DOI: 10.5937/jaes0-28072
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0
Volume 19 article 812 pages: 448-465
This research is motivated by the fact that an office as a forum for activities depends on the type of business being
carried out, where the conditions of the office will determine the credibility and synergy of a business entity, guaranteeing
the performance and productivity of its employees. This study aims to formulate an interior design concept
based on Post Occupancy Evaluation with the Mixed Methods Research (MMR) approach, which emphasizes the
meaning of empiric based on relevant field data. The research method used the case study method with the MMR
approach in data collection and analysis. The research step was started by analyzing the physical space conditions
based on the design results that were compared with standardization, then a satisfaction survey was carried out
using a questionnaire that was submitted to the employees as respondents. The MMR approach is intended to ensure
the level of significance of the quality of the work environment in the room, the quality of the workplace, and the
performance of employees. The research object is the Haleyora Powerindo office building, Jakarta. The results of the
study show that the work environment quality is high and responds positively. According to the workplace quality, satisfaction
is mainly related to workspace area and quality, comfort and style of furniture, circulation, and accessibility
to the work table, effectiveness and efficiency of workplace layout, ICT implementation, and HVAC and maintenance.
Social space and entertainment facilities provide flexibility in interacting between officers of different divisions that
were not in the previous office. Based on the results of multiple regression calculations, the in-door environment and
the officer workspace quality have a significant effect on officer performance. These are 3 main factors critical in
conducting systematic evaluations to obtain results from office space design. This study is expected to be a strategic
reference for planning and designing a similar spatial atmosphere in different locations or cases. Further research
needs to be developed in the future on the ergonomic aspect through the human-centered design approach to obtain
a single guideline for office design based on post-occupancy space performance and user participation.
The author would like to thank the General Manager of
PT. Haleyora Powerindo (HPI) Jakarta, Indonesia, and
its staff who have provided the opportunity to participate
as respondents in post-occupancy and operational office
interior research. The author also thanks LPPM UPI for
providing lecturer research grants in 2020.
1. Wu X, Lin B, Papachristos G, Liu P, Zimmermann N. 2020. A holistic approach to evaluate building performance gap of green office buildings: A case study in China. Build Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv. 2020.106819.
2. Lee JY, Wargocki P, Chan YH, Chen L, Tham KW. 2020. How does indoor environmental quality in green refurbished office buildings compare with the one in new certified buildings? Build Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106677.
3. Wang L, Zheng D. 2020. Integrated analysis of energy, indoor environment, and occupant satisfaction in green buildings using real-time monitoring data and on-site investigation. Build Environ. doi: 10.1016/j. buildenv.2020.107014.
4. Abbaszadeh S, Zagreus L, Lehrer D, Huizenga C. 2006. Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. In: Proc. Heal. Build. Lisbon, Purtugal, pp 365–370.
5. Pastore L, Andersen M. 2019. Building energy certification versus user satisfaction with the indoor environment: Findings from a multi-site post-occupancy evaluation (POE) in Switzerland. Build Environ 150(January):60–74.
6. Shepley MM, Zimmerman KN, Boggess MM. 2009. Architectural Office Post-Occupancy Evaluation. J. Inter. Des. 34:.
7. PT. Indonesia Power. 2018. Keputusan Direksi Nomor 39.K/010/IP/2018 tentang Pedoman Pengendalian Gratifikasi di PT Indonesia Power. :1–19.
8. Permana AY, Akbardin J, Permana AFS, Nurrahman H. 2020. The concept of optimal workplace in providing a great experience to improve work professionalism in the interior design of pln Corporate university, Ragunan, Jakarta. Int J Adv Sci Technol 29(7):3238–3254.
9. Rhino Interior Group. 2017. Guide 2: office interior design – an intelligent approach. United Kingdom.
10. Moekijat. 2002. Office Management. Bandung: Mandar Maju.
11. Desmonda AA. 2016. Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Fisik Terhadap Produktivitas Kerja Karyawan Pada Pt. Federal International Finance Cabang Samarinda. Ejuornal Adm Bisnis 4(4):1–15.
12. Tang H, Ding Y, Singer BC. 2020. Post-occupancy evaluation of indoor environmental quality in ten nonresidential buildings in Chongqing, China. J Build Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101649.
13. Choi JH, Lee K. 2018. Investigation of the feasibility of POE methodology for a modern commercial office building. Build Environ 143(April):591–604.
14. Sant’Anna DO, Dos Santos PH, Vianna NS, Romero MA. 2018. Indoor environmental quality perception and users’ satisfaction of conventional and green buildings in Brazil. Sustain Cities Soc 43:95–110.
15. Li H, Ng ST, Skitmore M. 2018. Stakeholder impact analysis during post-occupancy evaluation of green buildings – A Chinese context. Build Environ 128(November 2017):89–95.
16. Liang X, Hong T, Shen GQ. 2016. Occupancy data analytics and prediction: A case study. Build Environ 102:179–192.
17. Liang X, Peng Y, Shen GQ. 2016. A game theory based analysis of decision making for green retrofit under different occupancy types. J Clean Prod 137:1300–1312.
18. Kong Z, Utzinger DM, Freihoefer K, Steege T. 2018. The impact of interior design on visual discomfort reduction: A field study integrating lighting environments with POE survey. Build Environ 138:135–148.
19. Wu SR, Greaves M, Chen J, Grady SC. 2017. Green buildings need green occupants: a research framework through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Archit Sci Rev 60(1):5–14.
20. Manahasa O. 2020. Evaluative, inclusive, participatory: Developing a new language with children for school building design. Build Environ. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107374.
21. Choi JH, Loftness V, Aziz A. 2012. Post-occupancy evaluation of 20 office buildings as basis for future IEQ standards and guidelines. Energy Build 46:167– 175.
22. Preiser WFE, Nasar JL. 2007. Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution From Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Archnet-IJAR - Int J Archit Res 2(1):84– 99.
23. Preiser WF, Vischer JC. 2005. Assessing Building Performance. Assess Build Perform. doi: 10.4324/9780080455228.
24. Syafriyani, Sangkertadi, Waani JO. 2015. Evaluasi Purna Huni (Eph): Aspek Perilaku Ruang Dalam SLB YPAC Manado. Eval Purna Huni Aspek Perilaku Ruang Dalam Slb Ypac Manad 12(3):1–13.
25. Preiser WF, Rabinowitz HZ, White ET. 1988. Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
26. Emuze F, Mashili H, Botha B. 2013. Post-occupancy evaluation of office buildings in a Johannesburg country club estate. Acta Structilia 20(1):89–110.
27. Preiser WFE, Vischer J, Zimring C, Rosenheck T, Kaplan A. 2001. The Evolution of Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Toward Building Performance and Universal Design Evaluation. Fed Facil Counc Ed Learn from our Build (145):138.
28. Tanyer AM, Pembegul T. 2009. Post Occupancy Evaluation In The Practice Of Architecture : A Case Study Of Lutf İ Kirdar Convention And Exhibition Centre. Metu J Fac Archit 27(1):241–265.
29. Ornstein S, Ono R, Gill A, Machry H. 2007. Health Care Architecture in Sao Paulo, Brazil: Evaluating Accessibility and Fire Safety in Large Hospitals. Archnet-IJAR 1(1):13–25.
30. Carthey J. 2006. Post Occupancy Evaluation: Development of a Standardised Methodology for Australian Health Projects. Int J Constr Manag 6(1):57–74.
31. QHRS. 2001. Royal Children’s Hospital Post Occupancy Evaluation. .
32. DHFP. 1990. Indian Health Service Hospital Browning Montana Facility Post Occupancy Evaluation. Division of Health Facilities Planning, Office of Resource Management, Office of Management. DTI.
33. Mumovic D, Davies M, Ridley I, Altamirano-Medina H, Oreszczyn T. 2009. A methodology for post-occupancy evaluation of ventilation rates in schools. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 30(2):143–152.
34. See. 2005. Post Occupancy Evaluation - Braes High School, Falkirk. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
35. Watson C, Thomson K. 2005. Bringing Post-occupancy Evaluation to Schools in Scotland. Eval Qual Educ Facil :129–134.
36. Hay R, Samuel F, Watson KJ, Bradbury S. 2017. Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Build Res Inf 46(6):698–710.
37. Aliyu AA, Muhammad MS, Bukar MG, Singhry IM. 2016. An Evaluation of Occupants ’ Satisfaction and Comfort with Housing Facilities : Literature Analysis and Future ... Proc. Acad. Conf. Agenda Sub-Sahara Africa .
38. Hewitt D, Higgins C. 2005. A Market-Friendly Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Building Performance Report. 97204:.
39. Riley M, Kokkarinen N, Pitt M. 2010. Assessing post occupancy evaluation in higher education facilities. J Facil Manag 8(3):202–213.
40. Alubaid FARS, Alhadeethi RHF, Mohamed AJ. 2020. Assessment the safety policy management for building construction companies in Jordan. J Appl Eng Sci 18(1):120–131.
41. Hadjri K, Crozier C. 2009. Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities 27(1– 2):21–33.
42. Aksah H, Nawawi AH, Hashim AE, Dewiyana E. 2016. Assessing Score of Applicability and Importance on Functional Performance Criteria for Historical Building. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 222:65–74.
43. RIBA, R.S.G. 1991. A Research Report for the Architectural Profession, in Duffy, F.W., ed., Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession. London.: E. & F.N. Spon.
44. Friedman A, Zimring C, Zube C. 1978. Environmental Design Evaluation. New York, NY.: Plenum.
45. Stevenson F. 2019. Embedding building performance evaluation in UK architectural practice and beyond. Build Res Inf 47(3):305–317.
46. Clements-Croome D, Turner B, Pallaris K. 2019. Flourishing workplaces: a multisensory approach to design and POE. Intell Build Int 11(3–4):131–144.
47. Zimmerman A, Martin M. 2001. Post-occupancy evaluation: Benefits and barriers. Build Res Inf 29(2):168–174.
48. Lackney JA, Zajfen P. 2005. Post-occupancy evaluation of public libraries: Lessons learned from three case studies. Libr Adm Manag 19(1):16–25.
49. Kooymans R, Haylock P. 2006. Post Occupancy Evaluation and Workplace Productivity. PRRES Conf :15.
50. Walker K. 2011. Developing a site evaluation framework for ephemeral festivals and events: A study of Hillside Festival. Guelph, Canada, University of Guelph.
51. Gie TL. 2000. Modern Office Administration. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
52. Armiati. 2015. Meningkatkan Efektivitas Kerja Pegawai Melalui Penataan Layout Kantor. Semin. Nas. Ekon. Manaj. DAN Akunt. Fak. Ekon. Univ. NEGERI PADANG .
53. Sukoco MB. 2007. Modern Office Administration Management. Jakarta: Erlangga.
54. Green K, Lopez M, Wysocki A, Kepner K, Farnsworth D, Clark JL. 2015. Diversity in the Workplace: Benefits, Challenges, and the Required Managerial Tools 1
55. Division of the University Architect. 2003. Design Guidance: Office Space
56. McGrath PT, Horton M. 2011. A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) study of student accommodation in an MMC/modular building. Struct Surv 29(3):244–252.
57. Saberi O. 2009. Thermal comfort and green buildings. In: Proc. WSP Environ. Energy (Middle East) – Green Retrofit Conf. Dubai, United Arab Emirates, pp 1–20.
58. Pahomova EG, Monastyrev PV, Mishchenko ES, Yezerskiy VA, Ivanov IA, Balthazar AD. 2019. House-building analysis when using additive technologies: Classification, advantages and disadvantages. J Appl Eng Sci 17(4):449–456.
59. Xiong Y, Krogmann U, Mainelis G, Rodenburg LA, Andrews CJ. 2015. Indoor air quality in green buildings: A case-study in a residential high-rise building in the northeastern United States. J Environ Sci Heal - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst Environ Eng 50(3):225–242.
60. Burroughs HE, Hansen SJ. 2011. Managing indoor air quality, 5th ed. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
61. Antikainen R, Lappalainen S, Lönnqvist A, Maksimainen K, Reijula K, Uusi-Rauva E. 2008. Exploring the relationship between indoor air and productivity. Scand J Work Environ Heal Suppl (4):79–82.
62. Hermawan H, Hadiyanto H, Sunaryo S, Kholil A. 2019. Analysis of thermal performance of wood and exposed stone-walled buildings in mountainous areas with building envelop variations. J Appl Eng Sci 17(3):321–332.
63. Al-Anzi NM. 2009. Workplace environment and its impact on employee performance. Malaysia: Open University of Malaysia.
64. Al-Ghriybah M, Zulkafli MF, Didane DH, Mohd S. 2019. Wind energy assessment for the capital city of Jordan, Amman. J Appl Eng Sci 17(3):311–320.
65. De Carli M, De Giuli V. 2009. Optimization of daylight in buildings to save energy and to improve visual comfort: Analysis in different latitudes. IBPSA 2009 - Int Build Perform Simul Assoc 2009 :1797–1805.
66. Putra BGA, Madyono G. 2017. Analisis Intensitas Cahaya Pada Area Produksi Terhadap Keselamatan Dan Kenyamanan Kerja Sesuai Dengan Standar Pencahayaan. OPSI-Jurnal Optimasi Sist Ind 10(2):115.
67. Yezhov VS, Semicheva NE, Pakhomova EG, Bredikhina NV, Emmanuel S. 2019. To the question of improving energy-saving and environmental characteristics of urban buildings. J Appl Eng Sci 17(4):550–554.
68. Samani SA. 2011. The influence of light on student’s learning performance in learning environments: A knowledge internalization perspective. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 81(September 2011):540–547.
69. Hongisto V. 2008. Effects of sound masking on workers - a case study in a landscaped office. 9th Int Congr Noise as a Public Heal Probl (1979):1–8.
70. EPA. 1974. Information On Levels And Environmental Noise Requisite To Protect Public Health And Welfare With And Adequate Margin Of Safety, Environmental Protection Agency. Washington (DC).
71. Rimantho D, Cahyadi B. 2015. Analisis Kebisingan Terhadap Karyawan Di Lingkungan Kerja Pada Beberapa Jenis Perusahaan. J Teknol 7(1):21–27.
72. Davies H. 2010. The psychological and physical needs of workers impacting office design. In: COBRA 2010 - Constr. Build. Real Estate Res. Conf. R. Inst. Chart. Surv. COBRA, London England, pp 1–15.
73. Danielsson CB. 2008. Differences in perception of noise and privacy in different office types. In: Proc. - Eur. Conf. Noise Control. Paris, France, pp 531–536.
74. Sanders MS, McCormick EJ. 1987. Human factors in engineering and design (6th ed.). Singapore: Mcgraw- Hill Book Company.
75. Quible ZK. 2004. Administrative Office Management: An Introduction, eighth. Edinburgh Gate - Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
76. Vischer JC. 2008. Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Archit Sci Rev 51(2):97–108.
77. Vischer JC. 2008. The Concept of Workplace Performance and Its Value to Managers. Univ California, Berkeley 49(2):1–18.
78. Goudarzvandchegini, M. & Modaberei M. 2011. The impact of office layout on productivity of selected organizations in Gilan- Iran. J Trends Adv Sci Eng 2(1):73–80.
79. Groat L, Wang D. 2002. Architectural Research Methods. Canada: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
80. Creswell JW. 2010. Research Design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mired. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
81. Bashir I, Hamid B, Jhanjhi NZ, Humayun M. 2020. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL STUDY FOR SUCCESS FACTORS : CLIENT AND VENDOR PERSPECTIVE. J Eng Sci Technol 15(4):2781–2808.
82. Yin RK. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.
83. Yin RK. 2012. Applications of case study research. (3rd ed.). CA Sage. doi: 10.1300/J145v03n03_07.
84. Marlow CR. 2010. Research methods for generalist social works., 5th editio. Belmont: CA: Cengage Learning.
85. Moleong LJ. 2008. Qualitative Research Methodology. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya Offset.
86. Akman E. 2002. Post Occupancy Evaluation With Building Values Approach. Bilkent University.