EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 15 (2014) MATEC Web of Conferences, 15 (2014) 01004 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 15, 2014
Building Surveying, Facilities Management and Engineering Conference (BSFMEC 2014)
Article Number 01004
Number of page(s) 7
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20141501004
Published online 19 August 2014
  1. A. H. Nawawi and N. Khalil, “Performance Analysis of Government and Public Buildings via Post Occupancy Evaluation,” J. Build. Apprais., vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 59–69, 2008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. J. Douglas, “Building performance and its relevance to facilities management,” Facilities, vol. 14, no. April, pp. 23–32, 1996. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. G. Mcdougall, J. R. Kelly, J. Hinks, and U. S. Bititci, “A review of the leading performance measurement tools for assessing buildings,” J. Facil. Manag., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 142–153, 2002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. D. Amaratunga and D. Baldry, “Appraising the total performance of higher education buildings: A participator y approach towards a knowledge- base system,” in Construction and Building Research Conference 1998: Proceedings (COBRA) 2nd-3rd September 1998, Oxford Brookes University, 1998, pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  5. S. Parmjit, Y. F. Chan, and K. S. Gurnam, A comprehensive guide to writing a research proposal. Venton Publishing, Batu Caves, Malaysia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. D. Pati, C.-S. Park, and G. Augenbroe, “Roles of building performance assessment in stakeholder dialogue in AEC,” Autom. Constr., vol. 15, pp. 415–427, Jul. 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. R. J. Cole, “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 3–16, 1998. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. N. Almeida, V. Sousa, L. Alves Dias, and F. Branco, “A framework for combining riskmanagement and performance-based building approaches,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 157–174, Apr. 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. B. William, “What is Performance?,” Perform. Manag., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 190–91, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  10. D. Amaratunga and D. Baldry, “A conceptual framework to measure facilities management performance,” Prop. Manag., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 171–189, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  11. M. Abaza, “Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment High Performance Buildings Using Whole Building Integrated Design Approach,” Strateg. Plan. Energy Environ., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 19–34, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. J. Eley, “How do post-occupancy evaluation and the facilities manager meet ?,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 164–167, 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Clift and R. Butler, “The Performance and Cost-in use of Buildings: A New Approach,” UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  14. J. E. Woods, “Expanding the Principles of Performance to Sustainable Buildings,” Real Estate Issues, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 37–46, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  15. A. Haapio and P. Viitaniemi, “A critical review of building environmental assessment tools,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 469–482, Oct. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  16. W. F. E. Preiser, H. Z. Rabinowits, and E. T. White, Post Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company CRS Sirrine Houston, TX, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  17. W. F. E. Preiser and J. L. Nasar, “Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution From Post-Occupancy Evaluation,” Archnet-IJAR, Int. J. Archit. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 84–99, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  18. D. Amaratunga, “Assessment of facilities management performance,” Prop. Manag., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 258–266, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  19. W. F. E. Preiser, “Feedback, feedforward and control: post-occupancy evaluation to the rescue,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 456–459, 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. B. Bordass and A. Leaman, “Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 347–352, Jul. 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. B. Bordass, R. Cohen, M. Standeven, and A. Leaman, “Assessing building performance in use 2: technical performance of the Probe buildings,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 103–113, Mar. 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. B. Bordass and A. Leaman, “Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 3: Case studies of the use of techniques in the feedback portfolio,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 361–375, Jul. 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. M. Pitt and M. Tucker, “Performance measurement in facilities management: driving innovation?,” Prop. Manag., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 241–254, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. G. Baird, “Incorporating User Performance Criteria into Building Sustainability Rating Tools (BSRTs) for Buildings in Operation,” Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1069–1086, Nov. 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. G. Augenbroe and C.-S. Park, “Quantification methods of technical building performance,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 159–172, Mar. 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. D. Pati, C.-S. Park, and G. Augenbroe, “Roles of quantified expressions of building performance assessment in facility procurement and management,” Build. Environ., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 773–784, Apr. 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. T. Lützkendorf and T. M. Speer, “Alleviating asymmetric information in property markets: building performance and product quality as signals for consumers,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 182–195, Mar. 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. T. Lützkendorf and D. P. Lorenz, “Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 334–356, Jul. 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. J. C. Vischer, Chapter 3: Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaced Tool for Building mprovement. United States of America: Federal Facilities Council, The National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  30. J. C. Vischer, “Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 231–240, Jun. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. B. Bordass, “Learning more from our buildings - or just forgetting less ?,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 406–411, 2003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. B. Bordass, A. Leaman, and P. Ruyssevelt, “Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 144–157, Mar. 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. R. Cohen, M. Standeven, A. Leaman, and B. Bordass, “Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 85–102, 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. G. Nevill, “So how are you doing?,” Build. Serv. - CIBSE J., no. November, pp. 32–37, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  35. V. I. Soebarto and T. J. Williamson, “Multi-criteria assessment of building performance: theory and implementation,” Build. Environ., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 681–690, Jul. 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. K. Alexander, Facilities management: theory and practice. London: E & FN Spon, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  37. A. Leaman, F. Stevenson, and B. Bordass, “Building evaluation: practice and principles,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 564–577, Oct. 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. A. Zimmerman and M. Martin, “Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 168–174, Mar. 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. J. Sinopoli, “How Do We Measure The Performance Of A Building ?,” Smart Buildings LLC, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. M. Way and B. Bordass, “Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings – involving design and building teams in improving performance,” Build. Res. Inf., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 353–360, Jul. 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.