Post Occupancy Survey Summary

Although limited to two sites and not achieving the desired survey responses (confidence level) the results of the survey are non the less interesting relative to the semi structured interviews and AHP survey responses.

General demographics are very similar across both sites and support a relatively sedentary work task orientated business. The age difference and time period employed does vary but this is seen as a result of the location of BSRIA and the inherent business nature of both sites. Both organisations are professional service related business and reflected an ideal base to conduct the research.

Despite the age of the buildings at BSRIA the overall the feeling of well-being was seen to be good to excellent with 58% of respondents stating good. At 5Plus a modern NV building, well-being was noted as good to excellent with 42% of respondents stating good, 34% very good and 19% excellent. This can be deemed related to the more modern NV design, new services and general ergonomics of the office compared to BSRIA.

Environmental system preference Q10 responses were as expected with BSRIA (67%) preferring a mixed mode ventilation system due primarily to a poor preforming 1990’s environment. 5Plus given their pedigree for NV designs however, preferred a naturally ventilated space with 77% of respondents supporting this view.

Similar responses were obtained for thermal comfort Q11 with both sites preferring to be cool but not cold – BSRIA (38%) and 5Plus (46%). The demographics (male/female) at BSRIA support the responses of 33% preferring to be warm and a further 20% preferring to warm but not too warm. Similar responses were observed at 5Plus 23% and 11% respectively.

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) was an interesting set of responses. BSRIA an organsiation fully supportive of promoting IAQ, provided 28% of responses who were unaware of the IAQ. This may be a consequence of no discernable difference, but interesting to compare to 5Plus with 62% of responses indicating a fresh clean and odour less environment am & pm. BSRIA responses were recorded at 38%. Overall the 5Plus environment appears to be preforming much better than BSRIA.

During the initial site acceptance surveys, it was noted both sites were extremely noisy but during certain times of the day relatively quiet. As expected similar results were obtained in respect to noise impacts Q13 with 41% of respondents at BSRIA and 46% at 5Plus stating minor –ve impacts but tolerable distraction. Following on this question theme Q14 asked a similar question relative to the holistic workplace environment again with similar results; BSRIA responses of 46% minor -ve impacts;

28% no discernable impact; 14% small +ve impact and 8% major +ve impact. At BSRIA the respective results were; 46% minor -ve impacts; 15% no discernable impact; 34% small +ve impact.

When asked over the last 2-weeks have any of the following IEQ issues affected your performance (Q15) BSRIA and 5 Plus were remarkably similar. The expected responses and rankings indicated thermal comfort; draughts; noise and lighting remain the main issues affecting building occupants. Air quality and odours being the next area of concern.

Fatigue and timing was an interesting result, with BSRIA stating 26% between 14:00-15:00 and 20% 14:00-15:00-16:00, and at 5Plus, similar results were noted with 29%

between 14:00-15:00 and 22% 15:00-16:00.

As expected noting the design and layout of the individual spaces, day-lighting Q18 was considered good (34%), very good (50%) and exceptionally good (11%) at 5 Plus. At BSRIA the responses ranged from poor (20%), neutral – no comment (14%), good (24%), very good (34%) and exceptionally good (7%). The daylight and connection to external lighting was noted as very good at both sites.

Artificial lighting responses Q19 were as expected. The new dimmable lighting scheme at 5Plus was considered neutral no – comment (11%), good (50%), very good (19%) and exceptionally good (8%). At BSRIA the old lighting technology, luminaires and controls have had an impact with responses ranging from very poor (2%), poor (29%), neutral – no comment (20%), good (36%), very good (9%) and exceptionally good (3%).

Given both sites were naturally ventilated (N.V) Q21 – Air Quality responses indicated similarities. Even though the N.V design at 5Plus utilised modern operable windows, orientation assessments, Computer modeling (CFD) and adaptive shading technology, the range of responses were almost the same, however, clearly 5Plus was considered a better environment with 31% stating good, 42% stating very good and 15% stating exceptionally good quality. BSRIA responses were adequate 47%, good 26% and very good 12%.

Again the design of the respective office environments and supporting IEQ systems has affected the results. A change in question format (Q22) at BSRIA provided a response of 26% neutral with no sensation of air movement, with 5Plus responding 11% neutral. 5Plus ranged from very poor 4%; poor 14%, neutral 26%, good 35%, very good 31% and excellent 15%. BSRIA responses ranged from (Likert 1-9 scale) 1-9 low to high. In comparison the BSRIA responses can be assessed as; very poor 7%; poor 24%, neutral 26%, good 31%, very good 10% and excellent 2%.

A change in question format (Q23) concerning Well-being at BSRIA provided a response of 17% neutral, with 5Plus responding 4% neutral . 5Plus ranged from poor 4%, neutral 4%, good 34%, very good 50% and excellent 8%. BSRIA responses ranged from (Likert 1-9 scale) 2-9 low to high. In comparison the BSRIA responses can be assessed as; very poor 2%; poor 12%, neutral 17%, good 58%, very good 9% and excellent 2%.

At what time do you reach your maximum level of performance Q24 provided similar response profiles? BSRIA responses stated 38% between 10:00-11:00, with 5Plus stating 35% between 10:00-11:00 and 28% between 11:00-12:00. These figures clearly indicate a preference for morning were the individual may or may not be stimulated by the IEQ factors. As noted in Q16, fatigue seems to occur later in the day from 14:00 onwards so its is perhaps during this period when the IEQ factors need to be stimulated and for feedback more resiliently provided to the occupant.

Overall and despite the differences in age, design and location the responses provide a similar set of responses and expectations. The key aspects noted concern the typical recurring IEQ factors that constantly evade solutions, IAQ and its communication of awareness, and the knowledge that peak performance and fatigue occur generally in the morning and afternoon respectively. The application of IEQ technology and feedback to the occupant may therefore be a step forward in allowing this information to assist decision-making.