Performance and Building: Problems of Evaluation
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 3, Issue 4
Abstract
Performance evaluation of built facilities has traditionally reflected a product/hardware bias, and has been primarily concerned with the performance measurement of building subsystems. There are two shortcomings of this approach: First, the implied assumption that a building's performance is equal to the aggregated performance of its components is not valid. A completed building, like most complex systems is much more than the sum of its parts. Second, and much more importantly, the focus of performance appraisal on individual subsystems ignores the interdependencies among them. As a result, this second assumption actively encourages suboptimization of parts at the expense of the whole product, namely, the building. To overcome these shortcomings, an organizationally sensitive performance‐evaluation model is proposed that recommends an overall performance evaluation of the building process as a function of the well‐being of its task organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“Alternate processes: Building procurement, design and construction.” (1976). M. Glover, ed., Industrialization Forum Occasional Paper No. 2, Montreal, Quebec, Champaign, Ill.
2.
Brotchie, J. F., and Linzey, M. P. T. (1971). “A model for integrated building design.” Building Sci., 6(3), 89–96.
3.
Canter, D. (1977). “Priorities in building evaluation: some methodological considerations.” J. of Architectural Res., 6(1), 38–40.
4.
Cohon, J. L. (1978). Multiobjective programming and planning. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
5.
Crise, D. J. (1975). “A procedure for assessing expected performance effectiveness of industrialized housing systems.” J. of Architectural Res., 4(3), 17–25.
6.
Davidson, C. H., and Mohsini, R. (1987). “Building procurement: a strategic and management decision.” In Managing construction worldwide, volume one: systems for managing construction. P. R. Lansely, and P. A. Harlow, eds. E & F.N. Spon, London, 1, 28–39.
7.
Hartkopf, V. H., Loftness, V. E., and Mill, P. A. D. (1986). “The concept of total building performance and building diagnostics.” Building performance, function, preservation and rehabilitation, ASTM STP901. G. Davis, ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 5–22.
8.
Hillebrandt, P. M. (1984). Analysis of the British construction industry. Macmillan, London, England.
9.
Lange, J. E., and Mills, D. Q. (1979). The construction industry. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
10.
Linzey, M. P. T., and Brotchie, J. F. (1974). “Planning and design at the overall building level.” Building Sci., 9(1), 17–28.
11.
Manning, P. N. (1987). “Environmental evaluation.” Building and Environment, 22(3), 201–208.
12.
Mohsini, R., and Davidson, C. H. (1986). “Procurement, organizational design and building team performance: A study of interfirm conflict.” CIB‐86, Vol. 8. Washington, D.C., 3548–3555.
13.
Zimring, C. M., Wineman, J., and Carpman, J. R. (1988). “The new demand‐driven post‐occupancy evaluation.” J. of Architectural and Planning Res., 5(4), 273–283.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 3 • Issue 4 • November 1989
Pages: 235 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 ASCE.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1989
Published in print: Nov 1989
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.