POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION REPORT

CARRIED OUT ON THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES IN MINNA NIGER STATE:

ABU-TURAB FEEDS LIMITEDABU-TURAB POULTRY LIMITED

KAD ENGINEERING LIMITEDTOMI-ZAYI LIMITED

WATER SEARCH NIGERIA LIMITEDSAWMILL AND FURNITURE COMPANY

COMPLIED BY

GROUP 3 MEMBERS

IDRIS ABDULRAHMAN BABASALAMI SHAKIRAT FLOASHADE

ABDULLAHI JIBRIL HASSANADOKURU CHRISTOPHER AMASOR

ISHIYAKU

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURESCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MINNA, NIGER STATE.

A PREREQUISITE FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT (ARC 619)

MENTOR: DR (MRS) S. N. ZUBAIRU

JULY 2008

GROUP MEMBERS REG. NUMBERS

IDRIS ABDULRAHMAN BABA M.TECH/2006/SET/1576 SALAMI SHAKIRAT FLOASHADE M.TECH/2006/SET/1562ABDULLAHI JIBRIL HASSAN M.TECH/2006/SET/1561ADOKURU CHRISTOPHER AMASOR M.TECH/2006/SET/1570ISHIYAKU

INTRODUCTION

Post Occupancy Evaluation is a continuous process of systematically evaluating the performance and/or effectiveness of one or more aspects of buildings in relation to issues such as accessibility, aesthetics, cost-effectiveness, functionality, productivity, safety and security, and sustainability. Post Occupancy Evaluations is popularly-known as POE. POEs that started in the 1960s and 1970s involved individual case studies such as public and student housing. These POEs primarily involved collecting information about occupants and buildings through questionnaires, interviews, site visits, and field observation. POEs were later applied to other facilities such as army barracks, hospitals, prisons, and courthouses. By the mid 1980s, POEs were applied to office buildings and other commercial real estate as well. Today the scope of evaluations of building performance continues to grow. Post Occupancy Evaluation is sometimes referred to as Facility performance evaluation (FPE).

POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION (POE)

There is no industry-accepted definition of POE, nor is there a standardized method for conducting a POE. In an effort to reflect the objectives and goals of POEs as they are practiced, different terms have been used for POEs including Facility performance evaluation (FPE), environmental design evaluations, environmental audits, building-in-use assessments, building evaluation, facility assessment, and building performance evaluations.

In general, Post Occupancy Evaluation involves a systematic evaluation of opinion about buildings in use, from the perspective of the people who use them. It assesses how well buildings match users' needs, and identifies ways to improve building design, performance and fitness for purpose.

The main objectives of POE are to:

Assess fit-for-purpose i.e. the suitability of the asset to meet service delivery objectives.

Assist continuous improvement by identifying positive and negative aspects of an in-service facility; and then by feeding this information into the planning and design of the future facilities.

Prepare defect action plans, at an operational level. This entails the correction of deficiencies such as improving maintenance, minor works and/or management decisions.

TYPES OF POE

There exist various types of POE proposed by several scholars, for example Van Wagenberg (1989) identified four types of POE namely;

(1) Historical Evaluation

(2) Comparative Evaluation

(3) Longitudinal Evaluation

(4) Quasi-experimental Evaluation

But for the essence of this academic report, the historical evaluation would be used. This is the most common type of POE. In this type of POE the aim is to evaluate the building in retrospect. Objectives would be set and the evaluator tries to determine whether the building actually fulfils these objectives.

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN POE

There is no definite process required for carrying out a POE but according to Zubairu (1995), the process of POE comprises the following;

(a) Study and analysis of as-built drawings.

(b) Preparation of questionnaires for management and workers in the building(s). The questionnaire deals with technical aspects, environmental conditions, adequacy of spaces, health, safety and image of building(s).

(c) Walk-through Evaluation - this involves a complete physical examination of the building by the POE team.

(d) Interviews – the POE team finally interviews selected personnel at the end of the walkthrough.

The information gather from these processes are subsequently analysed and the results will determine what actions that will be taken.

Fig 1.0 Showing the various stages involved with Post Occupancy Evaluation.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

Data collection was carried out using an interviewer-administered questionnaire; this is intended to get the views of the staff and workers that are directly involved with the buildings. These questionnaires were administered to selected industries in Minna, Niger State. The administration of the questionnaire was carried out with each industry having to answer 10 general staff questionnaire with 1 management questionnaire. This was also followed by physical examination (i.e. direct observation) of the working areas and spaces and interviews. The questionnaire was designed using simple and direct questions, all covering areas such as user satisfaction, space management and adequacy of spaces. A yes or no scale was used to measure workers' level satisfaction with his/her working space.

STUDY AREAS

The post occupancy evaluation was required to be carried out in the following industries located in Minna-West and Minna-East Local Government Areas of Niger State;

1. ABU-TURAB FEEDS LIMITED.2. ABU-TURAB POULTRY LIMITED.3. KAD ENGINEERING LIMITED.4. TOMI-ZAYI LIMITED.5. WATER SEARCH NIGERIA LIMITED.6. SAWMILL AND FURNITURE COMPANY.

But only three of the above named industries are still functioning presently, that is industries (1), (2) and (6). Therefore, the evaluation was carried out on the three industries. Also industry (1) and (2) share common facilities such as; staff, facilities, equipments and they are located in the same compound. Below is the breakdown of the activities carried out in the industries.

CASE STUDY 1(1) OLA SAWMILLS AND FURNITURE COMPANY

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Ola Sawmills and Furniture Company, located along the Eastern bye-pass opposite the Niger State House of Assembly Staff quarters, Minna Niger State, was established in 1984 by a young entrepreneur, now the Director; Mr. Oladewa Oyeniran. It was initially established as a small- scale enterprise devoted to the creation of finished goods from timber raw material. But the company has now grown into a medium-scale industry creating all variety of woodwork products such as timber profiles and sections, and furniture of all types.

COMPANY’S ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE

The company is headed by the director; who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and gives all the directions, makes decisions and bears all the risks. All the other staff work under the director, they include; artisans in furniture making, machine operators, apprentices, carpenters etc., all working in and around the production hall.

In general, the company has three (3) administrative staffs and five (5) factory / workshop staffs. Although most of the administrative staff still work in the production hall as factory workers like other staffs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The data used for this analysis were gotten from the questionnaire administered to the various industries during the evaluation period. Ten staff questionnaires were administered to ten various staff working in the industry. The analysis below was deduced from the collected questionnaires. General InformationGenerally, most of the staff are male

Fig 2.0 Showing the age distribution of the staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

Fig 2.1 Showing the length of service of the staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

Space ManagementStaff members were asked several questions relating to space management around their working areas. These data were collected from the questionnaire. Their responses have been analysed in forms of charts.

(a) Working posture; sitting /standing,

Fig 2.2 Showing the working posture of the staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

(b) Working obstructions from furniture or other persons,

Fig 2.3 Showing the levels of obstruction experienced by staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

(c) Distraction around working areas,

Fig 2.4 Showing the work distraction level amongst the staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

(d) Need space expansion for working areas,

Fig 2.5 Showing the need for expansion around working areas by staffs in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

(e) Free moving in case of fire outbreak,

Fig 2.6 Showing the movement level around working areas in case of fire outbreak.

User satisfactionIn this section of the questionnaire, staff members were asked several questions relating to user satisfaction around their working areas. Their responses were also analysed.(a) Work satisfaction,

(b) Reasons for work satisfaction,

Fig 2.7 Showing the level of work satisfaction amongst staffs of Ola Furniture and Sawmills Co.

(c) Adequacy of lighting in working spaces,

Fig 2.8 Showing the level adequacy of lighting in work spaces.

(d) Air flow in working spaces,

Fig 2.9 Showing the level of air flow within work spaces.

FINDINGS / SUMMARYThe evaluation carried out in Ola Furniture and Sawmills Company reveals the following; General information

(a) All the staff workers are mainly men and they all work on a permanent basis.

(b) About 90% of the workers are within the age range of 18-41 years.(c) In terms of educational qualification, most of the staff could only finish

their secondary education.(d) Most of the staff members had worked for at least 5 years in the

industry.Space Management

(a) Most of the works done are usually carried out at standing positions.(b) About 90% of the staff agreed that do not experience any form of

obstruction while working.(c) About 50% of the staff agree that they are been distracted by other

activities within the factory.(d) Almost all the staff agreed that the working spaces provided for their

duties are adequate for them.(e) Also they all believed there is free movement in case of fire outbreak.

User Satisfaction

(a) All the staff agreed that they enjoy their work, although most of them believed it was rewarding and interesting.

(b) They have a first-aid box in case of any accident in the factory and it is functional.

(c) There is no clinic provided for the staffs.(d) Most of the workers actually do go for further training in related fields.(e) About 60% of the staff believed that their working spaces are well lit and

also a large number of the workers also agreed that they have a well ventilated working space.

(f) Most of the staffs do not wear any safety device.(g) The factory has changing rooms provided for the staffs and it is

adequate.

Fig 2.9.1 Showing some staffs working outside the production hall.

Fig 2.9.2 Showing some of the machine used in the production hall.

CASE STUDY 2(2) ABU-TURAB FEEDS AND ABU-TURAB POULTRY LIMITEDBACKGROUND INFORMATION

Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited, located along the Eastern bye-pass opposite the Niger State House of Assembly Staff quarters, Minna Niger State, was established in 1984 by a young entrepreneur, now the Director; Mr. Oladewa Oyeniran. It was initially established as a small- scale enterprise devoted to the creation of finished goods from timber raw material. But the company has now grown into a medium-scale industry creating all variety of woodwork products such as timber profiles and sections, and furniture of all types.

COMPANY’S ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE

The company is headed by the director; who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and gives all the directions, makes decisions and bears all the risks. All the other staff work under the director, they include; artisans in furniture making, machine operators, apprentices, carpenters etc., all working in and around the production hall.

In general, the company has three (3) administrative staffs and five (5) factory / workshop staffs. Although most of the administrative staff still work in the production hall as factory workers like other staffs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The data used for this analysis were gotten from the questionnaire administered to the various industries during the evaluation period. Ten staff questionnaires were administered to ten various staff working in the industry. The analysis below was deduced from the collected questionnaires. General InformationGenerally, most of the staff are male

Fig 3.0 Showing the age distribution of the staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

Fig 3.1 Showing the length of service of the staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

Space ManagementSimilarly, staff members were asked several questions relating to space management from the questionnaire. Their responses have been analysed in forms of charts.

(a) Working posture; sitting /standing.

Fig 3.2 Showing the working posture of the staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

(b) Working obstructions from furniture or other persons,

Fig 3.3 Showing the working posture of the staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

(c) Distraction around working areas,

Fig 3.4 Showing the work distraction level amongst the staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

(d) Need space expansion for working areas,

Fig 3.5 Showing the need for expansion around working areas by staffs in Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

(e) Free moving in case of fire outbreak,

Fig 3.6 Showing the movement level around working areas in case of fire outbreak.

User satisfactionAlso, in this section of the questionnaire, staff members were asked several questions relating to user satisfaction around their working areas. Their responses were also analysed.(a) Work satisfaction,

(b) Reasons for work satisfaction,

Fig 3.7 Showing the level of work satisfaction amongst staffs of Abu-Turab Feeds and Abu-Turab Poultry limited.

(c) Adequacy of lighting in working spaces,

Fig 3.8 Showing the level adequacy of lighting in work spaces.

(d) Air flow in working spaces,

Fig 3.9 Showing the level of air flow within work spaces.

FINDINGS / SUMMARY

CONCLUSION