Transcript Post Occupancy Evaluation

Post Occupancy Evaluation
Recreation and Physical
Activity Center (RPAC)
Department of REC Sports
The Ohio State University
City and Regional Planning 735
Professor Jack Nasar
August 2008
Developed by
James Rader
DISCLAIMER
This report is part of a class project by a student and should not be interpreted as the official position of the
Department of City and Regional Planning , Department of Recreational Sports, or any entity of The Ohio
State University.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Michael Mitchell and Don Capps
for their time and information on facility maintenance
issues. I would like to thank Tracy Willcoxon for
providing me with the results of the Energy
Sustainability audit. I would also like to thank the
students, staff, and faculty who took the time to fill out
the survey. Finally, I would have known nothing about
Post Occupational Evaluations if it were not for the
teachings of Jack Nasar. Thank you professor.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Features, Spaces, and User Satisfaction Levels
Frequency of use/cost of operations
Importance and Opinion of Facility
Methods
References
Appendices
4
5
7
9
11
15
16
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A post occupancy evaluation was done for the
Recreation and Physical Activity Center (RPAC)
facility at The Ohio State University . The building
serves as the main focal point for recreational sports
activities for the campus.
The evaluation was conducted with a combination of
a Facility use survey of 10 people using the facility,
questions of maintenance staff, and data obtained
from a building energy audit.
Overall the determination is that this is a very active
and successful facility with some areas that can be
improved..
Recommendations
Some current equipment rooms have a water
flood bar on the floor that contains water leaks in
the room, but hinders easy access when moving
items in equipment rooms.
Make sure a freight elevator in addition to
personnel elevators are available to easily move
equipment between floors when needed.
Some existing lighting is difficult for replacing or
repair as special lift equipment is required. Take
into account energy conservation so that
retrofits like the MH to T-5 lamp change is not
necessary.
Allow for more room to work on steam pipes.
If it becomes possible to have a parking garage
built closer, do so.
Fully implement the cost saving recommendations
outlined in the Energy Conservation Measures.
Appendix A
In future buildings, make sure the equipment rooms
are of sufficient size and access, to allow for
equipment to be moved in/out efficiently.
4
FEATURES , SPACES AND USER
SATISFACTION LEVELS
Areas of the facility that showed
the most satisfaction by the
survey participants were the
lighting levels, adequate number
of trash receptacles, use of the
Buck ID to gain entry, stairs,
feeling of safety, and the water
fountains.
5
Area of Satisfaction
One of the frequently heard complaints
deal with the lack of locker space and
parking. The locker issue is being
address as more day lockers have been
installed in various locations to off-set
this initial problem. Parking is an issue
throughout campus as large numbers of
convenient spaces are limited .
Lighting Levels
Trash Receptacles
Use of Buck ID
Friendliness
Stairs adequate
Safety
Water quality in fountains
Bathrooms
Cleanliness of facility
Odor in locker rooms
Building wayfaring
Appearance/Layout of Space
Location of Facility
Shower drains
Temperature comfortable
Entrances Convenient
Showers
Bus Routes close
Visibility of Exits
Amount of Locker Space
Cost to use Facility
Vending machines
Building Maps
Dryers
Parking Close and adequate
Disability access
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Level of Satisfaction
6
FREQUENCY OF USE/COST
OF OPERATIONS
Activities done at RPAC
Use the Stairs
Visit/Use the facility
All of the users surveyed
used the facility at least 2-3
times per week, with many
using it almost everyday.
Although some occasionally
used the elevator, all used
the stairs on a regular basis
and many used the lockers.
Very few came just to
socialize or spend time with
friends. This heavy usage of
being open 18 hours a day
and handling 6500-7000
people per day during most
of the year is expensive.
Wipe equipment after
Use Lockers
Use Water bottles
Wipe equipment before
Eat food
Clean the table
Wait for machine/room
Use the elevator
Frequency of activity
done per month
Use the handicap button
Come with Friends
Use reservation system
Get lost
Come to Socialize
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
7
Because of the heavy building usage and
the amount of natural light that enters
the building, cost saving measures are
being put in place to have some lights
turned off during the day and change
some light fixtures from Metal Halide to
fluorescents. Insulating heating pipes,
installing some heat recovery units and
changing shower heads from 2 gal/min.
to 1.5 gal/min. will have a payback
period of 1.2 years and save $200,000 a
year in utility costs. Some pumps and
motors are very heavy duty in the
facility to handle daily use, but are not
operating at their optimum efficiency
because they are oversized for the
application.
8
IMPORTANCE AND OPINION OF
FACILITY
When comparing user opinion of an
activity and how important they
thought it was, the Weight and
fitness area was the favorite. Other
areas that were well liked and/or
important were the locker rooms,
food service, walking/jogging track,
and the aquatic facilities.
Facility Importance and Opinion
Rating by users
Opinion of Area
Importance
9 10
Weight & Fitness
7 7.5
Locker Rooms
Food Service
7
7
6.57
Aquatic Facilities
6.5
Walking/Jogging Track
5 5.9
5.46
Aerobics/Multipurpose Rooms
Welcome Desk
Coffee/Juice Bar
Basketball court
3.8
5.36
6
6
Fitness Suite
3.3
Training Room
3.3
5
3.2
2.8 4
5
Baby sitting area
Lounge/Main Space
Racquetball/Squash court
8
2.8
2.23
Volleyball court
Office Space
1.7
5
Games Room
1.7
5
Conference Rooms/Meeting…
Badminton court
Kitchen
Golf
8
1.6 3
1.6 3
1.1
1
0.8
3
9
Golf is by contrast the one thought
most unimportant or disliked by the
majority of the survey participants.
The kitchen and meetings rooms
also scored low on both importance
and opinion.
Almost all the areas showed a similar
rating in importance to the user and how
they felt about the sport or activity. The
one exception to this was the
Squash/Racquetball courts. Users gave
the area a high opinion rating but a low
importance.
10
METHODS
Subjects. I placed survey reports at the
Welcome desk of the RPAC facility with
(2) REC Sports stands placed next to
the BUCK ID scanning/entrance area
that requested people participate in
the survey. Ten were completed in a
24-hour period. A couple of people
listed themselves as both staff and a
student on the survey. Also, two
maintenance personnel were
interviewed that had direct
involvement with the building since it
had been constructed. The third
method was obtaining a copy of the
Energy Sustainability audit that was
recently done on the RPAC facility.
11
Demographics. The two maintenance personnel both work for OSU Facilities
Operations and Development. The ten surveys were completed by people that
use the facility, and was comprised of an equal mix of male and female.
Percentage of Survey Participants
Male
50%
Female
50%
12
The majority of those that responded were students (see figure below). Their
average age was 25 years old. Note: The two staff members who took the
survey also listed themselves as students too.
Survey Participants by position
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
Procedure. The surveys were completed by people who use the facility without any
direct interaction by myself. Signs, forms, and pencils were all provided and 24
hours later the results were picked up to be tabulated. A walk through of the
building with one of the student managers was completed after clearing above
procedure with RPAC management. Also, permission to take pictures within the
facility was also granted. Maintenance questions were posed in a modified survey
as well as email/phone interview. Data was also obtained from the Energy
Conservation Measures (ECM) audit for RPAC.
13
Coding. The coding reflects the questions asked about importance of spaces in the
facility. A “Very Important” was giving a weight of 10 and an “Important” a 5. The
“Not Important” was given a weight of -1. The “Like” had a weight of 10 and the
dislike a -10. The Satisfactions were give scales of “Very Dissatisfied”of 1 to “Very
Satisfied” of 6.
Analysis. In analyzing the data, percentages were used to determine the
importance and satisfaction of the facility to the users. Other data was used
that showed the frequency of use of various activities.
14
REFERENCES
Dverk, Donna P, 1993. Architectural Programming Information Management for
Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hershberger, Robert. 1999. Architectural Programming and Predesign Manager.
New York: McGraw-Hill
OSU Facilities Operations & Development, 2008. Energy Conservation
Measures (Summary & Notes) for RPAC.
Image Credits:
James Rader
15
APPENDICES
16
APPENDIX A
17