Search results

This paper aims to highlight a broader definition of good building performance that goes beyond the traditional emphasis on technical aspects, only adopting the lens of the social construction of technology (SCOT) in the empirical space of the workplace sector. Several building performance evaluation (BPE) methods focus on technical aspects such as energy consumption, indoor environmental conditions and compliance with building regulations and standards. Technical aspects, albeit important goals, only embed a partial component of what buildings are expected to deliver. There is growing interest in considering the organisational and experiential expectations of building performance, particularly integrating various views of performance as expected by different user groups.

The paper adopts an archival research method to analyse the archive of the workplace consultants DEGW, particularly focusing on their work on London’s Broadgate development in the 1980s and the 1990s.

The findings reveal how voices from a pluralistic client organisation can be addressed to articulate a broad definition of building performance that integrates different viewpoints encompassing technical, organisational and experiential expectations. In DEGW’s work, the views on building performance of various stakeholders involved in the everyday use and management of buildings are identified without imposing predetermined agendas or research notions of performance. Particular emphasis is given to understanding clients as not a homogenous entity but consisting of different interest groups, which implies multiple conceptualisations of building performance and the building itself.

The performance expectations of a building vary between organisations and even within any organisation. Moreover, the needs of an organisation will change over time, and the BPE criteria need to be changed to ensure better alignment between organisations and the physical spaces they occupy. A critical reflection on the conceptualisation of “users” and “building” in BPE methods is required to create an integrated approach towards building performance.

The paper offers insights by adopting the theoretical lens of SCOT to explore an integrated approach to building performance that captures the varied needs of building users through the example of London’s Broadgate development.

A growing maturity Facilities subscribers continue to be drawn from the senior ranks of the profession — from those who have been around long enough to separate the new from the novel. And although it was not entirely composed of our subscribers, that maturity of outlook was everywhere apparent in the Café Royal audience on 30 October, when a selection of thoroughly professional delegates resisted a series of interpretations of facilities management — as a branch of sociology, architecture, building economics, business systematising and even design — and insisted on its right to a unique, independent existence of its own. The information provided by the speakers — the expertise laid before the delegates by architects Frank Duffy and John Worthington, building economist Bernard Williams, journalist Martin Pawley, computer systematiser Tina Rich Walden and design consultant Peter Gorb — was eagerly snapped up: the comprehensive documentation gathered up and taken away for reference. But this was as predicted: the quality of information should have been no surprise to anyone. What was heartening — and needed a forum such as this to find expression — was the quality and assurance of the prominent facilities managers present, and in particular the members of the panel and the facilities manager speaker. To a large extent the sensitive and enquiring chairmanship of John Nicholas was responsible for an atmosphere of generosity and exchange. Each member of the panel accepted with both hands the distilled wisdom of those other professions — but held firm for the autonomy of their own. And it was our strong impression that their demeanour proved their point: a body of people that can produce such stars — articulate, informed, visible and accountable — and from such a wide variety of backgrounds, from local authorities to multinationals, can no longer sensibly be regarded as an offshoot of some other body.

As we pointed out last month in our Leader, facilities managers spend a great deal of their time informally assessing buildings. If they are fortunate enough to be consulted in the choice of new buildings, they bring to their recommendations years of experience and perhaps even expertise that alert them to ways in which new buildings should accommodate organisational needs. If — as is normally the case — they are presented with an existing building portfolio, the fitting of those buildings to the needs of the organisation is a running battle, with continuous assessment informing day to day decisions. And how are those decisions to be judged? Is a new building the answer to organisational problems, or should the organisation consider renovation? Should it lease or buy? How should it choose between several comparable buildings? Is it possible that simple layout adjustments will pay dividends in efficiency? Will the cabling provision continue to be adequate, or will increasing information technology overload it? Do you need access floors or flat wiring — or both? How do your offices compare with other offices?

Lack of depth is the usual price paid for breadth of ambition. However, in order to make sense of the current enthusiasm for intelligent office building it is necessary not only to investigate what is happening in countries as widely dispersed as Japan, Sweden and the United States but also to indulge in a rather liberal interpretation of what office buildings actually are. The first benefit of this point of view is that a great deal can be learned from contrasts between offices built in different countries (and for different organisations) particularly about values held by the individuals and about the social structures which make up the modern office organisation. The second benefit is that a better understanding of how offices are built and serviced, through time, is of great practical advantage to those who must manage rapidly changing organisations.

Examines the origins of the office building and its broader economic and cultural significance. Discusses how the new information superhighway may affect the future of the office building. Asks whether this information “revolution” can provide an economic, cultural and socially‐acceptable alternative to the office. IT will change the way people work and, as a result, their spacial requirements. In this context it is claimed that organizations must examine their property requirements as a matter of urgency. Considers what advice property professionals should be giving to property purchasers, developers and investors. Concludes that office buildings are likely to continue to play a key role in the UK′s economy due to their importance as a source of tax revenue and emphasizes their social importance as a logical and convenient setting for individuals to interact.

Discusses the strategic brief and its application to facilities. The briefing process is, therefore, of crucial concern to the facility manager and facility user. The traditional process begins with identifying needs of the client and user, as this is the first condition of responsible design. This is flawed, however, because of its failure to be flexible towards the needs and objectives of the client/user in the future. Mechanisms for continuous adjustment to briefing processes will need to be put in place to accommodate these objectives. Fundamental changes in the pattern of the supply side of the property market also need to be taken into account. Strategic briefing procedures would ensure future facilities are more robust to functional change and make a more responsive use of existing facilities.

Surveys of corporate real estate executives in North America and elsewhere in the world indicate significant shifts in their thinking in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Aside from the predictably much greater concern with planning for emergency escape from buildings, executives indicated that the greatest shifts in their thinking centred around issues of security of information technology and communication systems; greater use of teleconferencing and video‐conferencing (reducing travel); and more new ways of working such as homeworking, satellite and neighbourhood work centres, and hotelling. Along with such changes in practice, executives also indicated the desire to create stronger communities within their organisations, even as they also expect further to disperse their activities across locations. There is a slight shift in preference away from downtown locations and a much higher overall concern with occupancy control over the spaces that they occupy. In North America especially, there is a shift away from occupancy of high‐profile named buildings. Overall the surveys indicate that corporate real estate executives are moving ahead with distributed work‐location strategies, increasing their reliance on virtual technologies for collaboration, and re‐thinking the branding of their physical assets and the nature of community in their organisations. All of these changes further indicate the increasingly integrative role of corporate real estate within wider business strategy and a closer alignment of corporate real estate activities with human resources, organisational development and information technology.