A holistic framework with user-centred facilities performance attributes for evaluating higher education buildings

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to identify user-centred facilities performance attributes of higher education buildings and how they can be used to evaluate individual learning spaces. These attributes are then consolidated for developing a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) framework in this context. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review of the literature on the POE of higher education buildings is conducted. Findings This study identifies 36 facility performance attributes in higher education buildings, which can be categorised into four dimensions: ambient; spatial; technology; and building support and services requirements. These facility performance attributes need to meet user requirements to achieve satisfactory feedback. It is also important to note that user requirements differ from one learning space to another; thus, it is essential to consider the characteristics of individual learning spaces. Research limitations/implications The proposed evaluation framework is context-based and may not be suitable to evaluate other types of buildings. It may be further extended and enhanced to meet other facility management evaluation needs. Practical implications The POE framework developed in this research can be used to generate facilities management analytic to inform future design and improve existing higher education facilities. Originality/value This research has developed a holistic POE framework tool to meet user requirements in higher education buildings.

Organisational Justice Analysis of Facility Managers’ Responses to User’s Post-Occupancy Feedback

“…Buildings in HEIs have a wide range of spaces with different functions to support the daily activities of a variety of users, including students, staff, and public visitors. As pointed out by Price et al [51], user requirements of these spaces change over time, and this can influence users' perceptions, and therefore it is a very challenging task to ensure these spaces meet end-users' needs [10]. Facility managers in HEIs have a responsibility to ensure the provision of functional facilities to support the daily activities of all the users.…”

“…User post-occupancy feedback can be gathered via both formal and informal channels, such as social media, internal memos, e-mail, face-to-face reporting and phone calls [6,8,9]. User post-occupancy feedback reflects users' needs and their level of satisfaction on the facilities in use [10].…”

POE of public higher education facilities in Saudi Arabia: lessons learned from three case studies

“…The synthesis led to three main performance categories comprising (1) Technical: a category that relates all elements characteristics, which are measurable and ensure users' (visual, thermal, health and safety) comfort. Furtherly, all elements for monitoring facilities systems and control over its environments aiming for 3 Circulation in the building 7.4 Wayfinding within the building 7.5 Overall layout of the building 7.6 Operation of doors 7.7 Cleanliness in the building 7.8 Accessibility to disabled people 7.9 Quality of sidewalks outside the building 7.10 Adequacy of parking (continued ) (Lawrence and Keime, 2016;Hassanain et al, 2018;Abisuga et al, 2019;Murgu, 2020).…”

“…Number of seats in classroomsLeung et al (2014),Hassanain and Iftikhar (2015),Babatunde and Perera (2017),Hassanain et al (2018),Abisuga et al (2019) and G€ oçer et al(2019) 8.2 Size of overall classrooms 8.3 Flexibility of furniture in classrooms 8.4 Quality of furniture in classrooms 8.5 Classroom amenities (board and projector) Lecture halls 9.1 Number of seats in the lecture hall Khalil et al (2011) and Hassanain and Iftikhar (2015) 9.2 Quality of seats in the lecture hall Computer laboratories 10.1 Number of computer laboratories in the building Borys et al (2001), Hassanain and Mudhei (2006), Meir et al (2009), Khalil et al (2011), Leung et al (2014), Hassanain and Iftikhar (2015), Babatunde and Perera (2017), Hassanain et al (2018) and Abisuga et al (2019) 10.2 Size of computer laboratories 10.3 Overall satisfaction with computer laboratory layout 10.4 Quality of furniture in the computer laboratories 10.5 Adequacy of data points (Internet) in the computer laboratories Student lounges 11.1 Number of student lounges in the building Khalil et al (2011), Leung et al (2014), Hassanain and Iftikhar (2015), Babatunde and Perera (2017), Hassanain et al (2018), Rieh (2018) and Abisuga et al (2019) 11.2 Size of student lounges 11.3 Quality of furniture in the student lounges 11.4 Adequacy of data points (Internet) in student lounges Faculty lounges 12.1 Number of faculty lounges in the building Marmaras and Nathanael (2012), Leung et al (2014), Hassanain and Iftikhar (2015), Babatunde and Perera (2017), Hassanainet al (2018) andRieh (2018) …”

An on-campus university student accommodation model

“…The facilities required to promote the operations of universities are wide-ranged. The variety of facilities required in a university may include but are not limited to administrative buildings, lecture theatres, offices, library, laboratories, workshops, refectories, sports fields, student housing and staff accommodation, and other support facilities (Gruber et al , 2010; Abdullahi and Yusoff, 2018; Abisuga et al , 2020). Some of these facilities have a direct role, whereas others play a support role.…”