1. 1
University of
Botswana
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering-Construction Engineering and
Management
Course: CCB 514-FINAL PROJECT PROPOSAL
TITLE: MEASURING THE POST
OCCUPANCY PERFORMANCE OF THE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING BUILDING
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA
Submitted as part fulfilment of Bachelor Engineering Degree (Construction and
Engineering Management)
Supervisor: Dr A.Y. Adeyemi Student: Ofentse D. Matsetse
ID: 200901915

2. 2
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................3
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES.............................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................................... 5
DISCALIMER............................................................................................................................. 6
ACKNOWLEGMENT.................................................................................................................. 7
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER ONE.......................................................................................................................... 9
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9
1.1 Background information ....................................................................................................9
1.2 Statement of the problem...................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Purpose of the study.............................................................................................................. 11
1.3.1 Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 12
1.5 Benefits of the project ........................................................................................................... 12
1.6 Beneficiaries of the project .................................................................................................... 12
1.7 Scope of the project............................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................... 13
Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 13
2.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 History of POE..................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Benefits of POE.................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Methods of POE................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Partial user participation ..................................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Full user participation......................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Management POE.............................................................................................................. 19
2.4 Limitations of POE............................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Case studies.......................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3.............................................................................................................................. 30
3.0 Research methodology .......................................................................................................... 30
3.1 Questionnaire........................................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Interviews............................................................................................................................. 31
3.3 Elements under study ............................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 4.............................................................................................................................. 34
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 34
4.1SECTION A.......................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 SECTION B......................................................................................................................... 43

3. 3
4.2 SECTION C......................................................................................................................... 50
4.3 SECTION D......................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 5.............................................................................................................................. 60
5.0 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 60
5.1 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 61
5.2 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 63
5.3 RECOMMNDATIONS......................................................................................................... 63
5.4 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 67
A. Building Data ........................................................................................................................ 67
B. Project schedule ..................................................................................................................... 68
C. Budget................................................................................................................................... 68
D. Questionnaire......................................................................................................................... 69
E. Interview questions................................................................................................................. 72
F. OBSERVATIONS.................................................................................................................. 73
G. FET PLANS.......................................................................................................................... 78
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
FET –Faculty of Engineering
UB – University of Botswana
POE- Post Occupancy Evaluation

4. 4
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Table 1.0.................................Percentage of male to female respondents
Table 2.0.................................Percentage of respondents per satisfaction level
Table 3.0.................................Performance score for different aspects
Table 4.0.................................Questionnaire frequency for academic and support staff
Table 5.0.................................Percentage of male to female respondents
Table 6.0.................................Percentage of respondents per satisfaction level
Table 7.0.................................Performance score for different aspects
Table 8.0.................................Number of faults registered
Figure 1.0...............................Post Occupancy Process Model
Figure 2.0...............................Questionnaire frequency
Figure 3.0...............................Percentage of respondents to question 20 of the
questionnaire
Figure 4.0...............................Performance score for different aspects
Figure 5.0...............................Summary of performances for all aspects
Figure 6.0...............................Percentage of academic staff respondents to question 20
Figure 7.0...............................Percentage of support staff respondents to question 20
Figure 8.0...............................Performance score for different aspects
Figure 9.0..............................Summary of performances for all aspects

5. 5
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This research project is the bonafide project work compiled Mr. O.D Matsetse ID:
200901915 of the University of Botswana. It is an original work except where due reference
is made and neither has been nor submitted for the award of degree of any other University.
_____________________ ___________________
Signature Date

6. 6
DISCALIMER
This report is provided on the basis that readers will be liable for their own assessment of the
project content and are advised to verity all confidential information before using it
anywhere.
Effort was placed to ensure that all the information is accurate and from the right source. The
author will not accept any liability for loss or damage of such information where used
incorrectly either through negligence or mistakenly.

7. 7
ACKNOWLEGMENT
I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor Dr A. Y Adeyemi
for the untiring support he provided towards the successful completion of the research
project. To all the academic staff, support staff, students, maintenance staff your support and
cooperation is highly appreciated. My special thanks go to Mrs B.E Sianga and her
Department for providing all facts and data and their encouragement to towards this project

8. 8
ABSTRACT
The general intention of the project was to use Post Occupancy Evaluation to provide
feedback to the facilities manager or client of how the Faculty of Engineering buildings are
performing according their users. Data collected has been able to meet the objectives of
measuring the performance of the facility and had provided information in which the
Department of Physical Planning (UB) has found useful. This information consists of
information that will help erect better and much more efficient and user friendly facilities that
will meet both the users and client’s requirements.

9. 9
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Post occupancy evaluation (POE) is a platform for the systematic study of buildings once
occupied, so that lessons may be learned that will improve their current conditions and guide
the design of future buildings (Meir et al 2009).
According to Shah (2007), Post occupancy evaluation is a systematic evaluation method that
investigates how well the building meets the user’s needs and identifies ways of improving
future building designs, performance and their fitness for purpose. POE can also be defined
as a user based system that uses a building’s occupants to evaluate its suitability for their
particular requirements and level of satisfaction (Barrett, 1995). Lackney and Zajfen (2005)
define POE as a process of systematically evaluating the extent to which a facility, once
occupied for a period of time, meets the intended organisational goals and user-occupant
needs. POEs can focus on the performance of the architectural and engineering systems, the
management process used to deliver the design & construction, as well as focus on the
requirements of building occupants, including health, safety, security, functionality and
efficiency, psychological comfort, aesthetic quality, and satisfaction (Kirk ,2011).
Buildings can add substantial value for their clients, their occupiers, the economy and the
environment. In spite of this, opportunities are regularly missed and value needlessly
subtracted because people do not learn enough from the buildings they make. When
undertaking a new project, to make the most of the potential and to avoid common pitfalls,
there is need to obtain feedback from previous projects and their performance in use and feed
this forward into the product and into the procurement process. Then there is need to add
feedback from the project itself, both while it happening and after it is competed and in use;
termed post occupancy evaluation (Bordass et al, 2002).
The normal time for conducting POE on facilities is after defects liability period where faulty
material and workmanship have been repaired (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2013).
1.1 Background information
Buildings are paramount to the day to day running of human activities. It is of importance to
all organisations. In the present trends of high operating costs, increasing competition and

10. 10
rising user expectations, educational institutions particularly universities must seek to
maximize their return on building investments. Building performance evaluation facilitates
the realisation of this objective. Buildings represent a substantial percentage of most
educational institutions assets, operating costs, and user requirements; their performance level
is therefore very critical to educational effectiveness. Educational buildings are designed and
built to meet specific or group of human needs already determined before construction.
Educational buildings constitute the structural enclosure that enables academic activities to
run effectively.
The faculty of engineering building opened in 31st June 2013 with the intention to transfer the
faculty from its old premises. This was done to bridge the gap between the available
resources in the University main campus and also to provide for space for much needed
equipment used in learning by the students and teaching. The building has been strategically
placed positioned to control the sunlight into building and allow free follow of air through the
building. A Post Occupancy Evaluation is being undertaken to improve the ongoing
operation of the facility and to help plan future similar buildings.
Buildings are an important necessity to provide for human needs for shelter and support for
operations and equipment. Therefore by understanding how existing buildings affect
occupants, designers can minimise existing problems and capitalise on successful design
features. Thus there is need for effective feedback for continuous improvement in building
procurement (Zubairu and Olagunju, 2012).
Since the realisation of social and architectural problems that rose with buildings, an interest
in systematic assessment of the physical environment of the building’s usage has been
developed in terms of how the people were using them (Vischer,2002). This is backed by
Shah (2007) who writes that; much emphasis of a building is based upon the physical
attributes of the facility and direct asset value, thus a facility should also provide an efficient
working environment to satisfy its users.
It is argued by Cooper (2001) that a building without a process in place to obtain feedback
from a building’s performance, having been constructed with new systems, in new ways with
unknown outcomes, then it effectively remains a prototype. To fully understand if a building
is truly effective, feedback needs to be sought by those using it. Without this evaluation
taking place, clients are missing opportunities to benefit and specifically to;

11. 11
 discover if the building supports the needs of the occupying organisation
 identify, quickly, flaws in the building which can be corrected rapidly
 improve performance of building users, which in turn can impact on the
organisation’s profitability
 improve morale of staff, by acting upon their thoughts and opinions
(British Council for Offices, 2007).
A completed building should be able to perform its functions in the manner that will ensure
satisfaction to its occupants. Generally, regular maintenance programmes are conducted after
the building has been occupied to ensure that the building is functioning well at all times. By
execution of maintenance programmes, the occupants will be able to use and utilize the
facilities as the provision of facilities supports the business operations of the building
occupants. In short, the building facilities and services must be fit for the purpose of the
users.
The above has lead to Building Performance Evaluations (BPE). BPE is the process of
systematically comparing the actual performance of buildings, places and systems to
explicitly documented criteria for their expected performance (Vischer and Preiser, 2005). A
building performance review is not just a simple case of reorganising space, it also represents
an important strategic task which can fundamentally change daily performance of occupants
by maximising efficiencies, enhancing productivity and promoting positive behaviour.
There are several types of evaluations which are made during planning, programming,
design, construction and occupancy phases of building delivery (Vischer and Preiser,2005).
But post occupancy stands out as a necessary tool is measuring performance as it addresses
the needs, activities and goals of people and organisation using the facility.
1.2 Statement of the problem
During building completion and occupation it is not necessarily known that it will perform as
expected, therefore the occupation of a building does not guarantee the building will perform
to expectation and it is unknown to the extent to which the occupants are satisfied. To this
effect, the analysis is required. POE is the most appropriate tool for doing this analysis.
1.3 Purpose of the study
To determine whether the design objectives where met and if the project has fulfilled the
requirements of the client and user.

12. 12
1.3.1 Objectives
 To assess the level of satisfaction in terms of building elements, services and
environment and their performance.
 To determine ways of improving the buildings performance.
 To influence future designs of similar facilities.
1.5 Benefits of the project
 Improve deficiencies in performance of the building
 Improvement of future building designs
 Efficient utilization of space in the building
1.6 Beneficiaries of the project
i. Students
ii. Lecturers
iii. Maintenance Team
iv. Government
v. Construction Companies
vi. University of Botswana-Physical Planning Office
vii. Researchers
1.7 Scope of the project
The focus of the study is on the newly completed FET building and its interaction with the
occupants. It will be undertaken through the building occupants and client to assess a wide
range of indoor and outdoor elements of the building in measuring their performance to meet
occupant’s needs.

13. 13
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
POE as defined by Adewunmi et al (2009) is “a generic term for various general programs,
procedures and specific techniques for the assessment of existing buildings and facilities”.
POE assesses how well buildings match user’s needs and identifies ways to improve building
design, performance and fitness for purpose. It involves the systematic evaluation of opinion
about buildings in use, from the viewpoint of the people that use them.
Results obtained from a POE will inform how well the building matches its user needs, and
reveals ways for improving any design, construction and performance of its built facilities.
Based on the relevant parameters, POE can be categorized by its purpose to serve at various
stages of a building’s lifecycle (Olagunju et al, 2013).
2.1 History of POE
Post occupancy evaluation’s (POE) started in the late 1960’s focusing on the residential
environment and the design of housing after the rapid home construction after the Second
World War. Such large quantities of housing where done without thorough knowledge of the
needs, expectations, behaviour and lifestyle of the people they were built for which lead to
realisation of social and architectural problems. POE was born due to these issues.
The evaluation is only viable where the building has been occupied thus giving reasonable
time for users to assess the buildings performance. This method helps in planning and design
of new facilities as data generated can be used in the briefing process of a new buildings.
Regardless of how POE is structured, the main objective is to generate new knowledge from
which to make more informed design and management decisions and to provide the baseline
measures for continuous improvement (Lackney and Zajfen, 2005).That is POE provides
valuable feedback to the Facility Manager that can be used to identify and clarify the need for
adjustment in the space utilization.
Much emphasis of a building is based upon the physical attributes of the facility and direct
asset value thus providing an environment to satisfy its occupants (Shah, 2007).This has lead
to significant level of research into the provision of adequate space, services and equipment
to improve satisfaction and thereby increase performance of a building.

14. 14
Vischer (2002) explains that POE is not only used to determine client’s or user’s satisfaction,
but it is also used to fulfil other objectives. These objectives include determining building
defects, supporting design and construction criteria, supporting performance measures for
asset and facility management, lowering facility life cycle costs by identifying design errors
and improving building performance. The approach implies a strong relationship between the
development of a building project and the post occupancy stage. POE serves as a tool to
account for building quality which is essential when organizations are required to
demonstrate that the building performs as it was intended (Watson, 2003).
This makes POE different from all other BPE methods in several ways; it addresses the
needs, activities, and goals of the people and organizations using a facility, including
maintenance, building operations, and design-related questions. Measures used in POEs
include indices related to organizational and occupant performance, worker satisfaction and
productivity, as well as the measures of building performance referred to above, e.g. acoustic
and lighting levels, adequacy of space, spatial relationships (Vischer and Preiser, 2005).
By using occupants as benchmark in an evaluation, the potential of improving the
performance of building is enormous (Khalil and Nawawi, 2008). In addition, POE provides
a mechanism to understand the mutual interaction process between buildings and the user
needs, and to recommend ways of improving the environment necessary to accommodate
user needs.
POE’s are generally intended to convey the parameters of buildings that work well and also
focus on the ones that should not be repeated in future designs of buildings.
POE is a powerful tool to enable owners to determine the true value of a facility in terms of
economic, environmental, human and community outcomes. Thus through assessment of the
Indoor Environment Quality(IEQ) this evaluation method helps to evaluate the effectiveness
of design and operation of facilities, providing for the formulation of design and construction
guidelines and benchmark facility performance (Kirk S. J., 2008).Therefore POE identifies
the internal and external elements that need improvement, and causes for occupant
dissatisfaction (Huizenga et al, 2002).

15. 15
2.2 Benefits of POE
The general overview of POE benefits are namely;
Fine tuning new buildings -By understanding how buildings support and or hinder activities,
they can be fine tuned and management practices can be adjusted. Very often, slight
adjustments to buildings and the ways they are used offer significant benefits to users.
Improving design for future buildings- By designing new facilities with an understanding of
how similar buildings perform in use, mistakes can be avoided and successful design features
capitalised upon.
Accountability- POE is a valuable tool for assessing building quality. It is essential when
organisations are required to demonstrate that building performances are being responsibly
managed
Cost saving- POE identifies ways people can use buildings and equipment more efficiently
and cost-effectively. Dysfunctional or rarely used building features can be eliminated or
replaced.
Renovating existing buildings- POE is an important tool in planning the refurbishment of
existing buildings. It helps clarify perceived strengths and weakness to focus recourses where
they are needed. It is also used to identify where building adjustments are needed to support
changing practices, markets, legislation and social trends.
Staff or customer relations- POE involves building users in defining how buildings work for
them. This participation creates a feeling of empowerment greater commitment to solutions
and more willingness to accept shortcomings. (www.PostOccupancyEvaluation.com).
Further classification of POE benefits have been states by Federal Facilities Council (2001)
as;
Short term Benefits
 Identification of strengths of a building.
 Identification of and solutions to problems in facilities
 Proactive facility management responsive to building user values
 Improved space utilization and feedback on building performance

16. 16
 Improved attitude of building occupants through active involvement in the evaluation
process
 Understanding of the performance implications of changes dictated by budget cuts
 Better-informed design decision-making and understanding of the consequences of
design.
Medium Term Benefits
 Built-in capacity for facility adaptation to organizational change and growth over
time, including recycling of facilities into new uses
 Significant cost savings in the building process and throughout the life cycle of a
building
 Accountability for building performance by design professionals and owners.
Long Term Benefits
 Long-term improvements in building performance
 Improvement of design databases, standards, criteria, and guidance literature
 Improved measurement of building performance through quantification.
2.3 Methods of POE
Various methods used for POE that have been developed (Barrett,1995),however three of
them have been selected as they demonstrate the general different techniques and uses of
POE, namely;
i. Partial user participation
ii. Full user participation
iii. Management POE
2.3.1 Partial user participation
This model was created and developed by Wolfgang FE Preiser (Barrett,1995). It uses
evaluation experts to facilitate the process of evaluation, whereas building occupants are
partially involved at the request of the evaluation experts. The model involves three levels of
evaluation which depends on time and man power available all of which consists of planning,
conducting and applying the POE (Barrett,1995).

17. 17
Figure 1.Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) process model
Source: www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/0690200706006.png(01.11.2013)
The figure above shows the framework where POE fits in the context of an overall building
performance evaluation and the three levels within the POE framework. The size of each
level of POE shows the amount of time and information required for the respective level.
The diagram then shows that POE is takes three stages, planning, conducting and applying.
After applying, it then shows that the process continues to review the outcome of the
recommendations that where made either through corrective actions of the existing problems
or with the design of similar future buildings.
Level 1-Indicative POE- wide ranging application
Gives an indication of major strengths and weaknesses of a building’s performance and it is
usually carried out in a short time span.
The model assumes evaluator is experienced and is familiar with the type of building in-order
to complete the evaluation in a short period of time. Data collection methods include archival
documents, walk through evaluations and interviews with the occupants.
Its report is short, entailing the typical outcome of awareness of issues in building
performance; outlining the purpose of the evaluation, data collection methods, findings and
recommendation.

18. 18
Level 2-Investigative POE- more detailed approach
In-depth analysis of the stated objectives criteria in the functional programme of a facility.
The outcome is a thorough understanding of the causes and effects of issues in building
performance. The evaluators will undertake literature review and study similar facilities to
see why problems have occurred and to identify possible solutions. Its report includes the
problems associated with the facility and the proposed recommendations for remedy.
Level 3-Diagnostic POE- extremely detailed and focused study
The level correlates the physical environmental measures with subjective occupant response
measures. The outcome is usually the creation of new knowledge about the aspects of
building performance.
Diagnostic POE aims to influence and enhance the performance of similar future designs by
incorporating a multi-method strategy for data collection such as questionnaires, survey,
observations and physical measurement. This method consumes a long time to finish relating
to the improvement of a particular weakness.
2.3.2 Full user participation
Here facility occupants are fully involved throughout the evaluation, including people
experienced in the evaluations who to help facilitate the evaluation. Every evaluation will
comprise of three stages namely;
 Introductory meeting
 Touring interview
 Review meeting
2.3.2.1 THE GENERIC EVALUATION PROCESS
The three core stages mentioned above are conducted in the same manner for every
evaluation (Barrett, 1995).That is:
 Introductory meetings-Facilitators meet with participant groups to explain the
evaluation process and procedures of the touring interview and review. Group
members discuss their connection with the facility and raise topics that they feel are
important. The route to be taken on the tour is the discussed, so that areas of concern

19. 19
can be visited. Each group does not have to follow the same route, obviously different
groups will be worried about different aspects.
 Touring interview- The objective is to obtain users views and not the views of the
facilitator. Each participant group walks through the building with the facilitators,
following the agreed route. Group members then focus their views of the facility
during the tour. The facilitator uses standard open-ended questions as prompts, but
remains careful not to ask direct questions.
 Review meetings-At this meeting, different issues that were raised during the tour are
discussed. The participant group prioritizes its concerns, so that their major problems
can be looked at first.
Barrett (1995) stipulates it is of paramount importance that certain groups attend the events.
These are:
-Participant Groups:- These are groups with different interests in a building. Interests should
be those of occupants, visitors and owners needs with the building. A representative is chosen
to form small groups. Each small group will be involved in all the three stage process during
the evaluation.
-Facilitators:- Assists participants to make evaluations by attaining a neutral role in the
evaluation. They do not evaluate the building and maintain a neutral position.
-Managers:- Authorise evaluations. There role is administrative and supportive. They ensure
that there is action on the outcomes of the evaluation.
2.3.3 Management POE
POE can also act as an aid to management. . POE’s can also identify management and
personnel problems within the work place, which lead to improved attitude towards work.
Barrett (1995) states that, “It is a psychological fact that people often unconsciously blame
their visible or tangible surrounding for problems which have intangible /invisible causes.
That is trust and support of staff/users can be attained with POE where changes have to take
place in the building that will move towards satisfying the users requirements of the building
and therefore increasing their productivity.

20. 20
2.4 Limitations of POE
POE has the following limitations (Chapter, 2007);
 Time required to complete assessment
 Resources required to complete assessment are scarce
 User satisfaction issues are difficult to document
 Opinions on functionality can be very personal
 Implementation of results requires buy in from individuals with diverse opinions
 Implementation of findings can take time and significant resources
2.5 Case studies
In a study carried by Lai (2013) on university hostel facilities, it was found necessary to carry
out post occupancy evaluations because of consistent increase in volume of students every
year. Literature review for the study proved almost impossible because of lack of POE
studies on university hostel facilities in Hong Kong, therefore Lai developed a two stage POE
study targeting one hostel. The first stage involved review of relevant literature and past
studies. This was based on and reference was made to the findings of the focus group
discussion among the hostel users and use of questionnaires. The second stage solicited the
users expected performance levels and perceived satisfaction levels of six main aspects of the
facility, namely; lighting, air-conditioning, fire safety, acoustic, internet and hygiene.
The study revealed that users showed lowest level of satisfaction air-conditioning of the
facility. However the evaluation was unable to inform the root cause of this finding, therefore
Lai suggested that more analysis should be made in the future to identify what improvements
are required for such an aspect of the facility. Lighting and fire safety were the only aspects
that users showed highest level of satisfaction, while the rest aspects need some improvement
of some sort to meet the level of satisfaction for the users.
In 2006 Avans Hoges school moved a number of previously dispersed departments into a
new building, which lead to a move to introduce new place strategies with desk sharing-
rotating in a transparent setting. A post occupancy evaluation was the conducted by Voort
and Klooster (2008) to assess the performance the new development. It was found through
POE that the staff was satisfied with the modern architecture, the advanced IT facilities and

21. 21
the openness of the building that supports communication and social interaction. However the
study revealed that staff members complained about lack of privacy, conditions that
hampered concentration on one’s work and insufficient facilitation of interaction between
teachers and students. It was found that the new set up of desk sharing is less suitable for a
confidential or sometimes even quite emotional conversation between students and teachers.
The set up also proved less convenient for the storage of personal documents, including the
lectures own books and students project papers. Voort therefore through his study advised
that the findings be taken into consideration for the next phase Avans move and to include
staff and students into consultation about the best way to facilitate contacts between teaching
staff and students.
A post occupancy evaluation of facilities within the context of Nigerian private university
was explored by Adewunmi et al (2009) mainly because POE’s had rarely been used in
assessing users needs of buildings. POE’s were not widely used then because dominating
reactive approach to maintenance by built environment professionals in Nigeria. Data was
collected basing on a comprehensive survey through self-administered questionnaires in
which users (students and staff) of the building were asked to report on their perceptions and
experience of the facility. Second data was collected at organisational level through personal
interviews with senior administration of the university. The purpose of the user satisfaction
survey was to identify areas of deficiency in areas of maintenance and renovation.
The study findings showed users satisfaction with cleanliness, lighting, comfort level, amount
of space, noise level, and car parking etc. However many complained of lack of privacy as
seen with other case studies above. Adewunmi et al (2009) recommends that POE should be
encouraged and used by built environment professionals such as planners, design
professionals, housing administrators and facility managers involved in the planning, design
and operation of facilities for improved building performance. He further writes that POE
studies can be extended to any facility at any university campus or commercial office
regardless of its location.
A research was done by AOSEC (2007) to evaluate the building performance of a recently
completed FE building in Merton College London, by undertaking POE and to share the
evidence-based lessons within the education sector. The performance of the building was
measured in terms of three parameters of; energy use, occupant satisfaction and

22. 22
environmental impact. Energy use considered how much energy is used and how it compares
to other education buildings. Occupant satisfaction included the thermal comfort of occupants
in the college and how they use the building and the environmental impact was concerned
with how the college address wider environmental concerns at the global to local level
ranging from carbon emissions to the internal environment, including issues of water, waste
and recycling.
Occupants were found to be satisfied with most indoor building elements such as thermal
comfort because they are provided with manual control to lighting and air-conditioning
systems. However a substantial number of users did not find quality in their space
satisfactory and would prefer the large lower level windows to open wider and be able to
individually control the top level windows of the classrooms. This study proved the relevance
of POE in building’s in that through involvement of user’s, corrective measures can be taken
on some elements to improve the building’s performance.
The FE building was found to be consuming a lot of energy when compared to other building
within the college. AOSEC (2007) suggest that, the use of artificial lighting that is controlled
by automatic daylight and occupancy sensors could also help in reducing electricity
consumption. Installation of dimmers for lights in classrooms and other work areas and
manual controls could also be incorporated into the building.
All these are ways that have been identified by the study from designers, they are measures
that can be installed to improve the performance of the building.
A POE study that was conducted in Toronto by Straka and Aleksic (2009) on three schools
in terms of energy and indoor environmental performance helped improve the internal
environment of the classrooms. It was observed that upper level of windows introduced
brought in light that caused significant glare in south facing classrooms. The glare was strong
and very disturbing to children sitting at a work table. As a result of this problem, interior
window blinds were introduced. These are manually operated for each of many windows in
each classroom.
Hence through conducting POE, a specific building weakness had been remedied. Also
during the research, it was found that, occupancy lighting sensors in the classrooms could be
installed to reduce electricity use.

23. 23
A study by Nawawi et al (2009) through POE on government and public buildings in
Malaysia was used to establish correlation between performance of public buildings and
occupant’s level of satisfaction. In addition they achieved this by establishing a formula to
rate the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction to the element of a buildings performance. The
approach has a great potential in analyzing building performance as it uses a strategic
approach to achieve the best quality in building services, whereby the assessment integrates
the building occupants’ behaviour, perception and opinion as the building users. They further
states that, “POE is a useful tool for building asset and facilities management, as long as the
approach employed to collect feedback from users is effectively integrated towards
performance quality of buildings.” The report also noted that much ideas and solution are
developed to achieve building sustainability and this can create an opportunity for wider
application of POE, especially to public sector.
The basis of the formula used was base on the following Likert scale from 1 to 5;
“1” - Very Unsatisfied,
“2” -Unsatisfied,
“3” - Medium Satisfied,
“4” - Satisfied
and “5” - Very Satisfied.
of occupants’ satisfaction score by using the following formula to calculate the satisfaction
score (SS) of each element:
SS = RS [N5 + N4 + N3 + N2 + N1]
FS [Total N5]
where,
SS - Satisfaction Score
RS - Relative Score
FS - Full Score
N - No. of respondents
N5, N4, N3, N2, N1 - (No. of respondents answered
for Likert Scale) x (Likert Scale)
The study also showed the need for POE during the life time of every facility because POE’s
help manage or improve the efficiency of the building in terms of cost and users satisfaction.

24. 24
A post occupancy evaluation study of an educational building by Mundo et al ( 2009) into
measuring the user’s performance perceptions of the building and determining ways of
improving any inadequacies was conducted in Mexico. It focused on using questionnaires to
assess user’s views on the buildings environmental factors, aesthetics and functionality of the
building.
Aesthetically the users found the building appealing.
Users had dissatisfaction with some elements; some people reported bad acoustics on the
multiple use area on the ground floor, that the building provided no handicapped access, no
emergency exists and staff parking that had plant growth. Thermal discomfort was also
experienced together with uncomfortable furniture that was used.
They came up with suggestion’s to improve the building performance such as:
-Introduction of natural ventilation in lecture theatres
-Landscape design
-Give users control over their environment
-Green roof for thermal control
-Use same colours as in other university buildings to integrate the building into the campus.
-use furniture and decor that can lift the spirit and be comfortable and modern
The study concluded that the building does not meet the minimum requirements of comfort
and functionality for a higher education building. It is also found not to meet the needs of the
new education system of the university that demands flexible, comfortable, healthy spaces
that people could adapt to the needs of each lecture, and where it could be possible for
everyone to stay virtually communicated.
It is widely believed that sustainable building design strategies create improved indoor
environmental quality and should, thus, be associated with improved occupant comfort,
satisfaction, health, and work performance relative to buildings designed around standard
practices. Heerwagenn and Zagreus (2005) conducted a POE on the Philip Merrill
Educational Center, four years after occupation, to understand the human factors impacts of
sustainable design practices.
The study showed that occupants were satisfied with the overall performance of the building.
Satisfaction was found with air quality, day lighting, and the amount of lighting in the
building. Acoustical conditions were the most negatively rated, primarily due to distractions

25. 25
from people talking and loss of speech privacy. It was found that occupants find noise
disruptions as a factor to their low productivity with their work. This study is relevant as it
assessed the level of satisfaction of the Philip Merrill Educational Center.
Emuze et all (2013) carried a study on Johannesburg office building to determine the level of
satisfaction of building occupants in terms of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and the
effect of IEQ on both morale and the productivity of the employees working in the complex.
Questionnaires he adopted addressed how poor air quality is, lack of access to daylight,
unpleasant acoustic conditions, and control over lighting and thermal comfort caused
dissatisfaction with the building’s IEQ. User’s dissatisfaction was found to emanate from
workspace designs that appear to be poor. They further state that, “the designs must comply
with the highest standards of indoor environmental quality, which will stimulate the
occupants’ morale and satisfaction”. Employers are thus compelled to create workspace that
is flexible and open for movement. Environmental aspects of the workspace must be taken
seriously when employers choose workspace, as these may have a serious impact on health
and safety. Occupants must be given the opportunity to voice their opinion regarding the
workspace which they intend to occupy. This will enable the employer to gauge the level of
satisfaction regarding the workspace provided to the occupants. It is important that the
employer creates a workspace that is suitable for occupants so that they will feel valued and
inspired by their employer, and be proud of the work they do. Workspace psychology may
play an important part, whereby motivation and commitment could influence occupants to be
more productive. Working in an unhygienic workplace will reduce the morale and increase
job dissatisfaction among employees.
They further state that, “employees wish to work in an environment that is conducive to their
health and well being, where these conditions are absent in a work environment, the morale,
productivity and performance of employees can deteriorate.” The evaluation showed that it is
important to install user’s friendly buildings elements like proper lighting and good
ventilation systems that would encourage productivity in the work place.
It is therefore on this basis that the idea of POE came into being to address such issues of
work productivity.
The condition of facilities in a learning environment determines the performance of the
teacher’s and the student’s. If the facilities are inadequate or dysfunctional then the learning

26. 26
process will be hindered and academic productivity will decrease. It is paramount to evaluate
the performance of educational facilities so that appropriate action can be taken to restore or
retain the facilities to an acceptable standard. (Olatunji et al 2013). A study conducted on
Lagos State Polytechnic Facilities showed that future development of infrastructure in the
Polytechnic from the design stage should incorporate the users opinions on the existing
facilities to achieve a high performance building for learning (Olatunji et al 2013). The study
also showed that subsequent designs should improve the quality of features and fittings like
windows, doors, sanitary fittings, electrical fittings, and internet facilities in the library to
enhance e-learning. A suggestion made by Olatunji et al is that, to reduce the noise level in
the building, power plants can be relocated far from the academic buildings and student’s
traffic along the corridors should be controlled.
Hossein et al (2012) writes that, “existing buildings contribute greatly to global energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, about 18% of carbon emissions are generated by
non-domestic buildings, therefore sustainable building refurbishment can play an important
role in reducing carbon emissions”. With this statement it was found that it is proper to use
POE to measure performance of refurbished office buildings in-terms of energy consumption
as well as occupant’s satisfaction with the building.
The refurbished building also proved to be performing much better in terms of electricity and
gas consumption. This was in comparison to energy consumption of the old offices. However
against the target carbon emissions, the building produced more carbon. It was advised that
the manager reduces the working hours of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
system (HVAC) during weekends.
Adeyeye et al (2013) conducted a POE study to review the impact of design and specification
decisions for major works during post-occupancy processes; the routine maintenance and
management of school premises. He also explored the relationship between the main
stakeholders and how this impacts decision making and the post occupancy operation of the
school buildings. Design criteria are the explicit goals that a project must achieve in order to
be successful.
In post-occupancy evaluation, a process of requirements definition, analysis, tracking and
verification defined with stakeholder involvement is crucial which leads to successful designs
of future buildings. Through appraisals, feasibility studies and performance evaluations
(POE), the design and decision criteria of new buildings are defined and contained in the

27. 27
briefing documentation. This information and knowledge process affects the success and
failures of building performance interventions in school facilities. The Information and
knowledge captured during POE is therefore crucial for preparing realistic project and
performance specifications such that when decisions are being made, efforts are made to
balance these criteria to satisfy both client and users. The briefing documentation defines the
design intent and it is often implemented in two stages. The first is referred to as strategic
briefing and is concerned with understanding the client’s business processes and
expectations. The second stage comprises the conceptualisation of built solutions and issues
of performance specification. Quality and competence of design, construction and
workmanship, procurement and budget constraints as well as allowing sufficient time will
improve building delivery process in general.
The study particularly found that effective information and knowledge capture i.e. no one-off
POEs, strategic involvement from stakeholders, a design brief that integrates existing
information and knowledge and is primarily influenced by the long term operation and
maintenance requirements of the school facilities will ensure that post-occupancy
interventions deliver value – quality and cost effectiveness for the benefit of its users. It was
concluded at this stage of the study that integrating stakeholder views and preferences may
add complexity but it is essential to achieve function as well as lifecycle functionality of post-
occupancy interventions. Positive collaboration can be achieved through: Reciprocity: a
continuous collaboration, updating, feedback and sharing process and, Transparency: clear
accessibility for different user levels subject to legal and liability issues. A well implemented
information and knowledge process will supply validity and reliability to decisions processes:
by supporting a seamless, continuous approach for information sourcing, storage and retrieval
to improve availability of data and participation of a wider range of lower-level stakeholders
e.g. caretakers and integrating knowledge and information processes.
Government office buildings in Nigeria are generally faced with premature but steady and
rapid deterioration, decay and dilapidation due to lack of maintenance. Olagunju (2013) used
a POE approach to determine the main factors responsible for the poor maintenance of the
Federal Secretariat Office Complex in Nigeria. He achieved his objectives by determining the
extent of dilapidation of the office building and the feelings of the users about their office
environment.

28. 28
Olagunju (2013) found that the occupants were not satisfied with the building’s performance
and concluded that the building is in a failed state of performance due to poor maintenance.
He therefore recommended that POE be adopted as a valuable, relevant, effective and
successful approach to solving the backlog of maintenance works overdue for urgent
attention at the Federal Secreteriat Complex. He also recommended that POE be adopted for
analyzing the performance of the building, as well as serving as a building asset and facilities
management tool for effective maintenance practices.
In a study conducted by Zajfen et al (2005) on three different Libraries, he states that
“ POE is a tool that can be used both as an evaluation to determine how well a project has
met its intended goals and as an adjunct to a feasibility analysis that may lead to formal
architectural programming, planning, and design.” The rigor of investigating existing
problems within the framework of a formal evaluation can create a clear direction for
redesign, addition or renovation, or new construction. At the end of the study, it was
concluded that the libraries must address the growing and changing needs of customers,
without sacrificing the functional needs and requirements of the library staff. The research
showed that Library users experienced problems with noise, lighting and glare as well as
discomfort from heating and cooling. Noise disruptions were found to reduce the productivity
library stuff, of which usually came from the use of cell phones. Another point of concern to
name a few was the inadequacy of circulation space at the reference desk which led to over-
crowding in most cases.
Regardless of how POE is structured, the main objective is to generate new knowledge from
which to make more informed design and management decisions and to provide the baseline
measures for continuous improvement. New knowledge is gained by remaining open to and
obtaining as many multiple interpretations or voices as possible, including board
administration and staff, regular customers and occasional visitors, young and old, male and
female, and the broader community.
A POE study measuring the energy and occupant productivity in relation to building
performance was conducted by Rdesinsk et all (2009) on the Oregon Health and Science
University Center for Health and Healing. The study was looking into establishing if there are
any indications that the building design has influenced health and productivity.
Rdesinsk et all (2009) states that, “productivity is a measure of outputs (products) relative to
the investments (technology, salaries, buildings) needed to create those outputs.”

29. 29
Therefore it is difficult to measure occupant productivity because knowledge work does not
result in easily countable outcome. Then two measures (Direct and Indirect) can be used to
measure how knowledge workers are performing at their jobs.
i. Direct measures ;-Actual team or individual performance on specified tasks such as
finishing projects on time and on budget. Only ventilation and temperature building
components have been found to impact performance in laboratory work and field
experiments.
ii. Indirect measure:-In general there is a correlation between perceived and actual
performance, however individuals tend to over-estimate their actual performance on
tasks. The intent it is to be able to identify barriers with the assumption that, if these
barriers are removed, work performance will improve.
They suggest that, “ personal control over temperature conditions improves performance on
cognitive work”. Controls may work by allowing individuals to achieve their personal
comfort zones or by allowing adjustments related tasks.

30. 30
CHAPTER 3
3.0 Research methodology
According to Preiser (2005), this research is an indicative Post –Occupancy Evaluation
(POE). An investigative POE is chosen because of the limited time, manpower, and other
resources available for the project.
Generally, there are 3 phases of methodology for this research. The first phase is to define the
area of study, scope of POE by reviewing precedent research and literature review of POE.
The problem identification is reviewed through various sources of literature, observation,
study visits and structured interviews. The second phase is by analysis of survey by
developing and distributing questionnaire and conducting interviews with the building
occupants. 20 questionnaires will be distributed to lecturers, 50 to students,10 to the
maintenance team, 5 to visitors and 1 each to the building’s designer and the clients
representative(Project Planning Officer). A total of 25 interviews will be strategically divided
and conducted between the building users. Still photography will also be used where
necessary. All collected data will be analyzed to get findings of the research and to achieve
the research objectives. After analysis being reviewed, suggestions and recommendation will
be made for ways to improve the indoor building environment. In the third phase, conclusion
will be reached based on all the findings.
The study investigated the physical condition of the buildings and their environment relative
to the satisfaction of the staff and students necessary for the optimum academic performance
for which the facilities were established.
Ahmed (2009) states that, “A stratified sample is a probability sampling technique in which
the researcher divides the entire target population into different subgroups, or strata, and then
randomly selects the final subjects proportionally from the different strata.” The strata are
formed based on members' shared attributes or characteristics. Stratified sampling can also
expanded to represents the setting up of homogeneous groups and then selecting within those
groups the proportion in which these groups are represented with the sample.
Using a stratified sample will always achieve greater precision than a simple random sample,
provided that the strata have been chosen so that members of the same stratum are as similar
as possible in terms of the characteristic of interest. The greater the differences between the

31. 31
strata, the greater the gain in precision. Stratified sampling is easier to administer, produces a
balanced sample or better coverage of the total population and most importantly reduces
sampling errors.
Stratified sampling method was used in the selection of the samples on users.
Random sampling was used during the research to cater for various constraints such as,
sticking to the proposed number of interviewees and were users were available to continue
conducting interviews and not limiting the research base
The questionnaire was used to gauge various opinions to form a consensus of people’s
opinions.
3.1 Questionnaire
Questionnaires are made of series of items that are arranged and organized in order for the
respondent to answer. Gall, et al (1996) defined a questionnaire as, “a document that ask the
same questions of all individuals in the sample”. It enables the respondents to answer items at
their own time and they are free to express themselves. Barbie (2009) defined questionnaire
as “a systematic, planned outline of questions presented in logical order to gain responses
about them.”The questionnaire developed consists of two sections (Open and Closed ended
questions).Open ended questions allows the participants to fill in the necessary information
on the spaces provided whereas closed ended questions the respondent will be expected to
tick the word bearing the answer of his or her choice.
A questionnaire of 19 questions for both students and staff and one open question were
carefully designed. It was organised in a combination form of a scaling (1= Very Unsatisfied,
2=Unsatisfied, 3=Neutral, 4=Just satisfied, 5=Satisfied, 6= Very Satisfied).
Classification of performance:
Excellent: 0.8-1.0 Good: 0.5-0.7 Medium: 0.3-0.4 Poor: 0-0.2
All aspects under consideration were classified under four categories; Excellent, good,
medium and poor.
3.2 Interviews
Fielding (1997) defines an interview as, “a planned conversation during which questions are
asked and answered.” This conversation is designed to exchange information and the

32. 32
attitudes about the specific subject.” The interview gives the participant a chance to raise
their opinions fully and freely about internal environment quality in question. Different
interviews will be carried out for lecturers, students and the maintenance team.
SAMPLING METHOD EXPLAINED
i. Students
The faculty of Engineering has 1244 registered students. 260 of them are year 4’s and have
gone to Industrial Training therefore are not available to be surveyed except for 15 of them.
This brings the number of students to 1000.A sample of 60 questionnaires were given out
with an addition of 15(total 150 questionnaires) more to act as contingency where some
questionnaires will not be returned or not administered. Two categories were used: males and
females. Therefore there are 785 males and 215 females.
ii. Academic staff
The faculty has a total of 94 lecturers. 26 % of 94 which is 25 were given out as
questionnaires parallel to conducting interviews. Interviews have a possibility of giving out
the same responses and that is why less than 25 interviews were conducted due to time
constraints, lack of funds, and having difficulty in securing users to interview.
iii. Support staff
With a total of 50 personnel, 30% which is 15 interviews were planned but fewer interviews
were conducted.
iv. Maintenance staff
With a total of 43 personnel, 21% which is 9 interviews were planned but more were
conducted because interviews were conducted in groups. For example: interviewing 5 people
at a time.
3.3 Elements under study
Information Technology
Transport systems (Elevators)
Noise level
Glare from windows
Water and plumbing services
Level of cleanliness
Landscaping
Car parking

33. 33
Office space
Classroom space
Thermal comfort
Fixtures and fittings
Voice privacy
Security level
Natural lighting
Artificial lighting
PILOT STUDY:
A pilot study was conducted to gather feedback on the structure of questionnaires and
interview questions. This helped make the questions easy to understand and motivate the
respondent to take the research seriously.

34. 34
CHAPTER 4
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS
4.1SECTION A
This section analyses data collected from students.
Figure 1.0 presents the number of expected questionnaires and achieved questionnaires
Figure 1.0 shows that out of the expected 59 questionnaires that were given out, only 33
were received back for males. As for females 16 were given out and 15 were received.
Male Female
No. 33 15
% 69 31
Table 1.0 presents the percentage of male to female student respondents.
Table 1.0 shows that 69% of the respondents are male and 31% are female.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
expected achieved expected achieved
MALES FEMALES
No.ofquestionnaires
EXPECTED RESPONSES VS ACHIEVED

35. 35
Element Very
Unsatisfie
d (1)
Unsatis
fied
(2)
Neut
ral
(3)
Just
Satisfied
(4)
Satisf
ied
(5)
Very
Satisfied
(6)
mean
score
% % % % % %
Classroom
space
4 10 23 23 23 17 4
Furniture 6 17 17 35 19 6 4
Comfort ability
of furniture
13 29 25 23 8 2 3
conversation
privacy
13 19 31 27 8 2 3
Layout 4 13 19 29 25 10 4
Elevators 19 31 10 21 13 6 3
water services 8 15 15 25 23 15 4
landscape 17 31 17 21 8 6 3
artificial
lighting
2 8 19 27 25 19 4
Glare 4 8 23 33 23 8 4
safety 4 10 19 31 25 10 4
echo 15 23 19 19 23 2 3
air flow 4 8 21 25 33 8 4
temperature 6 6 15 33 29 10 4
toilet services 2 8 13 21 35 21 4
cleanliness 4 0 10 10 52 23 5
air conditioning 0 13 17 27 23 21 4
ventilation 10 17 10 38 19 6 4
overall
performance
2 17 29 25 27 0 4
Table 2.0 presents the number of participants in percentage per the 6 point likert scale used
and the average level of satisfaction.

36. 36
NB: The number of all respondents who selected each level of satisfaction per aspect was
compiled in order to calculate the percentage per satisfaction level.
The mean score for each aspect was also calculated..
From Table 2.0 it shows that 17 % of the respondents are very satisfied, 23% are satisfied,
23% are just satisfied with the space whereas 23% are neutral while 10% are unsatisfied and
4% are very unsatisfied. The majority of the respondents 63% are satisfied with the provision
of the classroom space which gave a mean score of 4.
Table 2.0 further depicts that 35% of the users are just satisfied with the provision of
furniture,19% are satisfied,6 % are very satisfied while 17% are neutral and the other 17 %
are unsatisfied.6% of the users are very unsatisfied with the provision of furniture. Table 2.1
shows that furniture scored an average of 4.
Still on Table 2.0, 25 % of the respondents are neutral over comfort ability of furniture while
23%, 8% and 2% rated comfort ability of furniture as just satisfied, satisfied and very
satisfied respectively.13% and 29% of the respondents rated comfort ability as very
unsatisfied and unsatisfied respectively. Comfort ability of furniture achieved a mean score of
3.
27% of the respondents rated conversation privacy as just satisfied in Table 2.0, 8 % as
satisfied and 2% as very unsatisfied. Whereas 31% are neutral and 13% and 19% are very
unsatisfied and unsatisfied respectively with respect to conversation privacy rating. An
average score of 3 was accumulated by conversation privacy.
From Table 2.0,10 % of the respondents are very satisfied with the building layout (access),
while 25% are satisfied and 29% are just satisfied. 19% of the respondents are neutral
whereas 13% are unsatisfied and 4% are very unsatisfied. Table 2.0 further shows a mean
score of 4 for all the respondents.
Elevation services scored an average of 3.0 as shown in Table 2.0.Only 6 % of the
respondents are very satisfied with the service,13% are satisfied and 21 are just satisfied. 10%
of the respondents are neutral whereas 31% and 19 % are unsatisfied and very un satisfied
respectively.
Table 2.0 again shows that 15 % of the respondents are very satisfied with the provision of
water services in the faculty facilities.23% are satisfied whereas 25 % are just satisfied. 8% of

37. 37
the respondents rated the services as very unsatisfactory while unsatisfied and neutral had an
equal share of respondents of 15%.Overall water services scored an average of 4.
Landscaping scored an average of 3 with only 6% and 8% of the respondents rating the
service as very satisfactory and satisfied respectively from Table 2.0. 21% of the respondents
are just satisfied and 31% are unsatisfied.17% of the respondents rated landscape as neutral
and very unsatisfactory.
Table 2.0 depicts that artificial lighting scored an average of 4. 19% of the respondents rated
the service as very satisfactory while 25 % rated the service as satisfactory.27% rated
artificial lighting as just satisfactory whereas 19% are neutral.8% and 2% rated it as
unsatisfied and very unsatisfactory.
Glare as shown in Table 2.0 scored an average of 4 from 8% of the respondents who rated it
as very satisfied and 23 % as satisfied.33 % of the respondents are just satisfied, 23 % are
neutral,8 % unsatisfied and 4 % are very unsatisfied.
Table 2.0 shows that safety provisions scored an average of 4 from 10% of the respondents
who are very satisfied, 25% who are satisfied and 31% who are just satisfied. 19% of the
respondents are neutral over safety while 10% and 4% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied
respectively.
Table 2.0 still shows that echo as having scored an average of 3.0. The score consists of 2%
of the respondents who are very satisfied, 23% who are satisfied and 19% who are just
satisfied. 19% are neutral while 23% and 15% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied
respectively.
Air flow scored an average of 4.0 from 8 % of the respondents who are very satisfied,33%
who are satisfied and 25% who are just satisfied as shown in Table 2.0. 21% of the
respondents are neutral whereas 8 % and 4% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied respectively.
Temperature in the lobby scored a mean of 4.0 as shown in Table 2.0. 10 % of the
respondents rated it as very satisfactory, 29% as satisfactory and 33 as just satisfactory.15%
of the respondents are neutral while 6 % are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied with temperature
in the lobby.
Table 2.0 reveals that the provision of toilet service scored and an average of 4 from 21% of
the respondents who are very satisfied,35 % who are satisfied and 21 % who are just

38. 38
satisfied.13 % of the respondents are neutral while 8 % are unsatisfied and 2 % are very
unsatisfied.
From Table 2.0, cleanliness achieved the highest average score of 5. 23% of the respondents
are very satisfied,52% are satisfied and 10 % are just satisfied and 10% are neutral. 4% of the
respondents are very unsatisfied while unsatisfied had no share of respondents.
Table 2.0 depicts that air condition services scored an average of 4. 21% of the respondents
are very satisfied, 23% are satisfied and 27 % are just satisfied. 17 % of the respondents are
neutral while 13% are unsatisfied. No one rated air conditioning as very unsatisfactory.
From Table 2.0, ventilation scored an average of 4 from 6 % of the respondents who are very
satisfied, 19% are satisfied while 38% are just satisfied. 10% of the respondents are neutral
whereas 17% and 10 % are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied respectively.
Table 2.0 further shows that the overall performance rating of the facilities. Having scored an
average of 4, 0% are very satisfied, 27 % of the respondents are sastisfied,25% are just
satisfied while 29% are neutral.17 % and 2 % of the respondents are unsatisfied and very
unsatisfied.
Responses to question 20
Figure 2.0 presents the percentage of males who responded to question 20.
Figure 2.0 shows that 85% of the male respondents answered question 20 while 15% did not.
15%
85%
% OF MALES WHO RESPONDED TO
QUESTION 20
No Answer
Answer

39. 39
Figure 3.0 presents the percentage of female students who responded to question 20.
Figure 3.0 shows that 80% of the female’s respondents answered question 20 whereas 20%
did not. The difference in responses are similar to that of males.
For both males and females, the reasons provided for overall satisfaction level cannot be
classified according to gender therefore their answers are grouped per level of satisfaction.
1 Very Unsatisfied:
Building seem unplanned
2) Unsatisfied
Lifts not working regularly
Inadequate car parking
Water shortages
Acoustics
3) Neutral
No natural lighting in some offices
4) Just satisfied
Front entrance inaccessible during rainy day
5) Satisfied
80%
20%
% OF FEMALES WHO RESPONDED TO
QUESTION 20
Answer
No Answer

40. 40
Aesthetics are impressive
6) Very Satisfied: None
Classification of performance:
Excellent: 0.8-1.0
Good: 0.5-0.7
Medium: 0.3-0.4
Poor: 0-0.2
ELEMENT MEAN
Classroomspace 0.7
Furniture 0.6
Comfortabilityof furniture 0.5
conversationprivacy 0.5
Layout 0.6
Elevators 0.5
waterservices 0.6
landscape 0.5
artificial lighting 0.7
Glare 0.6
safety 0.7
echo 0.5
air flow 0.7
temperature 0.7
toiletservices 0.7
cleanliness 0.8
air conditioning 0.7
ventilation 0.6
overall performance 0.6
Table 3.0 presents all building aspects according to their level of performance according to
users.
NB: Performance is found by dividing the mean score by 6 (6 point likert scale).
For example; Classroom: 4
6⁄ = 0.7 (to 1 decimal place).

41. 41
Figure 4.0 presents the performance score of all aspects.
Figure 4.0 and Table 3.0 shows that cleanliness scored 0.8 which excellent performance.
Classroom space, artificial lighting, air flow, temperature in the lobby, toilet services, and air
conditioning all scored 0.7. Provision of furniture, building layout, water services, glare,
natural ventilation and overall performance all scored 0.6. Whereas comfort ability of
furniture, conversation privacy.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Classroom space
Furniture
Comfortability of furniture
conversation privacy
Layout
Elevators
water services
landscape
artificial lighting
Glare
safety
echo
air flow
temperature
toilet services
cleanliness
air conditioning
ventilation
overall performance
Performancescore VS Aspects
Performance score

42. 42
Figure 5.0 presents the distribution in summary percentage of different aspect performances
Cleanliness is performing excellently which makes 5% in Figure 5.0 of the total aspects.
79% made of toilet services, air conditioning, artificial lighting, temperature, classroom
space, air flow, safety, building layout, glare, water services, furniture, ventilation,
conversation privacy, echo are classified as good. Elevators, landscape and comfort ability of
furniture of which fall under medium performance make 16%.
5%
16%
79%
SUMMARY PERCENTAGES OF
PERFORMANCE
Excellent
Good
Medium

43. 43
4.2 SECTION B
This section analyses data from all categories of staff and visitors
Figure 6.0 presents the presents the number of expected questionnaires and achieved
questionnaires
Figure 6.0 shows that out of 29 expected questionnaires that were given out,only 16 were
received back from the Academic staff. While for the support staff 16 questionnaires were
given out and 15 were got back.
Staff
Academic Support Visitor
No. 16 15 2
% 48 45 7
Table 4.0 presents the percentage of academic staff, support staff and visitor as respondents
Table 4.0 shows that 48% of the respondents are academic, 45% were the support staff and
7% were visitors.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
expected achieved expected achieved
Academic stuff Support staff
No.ofquestionnaires
EXPECTED RESPONSES VS ACHIEVED

44. 44
Element Very
Unsatisfie
d (1)
Unsatis
fied
(2)
Neut
ral
(3)
Just
Unsatisfie
d (4)
Satisf
ied
(5)
Very
Satisfied
(6)
Mean
score
% % % % % %
Glare 24 3 24 7 17 24 4
Artificial lighting 7 7 3 14 45 24 5
safety 17 21 14 31 17 0 3
elevator 38 34 14 10 3 0 2
water services 34 24 21 10 10 0 2
toilet services 28 21 10 14 24 3 3
cleanliness 0 3 3 17 48 28 5
echo 31 10 24 21 14 0 3
landscape 31 21 17 14 10 7 3
acoustics 21 17 14 21 21 7 3
car parking 28 10 28 14 17 3 3
office space 10 10 14 24 34 7 4
classroom spcae 10 21 10 21 17 21 4
layout 7 24 14 21 24 10 4
temperature 14 3 24 31 28 0 4
office equipment 14 17 24 17 24 3 3
comfortability of
furniture
10 3 17 28 34 7 4
air conditioning 14 7 17 10 34 17 4
ventilation 28 17 21 10 24 0 3
overall
performance
7 17 17 48 10 0 3
Table 5.0 presents the number of participants in percentage per the 6 point likert scale used
and the average level of satisfaction.

45. 45
Table 5.0 shows glare with an average score of 4. 24 % of the respondents are very satisfied,
17 % are satisfied and 7 % are just unsatisfied.24% are neutral while 3 % and 24 % are
unsatisfied and very unsatisfied respectively.
Artificial lighting scored and average of 5 as shown in Table 5.0. 24% of the respondents are
very satisfied,45 % satisfied and 14 % are just satisfied. 3% are neutral while 7% are
unsatisfied and very unsatisfied.
Safety provisions achieved an average score of 3 from 17% of the respondents who are
satisfied, 31 % just satisfied and 14 % are neutral as shown in Table 5.0. 21% are unsatisfied
and 17% are very unsatisfied.
Table 5.0 shows the elevator system with an average of 2. 3% of the respondents are
satisfied, 10% are just satisfied while 14% are neutral. 34% and 38% are unsatisfied and very
unsatisfied respectively.
Still in Table 5.0, it shows that water services scored an average of 2. 10% of the respondents
are satisfied and just satisfied while 21 % are neutral. 24% are unsatisfied and 34 % are very
unsatisfied.
Toilet services scored an average of 3.0 as shown in Table 5.0. 3% of the respondents are
very satisfied,24% are satisfied and 14 % are just satisfied. 10% of the respondents are
neutral whereas 21 % are unsatisfied and 28 % are very unsatisfied.
Cleanliness achieved the highest score with an average of 5 in Table 5.0. 28% of the
respondents are very satisfied, 48% are satisfied and 17 % are just satisfied. 3% of the
respondents are neutral unsatisfied.
Table 5.0 depicts that echo scored an average of 3 from 14% of the respondents who are
satisfied, 21% just satisfied and 24 % who are neutral. 10% of the respondents are unsatisfied
and 31% are very unsatisfied.
Landscape scored an average 3 as shown in Table 5.0. 7 % of the respondents are very
satisfied, 10 % are satisfied and 14% are just satisfied. 17% of the respondents are neutral
while 21% and 31% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied respectively.

46. 46
Table 5.0 show acoustics with an average of 3. 7 % of the respondents are very satisfied,21
% are satisfied and just satisfied. 14% of the respondents are neutral, 17% are unsatisfied and
21% are very unsatisfied.
Car parking provisions scored an average of 3 as shown in Table 5.0. 3% of the respondents
are very satisfied, 17% are satisfied and 14% are just neutral. 28% of the respondents are
neutral while 10 % are unsatisfied and 28 are very unsatisfied.
Office space achieved an average of 4 from 7 % of the respondents who are very satisfied, 34
% satisfied and 24 % who are just satisfied. Table 5.0 further shows that 14% of the
respondents are neutral while 10% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied.
Table 5.0 further shows the provision of classroom with an average 4. 21% of the
respondents are very satisfied, 17 % are satisfied and 21% are just satisfied. 10% are neutral
while 21% are unsatisfied and 10% are very unsatisfied.
Temperature scored an average of 4 from 28% of the respondents who are satisfied and 31%
who are just satisfied.24% are neutral while 3% and 14% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied
respectively as shown in Table 5.0.
Table 5.0 shows that provision of office equipment scored an average of 3. 3% of the
respondents are very satisfied, 24% are satisfied and 17% are just satisfied with the office
equipment. 24% of the respondents are neutral whereas 17% are unsatisfied and 14% very
unsatisfied.
Comfort ability of furniture scored an average of 4 in Table 5.0 from 7% of the respondents
who are very satisfied, 34% who are satisfied and 28% who are just satisfied. 17% of the
respondents are neutral whereas 3 % and 10% are unsatisfied and very unsatisfied
respectively.
Air conditioning scored an average of 4 as shown in Table 5.0. 17% of the respondents are
very satisfied with the provision of air-condition, 34% are satisfied and 10% are just satisfied.
17% are neutral while 7% are unsatisfied and 14% are very unsatisfied.
Table 5.0 further shows ventilation which scored an average 3 from 24% of the respondents
who are satisfied. 10% of the respondents are just satisfied and 21% are neutral. 17% are
unsatisfied and 28% are very unsatisfied.

47. 47
Lastly Table 5.0 shows the overall performance of the facilities at an average of 3. 10% of
the respondents are satisfied and 48% are just satisfied. 17% are neutral and unsatisfied while
7% of the respondents are very unsatisfied.
Responses to question 20
Figure 7.0 presents the percentage of academic staff who responded to question 20.
Figure 7.0 shows that 87% of the academic staff respondents answered question 20 while
13% did not.
Figure 8.0 presents the percentage of support staff who responded to question 20.
87%
13%
% OF ACADEMICSTAFF WHO
RESPONDED TO QUESTION 20
Answer
No Answer
7%
93%
% OF SUPPORT STAFF WHO RESPONDED
TO QUESTION 20
No Answer
Answer

48. 48
Figure 8.0 shows that 93% of the support staff respondents answered question 20 whereas
7% did not. The variation in responses is similar to that of males.
For academic staff, support staff and visitors the reasons provided for overall satisfaction
level cannot be classified according to position within the facility because their reasons are
haphazard and therefore their answers are grouped per level of satisfaction.
1 Very Unsatisfied: Not enough planning
2) Unsatisfied: water shortages,
Inadequate car parking
Acoustics
3) Neutral: could be better
Aesthetics
4) Just satisfied: Low water supply
Ingress water at entrance pavement
5) Satisfied; No good offices
6) Very Satisfied: None
Classification of performance:
Excellent: 0.8-1.0 Good: 0.5-0.7 Medium: 0.3-0.4 Poor: 0-0.2
ELEMENT RATING
Glare 0.6
Artificial lighting 0.8
safety 0.5
elevator 0.3
waterservices 0.4
toiletservices 0.5
cleanliness 0.8
echo 0.5
landscape 0.5
acoustics 0.5
car parking 0.5
office space 0.6
classroomspace 0.6
layout 0.6
temperature 0.6
office equipment 0.6
comfortability of furniture 0.7
air conditioning 0.7
ventilation 0.5
overall performance 0.6

49. 49
Table 5.0 presents the performance scores all different aspects.
Figure 9.0 presents the performance scores of all building aspects
Figure 9.0 and Table 5.0 shows that cleanliness and artificial lighting are performing
excellently at 0.8. Air-conditioning and provision of furniture are at good performance with a
score on 0.7. Glare, overall performance, provision of office equipment, temperature in the
lobby, building layout, classroom space, and office space scored 0.6 which is good
performance. Natural ventilation, car parking, acoustic, echo, landscape, toilet services and
safety are at 0.5 which is still considered as good performance. Provision of water services
and elevator system are at 0.4 and 0.3 respectively which are medium performances.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Glare
Artificial lighting
safety
elevator
water services
toilet services
cleanliness
echo
landscape
acoustics
car parking
office space
classroom spcae
layout
temperature
office equipment
comfortability of furniture
air conditioning
ventilation
overall performance
Score
PerformanceScore vs Aspects
Performance

50. 50
Figure 10.0 present the summary in percentage of performances of all aspects.
Cleanliness and artificial lighting are performing excellently which makes 10% of the total
aspects in Figure 10.0. 55% Air conditioning, comfort ability of furniture, office space,
classroom space, glare, layout, temperature, office equipment, acoustics, safety and overall
performance are classified as good. Toilet services, car parking, ventilation, echo, landscape,
water services and elevators are of medium performance which makes 35%.
4.2 SECTION C
This section analyses data collected on maintenance and faults registered.
MAINTENANCE RECORDS
Various list of registered faults within the FET facilities with the facilities manager’s
department (G4S Consulting) are listed below. The list shows the block number, floor
number and the room number at which the fault was registered.
Block 248
Elevators not working
Ground Floor: Water leakages in men’s toilets
First Floor:
Room 126-Back door malfunction
Room 164; Sockets not working
10%
35%55%
SUMMARYPERCENTAGESOF
PERFORMANCE
Excellent
Good
Medium

51. 51
Room 183: Electric sockets not working
Second Floor:
Room 206: Lights not working
: Air con not working
Room 241: Air con blowing hot air
Block 249
Ground Floor
Elevators not working
Room 3: Lights not working
Block 250
Ground Floor
Room 06, 16, 18, and 23: Cupboard door falling off
Block 251
Ground Floor: Air con not working
Room 3: Sink tap was loose
: No power
: Air con not working
Second Floor: Electrical fault
: Switch sparks
: Water Leakages
Some faults appear not to have been registered with the department of facilities management.
These are as follows:
Block 248
 Falling of windows
 Falling of door at the second entrance
 Window malfunction
 Doors locks malfunction
 Air con leakage in classroom 09
 Damage to ceiling due to air con leakages

52. 52
FAULT
BLOCK NUMBER
248 249 250 251
Elevators 4 2 1 0
Water leakages 1 0 0 1
Back door malfunction 1 0 0 0
Sockets not working 2 0 0 0
Lights not working 1 1 0 0
Air con not working 1 0 0 2
Air con blowing hot air 2 0 0 0
Cupboard door falling
off 0 0 4 0
Sink tap was loose 0 0 0 1
Electrical fault 0 0 0 1
Switch plugs 0 0 0 1
No power 0 1 0 1
Table 6.0 presents the number of faults registered from August 2013-April 2014.
From Table 6.0, elevators malfunctions are the most registered faults at block 248 with 4
registered, followed by water leakages with 1.Back door malfunction was registered once,
followed by sockets not working registered twice, lights not working and air con not working
once. Sockets not working were registered once.
With respect to block 249, Table 6.0 still shows elevators having the highest number of
registered faults of 2, followed by lights not working and no power all of which were
registered only once.
Block 250 only registered one elevator as not working and registered 4 faults of cupboard
doors falling down.
Furthermore, Table 6.0 shows block 251 which registered 2 air cons as not working.
Water leakages, sink tap loose, electrical faults, switch plugs and no power were all
registered once.

53. 53
4.3 SECTION D
This section shows the list of good aspects, concerns and ways of improving the facilities of
FET.
MAINTENANCE STAFF
Good aspects
Building layout block 249
Concerns
Windows falling
Scaffolding hindering movement
Pipe leakages in toilets
Falling ceiling
Leaking air cons
No eating area
Lack of water in upper floors
High temperature in lobby
No rest room
Student’s movement during cleaning
Tables in the lobby
Littering by the students
Faulty taps
Some lecturers prohibit access of labs without their presence-delays their progress
Share store rooms with cleaning chemicals which poses respiratory risks
Fumes in labs
Roof leaks
Insufficient air flow in block 251 due to small windows installed
Direct ingress of sunlight into labs in block 251

54. 54
Corrective measures
Those that can be improved now
Check Windows and remove scaffolding
Open windows and doors in the lobby
Improve plumbing services
Prohibit student entrance into the building early in the morning
Place dustbins next to chairs in the lobby
Remove tables in the lobby
Assign some room to use as a rest room
Replace faulty taps
Have times allocated to cleaning of labs
Repair of aircons
Provide nose musk for labs with chemicals
Those that can be incorporated in future designs
Replace skylight
Increase windows in the lobby
Support staff
Good aspects
Finishes
Concerns
Small Office space
Water shortage in upper floors
Faulty air cons leakages and malfunction
Direct ingress sunlight which damages sunlight
No roofing in offices that are in the labs
Poor ventilation in labs
Heavy doors installed in labs
Increase shelter for outdoor activities
Lack of hot water in labs
Leaking roofs

55. 55
Purchasing of equipment without consultation: resulted in purchasing of extra equipment
Frequent malfunctioning elevators
Installed windows are high-block architecture
Acoustics
Isolated offices
Corrective measures
Those that can be improved now
Consultation with inspectors after completion to ensure building performance
Proper consultation before and during planning and construction
Provide training on how to handle some equipment
Second Power supply-back up generator
Carry out fire drills-training on reaction to fire alarm
Install window blinds in technicians offices
Those that can be incorporated in future designs
Increase in office space
Consultation on equipment needed
Staff lounge for resting-coffee room to encourage interaction
Install showers
Separate workshop and technician’s office
Open office plan for technicians
Gutter pipes be constructed outside for easy maintenance
The tile area in the front entrance should be raised to prevent water flowing ontop from the
sides
ACADEMIC
Concerns
Life cycle costing-will increase due to use of non-high quality materials .e.g windows
Services-water and electricity supply: Inadequate for the whole FET community
Without power work stops for lecturers with offices that are not exposed to sunlight
Small office space
Security is compromised-positioned at a vantage point
Echo: No sound-proof designs used

56. 56
Green house effect caused by the skylight: will cause excessive heat in summer and it will
become colder in winter
No provision of kitchen that allows for staff interaction
Furniture provided in classrooms are not of high quality
Scaffolding which hinder free movement
Window leakages
Heavy doors
Barricades on both entrances that hinder movement
Communication: telephones and doors opening with card activated doors are frequently not
working
No adequate learning space for students
Inadequate fire systems
Long and dark corridors between offices with no direct exposure to sunlight
Frequently faulty elevators
Toilet seats not the same size as toilet base
Some podiums are not in use
Noise from students
Faulty fire alarm system
Offices with windows that open inside
No arrival bay for visitors vehicles in the front of the facility
Offices with no direct access to sunlight
No ramp for the disabled,in case of total power cut and the elevators are not working
EMI block 249 has columns in the lobby which hinders movement
Poor rainwater drainage in block 251
Good Aspects
All departments are housed in one building (248) encourages interaction between lecturers
Skylight reduces energy for lighting
Over design leading to extra expenses
Building has achieved its role

57. 57
Corrective measures
Those that can be improved now
Consistent consultation with users at planning and during construction
Adjust door mechanisms to make them lighter
The whole building should be closed for hazardous assessment e.g windows falling
Those that can be incorporated in future designs
Construct cavity walls to act as a sound proof measure
Use polystyrene pallets to improve acoustics
Build vertically to save land
Classes should be separated from offices
Installed light doors
Install sliding doors
Classrooms should be built like auditoriums
Classroom doors should have small windows to look through without opening the door
Investigate roof cause of poor plumbing
Provision of second water storage at high elevation to increase pressure
Create arrival bay for visitors in front of the facility
Harvest the power from the sun: use panels to absorb energy to run day lights and use for
heating
Reduce number of elevators
Design wisely and avoid making a building fancy
Allow occupancy after a building has been fully complete
Consultation
Involved throughout from planning, construction and occupation
Sky lights in the labs should be replaced
STUDENTS
Good aspects
Cleanliness
Cold water
Aesthetics

58. 58
Relocation to the main campus-closer to resources and living with other students
CONCERNS
No study area
Sockets no working
Lack of seating fixtures
Risk of falling over the rails
Elevators trapping people inside
No back up generator
Conflicts with cleaners
Classrooms being locked
Movement hindered by scaffolding and barricades at both entrances
Heavy doors
Temperature in the lobby
Inadequate computers
Unused space in the lobby
Poor acoustics
Uncomfortable fixture e.g chairs
Poor internet connectivity
Faulty elevators
Toilets seats that are not of the same size as toilet bases
Heavy doors
No ramp for the disabled
No facility map
No parking space provisions for students
Corrective measures
Those that can be improved now
Replace all sockets in the ground floor open space
Mount tables at all chairs in the ground floor open space
Remove scaffolding at all entrances
Regular maintence of elevators

59. 59
Those that can be incorporated in future designs
Construct a study area
Utilise space in the roof-rest area (reduces noise within the facility
Construct a ramp for wheelchair bound people
Install doors with small glass to see through in classrooms
Install a backup power generator
Director of Physical Planning
The Director stated that FET facilities were intentionally made not to have a study are to
encourage mingling of FET students with other students within the University.
She also stated that POE is not utilised or even used, but rather apply the maintenance to day
to day running of the facility
When asked on how they manage feedback, she said that
Complaints are sent by email or phone to the facility manager (G4S consulting) who then
communicates with the contractor involved informing him of all faults. While the defects
liability period is still in effect, then the contractor is responsible for the corrective measure
taken.
Measures to be taken:
Contractor to assess all windows and take a decision from there after
Sky lights in the labs to be replaced
Installation of blinds to technicians offices in the labs
Adjust all door mechanisms to make them lighter to operate
Install chairs along the corridor without increasing congestion around entrances
Investigate further the risk imposed on wheelchair bound persons regarding provision of a
ramp

60. 60
CHAPTER 5
5.0 DISCUSSION
In this century there is still lack of facilities management applied to different organisations in
their buildings. Maintenance is the most known and commonly used technique used in
property. That is taking corrective measure only when something has broken down or has
reached its end of life span.
Post occupancy evaluation goes over and extends into maintenance. It is a tool that assess the
building from its inception to occupation. POE considers the building user’s needs and
requirements in order to make the building functional to suite their purpose. Users opinions
are documented and used to influence future designs of similar facilties to ensure their
satisfaction.
POE investigative method was used in FET new facilities to assess the level of satisfaction
for different elements and to find ways to improve concerns extending into coming up with
ways to influence future designs.
From the literature or case studies used, the results obtained in this research are almost
similar in that the same methodology was used. Results analysis were able to measure the
performance of different elements. That is, elements were at the end of the analysis classified
as either: poor, medium, good or excellent performers
Measures have been obtained from respondents on how to make the building most suitable
for their purpose. Students require a sound free environment that is conducive for learning
together with staff who need a quite work place. The maintenance staff require water supply
to be sufficient in order to carry out their duties as much as all other users need water for
drinking and other applications.
The research was also able to find out the extend of its importance to real life situation as the
Director of Physical Planning (UB) was interviewed. The office through a facilities
management consultant(G4S Consulting) have established facilities managers(Chief
Technical Officers) in each block to communicate the problems experienced. The Chief
Technical Officer reports the problem to the consultant, who then informs the responsible
contractor to come and rectify the problem. FET as a facilities is almost a year old in

61. 61
occupation and therefore is still covered by the 12 months defects liability period. Any
problems that are registered are rectified by the contractor.
The Physical Planning Office has already requested some elements from this research which
are of most importance. For example; The need for a ramp going into upper floors and the
need to assess how classroom doors open. The doors impose a risk to ease flow of pupils if
under threat of fire.
5.1 LIMITATIONS
Having other school work impacted on the planned time schedule. Such activities had to be
done at the time which I was supposed to be conducting the research.
While conducting interview a student will have to leave and attend class. This produced a
problem of finding the appropriate time to carry out the research. Asking permission from the
lecturer to interview the class even posed a limitation in terms of communication. It proved to
be in-effective as interviewees were being un-cooperative and speaking all the once which
made it difficult for me to capture all responses. Some respondents even did not realise the
importance of this study as my final year project and as a tool that can facilitate learning of
future generations.
Obtaining data took long to collect because certain procedures had to be followed. This
caused a delay in my programme. This includes scheduling appointments sometime later
which meant that I could not progress with the report.
Most lecturers were at time of data collection busy with the work. Making an appointment
was easy but the hard part was to get to meet the lecturer for that appointment. This lead to
me not attending some classes but to no avail of the lecturer.
Questionnaires were being misplaced by most of my research subjects. This lead to re-
printing of questionnaires which imposed on my the cash flow of the project funds.
Some respondents were uncooperative as they did not want to write and therefore preferred
oral interview.

62. 62
Some information is not being reported to the facilities management department and therefore
makes analysis difficult if not impossible. For example, many faults that are experienced do
not appear in the maintenance registry book.
People do not like to write, this gave me incomplete results as some respondents did not
answer the open question in the questionnaire.

63. 63
5.2 CONCLUSION
It is clear, therefore that POE is able to show the relationship between a building and its
users. Different categories of users have been able to show their level of satisfaction with
respect to different elements of FET buildings. Performance of different elements have also
been established and therefore classed accordingly.
Furthermore, all users have been able to show their concerns regarding their daily usage of
the facilities and the different problems that the experience. The interviews conducted
revealed ways of improving such problems and further revealed different ways in which
future designs could be improved.
Lastly the use of POE within the University of Botswana is not so far-fetched because of
measures in place. The availability of Chief Technical Officers in all facilities and having one
consulting facilities management company supports this view. Even the Director of the
Physical Planning does make the time to tour the facilities and talk to different users and
personally experience the good and the bad that comes with the facilities.
Above all, the cooperation shown by the respondents and the enthusiasm or interest in the
subject was motivating to carry out a well researched and structured study.
5.3 RECOMMNDATIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following are the suggested remedies towards
forestalling future reoccurrence of the discovered problems:
i. Feedback-A suggestion box should be available such that users can forward their
concerns without having to follow procedure.
ii. POE should be implemented and used for all UB facilities to ensure excellent
performance
iii. Consultation on designs should be extended to students as they are the prime users.
iv. FET should be fully assessed to identify risks of which some are already showing and
be rectified right away and make the facilities habitable
v. The Civil Engineering programme should allow for mini researches similar to how
Industrial Engineering courses are structured to give students practice.