FY09 Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Study

Godfried Augenbroe | Altug Kasali | Yi LuDjuan Marshall | Patty Reyes | Hyun Bo SeoJane Snecinski | Sharon Steele | Fei ZhaoCraig Zimring | Julie Zook

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

2

Contents

POE Overview POE Study Findings & MHS Gap Recommendations

– Types of POEs– Database Structure

Next Steps

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

3

Definition

1995: Post Occupancy Evaluation is the process of systematically comparing actual building performance, i.e., performance measures with explicitly stated performance criteria (Preiser, 1995).

2009: …Emphasizing organizational goals and long-term systematic evaluation. (Zimring, 2009)

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

Why Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) within the MHS?

POE Goals and Drivers– Identify outstanding facility issues– Assist future design teams with lessons learned– Identify best practices as well as the causes of performance– Test specific design strategies

4

Overall Recommendation: Create and implement a standardized POE program based on 3 types of POE, supported by an accessible database, enabling broad

dissemination of lessons learned to guide future design.

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

5

POE Study

Goals / Value Create a structure to assess

innovation impacts

Facilitate standardized data collection from all MHS facilities

Create a centrally available and usable database

Analyze and utilize accumulated findings to avoid duplication of past shortcomings

Methodology Literature review of over 120

resources and POE reports

Identified best practices in the industry

Modeled alternative approaches to create the optimal framework for the MHS

Created 3-tier POE model

Created POE data structure

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

6

Case Studies and Interviews

U.S. Government Other Organizations

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Kaiser Permanente

General Services Administration (GSA) Post-Occupancy Review of buildings and their Engineering (PROBE) (UK)

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the Medical Facilities Design Office (MFDO)

University of South Wales (Australia)Center for the Built Environment (CBE)

(Air Force) Health Facilities Office (Western Region)

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (UK)

(Army) Health Facilities Planning Agency National Health System (UK)

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Department of State

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

7

Best Practice Findings

A standardized POE process

Use of a multi-disciplinary team process for specific level(s) of POE

A multi-tier system, with specific criteria identified to differentiate one level of POE from another

A data base/repository to collect the input obtained from the POE process

Use of POE data to modify design guide plates, specifications, criteria

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

MHS POE Gaps

Lack of standardized POE requirements across Services (including methods and metrics)

Findings/conclusions not widely accessible

Primary focus for Agents is technical building performance and not outcomes related to patient-centered care

Lessons learned not tied to the modification of the guideplates, design recommendations or other institutional processes

8

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

9

Recommendations

1. Establish Infrastructure to support POE Program by creating POE oversight and coordinating group with resources

2. Create and implement 3 types of POE using standardized methodologies

3. Expand the scope of POE using standard metrics to capture healthcare and organizational outcomes, as expressed in the MHS principles

4. Develop and implement an accessible database with standardized processes to evaluate and archive data

5. Broadly disseminate lessons learned

6. Use ongoing POE information to modify guideplates, design guidelines and specification, building procure standards, EBD checklist tool and the POE process itself

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

10

Standardized POE Process

Type 1: Quick Response Survey (QRS)

– A rapid survey conducted while the facility is still under warranty

Type 2: Descriptive POE

– Surveys + direct evaluation of the building coupled with closer inspection of user perceptions

Type 3: Causal POE

– In-depth examination and analysis of the causal links between design and outcomes

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

11

Case Example: Light in Patient RoomsType 1 POE (QRS): Baseline reading based on stakeholder input. Can be rapidly fixed on site.

Type 2 POE (Descriptive): Identify performance by measuring phenomenon. Evaluate and compare; consider solutions.

Type 3 POE (Causal): Well structured research to establish causality (e.g., light & average recovery period).

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

12

POE Schema

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

POE Diffusion

13

POE Database

Hospitals

Clinics

Other types

POE/Checklist

Automatic outcome

monitoring

Designer

POE Staff

Researcher

Management

Commissioning Report

Data Flow

Other strategies:newsletterstraining, meetings

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

Database – Development & Implementation

14

Conceptual Model Data Schema Prototyping Demo

DevelopmentDevelopment

Short-term ImplementationShort-term Implementation

Initial server hosted by GT

Noblis / Georgia Tech Team

MHS

POE Taxonomy

Testing & Feedback

Maintenance Data Population

Testing

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

Next Steps

1. Establish Infrastructure to support POE Program by creating POE oversight and coordinating group with resources

2. Refine and develop Type 1 and Type 2 standardized methodologies

3. Develop Type 3 POE based on an MHS priority issue

4. Pilot Type 1 and Type 2 standardized POEs, and pilot Type 3 sample

5. Refine, populate, and test database

15

Company Confidential/Proprietary© Noblis 2009

Why We Are Committed To POE as a key component of Innovation….

16