This case study evaluated the performance of Marina Mall in Kuwait through user surveys and technical measurements. Key findings included that users found wayfinding and circulation difficult. Noise levels were high under the central dome area. Lighting levels varied significantly between day and night. Security was also deemed insufficient. To address these issues, short term solutions focused on improving signage, corridors, and security staffing. The case study demonstrated how building performance evaluation provides valuable user feedback to improve building design and operation.

1. Qatar Society of Engineers
March 1st , 2011
Lecture
Building Performance
Evaluation
An Integrative Framework For Architectural and
Urban Design Projects Evaluation
Dr. Yasser Mahgoub
Department of Architecture
College of Engineering
Qatar University

2. Introduction
 This lecture outlines a
comprehensive approach to
Building Performance
Evaluation
Evaluation applicable to all
architectural and urban design
projects.
Design
 Building Performance
Evaluation (BPE) offers
feedback on design and
contributes to architectural
knowledge.
Construction

3. Introduction
 Building Performance
Evaluation (BPE) is an extension
of what had been called
Evaluation
“Post-Occupancy Evaluation."
Design
 BPE is a continuous process of
systematically evaluating the
performance and/or effectiveness
of aspects of buildings such
as accessibility, aesthetics, costeffectiveness, functionality, produ
ctivity, safety and security,
and sustainability.
Construction

4. Six Phases of the Building Life Cycle
 The typical six phases of the
building life cycle are:
1- Planning,
2- Programming,
3- Design,
4- Construction,
5- Occupancy, and
6- Recycling.
Recycling
Planning
Programming
Occupancy
Construction
Design

5. Participants in the Building Life Cycle
 Initiators: Owners - Investors - Institutions -
Governmental Agencies…
 Designers: Architects - Interior Designers -
Landscape Architects - Specialists (Structural Electrical - mechanical - …)
 Builders: Contractors - Sub-contractors - …
 Operators: Managers - Maintenance staff
 End Users: actual persons occupying buildings

6. Linear Design Method
Architectural Knowledge
Briefing
Need
Building Type
Program
Site
Data
…
Analysis
…
Synthesis
…
Evaluate
…
Design
…
Linear Design Method
Execution
…
?

7. Cyclical Design Method
Architectural Knowledge
Briefing
Need
Building Type
Program
Site
Data
…
Analysis
…
Building
Performance
Evaluation
Synthesis
…
Evaluate
…
Design
…
Execution
…
Cyclical Design Method

8. BPE Across Project Life Cycle
Feed forward
Experience
Conceive
BPE
Procure
Feed forward
Experience
Conceive
Occupy / manage
Post Occupancy Evaluation
Procure
Occupy / manage

9. BPE Across Projects Life Cycle
Feed forward
Experience
Conceive
3-6
mths
Procure
12-18
mths
5 yrs
Occupy
Conceive
Feed forward
Experience
Plan
BPE
Conceive
Plan
POE
3-6
mths
5 yrs
Occupy
Procure
Feed forward
Experience
Conceive
Plan
BPE
Timeline for BPE
12-18
mths
Procure
Procure
3-6
mths
12-18
mths
Occupy
Feed forward
Experience
5 yrs

10. The Three Major Elements of Evaluation
The Building Performance
Evaluation process
encompasses Functional
and Technical
performance of buildings
alongside Human
performance criteria, while
recognizing the Cultural
Context of the project.
Technical
Behavioral
Functional
Cultural Context
The Three Major Elements of Evaluation

11. Elements of Evaluation
 Technical Elements:
Fire safety, structural integrity,
sanitation, durability, acoustics,
lighting, HVAC, …..
 Functional Elements:
Workflow, circulation, space
allocation, operational
efficiency, productivity,
organization, …..
 Behavioral Elements:
Privacy, security, social interaction,
perception of density,
territoriality, …..
Technical
Behavioral
Functional
Cultural Context
The Three Major Elements of Evaluation

12. Quantitative and Qualitative
Measurements of Performance
 Many aspects of building performance are in fact
Quantifiable, such as:
– Lighting,
– Acoustics,
– Temperature and humidity,
– Durability of materials,
– Amount and distribution of space,
– User satisfaction and so on.
 The evaluation of Qualitative aspects of building
performance, such as aesthetic beauty or visual
compatibility with a building’s surroundings, is somewhat
more difficult to measure.

13. Measurements of Performance
 Observed Performance
– Measured by an expert or panel of experts.
– Information is recorded with the help of a checklist during a
walkthrough of the building.
 Perceived Performance
– Measured by the users or occupants of a particular environment.
– In most cases this information is recorded by a questionnaire.
 Measured Performance
– Measured performance is captured through monitoring of physical
phenomena.

14. Measurements of Performance
Evaluation
Measured
Perceived
Observed
Technical
Fuctional
Behavioral
Urban
Building
Room
Performance
Scale

15. An Integrative Framework for BPE
Performance Criteria
Market/
Needs
Analysis
PostOccupancy
Evaluation
Recycling
Recycling
Planning
Planning
ProgramProgram
ming
-ming
Occupancy
Occup-
ancy
PostConstruction
Evaluation
Effectiveness
Review
Construction
Construction
Design
Design
Program
Review
Design
Review
Performance Criteria
An Integrative Framework for Building Performance Evaluation

16. Levels of BPE Effort
 There are three levels of effort at which BPEs can be
undertaken:
• Indicative
• Investigative
• Diagnostic

17. Levels of BPE Effort
 Indicative
–
–
–
–
–
Quick, walk-through evaluations
Selected interviews with knowledgeable informants
Structured interviews with key personnel
Group meetings with end-users
Positive and Negative aspects of building
performance are documented using photography
and/or notes
– Can be carried out within a few hours of on-site data
gathering
– Executive summary results with prioritized issues
and recommendations for action
– Indicates major strengths and weaknesses of a
particular building’s performance.

18. Levels of BPE Effort
 Investigative
–
–
–
–
–
–
More in-depth
Interviews and survey questionnaires
Photographic/video recordings
Physical measurements
Involve a number of buildings of the same type
Take anywhere from a week to several months

19. Levels of BPE Effort
 Diagnostic
– Focused, longitudinal and cross-sectional
evaluation studies
– One or more performance aspects
(e.g. stair safety, orientation, wayfinding,
privacy, overcrowding, ...)
– In-depth research in a very focused topic
area
– From months to years
– Requires highly sophisticated data
gathering and analysis techniques

20. The Process
 Preparation (2-3 weeks): Identification of user groups,
timetabling, selection of participants, letters of invitation.
 Interviews (1 week): Small groups of like users are
interviewed while walking through the building, which
provides the prompt for their comments and observations. A
review session is held to verify comments, establish priorities
and review the process. Observation studies and written
questionnaires may also be used.
 Analysis & Reporting (3-6 weeks): Documentation of
participant findings, generation of recommendations,
compilation of a report and presentation.

21. BPE Outcomes
 Short term outcomes
– Feedback on existing problems in buildings
– Identification of appropriate solutions
 Medium term outcomes
– Inform the next building delivery cycle
– Database development
 Long term outcomes
– Generation of planning and design criteria for specific
building types
– Add to existing architectural knowledge

22. BPE Benefits
 Fine tuning new buildings.
 Improving design for future buildings.
 Assessing building quality
 Cost savings
 Renovating existing
 Improves staff and customer relations

23. The Application of BPE
 Institutions and Government Agencies
Increasing concern for budget overruns, building failure, or inappropriate design
decisions made during the planning and development of facility. Government agencies
are interested in the performance evaluation concept and process in order to avoid these
disadvantages.
 Private Sector and Facility Managers
There is an increasing acceptance of the performance evaluation concept and process
in the private sector in order to solicit user feedback on existing buildings.
 Design Firms
While some design firms are fearful that BPE results may be used against them, and
others are unable to convince clients to pay for evaluation studies. Evaluation studies
today constitutes an important contribution in the quest to provide quality assurance.

24. Who Should Conduct BPEs?
 Independent team of experts that includes architects, environmental
psychologists, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, facility managers/experts
and, when appropriate, fire protection personnel and structural engineers.
 The architectural and/or engineering firms during the pre-design phase
 The client hires an individual consultant or professional organization
 An academic group to develop architectural knowledge base on a set of social
and psychological issues, evaluation methods, and/or building types.
 In-house facility experts

25. Barriers to BPEs
 There is generally no money for BPEs.
 BPEs require a considerable amount of
time.
 No people with necessary BPE skills.
 Professionals do not like to have their
work judged by other professionals.
 Difficulties involved in establishing a
clear link among user assessments and
the physical environment.

26. Conclusions
 The benefits of BPEs are several:
– better quality of the built environment;
– greater occupant comfort
– more satisfactory experience in visiting, using, or working in a
facility
– improved staff morale and productivity
– significant cost savings
 Most important of all, building performance evaluation contributes to
the state-of-the-art knowledge of environmental design research and
thus make significant contributions towards improving the
profession of architecture.

27. Summary
 In summary, Building Performance
Evaluation (BPE) identifies both
successes and failures in building
performance, with an emphasis on
human factors and the interaction with
the design of physical setting and
building systems.
 If BPEs are made part of standard
practice, it will help establish a
performance-based approach to
design.

28. Examples

29. Case study # 1

30. New Elementary School Buildings - UAE.
School Plan

31. New Elementary School Buildings - UAE.

32. New Elementary School Buildings - UAE.

33. Case study # 2

34. Governmental Housing Projects, Kuwait
This research is applied on a sample of 27 house owners from different educational
levels and socio-cultural backgrounds.

39. The changes that have been done
Exterior changes
exterior walls changes
exterior walls no changes
exterior walls no changes
25
25
exterior wall paint changes
exterior wall paint no changes
exterior wall paint no changes
exterior finishing changes
20
20
20
19
19
19
exterior finishing no changes
exterior finishing no changes
exterior ornamentation changes
exterior ornamentation no changes
15
15
14
exterior ornamentation no changes
14
13
car shed changes
13
car shed no changes
12
car shed no changes
exterior doors and fences changes
10
exterior doors and fences no changes
8
7
8
8
exterior doors and fences no changes
7
garden changes
garden no changes
5
garden no changes
adding extra rooms changes
2
adding extra rooms no changes
adding extra rooms no changes
0
adding extra floor changes
adding extra floor no changes

40. The changes that have been done
Interior Changes
interior walls changes
25
25
interior walls no changes
23
23
22
interior walls no changes
22
interior wall paint changes
20
19
interior wall paint no changes
19
interior wall paint no changes
17
interior finishing changes
16
15
interior finishing no changes
interior finishing no changes
interior flooring changes
11
10
10
interior flooring no changes
8
8
interior flooring no changes
bathrooms changes
5
5
4
4
2
0
5
bathrooms no changes
bathrooms no changes
kitchen changes
kitchen no changes
kitchen no changes

41. Reasons behind changes
7%
7%
functional
form
both
The expence of changes
86%
22%
27%
1000-5000 KD
5000-10000 KD
The materials that are changed
10000-20000 KD
7%
20000-30000 KD
22%
7%
throne away
41%
52%
sold
reused
22%
30000-40000 KD

42. Case study # 3

43. Marina Mall - Kuwait
 The evaluation of user satisfaction intended to depict
the objectives and aims of the designers and compare
them with opinions of its users, employees and visitors.
 It focused on:
–
–
–
–
–
Way finding and circulation
Air temperature
Noise levels
Some users attitudes
Security

44. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Ground floor plan
First floor plan
Marina mall location

45. Marina Mall - Kuwait
 Way-finding and Circulation:
 Most users cannot find their way in and out the mall and between
stores. They get lost easily. It is hard for users to understand the
vertical circulation between the parking level and the shopping level.
There by, most users make themselves familiar with only one
entrance to access the mall, which for most of them is the entrance on
the Gulf Road.
 Air temperature:
 The employees are not showing any satisfaction with the indoor
cold temperature. The employees who usually have slight
movements, suffer from the cold temperature.

46. Marina Mall - Kuwait
 Noise:
 The area under the dome is very noisy due to the design of the large
double height space under the dome, which causes echoes to travel
throughout the building. In addition to the large flow of crowd on the
ground floor, the noise coming from the food court on the upper level
and the level of music coming from each restaurant and stores
surrounding the dome.
 Security:
 Security staff members are not enough nor qualified for their jobs.
People complain from the fights that regularly occur inside the mall
on weekends when there is a large crowd.

47. a
Marina Mall - Kuwait
Noise and Lighting level measurement:
THE DECIBEL METER
lighting lev el
Daytime (lux)
Night (lux)
900
800
700
600
500
LUX
400
300
200
100
0
Daytime (lux
Night (lux)
Area Area Area Area Area Area Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
area

48. Marina Mall - Kuwait
5
4
3
2
1
Daytime (lux)
Area 1
64
860
210
Area 3
7
250
Area 2
6
Night (lux)
670
118
Area 4
570
43
Area 5
400
302
Area 6
790
405
Area 7
690
96

49. Marina Mall - Kuwait
NIGHT
NIGHT
DAY
DAY

50. Marina Mall - Kuwait
NIGHT
NIGHT
DAY
DAY

51. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Age
Finding Parking Space
Difficulty to find parking space
Age
13-19
30
20
20-29
20
30-39
10
40-49
10
50-59
0
0
60 +
1
Purpose of v isite
Purpose of visit?
Level of educationLevel of education
shopping
60
20
resturants
15
middle school
10
high school
university and college
40
cinema
playing
20
5
walking around
higher education
0
0
1
meeting
1
other

52. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Rate Marina Mall according to:
25
20
15
10
5
0
op
t
l
v
n
c
f
i
e
e
m
s
f
en emp ightin enti o ise rowd loori nteri xte r xte r ain ecu ire e
la t
or
t
r
xit
er t
i
i
es
ed ng
poor
ion
e n or lo or co ana n ity
s
ur e g
ne
o
vir
lor
ce
ss
average
on k
me
good
nt
excellent

53. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Rate Marina Mall according to?
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
de
tu
al
qu
e
t
en
nm
it y
ro
ok
i
nv
lo
c
an
it s
ng
ti
at
ex
di
fin
s
er
ay
us
w
e
fir
y
rit
cu
s
r
io
r
te
r
lo
an
nt
ai
se
m
co
ex
re
g
n
io
at
in
or
ri o
te
in
flo
il
nt
es
g
in
ht
ve
lig
en
op

54. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Salem al-Mubark court
Virgin corridor
Marina corridors
Wide corridor
The one store (exterior)
Marina’s signage

55. Marina Mall - Kuwait
As a result of this BOE, solutions on the short
term included the following:
 Opening clearer entrances of “The One” store
onto the mall.
 Increasing signage of shaft numbers and maps
in the parking lot and throughout the building.
 Relocate the existing visitors building maps.
The dome
The dome

56. Marina Mall - Kuwait
Recommendations for other future shopping
centers and malls:
 Study flow patterns of visitors and design
stores accordingly
 Provide directories and reference labeling
for entrances and zones
 Locate entrances of the building in nodes
containing equal amount of people so that the
entrances would be used equally.
Food court
The parking

57. Thank You.