:
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 5

5 5
Educational Areas
1. Main Entrance
2. Atrium 11
3. Vertical Circulation 10 12 13
th
4. 4 Year Studio
5. Terrace
6. Computer Lab. 3 2 3 7
7. GIS Lab.
8. Auditorium
9. Foyer
- Administrative and Services' 4
15
Areas
10. President's Office & Faculty Council 9
11. Lounges
12. Dean's Office 14
13. Registrar
14. Staff
15. Services and Toilets
1 8
Figure 2.a. Entrance Floor Plan

5
1. The Library 1 2
2. Mezzanine 4
3. Auditorium
4. Control Room 3
5. Foyer

Figure 2.b. First Floor Plan

14

14
11
10
st
10. 1 Year Studio 15 15
th
11. 5 Year Studio
12. Atrium 14
13. Vertical Circulation
14. Terrace 13 12 13 17
15. Lecture Room 10
16. Students' Entrance
17. Lecture Hall
18 19
18. Toilets
19. Staff
16 17 17 18
Figure 2.c. First Basement Plan

Figure 2. Plans, Faculty of Architectural Engineering building, Debbeih.

Source: the author
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
- Educational Areas
1. Atrium
2. Vertical Circulation
rd
3. 3 Year Studio
nd
4. 2 Year Studio 4 3
5. Studio
6. Lecture Room
7. Terrace 14
- Administrative and Services' Areas
10. Staff
11. Print Shop 13
12. Clinic
13. Technical Services
14. Services' Entrance
15. Services and Toilets
Figure 2.d. Second Basement Plan
Figure 2 (cont.). Plans, Faculty of Architectural Engineering building, Debbeih.
Source: the author
5. 'POE' formulation – Design
Evaluation means determining the value of some-
thing. This is closely related to the definition of quali-
ty as: the extent to which a product satisfies the re-
quirements specified. This definition determines a
'good' building as one that fulfils the programme that
specifies the client's requirements. On the other hand,
it is not sufficient merely to check a design or building
against the programme of requirements, as in most
cases there are a number of wishes and requirements
which are never stated explicitly, either because the
client was not consciously aware of them or has ig-
nored them, or because some requirements are thought
to be self-evident. Moreover, the client is often not
aware of all the different possibilities, nor are the re-
quirements and wishes of everyone else involved gen-
erally laid down completely and explicitly in the pro-
gramme of requirements. Accordingly, any assess-
ment must take account of other criteria, not just the
programme of requirements, which is why the paper
uses a wider definition of quality [7]:
Quality is the totality of attributes that enables
needs to be satisfied, including the way in which in-
dividual attributes are related, balanced and inte-
grated in the whole building and its surroundings.
However, the paper identifies four steps to deter-
mine the quality of the new Architectural Engineer-
ing's new building [8]
1. Determine which factors are to be taken into ac-
count by the assessment.
2. Measure the relevant variables.
3. Evaluate the outcome of those measurements.
4. Assign weights according to the importance of each
different factor.
6
7
3 3 4
7
2 1 5
6 6 10 11 11 12 15
When all this has been done, an assessment can be
made of the quality of individual aspects of the build-
ing and the building as a whole, i.e. the weighted sum
of the values assigned to each separate aspect[1].
5.1. Factors to be assessed
The paper tackles an approach that deals mainly
with functional aspects, the most important being utili-
ty value and experiential value, i.e. the experiences
and requirements of the people who use the building
day by day. The evaluation assigns values to such
items as the basic layout and the layout of individual
rooms, the way the general form is perceived, the inte-
rior climate and behavioral factors (use of space, pri-
vacy, social contact, spatial orientation, etc.). Design
is generally either treated as an 'independent variable'
or evaluated autonomously. Technical aspects (load-
bearing structure, technical services, etc.) are only
taken into account to the extent that they affect use
and the well-being of the users.
The paper follows a total building performance
evaluation methodology, (BPE) [3], that integrates
user and aesthetic factors with technical and economic
factors. Regarding this approach, the paper determines
evaluation aspects based on a vision of a functional
building as one that is suitable for the activities for
which it was intended [1]. The users inside the build-
ing must be able to function efficiently, comfortably,
healthily and safely. However, this also means that
they must be able to reach and get into the building
easily and move round the building comfortably. The
building must be sufficiently in harmony with human
perceptions –in the way it looks, sounds, smells and
feels. The users must also feel physically comfortable,
which means that the building must not be too hot or
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
too cold nor must it be dirty, dark or noisy. They must
be able to see how the parts of the building fit together
and be able to find their way round. All psychological
needs must be taken care of, e.g. the need for privacy,
social contact, freedom of choice and autonomy. The
building must also be capable of being adjusted to suit
changing circumstances, new activities and different
users.
With this as a basis, the paper divides the concept
of functional quality into nine evaluation aspects: [1]
1. Reachability and parking facilities
2. Efficiency
3. Accessibility
4. Flexibility
5. Safety
6. Spatial orientation
7. Privacy, territoriality and social contact
8. Health and physical well-being
9. Sustainability.
Aspects 1-4 relate mainly to the user value of the
building (Is it easy to use?), 6 &7 to psychological
well-being, 8 to physical well-being and 9 to envi-
ronmental quality. Safety embraces several aspects:
utilitarian, psychological and physical. The nine as-
pects are to some extent interconnected. For example,
accessibility and safety are preconditions for efficien-
cy, and reachability and spatial orientation are precon-
ditions for psychological accessibility.
5.2. Measure the variables.
The paper uses a questionnaire method to measure
the users' functional satisfaction. It breaks down the
main aspects of the 'total building performance eval-
uation methodology', (BPE) into detailed items to be
evaluated, using a 6-point evaluation scale (very poor,
poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent). However it
chooses a sample that consists of three main catego-
ries of users; students, teaching staff, and administra-
tion staff. The students' sample consists of randomly
selected second, third, and fifth year students (the
number selected from each year group represents their
percentage of the total number of students in the facul-
ty. The questionnaire scans all the full time teaching
staff, and randomly selected part time staff (ten
people). Moreover it scans all the full time adminis-
tration staff (five people).
The evaluation aspects and their detailed items
are as follows:
5.2.1. Reachability and parking facilities
a. Reachability by vehicles and private cars
• Distance to the nearest motorway
• Distance to the nearest motorway intersection
• Traffic flow and presence of obstacles (traffic
jams, traffic lights, bridges, level crossing)
• Nature of the route connecting the site to the mo-
torway
b. Reachability by public transport
• Walking distance to the nearest bus, tram or metro
stop
7
c. Disaster
• Fire brigade response time
• Ambulance response time
d. Parking
• The distance between parking lot and the building
• Parking capacity (the number of parking places per
number of building users)
5.2.2. Efficiency
a. Location that is favorable to the purpose of the
building.
• Provides suitable routes for people and goods ar-
riving and departing,
• Adequate parking facilities
• Synergy effects produced by the proximity of in-
teresting functions and facilities
b. Adequate access arrangements in the building as a
whole
• Logical location of the entrance or entrances
• Adequate facilities for moving between floors,
• Clear traffic routes,
• Sufficient capacity in corridors, stairs and lifts
c. An efficient layout
• Short walking distances because related functions
are grouped near one another,
• Locating functions requiring natural light against
an outside wall,
• Maintaining a clear hierarchy between public and
private space,
• Providing separate zones for different levels of ac-
tivity and different temperatures
d. Sufficient floor area to allow all the desired activi-
ties to be carried out
• Traffic space,
• Space for technical services and constructional
space
• Space required to stand and use furniture, whether
fixed or mobile.
• Sufficient vertical dimensions: ceiling height, clear
headroom for doors, and height of worktops.
e. Functional use of colors and materials
• Spatial orientation,
• Recognize-ability and identity,
• Cleaning and maintenance and technical mainten-
ance
• Sun blinds, blackout facilities where necessary
f. Sufficient plant and services
• Adequate equipment and arrangement of water and
electricity, sanitary facilities,
• Careful materialisation and detailing of separations
between spaces (partition walls, outside skin) to
achieve the desired physical conditions (tempera-
ture, humidity, clean air, light, noise).
5.2.3. Accessibility
a. Physical accessibility
• Reachability (the ease with which users and visi-
tors can get to the front of the building)
• Accessibility in the narrow sense: the ease with
which people and goods can get into the building
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
• Usability (the ease with which people are able to
move through the building and make use of the
rooms and services intended for them)
b. Psychological accessibility
a.Emotional aspects
i.Feeling welcome
ii.The building a pleasant place to be in
iii.Extremely unpleasant spots in the building
b.Cognitive aspects
• The easiness people find their way round
• The simplicity of the layout to be understood
• Recognizable entrance
• Possibilities for 'previewing' and obvious breaks
between public and private areas.
5.2.4. Flexibility
a. Arrangement neutrality
• Extra floor area generous length/breadth ratio
• Sufficient wall length to allow for furnishing units
• Extra ceiling height
• Extra electrical outlets movable fittings
b. Arrangement flexibility
• Demountable fittings
c. Arrangement variability
• Provisions for future wiring
d. Polyvalent room boundaries
• Sliding doors, sliding partitions, folding partitions
e. Flexible room boundaries
• Movable or demountable partitions
f. Variable room boundaries
• Removable partitions
g. Division neutrality
• Division neutral spaces
• Neutral parapet height
• Wall finish to suit several functions
• Sound installation to suit several functions
• Extra wiring and services Zoning
h. Division flexibility
• Separation of load-bearers from inbuilt features
• Demountable walls, elevation, roof
• Generous grid size for the shell
• Over-dimensioning of load-bearing structure
i. Division variability
• Removable walls, elevation, roof
• Demountable wiring, placed accessibly
• Alternative methods of attaching walls/elevation
• Avoidance of differences in floor levels
• Neutral, flexible or variable shell
• Space or facilities for later addition of a lift
5.2.5. Safety
a.User safety
• Safely accessible rooms (no obstacles, e.g. high
thresholds)
• Safe passageways (sufficient clear space, no risk
of getting trapped) Avoidance of sharp edges and
corners
• Safe stairways (favorable riser/tread ratio, banis-
ters, non-slip treads)
• Handrails and banisters where appropriate
8
• Level, non-slip floor finishes
• Unsafe places screened off
• Sufficient illumination
• Avoidance of loose leads
• No glass (or use of safety glass instead of ordi-
nary glass) vulnerable points.
• Function-specific measures
b. Public safety
• presence of protective eyes 'social control'
• visibility
• attractiveness of the environment
• involvement of users in 'their' environment
• accessibility and escape routes
5.2.6. Spatial orientation
a. Clear overall shapes and easily understandable
access routes.
b. Recognizable functional units.
c. Individual identities for rooms as regards
d. Function
e. Design and layout (fittings, lighting, choice of
colors and materials),
f. Avoiding the repetition of identical departments
and rooms.
g. Clear distinction between public, semi-public
and private spaces.
h. Differentiation by colors and materials used for
floors, walls and ceilings.
i. Sufficient points of recognition: signposts and
'natural' elements such as conspicuous functions,
street furniture or works of art.
5.2.7. Privacy, territoriality and social contact
a. Recognisable distinction between areas which
are public, semi-public and private
b. Places available to which people can go to be
private, by themselves or with one or two others
c. Private areas with sufficient visual, auditory and
territorial screening
d. Facilities for locking private rooms and storage
spaces (cupboards, safes)
e. Meeting places for communal activities
f. Places whose location, design and arrangement
encourage accidental, spontaneous meetings
5.2.8. Health and physical well-being
a. Light
• The quality of the light (daylight, artificial light,
sunlight),
• the quantity of light (to allow things to be seen
properly and to avoid dazzle and excessive con-
trast between light and dark),
• The direction of the light and the color of the
light.
• The properties of the surroundings (affect the
way light is perceived)
• The way light is reflected (depending on color
and the material used)
• The extent to which the users can influence the
lighting themselves.
b. Noise
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 9

• Does the distraction from noise in this part of the

building have a negative effect on your work per-
formance?
• Is there significant distraction from noise outside
the space?
• Is there significant distraction from background
noise?
c. Air quality
• Does the quality of the air in this part of the
building have a negative effect on your work per-
formance?
• Is the air fresh or stale?
• Is the air humid or dry?
• Is there air movement?
Figure 3. A sample of questionnaire pages, Source: The author
• Do you have control over ventilation?
d. Temperature
• Does the temperature in this part of the building The following graphs represent the results of the
have a negative effect on your work perfor- questionnaire findings. They show and compare the
mance? degree of satisfaction of the building's assigned users
• Is the temperature in winter too cold or too hot? –students, teaching staff, and administration staff- in
• Is the temperature during the summer too cold or regard to evaluation aspects and their detailed items.
too hot?
e. Cleanliness 100. Reachability and parking facilities
• How clean is the building? 110. Reachability 111. Distance to the nearest motorway
[by vehicles and 112. Traffic flow and presence of obstacles (traffic
5.2.9. Sustainability [9] private cars] jams, traffic lights, bridges, level crossing)
113. Nature of the route connecting the site to the
motorway
Does the building …….. 120. Reachability 121. Walking distance to the nearest bus, tram or
a.Function as an educational tool concerning the sus- [by public transport] metro stop
130. Disaster 131. Fire brigade response time
tainability understandings? 132. Ambulance response time
b. Support the connection of users to their sur- 140. Parking 141. The distance between parking lot and the
rounding environment? (for the spiritual, emotion- building
142. Parking capacity (the number of parking
al, therapeutic benefits that nature provides) places per number of building users)
c.Promote new human values and lifestyles to
achieve a more harmonious relationship with local,
regional, and global resources and environments? 111
d. Function as subordinate to the ecosystem and 6.00
5.50
cultural context of a site? 5.00
e.Reinforce or exemplify appropriate environmental 142 4.50 112
4.00
responsiveness? 3.50
f. Enhance appropriation of the natural environment 3.00
2.50
and establish rules of conduct? 2.00
g. Create a rite of passage into special natural or 1.50
1.00
cultural environments? 0.50
h. Use the simplest technology appropriate to 141 0.00 113

functional need?
i. Incorporate passive energy conserving strategies
responsive to the local climate?
j. Use renewable indigenous building materials to
the greatest extent possible?
k. Avoid the use of energy-intensive, environ- 132 121

mentally damaging, waste producing, and/or ha-

zardous materials?
l. Consider construct ability, striving for minimal 131

environmental disruption, resource consumption,

Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff
and material waste?
m. Identify the opportunities for the reuse and recy-
cling of construction debris?
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 10

200. Reachability and parking facilities 6.00

311

210. Location that is 211. Provides suitable routes for people and goods 5.50
327 5.00 312
favourable to arriving and departing 4.50
the purpose 212. Adequate parking facilities 4.00
of the build- 213. Cooperative effects produced by the proximity 3.50
3.00
ing. of interesting functions and facilities 2.50
220. Adequate 221. Logical location of the entrance or entrances 326 2.00 313
access ar- 222. Adequate facilities for moving between floors, 1.50
1.00
rangements in 223. Clear traffic routes, 0.50
the building 224. Sufficient capacity in corridors, stairs and lifts 0.00
as a whole
230. An efficient 231. Adequate space for assigned functions,
layout 232. Short walking distances because related 325 321
functions are grouped near one another,
233. Locating functions requiring natural light
against an outside wall,
234. Maintaining a clear hierarchy between public
324 322
and private space,
235. Providing separate zones for different levels of
activity and different temperatures 323

240. Sufficient floor 241. Traffic space,

area to allow 242. Space for technical services and constructional Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff

all the desired space

activities to 243. Space required standing and using furniture,
be carried out whether fixed or mobile. 400. Flexibility
244. Sufficient vertical dimensions: ceiling height, 410. Arrangement neutrality 411. Extra floor area
clear headroom for doors, and height of work- 412. Generous length/width ratio
tops. 413. Sufficient wall length to allow for
250. Functional use 251. Spatial orientation, furnishing units
of colors and 252. Recognisability and identity, 414. Extra ceiling height
materials 253. Cleaning and maintenance and technical 415. Extra electrical outlets movable
maintenance. fittings
254. Sun blinds, blackout facilities where necessary. 420. Arrangement flexibility 421. Portable fittings
260. Sufficient plant 261. Adequate equipment and arrangement of water 430. Arrangement variability 431. Provisions for future wiring
and services and electricity, sanitary facilities, 440. Polyvalent 441. Sliding doors, sliding partitions,
262. Careful materialization and detailing of sep- room boundaries folding partitions
arations between spaces (partition walls, out- 450. Flexible room 451. Movable or portable partitions
side skin) to achieve the desired physical con- boundaries
ditions (temperature, humidity, clean air, light, 460. Variable room 461. Removable partitions
noise). boundaries
211 470. Division neutrality 471. Division neutral spaces
262 6.00 212 472. Wall finish to suit several functions
261 5.00 213 473. Sound installation to suit several
functions
254 4.00 221 474. Extra wiring and services zoning
3.00 480. Division flexibility 481. Separation of load-bearers from
253 222 inbuilt features
2.00
482. Demountable walls, elevation, roof
252 1.00 223
483. Generous grid size for the shell
484. Over-dimensioning of load-bearing
0.00
structure
251 224 490. Division variability 491. Removable walls, elevation, roof
492. Demountable wiring, placed
accessibly
244 231
493. Avoidance of differences in floor
levels
243 232
494. Neutral, flexible or variable shell
242 233 495. Space or facilities for later addition
241 234 of a lift
235

411
Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff
495 6.00 412
5.50
300. Accessibility 494
5.00
413

4.50
310. Physical 311. Reachability: (the ease with which users and 493
4.00
414
accessibility visitors can get to the front of the building) 3.50
312. Accessibility in the narrow sense: (the ease with 492
3.00
415
2.50
which people and goods can get into the building) 2.00
313. Usability: (the ease with which people are able to 491
1.50
421
move through the building and make use of the 1.00
0.50
rooms and services intended for them) 0.00
320. Psychological 321. Feeling welcome 484 431
Emotional
aspects

accessibility 322. The building as a pleasant place to be in

323. Extremely unpleasant spots in the 483 441
building
324. The ease with which people find their way 482 451
round
325. The simplicity of the layout to be unders- 481 461
Cognitive

tood
aspects

474 471
326. Recognizable entrance 473 472

327. Possibilities for 'previewing' and obvious

breaks between public and private areas Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 11

500. Safety 700. Privacy, territoriality & social contact

520. User 511. Safely accessible rooms (no obstacles, e.g. high 711. Recognizable distinction between areas which are public, semi-
Safety thresholds) public and private
512. Safe passageways (sufficient clear space, no risk of 712. Places available to which people can go to be private, by them-
getting trapped) Avoidance of sharp edges and selves or with one or two others
corners 713. Private areas with sufficient visual, auditory and territorial
513. Safe stairways (favourable riser/tread ratio, banis- screening
ters, non-slip treads) 714. Facilities for locking private rooms and storage spaces (cup-
514. Handrails and banisters where appropriate boards, safes)
515. Level, non-slip floor finishes 715. Meeting places for communal activities
516. Unsafe places screened off 716. Places whose location, design and arrangement encourage acci-
517. Sufficient illumination dental, spontaneous meetings
518. Avoidance of loose leads
519. No glass (or use of safety glass instead of ordinary
711
glass) in open to attack points. 6.00
520. Public 521. Presence of protective eyes 'social control' 5.50
Safety 522. Visibility 5.00
4.50
523. Attractiveness of the environment 4.00
524. Involvement of users in 'their' environment 3.50
716 712
525. Accessibility and escape routes. 3.00
2.50
2.00
511 1.50
6.00 1.00
525 5.50 512 0.50
5.00 0.00
4.50
524 4.00 513
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
715 713
523 1.50 514
1.00
0.50
0.00

522 515
714

Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff

521 516

519 517

518
800. Health and physical well-being
Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff 810. Light 811. The quality of the light (daylight, artificial light,
sunlight),
600. Spatial Orientation 812. The quantity of light (to allow things to be seen
properly and to avoid dazzle and excessive
610. Clear overall shapes and easily understandable access routes contrast between light and dark),
620. Recognizable functional units 813. The direction of the light and the color of the
630. Individual identi- 631. Function light.
ties for rooms 632. Design and layout (fittings, lighting, 814. The properties of the surroundings (affect the
as regards choice of colors and materials), way light is perceived)
633. Avoiding the repetition of identical 815. The way light is reflected (depending on color
departments and rooms. and the material used)
640. Clear distinction between public, semi-public and private spaces 816. The extent to which the users can influence
650. Differentiation by colors and materials used for floors, walls and the lighting themselves.
ceilings 820. Noise 821. The negative effect of noise in this part of the
660. Sufficient points of recognition: signposts and 'natural' elements building on your work performance
such as clear functions, street furniture or works of art 822. The significant distraction from noise outside
the space
823. The significant distraction from background
610 noise
6.00
5.50 830. Air 831. The negative effect of air quality on your work
5.00 quality performance
4.50
660 620 832. The quality of fresh air in building
4.00
3.50 833. The quality of humid air in building
3.00 834. The quality of control over ventilation
2.50
2.00
840. Tempera- 841. The negative effect of the temperature in the
1.50 ture building on your work performance
1.00 842. The ability to do your work in winter regard-
0.50
650 0.00 631 less of the temperature
843. The ability to do your work in summer regard-
less of the temperature
850. Cleanli- 851. The degree to which the building is clean
ness

640 632

633

Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff

 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 12

811 Students T. Staff A. Staff

6.00
851
5.50
812 V/6 % V/6 % V/6 %
5.00
843 4.50 813 71. Studio 4.37 73% 4.36 73% 3.00 50%
4.00 72. Lecture
3.50
3.00
room 3.58 60% 4.45 74% 4.50 75%
842 814
2.50 73. Office - - 4.78 80% 4.25 71%
2.00
1.50
74. Computer
1.00 Laboratory 3.45 57% 5.00 83% 5.67 95%
841 0.50 815
0.00
75. Library 3.25 54% 3.18 53% 3.33 56%
76. Cafeteria 2.30 38% 2.38 40% 2.50 42%

834 816 Table 6: Areas covered in a Technical Performance review

Table 7 shows the grades of different evaluation

833 821
aspects (on a 6 grade scale: very poor, poor, fair,
832 822 good, very good, excellent), and the quality percen-
831 823 tage of each of them as determined by three categories
of users (students, teaching staff, and administration
Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff staff)

900. Sustainability 71. Studio

6.00
- Does the building …..
5.00
901. Function as an educational tool concerning the sustainability 4.37

understandings 4.00

902. Support the connection of users to their surrounding environment? 76. Cafeteria 3.00 72. Lecture room
(for the spiritual, emotional, therapeutic benefits that nature pro- 3.00
4.50
vides) 2.00
3.58
2.50
903. Promote new human values and lifestyles to achieve a more 1.00
harmonious relationship with local, regional, and global re-
0.00
sources and environments?
904. Function as subordinate to the ecosystem and cultural context of
3.33 3.25
a site 4.25 4.78
905. Reinforce or exemplify appropriate environmental responsiveness
3.45
906. Enhance appropriation of the natural environment and establish 75. Library 73. Office

rules of conduct
907. Create a rite of passage into special natural or cultural environ-
ments 5.67
908. Use the simplest technology appropriate to functional need
74. Computer Laboratory
909. Incorporate passive energy conserving strategies responsive to Students Teacing Staff Administration Staff
the local climate
910. Use renewable indigenous building materials to the greatest Fig 4. General quality of building's functional areas.
extent possible.
Source: the author
911. Avoid the use of energy-intensive, environmentally damaging,
waste producing, and/or hazardous materials.
912. Consider construct ability, striving for minimal environmental
disruption, resource consumption, and material waste,
913. Identify the opportunities for the reuse and recycling of construc- Students Teach. Staff Adm. Staff
tion debris % Value/6 % Value/6 %
Value/6
901
The user value of the building
6.00 100. Reachability and
913 5.50 902
5.00 parking facilities 2.74 46% 2.75 46% 2.24 37%
4.50
4.00
200. Efficiency 3.86 64% 4.15 69% 3.54 59%
912 903
3.50 300. Accessibility 3.90 65% 4.5 75% 3.43 57%
3.00
2.50 400. Flexibility 3.96 66% 3.36 56% 3.87 65%
2.00
1.50 60% 62% 55%
1.00
911 904 Psychological well-being
0.50
0.00 500. Safety 4.08 68% 4.25 71% 4.46 74%
600. Spatial Orienta-
tion 3.88 65% 3.38 56% 4.25 71%
910 905
700. Privacy, territo-
riality & social con-
tact 3.71 62% 3.37 56% 3.33 56%
909 906
65% 61% 67%
908 907 Physical well-being
800. Health and phys-
Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff
ical well-being 4.05 3.87 4.18
68% 65% 70%
Environmental quality
5.3. Evaluate the outcome of those measurements. 900.Sustainability 4.02 3.35 3.62
67% 56% 60%
The graph and the table show the grades and the AVERAGE 65% 61% 63%
percentage of the overall quality of building's func-
tional areas as determined by students, teaching staff, Table 7: Areas covered in a Technical Performance review
and administration staff.
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 13

100. Reachability and parking facilities

1.00
Fig 5. a) The percentage of dif-
0.90
ferent evaluation aspects' 900.Sustainability 0.80 200. Efficiency
quality as determined by 0.70

users 0.60

0.50
b) The percentage of the
0.40
main evaluation categories' 0.30

quality as determined by 800. Health and physical well-being 0.20 300. Accessibility
users. Source: the Author 0.10

0.00

Figure 5. b. 700. Privacy, territoriality & Social contact 400. Flexibility

1.00

0.90

0.80
600. Spatial Orientation 500. Safety
0.70
0.70 0.67 0.67 0.67
0.65 0.64
0.60 0.62 0.61 0.60
Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff
0.60 0.56
0.55
Figure 5. a.
0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
The user value of the Psychological well- Physical well-being Environmental quality
building being

Students Teatching Staff Administration Staff Figure 6. a.

5.4. Assign weights according to the importance of

each different factor.

The paper formulates a questionnaire that asks us-

ers to determine the priorities of the assigned evalua-
tion aspects, and to rank the detailed aspects within
each main category. The results are presented in figure
6 for students and in table 8 for all the categories of
users in the questionnaire – students, teaching staff,
administration staff.

100 . Reachability and Figure 6. b.

900 .Sustainability parking facilities
9% 10%
800 . Health and physical 200 . Efficiency
well-being 11%
16%
300 . Accessibility
9%

700 . Privacy, territoriality &

Social contact
400 . Flexibility
11%
10%
600 . Spatial Orientation
9% 500 . Safety
15%

100. Reachability and parking facilities 200. Efficiency 300. Accessibility

400. Flexibility 500. Safety 600. Spatial Orientation
700. Privacy, territoriality & Social contact 800. Health and physical well-being 900.Sustainability

Fig 6. a) Questionnaire on priorities' applied to main and detailed evaluation aspects, (students' results).
b) The percentage weight of questionnaire findings, - priorities of evaluation aspects, students' results.
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 14

The weight of the aspects is determined statistically staff highlight the latter as their first priority and sus-
according to the priorities of each user's class. Stu- tainability comes next. The administration staff puts
dents put safety then health and physical well-being as reachability and parking facilities as their first priority
their first and second priorities, meanwhile teaching and accessibility as the second.
Students % Teach. Staff Adm. Staff
W% V% T% W% V% T% W% V% T%
The user value of the building
100. Reachability and parking facilities 9.5 46% 4.33 6.20 46% 2.84 21.6 37% 8.07
200. Efficiency 10.7 64% 6.89 11.90 69% 8.24 9.5 59% 5.61
300. Accessibility 8.7 65% 5.66 7.40 75% 5.55 15.8 57% 9.04
400. Flexibility 10.4 66% 6.87 7.70 56% 4.31 7.2 65% 4.64
Psychological well-being
500. Safety 15.9 68% 10.80 11.10 71% 7.86 11.3 74% 8.41
600. Spatial Orientation 9.2 65% 5.95 10.30 56% 5.79 5.9 71% 4.18
700. Privacy, territoriality & Social contact 11.1 62% 6.87 10.00 56% 5.61 9.9 56% 5.50
Physical well-being
800. Health and physical well-being 15.8 68% 10.66 20.60 65% 13.28 12.5 70% 8.71
Environmental quality
900.Sustainability 8.7 67% 5.83 14.70 56% 8.21 6.4 60% 3.86
AVERAGE 63.86 61.71 58.02

Table 8: Weights, Values, and Total quality percentage of evaluation aspects. Source: the Author

100. Reachability and parking facilities

25

21.6
900.Sustainability 20 200. Efficiency

15
14.70
10 10.7

800. Health and physical well-being 5 15.8 300. Accessibility

20.60
0

5.9 7.2
10.00

9.2
700. Privacy, territoriality & Social contact 400. Flexibility

15.9

600. Spatial Orientation 500. Safety

Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff

Figure 7. The proportional weight of different evaluation aspects as determined by users Source: the Author

100. Reachability and parking facilities

15.00

13.50

900.Sustainability 12.00 200. Efficiency

10.50

9.00

5.97
7.50
6.91
6.00 5.08

4.50
10.88
800. Health and physical well-being 3.00 6.75 300. Accessibility
1.50

0.00

5.28

5.99

5.31
700. Privacy, territoriality & Social contact 400. Flexibility
9.02

600. Spatial Orientation 500. Safety

Students Teaching Staff Administration Staff Average

Figure 8. Total quality percentage of evaluation aspects, and their average, as determined by users. the Author
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
6. Analysis of findings
Regarding the overall quality of functional areas:
- There is consensus of all the users on the quality of
the cafeteria as the poorest among all other func-
tional areas (2.40/6, 40%), and the library as a fair
functional area (3.25/6, 54%)
- There is consensus of students and teaching staff
on the high quality of the studios as a learning
place (4.37/6, 73%)
- There is a gap between the opinions of students
and teaching staff of the quality of the computer
laboratory as students consider it to be a fair place
(3.45/6, 54%) whereas the teaching staff consider
it to be an excellent place (5.00/6, 83%).
On the other hand, a reading of the figures at-
tached to detailed evaluation aspects shows the fol-
lowings:
■ Regarding Reachability and parking facilities:
- The overall quality of the aspect is the lowest of all
evaluation aspects (2.58/6, 42.94%)
- The reachability by vehicles has the lowest grade
on the quality scale due to the considerable dis-
tance between the building in its new location and
the nearest motorway.
- The highest value of quality given by the teaching
staff is the distance between the parking lot and the
building. That is due to the short distance between
their parking and the building, whereas the stu-
dents' one is considerably far that appears in the
quality scale.
■ Regarding Efficiency:
- The overall quality of the aspect is about the aver-
age of all evaluation aspects (3.85/6, 64.17%)
- The lowest values of quality are scored by the ad-
ministration staff.
- The distribution of functional activities in the
building does not consider grouping related func-
tional activities near each other; however that con-
siderably affects administration and teaching staff.
- There is consensus of the users on the quality of a
number of detailed aspects (Sufficient capacity in
corridors, stairs and lifts; Locating functions re-
quiring natural light against an outside wall; Space
required for standing and using furniture, whether
fixed or mobile; Careful materialization and detail-
ing of separations between spaces).
■ Regarding Accessibility:
- The overall quality of the aspect is above average
(3.94/6, 65.72%)
- The highest values for detailed aspects of quality
are scored by teaching staff.
- There is consensus of the users on two detailed as-
pects; Usability (the ease with which people are
able to move through the building and make use of
the rooms and services intended for them) and
15
Possibilities for 'previewing' and obvious breaks
between public and private areas).
- Except for consensus on the quality of the two
previously mentioned aspects there is a gap be-
tween the average values scored by teaching and
administration staff (4.5/6, 75% teaching staff,
3.43, 57% administration staff).
■ Regarding Flexibility:
- The overall quality of the aspect is about the aver-
age of all evaluation aspects (3.73/6, 62.17%)
- The students' quality scale is consistent for all the
detailed aspects of flexibility.
- The levels of quality scored by the teaching staff
curve are constantly the lowest except in a few as-
pects, e.g. 473; Sound installation to suit several
functions.
- There is consensus of the users on the quality of
three detailed aspects: Generous length/width ra-
tio; Provisions for future wiring; Over-
dimensioning of load-bearing structure.
- The highest value for the quality of detailed as-
pects is scored by administration staff – regarding
the generous grid size for the shell fall in division
flexibility.
■ Regarding Safety:
- The overall quality of the aspect is the highest
among all evaluation aspects (4.26/6, 71.06%)
- The quality scales of the detailed aspects scored by
the users run parallel most of the time. The highest
value of quality was scored by administration staff
regarding 'the user safety -safely accessible
rooms'.
- The lowest value of quality scored by students was
for 'public safety - Involvement of users in 'their'
environment'
■ Regarding Spatial Orientation:
- The overall quality of the aspect is about the aver-
age of all evaluation aspects (3.84/6, 63.95%)
- The quality scales of detailed aspects scored by the
users run parallel all the time
- The levels of quality scored by the teaching staff
curve are constantly the lowest
- The highest value of quality scored by administra-
tion staff was for 'the clear overall shapes and eas-
ily understandable access routes '.
- The lowest value of quality scored by teaching
staff was for ' Differentiation by colors and mate-
rials used for floors, walls and ceilings'
■ Regarding Privacy, territoriality & social contact:
- The overall quality of the aspect is below average
for all evaluation aspects (3.47/6, 57.33%)
- The levels of quality scored by the students’ curve
are constantly the highest except for one detailed
aspect, i.e. 'Facilities for locking private rooms
and storage spaces (cupboards, safes)'
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118
- There is consensus of the users on the quality of
one detailed aspect 'Places whose location, design
and arrangement encourage accidental, spontane-
ous meetings'
- The highest value of quality scored by teaching
staff was for 'Facilities for locking private rooms
and storage spaces (cupboards, safes)'
- The lowest value of quality scored by teaching and
administration staff was for 'Places available to
which people can go to be private, by themselves
or with one or two others'.
■ Regarding Health and physical well-being:
- The overall quality of the aspect is above average
for all evaluation aspects (4.03/6, 67.22%)
- The levels of quality scored by the administration
staff curve are constantly the highest except in a
few detailed aspects, mainly concerning 'lighting'
- There is consensus of the users on the quality of
five detailed aspects; ' The quality of the light, The
properties of the surroundings, The negative effect
of noise, The quality of fresh air, The ability to do
your work in winter regardless of the outside tem-
perature'
- The highest value of quality scored by teaching
staff was for 'Cleanliness, The degree to which the
building is clean'
- The lowest value of quality scored by teaching
staff was for 'Air quality, The negative effect of air
quality on your work performance'
■ Regarding Sustainability:
- The overall quality of the aspect is about the aver-
age of all evaluation aspects (3.66/6, 61.06%)
- The levels of quality scored by the students’ curve
are constantly the highest except in one detailed
aspect, i.e. 'the building's use of simplest technolo-
gy appropriate to functional need'
- There is consensus of the users on the quality of
one detailed aspect; 'the building ability to pro-
mote new human values and lifestyles to achieve a
more harmonious relationship with local, regional,
and global resources and environments'
- The highest value of quality scored by administra-
tion staff was for 'the building's use of simplest
technology appropriate to functional need'
- The lowest value of quality scored by administra-
tion staff was for 'the building's ability to support
the connection of users to their surrounding envi-
ronment (for the spiritual, emotional, therapeutic
benefits that nature provides)'
Regarding the proportional weight of major quali-
ty aspects:
- There is a clear difference in priorities concerning
each group of users. The students put 'Safety' as
their priority, whereas teaching staff highlight
'Health and physical well-being' and administra-
tion staff 'Reachability and parking facilities' as
their priorities.
16
- Different users groups share the same concerns
about two major quality aspects 'Efficiency', and
'Privacy, territoriality and Social contact'
- The 'Sustainability' aspect ranked the second
among the priorities of teaching staff (14.70%),
whereas it was ranked last by both students and
administration staff ( 8.70%, 6.40%)
- Meanwhile the 'Reachability and parking facilities'
aspect ranked the first among the priorities of ad-
ministration staff (21.60%), and it ranked last in
teaching staff's priorities (6.20%), and ranked the
sixth of students' priorities ( 9.50%)
7. Conclusion
The paper applies a methodology developed to
evaluate the performance of the new building of the
Faculty of Architectural Engineering in new Beirut
Arab University's Campus in Debbieh regarding its
users' satisfaction. This 'Operational Review' goes
through four consequent steps; determine major and
minor evaluation aspects, measure the variables, eva-
luate the outcomes, and assign weights to the evalua-
tion aspects. The paper determines four main catego-
ries of evaluation aspects; user value of the building,
psychological well-being, physical well-being, and
environmental quality. Moreover it breaks down these
categories into nine aspects and their detailed aspects,
i.e. 'Reachability and parking facilities, Efficiency,
Accessibility, Flexibility, Safety, Spatial orientation,
Privacy, territoriality and social contact, Health and
physical well-being, and Sustainability'. To evaluate
these aspects regarding the users’ satisfaction two
questionnaires were performed. The first was to meas-
ure the quality of the main and detailed aspects, and
the second was to determine the priorities of these
aspects. The paper determined three groups of users;
students, teaching staff, and administration staff.
However, the questionnaire shows the points of
consensus and conflict between different groups of
users regarding their different points of view. It uses a
six grade quality scale to turn qualitative grades into
quantitative ones. Moreover, it transforms the results
of the priorities questionnaire into a percentage scale,
used to determine the proportional weight of different
evaluation aspects, and consequently into much more
tangible indicators to be highlighted.
The paper uses these values to calculate the overall
quality of the building regarding its different users
groups. Finally it concludes that the values assigned
by students to the overall quality of the building are
the highest (63.86%), meanwhile the teaching staff
ranks second (61.71%) and the administration staff
third (58.02%)
 K. Al-Hagla / APJ, Architecture & Planning Journal 19 (2008) 99-118 17

References

[1] JM Theo, Wegen Herman (2005) Architecture in Use:

An introduction to the programming, design and eval-
uation of buildings. Oxford: Elsever, Architectural
Press.
[2] Kernohan, D., J. Gray, J. Daish with D. Joiner (1992),
User participation in building design and management.
Butterworth Architecture, Oxford
[3] Preiser, W.F.E., U. Schramm (1998). Building perfor-
mance evaluation. In: D. Watson et al. (eds), Time-
saver standards, 7th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, 233-
238.
[4] El-Amine, Adnan. (2007) Lebanese American Universi-
ty's Projections for NEASC Accreditation. In "Quality
Assurance in Higher Education: Practices and Expe-
riences" Seminar, Beirut Arab University, 24-3-2007
[5] CABE, (2005), Design with Distinction: The Value of
Good Building Design in Higher Education, CABE,
England.
[6] Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE), (2006), Guide to Post Occupancy Evalua-
tion, University of Westminster, England.
[7] Giddings, B., A. Holness (1996), Quality assessment of
architectural design and the use of design award
schemes. Environment by Design 1 (1), 53-6
[8] Voordt, D.J.M. van der, D. Vrielink (1987), Kosten-
kwaliteit wijkwelzijns-accommodaties 'Cost v, quality
in district welfare accommodation'. Delft University
Press.
[9] Zeiher, Laura C. (1996) The Ecology of Architec-
ture, A complete Guide to Creating the Environ-
mentally Conscious Building. New York: Wat-
son-Guptill Publications.

View publication stats