Property Management Project 6500 words

Executive Summary

 

 

This report has been commissioned on behalf of a major corporation to its newly appointed Property Manager. The corporation used to own a large number of buildings, which, as part of a larger effort to downsize, have now been largely disposed of. The company’s strategy has determined that five of these buildings, all of them office buildings found in a central city location, should be kept. These buildings, all between 20 and 90 years old, are now meant to make the object of a major refurbishment effort.

 

However, the project experience of the company has been problematic. The last refurbishment project has encountered major problems as the users of the building and other stakeholders were strongly dissatisfied with the result. Therefore, the company is now committed to avoid the repetition of the same problems in regards to the five-project refurbishment. This report is part of the effort to avoid such issues, and is focussed on discussing two aspects that have been deemed the most difficult: briefing and post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

 

The report is structured into two main chapters: in the first chapter, the best practices in the field of briefing and POE are ascertained. In regards to the briefing stage, the importance of identifying the client needs is emphasised. In accordance with the assessment, the most comprehensive briefing framework that allows the correlation between strategic and project goals is the Value Management approach. The VM differentiates between the strategic and project briefing stages, and enables a focus on the long-term view of a project. The role of POE is investigated next. Thus, if undertaken properly, the POE serves the organisational goals, particularly that of long-term learning. Its results can be used to feed into a new cycle of building reconditioning or construction.

 

Following the general analysis of best practices, the second chapter identifies the Property Manager’s recommendations. Thus, the briefing should be conducted in the framework of the VM, emphasising the involvement of key stakeholders in the strategic and project briefing stages. Prior to the commencement of the strategic workshop the performance of a POE is suggested to be carried out in the five buildings proposed for refurbishment. Taking a long-term view of the refurbishment projects is paramount, and thus VM should be connected with the implementation of the project and eventually with the POE. Prior to the post-occupancy evaluation of the project, a post-construction evaluation should be carried out. All the information thus gathered can then be used by the POE. The POE should be undertaken in its standard form, and should include the delivery of a training workshop for the relevant company’s staff. This would enable the transfer of knowledge to the company’s employees, particularly those responsible with facilities management, and the integration of POE in the organisational practice. Out of the three possible forms of POE, the investigative POE is suggested. The POE should take into consideration sustainability issues of the refurbished buildings.

 

In conclusion, it is highly important that the strategic goals of the company be integrated coherently within project development. The building process should be serve the long-term goals of the organisation, and as such should benefit from a comprehensive perspective that includes in-depth briefing and post-occupancy evaluations.

 

Introduction

 

Our company (henceforth called ‘Company’) has, up to recently, owned a number of buildings in London. As per the reframed company strategy, many of these buildings have been successfully sold to third parties. From the buildings that the company has chosen to retain, five are deemed to make the object of refurbishment, as they have been deemed unsuitable for their purpose. All these five buildings are city centre offices, between 20 and 90 years old. In addition, two of these properties are listed buildings, three are in conservation areas, and all have adjoining property.

 

My role as newly assigned Property Manager of the Company includes writing this report on the proposed management of the refurbishment projects, with a specific focus on briefing and post-occupancy issues. As it is already known, a recent refurbishment project incurred major problems including disputes and lack of satisfaction amongst users and other stakeholders. This report is meant to highlight strategies that can be undertaken to ensure a successful implementation of the five refurbishment projects, with a focus on briefing and post-occupancy evaluation practice.

 

The report is divided into two main chapters:

  1. Evaluation of best practices in briefing and post-occupancy evaluation compared to our Company
  2. Recommendations of how the Company can carry out the briefing process and post-occupancy evaluation

 

 

  1. Best Practice Evaluation

 

 

The object of this report is the planned refurbishment of five central office buildings. Refurbishment is linked with the idea of the adaptation of old buildings to new use. Adaptation extends the useful life of buildings by improvement and conversion (Lowe 2004, Kohler & Hassler 2002). Adaptation can be achieved in three ways: rehabilitation, renovation or restoration works. Restoration means returning the building to its initial condition; renovation implies adapting the building to new standards or codes. Rehabilitation means recycling of buildings that involves both restoration and new construction (Douglas 2002).

 

 

  • The Briefing Stage

 

Briefing is ‘the process by which options are reviewed and requirements articulated’ (Blyth & Worthington 2001, p. 3). A more in-detail definition sees it as ‘the process of gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing information needed in the building process in order to inform decision-making and decision implementation’ (Kelly & Duerk 2002, p. 38). The definition further goes on to differentiate between these two types of briefing as following:

 

‘Strategic briefing is the identification of the overall mission or goal of the project discovered before the decision to build. Project briefing involves gathering facts concerning the building project, comprehending the context within which to design for optimum use and aesthetic expression’ (Kelly & Duerk 2002, p. 38).

 

The dual briefing structure has been endorsed by the UK Construction Industry Board (1997).

 

Briefing implies balancing the interests of the users (demand) with that of the delivery team (supply) (Blyth & Worthington 2002, p. 9). The problem often arises from the different languages used by each side: the demand talks about business and organisation, while the supply refers to specialised construction and architectural language (Blyth & Worthington 2002).

 

Out of these, the most important issue is how to clarify the client’s needs (Kelly & Duerk 2002, p. 39). Thus, the UK Latham Report (1994) recommended that the project briefing process should be better geared toward unveiling client needs. Numerous studies, including those by Salisbury (1998), O’Reilly (1987), Cornick (1991) and Murray (1995) have emphasised the importance of client briefing and the necessity of its analysis and improvement.

 

The most structured approach toward the briefing process is that associated with the practice of Value Management. Value Management (VM) has been defined as

 

‘a service which maximizes the functional value of a project by managing its development from concept to occupancy through the audit (examination) of all decisions against a value system determined by the client’ (Kelly & Male 1993, p.158).

VM takes a long-term, strategic view of a project, seeking to connect a company’s strategic goals with those of the project (Kelly & Male 1993, Kelly et al 2004 and Thiry 2002). It also tries to capture the organisational intent within project design and thus to look beyond the actual project to the operational phases. VM seeks to achieve consensus amongst stakeholders (Green 1994) mainly through an emphasis on communication (Ellegant 1992, Green 1994).

 

According to the VM approach, the two briefings (strategic and project) should be carried out in workshop format (Male et al 1998, Kelly et al 2002, Kelly & Duerk 2002). In order to ensure the success of workshops, the following requirements should be met:

  • Agreement by stakeholders to participate
  • Senior Management support
  • Experienced facilitator
  • Mix of team skills
  • Presence of client decision takers
  • Isolated workshop environment
  • Commitment to the outcome (Kelly et al 2002, p.83)

 

 

  • The Strategic Brief

 

The importance of strategy in the management of projects has been emphasised by numerous academics (Langford & Male 2001). Indeed, projects could better be managed as vectors of strategy for the organisation rather than independently (Thiry & Deguire 2007, Grundy 1998). In order to ensure the long-run benefit of a project, clients need to re-orientate their view from a standard, prescriptive perspective on projects to one in which projects play a strategic role within the organisation’s goals (Smith et al 2001).This is vital not only in the long run perspective but also in the short one. As per Atkin and Flanagan (1995), construction clients that indicated the strategic level had the most potential for cost savings in a project.

 

In accordance with Male et al (1998, p. 28), the strategic briefing “sets out the broad scope and purpose of the project and its key parameters, including the overall budget and programme”.  According to Kelly & Duerk (2002, p. 44), there are three key objectives of the strategic briefing process:

  • To analyse available information and be aware of the problem the project needs to solve
  • To define the purpose of the project in a clear and understandable sentence
  • To clarify the client’s value system.

 

The strategic briefing usually commences with the identification of the stakeholders of the project. Stakeholders are people or organisations with a vested interest in the development or outcome of the project (Lester 2007, Kelly & Duerk 2002). According to Smith and Jackson (2000, p. 504), stakeholders should include, but not be restricted to:

  • owner;
  • managers;
  • facility managers;
  • project managers;
  • staff or employees;
  • tenants;
  • visitors;
  • customers;
  • purchasers, sub-contractors, suppliers and other process or service providers;
  • potential and future customers, users,
  • partners or interest groups;
  • design team members;
  • neighbours, community representatives.

 

Stakeholders can be divided into primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those directly involved in the planning, administration and execution of the project. Secondary stakeholders are indirectly involved in the project, e.g. local authorities, government bodies, labour unions and pressure groups (Lester 2007).

 

Kelly & Duerk (2002, p. 43) emphasise the importance of identifying the decision makers within the stakeholder group. A finer point is made by Male et al (1998, p. 20) whereby both ‘decision makers’ and ‘decision takers’ should be present. The decision takers can make decisions on the spot, while the decision makers must refer to higher authority to have solutions agreed upon.

 

To differentiate within stakeholder group, the ACID test is often recommended (Kelly and Duerk 2002, Kelly et al 2002, p. 43). The ACID test divides stakeholders into four parts: an ‘Authorise’ Group (decision takers), ‘Consult’ Group (decision makers), ‘Inform’ Group (people who must be kept informed) and “Do” Group (people who must act on decisions – often the project team).

 

Once the stakeholders are identified, the next step is to organise the strategic workshop with the key stakeholders (usually, members of A, C and D group). The workshop will seek to connect strategy with the project goals, determine the necessity to build, and acquaint the stakeholders to each other. Prior to the workshop, an information gathering should be undertaken (Kaufman 1998, Kelly et al 2004).

 

At the workshop a structured approach is suggested. The first step is to clarify the client’s organisational goals by reviewing its mission and vision. Thus, Kelly & Duerk (2002, p. 51) suggests as an important stage the identification of the client’s value system. According to the Value System paired comparison, workshop members differentiate between such variables as capital cost (CAPEX), operating cost (OPEX), time, politics/popularity/community, environmental impact, exchange, flexibility, esteem, and comfort (Kelly et al 2004, p. 209-210, 212-214).

 

Next, the mission statement of the project should be identified, defined as a ‘meta-goal that summarises the direction and intention of the project’ (Kelly & Duerk 2002, pp. 51-52). According to the VM system, this can be achieved through a function analysis first developed by Miles (1972). The most common system used in this sense is FAST (function analysis system technique) proposed by Bytheway (1979) and further developed by Kaufman (1990). The purpose is to achieve a ‘prime function’ that is the de-facto main goal of the project. Practical solutions to this prime function should use such criteria as cost, function, time and buildability (Norton & McElligott 1995, p. 99).

 

In the framework of refurbishment projects, an important question that must be asked at this stage is whether the adaptation of the building is the best solution, or alternatives can be envisioned (Kelly & Duerk 2002, p. 52, Smith et al 2001).  If the decision to refurbish is taken, then the construction project brief can be addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • The Project Brief

 

Once the mission statement (or meta-goal) is set up, the purpose of the project brief is to develop a general performance specification that is to be met by design (Kelly & Duerk 2002, p. 45). Thus, the goals of the project briefing are:

  • to understand the users of the proposed building and their interaction
  • to define the spaces by function, size, quality, servicing and IT requirements
  • to understand adjacency of spaces
  • to present a framework for design
  • to commence the project execution plan including budget, milestones and design document deadlines (Kelly & Duerk 2002).

 

The first three objectives are usually achieved through a functional space diagramming (FSD) technique, which identifies the building users and sets up an adjacency matrix (Kelly et al 2004, p.70). At this stage, the question of what type of refurbishment should be performed can be asked (rehabilitation, restoration or renovation).

 

It is highly important that the project briefing takes a long-term, sustainable look at a building. The needs of the end users must be considered at this stage and incorporated in the design process (Green & Moss 1998). The brief must include a view of the building’s life cycle and should consider the role of the post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

 

The outcome of both the Strategic and the Project Briefing should be a report that details the findings.  The importance of this report Brief cannot be overemphasised. According to the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), a Brief provides ‘a full and firm foundation for the initiation of the project and is created in the Starting up [of] a Project process’ (OGC 2009). According to Kelly and Duerk (2002), the brief is a ‘reference document against which audits can take place at any subsequent stage in the design, construction and use phases of the building process’. This report can be used to draw up the design requirements and later to refer to it throughout the project in order to adjust the goals or needs as necessary. Wandahl (2009) has emphasised the importance of properly communicating information to the design team so that they can effectively translate client needs into practice. Moreover, the report should set up the frequency of monitoring of the brief implementation. Follow-up workshops should be held for monitoring and further developing purposes. Norton and McElligott (1995, p. 166) recommends the set up of a Dispute Resolution Process during a follow-up workshop.

 

 

  • Post-Occupancy Evaluation

 

 

Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is ‘the process of evaluating buildings, occupied for some time, in a systematic and rigorous manner’. More formally, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)’s Research Steering Group defined POE as ‘a systematic study of buildings in use to provide architects with information about the performance of their designs and building owners and users with guidelines to achieve the best out of what they already have’ (RIBA 1991, p. 191). POE concerns itself with the measurement of user satisfaction with a built environment (Green & Moss 1998). It helps review past design decisions and building performance, and it can be useful in planning future building projects. Zimmerman and Martin (2001) observe that POE provides an important knowledge base of lessons learned for future use. Zimring (2001) identifies POE as an important factor of organisational learning.

 

According to Rabinowitz (1989), in the US, POE has advanced through three stages of perception: (1) useful, (2) usable and (3) used. At the ‘useful’ level, POE was acknowledged as having benefits for building users and owners, and consequently, systematic processes were drawn. This stage was reached in the 1960s, when studies by Van der Ryn (1967), Manning (1965) and Markus (1972) showed how POE could be used in analyses. The 1970s saw the rise of POE structures, with several high-profile evaluations carried out. By 1980s, POE was commercially accepted and widely used in the US. POEs were now differentiated between ‘walkthrough’, ínvestigative’ and ‘diagnostic’ POEs, depending on the level of detail sought (Preiser et al 1988). Today, POE is largely used as a technique to provide information to designers, users and building owners and reduce uncertainty in building design decisions (16). This reliance on POE in the US market has not necessarily translated in the UK. Despite advocacy by Cooper (2001) and the Egan Report (1998), the industry has been reluctant to adopt POE and to some extent continues to remain this way (Hadjri & Crozier 2009).

 

Standard POE emphasises the importance of performance criteria and quantifiable performance measures (Preiser 2002a).  There are three stages to a proper POE: (1) planning, (2) conducting and (3) applying (Preiser 2002b). During the planning stage, schedule, costs and manpower needs are established. Conducting implies the initiation, monitoring of the data collection process, and analysing the results. Applying means reporting the findings and recommending future actions. A best-practice POE also implies the involvement of the client organisation and its facilities staff in POE training by means of workshops. Such workshops are carried out with 20 to 60 staff broken in teams of five to seven (Preiser 2002a).

 

The POE has to be carried out using one of the three techniques (indicative, investigative or diagnostic POEs).  Finally, a comprehensive report must be carried out. Joiner and Ellis (1989) emphasise the importance of recording evaluation findings, as the presentation may be crucial for the data usefulness to an organisation.

 

Standard POE has not been without criticism. In 1984, environmental psychologist Canter (1984) disapproved contemporary building evaluation practices, identifying the following problems:

(1) the misconception of systematic design, e.g. design that develops in a linear fashion,

(2) the misconception of feedback, e.g. feedback should not be divorced from the rest of the design process,

(3) the misconception of buildings: the failure to see buildings as organic entities reflecting cultural history, diversity and organisational dynamics,

(4) the misconception of the brief: the faulty understanding of the design brief as rigid and unchanging, and

(5) the misconception of façade and plan: the erroneous vision of building design as a separation of plan and façade.

Finch (1999) acknowledged these shortcomings and proposed the idea of ‘empathetic design’ as solving the five problems mentioned by Canter (1984).

 

Finch’s analysis reveals a recent development in POE analysis, which addresses the evaluation from a more holistic perspective that includes anthropological, management and environmental factors (Hadjri & Crozier 2009). An important development has been the linking of POE with the idea of sustainable development (SD). SD, or sustainability, has increased in importance in recent years. In 1992, the newly established International Institute for Sustainable Development defined sustainability in a business context as

 

‘Adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future’ (IISD 1992).

 

Sustainability has been applied in a variety of sectors, one of the key ones being building management. The sustainability framework has implied a long-term look of construction and a focus on adaptive re-use rather than demolition (Bullen 2007).  Indeed, many scholars have emphasised the importance of adaptation as enhancing building sustainability (Latham 2000, Cooper 2001, Kohler and Hassler 2002, Douglas 2002). Myers and Wyatt (2004) point out that sustainability has focussed on building stock as economic, social and cultural capital that should not be wasted.

 

Sustainability implies the introduction of life-cycle costing in the management of a project. Life-cycle costing means accounting for all relevant costs during the investor’s time horizon and adjusting for the time value of money (Kelly & Male 1993). Sustainability implies the use of integrated management approaches that include supply chain integration or value management (Hassan 2006).  Supply chain integration has been expressed through partnerships or integration between owners, contractors and facilities management companies (Facilities 2008). POE can, and ideally should be integrated in a value management process. As Green and Moss (1998) observes, performance evaluation should be part of the strategic objectives of a company, and VM can ensure the long-term view of a building. He recommends integrating POE as both an input and an eventual output in the value management exercise.

 

 

  • Company’s Briefing Practice

 

 

From my analysis of the former project, the briefing stage has been treated very superficially by the Company. The decision to refurbish was made internally by the former CEO without consultation of the key decision makers within the company. There were no distinct strategic or project briefing stages, as the CEO assigned a design team and effectively jumped to the design stage. No coherent framework of analysis was used, and no correlation between the Company’s strategy and the project. The stakeholders were effectively kept outside the decision-making process, an issue which set up the premise of general dissatisfaction with the project. Neither were future users consulted at any stage or informed of the steps being undertaken. The breakdown of communication between top management and the stakeholders was stark and provoked nascent conflicts.

 

Furthermore, I noticed that no POE has been carried out either for the former refurbished buildings or the five buildings now proposed for rehabilitation. For instance, the decision to refurbish has been taken without any real consultation of the building users, and no systematic analysis has been drawn. Consequently, no lessons have been learned from the previous project problems nor were stakeholder interests ever considered.

 

 

  1. Recommendations

 

As already pointed out, the Company has been involved in projects that have incurred major problems due to the lack of structured briefing and performance evaluation processes. In light of best practices in the field, this report takes the view that both most be given due focus, and that they must be regarded as paramount to the proper development of the five refurbishment projects.

 

This report proposes that the following frameworks of analysis should be used:

  • the Value Management approach for the Briefing stage
  • A structured POE process that gives due importance to organisational learning and sustainability issues, streamlining with the VM process

In addition, the specific needs of refurbishment projects should be incorporated within the project review and monitoring.

 

 

  • The Briefing Stage

 

As per Male et al (1998)’s benchmarking study, the VM briefing should be organised in three phases:

  • Orientation & Diagnostic (O&D) Phase – preparation for the Value Management study
  • Workshop Phase – the actual workshop exercise with the participation of the key stakeholders
  • Implementation Phase – follow-up and review of the implementation of value management during the project design and implementation stage.

 

The following tentative timetable for each stage is suggested:

  • Orientation & Diagnostic Phase: 2 months
  • Workshops: 3 days
  • Implementation: 3 months

 

The purpose of the O&D phase is to identify and assess stakeholders and decision makers, collect information and develop additional but necessary studies. The length of two months is given mainly by my recommendation to employ a POE in regards to the projects that are proposed for refurbishment. An investigative POE is suggested, involving an in-depth study whereby POE survey questionnaires are administered to a representative sample of current building occupants (Preiser 2002a). Questions should include issues of health & safety, security, comfort, sustainability, cultural impact, neighbour relations etc. The questionnaires should be analysed and the results distributed in the form of a comprehensive report prior to the actual start of the workshops. Any other collected information – interviews with top managers, data from previous projects, quality manuals etc – should also be gathered at this stage. Taking into account that this project is one of refurbishment, whose risks and uncertainty are higher than a normal construction project, it is vital that as much information as possible be compiled at the briefing stage.

 

An important part of the O&D is the identification of stakeholders and the assignment of the strategy brief and project brief teams. Stakeholders include the company’s top management, but also the staff, which will use the building after it is refurbished. In addition, stakeholders include the contractors, the facilities management company (if different than the Company), the neighbours, the government and city entities, environmental groups, city dwellers and others.

 

To identify the briefing teams, the ACID test should be used: for instance, top management should be in the ‘Authorise’ group, while neighbours, city dwellers etc normally belong in the ‘Inform’ group. The project implementation teams belong to the ‘Do’ group, and should normally be present at the project brief process. In designing the teams, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with team management research, the ideal group size should be between six and ten people (Hunt 1986) and at maximum twelve (Hellriegel et al 1998).

 

Once the teams are identified, a brief orientation workshop is suggested. This workshop would enable the team members to understand the purpose of the briefing and of the value management exercise. Finally, two other important steps include choosing the venue, normally outside the Company premises, and developing the brief agendas, which should be disseminated prior to the actual start of the workshop.

 

Both the strategy and the project brief phase should begin by team building exercises. This is to facilitate the creation of a coherent team, process which in Hellriegel et al (1998) follows five key steps: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning). As the first two steps are disruptive, it is important to reach the norming stage prior to the actual VM workshop.

 

 

  • Strategic Brief

 

 

The Strategic Brief workshop should start with the identification of the client Value System (VS), and continue with the prioritisation of issues from the VS. It should continue with the employment of a Function Analysis: as it is the most widespread, the FAST diagramming technique is recommended. Different main functions will be extracted through brainstorming and eventually the Prime Function will be obtained.

 

Following the identification of the Prime Function, alternative methods of achieving it should be debated using criteria such as cost, function, time and buildability. An important factor that I recommend to consider in this process is sustainability. In light of these methods, the question that must be answered at this stage is (1) whether building construction is the right solution for the situation, (2) whether refurbishment is advisable.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Project Brief

 

If the answer to the first two questions is ‘yes’, the Project Brief workshop can commence. It is important to keep in mind that the PB workshop depends on the outcome of the Strategy Workshop; the strategic brief can conclude that no refurbishment is required at all, in which case the PB workshop becomes redundant.

 

If the building goes ahead, a Functional Space Diagramming can be used to set up the main project needs. The techniques suggested are user analysis, flowcharting of use, user space analysis and adjacency matrix (Kelly et al 2004). An important question to answer at this stage is what type of refurbishment is envisaged (renovation, rehabilitation or restoration). If so, the PB workshop should identify the main desiderates of the future refurbishment project. The workshop should seek to address the main goals of the project, the general timeline, the generally identified constraints, and other strategic issues.

 

A vital outcome of both the Strategic and the PB workshops is the Brief that should incorporate in detail everything that has been agreed between the team members. The brief should also foresee how the VM exercise will be monitored, and how the design stage will be carried out. As Norton and McElligott (1995, p. 109) observe, the implementation phase tends to be the most time consuming of all.

 

 

  • Post-Occupancy Evaluation

 

 

Prior to organising a POE, a post-construction evaluation (PCE) is advised in order to gather relevant information regarding the reception of works.

 

As per best practice POE, the exercise should be divided into three stages: planning, conducting and applying, as follows:

  • Planning: 1 month
  • Conduction: 1 ½  month
  • Applying: 1/2 month

 

The planning stage comprises the analysis of available data (including the post-construction evaluation). The timeframe, costs and manpower needs must be ascertained. Moreover, the participants of the training workshop should be identified at this stage, preferably including staff that is involved in building decision making and facilities management personnel. I recommend that around 30 persons should be involved in this exercise, divided in sub-teams of approximately eight.

 

The conducting stage is comprised of two phases. In the first phase, the POE training workshop should be carried out. As Preiser (1995) points out, the purpose of the workshop is to create awareness and build know-how in regards to POE evaluation methods and benefits. The workshop will last three days, as follows:

  • Day 1: POE instruction and preparation for site visit.
  • Day 2: On-site POE data collection
  • Day 3: Presentation of findings and recommendations to top management in the client organisation by sub-team coordinators.

 

In the second phase, the workshop analysis is supplemented by a proper, professional POE conducted by an outside consultant. The POE should be investigative, and as such involve the preparation and gathering of questionnaires from a cross-section of staff at all levels of authority. The data is then analysed using a proper statistical software package.

 

Finally, the third stage involves the preparation of the conclusions and recommendations in the form of a comprehensive report, which should be made available to the key stakeholders. This report will be invaluable for any further refurbishment or construction the Company may carry out in the future. The integration of lessons learned and knowledge accumulated is vital to ensure that the Company can take advantage of its building capital.

 

 

  1. Conclusions

 

 

This report has highlighted the best practices in regards to briefing and post-occupancy evaluation for building construction and refurbishment. It must be emphasised that these stages must be seen as complementary, as part of learning cycle that the company goes through. In this sense, my recommendation has been to begin the whole process with a post-occupancy evaluation of the five buildings that are planned for refurbishment, in order not only to highlight their current problems but to get a sense of the value of the buildings to their current users. In this sense, Value Management can provide a comprehensive framework that encourages communication, participation and the fulfilment of client’s needs. Value Management allows the correlation between the strategic thinking of the company and the actual design, weaving the organisational goals in the project’s purpose. The VM should then be connected with the project monitoring and review. In this framework, the POE is a necessary step, as it both evaluates the performance of the project against the Company’s goals and allows a continuous learning cycle within the organisation.

 

 

  1. Bibliography

 

  1. Atkin, B. & Flanagan, R. (1995). Improving Value for Money in Construction: Guidance for Chartered Surveyors and their Clients. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
  2. Blyth, A. & Worthington, J. (2001).  Managing the Brief for Better Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
  3. Bullen, P.A. (2007). Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings. Facilities, 25 (1/2), pp. 20-31.
  4. Bytheway, C.W. (1965). FAST Diagramming. SAVE Proceedings. Northbrook, IL: SAVE.
  5. Canter, D. (1984). Beyond Building Utilization, in Powell, J.A., Cooper, I., Lera, S. (Eds), Designing for Building Utilisation, pp.41-47. London: E. & F.N. Spon.
  6. Construction Industry Board. (1997). Briefing the Team: A Guide to Better Briefing for Clients. London: HMSO.
  7. Cooper, I. (2001). Post-occupancy Evaluation – Where are You? Building Research and Information, special issue: Post-occupancy Evaluation, 29(2), pp.158-163.
  8. Cornick, T. (1991). Quality Management for Building Design. Guildford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  9. Douglas, J. (2002). Building Adaptation. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  10. Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction, Construction Task Force Report, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions. London: HMSO.
  11. Ellegant, H. (1992). Modern Value Engineering for Design and Construction, in Nicholson, P (Ed.) Architectural Management, pp 247-255. London: Spon.
  12. Facilities. (2008). Construction Contractors Integrating Into Facilities Management, 26 (1), p.6-15.
  13. Finch, E. (1999). Empathetic Design and Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Facilities, 17(11), pp.431-435.
  14. Green, S.D. (1994). Beyond Value Engineering. International Journal of Project Management, 12(1), pp. 49-56.
  15. Green, S.D. & Moss, G.W. (1998). Value Management and Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Closing the Loop. Facilities, 16(1-2), pp.34-39.
  16. Grundy, T. (1998). Strategy Implementation and Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), pp. 43–50.
  17. Hadjri, K. & Crozier, C. (2009). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Purpose, Benefits and Barriers. Facilities 27(1/2), pp. 21-33.
  18. Hassan, O.A. B. (2006). An Integrated Management Approach to Designing Sustainable Buildings. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(2), pp. 223-251.
  19. Hassler, U., Kohler, N. and Schwaiger, B. (2000). Industrial Culture and Preservation of Resources: the Industrial Building Stock, Proceedings of International Conference Sustainable Building,  Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  20. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W, & Woodman, R.W. (1998). Organizational Behavior, 8th ed.. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
  21. Hunt, J.W. (1986). Managing People at Work, 2nd ed. London: McGraw-Hill.
  22. Joiner, D. and Ellis, P. (1989). Making POE Work in an Organisation, in Preiser, W.F.E. (Ed.), Building Evaluation. New York: NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold
  23. Kaufman, J. J. (1998). Value Management: Creating Competitive Advantage. Baldock: Crisp Publications.
  24. Kaufman, J.J. (1990). Value Engineering for the Practitioner, 3rd ed. Raleigh: North Carolina State Press.
  25. Kelly, J. & Duerk, D. (2002). Construction Project Briefing / Architectural Programming, in: Kelly, J, Morledge, R., Wilkinson, S. Best Value in Construction, pp. 38-59. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  26. Kelly, J. & Male, S. (1993).  Value Management in Design and Construction. London: E& FN Spon.
  27. Kelly, J., Male, S., & Graham, D. (2004). Value Management of Construction Projects. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  28. Kelly, J., Morledge, R., & Wilkinson, S., eds. (2002). Best Value in Construction. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
  29. Kohler, N. and Hassler, U. (2002). The Building Stock as a Research Object. Building Research & Information, 30(4), pp. 226-236.
  30. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (1992). Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90s. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bsdglobal.com/pdf/business_strategy.pdf . [Accessed: 2  Dec 2009].
  31. Langford, D. & Male, S. (2001) Strategic Management in Construction, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.
  32. Latham, D. (2000). Creative Re-Use of Buildings. Shaftesbury: Donhead Publishing Ltd.
  33. Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the Team. London: HMSO.
  34. Lester, A. (2007). Project Management, Planning and Control: Managing Engineering, Construction and Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM and BSI Standards, 5th edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.
  35. Lowe, R.J. (2004). Lessons From Climate Change: A Response To The Commentaries. Building Research & Information, 32(1), pp. 75-78.
  36. Male, S., Kelly, J., Fernie, S., Gronqvist, M. & Bowles G.  (1998). The Value Management Benchmark: a Good Practice Framework for Clients and Practitioners. Published Report for EPSRC IMI Contract. London: Thomas Telford.
  37. Male, S., Kelly, J., Gronqvist, M., & Graham, D. (2007). Managing Value as a Management Style for Projects.  International Journal of Project Management, 25, pp. 107–114.
  38. Manning, P., ed. (1965). Office Design: A Study of Environment, Pilkington Research Unit, Department of Building Science. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.
  39. Markus, T. (1972). Building Performance. New York, NY: Halstead Press.
  40. Miles, L.D. (1972). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  41. Murray, J.P. (1995). Effective Briefing: the Key to Project Success’, in International Congress on Construction, Design, Build Projects ± International Experiences in Singapore, 5-6 October.
  42. Myers, D. and Wyatt, P. (2004). Rethinking Urban Capacity: Identifying And Appraising Vacant Buildings. Building Research and Information, 32(4), pp. 285-292.
  43. Norton, B.R. & McElligott, W.C. (1995). Value Management in Construction: a Practical Guide. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
  44. Preiser, W.F.E. (1995). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: How to Make Buildings Work Better. Facilities, 13(11), pp. 19-28.
  45. Preiser, W.F.E. (2002a). Continuous Quality Improvement through Post-Occupancy Evaluation Feedback. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 5(1), pp. 42-56.
  46. Preiser, W.F.E. (2002b). The Evolution of Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Toward Building Performance and Universal Design Evaluation, in US Federal Facilities Council, Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, p. 9-23. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  47. Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z., White, E.T. (1988). Post-Occupancy Evaluation, New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  48. Office of Government Commerce. (2009). Project Brief. Online. Available at: http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documentation_and_templates_project_brief.asp. Accessed: 20 December 2009.
  49. O’Reilly, J.N. (1987). Better Briefing Means Better Buildings, Building Research Establishment. Garston.
  50. Rabinowitz, H.Z. (1989). The Uses and Boundaries of Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview, in: Preiser, W.F.E. Building Evaluation, pp. 9-19. Springer.
  51. RIBA (1991). A Research Report for the Architectural Profession, in Duffy, F.W. (Eds). Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession. London: E. & F.N. Spon,.
  52. Salisbury, F. (1990). Architect’s Handbook for Client Briefing. London: Butterworth Architecture.
  53. Smith, J. & Jackson, N. (2000). Strategic Needs Analysis: its Role in Brief Development. Facilities, 18 (13/14), pp. 502-512.
  54. Smith, J., Love, P.E.D. & Wyatt, R. (2001). To Build Or Not To Build? Assessing The Strategic Needs Of Construction Industry Clients And Their Stakeholders. Structural Survey, 19 (2),. pp. 121-132.
  55. US Federal Facilities Council. (2002). Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  56. Van der Ryn, S. & Silverstein, M. (1967). Dorms at Berkeley. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  57. Thiry, M. (2002). Combining Value and Project Management into an Effective Programme Management Model. International Journal of Project Management,  20, pp. 221–227.
  58. Thiry, M. and Deguire, M. (2007). Recent Developments in Project-Based Organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 25, pp.649–658.
  59. Zimmerman, A. & Martin, M. (2001). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and Barriers. Building Research and Information, 29(2), pp.168-174.
  60. Zimring, C. (2001). Post-Occupancy Evaluation and Organizational Learning, in Council, F.F. (Eds), Learning from our Buildings: A State-of-the-practice Summary of Post-occupancy Evaluation, pp. 42-53. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  61. Wandahl, S. (2009). A Perception Of Value Management As Supporting The Interface Between The Brief And The Design Phase. Online. Available at: http://www.wandahl.net/documents/perception_of_vm_(web09).pdf. Accessed: 20 December 2009.