Post-occupancy evaluation of Library West's interior design

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Post-occupancy evaluation of Library West's interior design a method to explore pre-design research and programming
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Adhami, Noaman
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Dissertations, Academic -- Interior Design -- UF
Interior Design thesis, M.I.D
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This case study explored the planning and programming processes of a research library, Library West (LW) at the University of Florida (UF). LW opened in 1967 and has grown into one of the most important research libraries in the nation. Shortly after opening, the building ran out of space to the point that serving the public and staff members became a difficult task. In 2004 and with collaboration from the UF Office of Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C), the library administration started the planning process for a new addition to the library. The fruit of this collaboration was the Request for Proposal (RFP) document. The overarching goals, as stated in the RFP document, were (1) a flexible building to house all of the humanities and social sciences collections, (2) to provide excellent space for students and faculty to utilize the latest in information resources including electronic, print, and multimedia, and (3) to provide adequate space for the staff members. The architectural firms, Long and Associates Architects/Engineers Inc. and Ross Barney Architects, were competitively selected as the project architect and consultant firm for the project. In 2006, the library reopened its doors after the addition and renovation was completed. To evaluate the planning and programming processes for LW, this study used multiple methods with a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques in order to conduct a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of the interior design and layout of the renovation and addition. Further, an examination of the planning and programming processes for LW was undertaken. First, the researcher conducted in-depth unstructured interviews with key client and professional design participants involved in the planning and design phases in order to document this process and gauge their satisfaction with the development and the final building at the end.
Abstract:
Second, the exact needs and requirements for the project detailed in the RFP, the final architectural program, and the final building were analyzed and compared with spaces and measurements in the new building. Third, the study adapted Jennifer C. Lamar's (2007) theoretical framework to develop two surveys, one for end-users and the other for library staff members. The surveys gauged the two group's satisfaction with the new building design and layout. Finally, after exploring the planning and programming processes for LW and determining end-users satisfaction with LW, recommendations for LW as well as other stakeholders, researchers, and designers considering a new design project were drawn based on the results of this case study. The study concluded that in-depth interviews with key planning participants indicated that the participants were satisfied with the planning and programming processes for LW. What's more, the planning and programming approach for LW was successful in delivering minimal space requirements and needs of its users as detailed in the RFP. Finally, end users surveys showed that LW staff members were moderately to very dissatisfied with the building, while other end-users were moderately to very satisfy with the same building characteristics.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Noaman Adhami.
General Note:
Title from title page of source document.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 201 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 005295531
System ID:
AA00004620:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF A METHOD TO EXPLORE PRE DESIGN RESEARCH AND PROGRAMMING By NOAMAN ADHAMI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 1

PAGE 2

2 2011 Noaman Adhami

PAGE 3

3 To my dear parents, Tatiana Bochkova and Dr. Ibrahim Adhami

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research would not have been possible without the contributions and support of all the unique people I worked with. First, I would like to thank my chair Professor Candy Carmel Gilfilen for here relentless effort to perfect this project along with Dr. Jo Hasell ; bo th paved the road for me to explore this new field of knowledge. Without their insight, knowledge, and experience, this project would not have been achieved. Special thank s go to Dr. Maruja Torres Antonini Graduate Coordinator and, my colle a g u es in the D e partment of I nterior D esign at University of Florida for their participation in the pilot study along with Ms. Ann Lindell, librarian and head of Architectural and Fine Arts, and her staff members Further, I would like to thank all participants in this s tudy from Library West including staff members and its visitors. S pecial thanks also go to Ms. Bahar Armaghani, Ms. Christine Eastman, Mr. Alexander Long, Ms. Dale Canelas, Ms. Barbra j. Hood, Ms. Leilani Freud, Dr. Rachel A. Schipper, Mr. Patrick Joseph Reakes, and Ms. Wendy Thornton for their contributions and help in the study. Last but n ot least, I would thank my family her e in the United States and back home in Syria for all the love and support through this ex c iting journey.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 LIST OF TABL ES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Statement of Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 The Prob lem ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 Preliminary Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Planning and Programming Processes ................................ ................................ ............. 21 Action Research (AR) Subjective Assessment Framework ................................ ............ 23 Assumptions Underlying the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 2 REVIEW OF TH E LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 Defining Library West Problem ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 Implementing Library West Program ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 Program Related Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Soci al Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31 Programming Development ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Pre Design Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Programm ing Types ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Post Occupancy Evaluation ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 41 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 43 Research Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 43 Resear ch Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 48

PAGE 6

6 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 49 Research Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Sampling participants for staff members and end users surveys ............................. 50 Sampling Key Participants for the In Depth Interviews ................................ .......... 51 Procedures and Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 In depth Interviews with Key Participants ................................ ................................ ...... 52 Comparison across RFP, Architect Program Document, and LW Building ................... 52 Staff members and Student Satisfaction with LW Renovation and Addition ................. 54 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 55 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 57 Exploring the Plan ning Process through Unstructured Interviews ................................ ......... 57 Planning Process (RFP) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 58 Reasons behind the LW Project ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Planning participants ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 Vision and aspirations ................................ ................................ .............................. 59 First draft of List of requirements for LW Project ................................ ................... 61 Budget issues with the Board of Regents ................................ ................................ 61 Final list of requirements for the LW Project and RFP ................................ ............ 62 Programming Process (FP&C) ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 The RFP document ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 64 Selecting the architect ................................ ................................ .............................. 64 Design charrette ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 65 Program verification ................................ ................................ ................................ 65 Five Project Phases (Long) ................................ ................................ .............................. 65 Final program document and design solution ................................ .......................... 66 Change of requirements ................................ ................................ ........................... 66 Layout ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 Users Satisfaction Surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 71 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 71 ................................ ................................ ................ 72 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 72 Planning Process ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 73 ...... 75 ................................ ................... 75 ................................ ................ 79 ................................ ................... 83 ................................ .......... 88 Overall Satisfaction ................................ ........................... 91 Statistical Reliability Test ................................ ................................ ... 93 Statistical Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ... 94 LW End Users Survey Results ................................ ................................ ........................ 98 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 98 End .......... 100

PAGE 7

7 End ................................ ................... 100 End ................................ ..................... 104 End ................................ ..................... 110 End ................................ ............ 114 End Overall Satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................. 118 End Statistical Reliability Test ................................ ................................ ....... 120 End Statistical Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ....... 120 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 124 5 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 125 Analyzing the In Depth Unstructured Interviews with Client and Design Participants ....... 125 Comparison and Verification of the Preliminary FP&C Program ................................ ........ 129 User Satisfaction with the LW Assessed by the Surveys ................................ ..................... 131 Additions to the Body of Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................... 136 Recommendations for designers and stakeholders ................................ ........................ 136 Recommendations for future research ................................ ................................ ........... 138 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 139 APPENDIXES A UFIRB EXEMPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 141 B INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 142 C IRB FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 145 D FLYER DESIGN ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 148 E BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LIBRARY WEST ADDITION and RENOVATION EXCERPT ................................ ................................ ............................... 149 F STAFF MEMBERS SATISFACTION SURVEY ................................ ............................... 150 G END USER SATISFACTION SURVEY ................................ ................................ ............ 166 H INTERVIEW QUESTIONS SAMPLE ................................ ................................ ................ 181 I STAFF COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 182 J ITEM TOTAL STATISTICS INFORMATION STAFF SURVEY ................................ ... 184 K PRINCIPLE FACTOR ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX STAFF SURVEY ............ 187 L END USERS COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 190 M ITEM TOTAL STATISTICS INFORMATION END USERS SURVEY ......................... 192 N PRINCIPLE FACTOR ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX END USERS SURVEY .. 195

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 198 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 201

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Comparison of programmed spaces for departments at LW. ................................ ............ 69 4 2 Comparisons of NSF among LW departments. ................................ ................................ 70 4 3 Dimensions and main items. ................................ ................................ .............................. 72 4 4 Hours spent in workspace per week ................................ .......... 73 4 5 Personal workspace ................................ ................................ ... 73 4 6 Staff members participation in planning processes ................... 73 4 7 Staff members involvement with the planning process for LW survey. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 4 8 Staff members satisfaction with the planning process for LW survey. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 4 9 Staff members responses technical dimension. ................................ .............................. 76 4 10 Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses technical dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 78 4 11 Staff members responses functional dimension. ................................ ............................. 81 4 12 Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 82 4 13 ambient dimension. ................................ ............................... 85 4 14 Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 87 4 15 psychological dimension. ................................ ..................... 89 4 16 P lanning participants weighed against all staff members responses psychological dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 90 4 17 Overall staff members satisfaction with LW staff members survey. ............................... 91 4 18 Items to improve in LW staff members survey. ................................ .............................. 92 4 19 Alpha ratings of all dimensions ................................ ................. 93 4 20 Simplest principle factor rotated component matrix .................. 95

PAGE 10

10 4 21 Hours spent in LW per week end users survey. ................................ ............................ 98 4 22 Activities while in LW end users survey ................................ ................................ ...... 99 4 23 Areas used in LW end users survey ................................ ................................ .............. 99 4 24 End users responses technical dimension. ................................ ................................ .... 102 4 25 Faculty members and graduate students wei ghed against other end users responses technical dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 103 4 26 End users responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ ... 107 4 27 Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 109 4 28 End users responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ ..... 112 4 29 Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 113 4 30 End users responses psychological dimension. ................................ ............................. 116 4 31 Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses psychological dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ 117 4 32 Overall end end users survey. ................................ ........... 118 4 33 Items to improve in LW end users survey. ................................ ................................ .... 119 4 34 Alpha ratings of all dimensions end user survey. ................................ ......................... 120 4 35 Simplest principle factor rotated component matrix end users survey. ........................ 122

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Linear design model ver. cyclical design model ................................ ................................ 40 3 1 Study design diagram. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 43 3 2 Site map of the LW (Renovation and Addition). ................................ ............................... 45 3 3 LW floor plans first through six. ................................ ................................ ........................ 46 3 4 Study th eoretical framework. ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 4 1 Compared spaces chart. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 69 4 2 Variation in NSF of the programs and the building. ................................ .......................... 70 4 3 Staff members responses technical dimension. ................................ .............................. 77 4 4 Technical items satisfaction percentages distr ibution ............... 77 4 5 Planning participants compare to all staff members responses technical dimension. .... 78 4 6 Staff members responses functional dimension. ................................ ............................. 81 4 7 Functional items satisfaction percentages distribution ............. 82 4 8 Planning participants compare to all staff members responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 83 4 9 St aff members responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ 86 4 10 Ambient items satisfaction percentages distribution ................. 86 4 11 Planning participants compare to all staff members responses ambient dimension. ...... 87 4 12 Staff members responses psychological dimension. ................................ ....................... 89 4 13 Psychological items satisfaction percentages distribution ........ 90 4 14 P lanning participants compare to all staff members responses psychological dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 91 4 15 Principle factor structure of all categories ................................ 95 4 16 Principle facto r structure for remaining categories ................... 97

PAGE 12

12 4 17 The main categories and dimensions with the strongest correlation survey. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 97 4 18 End users responses technical dimension. ................................ ................................ .... 102 4 19 Technical items satisfaction percentages distribution end .................... 103 4 20 Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses technical dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 104 4 21 End users responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ .. 108 4 22 Functional items satisfaction percentages distribution end ................... 108 4 23 Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses functional dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 110 4 24 End users responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ ..... 112 4 25 Ambient items satisfaction percentages distribution end ...................... 113 4 26. Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses ambient dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 114 4 27 End users responses psychological dimension. ................................ ............................. 116 4 28 Psychological items satisfaction percentages distribution end .............. 117 4 29 Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses psychological dimension. ................................ ................................ ................................ 118 4 30 Principle factor structure of all categories end users survey. ................................ ....... 121 4 31 Principle factor structure for remaining categories end users survey. .......................... 123 4 32 The main cate gories and dimensions with the strongest correlation end survey. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 123 5 1 Study area inside the new addition of LW (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida). ................................ ................................ 130 5 2 Open space along the external curtain wall adds no ise to the second floor (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida). .................... 132 5 3 Students socializing in the media room (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida). ................................ ................................ ............... 133 5 4 Overall satisfaction for all dimensions from both surveys combined. ............................. 135

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Interior Design POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF DESIGN: A METHOD TO EXPLORE PRE DESIGN RESEARCH AND PROGRAMMING By Noaman Adhami May 2011 Chair: Candy Carmel Gilfilen Major: Interior Design This case study explored the planning and programming processes of a research library, Library West (LW) at the University of Florida (UF). LW opened in 1967 and has grown into one of the most important research libraries in the nation. Shortly after openi ng, the building ran out of space to the point that serving the public and staff members became a difficult task. In 2004 and with collaboration from the UF Office of Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C), the library administration started the plann ing process for a new addition to the library. The fruit of this collaboration was the Request for Proposal (RFP) document. The overarching goals, as stated in the RFP document, were (1) a flexible building to house all of the humanities and social science s collections, (2) to provide excellent space for students and faculty to utilize the latest in information resources including electronic, print, and multimedia, and (3) to provide adequate space for the staff members. The architectural firms Long and As sociates Architects/Engineers Inc. and Ross Barney Architects, were competitively selected as the project architect and consultant firm for the project. In 2006, the library reopened its doors after the addition and renovation was completed.

PAGE 14

14 To evaluate th e planning and programming processes for LW, this study used multiple methods with a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques in order to conduct a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of the interior design and layout of the renovation a nd addition. Further, an examination of the planning and programming processes for LW was undertaken. First, the researcher conducted in depth unstructured interviews with key client and professional design participants involved in the planning and design phases in order to document this process and gauge their satisfaction with the development and the final building. Second, the exact needs and requirements for the project detailed in the RFP, the final architectural program, and the final building were analyzed and compared. Third, the study adapted Jennifer users and the other design and layout. Finally, after exploring the planning and programming processes for LW and determining end users satisfaction with LW, recommendations for LW as well as other stakeholders and researchers, were drawn based on the results of this case study. Th e study concluded that in depth interviews with key planning participants indicated that more, the planning and programming approach for LW was successful in deliver ing minimal space requirements and needs of its users as detailed in the RFP. Finally, end users surveys showed that LW staff members were moderately to very dissatisfied with the building, while other end users were moderately to very satisfied with the s ame building characteristics. The study findings provide benefits to the staff, administrators, and end users of LW as well as these constituency groups within similar facilities across the country. Finally, recommendations

PAGE 15

15 addressing stakeholders could im prove the planning and programming processes for other research libraries.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Typically, for any design project, regardless of the purpose, size, or budget, there is a varied amount of communication and planning early in the process. The process is called Pre Design Research (PDR) and includes both the social dimensions as well as the physical dimensions of the proj ect. PDR explores the client and the end design solutions are developed. The client can be an individual or a group of people, including stakeholders and end users. If the project is participatory, the list of requirements is realized only after a thorough investigation of the client organization, values and the requests of all involved. The outcomes of both the social and physical planning process and the list of requirements will be passed to the architect or the designer who will then assess the requirements and make any necessary adjustments before he/she develops the design program 1 Once the architect/designer management, 2 w hich culminate in the delivery of the design project, and occupation of the building. The process of design has been adopted by government agencies and organizations along with many corporations and schools in the United States. The Government Services Ad ministration (GSA) refers to this process as: which ] emphasizes the connection between organizational drivers and spatial design, stressing the need to understand the organization and its work before design begins. It is supported by tools and (U.S. General Services Administration, 2005, p. III). 1 Design programming (US) or brief (UK) defined by The National Counsel for Interior Design Qualification (Botti Salitsky 2009, p.2). 2 Project Management phases are: 1) programming, 2) schematic design, 3) design development, 4) preparation of contract documents, and 5) contract administration (Piotrowski 2008, p.533)

PAGE 17

17 For GSA, the planning and programming process is more comprehensive than in many other approaches in hopes of avoiding risks that can accompany a design project. Such risks can jeopardize a program and eventually the design. There are four reasons that can lead to failure according to Bradley et al. (Priser and Vicher, 2005, pp. 44 46): NO BRIEF This happens when the client is uncertain how best to embark upon a building project. INCOMPLETE OR POORLY TIMED BRIEF This occurs when information about the UN AMBIT IOUS BRIEF This happens when ambitious goals are not unanimously supported and the brief does not reflect common goals. This brief is characterized by a list of functional spaces, but misses the opportunity for imaginative development and change. IGNORED BRIEF Even when a clear and imaginative brief has been prepared, it is somehow overlooked or ignored by the design team. Besides the GSA, other public and federal services developed guidelines to govern the planning and design processes for design project s. Similar to those guidelines, the University of Florida (UF) developed its own design guidelines for different facilities on and off campus. This case study will explore those guidelines for the renovation and addition to a research library on the UF cam pus. In addition, the study will explore end Statement of Purpose The purpose of this case study is to conduct a post occupancy evaluation (POE) of a renovated research library facility, Library West (LW), on the University of Florida (UF) campus four years after certificate of occupancy (CO). The project was planned and completed following design guidelines prepared by the Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) office at UF. The method for the planning process was similar to the GSA method described earlier, since it was a comprehensive and complex process. Using th e list of requirements prepared by a library

PAGE 18

18 Request for Proposal (RFP) document that was posted on their website for architectural firms to submit proposals for the p roject The submittals all included previous work experience and qualifications. After interviewing four short listed applicants, design and construction teams were then selected to design and build the library. This study investigates the value of the FP& C guidelines and aims to discover how this comprehensive approach contributed to a successful building project from the end users point of view. In order to do this, key participants in the planning process were interviewed to determine their satisfaction with the planning process. These participants included the former Director of addition, the study evaluates to what degree the final building design of the LW is c onsistent with the objectives set forth in the RFP. All departments in LW were investigated except the technical services that are located outside the LW building, to determine if both the staff members and students are satisfied with the functional, psych ological, technical, and ambient dimensions of the building. These four dimensions are a part of theoretical framework of the study that will be described in detail in methods c hapter. Students and staff members were administered slightly different user sa tisfaction surveys, since they use the library for different purposes. The Problem Like other schools and universities across the United States, the UF strives for excellence in science and education. Over the last 25 years, UF diversified and expanded in to one of the top universities in the nation. UF is a leading public research university situated in what Money magazine calls "the best place to live" in the United States. With a focus on excellence in research, teaching, technology and athletics, the Un iversity of Florida will certainly remain a leader in higher education (University of Florida, 2008)

PAGE 19

19 One of the main buildings on the UF campus is Library West. The original building opened in 1967 and was later extensively renovated in 2006 to fit the ever growing collections and visitors. The library houses graduate collections in humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences (George A. Smathers Libraries, 2006). The administration encountered many challenges in preparing the list of requirements for the LW renovation and addition project For example, Dale Canelas, the Director, wrote: In an attempt to have our cake and eat it too (or at least to have both collections AND users in the same building), we have elected to move some units out of Libr ary West so that the remaining collections and services will be fully accessible to students and faculty (George A. Smathers Library, Library News, 2002, p.III) Likewise the architectural firms Long and Associates Architects/Engineers, Inc., and Ross Bar ney and Jankowski Architects, encountered some problems when developing the program documents and developing the final design, including changes of requirements and budget, and dealing with the existing conditions of the old building. These problems no dou bt are due to many factors. The focus of this study is to examine how much information was gathered about the staff members and end user needs in the form of a written program and how this information was applied to the physical design and layout of the building. According to Zeisel (2006) and Gifford (2007), building users are rarely in contact with the designer and even with the payi ng client, and that may have occurred with the LW project. Zeisel and Gifford contend that the quality of the final design and user satisfaction are directly related to the quality of the information gathering from the end users and used as a part of the d esign decision making. In order to determine the success of the planning and programming for LW, the researcher conducted a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) 3 of LW. The POE examined both the pre design 3 POE involves the evaluation of the performance of buildings; then the lessons learned from the study are used in future projects and the findings are used to improve the evaluated building and other built facilities, repairs, and renovation. ( White, 1991, p.1)

PAGE 20

20 research and programming that was accomplished, and me asured current end methods c hapter for further discussion. The framework with its four dimensions Functional, Technical, Ambient, and Psycholo gical provided the basis for the survey questions and general guidelines for this case study. Preliminary Research Q uestions The study focus ed on answering three main questions using multi method techniques to provide a systematic assessment of the plan ning and programming processes for the LW project, and to measure end users satisfaction with the building : 1. To what degree were the end users and staff members of LW involved in the planning and programming approach for LW? And how satisfied are they with the final design results? In order to test this, key client and design professional participants were invited to participate in in depth unstructured interviews where they were asked to share their thoughts, opinions, and accounts about the planning and d esign process of the LW project. 2. To what degree was the initial program that was prepared by FP&C carried out in the layout of the new building of LW? To explore th is question content analysis 4 of the various space requirements listed in the RFP the fin al architectural program documents and final building were tabulated and compared to determine how much of the RFP was evident. 3. To what degree were the end users and staff members of LW satisfied with the new building? To measure this, two surveys were administrated to explore staff members and 4 Content analysis is a technique for syst ematically describing the form and content of written or spoken materials, and is frequently used to verify the qualitative success of mass study. (Summer & Summer, 2002, p.362)

PAGE 21

21 end The surveys were adapte d from a case study conducted by Lamar (2007) on anothe r UF campus library and additional modifications were made after a pilot study test on a small group of participants from the Architectural and Fine Arts library (AFA). Significance In the past, according to Zeisel (2006), Nasar and Preiser (2007) and oth er scholars, a design process was considered a linear process made up of five design stages: program, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and construction administration. However, this concept is no longer accepted within academia and the profession. A new direction in design and probl em solving adapted a new model for design processes as one continuous cyclical process (Zeisel, 2006). According to Preiser (2005), this design model is referred to as Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) (Preiser, W. F. E., 2005, pp.16 20) and (Nasar, J. L. & Preiser, W. (Eds.), 2007, pp.63 66). The new model included the same five design stages from the liner model but introduced two new stages, pre design research and post occupancy evaluation. The present case study embraced this idea by presenting important findings that defined the design problem for LW using this cyclical process. In addition, the study explored the necessary steps to provide a complete solution to the design problem for LW base d on knowledge based design concepts. Definitions Definitions of terms used throughout the text allow the reader to better understand the content are a as follow s : Planning and Programming Process es The National C ouncil of Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) defined programming as

PAGE 22

22 (Botti Salitsky, 2009, p.2). Further programming is outlined by the American Institu te of Architects (AIA manual ) and described by the I nternational Organizations for Standardizations (ISO) as an international standard (Preiser, W.E.F., 2005 p.17 ). According to White (1972) planning and programming process es for a design project start with gathering, analyzing, organizing, and presenting information pertinent to the design problem. Both qualitative and quantitative information are involved in the processes. Palmar (1981) identif ies the main sources of information used in the programming processes as one or more of the following : observation of similar facilities, literature on facility type, user needs, Once th is information is gath ered, it can be categorized into three main factors. The first factor is the physical factor that includes unit size, total space, space organization, functions, configuration, shell design, structure massing, environmental control, lighting systems, and m echanical systems. The s econd factor is the human and social influence that includes objectives of the project, activities, values user scheduling, operation and maintenance, and comfort requirement. The t hird factor is the external factor that might inc lude energy price and supplies climate, site conditions and selection, solar access, codes and standards, cost of materials and equipment and alternative energy sources. Once the information is gathered and categorized, the programming process es bec omes a two phase process related to the two stages of design schematic design and design development ( Pea, NetLibrary, & Parshall 2001). In this case study the two phases or stages refer to the FP&C program and the final architectural program s e e m et hods c hapter for further discussion.

PAGE 23

23 A ction R esearch (AR) Subjective Assessment Framework This case study is similar to Lamar (2007) case study which expanded upon the synthesized habitability framework developed by Preiser and Vischer, among others, for conducting post occupancy evaluations (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, p. 5). Their framework consists of 1) Technical: health, safety and security performance; 2) Functional: efficiency and work flow performance; and 3) Behavioral: psy chological, social, cultural, and aesthetic performance (Preiser, et. al., 2005, p.5). Technical performance of a building relates to building of the art knowledge about building typ Saver Standards: Architectural Design Data (1997) by Crosbie, Callender, Watson, and Baerman (Preiser, 2005, p. 5). Behavioral performance relates to the research based design guidelines, such a s social interaction, privacy, sense of community, and sense of belonging (Preiser, W. 1988). Lamar (2007) significantly modified the habitability framework to include the specific contextual goals of the Fredric G. Levin College of Law ( LCoL ) evaluation a nd the A ction R esearch approach of the project Within this study f our categories of building performance dimensions were the basis for determining user satisfaction with in the LCoL building design. The dimensions included under Technical and Functional we re influenced by Preiser and Vischer. However, the Psychological category was renamed from the Behavioral to reflect the s pecific contextual focus and process. Ambient was also added to the new framework. This category was integral to the LCoL user satisfa ction since it include d dimensions that interior designers used while producing LCoL designs. By using the AR Subjective Assessment Framework numerous items within each dimension were evaluated. One of the objectives of this study was to gauge the user satisfaction

PAGE 24

24 for each dimension as well as their overall satisfaction with the building. Therefore, the items within each dimension were tabulated and combined to assess user satisf action for each respective classification For example, user satisfaction with the lighting, acoustics, and thermal comfort of the LW were combined to assess Technical satisfaction. Assumptions Underlying the Study There are several assumptions underlying this study. First, all the responses reported here are unbiased and reflected participants opinions Second, the sample size of end users was sufficient but not enough for statistical inference. T here were just too few staff members ( n =23) to compare their answers with those of students ( n =201). Third the LW research participants are a representative sample of university students across the University of Florida Fourth, the sample size of staff members was representative of all LW staff me mbers Delimitations The study focused only on departments that occupied the LW building. Any other departments and storage facilities were excluded from the study. Those departments such as technical services and storage facilities have minimum contact with the public and their services cover other libraries on campus. Therefore, they have a weak effect on end with LW. Since this is a case study, there are inherent limitations. The findings cannot be generalized without further study, selective and distorted (Sommer, 2001, p. 209). Therefore, the interview process with the key client and design professional participants was limited to their accounts of past events and in a few cases their own written documents related to the project.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE Background According to Leighton and Weber (2008), research libraries serve specific purposes and academic objectives as follows: protecting books and collections; housing the books; accommodating study, research and writing activities of students, faculty and visiting scholars; housing staff members who select, acquire, organize, care for, and service the collections, and who aid readers in their information needs; accommodating ancillary functions such as photocopy s ervices, bibliographic instructions, audiovisual material preparation, and computer services; housing library administrations and business offices; and providing space for publicizing resources or services through exhibits, lectures, publications, manuscri pts, archives, and other library materials. Other functions may be added in particular institutions, for example, a GIS lab, media center, or language laboratory facilities (Leighton &Weber, pp.2 3, 2008). Besides these specific functions, research librar ies are important learning and socializing centers. The advancement of Internet technology and social networking Web sites attract more people who use the libraries more frequently now than prior to the digital era. These new conditions create increased d emand and use that can transform the libraries into crowded places with possible delays in potential services. This was the case with Library West at the University of Florida before the recent renovation and addition. L W was designated as the graduate r esearch library at the University of Florida. In the collection. Collections continued to grow at an accelerated pace and the two millionth volume was acquired in 1979. Later in 1993, the three millionth volumes were acquired. As the number of books acquired reached four million in 2003, an increasing number of books, journals, and

PAGE 26

26 microforms had to be placed in remote storage locations because of a lack of space (George A. Smathers Libraries, 2007) Defining L ibrary W est Problem Renovations and the addition to LW were designed to provide more storage and seating spaces needed and to refurbish the old building. In Dale Canelas, and her associates, felt they had exhausted all available resources to improve conditions in the building. The only option left was to expand the building from the north side and renovate the old building. The goal was to house the equivalent of four million volumes (books, journals, microforms, electronic, and multimedia formats), to seat 2,500 readers inside the building, and to provide a suitable working environment for its staff members After repeated calls for improvements, the University was able to refer the request to the Florida Board of Regents. Ten years later in 2001, the Board allocated funds for the project. However, the amount of money was not enough to build the ambitious 120,000 s quare foot addition. Instead, due to the limited budget, the stakeholders were forced to change their requirements multiple times, to reach 60,000 square feet for the addition and 1,600 seats for Construction (FP&C) office combined the list of spatial requirements prepared by the LW director and library associates and put it into a Request for Proposal (RFP) format. In 2002 the project was approved. The RFP was advertised publically to attract a rchitectural firms. From the many design firms who competed for the contract, four were shortlisted. This allowed them each to present their credentials and certifications to a review board of university and library administrators and FP&C. After careful deliberation, the architects s elected included Long and Associates of Tampa partnering with Ross Barney and Jankowski of Chicago. Long and Associates, who operated as the project architect, were

PAGE 27

27 responsible for the planning and schematic design of LW. In addition, they were responsible for the production of the final architectural program. Ross Barney and Jankowski, now Carol Ross Barney was a consulting firm on the project who specialized in designing libraries across the nation. Implementing Librar y West Program From the moment the project received funds, the library tracked the progress of implementing and executing the LW project and regularly published updates in the Library News journal. The following information was excerpted from Library N ews journal records from fall 2001 to fall 2007: 10 ): In July we received building planning funds from the state and will embark on the long awaited addition to Library West. The fun ding should provide 100,000 additional square feet to house collections and additional funding to upgrade study spaces for students and researchers. We are in the process of selecting an architect right now, and we are looking forward to working closely w ith him or her to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional space to support academic work in the humanities and social sciences. millionth volume. Records from 10 ): A 100,000 net square foot addition was approved, planning funding received, and we expect construction to begin in the late autumn. The selected architects are Ross Barney and Jankowski o f Chicago partnering with Long and Associates of Tampa. We expect the two buildings [ old and new ] to house a collection of four million volume equivalents (books, journals, microforms, electronic, and multimedia formats) and provide space for nearly 2,500 readers, creating an environment where scholars can move easily between books and journals and electronic, micro and multimedia formats by providing readily available service space for each. 10 ):

PAGE 28

28 A reduction in the size of the addition for Library West from 120,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. Since the original plan brought Judaica back to the central campus and fully utilized all of the space in the larger addition, we had to reduce something to fit in the smaller space. The growing importance of GIS to the use of both government data and traditional maps, makes bringing these two units together a good juxtaposition, one that should make research somewhat easier for scholars. Given the reduced space, that plan [ centralize service for four area studies collections] is clearly untenable, so we will move the four collections to Smathers Library and service them from that location. Records from Vol.13, issue 3, spring 2003 10 ): The core 1968 portion of the building, which will continue to be the major fraction of our total space, is desperately in need of renovation. Study spaces will support individual study, joint projects, dissertation w riting, and class instruction where humanities and social science faculty collaborate with reference and bibliographic librarians to instruct their classes in the bibliography and electronic, print, or multi media resources that support the academic purpos e of the class. The shelving areas, all compact shelving, will house approximately 1.5 million volumes as our primary humanities and social sciences resource. 10 ): Construction of the new Library West addition will commence near the end of the first semester. The building will be tuck pointed and sealed, have new windows and new environmental systems installed, receive new lighting, renovated elevators, and increased computing faci lities. There will be a research collection of about 1.5 million volumes and seats for 1,500 faculty, students, and staff members With a small cafe on the main floor, we expect this to be a welcoming facility for students studying the humanities and socia l sciences. Reference and current periodicals, along with some user seating and computers will be housed on the main floor of Smathers Library. Circulation and receipt of paged and ILL materials will be housed in Marston Science Library. Records from Vol.1 10 ): Construction on the Library West addition and renovation will begin early in 2004 and will conclude early in 2006.

PAGE 29

29 During the two years of construction, the Library West building will be closed. Services are being relocated to Smathers Library and the Marston Science Library. 10 ): Library staff members are retrieving materials from the off campus storage facility four ti mes per day Monday Friday and twice per day on weekends. The Government Documents staff members collections, and services have moved permanently to the first floor of the Marston Science Library. Staff members are being relocated to Smathers Library, Ma rston Science Library, and the off campus storage facility. 10 ): Except for the reference materials and current periodicals, Library West collections have been moved to a climate controlled facility called ALF (Auxiliary Library Facility) in northeast Gainesville. The new facility plus the existing off campus Limited Access Depository now houses all the books, journals, and microforms from the Library West collections plus infrequently used materials from all campus library collections. More than half of the Smathers Libraries collections are now located in these two facilities. 10 ): Simultaneous inte rior demolition of the existing building and the construction of the addition are continuing on schedule. 10 ): Mechanical, electrical and plumbing are all ahead of schedule. The building is expected to environmentally sensitive techniques. 10 ): Despite losing some ti me during the last hurricane season, the project remains on schedule to reopen in March or April. 10 ): Compact shelving installation began the week of January 9 and will continue for 18 weeks. 10 ):

PAGE 30

30 The building is in the final stages of construction. Substantial completion inspection has been completed for floors three through six. Records from Vol.16, 10 ): Staff members has moved into Library West, and is working hard to have all facilities, collections, and services in place for the beginning of fall semester. The book move began on June 8 and is progressing well. Since the building will hold 1.7 million volumes on comp act shelving, this is a large undertaking. The microforms move was a particular challenge because all microfilm reels, microfiche, and micro cards were removed from their cabinets and re shelved in specially designed shelves and cabinets that are part of t he compact shelving system. Group study rooms, along with faculty and graduate studies will be available for use but will not be assigned until fall semester. 10 ): Faculty and gra duate students, carrels on the second and fourth level are installed. Waiting for hardware upgrade which will keep the doors operational and secure, and expect to refit and assign them before the end of November. 10 ): Library West received gold certification from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. After the construction finished in 2007, the Librar y continued implementation and ref inement of services in the renovated and re occupied LW Among the processes being monitored are: hours of operation, service desks, assigned study spaces, open study spaces, instruction rooms, user hardware and software, and the relationship between the Library and Starbucks. That year, the Library also anticipated mandatory, systemic changes that would require staff commitment and attention that would have a significant impact on how users access resources and services (George A. Smathers Libra ries, 2006) However, no formal evaluation for the new building was conducted by the FP&C or the project architect to assess the

PAGE 31

31 program process and compare what was built with what was intended. This exploratory study assessed the planning and programming process for Library West to evaluate the design process and the new building. Program Related Studies The following sections represented major studies about program developments, pre design research, programming types, and post occupancy evaluation. Th e studies provided the basic knowledge required to identify the design problem and program type used for the LW project. Further, the program related studies provided the theoretical framework and general guidelines utilized to conduct the research. Social Design According to Robert Sommer social design is characterized as: Working with people rather than for them; involving people in the planning and management of the spaces around them; educating them to use the environment wisely and creatively to achie ve a harmonious balance between the social, physical larger organizations, which include the people for whom a project is planned (Gifford, 2002, p.468). The goals of social design may include: 1) physical settings match the needs and activities of their occupants; 2) satisfy building users; 3) change behavior s such as productivity and social ties; 4) enhance the occupants personal control; 5) facilitate social support; 6) imp rove way finding in the building (Gifford, 2002, p.468). According to Gifford (2002), the main reason for integrating social design in the design process is to bridge the gap between designers and occupants of a design project. The benefits of integratin g social design as standard practice for designers would benefit the client, the designers, and end users of the building. First, the client may spend less compared to other planning methods; an Australian study by Reizenstein (1982) suggested that social design can

PAGE 32

32 2002, p.481). Another stud y suggested that participatory planning does increase the like hood of a positive evaluation later (Gifford, 2002, p.482 ). In addition, the designers could get feedback for improvement in the design of the next building, extend and create more contacts, and save time and unwanted criticism. Finally the end users would most likely get a much more pleasant and habitable plac e to live, work or relax in and sense more control over the spaces they occupy. However, in the absence of legal requirements and fear of additional costs, designers are more reluctant to integrate social design as a standard practice (Gifford, 2002). Fol lowing social design stages in the design process, programming has both a technical side including site, costs, sources and funds and regulations; and a social side matching congruence and habitability, satisfaction, productivity, personal control, and so cial support. Programming Development In the past, architects designed buildings based both on intuition and available or obtainable information. With the introduction of programming methods, there was an effort at systematizing information collection t hrough the introduction of scientific techniques and an scientists from the fields of sociology, physiology and psychology started to work with architects and d esigners to solve social problems related to the built environment. Architects and designers adapted scientific and social science methods and techniques such as observations, interviews, surveys, and literature searches to eliminate and reduce the risk o f omitting valid information during the program phase of the project. Later, new methods such as focus group processes, participatory planning, and games (Kernohan et al, 1992) brought new understanding to

PAGE 33

33 architectural programming. One example of the use of these new approaches is the Participatory Action Research (PAR) 5 program approach. Since the building environment involves many complex variables, designers and programmers developed models or paradigms 6 to manage and process data collection and analys is. Some successful models were named after the programmer or designer who developed them. Each model has a different approach to programming, but still serves a similar purpose. olved in the programming process, and relies on key participants in the organization to generate the required programming information using the CRS 7 matrix (Parshall & Pea, 2001). Another example is in designing and implementing the program (Palmer, 1981, p.176). According to Palmer (1981), five steps are utilized to seek the most important information related to the design process: DATA COLLECTION This process includes r esearch and benchmarking, activities integrated into preliminary investigation including: observations, unstructured interviews, literature and record searches. DATA ANALYSIS The analytical procedures include: statistical analysis, function and activity analysis, socio physical analysis, space analysis, energy analysis and cost analysis. 5 PAR method place s the researcher in the position of co learner and put s a h eavy accent on community participation and the translation of research findings into action for education and change (Minkler, M., 2000, p.191). 6 According to White, the p th 7 Caudill Rowlett Scott known as CRS architectural firm in Houston, Texas

PAGE 34

34 DATA ORGANIZATION The organizational procedures include arranging data into related c omponents so that it can be visualized, weighted, measured and categorized. Two method sets are used: Relationship matrices and correlation diagrams are used to manipulate individual data elements so that the fundamental aspects of information can be rec ognized; Analytical cards and worksheets are used to facilitate and structure the collection and analysis of data and the decision making process. COMMUNICATION Three basic methods of communicating programming ideas are: the printed narrative, audio vi sual presentations and oral presentations. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES These techniques rely on behavioral sciences to aid in measurements of psychological and social variables. Scales used include attitude scales 8 rating charts, evaluation matrices and weig hting. Recent Federal studies recognize the importance of addressing other considerations to solve the design problem, including architectural accessibility for disabled users, historic preservation, environmental impacts, regulations and code requirements and more recently, sustainability. The studies also showed that designers have demonstrated that features intended to improve the sustainability of a building can enhance its mission in other ways. For example, daylight is sometimes considered an added s ustainability feature. To this end research illustrates that integrating natural lighting into a design actually reduces operating costs, improves the morale and productivity of occupants, and augments safety and security by providing light during power o 8 A special type of questionnaire designed to produce scores indicating the intensity and direction of a feeling about an object or event. Example : Likert type scale (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, pp.162 164).

PAGE 35

35 Pre Design Research Defining a design problem up front or early in the process is the most intricate and important part in solving the design problem. Of the many techniques used to define the design pro blem, pre design research is considered to be the most accurate and comprehensive. Pre design research (PDR), or social design research according to Gifford (2007), includes the social dimensions as well as the physical dimensions of the project that are c onsidered crucial to define the design problem in hand. The physical dimensions include preliminary studies of possible building site locations, costs, and regulations. The social dimensions deal with user satisfaction, productivity, personal control, and social support (Gifford, 2007, p.540). Even though PDR critics consider it time consuming and more expensive than traditional problem solving techniques, there are many advantages obtained from the use of PDR. First, it benefits the users when they parti cipate in the design process by giving them a sense of control, satisfying their needs, and producing positive public relations. Secondly, designers can benefit from the research by providing users with feedback for improvement in the design of the next bu ilding, possibly helping to save precious time. Finally, the paying client will avoid mistakes that would cost pp.537 538).Whatever the technique used to define th e design problem, the next step is to solve the identified problem. This is done using one of many program types. Programming Types Program types mentioned here were arranged from the very basic type that accommodate s a simple design problem to a comprehen sive program type that accommodate s a much larger and complex design problem. Studies by Hershberger (1999), Swann (2002), and Genat (2009) argued that every program model has been developed using one of the following basic programming types:

PAGE 36

36 Design b ased programming : is the most frequently used by designers. In this method, a client has already prepared a short program statement or client brief. The success of this tect as an interviewer, and the scope of the project (Hershberger, 1999, pp.7 14). This approach is most suitable for small scale projects, mainly residential. It might take a great deal of time for the designer who must respond with a new design if the cl ient is not in agreement with the first, second or even third attempted design solution. Knowledge b ased programming : t his new type of program developed using the systematic methods of science launched by the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA ) 9 This approach utilizes research techniques when little is known about the values, goals, and needs of persons in various divisions of an organization. Information gained from the various research approaches is assembled, statistically analyzed, and sum marized in a program document. The approach provides highly reliable information that is of considerable value to the high powered research methods to be solved ( Hershberger, 1999, pp.14 17). Agreement b ased programming : relies on the knowledge of several key individuals in works with a planning or building committee to arri ve at a mutually accepted set of design records, local site, climate data, and regulations. In addition the programmer seeks information from the client and users. Finally, t he programmer points out potential areas of conflict or inconsistency to arrive at an agreeable program statement. 9 Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) is a group of architects, interior designers, and social scientis ts

PAGE 37

37 Caudill Rowlett and Scott (CRS) an architectural firm located in Houston, Texas adapted this program approach specifically for educational buildings, and further developed what is now known as a problem seeking matrix with five programming principles: 1) Establish goals, 2) Collect and analyze facts, 3) Uncover and test concepts, 4) Determine needs, and 5) State the problem (Pea et al., 1977, 1987). These principals are used with regard to four architectural considerations Function, Form, Economy, and Time to define a comprehensive architectural problem (Parshall& Pea, 2001, pp. 38 47). One difficulty with the matrix is the possibility that a set of pre determined categories used by any organization to prepare the program regardless of the involvement of the designer, will be inadequately defined if the designer is not involved in the original process Another disadvantage of the CRS approach is how information is obtained and whether the committee is representative of the organization and its users (Hershberger, 1999, pp.17 25). Value b ased Programming : relies heavily on interv iewing and discussion sessions between architect and client to uncover the strongly held values and goals of the client. In addition, it employs interviews with community representatives to discover their understanding of the nature of the organization. Th is approach adopts systematic procedures such as surveys, questionnaires, and observations used in knowledge based programming whenever they are needed to ensure that the information obtained during programming is reliable and valid. In less crucial and sm all design projects, the less structured information gathering systems employed in design agreement based programming are utilized. The approach is influenced by the CRS programming method, but differs from it by u sing an eight value starting point Hersh berger used the acronym (TEST EACH) which stand for: Technological, Environmental, Safety, Temporal, Economical, Aesthetic, Cultural, and Human, rather than the four value categories in

PAGE 38

38 the CRS matrix. Each category is arranged according to priority withou t restrictions. This allows for both programmatic and design concepts to be introduced and considered by the designer, thereby assisting the designer in verifying what the client, user, and programmer consider to be the most important values and goals that unify the schematic design and design development (Hershberger, 1999, pp.25 34 & 56 57). Participatory a ction r esearch programming approach (PAR) : is a special case of Action Research (AR). AR is considered one of the methods used by designers and researc hers to involve participants in the planning process since designers who had been trained to design for people had difficulty designing with them (Sommer, 1983, p.21). Designers are trained to communicate visually and verbally with the public who might fin d it difficult for them to interpret and explain design ideas. Therefore AR helps to bridge this gap. AR was introduced by the social ecologist Kurt Lewin to combine the test of theory with application. Over the years, AR has come to cover a wide range of practices such as health and education (Genat, 2009, pp. 101 115). AR combines two goals in a single study: the advancement of knowledge through social science research and the improvement of a local situation by solving the real problem in a democratic w ay (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p.211). PAR is a participatory activity where the researchers and the designer equitably collaborate with the stakeholders. The project decision making goes through a spiral or cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecti ng in a systematic and documented study (Swann, 2002, p.55). The interaction of the stakeholder, researcher and designer is an iterative process from research, analysis, synthesis, execution, production, and evaluation to solve the design problem in a very efficient and equitable way (Swann, 2002, pp.52, 53).

PAGE 39

39 Based upon the review of literature, the a greement b ased programming approach was most likely applied for the LW project in its simplest form Within this structure a group of programmers or facilitato rs, including library director Dale Canales and her associates, prepared a list of requirements with assistance from FP&C. The list, after many revisions, was adapted by FP&C to become the RFP. Finally, the facilitators selected the architects and worked c losely with all key participants to implement and oversee the program. Post Occupancy Evaluation According to Gifford (2002), post al design approach uses impressions and behavior in the working setting. Many scholars and practitioners stress the importance of developing a systematic evalu ation of occupied buildings to eliminate the intuitive and subjective problem solving approach in design. Instead, the new problem solving approach or knowledge based approach utilizes post occupancy evaluation methods in design. John Zeisel (2006) explore d a unique design model that links all design steps in one continuous spiral. The model connects pre design research, program, schematic design, design development, construction documents, construction, and POE into one design process cycle, Figure 2 1. Fi gure 2 1 shows two design models: the old design model or linear model, and the new design model a cyclical model.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2 1. Linear design model ver. c yclical design model b model. and programming for a new building. POE methods and tools can be customized to include all user groups and all important activities occurring in the occupied building Such methods might include surveys, interviews, observations of behavior, and observations of traces. Some POEs are like traditional scientific experiments in that specific goals are identified in the design program, and the POE takes these goals as its hypothesis (Gifford, 2007, pp.548 550). An example of an empirical POE was conducted by Jenifer Lamar (2007). framework developed by Preiser (1983) and Vischer (1989), among ot hers, for conducting post occupancy evaluations (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, p. 5). Their framework consists of the following: 1) Technical including health, safety and security performance; 2) Functional which consists of efficiency and work flow performanc e; and 3) Behavioral including psychological,

PAGE 41

41 social, cultural, and aesthetic performance (Preiser, et. al., 2005, p.5). study significantly modified the habitability framework to include the specific contextual goals for interior design. Fo ur categories of building performance dimensions were the basis for see the discussion in m ethods c hapter. study focused on exploring the PAR programming approach, a different c omprehensive programming approach than the one used for the LW project. The literature provided the theoretical bas is framework and methods as the model for this study. The specific framework was first developed an d tested on a similar case study for the Legal Information Center (LIC) in the L evin College o f L aw (LCoL) again in order to develop a new model for future research and to establish a clear link between design model as mentioned above This link was not explicitly Summary The purpose of this literature review has been to give the reader background information about the Library West (LW) renovation and addition and to define the LW problem. The history of the Library was covered, as well as accounts of how LW was planned, de signed, and constructed. This information gives the reader a clear understanding of the steps taken toward accomplishing the project. Another purpose of this literature review has been to define social design and define its connection to the design proces s. The history of programming development for design projects, past and present was discussed PDR was also defined and its critical role in the design process was discussed. Further, different methods of architectural programming were presented so that th e agreement based approach used in planning the LW can be compared to other programming

PAGE 42

42 models. Finally, the literature review discusses the purpose and significance of conducting a POE. The history of the POE was outlined and relevant studies were present ed.

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Research Study Design This study is a quasi experimental Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) that assess ed the impact of the pre design and programming processes used in LW. The study is an exploratory so, the study is divided into three main steps that examine the planning and design processes of LW, as outlined in Figure 3 1 Figure 3 1 shows the sequence of LW project development with th e main stakeholders and participants in the project. Each step follow s a precise research method and combined represent s a multi method process Figure 3 1. Study d esign d iagram. The first step was to complete in depth unstructured interviews with four stakeholders involved in the LW planning process. The stakeholders include three previous project managers the previous Library Director, and the project architect Since all participants were heavily

PAGE 44

44 involved in the planning and programming process es for LW their thoughts and experience s provided an important source of information The interviews were purely qualitative and did not produce tangible statistical results. However, they provided a deeper understanding of the process from the particip general themes that developed during the process. The second step was to track the project program by comparing changes from the pre design and programming documents and the construction do cuments or as built drawings of LW using a content analysis 10 These documents include the Request for Proposal (RFP) for LW proposed by FP&C; program documents and drawings prepared by the project architect, Long and Associates; and as built drawings fro m the Physical Plant Department (PPD) at the University of Florida The objectives of content analysis were to track the major changes that had been made to the documents and to assess if the user needs were fulfilled. The third step was to evaluate the s atisfaction of research participants from two user groups, the LW staff members and its visitors. Two surveys were utilized since the groups use Technical, Functional Ambient, and Psychological, were measured to explore both the staff members and end users of LW ( Appendixes F & G). One assumption for using surveys is that if the results found that both groups were satisfied with the building, then the project would be considered successful. Another assumption is that if the RFP was carried through to the final building design t (UFIRB) reviewed the study proposal, the two surveys, and informed consent. An exemption 10 Content analysis is a technique for systematically describing the form and content of written or spoken materials f requently used for qualitative study of mass study (Summer & Summer, 2002, p.362)

PAGE 45

45 was granted to conduct the study since the rights and safety of the participants would not be harmed by the study. Appendixes A, B, and C are copies of the UFIRB exemption, the approved letters of informed consent, and the IRB form. Research Setting LW is the main l ibrary on campus and one of nine University of Florida libraries. Figure 3 2 shows the site map of the LW (renovation and addition). The original building for LW p remium as the university student population grew. As a result, LW had inadequate space for expansion. This was resolved when the university earmarked funds to renovate and enlarge the existing LW building. In December of 2003 Library West was closed so that both the renovation and new construction could begin. The newly renovated and enlarged L W opened in the summer of 2006 (George A. Smathers Libraries, 2007). This project added 60,000 NSF on three levels to the original building from the north side on six levels of the existing building, bringing the total to127, 867 NSF. In addition, the project renovated 67,867 NSF (Figure 3 2 and Figure 3 3). Figure 3 2. Site map of the LW (Renovation and Addition).

PAGE 46

46 Figure 3 3. LW floor plans first through six A) First level. B) Second level. C) Third level. D) Fourth level. E) Fifth level. F) Sixth level. [Adapted from FP&C, 2010]

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3 3. Continued

PAGE 48

48 Figure 3 3. Continue d Survey Design The surveys used in this study are derived LCoL at the University of Florida methodologies in the planning and programming process of a Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) project. L amar (2007) modified the habitability framework 11 to include theoretical framework assesse d four dimensions of the functional, technical, psychological, and 11 The h abitability framework was developed by Preiser and Vischer, for conducting post occupancy evaluations. Their framework consists of the 1) Technical: health, safety and security performance; 2) Functional: efficiency and work flow performance; and 3) Behavioral: psychological, soci al, cultural, and aesthetic performance (Preiser, et. al., 2005, p.5).

PAGE 49

49 ambient des ign characteristics of a building, and used them to build student and staff surveys in order to gauge their overall satisfaction with the building. Based on these four dimensions a principle theoretical framework ion with each dimension separately and combine them to assess the overall satisfaction with the building (Figure 3 4) Th e current study used similar questionnaires, procedures, and instruments to gauge LW staff members and end slightly modified after a pilot study was conducted Figure 3 4. Study t heoretical f ramework. Pilot Study Once the UFIRB exemption was granted, a pilot study was conducted to test the surveys on a small group of staff members and end users of another research library at the University of Florida, the Fine Arts and Architecture Library (AFA). The logic for cho osing AFA to conduct

PAGE 50

50 the pilot study is that the AFA and LW departmental structure and services are similar. Five participants from the staff members and six end users were sampled from AFA. The pilot study showed that both surveys needed minor adjustmen ts before distributing them to LW staff members and end us ers such reducing the length of the survey and adding more responses to multiple answers questions. Research Participants Sampling participants for staff members and end users surveys After the pilot study was conducted, the surveys were distributed to research participants who agreed to participate willingly. The participants included the LW current staff members and visitors to LW. According to staff record from LW, the current staff number at LW was documented at 68, and includes 28 from Humanities and the Social Sciences department, 11 from the Administrative Office, 2 from the Judaica Library, 4 from the Facilities Department, and 23 from the Access Support Department. On September 13, 2010 an Invitation email was sent to Dr. Rachel A. Schipper, LW Associate Dean, who circulated the email among LW staff members with a link to the web based survey. Follow up emails were sent once a week for three weeks to solicit the study and remind the staff members to participate. This method netted 23 (34%) responses. According to 2009 records from LW, there were 1,213,619 annual visitors to the facility. That number includes undergraduate, graduate students, faculty members, and alumni. At the beginning, the study sought to obtain a sample of 0.01 % of the annual visitors or 120 participants. The sample size for students and visitors can be estimated statistically using the formula (Agresti, 2009, p.126):

PAGE 51

51 Where: =.5, Z =1.96 for level 0.95 given M (Margin of error) = 100. Since a contact list of the visitors was not documented, a special flyer was distributed to LW visitors while they were at the library at different times during the day for approximately two weeks. The fly er was designed and distributed in accordance with LW administration (Appendix D). This method netted 201 responses from September 15, 201 1 to September 30 2011 However, not all participants completed or answered all the survey rating scale questions an d open ended questions. Results were not inclusive and were reported using the weighted average instead of the arithmetic mean of the sample. The weighted average or mean is similar to an arithmetic mean (the most common type of average), where instead of the data points contributing equally to the final average, data elements with a high weight contribute more to the weighted mean than do elements with a low weight following the formula: Where: n =7, w i and xi is non empty set of data. The common mean is a special case of the weighted mean where all data have equal weights, w i = w= 1. This detailed in findings chapter. Sampling Key Participants for the In Depth Interviews Four main participants in the planning and designing process of LW were invited to participate in the study. An email was sent out informing them of the research and asking if they would agree to participate, and briefing them about interview questions. The following individuals where emailed: three previous project managers of the LW project from FP&C, the

PAGE 52

52 project architect from Long and Associates, the previous Library West director during the addition and renovation project, and two associate directors. One of the three project managers, Mr. James Womak, and the two associate directors had since left their positions and are no longer affiliated with the university. Therefore, four participants, Ms. Christine Eastman, Ms. Bahar Armaghani, Mr Alexander Long, and Ms. Dale Canales, all agreed to be interviewed via phone conference or in person Once the participants replied, a date, time, and location was set up for the meeting. Procedures and Instruments In depth Interviews with Key Participants Four in depth interviews were conducted. With this technique, accounts and experiences were collected to gain a deeper understanding of the planning process. The sessions lasted approximately forty fiv e minutes to an hour in various locations and on conference phone calls. Each participant was sent an email that briefed them about the research and main interview questions, and asked if they would participate. At the beginning of the interview, the res earch participant was asked permission to digitally record the interview, with the understanding that a synopsis of the interview, along with the digital record, would be sent to them for final approval before it was used in the study. Only a few question s sent prior to the interview were asked during the session to keep the participant actively engaged or to clarify any points discussed. Examples of some of these questions are shown in Appendix H Comparison across RFP, Architect Program Document, and LW Building As discussed in the introduction, the pre design and programming processes used by Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) are several of the many responsibilities that assure a high quality building on and off the UF campus. As stated in t he functional responsibilities document (Facilities Planning and Construction, 2008):

PAGE 53

53 To deliver all major capital construction projects for all units of the University and all minor capital construction projects on behalf of the Board of Education and the design, bidding, and construction management is done within specific guidelines and procedures developed for the Chancellor by the Board of Education Office of Facilities Pl anning. Working closely with the Board of Education Office of Facilities Planning and with local user groups, it is our job to assure that the best possible project in terms of both function and quality is delivered. To develop, implement and update a ten year Comprehensive Master Plan for the basis for future project funding requests. To maintain an up to date inventory of space usage, within prescribed categories, for a ll buildings on and off campus for all university units including the IFAS Research Stations. The information gathered is used as a basis for our operational funding as well as justification for new facility requests. The first step for this project inclu ded examining the RFP. This document included general and specific guidelines for the addition and renovation of LW including project history, vision, description, goals, objectives, and general requirements, and the specific guidelines detailed by each d epartment (George A. Smathers Libraries, 2010). The RFP for LW was written by the previous library director as a list of requirements for the Board of Regents. Later FP&C adapted the document and published it in a formal RFP format. The document outlined the project history, vision, general description, goals, design objectives, and specific building requirements. Once the project was announced, interested design firms submitted their credentials. Upon receiving all interested inquiries, FP&C along with the client, reviewed the submissions and selected the top four qualified firms to be interviewed. These firms were invited to a public qualifications, and ability t o do the job in a way that is compliant with university standards. After the presentations, the committee ranked the teams thereby selecting the design team. One of the first tasks of the selected team was a design charrette that brought the design team, FP&C

PAGE 54

54 and the owner together for three days. During that time, working sessions were set up to discuss and heating systems. In addition, meetings were set up with various stakeholders in the project to verify the requirements listed in the RFP. In order to get official approval for the project, the outcome of the design charrette went through four committees which included Land U se, Landscape and Vegetatio n, Transportation and Historic Preservation. Next, the This study traced LW project guidelines proposed by FC&P and compared them with the final program as es tablished by the architect and the final constructed building to determine how much of the preliminary program was evident. Since each document was developed using a different method and formed in a different way, content analysis was required to evaluat e the results. In addition, the RFP did not state any specific space needs assessment, site analysis, programming list of spaces, etc. To establish the missing programming list of spaces, the study adapted State Requirements for Educational Facilities DO C version 6.1, April 1997. Minimum space requirements were calculated for the programming spaces requirements due to the limited spaces and budget for the LW project at that time. Once the programming list of spaces was established, measurements of the fin al building were taken using a laser tape measure and compared to the as built drawings to track the changes in the programmed spaces. The content analysis determined how much of the RFP was carried through to the final building. Excerpts from each progr amming document can be referenced in Appendix E Staff members and Student Satisfaction with LW Renovation and Addition Two survey instruments were used to assess the satisfaction of current student users and staff members work in LW. For students, the qu estions focused on their satisfaction with the study areas, general collection areas, and the circulation area. For the staff members questions

PAGE 55

55 focused on their satisfaction with their work space, adjacency, and comfort level in LW. All survey questions were derived from the PAR theoretical formwork that was designed and used equivalently for Lamar (2007) in the LCoL case study. There were 48 qu estions for the staff survey and 39 questions for the end users. Both surveys were Web based surveys created using SurveyMonkey.com, LLC web site The staff members satisfaction survey can be referenced in Appendix F and the end users satisfacti on survey can be referenced in Appendix G Limitations There are inherent limitations for each tool used in the study. However, multi method techniques can somewhat compensate for abnormalities in sampling and distribution. Such limitations are: The results of the content analysis of program documents are purely descriptive. They reveal the content and structure but not why they are that way; nor does the analysis reveal the impact of a communication upon the audience. (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p.185) In depth interviews with key participants will reveal the missing information. Results from more than one interviewer from in depth interviews may not be combined unless each has proceeded in the same manner (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p.131). Setting a co ding system will eliminate inconsistency in data collected. Questionnaires are not suitable for examining deeper levels of motivation or opinions on complex issues (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p.157). This limits the surveys conducted for this study. However, the in depth interviews and content analysis methods will clarify this matter. Summary The combination of research methods mentioned here will improve the quality of dat a collected and help to eliminate errors. This chapter discussed th is methodology, explaining the multi method approach to assess user satisfaction with the L W planning process and renovation and addition of the building The study w as divided into three distinct parts: 1) Interviews with key participants to ascertain satisfaction and assessment with

PAGE 56

56 the planning and design process. 2) Content analysis and comparison of the RFP, Long and Associates architectural program, and the final building, and 3) Surveys of users to determine satisfaction with the LW. Details of how research questions were answered have been provided, as well as an explanation of why the methods were chosen. The research setting was described to provide the read er a context. The method for choosing the research participants, the survey instruments, and an explanation of how they were created was discussed. In addition, the in depth interviews were discussed with an explanation of how were used in the study.

PAGE 57

57 C HAPTER 4 FINDINGS The purpose of this case study is to determine whether or not the programming approach for LW, after twenty years of planning for improvements, satisfies the expectations of its planners and users. To accomplish this, the research focused on three phases. First, in depth unstructured interviews were conducted with key participants involved in the planning and programming processes of LW. Next, content analyses were used to compare different phases of the programming documents to determine the percentage of user preferences carried through to the final building layout. Finally, user satisfaction with LW was ascertained by conducting surveys with staff members and end users. Exploring the Planning Process through Unstructured Interviews Rese arch q uestion o ne : T o what degree were the key participants staff members and end users of LW involved in the planning and programming approach for LW? H ow satisfied are they with the final design results? In order to test this, key participants including the library director, architect, and project facility planners were invited to participate in in depth unstructured interviews. They were asked to share their thoughts, opinions, and accounts about the plan ning and design process of the LW project. Interviews were arranged according to the three main steps outlined in the study design, which are: 1) Planning Process, Request for Proposal (RFP), 2) Programming Process (FP&C) and 3) Five Project Phases (Long a nd Associates). Excerpts from the interviews explain how the planning process for LW led to the RFP, which influenced and affected the design process and ultimately the final building. The interviewee names and descriptions of how they related to the LW pr oject follow: Dale Canelas was the former Director of Library West and she held this position for more than twenty years. She was the author of the list of space requirements for

PAGE 58

58 the LW project. Her insights are central since she was involved in all phases of the project. Alexander Long was the Project Architect and he is a Principal at Long and projects on the UF campus was a major reason for his being selected for the LW p roject. Christine Eastman was the FP&C Project Manager and Interior Designer of LW. Her role as a liaison for LW helped in reconciling conflicting issues that appeared once the project was under construction. Christine left FP&C during the construction p hase of the project Bahar Armaghani was the replacement Project Manager for LW and is currently Assistant Director of FP&C. She supervised the procurement phase of the LW project. Planning Process (RFP) The preparation of the RFP document(s) was lengthy and complicated. From the mid 19 the list of requirements changed at least twice before it took its final format as the RFP document. The changes of requirements were due to budget cuts, technolog y advances and a growing number of patrons and volume s. The interview and communications with Canelas explain the reasons behind the LW project, the planning participants, the vision and ambitions, the first draft of the List of Requirements for the LW project, the budget issues with the Board of Regents, an d the Final List of Requirements for the LW Project and RFP. Reasons behind the LW Project Canelas responded to the following question: During the planning phase of the LW project, what was the most important consideration, the books or the students? Ca nelas : Neither books nor students were more important. Library West is a research library. It serves the needs of faculty, graduate students, and undergrads. Undergrads outnumber everyone else, but this does not mean that libraries have no responsibility t o meet the needs of faculty and grad students. At the time, humanities researchers needed access to older materials

PAGE 59

59 that had not been moved to electronic formats, so maintaining a working scholarly collection of humanities and social science materials was of the utmost importance. Canelas : Undergraduate students were being thought of differently than in the past and assignments as well as access to many more computer s to facilitate their work. Canelas : Library staff members w ere being more involved by faculty in teaching students the bibliographic background for their assignments and they needed places where they could bring classes to do this. Graduate students and faculty both needed places where they could get away from interr uptions to focus on their research for example, cubicles that could be assigned while they worked on projects that required the use of library materials. We worked hard to fit all of those options into the building. Planning p articipants Canelas comment ed on the participation of staff members in the planning process in response to the following question. How much involvement did the staff members of LW have in creating the vision and program for LW? Canelas : I drafted a building program and circulated i t to all of the directors and department chairs including technical services personnel. We held a couple of large meetings and asked all staff members to comment. The first building program assumed an addition of about 130,000 square feet. It was put int o final shape after all of the stake holders had a chance to comment and discuss alternatives. Vision and a spirations As the Director of LW, what was your vision for and aspirations about the new building? Is the reality different from what you expected? If so how?

PAGE 60

60 Canelas : My original vision for Library West was for a much larger building, similar to many more faculty and graduate student specific service are as than the current cramped building permits. On the other hand, my original vision called for a library with much better academic functionality; support for e materials, library/research instruction, support for changing pedagogic customs for undergraduat es (such as assignment of group projects), better integration of print and electronic materials. I wanted to be able to provide different kinds of study areas for different needs quiet research oriented spaces for graduate students and faculty, group stu dy support, open and noisier spaces where undergrads would gather, etc. And finally, the building plan called strongly for an aesthetically pleasing environment where people would want to spend time. Most of this we achieved. W hat were the benchmarks or re ferences used to create the vision for LW? Canelas : One of the standards used by most research libraries is the book: Planning academic and Research Library Buildings by Philip D. Leighton, and David C. Weber. Obviously another was my background and experi ence in research libraries. I worked at both Northwestern and Stanford Universities before UF and I was involved in two major building projects the main library at Northwestern, a Skidmore, Owings and Merrill building designed by Walter Netsch, and the m ain library at Stanford, a Helmuth, Obata and Kassabaum project designed by project architect Jeanne Mcleamy. Gyo was the design consultant. Canelas : In the first case I served as the library liaison with the architect and in the second, my division was t he major building occupant so I was deeply involved from the original preparation of the project description to the building occupancy. I also was involved in several branch library projects at both institutions and as a library director; I visited librari es across the

PAGE 61

61 country to see what other research libraries were doing. It is really hard to quantify those years of experience in assessing what my benchmarks were. First d raft of List of r equirements for LW Project According to Long, project architect, he was given very specific requirements for the LW project. These program elements were in the form of the RFP, put together by FP&C. However, at various occasions throughout the development of this project between December 2001 and November 2002, changes were made to the program. Speaking with Canelas, the study inquired about these shifts. Canelas : The answer to the question is long and complicated. I wrote the original building program for Library West. It was for a 130,000 square foot addition. I circulated it to the assistant/associate library directors and to all of the department chairs whose departments would be housed in the new building, asking for their suggestions and recommendations. Most of them had never seen a building program before an finally got the go ahead, we were Okayed for 100,000 square feet. I rewrote the program, committee that selected bot h the architect and the construction firms to do a careful evaluation of what the existing building needed for upgrades. When they finished that assessment, new windows, new roof, new HVAC, etc, it was clear that there would not be enough money in the proj ect to increase the size of the building by 100,000 square feet. The university said it had no additional funding and refused to ask the BOR [ Board of Regions ] for more, so the project was cut in half. We had to rethink the program. Budget i ssues with the Board of Regents On budget issues with the board of regents, Canelas responded to interview questions sent to her before the interview. What was the amount of money allocated for the project?

PAGE 62

62 Canelas : ifferent administrations at UF The first time, we decided to put together the list of requirements for the LW addition, under Provost Mr. Robert Browning, during the 1980s, and the head of the FP&C, Mr. Brian Goldman. I wrote a list of requirements and as ked FP&C how much it could cost to build the building. Mr. Goldman gave me an estimate of around twenty three million dollars. The university sent this to the Florida Board of Regents; you need to remember that the board changed too. The boards listed it o years later! Canelas, by the time you got the approval, did you have to change the list of requirements? Canelas : Of course, by the time we had the approval it was the 1 990s; the advancement of Internet and computer technology. By 2000, we were buying resources electronically more than ever. Final l ist of r equirements for the LW Project and RFP At what point did you have to go back and trim the square footage? What you w rite here [ ], is that you had to drop the square footage for the new addition twice, from the original 120,000 sq. feet, and ending with 60,000 sq. feet of space. Why? Canelas : After the money was allocated, I spoke with the next person in charge at FP&C. He said that the money we had for the project was not enough, and we needed to change the program. So I went back to the drawing table again. At that time I wanted to c hange the program anyway. There were a lot of changes needed and the new program we submitted got the approval. Then they let me be involved in the project and put the document I wrote in RFP form. They also allowed me to interview the candidates for the project. I did interview four

PAGE 63

63 architectural firms and several construction firms [ these firms collaborated together for this project in compliance to FP&C guidelines ]. In drafting the program document, Carnelas explained that she completed benchmarking of precedent work, made observations in the library, and conducted surveys with the users. She was asked to describe how the library directors and librarians were involved in the process? Canelas : One of the standards used by most research libraries is the b ook: Planning academic and research library buildings by Philip D. Leighton, David C. Weber. Obviously another was my background and experience in research libraries. I worked at both Northwestern and Stanford universities before UF and I was involved in t wo major building projects the main library at Northwestern, a Skidmore, Owings and Merrill building designed by Walter Netsch and the main library at Stanford, a Helmuth, Obata and Kassabaum project designed by project architect Jeanne Mcleamy. Gyo was t he design consultant. In the first case the library liaison with the architect and in the second, my division was the major building occupant so I was deeply involved from the original preparation of the project description to the building occupancy. I als o was involved in several branch library projects at both institutions and as a library director; I visited libraries across the country to see what other research libraries were doing. Also Carnelas added that for drafting the program, she did some benchm arking of precedents, did some research looking at techniques used for research libraries monitored the stacks use in the library, used the statistics of users groups, and at some point asked library directors and librarians for their feedback. Programming Process (FP&C) Once the list of requirements was accepted by FP&C at the University of Florida and put into the unified RFP format, a public announcement was made to invite architectural and design

PAGE 64

64 firms to compete for the project. After delib eration, FP&C short listed four design firms by inviting each to present their credentials before determining the firm that would win the project. After these interviews, the decision was made to hire Long and Associates Architects/Engineers as a Project A rchitect for LW. This section focuses on the sequence of events that led to preparing the final RFP document, selecting the architect, starting the design charrette, and verifying the program document before moving forward to five phases of design develop ment. The RFP d ocument Referring to the Armaghani : For hiring an architect, an advertisement is posted throu gh the administrative weekly for a month. The firms that are interested in the project should fulfill requirements and meet the deadline of specific selection committees on campus, consisting of project manager, director of facility planning and constructi top four qualified firms that meet the minimum requirements will be interviewed. These firms are invited to a public presentation [ individually ]. The reason behind the presentation is to learn about the f university standards. The four firms after that are invited to present their credentials for two or more days to select the best solution for the project equipped with the best systems from mechanical, electrical, cooling and heating systems. For the first time, the design and layout of the building is discussed during that time The program template is used as a guideline for all participants in the charrette until one or two solutions are chosen by the committee. Selecting the a rchitect Long was asked what do you think were the reasons that you were chosen for the addition and renovation of the Library West project at the University of Florida?

PAGE 65

65 Long : Our firm was chosen based on our past experience with different projects at the University of Florida. In addition, we were involved in the renovation of historic buildings such as Weil Hall on campus. Our firm also has experience with a number of higher education buildings including library facilities. Design c harrette Long was asked after securing the LW project, your firm was involved in a design charrette; C an you describe this process with particular emphasis on how programming was discussed? Long : I was personally involved in the design charrette which lasted 3 days. At that event I met with different representatives from all the departments from LW to verify programmatic needs. A questionnaire was distributed to verify the real needs for the project such as the am ount of storage, the size of utilities, and the like. Program v erification Further, Long explained program verification with FP&C and stakeholders. Long : The program verification continued on past the design charrette, with a number of meetings with vario us stakeholders. This process lasted months. Five Project Phases (Long) Once the project was granted to Long and Associates Architects/Engineers, the project architect and FP&C had to reach a final design solution that stayed within the budget and buildi ng capacity required. During this phase, the project architect had to arrive at a final program for LW and reconcile it with FP&C before developing any design. After this, the design team carried out the final program through schematic design, design devel opment, construction documents, and construction. This next section focuses describes the sequence of proceedings that led to the delivery of the LW project.

PAGE 66

66 Final p rogram d ocument and d esign s olution Long was asked the following questions : After your research about the building was conducted, how did you go about creating the programming documents? Did you use the previous documents supplied by the library consultant [ Ross Barney Architects ] or Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C)? D id your firm refer to the RFP document for the LW project when writing the program? Long : After gaining a project, we either do program verification or program analysis. In the case of LW, we completed program verification since the program document was pr ovided to us by FP&C. We worked closely with different project managers from FP&C to reconcile two main issues at that time the building codes and the budget of the project. Change of r equirements In order to understand changes made throughout the proces s Long was asked, did your design team face any unusual challenges for the project, other than the budget? Long : Toward the end of the project, we were asked to fit a coffee shop for visitors inside the building. From the early stage of planning for the pr oject, the client envisioned a coffee shop similar to the one at Barnes and Noble bookstores where people shop for coffee while still enjoying using their time reading inside the library. This idea quickly vanished due to budget limitations. However, it ap peared on the discussion table toward the end of the project. Eventually we delivered what they wanted, and today you notice to the right of the main entrance a Starbucks coffee shop. Building Layout Research q uestion t wo: T o what degree was the initial program prepared by FP&C

PAGE 67

67 The focus in this section is on tabulating and comparing how many of the FP&C program or RFP requested spaces grouped by department were evident in the final architectural program and the final building. The results of the comparison were tabulated according to space needs at each department in the RFP, and compared to spaces that have the same description in the final program document and the new building. In other words, did the requests from the users actually become a reality? The spaces were grouped by each department listed in the FP&C document and labeled accordin g to that department as shown in Table 4 1. For example, budget and business services offices item s included three main spaces: business services officer, supervisor/accountant office, and staff members office/file room. Table 4 1 shows the number of space The results show that, in the FP&C document, 86.87% of the spaces ( n =160) listed were included in the final architectural program; however, the new building layout only included 76.87% of the spaces ( n =123) from the FP&C (Figure 4 1). The figure shows the difference in combined. The net square footage (NSF) of spaces included the new building layout were examined and compared following the same departmental structure of LW. Table 4 2 shows the NSF listed for each departmental space in each document. Based upon these results, the archite minimum NSF for LW stated in the FP&C document, while the final building incorporated 97.62% of the proposed NSF in FP&C document (Figure 4 2). The figure shows the difference in NSF for the FP&C, the archit

PAGE 68

68 Periodicals and Microforms department were re allocated to the Studies Area, almost equal to the 72,757 NSF differenc e from the FP&C program. Another significant difference is that 4,545 NSF from the Library Personnel Offices were distributed among the Multi Media Section, 3,686 NSF and Administration Offices 655 NSF. Changes and differences in the NSF allocation were anticipated since the FP&C program did not explicitly mention the required square footage for each space. Instead the FP&C program stated the space requirements from the number of occupants, furniture and equipment, and adjacency requirements that required more, the FP&C program may have modified some of the square footage to reflect changes in user needs and requirements or university regulations. Other than that, limited budget and funding, along w ith the unanticipated cost s for renovating the remaining parts of the building played a major role in limiting the NSF and even removing requirement list (in depth interviews section Final List of Requirements for the LW Project and RFP segment).

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 1. Comparison of programmed spaces for departments at LW. Department / Area FP&C Long and Assoc. LW n % n % n % Study a reas 10 6.3 42 30.2 37 30.1 Access s ervice s paces 13 8.1 14 10.1 12 9.8 General p ublic s paces 6 3.8 5 3.6 5 4.1 Collection management (CM) and h umanities and s ocial s ciences s ervice (H&SSS) d epartment s paces 5 3.1 10 7.2 10 8.1 H&SSS f aculty o ffice s ection 6 3.8 11 7.9 9 7.3 Multi m edia s paces 5 3.1 9 6.5 8 6.5 Library p ersonnel o ffices 10 6.3 8 5.8 8 6.5 Library s taff c ommon s paces 4 2.5 4 2.9 4 3.3 Facilities m aintenance o ffices 5 3.1 10 7.2 6 4.9 Periodicals and m icrofilms 3 1.9 9 6.5 8 6.5 Budget and b usiness s ervice o ffices 3 1.9 4 2.9 4 3.3 Administration o ffices 11 6.9 13 9.4 12 9.8 Total 160 100% 139 100% 123 100% n = spaces grouped by department listed RFP = Request for p Long and Assoc. = Long and Associates architects/engineers final architectural program LW = Library West building Figure 4 1. Compared spaces chart 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Study Areas Access Service Spaces General Public Spaces Collection management H&SSS Faculty Office Section Multi-Media Spaces Library Personnel Offices Library Staff Common Spaces Facilities Maintenance Offices Periodicals and Microfilms Budget and Business Service Offices Administration Offices Frequency Items RFP (n=160) Frequency Items Long & Ass. (n=139) Frequency Items Building (n=123)

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 2. Comparisons of NSF among LW departments Department / Area RFP Long and Ass. LW NSF NSF DIFF NSF DIFF Study a reas 22,546 88,104 65,558 95,303 72,757 Access s ervice s paces 2,930 3,910 980 5,622 2,692 General p ublic s paces 1,510 1,000 510 1,544 34 Collection management (CM) and h umanities and s ocial s ciences s ervice (H&SSS) d epartment s paces 1,920 1,650 270 1,484 436 H&SSS f aculty o ffice s ection 1,805 2,225 420 1,863 58 Multi m edia s paces 3,725 7,414 3,689 5,424 1,699 Library p ersonnel o ffices 5,800 1,255 4,545 1,639 4,161 Library s taff c ommon s paces 3,875 1,900 1,975 2,516 1,359 Facilities m aintenance o ffices 765 2,235 1,470 2,445 1,680 Periodicals and m icrofilms 81,611 7,884 73,727 5,429 76,182 Budget and b usiness s ervice o ffices 550 575 25 646 96 Administration o ffices 2,085 2,740 655 2,134 49 DIFF = Difference NSF = Net square footages RFP = NSF based on DOC m inimum requirements, April 1997 Long and Assoc. = NSF from final program document, November 2002 LW = Library West building measurements, September 2010 Figure 4 2. Variation in NSF of the p rograms and the b uilding 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Study Areas Access Service Spaces General Public Spaces Collection management H&SSS Faculty Offices Multi-Media Spaces Library Personnel Offices Library Staff Common Spaces Facilities Maintenance Offices Periodicals and Microfilms Budget and Business Service Offices Administration Offices RFP ( Based on DOC-April 1997) Minimum requirements

PAGE 71

71 Users Satisfaction Surveys Research Question Three : To what degree were the staff members and end users of LW satisfied with the new building? To measure this, two surveys were administrated to explore staff members satisfaction with the LW addition and renovation (Appendixes F and G). D ata Analysis The survey data analysis was completed to determine whether or not and to what degree the two user groups were satisfied with the LW building. As discussed in the methods chapter, ys. Even though the content of the surveys changed to fit the LW project, they still follow the exact theoretical framework. The theoretical framework consists of four dimensions as follows: Functional, Technical, Ambient, and Psychological. Each dimension contains many items that assess the design characteristics of a building. Table 4 3 shows the main items related to those dimensions. These items are combined and reported in one section for each dimension. Further, different statistical tests were conduc ted such inter reliability test and factor analysis to simplify the results from both surveys test and by weighting the results using the rating averages or weight ed mean. This method of statistical analysis is more comprehensive and accurate than other methods. Therefore, comparing this study to other POE studies would be more meaningful if other studies were analyzed using the same methods used in this study

PAGE 72

72 T able 4 3. Dimensions and main items Technical Functional Ambient Psychological Lighting Layout Interior finishes/style Privacy Acoustic Circulation Architectural elements Interaction Security Way finding Sense of exposure Sense of place Fire safety Furnishings Variety of spaces Sense of ownership ADA Sense of security Thermal Quality Sense of community LW Staff Member Survey Results The staff members survey results consist of: demographic descriptions, the planning process, overall satisfaction, and staff members survey statistics, reliability tests, and factor analysis. Demographics The sample consisted of 23 individuals from the following departments of LW: Public Ser vices, Collection Management, Administrative, Budget, and Facilities. Staff members were asked to respond to specific questions about their workspace including the amount of time they have occupied the new space, how much time they spend there and what ty pe of workspace they occupy (i.e. personal office, cubicle, etc.). First, t he staff members were asked to report how long they have worked in the new workspace since the renovation and addition of to LW. Sixteen of the staff members have worked at LW for m ore than four years (from the time LW reopened its doors after the addition and renovation). Seven of the staff members worked there for less than four years. The amount of time the staff members spends in the workspace during a typical week is illustrated in Table 4 4. The table shows that of the 22 participants, 14 of them spend more than 30 hours a week in their workspace.

PAGE 73

7 3 Table 4 4. Hours s pent in w orkspace per w eek s taff members survey Hours per week % n Between 30 40 35 8 Between 1 20 22 5 Between 20 30 13 3 Between 40 50 13 3 More than 50 13 3 n = 22 The description of personal workspaces (i.e. personal office, cubicle, etc.) is illustrated in Table 4 5. The table shows that the majority of the staff members worked in either enclosed private offices or open office spaces. Table 4 5. Personal workspace s taff members survey. Personal w orkspace % n Enclosed private office 65.2% 15 Workspace in open office and no partitions 17.4% 4 Cubicle with high partitions (5 ft or higher) 8.7% 2 Cubicle with low partitions (less than 5 ft) 4.3% 1 Enclosed office shared with other co workers 4.3% 1 n = 23 Planning Process Of the 23 staff members who participated in this study, eight (34.8%) participated in the planning process for the new LW building, and15 (65.2%) did not. The eight staff members who participated in the planning process for Library West were involved in one of the followi ng activities: pre design planning, planning and programming, and planning and construction, as illustrated in Table 4 6. The table shows more than half of the staff members were involved in the planning process without FP&C being involved. Table 4 6. Staff members participation in planning processes s taff members survey. Planning process % n Pre design planning with the a dministration at LW 62.5 5 Planning and programming with FP&C 37.5 3 Planning for c onstruction with (FP&C) 25 2 n = 8

PAGE 74

74 Based on a rating scale of 1 to 7, the staff members rated their involvement with the planning process for LW as demonstrated in Table 4 7 A rating average score of 1 2.5 is 4.5 is considered 7). The table shows that eight ( n =8) staff members were very unsatisfied with the involvement in the planning process of LW (Rating Average = 4.75, S.D = 1.345) Table 4 7. Staff members involvement with the planning process for LW s taff members survey. Category Rating a verage Standard d eviation Planning process 4.75 1.345 n = 8 Further, the staff members rated their level of satisfaction with the planning process for LW on a scale of 1 to 7. Table 4 8 illustrates their response. The table shows that eight staff members ( n =8) were very unsatisfied with the planning process of LW (Rating Average = 5.00, S.D. = 1.069) Table 4 8. Staff members satisfaction with the planning process for LW s taff members survey. Category Rating a verage Standard d eviation Planning process 5.00 1.069 n = 8 Finally, four out of eight members of the staff members interacted with a representative from the architectural firm (Long and Associates) that designed the building. Their collaboration was either by conducting an interview or by partic ipating in a survey about their workspace needs which was evaluated by the design team.

PAGE 75

75 Staff Summary Responses for each Conceptual Framework Dimension The LW staff survey examined four dimensions: Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological. Each dimension has specific questions to explore staff their respo nses were extracted and compared to all staff members responses to determine if their satisfaction in less or more than other staff members Staff m r esponses to t echnical d imension The survey asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about the technical aspects of the building and to rate their satisfaction with these on a 7 point scale, ranging from Table 4 9 and Figure 4 3). Table 4 9 and Figure 4 3 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including lighting, lighting control, acoustics, security, fire safety, ADAAG, and thermal quality and others. The staff members ( n = 23) were very satisfied with items under technical dimension as follows: security items including personal space security (Rating Average = 2.05, S.D. = 3.625), and lighting item including natural lighting inside the bui lding (Rating Average = 2.26, S.D. = 4.608). For all other items under the technical dimension, the staff members ( n = 23) were moderately satisfied (Rating Average = 2.59 4.29, S.D. = 2.968 1.633), these include: lighting items including natural light control, artificial lighting, task lighting, task lighting control, artificial lighting control, and lighting control; acoustic items including background noise (voices, noise from air ducts, etc.), acoustical privacy (ability to have a private conversati on, etc.), and acoustical disruptions (loud copiers, other conversations, etc.); security items including public spaces and storage spaces; fire safety items; thermal quality items including humidity, odors, and temperature; and access for the physically d isabled or ADA items.

PAGE 76

76 Of the 20 items under the Technical dimension, staff members satisfaction ranged from very satisfied (two items), to moderate satisfaction (18 items). Figure 4 4 shows percentages of for items under technical dimension The panning participants from the staff members ( n =8) rated their satisfaction with the technical aspects of the building using the same scales as other staff members ( n =15). Table 4 10 and Figure 4 4 show results from their rat ing averages compared with those of all staff members at LW. Based on the result presented in the Table 4 10 and Figure 4 5 the planning participants reported being very dissatisfied with items belonging to technical dimension such location and layout o staff members were moderately satisfied with the same items. Table 4 9. Staff members responses t echnical dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Security (personal) 2.05 3.625 Natural lighting 2.26 4.608 Security (public) 2.59 2.968 Fire safety 2.59 2.734 Humidity 2.77 3.185 Acoustic (background noise) 3.05 1.952 Security (storage) 3.18 1.574 ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines) 3.18 2.478 Acoustic (disruptions) 3.32 2.34 Odors 3.45 2.61 Acoustic (other) 3.5 2.545 Natural lighting control 3.52 2.628 Artificial lighting 3.65 1.89 Temperature 3.68 1.464 Acoustic (privacy) 3.77 0.9 Acoustic quality 3.77 2.116 Task lighting 4 1.291 Task lighting control 4.09 1.464 Artificial lighting control 4.17 1.604 Lighting quality 4.29 1.633

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 3. Staff members responses technical dimension. Figure 4 4. Technical items satisfaction percentages distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Security (personal) Natural Lighting Security (Public) Fire Safety Humidity Acoustic (background noise) Security (Storage) ADAAG Acoustic (disruptions) Odors Acoustic (other) Natural Lighting Control Artificial Lighting Temperature Acoustic (privacy) Acoustic Quality Task Lighting Task Lighting Control Artificial Lighting Control Lighting Quality Staff responses Technical dimension 2 10% 18 90% 0 0% Very Satisfied Moderate Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 10. Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses t echnical dimension. Technical items Rating average Difference Planning participants ( n =8) Other staff members ( n =15) Natural lighting control 5.00 2.73 2.27 Artificial lighting control 5.50 3.47 2.03 Security (storage) 4.13 2.64 1.49 Task lighting control 5.00 3.57 1.43 Task lighting 4.88 3.46 1.42 Natural lighting 3.00 1.87 1.13 Artificial lighting 4.38 3.27 1.11 Acoustic quality 4.38 3.43 0.95 ADAAG 3.63 2.93 0.70 Odors 3.88 3.21 0.67 Fire safety 2.88 2.43 0.45 Temperature 3.75 3.64 0.11 Acoustic (disruptions) 3.25 3.36 0.11 Security (public) 2.50 2.64 0.14 Acoustic (other) 3.25 3.67 0.42 Acoustic (background noise) 2.63 3.29 0.66 Security (personal) 1.63 2.29 0.66 Humidity 2.25 3.07 0.82 Acoustic (privacy) 3.25 4.07 0.82 Lighting quality 3.50 4.77 1.27 Figure 4 5. Planning participants compare to all staff members responses technical dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Natural Lighting Control Artificial Lighting Control Security (Storage) Task Lighting Control Task Lighting Natural Lighting Artificial Lighting Acoustic Quality ADAAG Odors Fire Safety Temperature Acoustic (disruptions) Security (Public) Acoustic (other) Acoustic (background noise) Security (personal) Humidity Acoustic (privacy) Lighting Quality other staff planning paricipants

PAGE 79

79 Staff m r esponses to f unctional d imensions The survey asked the staff members participants to respond to a series of questions about the functional aspects of the building. One question focused on specific space needs and wishes of staff members during the planning process been fulfilled Four (19%) responded yes, eleven (52.4%) were not sure, and six (28.6%) responded no. Their responses indicated that only a small group of staff members ( n =4) felt their workspace needs were addressed. Another question focused on the areas that were added to LW by the new construction but are not used after occupying the new building. Three of twenty one staff members (14.3%) responded yes, twelve (57.1%) were not sure, and six (28.6%) responded no. Their responses indicated the majority of the staff members are not sure or are not aware of unused areas in the building or simply they did not understand the question. In response to specific questions about issues related to the office furnishings that are important to staff members three staff members reported aerodynamic problems with office furniture, and one reported a problem with the circulation desk ( Appendix I ). Further, the staff members rated th eir responses to twenty functional statements on a 7 (Table 4 11 and Figure 4 6 ). Table 4 11 and Figure 4 6 show the overall results from this portion of the surve y with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including layout, circulation, way finding, and furnishings. The staff members ( n = 21) were very satisfied with layout items under functional dimension, including easy supervision by staff members without the sense of feeling exposed in a large impersonal space (Rating Average = 1.76, S.D. = 4), and distance between co workers (Rating Average = 2.43, S.D. = 3.109). The staff members ( n = 21) were moderately satisfied

PAGE 80

80 (Rating Average = 2.62 4.33, S.D. = 2.449 1.155) with the following items: location including work area, elevators, meeting rooms, stairways, and storage area; layout items including arrangement of offices and size, distance to other areas of activity (i.e. work area for sorting boo department layout, and layout in general; circulation item including general circulation and circulation of access area; and furnishing items including furniture comfort and adjustment. The staff members ( n = 21) were very dissatisfied with one item from functional dimensions, the office furnishings, including the new furniture for the renovated spaces (Rating Average = 4.52, S.D. = 2.309). However, this finding is too cl ose to Rating Average = 4.5 which indicate a moderate satisfaction with the LW. Of the 21 items under the f unctional dimension, staff satisfaction varied from very satisfied (2 items), to moderate satisfaction (19 items). Figure 4 7 shows percentages of satisfaction distribution for ite ms under functional dimension. The panning participants from the staff members ( n =8) rated their satisfaction with the functional dimension using the same scales as other staff members ( n =15). Table 4 12 and Figure 4 8 show results from their Rating Averages compared with those of other staff members Based on the result presented in the Table 4 12 and Figure 4 8 the planning participants reported being very dissatisfied with items belong ing to functional d imension such as location staff members were moderately satisfied with the same items.

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 11. Staff members responses f unctional dimension. Category Rati ng average Standard deviation Layout (supervisor) 1.76 4 Layout (co worker) 2.43 3.109 Location (work area) 2.57 2.449 Location (elevator) 2.62 2.449 Layout (size) 2.71 2.38 Location (meeting rooms) 2.71 3.055 General layout 2.76 2.309 Location (stairways) 2.81 2.16 Layout (arrangement) 2.86 2 Layout (area of activity) 2.95 2.646 Layout (personal storage) 3.05 1.633 Circulation 3.1 2.16 Location (rest rooms) 3.14 1.732 Furniture comfort 3.19 2.517 Layout (department) 3.24 2.449 Circulation access 3.38 2 Furniture adjustment 3.52 2.236 Location (storage) 3.8 1.215 Layout (deportment's storage) 4.1 2.16 Location 4.33 1.155 Office furnishings 4.52 2.309 Figure 4 6. Staff members responses functional dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Layout (Supervisor) Layout (co-worker) Location (work area) Location (elevator) Layout (size) Location (meeting rooms) General layout Location (stairways) Layout (arrangement) Layout (area of activity) Layout (personal storage) Circulation Location (rest rooms) Furniture Comfort Layout (department) Circulation Access Furniture Adjustment Location (storage) Location Office Furnishings Staff responses Functional dimension

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4 7. Functional items satisfaction percentages distribution Table 4 12. Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses f unctional dimension. Functional items Rating a verage Difference Planning participants ( n =8) Other staff members ( n =15) Location (storage) 4.88 3.08 1.80 Layout (deportment's storage) 5.13 3.46 1.67 Circulation access 4.25 2.85 1.40 Furniture adjustment 4.13 3.15 0.98 Location (stairways) 3.38 2.46 0.92 Location (rest rooms) 3.63 2.85 0.78 Office furnishings 5.00 4.23 0.77 Circulation (work area) 3.13 2.54 0.59 Layout (overall) 4.63 4.15 0.48 Circulation (building) 3.38 2.92 0.46 Layout (department) 3.50 3.08 0.42 Layout (supervisor) 2.00 1.62 0.38 Layout (personal storage) 3.25 2.92 0.33 Furniture comfort 3.38 3.08 0.30 Location (meeting rooms) 2.88 2.62 0.26 Location (elevator) 2.75 2.54 0.21 Layout (co worker) 2.50 2.38 0.12 Location (work area) 2.50 2.62 0.12 Layout (size) 2.63 2.77 0.14 Layout (arrangement) 2.75 2.92 0.17 Layout (area of activity) 2.75 3.08 0.33 2 10% 19 90% 0 0% Very Satisfied Moderate Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 8. Planning participants compare to all staff members responses functional dimension. Staff m r esponses to a mbient d imensions The staff members rated their response to twenty functional statements on a 7 point scale, 13 and Figure 4 9 ). Table 4 13 and Figure 4 9 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including interior finishes/style, architectural elements, sense of exposure, and variety of spaces. The staff members ( n = 21) were very satisfied w ith items under the ambient dimension such as: architectural elements including windows and views (Rating Average = 1.9, S.D. = 3.976), and interior finishing and style items including flooring materials (Rating Average = 2.2, S.D. = 2.082). For other item s under the ambient dimension, the staff members ( n = 21) were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Location (storage) Circulation Access Furniture Adjustment Location (stairways) Location (rest rooms) Office Furnishings Circulation (work area) Layout (overall) Circulation (building) Layout (department) Layout (Supervisor) Layout (personal storage) Furniture Comfort Location (meeting rooms) Location (elevator) Layout (co-worker) Location (work area) Layout (size) Layout (arrangement) Layout (area of activity) other staff planning paricipants

PAGE 84

84 moderately satisfied (Rating Average = 2.62 4.33, S.D. = 2.769 3.185) these include: interior finishing and style items including interior colors, aesthetic of surface materials, finishing of interior surface materials and aesthetics, colors, overall interior and aesthetic, floorings ; architectural elements including style, site, and entrance; sense of exposure items including moving through the building and staff members area; and variety of spaces item including public spaces. Finally, the staff members ( n = 21) were very dissatisfied (Rating Average = 4.57 5.24, S.D. = 1.414 3.266) with items under the ambient dimension such as: sense of exposure items including intimacy; and with var iety of spaces including flexibility of the building, variety of reading areas providing choices to fit the uses, mood or environment needs, variety of spaces within the library ranging from open areas of public activity to alcoves of semiprivate activity, and expressing the important values of knowledge and learning. Of the 22 item under the a mbient dimension, staff satisfaction varied from very satisfied (2 items), to moderate satisfaction (16 items), to very dissatisfied (4 items). Figure 4 10 shows perc The panning participants from the staff members ( n =8) rated their satisfaction with LW using the same scales as other staff members ( n =15). Table 4 14 and Figure 4 11 il lustrates results from their Rating Averages compared with those of all staff members at LW. Based on the result s presented in the Table 4 14 and Figure 4 11 the planning participants reported being moderately satisfied with items belong ing to the ambient dimension such colors, building site, surface and flooring materials, while the other staff members were very satisfied with the same items. In addition, the planning participants reported being moderately satisfied with items belong to ambient dim ension such entrance, variety of spaces including flexibility of the building, variety of spaces within the library ranging from open areas of public activity to

PAGE 85

85 alcoves of semiprivate activity, and variety of reading areas providing choices to fit the use s, mood or environment needs, and with staff members area and moving through the building, while the other staff members were very dissatisfied with these items. Table 4 13. a mbient dimension. Category Rating average Standard d eviation Architectural elements (windows/views) 1.9 3.976 Interior (flooring materials) 2.2 2.082 Interior (colors) 2.62 2.769 Aesthetic (surface materials) 2.62 2.769 Interior (surface materials) 2.65 1.414 Aesthetic (colors) 2.67 2.082 Interior (overall) 2.7 1.826 Aesthetic (overall) 2.95 2.116 Interior (furnishings) 3.05 2.769 Aesthetic (furnishings) 3.1 3.185 Architectural elements (style) 3.24 3 Architectural elements (site) 3.33 2 Aesthetic (flooring) 3.43 2.734 Sense of exposure (moving through) 3.95 1 Variety of spaces (large space) 4.14 1.915 Sense of exposure (staff members areas) 4.29 1.633 Architectural elements (entrance) 4.33 3.185 Flexible building 4.57 1.414 Sense of exposure (intimacy) 4.9 2.517 Express values 5 2.236 Sense of exposure (mood) 5.05 2.708 Variety of spaces (different spaces) 5.24 3.266

PAGE 86

86 Figure 4 9. Staff members responses ambient dimension. Figure 4 10. Ambient items satisfaction percentages distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interior (flooring materials) Interior (colors) Aesthetic (surface materials) Interior (surface materials) Aesthetic (colors) Interior (overall) Aesthetic (overall) Interior (furnishings) Aesthetic (furnishings) Architectural Elements (style) Architectural Elements (site) Aesthetic (flooring) Flexible Building Sense of Exposure (intimacy) Express Values Sense of Exposure (mood) Staff responses Ambient dimension 2 9% 16 73% 4 18% Very Satisfied Moderate Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 14. Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses a mbient dimension. Ambient items Rating average Difference Planning participants ( n =8) Other staff members ( n =15) Aesthetic (flooring) 4.38 2.85 1.53 Interior (furnishings) 3.86 2.62 1.24 Aesthetic (colors) 3.25 2.31 0.94 Interior (overall) 3.29 2.38 0.91 Architectural elements (site) 3.88 3.00 0.88 Interior (colors) 3.13 2.31 0.82 Aesthetic (surface materials) 3.13 2.31 0.82 Interior (flooring materials) 2.57 2.00 0.57 Interior (surface materials) 3.00 2.46 0.54 Aesthetic (furnishings) 3.38 2.92 0.46 Aesthetic (overall) 3.13 2.85 0.28 Architectural elements (windows/views) 2.00 1.85 0.15 Architectural elements (style) 3.25 3.23 0.02 Express values 4.88 5.08 0.20 Architectural elements (entrance) 4.13 4.46 0.33 Variety of spaces (different spaces) 5.00 5.38 0.38 Sense of exposure (intimacy) 4.63 5.08 0.45 Flexible building 4.25 4.77 0.52 Sense of exposure (mood) 4.38 5.46 1.08 Sense of exposure (staff members areas) 3.50 4.77 1.27 Sense of exposure (moving through) 3.00 4.29 1.29 Variety of spaces (large space) 3.00 4.85 1.85 Figure 4 11. Planning participants compare to all staff members responses ambient dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic (flooring) Interior (furnishings) Aesthetic (colors) Interior (overall) Interior (colors) Aesthetic (furnishings) Aesthetic (overall) Express Values Flexible Building other staff planning paricipants

PAGE 88

88 Staff m r esponses to p sychological d imensions The staff members rated their response to twenty psychological statements on a 7 point 4 15 and Figure 4 12 ). Table 4 15 and Figure 4 12 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including privacy, interaction, and sense of place, sense of ownership, sense of security, and sense of community. The s taff members ( n = 21) were moderately satisfied with three items under the psychological dimension such as: interaction items including interaction with other departments (Rating Average = 4.9, S.D. = 1.915), awareness of what others are working on (Rating Average = 4.38, S.D. = 2.16), and privacy (Rating Average = 4.33, S.D. = 2.517). The staff members ( n = 21) were very dissatisfied (Rating Average = 4.67 5.24, S.D. = 1.414 3.055) with the remaining eleven items belonging to the psychological dimensio n as follows: sense of community, space, ownership, and security items; with interaction items including ease of concentration, ability to interact with co workers, ability to coordinate tasks with others, to work effectively as a team, and to share inform ation quickly, or feeling productive at work; and with privacy items including ability to define personal space within the work area (i.e. flexibility to move furniture to suit needs; ability to personalize with photos or knick knacks, etc). Of the 14 item under the psychological dimension, staff satisfaction varied from moderate (3 items), to very dissatisfied satisfaction (11 items) Figure 4 13 shows percentages of staff psychological dimension. The panning participants from the staff members ( n =8) rated their satisfaction with LW using the same scales as other staff members ( n =15). Table 4 16 and Figure 4 1 4 show s results from their Rating Averages compared with those of all staff members at LW.

PAGE 89

89 Based on the result presented in the Table 4 16 and Figure 4 1 4 the planning participants reported being moderately satisfied with items belong ing to psychological dimension s such as interaction with other departments and awareness to what happen s around the office, while the other staff members were very dissatisfied with the same items. There was o nly one item that the planning participants reported being very dissatisfied with, privacy, whereas the other staff members reported it achieving a mod erate level of satisfaction Table 4 15. p sychological dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Interaction (other departments) 4.29 1.915 Privacy 4.33 2.517 Interaction (awareness) 4.38 2.16 Sense of community 4.67 1.414 Sense of space 4.76 2.517 Sense of ownership 4.76 1.633 Interaction (concentrate) 4.81 2.708 Interaction (co workers) 4.81 2.38 Sense of security 4.9 2 Personal space 4.9 1.722 Interaction (coordinate) 5 2.646 Interaction (team work) 5 2.34 Interaction (share information) 5.1 2.944 Interaction (productive) 5.24 3.055 Figure 4 12. Staff members responses psychological dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interaction (other departments) Privacy Interaction (awareness) Sense of Community Sense of Space Sense of Ownership Interaction (concentrate) Interaction (coworkers) Sense of Security Personal Space Interaction (coordinate) Interaction (team work) Interaction (share information) Interaction (productive) Staff responses Psychological dimension

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 13. Psychological items satisfaction percentages distribution Table 4 16. Planning participants weighed against all staff members responses p sychological dimension. Psychological items Rating average Difference Planning participants ( n =8) Other staff members ( n =15) Personal space 5.25 4.69 0.56 Sense of security 5.13 4.77 0.36 Privacy 4.5 4.23 0.27 Sense of space 4.75 4.77 0.02 Sense of ownership 4.75 4.77 0.02 Interaction (co workers) 4.75 4.85 0.10 Interaction (coordinate) 4.88 5.08 0.20 Sense of community 4.5 4.77 0.27 Interaction (concentrate) 4.63 4.92 0.29 Interaction (share information) 4.88 5.23 0.35 Interaction (team work) 4.75 5.17 0.42 Interaction (productive) 4.88 5.46 0.58 Interaction (other departments) 3.88 4.54 0.66 Interaction (awareness) 3.5 4.92 1.42 0 0% 3 21% 11 79% Very Satisfied Moderate Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 14. P lanning participants compare to all staff members responses psychological dimension. Staff Responses Overall Satisfaction Twenty one staff members reported their overall satisfaction with LW on a 7 point scale, ( Table 4 17). Table 4 13 shows their overall satisfaction rating for LW. Table 4 17. Overall staff members sat isfaction with LW s taff members survey Category Rating a verage Standard Deviation Library West 4.57 1.826 The staff members ( n = 21) were not satisfied (Rating Average = 4.57, S.D. = 1.826), but it should be noted this is very close to the moderately satisfied rating ( Rating Average = 4.5 ) with the LW building overall. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Personal Space Sense of Security Privacy Sense of Space Sense of Ownership Interaction (co-workers) Interaction (coordinate) Sense of Community Interaction (concentrate) Interaction (share information) Interaction (team work) Interaction (productive) Interaction (other departments) Interaction (awareness) other staff planning paricipants

PAGE 92

92 Furthermore, the staff members responded to a question about various items to be improved in future renovations of the LW building. Their response to this question is tabulat ed in Table 4 18. The table shows the main items concerning twenty staff members participants as follows: ten (50%) of the staff members complained about lack of storage space, nine (45%) of them reported problems with the copy room, stairways, and ventil ation, eight (40%) complained about temperature, seven (35%) reported problems with overall layout and noise level. Their responses highlight important issues to be solved in the future. Table 4 18. Items to improve in LW s taff members survey Item s % n Storage 50.0% 10 Copy r oom 45.0% 9 Stairways 45.0% 9 Ventilation 45.0% 9 Temperature 40.0% 8 Layout 35.0% 7 Noise l evels 35.0% 7 Furnishings 30.0% 6 Aesthetics 30.0% 6 Privacy 25.0% 5 Meeting rooms 20.0% 4 Study carrels 20.0% 4 Elevators 20.0% 4 Lighting 20.0% 4 Toilet r ooms 15.0% 3 Equipment 15.0% 3 Way finding 15.0% 3 Circulation 10.0% 2 None 5.0% 1 n = number of responses Finally, all the staff members were asked to add any additional comments. Only 6 staff members wrote their comments toward the end of the survey questions, for full comments see Appendix I One staff members commented: The College of Education Special Education Faculty hired a Professional Organization Specialist to work with them to organize their offices since they had tiny offices like ours. It was money well spent because it affected productivity, raised moral, and the faculty donated lots of materials to the Education Library that

PAGE 93

93 had to be discarded from their offices. The Organizer forced them to make hard choices and they did. This depa rtment was a whiz with grants and probably paid the professional with grant money It would be the best thing to happen, a real gift, if we could get a professional organizer to come in and create efficient offices with the outmoded, outdated office furniture we do have that could influence our productivity and how we think about ours elves as part of this large UF Staff Statistical Reliability Test To illustrate the reliability of the survey, the questions for each dimension or factor (Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological) are labeled. Then descri ptive data for each factor was generated using SPSS. Each factor scale was combined to run the Internal Consistency Reliability test 12 (for that factor alone, Table 4 19). The table shows that staff survey results achieve good to excellent reliabil ity. Table 4 19. Alpha ratings of all dimensions s taff members survey Factor n Alpha Technical 20 .848 Functional 21 .955 Ambient 22 .953 Psychological 14 .923 Total 77 .980 n = number of items tested for each dimension From running the Internal Consistency Reliability test, Appendix J displays item total statistical information about the scale as if it were calculated without each item. This allows us to gain some information on how individual items contribute to the who le dimension (Gliem, J. & Gliem, R., 2003). 12 in the scale. Based upon the formula = r*k / [1 + (k 1)r] where k is the number of items considered and r is the mean of the inter item correlations the size of alpha is determined by both the number of items in the scale and the mean inter item correlations. George and Mallery (2003) Ex cellent, > .8 Good, > .7 Acceptable, > .6 Questionable, > .5 Poor, and < .5

PAGE 94

94 Staff Statistical Factor Analysis Further analysis involves Exploratory Factor Analysis for each factor in order to determine the dimensionality of a scale and to make statements about the factors that are responsible for a set of observed responses (DeCoster, 1998). The Principle Componen ts method was used to extract the main components based on Eigenvalue (greater than 1) and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method. Five main components or factor loadings extracted the principle factor structure for the conceptual framework. All categories or dimensions were included. A rotated component matrix is displayed in Appendix K which shows the combination of all categories and the main five components. The scatter plot, Figure 4 1 5 shows the principle factor structure of all categories related to the three main components including items from all dimensions. Results from the Factor Analysis procedure support the results from the Internal Consistency Reliability test. After eliminating all the categories that have multiple loadings on m ore than one component, spurious variables, a simple factor structure emerged. The Rotated Component Matrix is displayed in Table 4 20 which shows the combination between the remaining categories and the main five components. A scatter plot, Figure 4 16, was generated from the matrix. The figure shows the simplest principle factor structure of the remaining categories for the three main components including items from all dimensions. The results from Factor Analysis still support the results from the Inter nal Consistency Reliability test. Finally, the categories from factor analysis that represent the first component, the strongest correlations, are combined in Figure 4 1 7 The figure shows the main categories of the staff members survey that contributed m ost to a strong correlation.

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 15. Principle factor structure of all categories Table 4 20. Simplest principle factor rotated component matrix s Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Aesthetic (overall) .988 Acoustic (disruptions) .978 Interaction (co workers) .974 Interaction (productive) .956 Interaction (share information) .949 Humidity .948 Interior (overall) .947 Location (meeting rooms) .947 Interior (furnishings) .945 Aesthetic (colors) .939 Interior (surface materials) .913 Circulation .907 Odors .899 Interaction (team work) .894 Express values .884 Interior (colors) .870

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 20. Continued. Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Aesthetic (surface materials) .863 ADA .812 Acoustic (other) .788 Architectural elements (windows/views) .957 Security (Public) .955 Layout (co worker) .948 Natural lighting .917 Personal space .908 Location (work area) .860 Layout (supervisor) .858 Interior (flooring materials) .857 Security (storage) .848 Location (elevator) .832 Natural lighting control .801 Layout (area of activity) .770 Acoustic (background noise) .728 Sense of space .967 Artificial lighting .964 Interaction (coordinate) .917 Privacy .913 Sense of exposure (intimacy) .898 Interaction (concentrate) .855 Variety of spaces (large space) .841 Variety of spaces (different spaces) .839 Interaction (awareness) .772 Task lighting .903 Architectural elements (entrance) .869 Interaction (other departments) .923 Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 4 16. Principle factor structure for remaining categories Figure 4 17. The main categories and dimensions with the strongest correlation survey.

PAGE 98

98 LW End Users Survey Results Similar to the staff members survey, the summary of end users survey results consist of: demographics, overall satisfaction, and end for the end users survey. Demographics The sample consisted of 201 individuals from different disciplines on and off campus at the University of Florida. Three of the participants were faculty members, 43 were graduate students, and five were other UF staff members two were from outside the university, and 123 others were UF students. The end users were asked to respond to specific questions about how much time they spend at LW during a typical week, what activities they participate in while at the library, and which areas they use while in LW. The amount of time the end users spend working or studying in LW during a typical week is illustrated in Table 4 21. The table shows that of the total number of respondents ( n =168) 43 of them spend less than 5 hours at LW, while the rest spend more than 5 hours a week at LW. Table 4 21. Hours spent in LW per week e nd users survey. Hours % n 5 to 10 hours 32.3% 54 11 to 25 hours 34.7% 58 Less than 5 hours 25.7% 43 26 to 35 hours 6.6% 11 More than 35 hours 1.2% 2 n = 168. Typical activities that the end users participate in while at Library West are illustrated in Table 4 22. The table shows that of 165 end users, some of them reported more than once, 157 (95.2%) were studying, 78 (47.3%) were using the computers, 65 ( 39.4%) were meeting with

PAGE 99

99 peers, 57 ( 32.7% ) were taking a break between classes, and 50 (30.3%) were searching for books or research materials. Table 4 22. Activities while in LW e nd users survey Activity % n Studying 95.2% 157 Using computers 47.3% 78 Meeting with peers 39.4% 65 Taking a break between classes 32.7% 54 Searching for books or research materials 30.3% 50 Working 19.4% 32 Returning books 17.0% 28 Socializing 17.0% 28 Meeting with librarians 1.8% 3 Other (please specify) 3.6% 6 n = 165 Areas or rooms in LW that end users typically use are illustrated in Table 4 23. The table shows that of the 162 end users, 73 ( 45.1%) use study carrels, 60 (37%) use reading rooms, and 39 (24.1%) use the circulation desk. Fewer end users used other spaces in LW such as book stacks ( n =26, or 13.6% ). 26 (16%) of the respondents reported using the book stacks, 22(13.6%) used graduate students study chambers, or microfilm area only four (2.5%). Table 4 23. Areas used in LW e nd users survey Area % n Study carrels 45.1% 73 Reading r ooms 37.0% 60 Circulation d esk 24.1% 39 Other (please specify) 22.8% 37 Private meeting rooms 18.5% 30 Book stacks 16.0% 26 Graduate student study chambers 13.6% 22 Reference d esk or l ibrarians offices 6.2% 10 Microfilm a rea 2.5% 4 Reference r oom 1.9% 3 Administrative office 0.0% 0 n = 162

PAGE 100

100 End or Each Conceptual Framework Dimension The LW end Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological. Each dimension includes specific questions to explore end End o Technical Dimensions The survey asked participants if they knew what to do in case of an emergency in the building. know for sure. Their response indicated that end users may not respon d appropriately in case of emergency. The survey asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about the technical aspects of the building and to rate their satisfaction with these on a 7 point scale, ranging from 1 4.5 is considered Table 4 24 and Figure 4 1 8 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including lighting, lighting control, acoustics, and thermal quality. The end users ( n = 150) were very satisfied with items under the technical dimension as follows: thermal quality items including humidity (Rating Average = 2.05, S.D. = 25.689 ) and odors (Rating Average = 2.22 S.D. = 23.648 ); lighting items including task lighting (Rating Average = 2.41, S.D. = 21.334 ) and natural lighting inside the building (Rating Average = 2.42 S.D. = 22.127 ). For all other items under the technical dimension, the end users ( n = 150) were moderately satisfied (Rating Average = 2.61 4.47, S.D. = 19.2 56 12.96) these include: lighting, including artificial lighting; thermal quality items including temperature; acoustics

PAGE 101

101 including background noise (voice, noise from the air duct, etc.), acoustical disruptions (copy machines, others' conversations, buzz from light fixtures, etc.), and acoustic quality of carrels, stacks, reading rooms, media rooms, and meeting rooms. The end users ( n = 150) were very dissatisfied with one item from the functional dimension lighting, including lighting quality of the s tacks, media room, carrels, meeting rooms, and reading rooms (Rating Average = 4.8 5.22 S.D. = 14.885 14.718 ). Of the 19 item under the technical dimension, end users satisfaction varied from very satisfied ( four items), to moderate satisfaction (10 i tems), to very dissatisfied ( five items). Figure 4 1 9 shows percentages of end ems under technical dimension. The faculty members and graduate students ( n =44) who participated rated their satisfaction with the technic al aspects of the building using the same scales as other end users ( n =156). Table 4 25 and Figure 4 20 show results from their Rating Averages compared with those of all end users at LW. Based on the result presented in the Table 4 25 and Figure 4 20 faculty members and graduate students were moderately satisfied with items belong ing to the technical dimension such as acoustic quality of reading rooms, stacks, and carrels while other end users were very dissatisfied with the same items. Also, faculty members and graduate students were moderately satisfied with temperature, acoustic disruption background noise, and artificial lighting, while the rest of the end users were very satisfied with the same items. The fact that faculty and graduates studies are separated from general study areas might lead to such discrepancy in the results here. The results for other technical dimension items for faculty members and graduate students almost matched the results for other end users.

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 24. End users resp onses t echnical dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Humidity 2.05 25.689 Odors 2.22 23.648 Task lighting 2.41 21.334 Natural lighting 2.42 22.127 Artificial lighting 2.61 19.256 Temperature 3.05 15.924 Acoustic (disruptions) 3.08 12.109 Acoustic (background noise) 3.21 11.968 Acoustic (background noise) 3.24 11.379 Acoustic quality (carrels) 4.18 14.409 Acoustic quality (stacks) 4.2 17.008 Acoustic quality (reading rooms) 4.31 12.752 Acoustic quality (media room) 4.39 15.703 Acoustic quality (meeting rooms) 4.47 12.96 Lighting quality (stacks) 4.8 14.885 Lighting quality (media room) 4.88 17.752 Lighting quality (Carrels) 5.01 15.587 Lighting quality (meeting rooms) 5.18 13.266 Lighting quality (reading rooms) 5.22 14.718 n = 150 Figure 4 18. End users responses technical dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Humidity Odors Task Lighting Natural Lighting Artificial Lighting Temperature Acoustic (disruptions) Acoustic (background noise) Acoustic (background noise) Acoustic Quality (carrels) Acoustic Quality (stacks) Acoustic Quality (reading rooms) Acoustic Quality (media room) Acoustic Quality (meeting rooms) Lighting Quality (stacks) Lighting Quality (media room) Lighting Quality (Carrels) Lighting Quality (meeting rooms) Lighting Quality (reading rooms) End users responses Technical dimension

PAGE 103

103 Figure 4 19. Technical items satisfaction percentages distribution end T able 4 25. Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses t echnical dimension. Technical items Rating average Difference Faculty and graduate ( n =44) Other end users ( n =156) Temperature 4.69 1.58 3.11 Acoustic (disruptions) 4.00 1.64 2.36 Acoustic (background noise) 3.00 1.27 1.73 Acoustic (background noise) 3.00 1.29 1.71 Acoustic quality (meeting rooms) 7.00 5.33 1.67 Artificial lighting 2.71 1.68 1.03 Odors 2.20 1.21 0.99 Humidity 1.55 1.10 0.45 Natural lighting 1.43 1.32 0.11 Task lighting 1.60 1.51 0.09 Acoustic quality (media room) 5.00 5.50 0.50 Lighting quality (reading rooms) 6.14 7.00 0.86 Lighting quality (Carrels) 5.80 7.00 1.20 Lighting quality (meeting rooms) 5.50 6.79 1.29 Acoustic quality (reading rooms) 4.00 5.33 1.33 Acoustic quality (stacks) 3.57 5.00 1.43 Acoustic quality (carrels) 3.40 5.24 1.84 Lighting quality (stacks) 5.00 7.00 2.00 Lighting quality (media room) 5.00 7.00 2.00 4 21% 10 53% 5 26% Very Satisfied Moderate Satisfaction Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 104

104 Figure 4 20. Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses technical dimension. End u sers r esponses to f unctional d imensions The survey asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about the functional aspects of the building. One question focused on experiencing glare on a computer sc reen (whether using a personal laptop computer or one of the library's computers). Of the end users ( n =164), 21(39.5%) did not experience any glare; 82 (50.6%) experience glare occasionally; 15 (9.3%) experience glare half the time; and five (3.1%) experie nce glare frequently. Their response indicated that it is highly possible an end user might experience glare on her/his computer screens in LW. Another question focused on the glare source when using computes at LW. Of the 142 end users, 47 (33.1%) reporte d that glare comes from artificial light, 33 (23.2%) from natural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Temperature Acoustic (disruptions) Artificial Lighting Odors Humidity Natural Lighting Task Lighting Lighting Quality (Carrels) Acoustic Quality (stacks) Acoustic Quality (carrels) Lighting Quality (stacks) other End-users graduates

PAGE 105

105 frequently most likely due to artificial lighting. Further, the end users rated their response to thirty three functional statements on a 7 point 4 26 and Figure 4 21 show s the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including layout, circulation, way finding, and furnishings. Results indicate that end users (n = 135) were very satisfied (Rating Average = 1.57 2.45, S.D. = 33.12 16.088) with items under the functional dimension as follows: layout items power/data connectivity, carrel and meeting room size, and odors; and way finding items including circulation and reference desk, rest rooms, book stacks, meeting rooms, copy area, and reference room. The end users (n = 135) were moderately satisfied (Rating Average = 2.51 3.84, S.D. = 14.763 9.71) with the following items: layout including location of book stacks way finding item including reading rooms, administration, microfilm, audio/visual, and foreign books; and furnishings items including comfort with the existing furniture, furniture adjustment, arrangement, and options. The end users (n = 135) were very dissatisfied with two items from the functional dimension, the layout and furnishings items. For the layout items, end users were dissatisfied with the overall l ayout of the library (Rating Average = 4.73, S.D. = 13.005) and with the crowded layout (Rating Average = 5.32, S.D. = 16.959). And for furnishings item, they were dissatisfied with the finishing of the furniture (Rating Average = 4.85, S.D. = 9.144).

PAGE 106

106 Of t he 33 item under the functional dimension, staff satisfaction varied from very satisfied (15 items), to moderate satisfaction (15 items), to very dissatisfied (3 items). Figure 4 22 shows percentages of end functional dimension. The faculty members and graduate students ( n =44) who participated rated their satisfaction with the functional aspects of the building using the same scales as other end users ( n =157). Table 4 27 and Figure 4 23 show results from th eir Rating Averages compared with those of all end users at LW. Based on the result s presented in the Table 4 27 and Figure 4 2 3 faculty members and graduate students reported being very satisfied with items belong to the functional dimension including: furniture options, comfortable study area, and overall layout, while the other end users were very dissatisfied with the same items. The results for other functional dimension items for faculty members and graduate students almost matched the results for o ther end users.

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 26. End users responses functional dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Way finding (circulation desk) 1.57 33.12 Way finding (reference desk) 1.74 29.154 Way finding (rest rooms) 1.98 23.824 Way finding (book stacks) 2.08 22.456 Location (elevators) 2.23 19.161 Way finding (meeting room) 2.26 16.959 Location (stairways) 2.28 18.605 Location (carrels) 2.29 18.183 Location (rest rooms) 2.3 18.732 Layout (carrels power/data connectivity) 2.31 17.774 Layout (carrels size) 2.33 18.289 Layout (meeting room size) 2.33 16.429 Location (meeting rooms) 2.38 16.762 Way finding (copy area) 2.41 17.649 Way finding (reference room) 2.45 16.088 Way finding (reading room) 2.51 14.763 Layout (book stacks) 2.54 16.339 Layout (carrels storage space) 2.54 16.345 Furniture comfort 2.54 16.481 Layout (reading rooms) 2.61 15.521 Furniture adjustments 2.62 16.537 Way finding (administration) 2.64 13.175 Way finding (microfilm) 2.67 13.587 Layout (other studies) 2.69 15.778 Location (copy areas) 2.73 12.98 Way finding (audio/visual) 2.93 10.861 Way finding (foreign books) 3.08 10.753 Furniture (arrangements) 3.2 11.385 Furniture (options) 3.52 10.463 Layout (comfortable study area) 3.84 9.71 Layout (overall) 4.73 13.005 Finishing 4.85 9.144 Layout (crowded) 5.32 16.959

PAGE 108

108 Figure 4 21. End users responses functional dimension. Figure 4 22. Functional items satisfaction percentages distribution end 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Way finding (circulation desk) Way finding (reference desk) Way finding (rest rooms) Way finding (book stacks) Location (elevators) Way finding (meeting room) Location (stairways) Location (carrels) Location (rest rooms) Layout (carrels size) Layout (meeting room size) Location (meeting rooms) Way finding (copy area) Way finding (reference room) Way finding (reading room) Layout (book stacks) Furniture Comfort Layout (reading rooms) Furniture Adjustments Way finding (administration) Way finding (microfilm) Layout (other studies) Location (copy areas) Way finding (audio/visual) Way finding (foreign books) Furniture (arrangements) Furniture (options) Layout (overall) Finishing Layout (crowded) End users responses Functional dimension 15 46% 15 45% 3 9% Very Satisfied Moderate Satisfaction Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 27. Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses functional dimension. Functional items Rating average Difference Faculty and graduate ( n =44) Other end users ( n =156) Location (copy areas) 2.50 1.21 1.29 Location (meeting rooms) 2.00 1.00 1.00 Layout (reading rooms) 1.86 1.00 0.86 Way finding (copy area) 2.09 1.27 0.82 Way finding (book stacks) 1.92 1.11 0.81 Location (elevators) 1.67 1.00 0.67 Location (stairways) 1.75 1.15 0.60 Layout (book stacks) 1.60 1.20 0.40 Way finding (microfilm) 1.60 1.36 0.24 Finishing 5.80 5.60 0.20 Way finding (audio/visual) 2.00 1.80 0.20 Layout (crowded) 7.00 7.00 0.00 Layout (carrels size) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Layout (carrels power/data connectivity) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Layout (meeting room size) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Location (rest rooms) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Location (carrels) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Way finding (circulation desk) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Way finding (reference desk) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Layout (other studies) 1.67 1.71 0.04 Way finding (foreign books) 2.00 2.07 0.07 Way finding (rest rooms) 1.00 1.11 0.11 Way finding (meeting room) 1.00 1.15 0.15 Layout (carrels storage space) 1.00 1.19 0.19 Furniture (arrangements) 2.50 2.75 0.25 Way finding (reference room) 1.00 1.29 0.29 Way finding (reading room) 1.00 1.32 0.32 Way finding (administration) 1.00 1.38 0.38 Furniture comfort 1.00 1.39 0.39 Furniture adjustments 1.17 1.86 0.69 Furniture (options) 2.50 3.35 0.85 Layout (comfortable study area) 1.00 4.00 3.00 Layout (overall) 1.00 6.20 5.20

PAGE 110

110 Figure 4 23. Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses functional dimension. End o Ambient Dimensions The end users rated their response to twenty functional statements on a 7 point scale, 28 and Figure 4 2 4 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including interior finishes/style, architectural elements, sense of exposure, and variety of spaces. The end users ( n =130) were very satisfied (Rati ng Average = 2.06 2.35 S.D. = 2.06 17.234 ) with items under the ambient dimension such as: architectural elements including style, entrance, windows and views, and site; and interior finishing and style items including surface and flooring materials, furnishings, colors, and overall interior. The end users ( n =130) were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Location (copy areas) Location (meeting rooms) Layout (reading rooms) Way finding (copy area) Way finding (book stacks) Location (elevators) Location (stairways) Layout (book stacks) Way finding (microfilm) Finishing Way finding (audio/visual) Layout (crowded) Layout (carrels size) Layout (meeting room size) Location (rest rooms) Location (carrels) Way finding (circulation desk) Way finding (reference desk) Layout (other studies) Way finding (foreign books) Way finding (rest rooms) Way finding (meeting room) Furniture (arrangements) Way finding (reference room) Way finding (reading room) Way finding (administration) Furniture Comfort Furniture Adjustments Furniture (options) Layout (overall) other End-users graduates

PAGE 111

111 very dissatisfied (Rating Average = 4.9 5.42, S.D. = 9.962 14.432 ) with items under ambient dimension such as: sense of exposure items including a clear understanding while moving w ithin environmental needs, intimacy, expressing the important values of knowledge and learning, and clearly visible from staff members areas as a means of bringing infor mation, services and people together; variety of spaces including a wide variety of large spaces and of reading areas, Of the 17 item under the ambient dimens ion, staff satisfaction varied from very satisfied (9 items), to very dissatisfied (8 items). Figure 4 2 5 shows percentages of end distribution for items under ambient dimension The faculty members and graduate students ( n =44) who part icipated rated their satisfaction with the ambient aspects of the building using the same scales as other end users ( n =157). Table 4 29 and Figure 4 2 6 show s results from their Rating Averages compared with those of all end users at LW. Based on the resul t s presented in the Table 4 29 and Figure 4 2 6 faculty members and graduate students were very satisfied with one item belong ing to the ambient dimension, moving through the building since graduate study area is separate from public study area while the other end users were also very dissatisfied with that item. The results for other ambient dimension items for faculty members and graduate students almost match ed the results for other end users

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 28. End users responses ambient dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Architectural elements (style) 2.06 2.06 Architectural elements (entrance) 2.07 21.897 Architectural elements (windows/views) 2.22 20.546 Interior (surface materials) 2.25 19.144 Interior (flooring materials) 2.26 19.222 Interior (furnishings) 2.31 18.234 Interior (colors) 2.34 18.416 Interior (overall) 2.34 18.016 Architectural elements (site) 2.35 17.234 Sense of exposure (moving through) 4.9 9.962 Sense of exposure (mood) 5.06 10.792 Express values 5.08 12.3 Variety of spaces (large space) 5.22 14.176 Sense of exposure (intimacy) 5.25 13.302 Flexible building 5.3 14.837 Sense of exposure (staff members areas) 5.35 14.103 Variety of spaces (different spaces) 5.42 14.432 Figure 4 24. End users responses ambient dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Architectural Elements (style) Architectural Elements (entrance) Architectural Elements (windows/views) Interior (surface materials) Interior (flooring materials) Interior (furnishings) Interior (colors) Interior (overall) Architectural Elements (site) Sense of Exposure (moving through) Sense of Exposure (mood) Express Values Variety of Spaces (large space) Sense of Exposure (intimacy) Flexible Building Sense of Exposure (staff areas) Variety of Spaces (different spaces) End users responses Ambient dimension

PAGE 113

113 Figure 4 25. Ambient items satisfaction percentages distribution end Table 4 29. Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses ambient dimension. Ambient items Rating average Difference Faculty and graduate ( n =44) Other end users ( n =156) Interior (overall) 1.67 1.00 0.67 Architectural elements (entrance) 1.50 1.12 0.38 Interior (colors) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Interior (surface materials) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Interior (furnishings) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Architectural elements (style) 1.00 1.00 0.00 Architectural elements (windows/views) 1.00 1.12 0.12 Architectural elements (site) 1.00 1.16 0.16 Interior (flooring materials) 1.00 1.17 0.17 Flexible building 6.00 6.75 0.75 Sense of exposure (mood) 5.50 6.38 0.88 Variety of spaces (large space) 5.00 6.54 1.54 Sense of exposure (staff members areas) 5.00 6.81 1.81 Variety of spaces (different spaces) 5.00 6.84 1.84 Express values 4.75 6.60 1.85 Sense of exposure (intimacy) 4.60 6.59 1.99 Sense of exposure (moving through) 2.50 6.11 3.61 9 53% 0 0% 8 47% Very Satisfied Moderate Satisfaction Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 114

114 Figure 4 26. Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses ambient dimension. End o Psychological Dimensions The end users rated their response to twenty functional statements on a 7 point scale, 30 and Figure 4 2 7 show the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed, including privacy, interaction, and sense of place, sense of ownership, sense of security, and sense of community. The end users ( n =130) were moderately satisfied (Rating Average = 3.06 3.25 S.D. = 9.589 8.121 ) with items under the psychological dimension such as: interaction items including interaction with other peers and awareness of what they are working on; privacy items; and sense of place, security, and ownership items. The end users ( n >130) were very dis satisfied (Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interior (overall) Architectural Elements (entrance) Interior (colors) Interior (surface materials) Interior (furnishings) Architectural Elements (style) Architectural Elements (windows/views) Architectural Elements (site) Interior (flooring materials) Flexible Building Sense of Exposure (mood) Variety of Spaces (large space) Sense of Exposure (staff areas) Variety of Spaces (different spaces) Express Values Sense of Exposure (intimacy) Sense of Exposure (moving through) other End-users graduates

PAGE 115

115 Average = 4.71 5.36, S.D. = 12.642 14.989 ) with items belonging to the psychological dimension as follows: interaction items including ease to concentrate, ability to block distractions, and to feel productive; and with sense of commun ity items. Of the 9 item under the psychological dimension, staff satisfaction varied from moderate (5 items), to very dissatisfied satisfaction (4 items). Figure 4 2 8 shows percentages of end satisfaction distribution for items under psychological dimension. The faculty members and graduate students ( n =44) who participated rated their satisfaction with the psychological aspects of the building using the same scales as other end users ( n =157). Table 4 31 and Figure 4 29 show results from their Rating Averages compared with those of all end users at LW. Based on the result presented in the Table 4 31 and Figure 4 2 9 faculty members and graduate students reported being moderately satisfied with items belong to psychologi cal dimension such ability to block distraction, concentrate, and to be productive, while the other end users reported being very dissatisfied with the same items. Faculty members and graduate students were moderately satisfied with one item, sense of owne rship, while the other end users were very satisfied with that item. The results for other psychological dimension items for faculty members and graduate students almost matched the results for other end users.

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 30. End users responses psycholo gical dimension. Category Rating average Standard deviation Sense of place 3.06 9.589 Sense of security 3.08 10.097 Interaction (with others) 3.14 10.081 Sense of ownership 3.24 8.301 Sense of privacy 3.25 8.121 Interaction (block distractions) 4.71 12.642 Interaction (concentrate) 4.98 11.495 Interaction (productive) 5.35 16.698 Sense of community 5.36 14.989 Figure 4 27. End users responses psychological dimension. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sense of Place Sense of Security Interaction (with others) Sense of Ownership Sense of Privacy Interaction (block distractions) Interaction (concentrate) Interaction (productive) Sense of Community End users responses Psychological dimension

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4 28. Psychological items satisfaction percentages distribution end Table 4 31. Faculty members and graduate students weighed against other end users responses p sychological dimension. Psychological items Rating average Difference Faculty and graduate ( n =44) Other end users ( n =156) Sense of ownership 3 1.25 1.75 Sense of place 2 1.4 0.60 Sense of security 2 1.73 0.27 Interaction (with others) 2.2 1.96 0.24 Sense of privacy 1.86 1.89 0.03 Interaction (block distractions) 4 5.5 1.50 Sense of community 5 7 2.00 Interaction (concentrate) 4 6.17 2.17 Interaction (productive) 4 6.59 2.59 0 0% 5 56% 4 44% Very Satisfied Moderate Satisfaction Very Dissatisfied

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4 29. Faculty members and graduate students compare to other end users responses psychological dimension. End Users Overall Satisfaction One hundred and thirty four end users reported their overall satisfaction with LW on a 7 Table 4 32 shows the overall satisfaction with LW. The score 2.51 indicated that the end users were v ery satisfied with LW. Table 4 32. Overall end e nd users survey Category Rating a verage Standard d eviation Library West 2.51 18.685 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sense of Ownership Sense of Place Sense of Security Interaction (with others) Sense of Privacy Interaction (block distractions) Sense of Community Interaction (concentrate) Interaction (productive) other End-users Graduate students

PAGE 119

119 Further, one survey question with multiple answers focused on items for improvement in LW in the future. Their responses to this question are tabulated in Table 4 33. The table shows four main items concerning the end users: 45.3% of them reported problems with noise levels ( n =58), 34.4%of them reported problems with temperature inside the building ( n =44), 30.5% reported problems with furnishings ( n =39), and 26.6% with rest rooms ( n =34). Their responses highlight important issues to be solved in the future. Finally, all the end users were asked to add any additional comments they might have Of the 63 responses, 22 requested more computers and seating, 15 were disturbed by noise, ten were annoyed because of the cold temperature, and seven requested more lights. Appendix L includes important comments and suggestions other than those mentioned here. Table 4 33. Items to improve in LW e nd users survey Items % n Reduce n oise l evels 45.3% 58 Too c old t emperature 34.4% 44 Furnishings 30.5% 39 Marinating r est r ooms 26.6% 34 Lighting 25.0% 32 Study carrels 21.1% 27 Layout 20.3% 26 Way finding 18.8% 24 Privacy 17.2% 22 Aesthetics 14.1% 18 Stairways 10.2% 13 Meeting rooms 9.4% 12 Copy r oom 7.8% 10 Storage 6.3% 8 Elevators 5.5% 7 Ventilation 5.5% 7 Equipment 4.7% 6 None 3.1% 4 Circulation 1.6% 2 n =128

PAGE 120

120 End Statistical Reliability Test Similar to staff statistical reliability test, descriptive data for each factor was generated using SPSS. The factor scales were then combined to run Internal Consistency Reliability tests for that factor alone (Tabl e 4 34 ). The table shows that the end users survey achieved excellent reliability. Table 4 34. Alpha ratings of all dimensions e nd user survey Factor n Alpha Technical 19 .949 Functional 33 .983 Ambient 17 .990 Psychological 9 .964 Total 78 .992 n = number of items tested for each dimension Based on running the Internal Consistency Reliability test Appendix M displays Item Total statistics information about the scale as if it were calculated without each item. This allows us to gain some information on how individual items contribute to the whole (Gliem, J. & Gliem, R. 2003). End Users Statistical Factor An alysis Further analysis involves Exploratory Factor Analysis for each factor in order to determine the dimensionality of a scale and to make statements about the factors that are responsible for a set of observed responses (DeCoster, 1998). The principle components method was used to extract main components based on Eigenvalue (greater than1) and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method. Five main components or factor loadings extracted the principle factor structure. All categories were included. The rotated component matrix is displayed in Appendix N which shows the combination of all categories and the main five components. The

PAGE 121

121 scatter plot, Figure 4 30 shows the principle factor structure of all categories related to the only two main componen ts after eliminating spurious variables. The results from Factor Analysis support the results from the Internal Consistency Reliability test and show that all the dimensions were equally important to determine the satisfaction level with the building. Afte r eliminating all the categories that have multiple loadings on more than one component, spurious variables, a simple factor structure emerged. The rotated component matrix is displayed in Table 4 35 which shows the combination between the remaining catego ries and the main two components. A scatter plot, Figure 4 31 was generated from the matrix. The figure shows the simplest principle factor structure for the remaining categories for the two main components. The results from Factor Analysis still support the results from the Internal Consistency Reliability test. Finally, the categories from factor analysis that represent the first component, the strongest correlations, are combined in Figure 4 32 The figure shows the main categories from the end users survey that contributed the most to a strong correlation. Figure 4 30. Principle factor structure of all categories end users survey.

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 35. Simplest principle factor rotated component matrix end users survey. Category Component 1 2 Architectural elements (style) .998 Way finding (meeting room) .997 Architectural elements (entrance) .987 Way finding (book stacks) .984 Humidity .982 Way finding (copy area) .981 Way finding (reading room) .981 Natural lighting .981 Architectural elements (site) .975 Way finding (reference room) .969 Way finding (rest rooms) .967 Architectural elements (windows/views) .966 Variety of spaces (different spaces) .953 Layout (meeting room size) .932 Sense of place .925 Way finding (microfilm) .922 Location (copy areas) .909 Layout (crowded) .894 Way finding (audio/visual) .873 Interaction (concentrate) .858 Acoustic quality (reading rooms) .996 Acoustic quality (media room) .994 Acoustic quality (stacks) .994 Acoustic quality (carrels) .993 Acoustic quality (meeting rooms) .977 Lighting quality (media room) .937

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4 31. Principle factor structure for remaining categories end users survey. Figure 4 32. The main categories and dimensions with the strongest correlation end survey.

PAGE 124

124 Summary This chapter presented the findings from three different methods: in depth unstructured interviews with the key participants, verification using content analysis of the FP&C document, program and building layout and end collectively show that the FP&C document was utilized during the programming and design process for the LW project. First, interview results indicated that the key participant s in the planning process satisfaction were moderate to very satisfy with the final outcome despite constraints of budget and time. Canelas in her own words said: hiring an a rchitect specialized in historic preservation. That person did not listen to our needs and In addition, a very high percentage of all building with exception of periodicals and microfilms. The decision was made by the administration to move most of the periodicals and microfilms to stacks area in order to provide more space for studies area and to avoid adding extra loads on the already stressed structure of the old building Finally, the results from the surveys demonstrate that the library staff members were moderately satisfied and the end users were very satisfied with LW based upon techn ical, functional, ambient, and psychological dimensions of the study conceptual framework. All groups of respondents made suggestions for improving the quality of the spaces in LW ( Appendixes I and L ).

PAGE 125

125 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION As discussed in the literature review chapter, PDR (Pre Design Research) and POE (Post Occupancy Evaluation) are two distinctive methods used to help designers and stakeholders to eliminate a subjective problem solving approach towards design. This study utilized POE methods to explore the planning and programming processes for Library West (LW) at the University of Florida, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative measures to determine the efficacy of the method. In depth interviews revealed that client and design key participants i n the planning and programming processes for LW are satisfied with the processes and the new building renovation and addition. Further, verification of the FP&C program prepared for the LW project revealed into the design of the final building. Finally, user satisfaction results for both and end survey revealed that end users in general are more satisfied than staff members with the new building. This result is curious given the fact that none of the end users were involved in the planning and programming processes for LW. Analyzing the In Depth Unstructured Interviews with Client and Design Participants Research Question One : To what degree were the key participants, staff memb ers and end users, of LW involved in the planning and programming approach for LW? How satisfied are they with the final design results? The main theme from these interviews indicated that an agreement based programming approach was the program type used for LW. The interviews showed that key participants were partially involved in the planning and programming process for LW to generate the RFP. Pass that point FP&C and the architects included their requirements in the design and the new

PAGE 126

126 building. Long reported that fact by mentioning how the client selected who they wanted to involve in the programming process. He further explained: Long: A s part of this project, we were given specific needs as listed in the RFP. After gaining a project, we either do program verification or program analysis. In the case of LW, we completed program verification since the program document was provided to us by FP&C. We worked closely with different project managers from FP&C to reconcile two main issues at that time the building codes and the budget of the project. This is typical for this type of programming approach, a greement b ased programming, to involv e the key participants more at the beginning of the process. Eastman referencing programming strategies at UF by: Eastman : That is typical for each project that the program is written [ by FC&C ] so that the architect goes out, the architect knows what kind of spaces the university is looking for [ therefore it facilitates the design process ] Based on the findings from this study, the planning and programming processes for LW had both advantages and disadvantages. One of its advantages is that the stakehold ers and staff members put together the list of requirements; therefore communication was facilitated between the user groups and the architect. For example, the RFP specifically mentioned which departments or activities should be adjacent to one another. T his information gave the architect an idea about what the layout of the building and reconciling the program should be before s of freedom to intervene since no specific space needs or N SF requirements were set forward in the RFP to guide the design process.

PAGE 127

127 On the other hand, these processes have disadvantages. First, they rely heavily on an experienced programmer and facilitator, such as Canales, to create the list of requirements for the project and the FP&C program. LW was fortunate to have such an experienced facilitator as part of their process, and truly benefited from this. This might not be the case in regard to other facilities. However, the amount of time and effort invested i n putting the RFP and list of requirements together could be considerably reduced if an architect was involved in the planning and programming processes from the beginning. Secondly, the uncertainty about some design issues forced the architect to determin e what was needed based on their past experience with similar projects. Therefore, it is assumed that some of the user needs within the LW context were not addressed or interpreted by the design team or the stakeholders. Since only representatives from eac h department and none of the end users interacted with the design team, detailed information about the workplace processes was missing. In addition, at each step of the planning and programming processes for the LW project, key participants overcame maj or obstacles that had an impact on the program and the project overall. These obstacles varied from problems such as: postponing the project for more than ten years to get approval from the Board of Regents, keeping the cost of the project within the basic budget despite changing requirements and technologies for academic libraries, renovating the existing building to support the structural integrity and energy efficiency required for the building, and the need to house excess volumes in a storage facility off campus. Despite the disadvantages of this approach in planning and programming and impediments encountered throughout the life of the project, the participants expressed their satisfaction with the process and the new building. The success of planning and programming processes with key

PAGE 128

128 participants is attributed to hiring highly experienced architects and designers for LW project. C anelas pointed out this during the interview: C anelas : Carol Ross Barney was introduced to me by Mr. Alexander Long. Her husband was a librarian at Illinois Tech. She had an excellent knowledge about libraries. Mr. Alexander was an even tempered person, and all three of us had a very good relationship. The construction firm was also a good firm. Another reason that might have contributed to the success of the planning process was research and benchmarking, data analysis, data organization, communications, and evaluation techniques for further discussion see literature review chapter. These steps were traced while exploring the LW planning and programming processes. Some of these steps were less formal than others. For example, in regard to the evaluation techniques used at the end of the p roject Long responded to the question if his firm conducted a POE after delivering the project Long responded to the question if his firm conducted a POE after delivering the project: Long : No, not formally, but we did go back for the one year walk through with library director and faculty members to make sure that everything works well. At this point we gathered info rmal data on the building use. Instituting a POE would allow the design firm and the client to understand the successful elements of the project as well as items that ca n be improved The evaluation would minimize the errors and pitfalls with minimum cost, which might accrue, after occupying the new building. s atisfaction with the planning process in general was moderate to very satisfactory. However, not all the staff shares the same opinion about the planning process F ew of them were involved in th is process despite the evidence from Library news (2001) that

PAGE 129

129 indicated attempts to involve staff along with other departments across campus occurred at some point by corresponding through a special survey (Library News, 2001). This step may have been improved if the process was participatory from the beginning unt il the end of the project similar to the PAR programming approach according to Hasell, King and Pohlman (2001) and Gifford (2002). For this project, none of the end users actually participated in any planning activities. The reason for not involving them i n the process is unknown. Comparison and V erification of t he Preliminary FP & C Program Research Question Two : To what degree was the initial program prepared by FP&C ng? The findings indicated that the FP&C program was carried through to the final architectural program and the LW building layout as well. However, some of the requirements were not delivered because of budget cuts, changes in requirements, and decisions by LW administration. One example of a requirement change happened when the LW administration and internal departments were placed on different floors. To the contrary, the FP&C program requested that all LW departments and administration be on the first l evel of the building. Due to structural concerns uncovered in the design process, it was determined that the first level needed to house the large load created by the books and documents collections area ; therefore it was not possible to house the LW depa rtments and administration. Another example of changes to the original requirements occurred when the architect housed library visitors in the new addition on the first three levels at LW, in opposition to the plan specifically mentioned in the FP&C progra m, Figure 5 1. The figure shows the study area inside the collection area. Originally the new addition was dedicated to house the collections in temperatures of 60 + or 3 F humidity of 50 + or 3 % points, and away from direct sunlight year round. The se physical

PAGE 130

130 conditions for the collections are not ideal for people in general and many people complain about the climate there, but by not doing so a good portion of the seating area w ould have be en wasted. Figure 5 1. Study area inside the new addition of LW (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida). A final example of changing the requirements relates specifically to the vast budget cuts encountered as part of this project. The cos t of renovating the existing building exceeded the amount of money allocated for the project, even from the beginning of the project. In addition, t he added cost for a traditional design to match the historic campus exhausted money from the project budget. This hidden cost was felt later in the project when decision makers were forced to cut the budget for furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E). FP&C project manager, Armaghani recalled this instance: Armaghani : The most tangled problem we faced during th e construction of the Library West was the furniture. The problem occurred when the administration exempted the furniture contract from the architect contract. Once the furniture was delivered, a lot of technical problems occurred because the equipment was mismatched to the installed systems

PAGE 131

131 The low project budget m ay explain why staff members and students had lower levels of satisfaction particularly in regard to specific dimensions After the renovation and additions were completed, the number of annual visitors to LW nearly doubled the initial projections. This may be an indication of the popularity of the building on the UF campus or it could be the lack of appropriate study spaces available. This situation may force the current administration of LW to assess the new building and make changes to keep the facility running efficiently. Failure to do so might lead to costly expense s in maintaining the conveyance systems and the restrooms. In addition, energy consumption for running the environmental contro l units and lighting fixtures m ay continue to increase until new or more efficient systems are installed. User Satisfaction with the LW Assessed by the Surveys Research Question Three : To what degree were the staff members and end users of LW satisfied with the new building? satisfaction across the same items and dimensions. The majority of dimensio ns were found to be acceptable by staff members and students. The variations in the results of the two sample groups could be due to 1) differences in their purpose for being in the building, 2) lack of participation in the planning process and 3) the une ven sample size. Both sampl es were very satisfied with similar issues within the technical, functional, and ambient dimensions. For the Technical dimension both groups expressed satisfaction with the elevators, carrels, and meeting rooms. F or the Function al dimension they reported satisfaction with natural lighting Finally, in regard to the Ambient dimension, both groups reported satisfaction with windows /views and flooring materials. Further, both groups share the same opinion about items to be improve d in future renovation or additions, these include, temperature, lighting, and noise. Temperature is one issue

PAGE 132

132 that needs to be adjusted or tempered to achieve thermal comfort as well as to keep the collections in good condition. Artificial lighting is ano ther unsolved issue. Some light fixtures need maintenance in some areas, and additionally more task lighting fixtures for tables and stand alone carrels are requested. Finally, the noise level inside the building should be mitigated. As reported, noise is the main issue that aggravated most library users. A few suggestions might be useful to overcome this problem. First, the ground level, which includes a coffee shop, general seating area, and entrance to the second level, should be separated by a glass wa ll to block the noise without obstructing natural light, Figure 5 2. Figure 5 2. Open space along the external curtain wall adds noise to the second floor (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida). Another area that needs special attention is the study rooms on the fourth level, which is designated as a quiet level. These rooms are not soundproof and when occupied, the noise from

PAGE 133

133 students working together can be heard from the adjacent study areas. T his can be solved by turning this noise into a background noise using electronic devices that are easy to install and operate, or by incorporating acoustical seals, or sound barriers as part of these structures. Adding to these problems, students use the l ibrary for socializing and meeting peers. This has caused some problems related to noise such as distraction, feeling less productive, or spoiling the mood for other students Figure 5 3. The figure shows groups of students socializing in the media room aw ay from the general seating area. This problem is a behavioral problem, not a design problem, and requires staff members and student collaboration to keep the noise under control. Another behavioral problem is using the computers at the LW for playing onli ne games which irritated many students who need computer access to do their coursework. Perhaps installing better signage that tells users about expected behavior in various areas of the library might solve these problems. Figure 5 3. Students sociali zing in the media room (Photo taken by Noaman Adhami, graduate student at the University of Florida).

PAGE 134

134 their office space are considered to be the most positive items in LW. This is especially true for staff members on the fifth level where they have windows that overlook the UF campus and University Avenue. However, some offices have windows but without a view. This is the case with the second level, where some offices lookout over the roof of the first level. To improve this condition, one of the staff members suggested having a green roof that could be accessed by the staff members from their offices. For other offices located at the core of the building no natural li ghting is provided rather they rely solely on artificial lighting. These offices are clearly undesirable, as evidenced by the survey. Based on environmental and behavior studies ( Federal Energy Management Program, 2004) as well as the dissatisfaction reported in this survey, the lack of natural light and views might affect the morale and productivity of the staff members. Thus, natural light and views for workspaces should be a consideration for design projects for buildings on campus and across the na tion. The results indicated that the staff and end users were less satisfied with Psychological and Ambient dimensions (Social Dimensions) than Functional and Technical dimensions (Physical Dimensions) this supports literature by Gifford (2007), Figure 5 4. Figure 5 4 show overall satisfaction for all dimensions from both surveys According to Gifford, the social dimensions are usually overshadowed by physical dimensions and the finding here support his argument when comparing the results from both survey s.

PAGE 135

135 Figure 5 4. Overall satisfaction for all dimensions from both surveys combined. The higher scor es for Physical Dimensions might be attributed to : 1) h igh carry through was achieved by the architect with minimum space requirements ; 2) following stat e and university design guidelines prepared by FP&C that granted the building LEED Gold certification in 2007 (Library News, 2007). While t he lower scor es for Social Dimensions might be attributed to: 1) f ailure to meet some staff expectations especially f urniture selections and storage spaces ; 2) l imited or no participation in the planning process in case of the end user (Swann, 2002) and ( Gifford, 2007). Both Swann and Gifford show the importance of involving the end users from the being of planning process all the way to delivering the design project. Unfortunately, this was not the case in LW Two interesting comments from end users express their concerns. One staff commented: Staff: It would be the best thing to happen, a real gift, if we could get a professional organizer to come in and create efficient offices with the outmoded, outdated office furniture we do have that could influence our productivity and how we think about ourselves as part of this large UF Organization. One of the end users com mented: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Technical Functional Ambient Psycological End-users Weighted Average Staff Weighted Average

PAGE 136

136 End user: Maybe additional carrels could be given to the Disability Resource Center students, for people with both mental needs (ADHD) and physical limitations. I can't imagine trying to bring all of my heavy books on campus if I had a perm anent disability. I was briefly injured from a car accident and it made it very difficult to study on campus because I had to bring everything with me. Additions to the Body of Knowledge The study contributed to the interior design profession in theory and prac tice by: 1) verify ing and expanding ; all dimensions strongly correlated and contributed to staff and end users satisfaction with the LW ; 2) concluding that t he planning and programming approach for LW produced a high quality b uilding with high levels of satisfaction from students mainly because the key participants were highly qualified and experienced ; 3) highlighting that t he program approach accomplished a very high percentage of required spaces t his is another indication t o the success of the process ; 4) supporting the notion that PDR and POE are very useful tools in solving a design problem and in avoiding the pitfalls during the pla nning and programming processes; 5) providing evidence that POE is also the beginning of a new phase for the same project, the PDR, since the requirements have changed over time and new design problems surfaced that need to be addressed ; 6) completing the design cycle for LW by conducting the POE and making recommendations for future renovations Recommendations for d esigners and s takeholders Specific as well as general suggestions for future improvements for both designers and stakeholders are outlined in the following section. First, the author suggests going beyond the building standards for educational facilities by raising the bar for space requirements for restrooms, stairways, and elevators to avoid constant and costly maint enance over the time. Another design consideration is to specify interior furnishings and materials that are not only

PAGE 137

137 aesthetically pleasing but that also absorb sound, distribute light, and have a higher R value or thermal resistance. These considerations are important to achieve high levels of comfort for end users and staff members since they currently report feeling distracted by loud noise, poor lighting conditions, and uncomfortably cold temperatures inside the building. Improving these conditions can be achieved by both electronic and mechanical devices, but more sustainable solutions can be achieved by selecting p roper finish materials at far less expense. For example using surface materials with a high R value will give a better sense of warmth o n contact with that surface rather than a surface with less R value under the same climate conditions A lso materials with high sound absorbing qualit ies will reduce the noise in public reading areas if applied properly For example dividing the large spaces like public reading areas into zones using sound barriers dangling from the ceiling can reduce the noise levels in the reading area Reaching a higher level of satisfaction and incorporating sustainable building solutions requires the involvement of end users in the planning and programming processes for design projects. To produce these project goals effectively, a unified and simplified set of guideline s should be developed to help the stakeholders and decision makers obtain the true needs of end users in a more efficient and less time consuming process. For example sustainability guidelines should b e considered when planning and preparing the RFP document to establish a realistic users in the planning and programming processes successfully require s a high level of coordination bet ween all end users groups and the design team. This can be achieved by means of internet technology that allows collecting, organizing, and tracking any changes of end users requirements during the planning and programming processes In addition, the desi gn team can benefit from this technology by getting feedback from the end users at different design stages.

PAGE 138

138 It is recommended that a certified interior designer be consulted to improve the layout and storage areas for office spaces at LW since these two is sues are of immediate concern by the staff members. Other expertise might be required to improve the acoustic and light quality inside LW since these conditions are not ideal. Solving these problems will not only increase comfort and productivity, but may improve the morale of staff members and end users if they are encouraged to participate in the design process. It is also advised that indoor signage be replaced and/or enhanced to improve way finding, circulation, and possibly to help control the noise. These signs should be located in strategic locations as well as have attractive design elements with minimum impact on the existing interiors. Finally, a POE should be conducted whenever the stakeholders want to make sure that their design project is serv ing its purpose and delivering their mission. A POE performed by a third party with experience on similar projects can avoid bias and validate the process and design Recommendations for f uture r esearch A few recommendations might be suitable for future research. First, it is advisable to compare this case study with other POE studies from similar buildings since there are very few examples of recent campus library projects in the literature and the knowl edge base is limited. If a client or a designer could access a POE in some cases, PDR in others, similar to their wishes for a new building as the first step in the design process, then the design solutions may improve and mistakes can be avoided. In addit ion, a comparative study is needed to continue to test this possibly a new theoretical framework may emerge. For example, one that includes energy dimension s and exp lores the sustainability of the building seems appropriate. Another

PAGE 139

139 recommendation might be a cross sectional study to monitor changes and developments that occur in LW over time. From such a study, new requirements and needs might emerge. New knowledge b acked up by solid research can benefit designers and stakeholders in future library renovations and additions. In addition, the findings from the study indicated that the staff members were less satisfied with LW than were the students Since none of the s taff members have been contacted directly or interviewed while conducting th is study, a future study may focus on this group to identify the reasons that led to this conclusion. Finally, the most enticing but time consuming phase of this study was in depth interviews. Tracking key client and design participants was difficult because many of them have left the University of Florida in the five years following project completion The complexity of the planning, decision making, and design processes cannot be explored or explained without conducting interviews with the key participants. Therefore, the office of Facilities Planning and Construction should consider exit interviews or POE studies when the new building is occupied. This may take a considerable am ount of time for the current project, but future projects could find many benefits from such a storehouse of knowledge. Conclusion This study evaluated the planning and programming processes for LW and concluded that PDR and POE are a necessary part of an y design project to reach a high standard of building and achieve acceptable levels of satisfaction by its users. As discussed previously in the literature review, PRD includes the social dimensions as well as the physical dimensions of the project that ar e considered crucial to define the design (Ambient and Psychological) as well as physical dimensions (Technical and Functional). This framework was tested on a real samp le of participants from LW. The results from the study

PAGE 140

140 showed that all these dimensions are equally important in measuring end the building and in pointing out their true needs. This study provides evidence that PDR is a very usef ul technique to solve design problems. This investigation is categorized as an empirical POE that considers the last phase of the Zeisel (2006) design model in order to solve any design problem. This was supported with findings from similar studies by Palm ar (1981), Hasell, King, and Pohlman (2001), Gifford (2002), Swann (2002), Preiser and Visher (2005), Zeisel (2006), and Lamar (2007). It is also the beginning of a new phase for the same project, the PDR, since the results from the POE showed that the req uirements have changed over time and new design problems surfaced that need to be addressed. However, this cycle of design is eventually going to stop once the building no longer serves its purpose in a safe and efficient way. The good news is that LW is still evolving and growing into an important research library on campus

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX A UFIRB EXEMPTION

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: DETERMINING USER SATISFACTION: EVALUATING THE PRE DESIGN AND PROGRAMMING APPROACH FOR LIBRARY WEST Please r ead this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to conduct a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of Library West (LW). The POE of LW will examine the pre design a nd programming processes, and measure the end user satisfaction with the new building. What you will be asked to do in the study: 39 structured and open ended questions will be included in end users survey, and 48 structured and open ended questions will be included in staff members survey. Please correspond to the survey that fits your position. Time required: up to 20 30 minutes for the surveys, and 30 45 minutes for in depth interviews. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks for participating in this study. Participation will not influence your grade or evaluation in your department. Compensation: There will be no compensation for your participation. Confidentiality: Your identity will remain confidential to the extent provided by the law. Your name and contact information will be deciphered to prevent further identification. Code

PAGE 143

143 numbered information will be use d for all data analysis. All information linking you to your evaluation will be kept in a locked file. When the study is completed, all data have been analyzed, and follow up surveys and interviews conducted, any information linking you to the study will be destroyed. Your name will not be mentioned in any report. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from this study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have any questions about the study: Noaman Adhami, Graduate Student, Department of Interior Design, Architecture Building, phone 352 215 2044. Mary Joyce Hasell PhD in Architecture, 348 Architecture Building, PO Box 115705, Gainesville, FL 32611; 352 392 0252 ext. 337; hasell@dcp.ufl.edu Candy Carmel Gilfilen, Assistant Professor of Interior Design, 348 Architecture Building, PO Box 115705, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph 352 392 0252 ext. 340; carmelcn@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 1112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph 352 392 0433.

PAGE 144

144 Agreement: I have read the procedure described above I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: _______________________________________ Date: ______________________ Principal Investigator: _______________________________ Date: _____ _________________

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX C IRB FORM UFIRB 02 Social and Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Form his form must be typed. Send this form and the supporting documents to IRB02, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Should you have questions about completing this form, call 352 392 0433. Title of Protocol: DETERMINING USER SATISFACTION: EVALUATING THE PRE DESIGN AND PROGRAMMING APPROACH FOR LIBRARY WEST Principal Investigator: Noaman Adhami UFID #: 3031 1379 Degree / Title: Mailing Address: ( If on campus include PO Box address ): 1015 NW 21 st Ave Apt # 456 Gainesville, FL 32609 Email: arch1no@ufl.edu Department: Interior Design Telephone #: 352 215 2044 Co Investigator(s): N/A UFID#: Email: Supervisor (If PI is student) : Dr. Mary Joyce Hasell Candy Carmel Gilfilen UFID#: Degree / Title: Doctor of architecture Assistant Professor of Interior Design Mailing Address: ( If on campus include PO Box address ): 336 Architecture Building Gainesville, FL 32611 P.O. Box 115705 Email(s): hasell@ufl.edu carmelcn@ ufl.edu Department: Interior design Telephone #: 352 392 0252 ext. 337 352 392 0252 ext. 340 Date of Proposed Research: May 2010 May 2011 Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be submitted with this protocol if funding is involved): Self

PAGE 146

146 Scientific Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to conduct a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of Library West (LW). The POE of LW will examine the pre design and programming processes, and measure its end users satisfaction with the new building. Describe the Research Methodology in Non Technical Language: ( Explain what will be done with or to the research participant. ) Using the POE technique, the study will examine the impact of pre design and programming processes of LW on end users and staff members of LW. Survey for both Library staff members and visitors will the survey will stop once one hundred and twenty responses at least are colle cted (Appendixes A and B). Beside the surveys, open ended interviews with main stakeholders and participants in planning and pre design processes of LW are required to provide missing information for this study that other sources might not provide (i.e. Fa cilities Planning and Construction documents, various publication, and web sources). All responses are going to be deciphered and categorized in anonymous way for confidentiality. Describe Potential Benefits: Improvement of design processes for future UF buildings. Describe Potential Risks: ( If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.) None Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited:

PAGE 147

147 Volunteer participants from student and staff members from the University of Florida will participate in the study willingly without any compensation. Participants are welcome to withdraw from the study at any time. All data will be coded to ensure confide ntiality of all participants. Maximum Number of Participants (to be approached with consent) Minimum of 5 stakeholders from LW. Minimum of 100 visitors of LW. Minimum 20 staff members of LW. Age Range of Participants: 18 or older Amount of Compensation/ course credit: Non Describe the Informed Consent Process. (Attach a Copy of the Informed Consent Document. See http://irb.ufl.edu/irb02/samples.html for examples of consent.) The identity of the participants will remain confidential to the extent provided by the law. Participant name and contact information will be deciphered to prevent further identification. Code numbered information will be used for all data analysis. All information linking the students to their evaluations will be kept in a locked file. When the study is completed, all data have been analyzed, and follow up surveys and interviews conducted, any information linking participants to the study will be destroyed. names will not be mentioned in any report. Their participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. They have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. (SIGNATURE SECTION) Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Date: Co Investigator(s) Signature(s): Date: Date: Department Chair Signature: Date:

PAGE 148

148 APPENDIX D FLYER DESIGN

PAGE 149

149 APPENDIX E BUILDING REQUIREMENT S FOR LIBRARY WEST ADDITION AND RENOVATION EXCERPT

PAGE 150

150 APPENDIX F STAFF MEMBERS SATISFACTION SURVEY Library West A. Background Information 1. Name: (Your name will be kept confidential and your results will remain anonymous. This is required in case I need to contact you for an interview. This information will not be shared with anyone.) 2. Email: (Your email will be kept confidential and your results will remain anonymous. This is required in case I need to contact you for an interview. This information will not be shar ed with anyone.) 3. Position/Job title: 4. How long have you been working in your new workspace after the renovation and addition of LW? 5. How many hours do you spend in your workspace during a typical week? 6. Which of the following best describes your personal workspace? Enclosed private office Enclosed office shared with other co workers Cubicle with high partitions (5 ft or higher) Cubicle with low partitions (less than 5 ft) Workspace in open office and no partitions Other (please specify)

PAGE 151

151 B. Planning Process If you did NOT participate in the planning process for Library West, skip to question # 13. The planning process for Library West went through several stages under the direction of several different groups. The Administration at University of Florida began the planning process in the last decade. Later UF Facilities Planning and Construction began to oversee the project. In 2002, the architects Long and Associates were selected to design the building based upon the building program by the Facilities P lanning and Construction. The next series of questions are in reference to this planning process to assess your level of involvement and participation data gathering information by any or all of these groups. 7. Which phases of the planning process for th e College of Law Library West were you involved in (check all that apply): Pre design planning with the Administration at University of Florida Planning and programming with UF's Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) Planning and programming with th e architects Long and Associates 8. On a scale of 1 to 7 ( with 1" meaning Very Involved ), please rate your involvement with the planning process for Library West: 1 Very involved 2 3 4 5 6 Planning Process o o o o o o

PAGE 152

152 9. On a scale of 1 to 7, please rate your level of satisfaction with the planning process. 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 Planning Process o o o o o o 10. Did a representative from the Administration at University of Florida ever conduct an interview or survey with you? Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember 11. Did a representative from UF's Facilities Planning and Construction ever conduct an interview or survey with you? Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember 12. Did a representative from the architectural firm (Long and Associates) that designed the building ever conduct an interview or survey with you about your workspace needs? Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember

PAGE 153

153 C. Technical 13. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the lighting in your workspace: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Natural Lighting o o o o o o o Task Lighting o o o o o o o Artificial Lighting o o o o o o o 14. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of control you have over the lighting in your workspace: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Natural Lighting o o o o o o o Task Lighting o o o o o o o Artificial Lighting o o o o o o o

PAGE 154

154 15. How would you characterize the glare on your computer screen? No glare (skip to # 17) Glare occurs occasionally Glare occurs 50% of the time Glare occurs frequently 16. If glare is a problem, I believe it typically comes from (fill in the blank): Artificial Lighting Natural Lighting Don't know 17. Overall, o n a scale of 1 to 7, does the lighting quality enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job done? 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Lighting Quality o o o o o o o 18. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following in your work area: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Background Noise (voices, noise from the air ducts, etc) o o o o o o o Acoustical Privacy (Private conversation, etc) o o o o o o o Acoustical Disruptions (loud copiers, buzz from o o o o o o o

PAGE 155

155 Artificial lights, others conversations, etc) o o o o o o o 19. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 7, does the acoustic quality in your workspace enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job done? 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Acoustic Quality o o o o o o o 20. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Security of personal belonging in your workspace o o o o o o o Public access to your workspace o o o o o o o Security of storage areas / rooms for your department o o o o o o o Fire safety measures for the building o o o o o o o Access for physically disabled o o o o o o o 21. Do you know where to go and what to do in case of a fire emergency in the building? Yes No Maybe

PAGE 156

156 22. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following in your work area: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Temperature o o o o o o o Humidity o o o o o o o Odors o o o o o o o D. Functional 23. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Distance between you and other areas of activity (i.e. work area for sorting books, printer / copier room, etc.) o o o o o o o Distance between you and your supervisor o o o o o o o Distance between you and your co workers o o o o o o o Layout of your department's work area o o o o o o o 24. Overall, does the layout of your workspace enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job done? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 157

157 Interfere Enhance Workspace layout o o o o o o o 25. Please describe any other issues related to the office layout that are important to you: 26. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Size of your workspace in relation your job tasks o o o o o o o Arrangement of your workspace in relation to your job tasks o o o o o o o Storage space within your personal workspace o o o o o o o Storage space within your department's work area o o o o o o o Location of storage space o o o o o o o Location of meeting rooms o o o o o o o Location of toilet rooms o o o o o o o Location of stairways o o o o o o o Location of elevators o o o o o o o Location of your work area o o o o o o o 27. Were all of the space needs or wishes for your department fulfilled based upon what you or your department asked for during the planning process that proceeded construction? Yes Not sure No, briefly explain which areas are lacking and why

PAGE 158

158 Somewhat, briefly explain which areas are lacking and why 28. Are there areas in your department that were provided by the new construction, but are not being used? Yes Not sure No, briefly explain which areas are lacking and why Somewhat, briefly explain which areas are lacking and why 29. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the amount of circulation within your work area? 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Circulation through work area o o o o o o o 30. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the circulation space to walk and move around throughout the Library West? 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Circulation through building o o o o o o o 31. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the entrance and means of access to your work area. 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Access to work area o o o o o o o

PAGE 159

159 32. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the comfort provided by your office furnishings (chair, desk, computer monitor, keyboard tray, etc.)? 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Comfort with furnishings o o o o o o o 33. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with your ability to adjust your furniture to meet your needs? 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Furniture adjustment o o o o o o o 34. Do the office furnishings enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job doing? 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Office furnishings o o o o o o o 35. Please describe any other issues related to the office furnishing that are important to you:

PAGE 160

160 E. Ambient 36. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you aesthetic quality of the following within your workspace? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Colors o o o o o o o Surface Materials o o o o o o o Flooring Materials o o o o o o o Furnishings o o o o o o o Overall interior style o o o o o o o 37. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you aesthetic quality of the following within the public areas of the library? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Colors o o o o o o o Surface Materials o o o o o o o Flooring Materials o o o o o o o Furnishings o o o o o o o

PAGE 161

161 Overall interior style o o o o o o o 38. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the appearance of the following architectural elements? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Entrance o o o o o o o Building style o o o o o o o Connection to the other buildings o o o o o o o Large windows and views o o o o o o o 39. In the list of requirements document prepared by UF's Facilities Planning and Construction it states the following:" The overhanging goal is a flexible building to house all of the humanities and social sciences collections, to provide excellent space for students and faculty to utilize the latest in informat ion recourses including electric, print, and multimedia, and to provide adequate space for staff." On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does Library West support this statement? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Flexible building o o o o o o o 40. On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does Library West symbolically express the important values of knowledge and learning? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Values o o o o o o o

PAGE 162

162 41. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well does the library design support the following needs? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Easy supervision by staff members without the sense of feeling exposed in a large impersonal space o o o o o o o Different spaces within the library, ranging from open areas of public activity to alcoves of semiprivate activity o o o o o o o Areas that have a sense of intimacy within the overall public setting o o o o o o o Wide variety of reading areas providing choices to fit the uses mood or environment needs o o o o o o o A clear understanding while moving through the library of the general purpose of each area o o o o o o o Clearly visible staff members areas as a means of bringing information, services and people together o o o o o o o

PAGE 163

163 F. Psychological 42. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well your work space supports the following activities: 1 Very Unsupportive 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Supportive Ability to concentrate when needed o o o o o o o Ability to coordinate tasks with others o o o o o o o Awareness of what other is working on o o o o o o o Feeling productive at work o o o o o o o Ability to share information quickly o o o o o o o Ability to work effectively as a team o o o o o o o 43. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Privacy o o o o o o o Ease of information with co workers o o o o o o o Ease of interaction with other departments o o o o o o o Sense of place o o o o o o o Sense of ownership o o o o o o o Sense of security o o o o o o o

PAGE 164

164 44. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your ability to define your own personal space within your work area (i.e. flexibility to move furniture to suit your needs; ability to personalize with photos or knick knacks, etc) 1 Not Able 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Able Personal Space o o o o o o o 45. On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does the facility support a sense of a strong academic community? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Sense of community o o o o o o o G. Overall 46. In your opinion, which of the following items below do you think should be improved in your work environment (check all that apply): Layout Work stations Meeting rooms Storage Furnishings Equipment Coffee Area / Kitchen Toilet Rooms Copy Room Circulation Way finding Stairways Elevators

PAGE 165

165 Temperature Ventilation Lighting Noise Levels Privacy Aesthetics None Others, please list: 47. On a scale 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the building overall? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Library West o o o o o o o 48. Any additional comments about your personal workspace or the building overall?

PAGE 166

166 APPENDIX G END USER SATISFACTION SU RVEY Library West A. Background Information 1. Please select one of the following that best describes you: Faculty member Graduate or Doctorate Student Other UF Faculty Other UF Staff member Other UF Student Outside Visitor Other (please specify) 2. During a typical week, how much time do you spend working or studying in Library West? Less than 5 hours 5 to 10 hours 11 to 25 hours 26 to 35 hours More than 35 hours I never use the library 3. Typically, what activities do you participate in while at the Library West? (Check all that apply) Studying Working Meeting with peers Searching for books or research materials

PAGE 167

16 7 Returning books Using computers Meeting with librarians Socializing Taking a break between classes Other (please specify) 4. Which areas do you typically use in Library West? (Check all that apply) Circulation Desk Reference Desk or Librarians offices Reading Rooms Private meeting rooms Graduate student study cha mbers Study carrels Administrative office Book stacks Reference Room Microfilm Area Other (please specify) B. Planning Process If you did NOT participate in the planning process for Library West, skip to question # 11. The planning process for Library West went through several stages under the direction of several different groups. The Administration at University of Florida began the planning process in the last decade. Later UF Facilities Planning and Construction began to oversee the project. In 2002, the architects Long and Associates were selected to design the building based upon the building program by the Facilities Planning and Construction.

PAGE 168

168 The next series of questions are in reference to this planning process to assess your level of involvement an d participation data gathering information by any or all of these groups. 5. Which phases of the planning process for Library West were you involved in (Check all that apply): Pre design planning with the Administration at University of Florida Planning and programming with UF's Facilities Planning and Construction Planning and programming with the architects Long and Associates 6. On a scale of 1 to 7, (with "1" meaning Very Involved), please rate your involvement with the planning process for Library West: 1 Very involved 2 3 4 5 6 Planning process o o o o o o 7. On a scale of 1 to 7, please rate your level of satisfaction with the planning process. 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 Planning process o o o o o o 8. Did a representative from the Administration at University of Florida ever conduct an interview or survey with you? 9. Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember

PAGE 169

169 10. Did a representative from UF's Facilities Planning and Construction ever conduct an interview or survey with you? Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember 11. Did a representative from the architectural firm (Long and Assoc iates) that designed the building ever conduct an interview or survey with you? Yes, briefly describe that process: No Don't remember C. Technical 12. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the lighting. 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Natural Lighting o o o o o o o Task Lighting o o o o o o o Artificial Lighting o o o o o o o

PAGE 170

170 13. If you use a laptop computer or one of the library's computers, how often do you experience glare on the screen? No glare (skip to # 14) Glare occurs occasionally Glare occurs 50% of the time Glare occurs frequently Not applicable (skip to # 14) 14. If glare is a problem, I believe it typically comes from (fill in the blank). Artificial Lighting Natural Lighting Don't know 15. On a scale of 1 to 7 does the lighting quality enhance or interfere with your ability to perform activities within the following areas: 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Book stacks o o o o o o o Study Carrels o o o o o o o Meeting Rooms o o o o o o o Reading Room o o o o o o o Media Room o o o o o o o

PAGE 171

171 16. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Background Noise (voice, noise for air duct, etc.) o o o o o o o Background Noise (voice, noise for air duct, etc.) o o o o o o o Acoustical Disruptions (copy machines, others' conversations, buzz from light fixtures, etc.) o o o o o o o 17. On a scale of 1 to 7, does the acoustic quality enhance or interfere with your ability to perform your activities within the following areas of the library: 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Book stacks o o o o o o o Study Carrels o o o o o o o Meeting Rooms o o o o o o o Reading Room o o o o o o o Media Room o o o o o o o 18. Do you know where to go and what to do in case of a fire or emergency in the building? Yes No Maybe

PAGE 172

172 19. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Temperature o o o o o o o Humidity o o o o o o o Odors o o o o o o o D. Functional 20. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Distance between you and other while studying o o o o o o o Layout of the reading room o o o o o o o Layout of the book stacks o o o o o o o 21. On a scale of 1 to 7, how easy is it to find a comfortable place for you to study in the library? 1 Nearly impossible 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very easy Comfortable study area o o o o o o o

PAGE 173

173 22. On a scale of 1 to 7, how crowded does the library seem to be on a typical weekday? 1 Not Crowded 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Crowded Comfortable study area o o o o o o o 23. On a scale of 1 to 7, how does the overall layout of the library enhance or interfere with your ability to perform your activities? 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Library Layout o o o o o o o 24. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Dissatisfied Size of the study Carrels o o o o o o o Power/data connectivity in the study carrels o o o o o o o Storage space for book, backpack, etc. o o o o o o o Size or meeting rooms o o o o o o o Location of meeting rooms o o o o o o o Location of printing / copy areas o o o o o o o Location of toilet rooms o o o o o o o Location of stairways o o o o o o o Location of elevators o o o o o o o Location of study carrels o o o o o o o

PAGE 174

174 25. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with being able to easily find and identify the following areas within the library: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Circulation desk o o o o o o o Reference desk o o o o o o o Book stacks o o o o o o o Reference Room o o o o o o o Copy / printing areas o o o o o o o Microfilm Collection o o o o o o o Foreign Books Collection o o o o o o o Audiovisual Collection o o o o o o o Reading Room o o o o o o o Meeting Rooms o o o o o o o Administration o o o o o o o Toilets o o o o o o o 26. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the comfort of the furnishings? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Comfort with Furnishings o o o o o o o 27. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the ability to adjust the furniture (i.e. the chairs, desk heights, est.) to meet your needs? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Furniture adjustment o o o o o o o

PAGE 175

175 28. On a scale of 1 to 7, do the furnishings enhance or interfere with your ability to perform your activities? 1 Interfere 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enhance Furnishings o o o o o o o 29. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of seating in regards to seating options and seating arrangements. 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Seating options o o o o o o o Seating arrangements o o o o o o o E. Ambient 30. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the aesthetic quality of the following finishes throughout the library? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Colors o o o o o o o Surface Materials o o o o o o o Flooring Materials o o o o o o o

PAGE 176

176 Furnishings o o o o o o o Overall interior style o o o o o o o 31. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the appearance of the following architectural elements? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Entrance o o o o o o o Building style o o o o o o o Connection to the other buildings o o o o o o o Large windows and views o o o o o o o 32. In the list of requirements document prepared by UF's Facilities Planning and Construction it states the following:" The overhanging goal is a flexible building to house all of the humanities and social sciences collections, to provide excellent space for students and faculty to utilize the l atest in information recourses including electric, print, and multimedia, and to provide adequate space for staff." On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does Library West support this statement? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well F lexible building o o o o o o o

PAGE 177

177 33. How well does Library West symbolically express the important values of knowledge and learning? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Values o o o o o o o 34. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well does the library design supports the following needs? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well Easy supervision by staff members without the sense of feeling exposed in a large impersonal space o o o o o o o Different spaces within the library, ranging from open areas of public activity to alcoves of semiprivate activity o o o o o o o Areas that have a sense of intimacy within the overall public setting o o o o o o o A wide variety of reading areas providing choices to environment needs o o o o o o o A clear understanding while moving within the library of the general purpose of each area o o o o o o o Clearly visible staff members areas as a means of bringing information, services and people together o o o o o o o

PAGE 178

178 F. Psychological 35. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well the library supports the following activities? 1 Very Unsupportive 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Supportive Ability to concentrate when needed o o o o o o o Feeling productive o o o o o o o Ability to block distractions o o o o o o o 36. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Sense of privacy o o o o o o o Ease of interaction with others o o o o o o o Sense of place o o o o o o o Sense of ownership o o o o o o o Sense of security o o o o o o o 37. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well does the library facility supports a sense of a strong academic community? 1 Very Poorly 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Well

PAGE 179

179 Sense of community o o o o o o o G. Overall 38. In your opinion, which of the following items below do you think should be improved (check all that apply): Layout Study carrels Meeting rooms Storage Furnishings Equipment Toilet Rooms Copy Room Circulation Way finding Stairways Elevators Temperature Ventilation Lighting Noise Levels Privacy Aesthetics None Others please list:

PAGE 180

180 39. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with Library West overall? 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Library West o o o o o o o Any additional comments about Library West?

PAGE 181

181 APPENDIX H INTERVIEW QUESTIONS SAMPLE 1. What do you think are the reasons that you were chosen for this Addition and Renovation of Library West (LW) at the University of Florida? 2. Can you describe the Pre design and Planning phase for Library West (LW) project? 3. What were the values and mission carried out during the Pre design and Planning phase for LW? 4. Wha t are the tools and research methods used in preparing the preliminary programming document? 5. During the programming phase prepared by the architect, what was the most problematic issue encountered by the architect? 6. Did the architect devise any special tool s for data collection to finalize the LW program? 7. program and design? How did the architect respond to such objections? 8. What were unusual challenges for this project?

PAGE 182

182 APP ENDIX I STAFF COMMENTS Opening and closing the door to our office area is very loud. There is no private meeting room in our staff area; everything must be discussed out in the open or in another location. There are no staff toilets on the 2nd floor. There was in the original design, but they were altered after re opening to allow access t o the public. Way finding patrons have difficulties finding their way around. Access to electrical outlets. The escalator at the front entrance was a big giant mistake. It breaks down frequently and adds nothing to the aesthetics. A beautiful stairway would have been lovely and healthier! Offices should have windows. Cleaning Library W is filthy and does not present well to our students; it's monochromatic and boring. Improve the library's presentation to students with Color, New Display Cases and app ropriate ART; involve students in improvements. Clean Bathrooms, Clean Elevators and Clean Escalators that never break down would impress students; in the student areas we need lighting in working order, more PC's (not enough workstations) more scanners. O ur bathrooms stink we need to get the plumbing permanently fixed; do we need a guard for enforcement of floor space limits because we have too many persons in the building at once? Some issues were improved when I moved next door. This is the first time I've had natural light in my office or room to consult with more than one guest at a time (with little change in real functional need, just a change in status). Break and meeting room noise is still a problem, and there is little space for informal convers ation with colleagues. Building entrance is sometimes blocked by lines of people at coffee shop, and during fire drills there seems to be major bottlenecks in the stairwells. Arrangement of escalators is inconvenient especially during 0maintenance. OMG the waterless urinals are a nightmare and frequently stink like the sewer literally my guess is that we try to save money on the cartridge replacement, but it is unpleasant in the extreme to have to smell that day in and day out for weeks on end. I unders tand this has also eroded plumbing and caused serious problems with leakage, odor, etc. Yuk! Views from public service desks blocked by large pillars on both 2nd & 3rd floors. Entrance + escalator + division of circ/reference desks between 3 floors do not allow flexibility with staffing to help patrons navigate building/collections. Building upkeep extremely poor; issues with dust and ventilation unable to be addressed.

PAGE 183

183 Overall I'm satisfied with the building it could always use maintenance/updating. Pers onally I'd prefer furniture on casters to help protect floors; terrazzo floor is showing wear and the cement 1st floor could use carpet to limit noise. The odd entrance on the second floor makes no sense to me and we said so many times in the design phase. Second floor is noisy and crowded. Having the reference desk on the third floor means that many patrons are unaware of it, but there was no choice it's too noisy on the 2nd floor to conduct a reference interview. The College of Education Special Educati on Faculty hired a Professional Organization Specialist to work with them to organize their offices since they had tiny offices like ours. It was money well spent because it affected productivity, raised morale, and the faculty donated lots of materials t o the Education Library that had to be discarded from their offices. The Organizer forced them to make hard choices and they did. This dept. was a whiz with grants and probably paid the professional with grant money. It would be the best thing to happen, a real gift, if we could get a professional organizer to come in and create efficient offices with the outmoded, outdated office furniture we do have that could influence our productivity and how we think about ourselves as part of this large UF Organizat ion.

PAGE 184

184 APPENDIX J ITEM TOTAL STATISTICS INF ORMATION STAFF SURVEY Category Scale m ean if i tem d eleted Scale v ariance if i tem d eleted Corrected i tem t otal c orrelation Cronbach's Alpha if i tem d eleted Natural l ighting 232.60 15381.300 .430 .984 Task l ighting 231.20 15519.700 .214 .984 Artificial l ighting 230.60 15377.800 .466 .984 Natural l ighting c ontrol 231.20 15801.200 .553 .984 Task l ighting c ontrol 231.00 15796.000 .692 .984 Artificial l ighting c ontrol 230.60 15834.800 .604 .984 Lighting q uality 231.80 15460.700 .510 .984 Acoustic (background noise) 231.80 15222.700 .849 .983 Acoustic (privacy) 231.00 15538.500 .324 .984 Acoustic (disruptions) 231.00 15017.000 .856 .983 Acoustic (other) 230.60 15023.300 .902 .983 Acoustic q uality 231.00 15660.000 .095 .984 Security (personal) 231.80 14883.700 .959 .983 Security ( p ublic) 231.80 15289.700 .759 .983 Security ( s torage) 231.60 15388.800 .766 .983 Fire s afety 231.40 15045.800 .908 .983 ADA 231.00 15178.000 .578 .984 Temperature 230.60 15271.300 .889 .983 Humidity 231.00 14856.000 .787 .983 Odors 230.40 15089.800 .773 .983 Layout (area of activity) 231.60 15315.300 .502 .984 Layout ( s upervisor) 232.20 14884.700 .947 .983 Layout (co worker) 232.00 15241.000 .762 .983 Layout (department) 232.00 15612.000 .021 .984 Satisfaction 231.00 15419.500 .573 .984 Layout (size) 231.60 15012.800 .886 .983 Layout (arrangement) 231.40 15076.800 .986 .983 Layout (personal storage) 231.40 15207.300 .979 .983 Layout (deportment's storage) 230.60 15587.300 .025 .984 Location (storage) 231.40 15438.800 .513 .984 Location (meeting rooms) 230.80 14834.700 .929 .983 Location (rest rooms) 231.20 15256.700 .890 .983 Location (stairways) 231.40 15059.300 .924 .983 Location (elevator) 231.80 15142.200 .902 .983

PAGE 185

185 Category Scale m ean if i tem d eleted Scale v ariance if i tem d eleted Corrected i tem t otal c orrelation Cronbach's Alpha if i tem d eleted Location (work area) 232.20 15157.700 .967 .983 Satisfaction 231.60 15111.300 .866 .983 Circulation 231.00 15066.000 .913 .983 Circulation a ccess 231.00 15361.500 .595 .983 Furniture c omfort 231.20 15317.200 .514 .984 Furniture a djustment 231.40 15520.800 .160 .984 Furniture o ffice 231.00 15074.000 .770 .983 Interior (colors) 231.20 14884.700 .947 .983 Interior (surface materials) 231.20 14882.200 .926 .983 Interior (flooring materials) 231.80 15057.700 .881 .983 Interior (furnishings) 231.20 15014.200 .938 .983 Interior (overall) 230.80 14754.700 .966 .983 Aesthetic (colors) 231.40 14824.800 .869 .983 Aesthetic (surface materials) 231.60 14904.800 .883 .983 Aesthetic (flooring) 231.00 15209.500 .973 .983 Aesthetic (furnishings) 231.40 15029.300 .936 .983 Aesthetic (overall) 231.00 14903.500 .847 .983 Architectural e lements (entrance) 230.60 15586.300 .038 .984 Architectural e lements (style) 231.80 15160.200 .922 .983 Architectural e lements (site) 231.00 15245.000 .667 .983 Architectural e lements (windows/views) 232.40 15175.800 .901 .983 Flexible b uilding 231.20 15384.700 .560 .983 Express v alues 231.00 14946.000 .996 .983 Variety of s paces (large space) 230.80 15421.700 .331 .984 Variety of s paces (different spaces) 231.40 15114.800 .547 .984 Sense of e xposure (intimacy) 231.20 15014.700 .771 .983 Sense of e xposure (mood) 230.80 15024.700 .812 .983 Sense of e xposure (moving through) 230.80 15506.700 .445 .984 Sense of e xposure (staff areas) 231.00 15338.500 .555 .983 Interaction (concentrate) 230.80 14979.200 .786 .983 Interaction (coordinate) 231.20 15146.200 .630 .983 Interaction (awareness) 231.20 15231.700 .586 .983 Interaction (productive) 230.80 14853.200 .906 .983 Interaction (share information) 230.80 14936.700 .841 .983 Interaction (team work) 231.00 15047.500 .945 .983

PAGE 186

186 Category Scale m ean if i tem d eleted Scale v ariance if i tem d eleted Corrected i tem t otal c orrelation Cronbach's Alpha if i tem d eleted Privacy 230.80 15338.200 .353 .984 Interaction (co workers) 230.80 15063.200 .808 .983 Interaction (other departments) 230.80 15451.700 .292 .984 Sense of s pace 231.00 15195.500 .571 .984 Sense of o wnership 231.20 15291.700 .895 .983 Sense of s ecurity 231.00 15108.500 .926 .983 Personal s pace 231.60 15370.300 .832 .983 Sense of c ommunity 231.60 15338.800 .707 .983 Planning p rocess Involvement 232.80 15705.200 .265 .984 Planning process s atisfaction 233.20 15742.700 .769 .984 Satisfaction 230.80 15252.700 .727 .983

PAGE 187

187 APPENDIX K PRINCIPLE FACTOR ROT ATED COMPONENT MATRI X STAFF SURVEY Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Acoustic (disruptions) .985 Aesthetic (overall) .984 Interaction (co workers) .961 Interaction (share information) .956 Interaction (productive) .951 Humidity .948 Interior (overall) .945 Location (meeting rooms) .944 Aesthetic (colors) .942 Interior (furnishings) .937 Odors .919 Circulation .909 Interior (surface materials) .900 Interaction (team work) .900 Express v alues .878 Interior (colors) .868 Aesthetic (surface materials) .865 Furniture o ffice .827 .511 Layout (size) .809 .544 ADA .804 Acoustic (other) .763 Aesthetic (flooring) .750 .639 Layout (arrangement) .738 .602 Lighting q uality .716 .618 Circulation a ccess .712 .545 Sense of c ommunity .711 .559 Artificial l ighting c ontrol .678 Location (stairways) .672 .575 Architectural e lements (site) .666 .584 Temperature .622 .567 Architectural e lements (windows/views) .967 Security ( p ublic) .946 Layout (co worker) .928 Personal s pace .922 Natural l ighting .918

PAGE 188

188 Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Security ( s torage) .895 Location (work area) .885 Layout ( s upervisor) .864 Interior (flooring materials) .849 Layout (department) .841 Location (elevator) .827 Security (personal) .532 .818 Natural l ighting c ontrol .814 Fire s afety .657 .749 Layout (area of activity) .717 Acoustic (background noise) .706 Layout (personal storage) .626 .692 Satisfaction .682 .651 Sense of o wnership .672 .634 Location (rest rooms) .599 .661 Furniture c omfort .509 .581 .513 Artificial l ighting .980 Sense of s pace .945 Sense of e xposure (intimacy) .912 Interaction (coordinate) .903 Privacy .855 Sense of e xposure (moving through) .849 Interaction (awareness) .847 Variety of s paces (large space) .843 Variety of s paces (different spaces) .839 Interaction (concentrate) .833 Acoustic q uality .512 .819 Architectural e lements (style) .582 .744 Aesthetic (furnishings) .636 .734 Sense of e xposure (staff areas) .728 .662 Sense of s ecurity .574 .712 Sense of e xposure (mood) .632 .586 Flexible b uilding .588 .561 Task l ighting .848 Satisfaction .811 Architectural e lements (entrance) .781 Location (storage) .576 .704 Layout (deportment's storage) .606 .688

PAGE 189

189 Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Furniture a djustment .547 .641 Task l ighting c ontrol .610 .634 Interaction (other departments) .938 Acoustic (privacy) .770 Extraction m ethod: p rincipal c omponent a nalysis Rotation m ethod: Varimax with Kaiser n ormalization

PAGE 190

190 APPENDIX L END USERS COMMENTS Biggest complaint by far is not design, it concerns the hours. This is the flagship library of UF and yet, it is closed all the time on weekends, breaks. Many of us are graduate students who need this space to work every day. On a game day I have watched hundreds of people come by the locked door s of library west with their books, forced to turn around. The library does much to exhibit the importance of education until it closes on a Saturday presumably for drinking and sports which implies a very different message. Aesthetics is lacking. If you look around all you can see is wood panels all over the place. Maybe more of the cast iron art work from downstairs or more color. Reds, blues, yellows... There should be signs posted saying no talking on 3rd floor, even at the tables. Restrict talking amo ngst groups to 2nd floor common area. For example, if you can see a study carrel, don't talk. Bring back the bean bag chairs!!!! Lots of them!!!! Make the graduate type rooms more accessible to undergrads if they are not being used. I like to study comple tely alone and I feel that I might not be able to do that in Library West. There needs to be a new wireless internet connection system. On weeknights, so many people are using the server that connection is as slow as dialup. Putting meeting rooms / study r ooms on the quiet floor was a bad design decision. I'm very proud of it. I can call it my library. Sometimes though (very rarely) I feel like the environment is a tad lax (this is mostly due to the lazy students that show up to the wrong floors to socializ e ^_^) but I guess that helps ease tension and creates a fun environment. A wonderful place to study!! It would be ideal if the library could be made to be "friendlier" to the environment. Renewable energy sources, etc. The door really needs to be fixed. I t produces a VERY annoying sound every time it's opened or closed past a certain angle. Because of door's materials, when people open door, it produces a lot of noise. The open space of second floor makes noise from first floor can be heard easily. Chair h eights are not adjustable. While seated on those chairs, I feel dizzy because of is designed poorly so people can be easily interfered when other people go by.

PAGE 191

191 It would nice to see the carrels be used by people besides grad students. Maybe additional carrels could be given to the Disability Resource Center students, for people with both mental needs (ADHD) and physical limitations. I can't imagine trying to bring all o f my heavy books on campus with a perm disability. I was briefly injured from a car accident and it made it very difficult to study on campus because I had to bring everything with me. Also, the 1st floor/basement is always too cold. I really like having that Starbucks downstairs. It is very helpful to have that coffee available when you want to stay awake to study at night. I would like it if the library could be open an hour later, or if professors that teach major courses (ones that typically have a lo t of students, like biology, chemistry, etc.) could request for the library to be kept open later a few days before an exam for any of their students that wished to study later. Overall best library on campus. Some of the light bulbs in the back need to be replaced, and some in the desk lights are missing. Needs signs saying what part of the library are quiet because not everyone is polite enough to be quiet and respectful of others. Something needs to be done about people playing music too loudly (even thr ough their headphones), and talking when others clearly are trying to study. Also, if there were individual small study rooms for single person occupancy with sound proofing, that would be awesome.

PAGE 192

192 APPENDIX M ITEM TOTAL STATISTICS INF ORMATION END USERS SURVEY Category Scale m ean if i tem d eleted Scale v ariance if i tem d eleted Corrected i tem t otal c orrelation Cronbach's Alpha if i tem d eleted Natural l ighting 1476.14 996324.810 .897 .992 Task l ighting 1476.86 995010.810 .963 .992 Artificial l ighting 1476.57 999697.952 .945 .992 Lighting q uality (stacks) 1480.00 1018818.000 .580 .992 Lighting q uality (Carrels) 1480.29 1014049.905 .706 .992 Lighting q uality (meeting rooms) 1481.71 1013169.905 .865 .992 Lighting q uality (reading rooms) 1481.14 1011346.810 .841 .992 Lighting q uality (media room) 1481.86 1018746.143 .485 .992 Acoustic (background noise) 1478.43 1018694.952 .729 .992 Acoustic (background noise) 1478.57 1019725.619 .722 .992 Acoustic (disruptions) 1478.29 1014682.571 .887 .992 Acoustic q uality (stacks) 1480.14 1031816.476 .126 .993 Acoustic q uality (carrels) 1480.14 1032590.810 .125 .992 Acoustic q uality (meeting rooms) 1481.29 1027279.571 .343 .992 Acoustic q uality (reading rooms) 1481.29 1030101.571 .239 .992 Acoustic q uality (media room) 1482.00 1029019.333 .226 .992 Temperature 1477.43 1012321.952 .745 .992 Humidity 1477.43 987774.619 .940 .992 Odors 1477.43 991505.952 .943 .992 Layout (other studies) 1479.29 1007155.571 .917 .992 Layout (reading rooms) 1481.00 1007646.333 .917 .992 Layout (book stacks) 1480.14 1004543.476 .966 .992 Layout (comfortable study area) 1479.29 1041686.238 .269 .993 Layout (crowded) 1479.14 1067745.810 .901 .993 Layout (overall) 1479.57 1020215.952 .612 .992 Layout (carrels size) 1480.86 1001019.143 .959 .992 Layout (carrels power/data connectivity) 1481.00 1001724.333 .967 .992 Layout (carrels storage space) 1480.57 1004988.952 .952 .992 Layout (meeting room size) 1482.43 1003748.286 .985 .992 Location (meeting rooms) 1482.29 1003838.905 .963 .992 Location (copy areas) 1481.86 1010750.810 .979 .992 Location (rest rooms) 1480.43 1000085.619 .961 .992 Location (stairways) 1480.57 1000263.286 .963 .992

PAGE 193

193 Category Scale mean if item deleted Scale variance if item deleted Corrected item total correlation Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted Location (elevators) 1480.86 999375.476 .958 .992 Location (carrels) 1481.29 1000501.905 .979 .992 Way finding (circulation desk) 1480.00 984749.333 .770 .992 Way finding (reference desk) 1480.14 988467.143 .813 .992 Way finding (book stacks) 1480.29 995287.238 .908 .992 Way finding (reference room) 1481.86 1005775.810 .943 .992 Way finding (copy area) 1480.57 1003070.952 .936 .992 Way finding (microfilm) 1482.14 1010921.810 .928 .992 Way finding (foreign books) 1482.14 1019226.476 .788 .992 Way finding (audio/visual) 1482.29 1016515.238 .905 .992 Way finding (reading room) 1482.29 1008141.905 .948 .992 Way finding (meeting room) 1482.29 1003148.571 .972 .992 Way finding (administration) 1482.43 1010253.952 .983 .992 Way finding (rest rooms) 1480.43 993446.619 .894 .992 Furniture c omfort 1480.14 1005306.476 .934 .992 Furniture a djustments 1479.86 1006168.810 .905 .992 Finishing 1480.29 1018065.905 .992 .992 Furniture (options) 1479.86 1026037.810 .486 .992 Furniture (arrangements) 1480.14 1019391.810 .737 .992 Interior (colors) 1480.57 1000347.619 .971 .992 Interior (surface materials) 1480.57 998775.286 .975 .992 Interior (flooring materials) 1480.57 998785.286 .971 .992 Interior (furnishings) 1480.57 1000160.286 .986 .992 Interior (overall) 1481.00 1001230.667 .968 .992 Architectural e lements (entrance) 1480.57 995816.952 .919 .992 Architectural e lements (style) 1480.57 995423.952 .969 .992 Architectural e lements (site) 1480.71 1001952.571 .992 .992 Architectural e lements (windows/views) 1480.57 998843.952 .906 .992 Flexible b uilding 1480.86 1009695.143 .890 .992 Express v alues 1481.14 1014638.476 .874 .992 Variety of s paces (large space) 1481.14 1010852.143 .891 .992 Variety of s paces (different spaces) 1481.14 1008156.143 .969 .992 Sense of e xposure (intimacy) 1481.14 1011213.476 .937 .992 Sense of e xposure (mood) 1481.57 1015975.952 .936 .992 Sense of e xposure (moving through) 1481.43 1017858.286 .920 .992 Sense of e xposure (staff areas) 1481.43 1009072.619 .959 .992

PAGE 194

194 Category Scale mean if item deleted Scale variance if item deleted Corrected item total correlation Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted Interaction (concentrate) 1480.86 1016497.810 .855 .992 Interaction (productive) 1480.86 1008861.810 .814 .992 Interaction (block distractions) 1479.57 1018974.286 .679 .992 Sense of p rivacy 1481.14 1021222.810 .924 .992 Interaction (with others) 1481.14 1018394.810 .883 .992 Sense of p lace 1481.29 1018240.238 .937 .992 Sense of o wnership 1481.00 1021712.000 .875 .992 Sense of s ecurity 1481.14 1018684.476 .867 .992 Sense of c ommunity 1480.71 1008787.238 .912 .992

PAGE 195

195 APPENDIX N PRINCIPLE FACTOR ROT ATED COMPONENT MATRI X END USERS SURVEY Category Component 1 2 3 4 5 Way finding (circulation desk) .986 Way finding (reference desk) .978 Architectural e lements (windows/views) .944 Way finding (rest rooms) .935 Way finding (book stacks) .927 Natural l ighting .901 Architectural e lements (entrance) .897 Way finding (copy area) .893 Humidity .886 Way finding (reference room) .882 Odors .871 Way finding (reading room) .865 Architectural e lements (style) .849 Way finding (meeting room) .834 Way finding (microfilm) .808 Artificial l ighting .794 .577 Location (rest rooms) .783 .536 Location (elevators) .780 .563 Location (stairways) .764 .535 Way finding (administration) .749 Task l ighting .743 .618 Location (carrels) .739 .557 Interior (colors) .735 .620 Sense of p lace .731 Layout (carrels power/data connectivity) .728 Architectural e lements (site) .728 .501 Sense of s ecurity .716 Interior (furnishings) .714 .617 Interior (overall) .710 .649 Interior (flooring materials) .709 .607 Location (meeting rooms) .697 .559 Finishing .691 .550 Interior (surface materials) .691 .655 Location (copy areas) .690 .523 Variety of s paces (different spaces) .685

PAGE 196

196 Category Component 1 1 1 1 1 Layout (meeting room size) .677 .611 Layout (comfortable study area) .671 .578 Sense of p rivacy .671 .564 Layout (crowded) .651 Way finding (audio/visual) .629 Sense of e xposure (staff areas) .614 Express v alues .602 .593 .593 Furniture (options) .960 Acoustic (background noise) .860 Temperature .858 Acoustic (background noise) .846 Interaction (with others) .830 Furniture (arrangements) .829 Acoustic (disruptions) .824 Layout (carrels storage space) .583 .758 Layout (overall) .750 Layout (carrels size) .612 .732 Furniture a djustments .656 .731 Sense of e xposure (moving through) .722 Layout (other studies) .606 .702 Furniture c omfort .630 .686 Flexible b uilding .670 Layout (reading rooms) .665 Layout (book stacks) .633 .654 Sense of e xposure (mood) .545 .647 Sense of e xposure (intimacy) .503 .636 Sense of o wnership .521 .633 Variety of s paces (large space) .595 .530 .530 Acoustic q uality (reading rooms) .997 .997 Acoustic q uality (media room) .993 .993 Acoustic q uality (carrels) .987 .987 Acoustic q uality (stacks) .985 .985 Acoustic q uality (meeting rooms) .977 .977 Lighting q uality (media room) .964 .964 Lighting q uality (stacks) .941 .941 Lighting q uality ( c arrels) .847 .847 Lighting q uality (reading rooms) .547 .746 .746 Lighting q uality (meeting rooms) .536 .681 .681

PAGE 197

197 Category Component 1 1 1 Way finding (foreign books) .625 .625 Interaction (block distractions) Interaction (productive) .606 Interaction (concentrate) .555 Sense of Community .535 Extraction m ethod: p rincipal c omponent a nalysis Rotation m ethod: Varimax with Kaiser n ormalization

PAGE 198

198 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. American Institute of Architects, & Demkin, J. A. (2002). The architect's handbook of professional practice (13th ed.). New York: J. Wiley. American Institute of Architects, & Palmer, M. A. (1981). The architect's guide to facility programming. Washington, D.C.; New York: The Institute; Architectural Record Books. Botti Salitsky, Rose Mary (2009). Programming and Research skills and Techniques for Interior Designers. New York: Fairchild Publications. DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analy sis. Retrieved from http://www.stat help.com/notes.html Genat, B. (2009). Building emergent situated knowledges in participatory action research Action Research, 7 (1), 101 115. George A. Smathers Libraries. (2007). George A. Smathers Libraries History, 1853 2007 [electronic resource]. Gainesville, Fla: The Libraries Fall. Retrieved from http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/msl/libraryhistory.html George A. Smathers Libraries. (2010). Library news [electronic resource] for faculty of th e university of florida. Gainesville, Fla: The Libraries Fall. Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00017067 George A. Smathers Libraries (2006). New Library Construction Update: Library Building P rogram, Retrieved November 2, 2009, from http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/pio/construction/ Gliem, Joseph A. ; Gliem, Rosemary R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, And Reporting Type Scales. 2003 Conference (Columbus, Ohio : Ohio State University) Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344 Electronic Resource Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books. Gifford, Robert (2007). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice Colville, WA: Optimal Books. Hasell, M. Jo; King, Janine; Pohlman, Richard (2001). Designers, Researchers, Stakeholders: Partners for Plann ing the Fredric G. Levin College of Law. College of Design, Construction, and Planning. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida.

PAGE 199

199 Hershberger, R. G. (1999). Architectural programming and predesign manager New York: McGraw Hill. Kernohan, D. (1992). User participation in building design and management : A generic approach to building evaluation Oxford, OX ; Boston: Butterworth Architecture. Lamar, J. C. (2007). Action research as a planning and designing approach [electronic resource] : Post occupancy ev aluation of the lawton chiles legal information center at the university of florida Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida. Leighton, P. D., Metcalf, K. D., & Weber, D. C. (1999). Planning academic and research library buildings (3rd ed.). Chicago, Ill .: American Library Association. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, T., & Preiser, W. F. E. (2007). Designing for designers : Lessons learned from schools of architecture New York: Fairchild Publications. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.), United States. Dept. of Energy, & United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information. (2004). Procurement of architectural and engineering services for sustainable buildings [electronic resource] : A guide for federal project managers. Washing ton, D.C; Oak Ridge, Tenn.: United States. Dept. of Energy; distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/15007813 fAkzNU/native/ Palmer, Mickey A. (1981). Archite New York, the American institute of Architects, & Architectural Record. Pea, W., Caudill, W. W., Caudill, W. W., Focke, J., & Focke, J. (1977). Problem seeking : An architectural programming primer Boston: Cahners Bo oks International. Pea, W., Kelly, K., & Parshall, S. (1987). Problem seeking : An architectural programming primer (3rd ed.). Washington: AIA Press. Pea, W., NetLibrary, I., & Parshall, S. (2001). Problem seeking [electronic resource] : An architectur al programming primer (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Piotroski, Christine M. (2008). Professional Practice for Interior Designers (4th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Preiser, W. F. E. (1978). Facility programming : Methods and applications. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Preiser, W. F. E. (1985). Programming the built environment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W. F. E. & Vischer, Jacqueline C. (2005). Assessing Building Performance Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

PAGE 200

200 Reizenstein, J. E. (1982). Hospital design and human behavior: A review of the recent literature. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental design. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sanoff, H. (1977). Methods of architectural programming. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Sommer, Robert (1983). Social design: Creating Buildings with People in Mind Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice Hall, Inc. Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Swann Cal. (2002). Action Research and the Practice of Design Design Issues: Volume 18, Number 2. The U nited States General Services Administration (2005). leading by example. U.S. General Services Administration. University of Florida (2008). University of Florida History Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.ufl.edu/history/. White, E. T. (1972). Introduction to architectural programming Tucson, Ariz ona : Architectural Media. White, E. T. (1991). Post occupancy evaluation and the corporate architect Tucson, Ariz: Architectural Media. Zeisel, John (2006). Inquiry by Design New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

PAGE 201

201 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Noaman Adhami was born in Damascus, Syria. The older of two children from Syrian father and Russian mother, he grew up between Wahran, Algeria and Damascus, Syria, a r chitectural e ngineering from Damascus University in 1998. Also, he became a registered architect at the Order of Syrian Engineers and Architects (OSEA) in 1999. Before graduating in August of 1998 with his b a rchitecture, Noaman was an i Technical Group, Architectural firm, in Damascus, Syria. In 2002, he joined Dar Al Bina firm. And between 2007 and 2010, he worked as a freelance architect in Damascus Syria. Upon completion of his m i nterior d esign at the University of Florida in the spring of 2011 Noaman will peruse a career in architecture and interior design in North America, the Middle East, and Russia. In recognition of excellence by the Department of Interior Design at University of Florida, The researcher received Reynolds Smith & Hill Scholarship award in April 11, 2011.