**4. Results and discussion**

The categories and sub-categories of the Green-Star As Design (v1) rating tool were used. Each sub-category has certain scores available that when combined form the maximum score available for that Green-Star category. The specific scores attained and statements made by the study buildings in the original Green Star application documents assist in determining the original design intention by a building.

Green-Star performance of case study buildings was analysed by utilising the Green-Star applications submitted by the respective institutions as an expression of interest for creating these buildings. The scores achieved by each building assists in understanding the commitments of the respective institutions. The mixed-method techniques deployed assisted in evaluating and validating how well these case study buildings performed in relation to the targets they laid out in their respective applications. The scores achieved by each case study building against the nine categories of the Green-Star As Design (v1) rating system are shown in **Table 2**.

As shown in **Table 2**, all the case study buildings scored high under the first five categories, namely – (i) Management – achieving score on factors, such as external and internal building commissioning, delivering appropriate management practices, evaluating user satisfaction, technical and physical performance; (ii) IEQ – for improved technologies for providing better IEQ services; (iii) Energy – achieving


#### **Table 2.**

*Scores achieved by each case study building across the nine Green-Star As Design (v1) categories.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Case study building sample size.*

energy efficiency, carbon footprint reduction; (iv) Transport; and (v) Water – using water-efficient technologies. The buildings scored moderate on materials, land use, ecology, and emission and no score on innovation, except Building D, which attained double the maximum score available for innovation, due to commitment in design and technologies promised.

The BUS surveys used to assess the staff responses towards these newly built Green Star rated buildings evaluated user comfort, indoor environment quality, wellbeing and productivity, and communication with management. In relation to the surveys, the effective population size (N) for each case study building is described in **Table 3**.

The key findings to emerge from the surveys were occupant responses towards three main themes – (i) impact of various design and work environment conditions (office/desk design, thermal comfort, acoustics, personal control, etc.) on their overall behaviour; (ii) their overall comfort and perceived productivity; and (iii) dissatisfied engagement levels from the management level

The user's perspective towards the impact of various design and work environment conditions on overall behaviour showed that 69% of users in Building A, 66% in Building B, 55% in Building C, and 58% in Building D rated the conditions in the building affected their behaviour personally (with colleagues) and professionally (in terms of work and productivity). Most users commented that the overall comfort or productivity was drastically affected, leading to changes in the work schedule and activities. Using Pearson (*r*) statistical test, significant at p <0.01, the highest correlation was the variable 'building meets user needs and comfort', followed by 'overall comfort and perceived productivity', and 'perceived productivity and perceived health. The correlation results are presented in **Table 4**.

On rating the engagement of management, the mean of responses on the satisfaction scale of 1–5 for Building D for two variables were – 4.25 for: (i) facilities meet user needs, and (ii) speed of response for staff complaints, and 3.24 for the effectiveness of response. The results for Building D were the highest when compared to other


**Table 4.**

*Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between work environment variables in case study buildings.*

*Highlighting the Design and Performance Gaps: Case Studies of University Buildings DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102779*


**Table 5.**

*Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between stakeholder engagement focused variables in case study buildings.*

buildings, stating the highest level of satisfaction for the occupants of Building D. The other buildings also had mean scores close to or more than 3 on facilities meeting user needs and effectiveness of the response, demonstrating moderate levels of satisfaction. The occupants for all buildings rated lowest on the speed of response to a request to change, demonstrating lower levels of satisfaction. This particular aspect was also observed in the open-ended comments, where the occupants (average of 42% in study buildings) expressed their discontent towards the attitude of the facilities for not acting upon their requests or complaints on time. When the variables under this category were compared, a high correlation between two variables in each building was observed. The highest correlation (significant at p < 0.01) was observed in Building B followed by Building D demonstrating a high positive relationship. This suggests that for the users in Buildings B and D, the positive response for one variable affected the other directly. The correlation results are presented in **Table 5**.

On completion of occupant feedback survey analysis, it was observed that the occupants of the study buildings had mixed feelings about the facility. As primary occupants of the buildings, the staff were reasonably satisfied with the overall building, but not fully satisfied that it met their expectations specifically in relation to their office space and comfort. However, as per the occupant's perspective, the facilities were designed very efficiently and effectively for its students, with management's key focus being on providing a comfortable and desirable environment for the students over the staff.

Nonetheless, for all four buildings, the occupants on average showed high satisfaction (87%) towards the building design and Green Star attainment, medium/neutral satisfaction (57%) towards maintained temperature conditions, lighting levels, and comfort, and low satisfaction (42%) towards noise levels, office space, perceived productivity and health, and personal control over physical factors. This level of lower rating can be associated with several factors, including a shift to open-plan offices, sustainability initiatives not working well, and a lack of appropriate occupant engagement by the management, as per the occupant's open-ended comments provided in the surveys. Upon comparison between the four buildings, it was observed that Building D outperformed all other study buildings with the highest occupant satisfaction (89%) and Building C rating the lowest levels of occupant satisfaction towards most measured variables (54%).

Summarizing the responses, the quantitative results assisted in understanding the extent to which the study buildings met their occupant's needs and expectations, and how well have the facility managers succeeded in providing the building services to the occupants. On an average (43%), the results implied an overall low satisfaction of occupants with respect to their workspace environment and factors, demonstrating that the study buildings lack the ability to meet the primary objective of fulfilling occupant needs and improving their comfort and productivity. These quantitative results were triangulated with the qualitative results to eliminate any bias and

understand the occupant-management relationships, and management's perspective in the study buildings for arriving at the final recommendations and conclusions.

The qualitative results obtained via walk-in discussions, stakeholder interviews, and focus group discussions re-emphasized the "missing link" or lack of communication loop between building occupants and the management, ultimately affecting the overall building performance. The management's priority is to achieve the University targets, whereas the occupants want a good indoor space to work, in addition to being able to express their needs and wants. Both managers and occupants' perspectives are individually valid and justified but do not complement due to low or negligible stakeholder prioritization and engagement in the management strategies. Hence, this chapter highlights the learnings from the case study buildings and develops a model using the best practices for improved execution in future projects.

The stakeholder interviews and focus group further assisted in triangulating the study's outcomes in correspondence to Green Star aspiration results. The results demonstrated that buildings could achieve certification, but the operation can still be poor in terms of low occupant satisfaction levels towards their workplace productivity and comfort. Major concerns observed in the walk-in discussions and stakeholder interviews were the lack of occupant engagement and consultations by the facility management officials during the building design and construction phase; none to extremely low involvement of design officials after building in use; and the limited focus on short term benefits over life cycle performance. The discussions with facility and building managers reiterated the key aspiration for the building's senior management was to achieve overall energy efficiency and make student-friendly facilities, rather than creating a productive workplace for the staff. The results also demonstrated that although the buildings scored high against the "management" and "energy" categories of the Green Star applications, most sub-categories were not satisfied in the operation phase. The management and design stakeholders primarily associated this non-functionality with technical defaults or cost-related issues.

The analysis reported in this chapter demonstrates that the development of the case study buildings has some success from an environmental, sustainability, and financial perspective. However, lacked drastically from an occupant (social) perspective. There are lessons that can be drawn upon for future developments to improve outcomes further. The analysis of survey responses and interviews highlights that it is crucial to close the loop between the performance measurement and performance management of buildings to achieve sustainability. Moreover, it is recommended to integrate stakeholder engagement and management at each phase of any project, to optimize the potential for all the stakeholders, and create an output beneficial and satisfactory for all.

The best practice model hence recommended by the study serves as a guidance document, providing structure and direction for the design professionals, and facility and building managers to prepare and implement their actions strategically, to achieve the desired performance of their buildings along with building occupant satisfaction. The model is represented in **Figure 2**.

**Figure 2** demonstrates the structure of the key factors of the "best practice model" recommended by the study, based on the gaps identified earlier on and learnings from the study findings. It represents a continuing sequence along with the direction flow of the stages, tasks, or events in a circular flow, with each stage having the same level of importance, to ultimately achieve project success and performance management throughout the life cycle. This model has been derived based on the analysis of greenrated tertiary education buildings; however, it can be adopted by all commercial building types as it informs a general structural change required in an organization's

*Highlighting the Design and Performance Gaps: Case Studies of University Buildings DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102779*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Recommended 'Best Practice Model' for achieving sustainable building outcomes. Source: Authors.*

management practice, to deliver required and appropriate governance strategies achieving all business outcomes and creating productive workplaces for the users. The key recommendations of the model can be summarized as a model that includes:


Retaining and sharing the knowledge and lessons learned, then capitalizing and converting this to insights for future projects will be challenging, considering the flux in many organizations in these increasingly uncertain times. Nonetheless, incorporating ongoing performance evaluation, stakeholder engagement practices and understanding the need for reporting and getting the reporting relationship right in any organization becomes an important consideration.

The framework defined in this chapter is primarily based on the stakeholder engagement principles and is a three-step pyramid process. At the lower level or the base, the framework determines "Strategic Management" perspective, which simply means identifying organisational targets and priorities, enhancing decision-making processes, and ensuring stakeholder identification, prioritization, and engagement towards design, processes, and outcomes, followed by "Ethical" perspective illustrating maintaining harmony between stakeholder groups and identifying socio-behavioural aspects, and the higher level or apex constituting the "Opportunity" perspective illustrating knowledge sharing. The contribution of the research (based on the framework) to the knowledge will be the development of a best practice model for the built environment sector (applied/inspired from the academic sector) using a "holistic" or "integrated design" approach. Hence, the paper intends to recommend that being energy conservers and managing financial sustainability, the organization still needs to focus on engaging with all the stakeholders constructively.

Finally, the paper discusses the strategies to ensure replication of the respective best practice model to develop a supporting policy framework and build up capacity of building managers. The outputs generated by the paper are consistent with and instrumental to the achievement of the objectives that contribute to creating enabling environments for integrated sustainability strategies into building design and management.
