Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

MİMARLIK PRATİĞİNDE KULLANIM SÜRECİ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ: LÜTFİ KIRDAR KONGRE VE SERGİ SARAYI ARAŞTIRMASI

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION IN THE PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE: A CASE STUDY OF LÜTFİ KIRDAR CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE

Journal Name:

  • Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010
DOI: 
10.4305

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In recent years, changing market conditions and limitations on resources have put enormous stress on the construction industry (1). Projects’ scope gets complex and clients / owners are now asking construction professionals to deliver more qualified products for less budget. In order to achieve a more effective project delivery mechanism, getting constructive feedback from previously implemented projects is getting more and more important. Evaluating the performance of buildings after they have been occupied is an important step of project life cycle that provides feedback to the professionals related to the building. This systematic and detailed inspection, carried out with the users of the building, is called Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). POE provides credible evidence about the positive and negative aspects of the buildings from the users’ point of view. As a result of ensuring that feedback is applied throughout the process, building quality is protected during planning and construction and later, during occupation and operations (Preiser and Vischer, 2005).
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Müşterilerin veya kullanıcıların isteklerine karşılık verebilmek, başarılı binalar tasarlamak ve inşa etmek açısından çok önemlidir. Mimarlar binaların kullanıcılarından geri bildirim alarak daha başarılı binalar tasarlamalı ve ileriki aşamalardaki hataları en aza indirmelidirler. “Kullanım Süreci Değerlendirmesi (KSD)” binaların pozitif ve negatif yönleri hakkında fikir verebilecek önemli bir değerlendirme mekanizmasıdır. Bu çalışma, İstanbul’daki önemli bir kongre merkezi olan Lütfi Kırdar Uluslararası Kongre ve Sergi Sarayı (ICEC) hakkında bir Kullanım Süreci Değerlendirmesi (KSD) sunmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında Kongre Merkezleri özellikleri 3 ana başlık altında (konumsal, mekansal, fonksiyonel ve teknik özellikler) incelenmiştir. Daha sonra 3 kullanıcı grubu (konferans düzenleyicileri, merkez çalışanları ve konferans katılımcıları) bu ana başlıklar altında yer alan 35 bina özelliğinin önem derecesini ve performasını 1 ve 5 arasında değişen oranlar ile değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu değerlendirmede 1 “daha az önemi” ve “kötü performansı”, 5 ise “daha fazla önemi” ve “iyi performansı” göstermektedir. Seçilen binanın niteliklerini değerlendirmek için Önem-Performans Analiz Metodu (ÖPA) kullanılmıştır. ÖPA metodu, kullanıcıların yaptıkları seçimler sayesinde incelenen vakanın güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini ortaya çıkartır. ÖPA’da ana amaç incelenen vakadaki özelliklerin göreceli öneminin ve bu özelliklerin gösterdiği performansın kullanıcılar tarafından değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre 3 kullanıcı grubu da Kongre Merkezi’nin konum, toplu taşıma ile ulaşılabilirlilik, toplantı salonu kapasitesi, oturma düzeni, görüşü engelleyen strüktürel elemanların olmaması, ışıklandırma, havalandırma ve ısıtma sistemlerinin etkin işleyişi konularında başarılı olduğunu belirtmiştir. Diğer yandan Kongre Merkezi’nde engeli olan insanların hareketine olanak verecek düzenlemelerin olmaması eleştiri noktası olmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_290_27_pp_241-265.pdf
  • 1
241-265
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

BARSKY, J. D. (1995) World- Class Customer Satisfaction, Irwin Publishing,
Chicago.
BREITER, D. and MILMAN, A. (2006) “Attendees’ Needs and Service
Priorities in a Large Convention Centre: Application of the
Importance-Performance Theory”, Tourism Management, v: 27, n: 6;
1364-70.
BYEONG-YOUNG, K. and OH, M. (2001) “An Extended Application of
Importance-Performance Analysis”, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure
Marketing, v: 9, n: 3-4; 107-25.
CARTHEY, J. (2006) Post Occupancy Evaluation: Development of a
Standardised Methodology for Australian Health Projects, The
International Journal of Construction Management, July; 57-74.
CHON, K.S., WEAWER, P.A. and KIM, C.Y. (1988) Marketing Your
Community: Image Analysis in Norfolk, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, v: 31, n: 4; 31-7.
COOPER, I. (2001) Post-Occupancy Evaluation - Where are You? Building
Research and Information, v: 29, n: 2; 158-63.
CROMPTON, J.L., and DURAY, N.A. (1985) An Investigation of the
Relative Efficacy of Four Alternative Approaches to Importance-
Performance Analysis, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
v:13, n; 4; 69-80.
DHFP (1990) Indian Health Service Hospital Browning Montana Facility Post
Occupancy Evaluation, Division of Health Facilities Planning, Office of
Resource Management, Office of Management.
DTI (1998) Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task
Force, Department of Trade and Industry.
ENRIGHT, M.J. and NEWTON, J. (2004) Tourism Destination
Competitiveness: A Quantitative Approach, Tourism Management, v:
25, n: 6; 777-88.
FOXALL, G. and HACKETT, P. (1994) Consumer Satisfaction with
Birmingham’s International Convention Centre, The Service Industries
Journal, v: 14, n: 3; 369-80.
FRIEDMAN, A., ZIMRING, C., ZUBE, C. (1978) Environmental Design
Evaluation, Plenum, New York, NY.
HADJRI, K. and CROZIER, C. (2009) Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Purpose,
Benefits and Barriers, Facilities, v: 27, n: 1-2; 21-33.
HINKIN, T.R. and TRACEY, J.B. (2003) The Service Imperative: Factors
Driving Meeting Effectiveness, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, v: 44, n: 5-6; 17-27.
KITCHAROEN, K. (2004) “The Importance-Performance Analysis
of Service Quality in Administrative Departments of Private
Universities in Thailand”, ABAC Journal, v: 24, n: 3; 20-46.
LATHAM, Sir M. (1994) Constructing the Team: The Latham Report,
HMSO, London.
LOVELOCK, C., PATTERSON, P.G., WALKER, R.H. (1998), Services
Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Sydney. MARTILLA, J.A. and JAMES, J.C. (1977) Importance - Performance
Analysis, Journal of Marketing, January, v: 24, n: 1; 77-9.
MARTIS, J.B. and GUENTHER, A. (2003) The Qwest for Excellence: A Post
Occupancy Evaluation of Qwest Centre Omaha, Arch 556 / Arch 456
Term Paper.
MUMOVIC, D., DAVIES, M., RIDLEY, I., ALTAMIRANO-MEDINA,
H., ORESZCZYN, T. (2009) A Methodology for Post-Occupancy
Evaluation of Ventilation Rates in Schools, Building Services
Engineering Research and Technology, v: 30, n: 2; 143-52.
NITSE, P.S. and BUSH, R.P. (1993) An Examination of Retail Dental
Practices Versus Private Dental Practices Using an Importance
Performance Analysis, Health Marketing Quarterly, v: 11, n: 1-2; 207-
21.
PEMBEGÜL, T. (2009) Assessment of Convention Centers from Users’
Perspective: Application of Importance-Performance Analysis,
Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis in Building Science, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
O’NEILL, M., WRIGHT, C., FITZ, F. (2001) Quality Evaluation in Online
Service Environments: An Application of the Importance-
Performance Measurement Technique, Managing Service Quality, v:
11, n: 6; 402-17.
ORNSTEIN, S.W., ONO, R., LOPES, M.E., MONTEIRO, R.Z., GILL, A.A.,
MACHRY, H.S. (2007) Health Care Architecture in São Paulo,
Brazil Evaluating Accessibility and Fire Safety in Large Hospitals”
International Journal of Architectural Research, v: 1, n: 1; 13-25.
PREISER, W.F.E., RABINOWITZ, H.Z., WHITE, E.T. (1988) Post-Occupancy
Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
PREISER, W. (2002) The Evolution of Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Toward
Building Performance and Universal Design Evaluation. Learning
from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy
Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No: 145,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; 9-22.
PREISER, W.F.E. and VISCHER, J.C. (2005) The Evolution of Building
Performance Evaluation: An Introduction” in W.F.E. Preiser and J.C.
Vischer, eds., Assessing Building Performance, First Edition, Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford; 3-14.
QHRS (2001) Royal Children’s Hospital Post Occupancy Evaluation,
Queensland Health and Royal Children’s Hospital Health Service
District.
RENAGHAN, L.M. and KAY, M.Z. (1987) What Convention organizers
Want: The Conjoint Analysis Approach, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, v: 28, n: 1; 67-76.
RIBA, R.S.G. (1991) A Research Report for the Architectural Profession, in
Duffy, F.W., ed., Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, E. &
F.N. Spon, London.
Royal Institute of British Architects (1962) The Architect and His Office: A
Survey of Organization, Staffing, Quality of Service and Productivity,
RIBA, London. SEE (2005) Post Occupancy Evaluation - Braes High School, Falkirk,
Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
SLACK, N. (1991) “The Importance-Performance Matrix as a Determinant
of Improvement Priority, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v: 14, n: 5; 59-75.
WATSON, C. and THOMSON, K. (2005) Bringing Post-Occupancy
Evaluation to Schools in Scotland, OECD/PEB Evaluating Quality in
Educational Facilities. OECD Publishing; 129-34.
ZIMMERMAN, A. and MARTIN, M. (2001) Post-Occupancy Evaluation:
Benefits and Barriers, Building Research and Information, vol. 29, no. 2;
168-74.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com