Question:   How Can Post Occupancy Evaluation help you or DGS do a better job?

When I see the words POST-OCCUPANCY, I think of two things. One, the immediate needs of the occupants when the project is complete and second, the lessons learned from this project that would benefit future projects.

All the materials on the present POE web site address the latter. Even the proposed Quick-Response Studies (QRS) and the Level 1 POEs are studies that will take 2 to 3 months and they do not address the immediate needs of the occupants. This POE program, as proposed, will only benefit future projects and not the immediate needs of the occupants/users when they move in or take over a project.

If a POE is conducted on a completed project, the new occupants/users will most probably bring up issues that are problems being experienced at that present moment. They will also ask when those issues can be fixed. If the response is that the QRS will take two to three months or that this study is conducted to benefit future projects rather than your immediate needs, my guess is that your satisfaction rating will take a nose dive.

If one of the goals of this program is to improve Customer Service to users upon the occupancy or completion of a project, I see no better opportunity than to address their immediate needs on move-in day. Occupants on improved future projects will benefit from the POE program, but those benefits will soon fade if the air condition does not work or the computer is not connected on move-in day.

I therefore propose that the POE Committee establish a program that will address the immediate needs of occupants when they take over or move into a project/building.

What are usually the immediate problems when a project is completed? Two categories:

1. Facility problems - operational problems of equipment; warranty issues; improperly trained users; rough connections does not function with user provided equipment; subcontractors go broke and will not make repairs; etc.
2. Program changes - user's needs have changed; functionality of spaces or equipment does not work as envisioned; bosses have changed who have different operating ideas; expectations of users were higher than reality; users working on the original program are no longer there; etc.

Addressing facility problems with urgency, in a successful and efficient manner, will result in higher ratings to DGS in the area of customer service. In contrast, the present POE program will benefit only future projects. Those future projects will have improved programs needs and less facility problems, but I am certain, that there will still be facility and program issues on move-in day because of the nature of the beast. Users of these future projects will concentrate more on their immediate problems regardless of the benefits gained from past projects. They will express their dissatisfaction unless their immediate needs are addressed.

The POE Committee should propose ways to allow a Project Director to take action on a quick and decisive manner. We frequently threaten contractors with, 'If you don't get it done, I am going to get someone who can'. They know that we can't. Direct Construction Unit is an option, but it is not quick enough. If we wish to operate similar to the private sector successes, we need the power.

Addressing program changes as an urgent situation upon completion of a project is most difficult, if not impossible. One of the comments in the POE workshop notes says that, "Often user's needs have changed since programming or they have realized opportunities when they start working in the building." This is an area where the POE Models can propose solutions for the betterment of future projects. Unfortunately, no matter how much you plan there will still be requests to make changes after occupancy.

I recall building five similar schools, one after another, for one school district. Principals and teachers were selected to provide program input. Improvements were made from one completed school to the next. However, principals were not selected until each school was in the middle of construction. Believe it or not, each of the five principals wanted different changes in the principal and clerical areas after each school was completed.

The POE Committee should provide suggestions in handling immediate requests for program changes upon completion of projects. The POE workshop notes also states that, " The goal for QRS is to improve a recently completed building". The POE Committee realizes that we operate under many restrictive government rules and regulations, and funding restrictions, that prohibit us from being too flexible. Obtaining funds to make changes after a project is complete is most difficult if not impossible.

Facility issues:

1. Work with DOF to allow a separate contingency to resolve emergency and immediate problems regardless who created the problems. The goal is to fix it now for the benefit of the user and then pursue refunds and blame afterwards.
2. Establish an easier and faster way to hire other contractors to repair or correct immediate needed work without going through enormous red tape.
3. Appoint a qualified construction attorney to assist with legal proceedings against non-performing sub/contractors, especially during the punchlist and warranty stages. The attorney should have experience with bonding companies.

Program issues:

1. Establish another contingency for program issues that were not previously anticipated and are desperately needed for the occupants to function. Example, technology could have changed at the time the project is completed.
2. Establish training programs for customers who will receive a new project. Users must understand they are part of the team. Users should understand construction limitations and the problems that could result from their actions or late responses. The importance of receiving program input from the right sources and to take responsibility for their actions. Understanding reality verses perception. Understanding the parameters of budget, scope and schedule control.
   A typical example: An agency facility person sends a request to their main office for a project with a brief description. Eventually the project reaches Project Management Branch for implementation. The Project Director's contact person is the agency analyst. Analyst advises the PD to obtain a detail scope from the facility person. More often than not, the scope is expanded and exceeds budget. Analyst scopes down the request to meet budget. Friction exists between agency analyst and facility person. Project must move on. Project is build. Facility person is unhappy with result. Analyst shrugs off any responsibility.

The proposed POE program is fine for improving future projects by evaluating a completed project. It does not address the needs of the project that is being evaluated. I recommend that a program be established to address that.

Nick Cimino, Winning Entry
The following people also submitted entries.
Leo Brady
James Drinkard
Susan Dyckes
Ian Ekholm
Diane Elliott
Teresa Kaneko
Peter Liloyan
Gerald McLaughlin
Zach Miller
Lance Muller
Greg Nyland
Elizabeth Parker
Wendy Roberts
Steve Savage
Larry Smith
Howard Sacks
Richard Steuber
Sarah Thamer-Hallford
Roy Tjen-A-Looi
Nancy Vierra
Chris Wicks