AR 718 – POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

POE CASE STUDIES

PRASHANTHINI RAJAGOPAL
201117010 (M.ARCH)
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
 POE OF LAGOS STATE POLYTECHNIC FACILITIES: A USER-BASED SYSTEM
TYPOLOGY: EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE

AUTHORS:
ABISUGA ABIODUN OLATUNJI

PUBLICATION:
JOURNAL OF EMERGING TRENDS IN ENGINEERING
AND APPLIED SCIENCES (JETAS)

YEAR OF PUBLICATION:
2013
SUBJECTS OF ANALYSIS:
To access user satisfaction in the overall performance of the building

AIM OF THE STUDY:

To use user’s feedback to formulate maintenance policy and improve on the future
infrastructural development from the design stage

CONTEXT:
 Established in 1978
 The five schools that make up the
institute:
1. School of management and
business studies
2. School of engineering
3. School of environmental studies
4. School of agriculture
5. School of technology
METHODOLOGY:
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY:
Performance criteria for the following:
AIR QUALITY
SPACES IN GENERAL:
 STAFF OFFICE COOLING SYSTEM
 STORE SPACE FANNING SYSTEM
 CLASSROOM SPACE FURNITURE COMFORT
 LIBRARY SPACE
INTERNET FACILITIES (LIBRARY AND ICT)
 WORKSHOP
 LABORATORIES POWER PLANT
CONVENIENCES
LIGHTING:
LEVEL OF CLEANLINESS
 LIGHTING IN CLASSROOM (NATURAL)
 LIGHTING IN CLASSROOM (ARTIFICIAL) SECURITY LEVEL
CAR PARKING
NOISE LEVEL IN THE BUILDING
BOOKSHELVES
FIXTURES AND FITTINGS COMPONENT
OVERALL COMFORT LEVEL
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
SCALING FOR QUESTIONNAIRE: SAMPLE SIZE:
USE OF 4-POINT LIKERT’S SCALE- QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDANTS

SATISFACTION POINT ANALYSIS

LEVEL SCALE BASE
VERY SATISFIED 4 4.00-3.50
SATISFIED 3 3.50-2.49
DISSATISFIED 2 1.50-2.49
NEUTRAL 1 1.00-1.49 15
(7.5%)
20 (10%)

SOFTWARE USED:
STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCE
165
(82.5%)

STUDENTS ACADEMIC STAFF

NON-ACADEMIC STAFF
DATA FOR QUESTIONNAIRE:
 SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS STUDIES PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 STAFF OFFICES  STORE SPACE

 LIBRARY SPACE  CLASSROOM SPACE
 INTERNET FACILITIES (ICT)  CLASSROOM LIGHTING
 LEVEL OF CLEANLINESS  AIR QUALITY
 SECURITY LEVEL  COOLING SYSTEM
 FANNING SYSTEM
 INTERNET FACILITIES (LIBRARY)
 POWER PLANT
 CONVENIENCES
 CAR PARKING
 NOISE LEVEL
 BOOKSHELVES
 FIXTURES/FITTINGS
 COMFORT LEVEL
 ELECTRICITY LEVEL
 FURNITURE COMFORT

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

 SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 STORE SPACE  STAFF OFFICES

 CLASSROOM SPACE  FURNITURE COMFORT
 LIBRARY SPACE  INTERNET (LIBRARY)
 CLASSROOM LIGHTING  POWER PLANT
 AIR QUALITY  COMVENIENCES
 COOLING SYSTEM  NOISE LEVEL
 FANNING SYSTEM  BOOK SHELVES
 INTERNET FACILITIES (ICT)  FIXTURES/FITTINGS
 LEVEL OF CLEANLINESS  COMFORT LEVEL
 SECURITY LEVEL  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
 CAR PARKING
 WORKSHOP SPACE

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

 SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 LIBRARY SPACE  STAFF OFFICES

 LIGHTING  STORE SPACE
 AIR QUALITY  CLASSROOM SPACE
 COOLING SYSTEM  FURNITURE COMFORT
 FANNING SYSTEM  INTERNET (LIBRARY)
 INTERNET (ICT)  CONVENIENCES
 POWER PLANT  NOISE LEVEL
 CLEANLINESS  BOOKSHELVES
 SECURITY LEVEL  FIXTURES/FITTINGS
 CAR PARKING  COMFORT LEVEL
 WORKSHOP  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
 LABORATORIES

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

 SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 STAFF OFFICES  FURNITURE COMFORT

 STORE SPACE  INTERNET FACILITES (LIBRARY)
 CLASSROOM SPACE  POWER PLANT
 LIBRARY SPACE  NOISE LEVEL
 LIGHTING  BOOKSHELVES
 AIR QUALITY  FIXTURES/FITTINGS
 FANNING SYSTEM  COMFORT LEVEL
 COOLING SYSTEM  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
 INTERNET (ICT)
 CONVENIENCES
 CLEANLINESS
 SECURITY LEVEL
 CAR PARKING
 WORKSHOP
 LABORATORIES

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

 SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 STAFF OFFICES  COOLING SYSTEM

 STORE SPACE  FURNITURE COMFORT
 CLASSROOMS  INTERNET FACILITES (LIBRARY)
 AIR QUALITY  SECURITY LEVEL
 FANNING SYSTEM  NOISE LEVEL
 INTERNET FACILITIES (ICT)  FIXTURES/FITTING
 POWER PLANT  COMFORT LEVEL
 CONVENIENCES  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
 CLEANLINESS
 CAR PARKING
 WORKSHOP
 BOOKSHELVES

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

 OVERALLPERFORMANCE CRITERIA
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C ES ACE ACE ACE (N) ( A) ITY EM EM EM RY) ICT) NT CES ESS VEL IN G EL ACE IES V ES NG V EL PLY
FI L T T T A ( A E V R L I E P
O F E SP SP Y SP OM OM UA SYS SYS SYS IBR ET PL IEN LIN Y L ARK E LE P SP TO HE ITT T L SU
R OM R RO RO Q G ( L RN R N N T P IS O RA K S F R
F G E E E A RI S/ O TY
T AF STO RO IBRA SS ASS AIR LIN NIN TUR ET TE OW NV CLE CU CAR NO KSH BO OO RE MF ICI
S S L CLA CL I
OO FAN RN TER
N IN P CO
OF SE OR LA B TU O
C ECT
R
LAS N N C L I X
C I
G
I FU I N VE
W F EL
I NG TIN LE
HT H
IL G LIG
SATISFIED PARAMETERS: DISSATISFIED PARAMETERS:

 STAFF OFFICES  STORE SPACE

 CLASSROOMS  COOLING SYSTEM
 LIBRARY  FURNITURE COMFORT
 LIGHTING  INTERNET (LIBRARY)
 AIR QUALITY  CONVENIENCES
 FANNING SYSTEM  NOISE LEVEL
 INTERNET (ICT)  BOOKSHELVES
 POWER PLANT  FIXTURES/FITTINGS
 LEVEL OF CLEANLINESS  COMFORT LEVEL
 SECURITY LEVEL  ELECTRICITY
 CAR PARKING
 WORKSHOP SPACE
 LABORATORIES

FINDING/RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

INTERVIEW SAMPLE SIZE:

6 (17.6%)

8 (23.6%) 20 (58.8%)

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: STUDENT ACADEMIC STAFF NON ACADEMIC STAFF

RESPONSES FROM THE STUDENTS:

 Not comfortable with the classroom environment

 Temperature sometimes is unbearable when the classroom is

overcrowded

 Furniture are horrible, one develops body pain from sitting for long

 More conveniences should be provided and the existing one should be

kept functioning and clean

 Facilities should be improved upon to encourage student’s enrollment

and gives value for the school fee paid

 The environment sometimes discourages us from attending lectures

especially when there is power failure
RESPONSES FROM THE STAFF:

 The school has to improve all the facilities to meet up with modern
day educational program

 Staff offices are not enough in some departments and most are
poorly furnished

 Natural lighting is not adequate in most of the offices

 The construction professionals in the school should be involved in

the design and construction of the school infrastructure to meet
user requirement

 Slow responses from the maintenance department

 Maintenance is poorly carried out, no standard policy and nothing

like building performance evaluation
CONCLUSION/SUGGESTIONS:

 Future development of infrastructure in polytechnic institutes should incorporate

user’s opinion at the design stage itself
 Should improve quality of fittings and fixtures
 Provide internet facilities in library – enhance e-learning
 Noise level should be reduced – use of insulating material and future designs should
be located away from the power plant
 Student traffic along corridors to be controlled (reduce noise level) – buffer space
between corridor and classrooms

 Need for POE to formulate maintenance policy

 Government must make it a policy for POE to be conducted in public buildings
periodically
WORKPLACE AND PRODUCTIVITY: A POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF
LAUTECH (LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY) SENATE
BUILDING, OGBOMOSO, NIGERIA
TYPOLOGY: EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE/OFFICE

AUTHORS:
ADEDEJI JOSEPH ADENIRAN, FADAMIRO JOSEPH AKINLABI

PUBLICATION:
ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH

YEAR OF PUBLICATION:
2012
SUBJECTS OF ANALYSIS:
To measure the influence of workplace design quality on worker’s productivity

AIM OF THE STUDY:

To inform future design decisions about worker productivity and building design.

CONTEXT:
 Designed in the year 2004
 Accommodate different central
admin functions of the university,
established in 1990
 Circular form with an inner ring of
3 floors
 Ground floor of the inner ring is an
open exhibition hall
 1.5 times GF volume- first floor as
senate chambers
1.5 times FF volume- second floor
as governing council chambers
 outer ring of 4 floors has offices
 courtyard between outer and inner
ring
METHODOLOGY:
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY:

 PERCENTAGE OF TIME NORMALLY  ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING

SPENT AT WORK STATION
1. VEHICULAR ACCESS
 2. PEDISTRIAN ACCESS
TASKS NORMALLY CARRIED OUT AT
WORK STATION: 3. PHYSICALLY DISABLED ACCESS
4. EXIT ROUTES
1. READING/ WRITING BY HAND
5. FIRE SAFETY
2. WORKING ON COMPUTER 6. SECURITY
3. DRAWING/DESIGN ON PAPER 7. EXTERIOR BEAUTY
4. TALKING ON TELEPHONE 8. INTERIOR BEAUTY
5. OTHERS 9. STAIRWAY LOCATION
10. INTERIOR SIGNAGE
11. EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
12. PARKING
13. CLEANLINESS
14. SPEED AND EFFICIENCY OF
MAINTENANCE
15. WATER QUALITY
16. WASTE REMOVAL
17. LANDSCAPING
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY:

 WORK ENVIRONMENT-
LAYOUT/FURNITURE

15. LOCATION OF SPACE

1. DISTANCE BETWEEN OTHER AREAS
16. SPACE FOR FILE STORAGE
2. DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR 17. PERSONAL STORAGE AREA
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR 18. LOCATION OF PRINTING AREA
3. WORK PLACE SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT 19. HALLWAY CHARACTERSTICS AND
4. SPACE AVAILABLE FOR MATERIAL LOCATION
STORAGE 20. STAIRWAY CHARACTERSTICS AND
5. VISUAL PRIVACY AT WORK STATION LOCATION
6. TELEPHONE PRIVACY AT WORK STATION 21. ACCESS AND CRCULATION FOR
7. HEIGHT OF PARTITION PHYSICALLY DISABLED
8. FURNITURE COMFORT 22. DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND
EQUIPMENT MAKING NOISE
9. TYPE OF CHAIR
23. SPEED AND EFFICIENCY OF TECHNICAL
10. CHAIR POSSINILITY OF ADJUSTMENT MAINTENANCE
11. EASE OF ADJUSTMENT 24. CLEANLINESS ON YOUR FLOOR
12. LOCATION OF MEETING ROOMS 25. FIRE SAFETY
13. SPACE FOR FORMAL MEETING 26. SECURITY AGAINST THEFT
14. SPACE FOR INFORMAL MEETING 27. DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR
WORK MATES
QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY:

 ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT  SELF-REPORTED WORKER’S PRODUCTIVITY

1. TEMPERATURE 1. RATE YOUR PRODUCTIVITY IN YOUR NEW

2. HUMIDITY WORKING ENVIRONMENT
2. HOW DO YOU FEEL IN THE OFFICE YOU
3. AIR QUALITY
WORK?
4. VENTILATION 3. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS
5. ODOUR BUILDING AS A WORKPLACE?
6. NATURAL LIGHTING QUALITY 4. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE
7. AIR FRESHNESS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH YOU
8. AIR MOVEMENT WORK?
9. ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMFORT
BUILDING’S IMPACT ON SELF REPORTED
WORKER’S PRODUCTIVITY

1. HOW DOES YOUR NEW WORKING ENV

INFLUENCE YOUR PRODUCTIVITY?
2. WHAT IS ITHE INFLUENCE OF YOUR NEW
WORKING ENV ON PROBLEM SOLVING?
3. GENERAL IMPRESSION OF YOUR NEW
WORKING ENV.
SCALING FOR QUESTIONNAIRE: SAMPLE SIZE:
USE OF 5-POINT LIKERT’S SCALE- QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDANTS
 150 RANDOM SURVEY SAMPLING
SATISFACTION POINT SCALE
LEVEL GENDER DISTRIBUTION IN SURVEY

VERY UNSATISFIED 1
UNSATISFIED 2
NEUTRAL 3 45.3%
MALE
FEMALE
54.7%
SATISFIED 4
VERY SATISFIED 5

AGE DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGE

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
< 20 YRS 21-30 YRS 31-40 YRS 41-50 YRS > 50 YRS
AGE DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGE
 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGE
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
PRIMARY SECONDARY SECONDARY UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE
INCOMPLETE COMPLETE

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

WORK EXPERIENCE DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGE

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-5 YRS 5-10 YRS >10 YRS NOT INDICATED

WORK EXPERIENCE
DATA FOR QUESTIONNAIRE:

PERCENTAGE OF TIME NORMALLY SPENT AT WORK STATION

14
18.7 NO RESPONSE
6 10-20%
21-30%
10.7 31-40%
18.7
41-50%
51-60%
16 >60%
16

1.3
12.7 NO
TASKS NORMALLY CARRIED OUR AT WORKSTATIONS RESPONSE
5.3 READING/W
2 RITING BY
HAND
42
WORKING
ON
COMPUTER
DRAWING/D
ESIGNING
36.7 ON PAPER
TALKING ON
TELEPHONE
OTHERS
ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING:
 ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
S S S S G S G
ES ES ES TE ET
Y
IT
Y
U TY U TY IO
N
A GE N CE IN ES IC
E
L IT
Y
V AL IN
C C C U F R A A T K I N V P
AC
C A C A C
RO SA ECU BE BE CA IG
N
A RA
P AR NL S ER Q UA M
O
SC
A
N ED I T E S R R LO S E A E E D
AR IA BL EX F I R
IO IO S R P
CL
E C ER E R N
UL T R A ER ER AY RI
O AP AN AT ST LA
HI
C ES DI
S T T W E L N W A
D EX IN IR IN
T NA TE W
V E PE LL
Y
TA ER I N
A S T A
IC EX M
YS
PH

INFERENCES:
 All parameters were rated very high- reaching at least satisfactory levels
 Room for improvement in access for physically disabled and exit routes
 Need for active design strategy to incorporate these parameters in the present design, that
is after the design stage
 Overall, success of design regarding aspects of the building
WORK ENVIRONMENT-LAYOUT/FURNITURE :
 0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5

0
1
2
3
4
5
DISTANCE BETWEEN OTHER AREAS

DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR IMMEDIA...

WORKPLACE SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT

SPACE AVAILABLE FOFR MATERIAL STORAGE

VISUAL PRIVACY AT WORK STATION

TELEPHONE PRIVACY AT WORK STATION

HEIGHT OF PARTITION AT WORK STATION

FURNITURE COMFORT

TYPE OF CHAIR

CHAIR POSSIBILITY OF ADJUSTMENT

EASE OF ADJUSTMENT

LOCATION OF MEETING ROOMS

SPACE FOR FORMAL MEETING

SPACE FOR INFORMAL MEETINGS

LOCATION OF THIS SPACE

SPACE FOR FILE STORAGE

PERSONAL STORAGE AREA

WORK ENVIRONMENT- LAYOUT/FURNITURE

LOCATION OF PRINTING AREA

HALLWAY CHARACTERSTICS AND LOCATION

STAIRWAY CHARACTERSTICS AND LOCATION

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION FOR PHYSICALLY D...

DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND EQUIPMENT M...

TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE

CLEANLINESS OF FLOOR

FIRE SAFETY

SECEURITY AGAINST THEFT

DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR WORK M...

INFERENCES WORK ENVIRONMENT:

 Low attention given to individual workstations- many of the factors correlating

with it was rated low. Example- height of partition responsible for low privacy
 Distance between workstations was evaluated low – farther apart than
comfortable
 Many workstations are kept close to equipments that make too much noise,
affecting the comfort levels
 Less comfort in workstation furniture
 Not much attention paid to personal storage area
 No ease in case of furniture re-adjustment
 Less desirability of open plan office- on the whole has rating of 3.54
ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT:
 ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
TEMPERATURE HUMIDITY AIR QUALITY VENTILATION ODOUR NATURAL AIR AIR ELECTRICAL
LIGHTING FRESHNESS MOVEMENT LIGHTING
QUALITY COMFORT

INFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT:

 Mean RSI of 3.49 ranks low

 Low performance in almost all the parameters
 Electrical lighting comfort is relied upon the most
 Dark areas within the building even in full sunshine days
 Temperature, Humidity, Air quality and Lighting ranked low, possibly due to the
plan form of the building
 Inner ring of the building not supplied with natural climatic elements – relies
heavily on the erratic power supply
WORKER’S PRODUCTIVITY:

SELF REPORTED WORKER’S PRODUCTIVITY

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PRODUCTIVITY IN NEW ENV HOW DO YOU FEEL? CHARACTERISATION OF SATISFACTION OF PHYSICAL ENV
WORKPLACE
BUILDINGS IMPACT ON WORKER’S PRODUCTIVITY:

HOW DOES YOUR NEW WORKING ENV INFLUENCE WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF YOUR NEW WORK ENV ON
PRODUCTIVITY? PROBLEM SOLVING?

24 22.7
NEATRAL NEATRAL
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE
POSITIVE POSITIVE
63.3 2.7 56.7 6.7

GENERAL IMPRESSION OF YOUR NEW WORKING ENV?

22.7
NEATRAL
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE
56.7 6.7
INFERENCES SELF REPORTED PRODUCTIVITY OF WORKERS:

 Mean RSI 3.74 (Closer to 4)

Productivity factors of workers relatively high
 Building was evaluated as having positive impact on their productivity
 Productivity and problem solving ability seems to influence positively on the
workers

CONCLUSION/SUGGESTIONS:

 Overall success on workplace success, since self reported productivity seems

to be high
 Some factors that are crucial to better productivity/performance have failed
 Indoor environmental comfort appears to be sacrificed for high aesthetic
value
 Need for suitable balance among form, function and aesthetic performance
SOURCES:

1. Olatunji, Abisuga Abiodun. “Post Occupancy Evaluation of Lagos State

Polytechnic Facilities: A User-Based System.” Journal of Emerging Trends in
Engineering and Applied Sciences, IV, no. 2, 2013, pp. 229–236.
2. Adeniran, Adedeji Joseph, and Fadamiro Joseph Akinlabi. “Workplace and
Productivity: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of LAUTECH Senate Building,
Ogbomoso, Nigeria.”Architecture Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 14–19.,
doi:10.5923/j.arch.20120202.03.