Mind the gap

1. Mind the gap Perspective- and process-related distance in building planning and performance Melanie Jaeger, Volker Linneweber & Petra Schweizer-Ries (in cooperation with V. Huckemann, Prof.Dr.-Ing. M.N. Fisch, Institute for Building Services und Energy Design, Braunschweig, Germany References: Linneweber, V. (1993): “Wer sind die Experten? ‚User need analysis’, ‚post-occupancy evaluation’ und Städtebau aus sozial- und umweltpsychologischer Perspektive“. In H.J. Harloff (Ed.): Psychologie des Wohnungs- und Siedlungsbaus: Psychologie im Dienste von Architektur und Stadtplanung (pp. 75 - 85). Göttingen, Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Rambow, R. (2000): Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der Architektur. Frankfurt a.M.: Internationale Hochschulschriften, Band 34. Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Baik, Y.K., Clausen, G. and Fanger, P.O. (1999): Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor Air, 9, 165–179. 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP 2006), Athens, Greece, July 16-21, 2006 Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg Environmental Psychology Work Group Focus of Research Background The study presented here is an interdisciplinary and multi-method approach to aspects of building performance. It contrasts perspectives of different groups involved in planning, construction and operation. Four office buildings with a particular kind of façade system are evaluated using semi-structured interviews with architects, facility managers and building operators. Architects were further approached with an online questionnaire. The questions were mainly about processes of planning and construction, expectations and experiences concerning the building concept in focus. Building users completed a questionnaire about their perception, well-being and experiences concerning the building. The following aspects were analyzed: Process monitoring: What aspects of the planning process are realevant to building performance later on? Perspective taking: Are there differences between the perception of architects and users? How is the user’s perspective seen by architects and how good is their ability to adopt the user’s point of view? Designing a fully functional building requires the integration of occasionally contradictive aspects like functionality, efficiency and aesthetics as well as knowledge about the needs of prospective users. Especially in working environments where – besides general well-being and satisfaction – economically relevant aspects like productivity may be affected by building features (Wargocki, 1999), the quality of the built environment becomes increasingly important. Building planners and constructors are often confronted with multiple and occasionally moreover conflicting demands (Rambow, 2000). The future user’s perception and needs are crucial variables in the process of designing and constructing buildings (cp. Linneweber, 1993) and should be considered thoroughly. Studies have shown however that e.g. architects often use implicit, idiosyncratic knowledge concerning users’ perspective and needs which is hardly ever checked in reality (Rambow, 2000). Results The data collected so far consists of half-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with 5 building operators or facility managers and 6 experts (engineers and architects) for the kind of façade system in focus. 13 architects (Mean Age: 39 ; female: 67; Mean months in building: 35) responded to the online survey. 116 persons filled in the user questionnaire right at their workplaces (Mean Age: 39 ; female participants: 67; Mean months in building: 35). All qualitative data was transcribed and – dependant on the openness of question – analyzed by fixed or inferred categories. Quantitative date was subjected to statistical analyses. • Perspective-related distance • Results of the questionnaire show a crucial distance in perception and/ or experiences between building designers and building users that might contribute to later malfunctions and users’ dissatisfaction. The figure below shows that • the importance of different advantages that are related to double layered facades differ clearly,especially when it comes to aesthetical aspects • architects do partly misconceive the value users attach to some aspects like optical appeal • there is a distance between attributions that are made to the façade system and experiences • architects and users further seem to have contradictive experiences with advantages. • Procedure-related distance • Especially the analysis of interviews revealed that the different phases of a buildings evolution are somehow “decoupled” what creates a procedure-related distance especially between actors in construction and performance phase: • the building‘s complexity requires an implementation of different actors with differing interests, their exchange and communication is seen as crucial but often not monitored thoroughly • involved groups are likely to fluctuate resulting in difficult traceability of decisions difficult decreasing commitment • particularly the exchange across phases between building planners and later facility managers is seen as insufficient by representatives of the latter group, an absence of architects‘ interest in the constructed building was mentioned Double layer facades … Architects’ ascription Importance user Importance architect 3,4 ... make creativity possible 5 3,9 ...are optically appealing 5,6 5,2 3,4 Architects’ experience Users’ experience 6,1 5,4 3 ...allow natural ventilation …provide a comfortable room climate 5,4 3,9 3,2 Importance or experiences could be indicated on a 7 point scale reaching from 1 = not important/ not fulfilled at all to 7 = very important/ completely fulfilled Conclusion and Recommendation The term ‘perspective-related distance‘ was developed to distinguish the found intergroup differences from the concept of ‚social distance‘. It was introduced to particularly emphasize practical interventions not just bringing together different groups involved but also to encourage their active perspective-taking. This could ameliorate interdisciplinary exchange and consideration of user needs. Further an explicit process-reflecting and anticipative project-monitoring linking actors in different phases and especially during formative evaluations of building performance seems to be crucial to bridge the gap. The project is supported by Contact: Dipl.-Psych. Melanie Jaeger melanie.jaeger@gse-w.uni-magdeburg.de More information about the project: http://www.igs.bau.tu-bs.de/_forschung/_twinskin/frameset.htm

2. Mind the gap Perspective- and process-related distance in building planning and performance Melanie Jaeger, Volker Linneweber & Petra Schweizer-Ries (in cooperation with V. Huckemann, Prof.Dr.-Ing. M.N. Fisch, Institute for Building Services und Energy Design, Braunschweig, Germany References: Linneweber, V. (1993): “Wer sind die Experten? ‚User need analysis’, ‚post-occupancy evaluation’ und Städtebau aus sozial- und umweltpsychologischer Perspektive“. In H.J. Harloff (Ed.): Psychologie des Wohnungs- und Siedlungsbaus: Psychologie im Dienste von Architektur und Stadtplanung (pp. 75 - 85). Göttingen, Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Rambow, R. (2000): Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der Architektur. Frankfurt a.M.: Internationale Hochschulschriften, Band 34. Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Baik, Y.K., Clausen, G. and Fanger, P.O. (1999): Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor Air, 9, 165–179. 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP 2006), Athens, Greece, July 16-21, 2006 Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg Environmental Psychology Work Group Focus of Research Background The study presented here is an interdisciplinary and multi-method approach to aspects of building performance. It contrasts perspectives of different groups involved in planning, construction and operation. Four office buildings with a particular kind of façade system are evaluated using semi-structured interviews with architects, facility managers and building operators. Architects were further approached with an online questionnaire. The questions were mainly about processes of planning and construction, expectations and experiences concerning the building concept in focus. Building users completed a questionnaire about their perception, well-being and experiences concerning the building. The following aspects were analyzed: Process monitoring: What aspects of the planning process are realevant to building performance later on? Perspective taking: Are there differences between the perception of architects and users? How is the user’s perspective seen by architects and how good is their ability to adopt the user’s point of view? Designing a fully functional building requires the integration of occasionally contradictive aspects like functionality, efficiency and aesthetics as well as knowledge about the needs of prospective users. Especially in working environments where – besides general well-being and satisfaction – economically relevant aspects like productivity may be affected by building features (Wargocki, 1999), the quality of the built environment becomes increasingly important. Building planners and constructors are often confronted with multiple and occasionally moreover conflicting demands (Rambow, 2000). The future user’s perception and needs are crucial variables in the process of designing and constructing buildings (cp. Linneweber, 1993) and should be considered thoroughly. Studies have shown however that e.g. architects often use implicit, idiosyncratic knowledge concerning users’ perspective and needs which is hardly ever checked in reality (Rambow, 2000). Results The data collected so far consists of half-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with 5 building operators or facility managers and 6 experts (engineers and architects) for the kind of façade system in focus. 13 architects (Mean Age: 39 ; female: 67; Mean months in building: 35) responded to the online survey. 116 persons filled in the user questionnaire right at their workplaces (Mean Age: 39 ; female participants: 67; Mean months in building: 35). All qualitative data was transcribed and – dependant on the openness of question – analyzed by fixed or inferred categories. Quantitative date was subjected to statistical analyses. • Perspective-related distance • Results of the questionnaire show a crucial distance in perception and/ or experiences between building designers and building users that might contribute to later malfunctions and users’ dissatisfaction. The figure below shows that • the importance of different advantages that are related to double layered facades differ clearly,especially when it comes to aesthetical aspects • architects do partly misconceive the value users attach to some aspects like optical appeal • there is a distance between attributions that are made to the façade system and experiences • architects and users further seem to have contradictive experiences with advantages. • Procedure-related distance • Especially the analysis of interviews revealed that the different phases of a buildings evolution are somehow “decoupled” what creates a procedure-related distance especially between actors in construction and performance phase: • the building‘s complexity requires an implementation of different actors with differing interests, their exchange and communication is seen as crucial but often not monitored thoroughly • involved groups are likely to fluctuate resulting in difficult traceability of decisions difficult decreasing commitment • particularly the exchange across phases between building planners and later facility managers is seen as insufficient by representatives of the latter group, an absence of architects‘ interest in the constructed building was mentioned Double layer facades … Architects’ ascription Importance user Importance architect 3,4 ... make creativity possible 5 3,9 ...are optically appealing 5,6 5,2 3,4 Architects’ experience Users’ experience 6,1 5,4 3 ...allow natural ventilation …provide a comfortable room climate 5,4 3,9 3,2 Importance or experiences could be indicated on a 7 point scale reaching from 1 = not important/ not fulfilled at all to 7 = very important/ completely fulfilled Conclusion and Recommendation The term ‘perspective-related distance‘ was developed to distinguish the found intergroup differences from the concept of ‚social distance‘. It was introduced to particularly emphasize practical interventions not just bringing together different groups involved but also to encourage their active perspective-taking. This could ameliorate interdisciplinary exchange and consideration of user needs. Further an explicit process-reflecting and anticipative project-monitoring linking actors in different phases and especially during formative evaluations of building performance seems to be crucial to bridge the gap. The project is supported by Contact: Dipl.-Psych. Melanie Jaeger melanie.jaeger@gse-w.uni-magdeburg.de More information about the project: http://www.igs.bau.tu-bs.de/_forschung/_twinskin/frameset.htm