Appropriateness of soft landings concept for avoiding malpractices in Sri Lankan building projects

References

• Adamy A, Abu Hassan AB. 2018. Developing a buildingperformance evaluation framework for post-disaster reconstruction: the case of hospital buildings in Aceh, Indonesia. Int J Constr Manag. 1–6. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1506903.
   Google Scholar
• Agha-Hossain M. 2019. Soft landings case studies 2019. UK: BSRIA. https://www.bsria.com/uk/product/Ddg8Nn/soft_landings_case_studies_bg_772019_a15d25e1/.
   Google Scholar
• Athapaththu KI, Karunasena G, 2018. Framework for sustainable construction practices in Sri Lanka. Built Env Proj and Ass Man. 8(1):51–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkin B, Bildsten L. 2017. A future for facility management. Constr Innov. 17(2):116–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird G. 1996. Building evaluation techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Bateson A, Plaskett J, Bunn R, Pelsmakers S, Tweddell T. 2013. Pinpointing: soft landings. London (UK): UK Green Building Council. http://pinpoint.ukgbc.org/resource/7520.
   Google Scholar
• Bordass B, Leaman A. 2005. Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques. Build Res Inf. 33(4):347–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordass B, Cohen R, Field J. 2004. Energy performance of non-domestic buildings: closing the credibility gap. Proceedings of the Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings; Germany. p. 21–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M, Leaman A. 2001. Assessing building performance in use 3: energy performance of the Probe buildings. Build Res Inf. 29(2):114–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brkanić I. 2017. Housing quality assessment criteria. e-GFOS. 8(14):37–47.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2017. Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their integration. In Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• BSRIA. 2015. Soft Landings Set of 5 guides (SL5). Bracknell: BSRIA. https://www.bsria.com/uk/product/Krq5er/soft_landings_set_of_5_guides_sl5_a15d25e1.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley M, Bordass B, Bunn R. 2010. Soft landings for schools case studies: feedback from the use of the soft landings framework in new schools. BG. 9/2010. Bracknell: BSRIA.
   Google Scholar
• Building Operating Management. 2014. FM quick reads on high-performance building. http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/tip/What-IsHighPerformance-Building–32469.
   Google Scholar
• Castellan CM. 2010. Quantitative and qualitative research: a view for clarity. Int J Educ. 2(2):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chisholm S. 2014. Soft landings: how to facilitate cross industry collaboration? London: CBxchange. http://cbxchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-Soft-Landings-Approach.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• CIBSE ANZ. 2015. The soft landings framework Australia and New Zealand. http://www.cibse.org/getmedia/80c1354e-df45-41b9-9d9c-fc1e77684f48/WTS001_Softlanding-Brochure_FA-LR.pdf.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Clark G. 2018. Soft landings: closing the loop. www.eauc.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• De Silva N. 2011. Promoting the facilities management profession in the project development phase of high-rise buildings in Sri Lanka. Built - Environment - Sri Lanka. 9–10(01–02):37–44.
   Google Scholar
• De Silva N, Ranasinghe M. 2010. Maintainability risks of condominiums in Sri Lanka. J of Fin Man of Prop and Cons. 15(1):41–60.
   Google Scholar
• De Wilde P. 2014. The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: a framework for investigation. Autom Constr. 41:40–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding GK. 2008. Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manage. 86(3):451–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donohoe S, Coggins J. 2015. Soft Landings or a bumpy touch down?. Proceedings of the 31st Annual ARCOM Conference. UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. p. 43–52.
   Google Scholar
• Economynext. 2017. Demand high for Sri Lanka grade a property. economynext. https://economynext.com/Demand_high_for_Sri_Lanka_Grade_A_property-3-7704-.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fernando WN, Perera BAKS, Rodrigo MN. 2017. Introduction of a systematic process for building control in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the 6th World Construction Symposium 2017: What's New and What's Next in the Built Environment Sustainability Agenda?; Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Institute of Builders - Sri Lanka. p. 254–262.
   Google Scholar
• Frei B, Sagerschnig C, Gyalistras D. 2017. Performance gaps in Swiss buildings: An analysis of conflicting objectives and mitigation strategies. Energy Procedia. 122:421–426.
   Google Scholar
• Gana V, Giridharan R, Watkins R. 2017. Application of soft landings in the design management process of a non-residential building. Archit Eng Design Manage. 14(3):1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gana V, Renganathan G. 2017. Soft landings driven design management process: achieving sustainability in a school building in the UK. Proceedings of the Passive Low Energy Architecture 2017 (PLEA); Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Gayathri L, Perera BAKS, Sumanarathna DM. 2016. Factors affecting the indoor environmental quality in Sri Lanka: green vs. conventional hotel. Proceedings of the 5th World Construction Symposium 2016: Greening Environment, Eco Innovations & Entrepreneurship; Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Institute of Builders.Buildings. p. 210–220.
   Google Scholar
• Gerrish T, Ruikar K, Cook M, Johnson M, Phillip M. 2017. Analysis of basic building performance data for identification of performance issues. Facilities. 35(13/14):801–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göçer Ö, Hua Y, Göçer K. 2015. Completing the missing link in building design in building design process: enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Build Environ. 89:14–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta R, Gregg M. 2016. Empirical evaluation of the energy and environmental performance of a sustainably-designed but under-utilised institutional building in the UK. Energy Build. 128:68–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta R, Gregg M, Cherian R. 2013. Tackling the performance gap between design intent and actual outcomes of new low/zero carbon housing. Proceedings of the Eceee Summer Study Proceedings. p. 1315–1328.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta R, Gregg M, Cherian R. 2019. Developing a new framework to bring consistency and flexibility in evaluating actual building performance. IJBPA. 38(1):228–255.
   Google Scholar
• Hampshire County Council. 2014. Portfolio and asset optimisation: soft landings, Hantsweb. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/propertyservices/portfolio/soft-landings.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Hassanain MA. 2008. On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities. J Facil Manage. 6(3):212–225.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselaar E. 2003. Health performance indicators of housing. Delft: OTB Research Institute for Housing Urban and Mobility Studies and Delft University of Technology. Group(SMG).
   Google Scholar
• Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2006. Space management group: phase one and two reports. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/.
   Google Scholar
• Hijazi SA. 2016. Developing a Framework to Enhance Building Handover Practices in Public Sector Construction Projects in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [thesis (Ph.D.)]. UK: University of Salford.
   Google Scholar
• Imam S, Coley D, Walker I. 2017. The building performance gap: are modellers literate? Build Serv Eng Res Technol. 38(3):351–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingle PV, Mahesh G. 2020. Construction project performance areas for Indian construction projects. Int J Constr Manag. 1(12). DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1721177.
   Google Scholar
• Jiboye AD. 2012. Post-occupancy evaluation of residential satisfaction in Lagos, Nigeria: feedback for residential improvement. Front Archit Res. 1(3):236–243.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Norton D. 1992. Translating strategy into action: the balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan M, Rostami A. 2019. The impact of quality management systems on construction performance in the North West of England. Int J Constr Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1590974.
   Google Scholar
• Konara G. 2009. Developing a generic framework for post occupancy evaluation to evaluate the building performance [thesis (B.Sc)]. Moratuwa, Sri Lanka: University of Moratuwa.
   Google Scholar
• Kordestani GN, Saghatforoush E, Athari NH, Preece C. 2018. Evaluating solutions to facilitate the presence of operation and maintenance contractors in the pre-occupancy phases: a case study of road infrastructure projects. Int J Constr Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1512027.
   Google Scholar
• Lanka Business Online. 2017. Sri Lanka’s high end commercial property to narrow the gap with demand: RIU. Lanka Business Online. http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/sri-lankas-high-end-commercial-property-to-narrow-the-gap-with-demand-riu/.
   Google Scholar
• Lavy S, Garcia JA, Dixit M. 2010. Establishment of KPIs for facility performancemeasurement: review of literature. Facilities. 28(9/10):440–464.
   Google Scholar
• Madawela R. 2014. Business times. The Sunday Times. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/140302/business-times/real-estate-market-overview-high-end-office-space-shortage-87057.html.
   Google Scholar
• Mafuwane BM. 2011. The contribution of instructional leadership on learner performance [PhD thesis] South Africa: University of Pretoria. https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24016/04chapter4.pdf?sequence=5.
   Google Scholar
• Malin N, Boehland J. 2003. Spotlight on LEED. Environ Building News. 12(12).
   Google Scholar
• Mallon E. 2019. Soft landings for higher education. https://www.fgould.com/uk-europe/articles/soft-landings-for-higher-education/.
   Google Scholar
• Mamalougka A. 2013. The relationship between user satisfaction and sustainable building performance: the case study of Leiderdorp’s Town Hall. Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences.
   Google Scholar
• Menezes AC, Cripps A, Bouchlaghem D, Buswell R. 2012. Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap. Appl Energy. 97:355–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam SB, Grenier RS. 2019. Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis. United States: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Mirzaie S, Menzies G. 2017. How can the combination of BREEAM and soft landings successfully deliver a low energy, comfortable building? Proceedings of the Passive and Low Energy Buildings (PLEA) 2017 - Design to Thrive; Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Building Sciences. 2017. High Performance Building Council. https://www.nibs.org/page/hpbc.
   Google Scholar
• Patel H, Green SD. 2019. Beyond the performance gap: reclaiming building appraisal through archival research. Build Res Inf. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2019.1672517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park J, Tucker R. 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste material in Australia: a review of the literature. Int J Constr Manag. 17(3):228–237.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt M, Tucker M. 2008. Performance measurement in facilities management: driving innovation. Property Manage. 26(4):241–254.
   Google Scholar
• Preiser WFE, Rabinowitz HZ, White ET. 1988. Post-occupancy evaluation. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Government. 2014. Building asset performance framework. Best practice guideline for the performance assessment of queensland governmental buildings. Queensland Government. www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/BAPF.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rafols I. 2015. Performance gap and its assessment in Built2Spec Project. http://built2spec-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Built2Spec_Performance_gap_assessment_methodology_part_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• RIBA. 2016. Post occupancy evaluation and building performance evaluation primer. UK: RIBA.
   Google Scholar
• Ridder HG. 2017. The theory contribution of case study research designs. Bus Res. 10(2):281–305.
   Google Scholar
• Riratanaphong C, van der Voordt T, Sarasoja AL. 2012. Performance measurement in thecontext of CREM and FM. In Jensen PA, Van Der Voordt T, Coenen C, editors. Added value of facilities management, concepts, findings and perspectives. Lyngby: Polyteknisk Forlag. Chapter 8; p. 123–145.
   Google Scholar
• Sanni-Anibire M, Hassanain M, Al-Hammad A. 2016. Holistic post occupancy evaluation framework for campus residential housing facilities. J Perform Constr Fac. 30(5):1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sertyesilisik B. 2017. A preliminary study on the regenerative construction project management concept for enhancing sustainability performance of the construction industry. Int J Constr Manag. 17(4):293–309.
   Google Scholar
• Senaratne S, Sandanayake YG. 2012. Study on sick building syndrome in office environment. Proceedings of the World Construction Conference 2012 – Global Challenges in Construction Industry; Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Institute of Builders. Sri Lanka. p. 396–406.
   Google Scholar
• Sinou M, Kyvelou S. 2006. Present and future of building performance assessment tools. Manage Env Qual. 17(5):570–586.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpe T. 2019. Mainstreaming building performance evaluation for the benefit of users. Build Res Inf. 47(3):251–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinke C, Webster L, Fontaine M. 2010. Evaluating building performance in healthcare facilities: an organizational perspective. HERD. 3(2):63–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Støre-Valen M, Lohne J. 2016. Analysis of assessment methodologies suitable for building performance. Facilities. 34(13/14):726–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Commercial Building Industry. 2000. High performance commercial buildings: a technology roadmap. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Building Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas PY. 2010. Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana, in a website analysis on the use of multimedia elements for islamic history content. Proceedings of the KSII the 5th International Conference on Internet (ICONI); Pattaya, Thailand. p. 291–334.
   Google Scholar
• Tuohy PG, Murphy GB. 2015. Closing the gap in building performance: learning from BIM benchmark industries. Architect Sci Rev. 58(1):47–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuohy PG, Murphy GB. 2015. Are current design processes and policies delivering comfortable low carbon buildings? Architect Sci Rev. 58(1):39–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahabi A, Nasirzadeh F, Mills A. 2020. Impact of project briefing clarity on construction project performance. Int J Constr Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1802681.
   Google Scholar
• Way M. 2006. Soft landings a fresh scope of service that ensures users and clients get the best out of a new building. J of Facil Manage. 4(1):23–39.
   Google Scholar
• Way M. 2017. Soft landings. https://d7.ciob.org/sites/default/files/BSRIA%20Soft%20Landings.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Way M, Bordass B. 2005. Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings–involving design and building teams in improving performance. Build Res Inf. 33(4):353–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Way M, Bordass W. 2009. The soft landings framework: for better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use. United Kingdom: BSRIA.
   Google Scholar
• Way M, Bordass B, Leaman A, Bunn R. 2009. Better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use. Bracknell: Soft Landings Framework, BSRIA & UBT.
   Google Scholar
• Weerakkody YD, Thoradeniya WB. 2012. Importance of design phase stakeholder management for successfully achieving objectives of building projects: a sri lankan perspective. Proceedings of the World Construction Conference 2012 – Global Challenges in Construction Industry; Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ceylon Institute of Builders. p. 386–395.
   Google Scholar
• Wong NH, Jan WL. 2003. Total building performance evaluation of academic institution in Singapore. Build Environ. 38(1):161–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan D, O’Brien W, Hong T, Feng X, Gunay HB, Tahmasebi F, Mahdavi A. 2015. Occupant behavior modeling for building performance simulation: Current state and future challenges. Energy Build. 107:264–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar