What is a post-occupancy review and why does it matter?

A building is handed over in a tested condition and reaches its real operating condition some months later, once it has been used by the people it was built for.

A post-occupancy review is the deliberate step of going back to find out what that condition is, and it is distinct from both the defects process and practical completion.

What it is not

It is not a defects inspection. A defect is work that does not comply with the contract, and it is dealt with through the process described in [the defects liability period](/answers/the-defects-liability-period).

It is not practical completion, which is a contractual milestone assessed at handover and covered in [commissioning and practical completion](/answers/commissioning-and-practical-completion).

It is a performance review, and most of what it produces is adjustment rather than rectification.

Why the timing matters

Some months after occupation, and ideally after a full season of heating and cooling.

Earlier than that and the users have not settled into the space. Later and the defects period may have closed, which removes the ability to act on anything that turns out to be contractual.

On a school the natural point is after a full term of use, because a space used by a different group each period produces more information in a term than in a month.

What gets reviewed

**Thermal comfort,** which can only be assessed after the space has been through warm and cold weather. A room that was comfortable at commissioning can be unworkable in February, and the cause is usually control settings, zoning or solar gain rather than plant capacity. The related work sits with [mechanical and air conditioning upgrades](/answers/mechanical-and-air-conditioning-upgrades).

**Acoustics in use,** which is different from acoustics on test, because the room is full of people and furniture. This is where the measures in [acoustic treatment in learning spaces](/answers/acoustic-treatment-in-learning-spaces) are confirmed or found wanting.

**Lighting,** including whether sensor delays and daylight controls suit the actual pattern of use, and whether glare has become a problem at a particular time of day.

**Circulation and the way the space is used,** which is frequently not the way it was designed to be used. Where that differs, the useful question is whether the design should change or the furniture arrangement should.

**Durability at the wear points,** meaning door hardware, floor finishes at entries, wall surfaces at contact height and anything in a high traffic position. Three months of real use shows which selections were right.

**The things users have improvised,** which are the clearest signal available. A prop holding a door, a sign taped to a wall, furniture moved to block something, a piece of equipment stored where it does not belong. Each one is the building failing to do something it needed to do.

**Maintenance and operability,** including whether the asset owner's staff can actually operate the systems, and whether the documentation handed over is being used. If the pack described in [handover documentation and operation manuals](/answers/handover-documentation-and-operation-manuals) is still in its box, something in the handover did not work.

Who it involves

The people who use the facility daily, not only the people who commissioned the project.

On a school that means teachers, the general assistant and the office staff as much as the principal. On a council facility it means the ground staff and the operations team. They know what is working, and they are rarely asked.

What it produces

Three categories of finding, and separating them is what makes the review useful.

**Adjustments,** which are settings and minor changes that can be made now. Most findings are here.

**Contractual items,** which are defects identified late and dealt with through the defects process while it remains open.

**Lessons for the next project,** which is where the real return sits for a client with a portfolio of similar assets. A detail that did not survive use in one amenities building will not survive it in the next eleven, and changing the standard detail once is worth more than rectifying it twelve times.

Why a contractor should want to do it

Because the same client builds the same kinds of facilities repeatedly, and a contractor who knows which details hold up under real use builds better the second time.

It also demonstrates something a tender submission cannot: that the interest in the asset continued past the final payment. On a portfolio client that is worth more than the review costs to run, and it is part of the engagement approach set out in [Monument's approach](/answers/what-is-monument-s-approach-or-philosophy).