Linking Programming, Design and Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Primary Care Clinic Case Study

Mar 27, 2013

The architecture design process typically encompasses separated phases or steps leading to a completed building project. Steps may include programming, conceptual design, design development, construction and sometimes post occupancy evaluation. As a result of these distinct steps, it is usually difficult to trace the linear thinking from the beginning of a project to the end of a project. Consequently, the findings produced from each step are not carried forward throughout the process and it is difficult to conduct an assessment of the building in use that is tied to front-end thinking. If these steps are linked in a project, then it would allow for capturing project goals and design attributes (input measures) in relation to desirable outcomes (outcome measures). Various life-cycle process models for architecture were explored in a literature review. While useful, these process models offer limited practical recommendations on how to create a performance-based framework that connects design to measurable outcomes. In response, the objective of this study is to explore an integrated, multi-step process that links programming, research and design with a goal of understanding how design decisions impact building performance. While the use and acceptance of Evidence-Based Design (EBD) research and Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) have increased over recent years, most studies don’t encompass all steps and are focused on inpatient care facilities. Since outpatient clinics represent the fastest growing segment of healthcare spending and there is limited empirical research on the architectural performance of these healthcare settings (Preiser, Verderber, & Battisto, 2009), a primary care clinic was chosen to explore this integrated process.

Dina Battisto (Clemson University)
Deborah Franqui (Clemson University)
Proceedings of the 2013 ARCC Spring Research Conference
Presented at: 
The Visibility of Research
Published & professionally reviewed by: 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Architectural Research Centers Consortium

Community Reviews

No votes yet