CHAPT ER 19 Behavioral-Based Architectural Programming ROBERT HERS SHBERGER Architectural Programming is the definitional stage of design—the time to discover the nature of the design problem, rather than the nature of the design solu relevant values of the client, user, architect, and s are articulated; facts about the project are uncover PROGRAMMING 16 A CRUCIAL TIME in which serious mistakes can happen or insightful, formative dect- sions can be made. Indeed, many of the most impor tant formative decisions are made before the architect, begins to design. The decision may be reached to have only one building instead of two; an auditorium within the fabric of a larger building instead of a sep- arate building; offices in a building separate from the classrooms, oF vice versa. The budget can be set so low as to prechide any number of design opportuni ties, or the time span for completion of the design and construction can be so short that only the sim- plest of forms could be utilized to finish the project, on schedule. If the client and programmer are primarily inter- ested in functional efficiency, organization and activ- ity decisions may be made that could significantly affect the form of the building. If the client and pro- grammer are more concerned with the social and pay- chological needs of the users, prescriptions for form may be inherent in the listed spaces, sizes, character istics, and relationships. If they are concerned with fon, Its the time in which the ociety are identified; important project goals ed; and facility needs are made explicit —Hershberger, 1999 economics, it is possible that numerous material and system opportunities, as well as potentially unique spaces and places, will be eliminated from design consideration. Conversely, for any of the above situa tions, the lack of concern for important design issues may restrict the designer’s options. The point is that the values and concerns of the client and the pro- grammer have a significant impact because they de- cide both how the information is generated and how it is presented (see Figure 19.1) HISTORY OF BEHAVIORAL- BASED ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING A number of social and behavioral scientists began to direct attention to the built environment in the 1960s, Indeed, a new social science specialization alternatively referred to as environmental psychology, environmental sociology, or human ecology began to emerge (Conway, 1973). Many of these social scien- tists became affiliated with the Environmental This article is adapted from Chapters 1,5, and 6 of the author's book: Architectural Progranmming and Predesign Manager, New York, MeGraw-Hill, 199 with permission from the publisher 292construct QD OG ee @ Evateation and Reseach Figure 19.1 Architecture delivery process Design Research Association (EDRA), an organiza- tion in which architects, interior designers, and other design professionals began to interact with so- cial scientists in the common concern that many buildings and other designed environments did not work particularly well for the people they were meant to serve, These interdisciplinary groups often chose to utilize research methods developed by social and behavioral scientists to study human attitudes regarding and behavior in the physical environ- ment. These methods included literature search and review, systematic observation, controlled inter viewing, questionnaires and surveys, population sampling, and statistical analysis. Seminal studies of personal space and territorial- ity by Edward Hall (1966) and Robert Sommer (1969) were introduced to the architectural profession and influenced many architects, who gave consideration to their findings in both programming and design. Other behavioral scientists such as Altman (1975), Lawton, Windley, and Byerts (1982), Bechtel, Marans, and Michelson (1987), and Marcus (1975) followed with more directed studies on privacy, special needs of the elderly, survey research, and special building types. A number of architects including Horowitz (1966), Sanoff (1977, 1992), Moore (Moore & Golledge, 1976), Windley (Lawton et al., 1982), Spreckelmeyer (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1982), and the author (Hershberger, 1969) adopted some of the same meth- ods to study problems of interest to them, Still other architects, such as Davis (1969), Farbstein (1976), Preiser (1978, 1985, 1993), Moleski (1974), Brill (Brill, Margulis, Koner, & BOSTI, 1984), and Hershberger (1985) began to utilize behavioral-based research in actual programming practice. Behavioval-Based Architectural Programming 293 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS Typically, these behavioral-based programming ef- forts have been of great benefit when applied to large, complex building types such as prisons, hospitals, airports, research facilities, government office build- ings, and the like, where the architect or even the key administrators may not have a good understanding of the values, goals, and needs of persons in various divisions of the organization. In order to gain this understanding, it is necessary to interview key per- sonnel in the various divisions about their values and goals and to observe how people use their current en- vironments. It may also be helpful to review the re~ search literature on special user needs, visit other facilities to see how they work, and devise question- naires to discover typical user attitudes and ideas re- garding furnishing and equipment requirements. ‘The information geined from the various research approaches is then assembled, statistically analyzed, and summarized in a program document that at- tempts to cover all of the human requirements of the organization. Indeed, space program sheets are often developed for every space in the proposed facility. Such & systematic approach to programming pro- vides highly reliable information of considerable value to the designer in preparing plans to meet the needs of the client and the various user groups of the building, Given the generally systematic approach to behavioral-based programming, there tend tobe few problems with resulting programs. However, inten- sive focus on developing knowledge about users may tend to minimize consideration of other issues of importance to the design architect, such as cost and schedule. Similarly, if the design architect has yet to be hired, his or her expertise and values regarding areas such as site, climate, and technology may have no influence on the program. And utilizing high- powered research methods on comparatively easy problems can require excessive amounts of time and money that simply exceed the client's ability to cover them. Indeed, this is the primary problem with the behavioral-based approach to programming, It tends to consume large quantities of time in planning, mak- ing arrangements for the actual studies, doing the studies, and analyzing the large amounts of data generated. This is not a problem unless it leaves in- Sufficient time or money to adequately consider the remaining environmental, technological, legal, temporal, economic, aesthetic, and safety issues in294 HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY architecture. If something critical to the eventual ar- chitectural solution is not studied sufficiently or cov- ered adequately in the program, the resulting building could fail in some way while succeeding ad- snirably relative to environment /behavior issues, METHODS In a situation of unlimited time end resources, it would be ideal to devote an extensive systematic re- search effort on every relevant design issue so that no area of potential importance would be left un- studied. However, most programming endeavors are conducted under conditions where time and money are very limited and there is not enough of either to do the kind of job the programmer would prefer. It is, therefore, important that the programming team isolate the critical variables in whatever issue areas they are found and devote their more systematic re- search efforts on these variables. The high costs of research can then be focused where the cost of error ishigh, and less expensive programming approaches can be used to obtain other kinds of information. The following methods are useful in gaining needed information, LrTeRATURE SEARCH AND ReviEw The most obvious way to obtain information about a particular problem in behavioral-based program- ming is to see what others have discovered. Envi- ronmental design research findings are available covering territoriality, privacy, community, safety, and other social and psychological needs of various user groups: the elderly, young, handicapped, incar- cerated, and so forth, This literature is typically available in major public and university libraries in such documents as the conference proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), journals such as Environment and Behavior, the Journal of Environmental Psychology, and the Jour- nal of Architectural and Planning Research; and in a-va- riety of monographs such as Tight Spaces by Robert Sommer (1974), Easter Hill Village: Some Social Indica- tions of Design by Marcus (1975), Aging and the Enzi- ronment: Theoretical Approaches by editors Lawton et al. (1982), and Using Office Design to Increase Pro- ductivity by Brill et al. (1984) A more difficult problem is to find behavioral- based literature that is particularly appropriate for the programming problem at hand. An organiza- tion's library may include trade journals containing special information about similar organizations or have in-house documents that identify the principal Purposes or “institutional values” of the organiza- tion as well as primary goals and directions for ad- vancement and /or change. Guidelines for space size and use may also be available from the organiza- tion’s headquarters or professional association(s) (see Figure 19.2) Information on the site and its surroundings as well as on the urban infrastructure will be available from various governmental agencies. Cities also de- velop or adopt building’ codes (building, mechanical, plumbing, fire safety, etc.) containing important in- formation. Current information on these topics is un- likely to be available in public or university libraries. ‘Table 19.1 lists 10 categories of printed materials that may contain useful information. How to find and use these information sources is covered exten- sively in Hershberger (1999). Behavioral-based programming firms should have the more generally applicable books and journals in their libraries, while those wishing to program for particular building types should acquire appropriate monographs and applicable periodicals, DIAGNostic INTERVIEWING Interviewing is the most frequently used method for gathering information in architectural program- ming. Indeed, as Preiser (1993) discovered, most at- chitectural firms use interviews as practically their {ha — (hea IL Figure 19.2 Organization design standards. Source: Board of Church Extension of Disciples of Christ.Table 19.1 Literature Source List Building and planning standards Historical documents/archival materials Trade publications Research literature Professional publications Codes and ordinances Government documents Manufacturers’ publications Popular literature World Wide Web only information-gathering technique during axchi- tectural programming. Behavioral-based program- ming teams will also use them extensively along ‘with other more objective methods of gathering in- formation (see Figure 19.3) The very first contact with the client, even before obtaining the commission, is an interview in which the client attempts to determine if the programmer is qualified to do the work and the programmer tries to obtain an initial understanding of the proposed project. After obtaining the commission, the pro- grammer begins in earnest to interview the client and various users, expert consultants, and others who may have special knowledge about the facilities. ‘The programmer tries to discover the reasons why 8 new facility is needed—the particular values and goals of the client; requirements for the master plan and first phase of development; expected growth and/or change; special conditions or restrictions rel- ative to site, materials, and systems; the construc~ tion budget; and possibly the client's expectations Behavioral-Based Architectural Programming 295 regarding the image or aesthetics. Thus, the pro- grammer uses interviewing to obtain an under standing of the design problem to be undertaken. If the project is quite lange or complex, involving @ sizable staff having important information to share or special users whose needs might be unknown, an extensive ceries of interviews may be needed to dis- cover the special nature of the proposed project. The activity is like that of a doctor asking the patient about symptoms when trying to make a medical di- agnosis. The programmer is looking for information that will help to define the architectural problem, We, therefore, refer to the process as diagnostic inter- viewing. Continuing with the medical analogy, itis impor- tant to make the appropriate diagnosis before decid- ing upon the treatment. Understanding the values and goals of an organization changes architectural design from a puzzle-solving activity into an activ- ity in which important goals can be achieved and important values can be expressed. It is therefore critical that behavioral-based programs first seck values and goals to set the direction for the balance of the research effort. The interviewer will receive essentially five types of programmatic information from the interviewee values, goals, facts, needs, and ideas. Each should be included in a mental matrix so that significant infor- mation can be gained, particularly with respect to important values and goals. The author uses the ma- trix in Table 19.2 to help catalog the information gained during an interview. Ina series of interviews, some of the value cate- gories identified in Table 19.2 may not be mentioned Table 19.2 Value-Based Interviewing Matrix Values Goals | Facts | Needs | Ideas Homan Environmental Cultural Technological 1 ee Temporal os Donal imaroai Vang Uae Raise Gham Sui’ “Sax” Economic Pee eee eee eeee eee eee ee eee Aa Figure 193 Meihods of data gathering. Source: Saieay Preiser, 1993, pp. 17-20.296 HaNDB00K OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY by the person(s) being interviewed. This is okay! Only the programmer need be concemed about defin- ing the whole problem. The programming approach should be flexible enough to admit new categories of information if they arise, leave out unimportant value categories, and especially allow “natural” cat- egories to surface and be substituted for the initial value categories in the mental matrix. If the project is a very simple one such as a home, it may be readily apparent who should be inter- ‘viewed: the wife, husband, children, and grandpar- ents—anyone who would ultimately live in the house, If the project is for a large institution, it may not be so apparent who should be interviewed. The pro- grammer should request an organizational chart and identify the key officers, department heads, and other persons who are likely to be knowledgeable about and/or have the authority to make decisions regarding facility needs. The client should be asked about other persons inside and outside the organi- zation who might have some special knowledge. For some projects this would include customers—the most important users of the facility Itis not always advisable or even possible to inter- view only individuals. Group interviews have the advantage of time efficiency because they cover the interests of a number of persons with presumed similar concerns at one time. If they are “primed,” the persons involved can meet and discuss their con- cems prior to the interview and possibly arrive at a consensus on some issues. The danger in this ap- proach is that some persons’ viewpoints may be suppressed because others might dominate the ex- change or because there may be fear of reprisal. The gain in efficiency in obtaining the views of larger numbers of people in this case must be weighed against the possible cost of error of obtaining biased information. There is no way to anticipate the size of this error, but if it seems the cost might be great, precautions must be taken. The groups might need to be re-formed. Or any individual wishing a per- sonal interview should be granted one. In any case, a listing of persons to be interviewed should be prepared for each new programming com- mission. If there are a large number of individuals, it ‘may be necessary to interview only a representative sample of each category of user. The objective is not to see how many people can be interviewed but rather how few can be interviewed to obtain com- plete and reliable information (see Figure 19.4). When possible, interviews should take place in the client’s or user’s existing environment, This Figure 19.4 Small group interview. tends to make the person more comfortable in an- swering questions and makes it easier to focus on his or her own architectural environment. The one exception to this is if the interviewee’s environment is simply too uncomfortable: too noisy, cluttered, lacking in privacy, or otherwise unconducive to an interview. The time of the interview is also important. Select 1 time when the interviewee is not being expected to produce work. Ideally, the client or someone on staff should arrange an interview appointment schedule. If this cannot be arranged, then the interviewer will simply have to be flexible and adjust the interview schedule as circumstances require ‘The purpose of the interview is, of course, to ob- tain information that can be integrated with other information gathered in the programming process. It is necessary, therefore, to have a systematic way of recording the information for later retrieval and analysis. Specifics of this as well as many of the other diagnostic interviewing procedures are contained in the book by the author (Hershberger, 1999). Contrary to the normal practice for “structured” interviews, itis important in behavioral-based inter- views not to provide a number of specific questions ‘on cach page with a limited amount of space to record each answer. This does not allow the inter- viewee the flexibility to approach the subject from her or his point of view. Rather it forces him or her into the interviewer's framework. This can have disastrous results in terms of omitting important ideas and information that may have come out had the interviewee(s) been allowed to discuss the topic more freely. Conversely, if the interviewer has a re- strictive recording format but allows the inter- viewee(s) to move from one topic to another freely,the interviewer is constantly required to search through the recording sheets to find the category into which the information should go. This may make it difficult for the interviewer to concentrate on the interview, and it is distracting to the inter viewee. Finally, not everything discussed needs to be recorded, only the conclusions. If care is taken in this regard, the recorded information can be both understandable and manageable to analyze (see Table 19.3) ‘The purpose of diagnostic interviewing is to ob- tain an understanding of the most important design issues. It must be understood that this is only the be- ginning of information gathering. Controversial areas that might be settled through input from a larger sample of people can be followed up with ad- ditional focused interviews or a questionnaire based survey. Questions of fact can be checked using ‘observation techniques and by returning to the ap- propriate literature. Ultimately, the areas of impor tance and difference may be sorted out in a group session typically involving most of the interviewees. The results of the interviews are placed before the group and then discussed until a decision is reached, about the inclusion and importance of each item. The interviewing process involves six important steps: introduction, appraisal, diagnosis, recording, review, and open ending, The introduction, review, and open ending each occur just once during an in- terview. Appraisal, diagnosis, and recording, by contrast, occur numerous times as the interview shifts from one topic to another. This process is ex- plained! in detail in Hershberger (1999). It is impor- tant to note here that there are eight essential skills, used in the diagnostic interview: direction, accep- tance, reflection, clarification, amplification, redi- rection, interpretation, and summary. Acceptance, reflection, clarification, and amplification relate to Table 19.3, Typical Interview Analysis Summary Statament Key Values and Goats 1. Location. Having lots of padestrlan traffic in avea is essential 2, Visibility, The store must ve seen by passing pedestrl- ans and vehicles, 3, Image. tt must convey its purpose with signs, dis plays, materials, and colors. 4, inviting. The entry must be convenient, ample, and protectes. 5. Display. The merchandise must be displayed under the most favorable conditions. Behurvioral-Based Architectural Programming 297 the appraisal portion of the interview and are known as “active listening” skills. Direction and redirection are management skills to keep the inter~ view moving in an appropriate direction. Interpreta- tion and summary relate to the diagnostic portion of the interview and bring closure to a portion of the interview. These skills are also covered extensively in Hershberger (1999). DiaGNostic OpstRvaTion While most programming commissions begin with an individual or group interview, it is not possible to understand the architectural problem fully until one has experienced the project site and the existing and/or other similar facility. Again, it is like a physician not only asking the patient about symptoms to discover important clues as to the na- ture of an illness but aiso observing the patient to find other, often more reliable, clues, Such obser- vation inchides visual inspection, listening to the heartbeat, and taking the patient's temperature, blood pressure, and s0 on to check for abnormali- ties. For the behavioral-based programmer, itis im- portant to observe all areas of environment and human interaction to discover what works satisfac- torily and where there are significant problems. Observation and interviewing are at opposite ends of the spectrum in the way that information is obtained. With interviewing, the client or user is treated as a subject, Each person is considered as a potential source of information, knowing some- thing that can be communicated to the interviewer The interest is in the interviewee's values, feelings, beliefs, and attitudes as well as her or his percep- tion of goals, facts, needs, and ideas related to the project being programmed. When being observed, the client or user is treated as an abject. The interest is in his or her actual behavior. By careful observa- tion the programmer can develop an understanding of how the activities of the client, user, or other building occupants are supported or inhibited by the architectural environment, Often the observer finds that what people say they do is not really true. Conversely, what one observes may not pre- dict very well what the observed person is thinking, or feeling, Interviewing and observation are complementary. ‘They serve to verify each other as reliability checks. ‘Taken together they help the programmer diagnose the nature of a design problem. The interviewer is more effective in obtaining an understanding of a298 Hanpsook oF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY person's strongly held beliefs, values, attitudes, ideas, and so forih. Observation is mote effective in obtain- ing an understanding of the relationships of build- ings to users, of buildings to their surroundings, and. of patterns within the building itself. The point of both is diagnosis, to 1aiderstand the nature of the ax- chitectural design problem (Deasy & Lasswell, 1985). “an ounce of explanation,” Ackoff (1967) has stated, “is worth a ton of description.” It is possible to gether extensive amounts of description from cither interviewing or observation, but to obtain un- derstanding takes diagnostic skills. The objective of the behavioral-based program should not be to gather as much information as possible but to ob- serve those things that have the potential to make important design differences and, thus, to obtain vital information. There are several distinctly different types of observation, each of which should be included in behavioral-based programming. The extent of use of each will vary for any particular commission. General Obserontion ‘As human beings and especially as architectural programmers, we are constently involved in observ- ing the world around us. This observation typically is simple and unstructured. We watch the world to understand it. The more we concentrate on the rela- tionships of various things to the architectural envi- ronment, the more we build our intuition as to how architecture can best relate fo and support the human activities to be accommodated. We also gain understanding of organizational and aesthetic prin- ciples and of which materials, systems, and forms respond best to external influences For example, itis easy to observe that the surface- mounted automobile bumpers are soon dislocated and present a very unsatisfactory appearance (see Figure 19.5), Similar, easily observed information could be obtained in many settings. Walk-Through Observation Observation and interviewing take place simultane~ ously in the building walk-through, an information gathering technique used frequently in architec- tural programming, If a client has come to the point of being unable to conduct operations satisfactorily in an existing facility, they seek out an architect to design an addition or new facility. The programmer Figure 19.5 Dislocated parking bumpers. for the architect first discusses the problem with the client in a diagnostic interviewing session, often in the client’s office or conference room. But as various problems are discussed, the client invariably sug- ‘gests that they go look at some of the problem areas. ‘A walk-through observation has begun. They go to- gether from place to place to observe and discuss the key issues and problems as the client sees them. ‘This approach to information gathering is very beneficial to the programmer in that it couples the objectivity of direct observation with the subjective viewpoint of the client as to the nature of each prob- lem. It is an excellent way to begin preparation for more systematic observation. Visits to other projects of similar type and size to listen and observe how they work, perhaps in contrast to the client's facili- ties, can be useful (see Figure 19.6). Space Inventory ‘After the initial walk-through, it is important to re turn to the same area to make an inventory of space, furnishings, and equipment. Itis best to do this after a typical day but before janitors or maintenance per sonnel have come in to straighten things up. This ‘will allow one to observe where objects are actually ‘used, If available, take appropriately scaled plans and elevations of the area on which to sketch fur- nishings and equipment arrangements. If plans and elevations are not available, take a clipboard and paper to record this information. Itis also important to take a tape measure ta obtain sizes of objects and distances between the objects and the surrounding walls, Also take a camera to provide photo docu- mentation. Polaroid or digital cameras are excellent for this purpose because you can determine if you obtained a satisfactory picture before leaving the space (see Table 19.4){oR ener 300 galls | won so gatos rg cv ix ite - Mising BOR 20 ane | aL tee | tise | Eee evel enpeett | soane ait FHasbsow ‘water evel square Dep Pipe below botiom of pol extends sp bhind bong to dain ah [Extinust fan fo room is set for humidity, Water at about 9° steams room up, so need to exhaust and to air condition. Set temperature of pool at 98" If pais, imustbe very good epoxy to prevent pooling Fill and empty Mlkvah with a timer, nota float, 30 must les how long i lakes and adjust A relisble water level sensor would be beter Two steps down before reech the water level ofthe Mikvab. There was no known reason why this was the case Gia bars must extend down into poo! to prevent Slipping. Sometimes another person assisting Figure 19.6 Walkth yugh observation/interview. Trace Observation Observation of physical traces is a very good and un- obtrusive way of gathering information about how an existing facility has been used and abused, and it can often be accomplished as an adjunct to the space Table 19.4 Space Inventory gories 1, Dimensioned plan of space Furnishings and equipment shown to scale on plan Annotated elevations or perspective views (photo: graphs or sketches) 4, Key to trace evidence of use and misuse of the space 5, |dentification of key issues, good solutions, and prob- lem area Behurviors Based Architectural Programming 299 inventory effort. It involves observation of evidence left behind by users (Zeisel, 1980). Throughout the diagnostic observation process, the observer should not only be aware of the interactions of people and their environment in an overall or global sense but should also look carefully to see if clues about human-environment interaction have been left by previous users. Signs of rearrangement or remottel- ing cen be important to diagnosis. What areas of the building have already been subjected to a number of changes? It may be likely that such areas will con- tinue to be rearranged and modified, given their previous history. If chairs or tables are located in different places each time a room is visited, it may indicate that the room is used for more purposes than those indicated in an interview with the client. Signs in unusual places may indicate an inadequacy in the original design. For example, door signs such as “Do Not Open Quickly” or "Door Swings Out” or pavement markings may indicate a major problem in door location (see Figure 19.7) Wear and tear on furnishings, Floor surfaces, wall surfaces, and the like are good indicators of use, pro: viding excellent clues as to where improvements coutld be made, Are there marks on the walls where the backs of chairs have rubbed against them? Per- haps a wainscot or a thicker base or base shoe is needed to keep the chair backs away from the wall, or perhaps another chair should be selected for the new building. Signs of pedestrian traffic, such as ‘worn spots and smucige marks on carpets, can show where and how they have been used. Broken light fix- tures, spray paint on walls, and the like may indicate areas of high vendalism where building security Figure 18.7 Door swinging into a walkway.300 Hanppook or ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY should not be underestimated, Freezing and thawing ‘can cause abrasion on brick faces, especially at ex- posed edges and comets (see Figure 19.8) There may also be examples of accretion rather than abrasion. This frequently happens on doors where inadequate space has been provided to post notices (see Figure 19.9). However, as in the case shown in Figure 19.10, if a conveniently located bul: letin board! is covered by a locked glass door, there are few people who will bother to get permission to have their notices posted there. They will simply post them on the door! Unlike the more descriptive space inventory, the purpose of trace observation is to discover relationships Figure 19.9 Accumulation of notices. Figure 19.10 Not explaining how people behave in and use spaces. Just as the good physician does with a patient, itis neces: sary to look closely to make the correct diagnosis 80 that proper treatment or intervention can be pre- scribed. For example, heavy barricading and bolting of the required rear exit door of a gun shop is proba- bly a good indicator that there are serious problems with burglary and theft that must be dealt with dur- ing design (see Figure 19.21). systematic Observation ‘As used in programming, systematic observation differs from other types of observation in several re- spects. First, it is planned or structured to obtain specific information about previously identified problems in the relationships between buildings and their human content, their physical surroundings, and elements of the buildings themselves. Second, it ig structured to minimize bias and preconceptions by making certain that the observer takes into con- sideration all factors that may be influencing a par ticular environmental situation. It is an important supplement to the other forms of observation when some conflicting findings need to be resolved. It dif- fers from the typical systematic observation of be- havioral scientists only in that there is no need to generalize beyond the immediate environment to be designed. This does not reduce the need for rigor because systematic observation should be used only in those cases where serious harm will come to someone if the wrong approach is taken.Figure 19.11 Rear door of gun shop. Source: Hine, 1987, School of Architecture, Arizona State University. Systematic observation should be conducted to answer questions raised or to test specific hypotheses developed from the results of the other five forms of observation, the initial interviews, and the literature search and review activities. If the interviews conflict with the observations about how some space is used, it may be advisable to set up a specific study to dis- cover the acttal behavior in a space, For instance, if doctors and nurses have different perceptions of where they spend their time and on what kind of hos- pital activities, it may be possible to observe the doc- tors and nurses systematically over a period of time to confirm or refute the other findings. This would be important, of course, only if the results could make a design difference and impact some important human values. In the above example, this could involve the time it takes the doctor or nurse to get to @ patient in « life-threatening situation. Survival comes into play. How far can the nursing station or the doctor’s park- ing area be from a patient room and still maintain an acceptable margin of safety? Functional values could also be involved. How many times can nurses go between the nursing station and a distant pa- tient’s room in an 8-hour shift without exhaustion compromising their effectiveness? Behnvioral-Based Architectural Programming 30. Specific techniques and tools of systematic obser~ vation are discussed in Hershberger (1999) as well as in texts about behavioral science research (Bechtel et al., 1987; Ittelson, Rivlin, & Proshansky, 1970; Michelson, 1975) and numerous articles in the be- havioral science literature (Collier, 1967; Cook & Miles, 1978; Davis & Ayers 1975; Whyte, 1988). QuEsTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS ‘A questionnaire is an instrument that employs a pre- determined set of questions to be answered by A respondent, A survey is the administration of such a questionnaire to a group of respondents. It can be administered by an interviewer who records the responses or given to the respondents to answer on their own (Berdie, Anderson, & Niebuhr, 1986; Blalock, 1972; Weisberg, Kronsnick, & Bowen, 1996). "The questionnaire survey is different from diag- nostic interviewing because it relies on preestab- lished questions which each respondent is asked to answer. The questions typically are closed, that is, having a limited rather than an open-ended re- sponse format. The respondent is required to follow the line of questioning determined by the persons preparing the questionnaire. Unlike observation, both interviews and question- naires treat the respondent as a subject rather than as an object. They are also more intrusive than ob- servation in that they require the respondent's full attention. The self-administered questionnaire is somewhat Jess intrusive than the interview in that the respondents can answer the questions at a time and place of their own choosing. However, the ques- tionnaire requires respondents to accept the pro- grammer's agenda rather than discussing areas of their own greatest personal interest. As a result, the diagnostic interview tends to be more effective in discovering issues of importance to the respondent, whereas questionnaires are usually mote effective in obtaining factual information about specific facil- ity and equipment needs. ‘The questionnaire can also be effective in deter- mining if respondents share the viewpoints of those initially interviewed. Like the interview, and unlike observation, the questionnaire can be used to get at ‘why people do what they do, what they think works well or poorly, and how they think something might be done bette:—but only within the limits of the al- tetnatives actually provided in the questions, Just how effective the questionnaire is in this respect302 HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL PsyCHOLOGY depends on the proficiency of the programuner in preparing, administering, and analyzing the results of the questionnaire. ‘A questionnaire should not be used in architee- tural programming until after literature review, di- agnostic interviewing, and diagnostic observation have been completed. Even then, it should be used only if it would be more expensive to obtain addi- tional information by continuing with the other information-gathering techniques. For most small- to medium-sized programming commissions, this is rarely the case. It is usually quicker and less expen- sive simply to reinterview someone for additional information or to count or measure something to ob- tain the missing data. The time and effort to prepare, administer, and analyze a questionnaire intended to obtain informa- tion about respondent values, goals, needs, and ideas is warranted only when programming facilities for very large or complex organizations. On those occa- sions, itis advisable to employ a survey specialist to assist in developing and administering the question- naire to ensure its reliability and validity. It is, how- ever, useful if the programmer is able to develop and administer short questionnaires focusing on specific facility, furnishings, and equipment needs for mid- size projects. While casual (unplanned) observation and inter- viewing are both effective ways of obtaining useful information about issues of importance to various user groups, there is no such usefulness to “casual” questionnaires. The effective use of questionnaires requires more preparation than any form of inter- viewing and most forms of observation. The pro- grammer must first establish what information is needed and then use the questionnaire only if the in- formation cannot be more easily obtained by search- ing the literature or through interviewing and/or observation. Having established that a questionnaire will be required, the programmer must determine the specific questions that should be asked to obtain the needed information, It must also be established who will receive the questionnaires and whether the selected respondents can provide reliable and valid answers, It should also be determined if there are enough funds and time available to aciminister and analyze the questionnaire ‘The medical analogy might once again be used, even though it breaks down in several respects. Most physicians use a medical history form, a question naire that they use to ask each patient (or parent) to complete before interviewing or observing the patient. Such questionnaires ask about basic demo- graphics: name, address, occupation, age, sex, and the like. They also ask about previous illnesses (even in the patient's family), whether related persons are still alive, current medications, allergic reactions to drugs, and so on, The reader might wonder why such a standard questionnaire is not appropriate in architectural programming, The answer is that most people ate very much alike in terms of their basic anatomy, physiology, and types of medical prob- ems. Most buildings are not! Bach building type has fundamental differences in organization and struc- ture as well as specific space needs. The doctor is trying to diagnose problems within a group of simi lar entities. The architectural programmer is trying to diagnose the nature of the entity itself, an entity which as yet does not exist (albeit an entity whose complexity is nowhere near the human body’s). ‘There are, however, instances in which the medical analogy is appropriate regarding the use of question: naires in programming, Ifa programmer has done nu- merous programs for a particular type of facility (offices, hospitals, schools), there are likely to be e- curring questions. Questionnaires developed to pro- vide such information on previous projects might be adapted for use on each new project. Such repetition has the advantage of developing standards of com- parison and eventually, pethaps, of developing some general knowledge about the nature of a particular institution, user group, or activity area. ‘The process of preparing a good questionnaire is involved and time-consuming (see Table 19.5). Here again, an extensive discussion of questionnaire prep- aration, administration, and analysis for behavioral- based architectural programming is contained in Hershberger (1999). Work SESSIONS ‘The final method for gathering and analyzing in- formation for behavioral-based architectural pro- gramming is the work session. This is a type of show-andetell activity in which the programmer presents previously gathered information to the client/user group on a large wall-sized matrix or similar presentation method with the intention of defining the whole problem when completed. The client/users are asked to confirm or refute what is presented, generate new information, and reorgan- ize the information to improve the matrix. It is anTable 19.5, ‘Ten Steps to Prepare a Questionnaire 1. List the goals and objectives of utilizing questionnaire. 2. Datermine who should be enswering the questions: client, users, others. 3, Prepare a schedule fr the types of questions to be asked. 4, Develop specific questions for each part of the questionnaire 5, Analyze the questions to see if eny can be com- bined or eliminated 6. Answer the questions as if you were in each respon- dent group. 7. Revise the questions to make them clearer. 8, Attempt to tabulate the answers and summarize the results. ©. Reviso the questions to make tabulation possibie. 40. Protest the quastionnalre with yaur peers and mem- bers of the respondent groups). effective method for filling in gaps after using the other information-gathering methods. It is also ef- fective in getting the client/ users to make decisions regarding which of the previously suggested values, goals, facts, needs, and ideas should be retained in the architectural program. Work sessions are the heart of any client/user group programming process where client/user agree ment with the program is considered essential. The sessions are both the final step of information gath- ering and the first step of program preparation. ‘The work session is similar to diagnostic inter- viewing as an information-gathering process. It is similar in that the programmer is attempting to get the clients/users as group to articulate what they think is important information. The same active lis- tening skills utilized in the diagnostic interviewing process are helpful in getting the clients and users to identify their areas of concern. It is different from the diagnostic interviewing sessions in that the pro- grammer will typically be presenting information obtained from the other information-gathering meth- ods with the intent of securing agreement from the client/user decision makers as to its accuracy and importance. ‘Value areas as well as goals, facts, needs, and ideas that were identified in the literature search, inter viewing, observation, and questionnaire-survey ‘phases of information gathering need to be presented Behavioral-Based Architectural Programming 303 and discussed. Do the decision makers agree that the preliminary list of values is complete? If an order of importance was identified earlier, do the decision makers agree with the order? Are the project goals appropriate? Are the decision makers willing to spend money to accomplish them? Which goals must be accomplished? Which could remain unaccom- plished without seriously reducing the effectiveness of the organization? Are the previously identified goals, facts, or needs statements really important or just someone's pet project that the organization as a whole is unwilling to support? In other words, the work session is a time for both active presentation and listening by the programmer and the client/user decision makers. Ifthe first four areas of information gathering could be considered as primarily objective in theit intent, designed sim- ply to obtain the data, this phase could be consid- ered as primarily subjective. It is a time for group decision making, a time for sorting out what is im- portant from what is not. It is, as Pefia (1969) said, a “problem seeking” situation, a time to resolve and agree on the design problem. Presentation, brain- storming, dialogue, and negotiation of agreement are the essential methods. ‘The effectiveness of work sessions is at least par- tially due to the presentation of everything that has been discovered in a clearly organized format such that the whole problem can be seen and understood by those present. Itis also essential that the method of presentation be flexible to allow for change and ‘augmentation by the work session participants. PROSPECTS ‘The prospects for behavioral-based architectural programming are mixed, On one hand, some sophi ticated clients like the General Services Administra- tion (GSA), United States Postal Service (USPS), and a variety of universities, hospitals, and other major institutions have seen the value of behavioral-based architectural programs and are hiring consultants or developing in-house staff capable of producing them. A number of social /behavioral scientists and architects (who have done advanced study in the social sciences) are using behavioral research meth- ods as an active component of their programming practices. Other architects offering programming services are at least searching the literature and in- terviewing or conducting work sessions with their clients to develop program information.304. HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL PsycHOLOGy Less sophisticated and more profit-motivated Glients often find behavioral-based programs to be too costly. They also believe that effective program- ming inczeases the costs of the resulting buildings. Worse, many architecture schools have been mini- mizing o: even eliminating requirements in archi- tectural programming, as if design can somehow stand alone, independent of the social and behav- joral aspirations of the people for whom the designs are intended. It is no wonder that architects in gen- eral have developed a reputation for ignoring the le- gitimate values, goals, and needs of the users of their Buildings. There also appears to be less current em phasis on human-environment concerns in schools of psychology, sociology, and anthropology than during what appears to have been the high-water mark of these concerns between 1960 and 1985. ‘One encouraging sign is the publication of several new texts on architectural programming (Cherry, 1999; Duerk, 1993; Hershberger, 1999; Kumlin, 1998). But only two of these texts advocate or provide in- struction on effective behavioral-based methods of architectural programming, Hershberger has con- tributed a section on architectural programming for the AIA Handbook of Professional Practice (2001) that may have a positive impact on the profession, He also offers seminars and workshops at the American Institute of Architects National Convention on meth- ods of interviewing, observation, and work session leadership that hopefully will increase the ability of membership in the AIA to do effective behavioral- based architectural programming REFERENCES ‘Ackoff, R. L. (1967). Operations research lecture, Philadel- hia: University of Pennsylvania. “Altman, I (1975). The environment and social behavior: Pri- ‘acy, mersonal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks /Cole. Bechtel, R, Marans, R, & Michelson, W. (Eds.). (1987). Methods in environmental and behavioral research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, Berdie, D. R, Anderson, J. F, & Niebuhs, M. A. (1966) (Questionnaires: Design and use. Metuchen, NJ: Scare crow Press, Blalock, H. M,, Jr. (1972). Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Bcill, M., Margulis, S. T., Konar, E,, & Buffalo Organiza- tion for Social & Technological Innovation. (1984), Using office design to increase productivity, Buitalo, NY: Workplace Design and Productivity. Cherry, E, (1999). Programming for design. New York: Wiley. Collier, J.J (1967). Visual anthropology: Photograpiy as a re- search method, New York: Fiolt, Rinehart and Winston. Conway, D,, (Ed). (1973, October). Social science and design: ‘A process mrael for architect ana social sefentist collaboration ‘and report of a conference. Coolirant Conference Center, Berkeley Springs, WV. Cook, R., & Miles, D. (1978), Plazas for people: Seattle Fed- eral Building Plaza: A case study. New York: Projects for Public Spaces, Devis, G. (1969). The independent building program con- sultant, Building Research, 18(2), 16-21 Davis, G,, & Ayers, V, (1975).-Photographic recording, of environment and behavior. In W. Michelson (Ed.), Pehavioral research methods in envirenmental design. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowelen, Hutchinson & Ross. Deasy, C. M,, & Lasswell, T. (1985). Designing places for people. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Duerk, D. P, (1993). Architectural programming: Informs tion management for design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Farbstein, J. D, (1976). Assumptions in environmental programming, In P. Suedfeld & J. Russell (Ed.), The be- havioral basis of design: Proceedings of the Seventh Interna tional Conferentce of the Environmental Design Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Vol. 1, pp. 21-26). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Hall, E. (1966). The Hiddeno dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hershberger, R. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Hershberger, R, (1988). Values: A theoretical foundation for architectural programming. In W. F. E, Preiser (Ba), Programming the built environment (pp. 7-12). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming ad pre- design manager. New York: McGraw-Hill Hershberger, R. (2001). AIA handbook of professional prac- fice, Manuscript in preparation. Hine, E. (1987). Program for a gion shop. Tempe, AZ: Un- published work, Arizona State University, School of Architecture, Horowitz, H. (1966). The architect’s programme and the behavioural sciences. Architectural Science Review, 93), m-79, Ittelson, W. HL, Rivlin, L. G., & Proshansky, H. M. (1970). ‘The use of behavioral maps in environmental psychol- ogy. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting (pp. 658-668). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kurnlin, RR, (1995). Arcttectural programming: Creative tech- uniques for design professionals. New York: McGraw-HillLawton, P, Windley, P, & Byerts, T. (Eds). (1982). Aging sd the environmeni: Theoretical approactes. New York. Springer. Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K, (1962). Eouluating built environments: A behavioral apprcach, Ann Arbor: Univer- sity of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Marcus, C. C. (1975). Easter Hill Village: Some soctat indien- tons of design, New York: Free Press, Michelson, W, (Bd.). (1975). Behcoioral research methods in environmental design. Stroudsbueg, PA: Dowden, Hutch. inson & Ross, Moleski, W. (1974). Behavioral analysis in environmental Programming for offices. In J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. ‘Moleski, & S. Vachon (Eds.), Designing for kumar behac~ ior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 302-315). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Moore, G,, & Colledge, R. (Eds.). (1976). Environmental vowing: Theories, research and methods, Stroudsburg, PA; Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Pena, W., & Focke, J. W. (1969). Probleme seeking: New direc sans in architectural programming. Houston, TX: Caudill Rowlett Scott Behavioral-Based Architectural Programming 305 Preiser, W. FE. (Bd). (1978). Failly programming Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Preiser, W. F.E. (1985). Programming the built environment New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Preiser, W. FE, (1993). Professional practice in facility pro gramming: New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Sanofi, H. (1977). Methods of architectural programming, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Sanolt, H. (1992). Integrating programming, evaluation and participation im design: A Theory Z aperoach. Brookfield, VT: Avebury. ; Sommer, R, (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of d= sign. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Sominer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how ‘0 humanize it, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Fall Weisberg, H. F, Kronsnick, J. A, & Bowen, B.D, (1996) Introduction to sureey research and data analysis. Thow sand Oaks, CA: Sage Whyte, W. H, (1988). The social life of small urbon apaces [Video recording]. Los Angeles: Direct Cinema Limited. Zeisel, J. (1960). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment. bekavior research, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole