Following the established approach and methods for POE of LSE buildings, the research centred on systematic, structured engagement. This was mostly done through interviews, to capture users’ experience of MAR that reflects the building's plan, sectional and functional variations. All participants' input was voluntary and reported anonymously.

Based on structured interviews with 27 ‘residents’ on 3^rd – 9^th Floors – academics, professional services staff (PSS) and PhD students, all occupying workspace in a varied range of positions on the floor plan. The content covered their workspace, plus the building overall, including the teaching and other facilities below the 3^rd Floor.

Based on structured interviews with 17 non-residents using informal space on the Ground, 1^st and 2^nd Floors. This content covered MAR’s social, study and teaching spaces, and the building overall, plus any experience of spaces above 2^nd Floor and facilities below the Ground Floor.

Based on self-completion questionnaires from 13 students using the Students' Union sports and arts facilities. This content covered the LSESU facilities and spaces, plus the building overall, any experience by the students of the spaces and facilities on the Ground Floor and above.

Based on interviews with 14 members of LSE services divisions that run the building and its services. The content covered the participants' respective knowledge of MAR as it relates to their roles, plus their experience of the building overall.

The key vantage points covered: Catering; Porterage; Security; Cleaning; Data and Technology Services, including AV; Maintenance; Helpdesk; Carbon Reduction.

The end-user evaluation comprised:

For the aspects evaluated by end-users, participants were asked to select the code – Positive, OK or Negative (or equivalent) – that best reflected their view of that aspect’s performance. Their narrative comments associated with the codes they selected were also documented and analysed, affording insight into the reasoning and sentiment behind their ratings.

In evaluating a multi-programmed building like MAR where different people engage with and use the building in different ways, numerous questions do not apply to everyone. Where a lower number than the total end-user base of 57 participants answered a given question, this was always shown.

As the service providers have distinctive knowledge of the building relating to their roles, their perspectives are inevitably aligned to their respective responsibilities. As these involve non-overlapping aspects of MAR, this ‘apples and pears’ data from the service providers was not aggregated.

End users

For all aspects evaluated by end-users, three types of outputs are provided:

Quantitative results as percentages of responses to each question, with graphs showing a visual profile of aggregated net responses to the given question.

Classification of the quantitative outputs according to the following high thresholds of user satisfaction:

Qualitative responses associated with the users’ respective ratings.

Service providers

This data is thematic.

Major Successes:

• Access
• Capacity
• Light
• Sound – lack of noise disturbance
• Sound – can hear clearly
• Furniture – seating comfort
• Layout – clear view to presenter
• Layout – facilitates teacher engagement with students
• AV – easy to connect to
• Look and feel – conducive to purpose
• Look and feel – positive image for LSE.

The remaining four aspects of teaching space were evaluated as Successes. Notably, the end-user evaluation of teaching space identified no Issues.

To identify the main ways that the MAR meets users’ aspirations, participants were asked to cite their ‘favourite thing’ about the building.

Non-residents highlighted the building’s architecture, sports facilities and study environments (in that order), while residents mostly cited their workspace and its provision for community and privacy, followed by provisions for students, and then MAR’s Ground Floor.

The numerous other aspects of MAR that were also cited as favourite things reflect the findings' many further Major Successes, and users’ positive user sentiment towards the building.

Whereas users' comments in Post Occupancy Evaluations are frequently oriented to criticisms, the response to MAR is striking for the extent of warm enthusiasm that participants expressed. The narrative quotations below, from a larger array of endorsing comments, convey the building’s appeal.

Non-resident students’ comments

“It’s like a symbol of LSE, because when I first came to campus this is the building that I took most pictures of. Also Centre Building, because it looks very great in the evening from outside. I come here [MAR] just to have lunch – I love to walk across the campus from Old Building.”

“The design – the interior and the feel: relaxing and focus. You can choose according to your moods and tasks and what you want to get out.”

“The positivity – the energy it’s creating, the buzz from events, and the home of sport on campus.”

Building residents’ comments

3^rd Floor upwards:

“It’s helped create community in the Department in the central square and kitchen. We have conversations daily.”

“The general feeling of sitting in my office – it’s great for work: light, bright and spacious.” 

“The undergraduate common room, and the interaction with students in a more relaxed environment. And the sense of ownership by the undergraduate team and students.”

Ground – 2^nd Floors:

“The student spaces and teaching rooms are rammed by people working individually and in small and larger groups.”

“It would definitely be the student space on Ground, 1^st and 2^nd, and the sports facilities. That’s great. It’s a great building for students and teaching – which is also for students.”

“The Great Hall, for the flexibility of the space – it offers so many opportunities.” 

“Do I have to choose one? When you enter MAR it has real impact. It feels modern and welcoming. The 1^st and 2^nd Floors are fantastic for students to work and connect as classmates, with well thought out seating and how it’s arranged.”

Overall impact:

“Having been in the Old Building, we all feel quite lucky. I go home saying my job has improved because of being in this building.”

“It’s an incredible privilege to work in a building like this.”

Service providers’ comments

The service providers showed a similar attraction to MAR. They too are building users, and like the building occupants and student users, they are positively influenced by a building they find pleasing to come to and be in. The comments below show MAR’s motivating effect. They evidence the building’s role in promoting productivity.

“It’s very inviting and receptive and a nice place to come to work.“

“The Grand Hall is grand. I like it, and I feel excellent about what I do.”

“The space is very inviting to walk in. It’s very spacious, and it’s set up in the right manner – you won’t get lost. Staff feel wow when they walk in. It reflects in their attitude to care for the building. They ask me ‘What else would you like me to do?’”

The positive effect includes FM staff feeling they are part of the building’s life, and seeing their work as purposeful in influencing users’ experience:

“It’s a much better work life. The day goes quicker. You’re in a place you want to stay in – for evenings and events, for students and staff, parents at graduation. I love it, the interaction, taking part.”

“I can see how the departments and people really enjoy it. The building is amazing architecturally, with the Great Hall and the amount of people. And I like the light. It shows that catering is respected and part of the function of the building, and in the space that students enjoy. It’s always busy without being crowded, And I feel proud to show other universities around.”

Meeting space

MAR’s meeting space was entirely evaluated with Major Successes: including design of the meeting rooms, provision to book rooms, and the informal spaces being effective for meetings

The evaluation of the informal / open space on Ground – 2^nd Floors is notably positive, with Major Successes on:

• Ease of circulation
• General thermal comfort
• Light – for ambience / mood
• Look and feel – image for LSE
• Flexibility for events.

Five other aspects of MAR’s Ground – 2^nd Floors are identified as Successes, with one aspect just crossing the threshold as an Issue: Sound level for study – 21% Negative. However, the evaluation also evidenced the choice of study space now  available on campus – the LSE building where non-resident participants in the POE study work / study most often (if not in MAR), or the LSE building where they work / study second most often (if they mostly work / study in MAR) is the Library – 47%, then MAR – 20%, then Centre Building – 17%. This result evidences the relevant context of other buildings on the LSE campus, the standard of which reflects the result of Estates' enhancement to provide functionality and appeal.

The end user rating of Furniture on MAR's Ground – 2^nd Floors as a Success eclipses the different perspectives of participant groups. The positive rating by building residents who engage with the furniture more visually and ephemerally than non-resident students is tempered by critique from the latter who use it more intensively. This mostly concerns the orthogonal back to seat arrangement on some of the Ground Floor seating, and the absence of backs on others, which users find uncomfortable. The service providers also critique the Ground Floor furniture as heavy and unwieldy to move, posing a challenge given the frequent reconfiguration of the Great Hall to accommodate the many events that this space attracts.

Student Union facilities

The MAR’s sports and arts facilities are transformative for the LSE's campus, and the POE identifies Major Successes in this zone:

• Thermal comfort
• Sound levels 
• Equipment 
• Effective flexibility for varied activities 
• Image for LSE.

Of the remaining aspects here, six are Successes, and three are Issues, with the POE feedback including pointers for action: a stronger visual signal on the Ground Floor to the facilities below; more seating; improved wayfinding and storage; and CCTV to assist on oversight where sightlines are lacking.

3^rd – 9^th Floors

The evaluation of MAR’s upper floors has a strong positive cast. The Major Successes include:

• The space facilitates focus and community as required 
• Look and feel of occupants' work area 

These are important validations. Of particular note is the interest that academic office occupants expressed in provision for collegial space in the departmental environment. This indicates a cultural shift that is aligned to evolving post-pandemic norms.

Other amenities

MAR’s amenities are strongly endorsed, with Major Successes on the café (albeit numerous participants critiqued it being too pricey), the outdoor terraces contributing to students' experience of the building (albeit 22% had never been on them, and numbers reported not knowing how to access them), and the bench on the MAR’s Portsmouth Street façade contributing to experience of LSE’s campus. Whilst most participants had not yet sat on this bench, it still prompted enthusiastic comment from both those who had used it and those who had just viewed it in use.

Non-resident students

“It’s one of the best places to sit. It’s on the route in from the tube, and you get to meet pretty much everyone you know. It’s surprisingly nice. You have a very high likelihood of meeting people.” 

“You just want to find a place to talk to a friend.”

Building occupants

“It’s amazing. Sitting there with a drink from the George [pub opposite].”

“It keeps me on campus.”

“I’ve never used it, but I see students sitting there – it’s good.”

This feedback is instructive in signaling the positive impact of inserting well judged, useful ‘moments’ in LSE’s campus realm. 

FM, Maintenance and Sustainability

The POE was highly endorsing of the MAR as an operational building, with end user Major Successes on: the building seeming well maintained; all areas that participants use kept clean; and waste collection convenient to use.

The latter result is notable in signalling the influence of cultural evolution. Whereas the POE of the New Academic Building in 2009 (the first evaluation commissioned by LSE Estates) evidenced considerable occupant resistance to the then new strategy of removing waste bins from offices, the MAR POE showed that occupants respond to this mode as entirely normative now.

The one end-user Issue relates to awareness of environmental aims in MAR’s design, to which 35% replied Negative, with a further 35% who said  ‘sort of’.

Sustainability and thermal experience

The proceeding point relates to the POE findings on thermal comfort. General thermal experience in the open / informal space on Ground – 2^nd Floors was evaluated as a Major Success, and the same aspect in the teaching spaces a Success. On the Lower Ground Floors thermal experience was also evaluated as a Major Success.

In contrast, a number of Issues were identified regarding thermal comfort on the departmental floors:

• Overall thermal comfort
• Temperature in your work / study area mostly at the right level now [winter 2022]
• Temperature in your work / study area was mostly at the right level in summer
• Draughts
• Enough control over thermal conditions in the space/s where you work or study.

In part these Issues relate to shared offices that lack individual user control; in part they express perceptions of the control mechanism itself:

“There’s none whatsoever in shared offices, and I’m told that the dials in the individual offices don’t do much.“

“Yes and no, because the thermostat thingy is quite useless.”

“I don’t understand what the control does, how it works. But it’s not been so cold yet.”

Countering any notion that ‘users always complain’ about internal environmental conditions, the same sample of participants rated control over lighting in their work or study area as a Major Success.

The feedback on thermal comfort on 3^rd – 9^th Floors reflects a gap in the respective views of occupants on the one hand, and service providers on the other. The latter suggest a lack of end-user understanding or acceptance as the heart of the matter.

The relevant FM participants reported that whilst end-users have effective control in being able to move their room setting 2 or 3 degrees each way from the pre-set level of 20°, not everyone understands the range nor its adjustment.

The control process is explained as follows:

For energy efficiency, the building is heated to 18°C and kept at that level. When an occupant enters the room, the PIR in the room activates the actuator in the trench and brings the heating up to 20°C. There is a thermostat that occupants can move to raise the temperature to c.23°C or lower it to 17 / 18°C. However, it takes about an hour to get from 18 to 20, and some people expect it to reach 20 instantly, and some leave the room soon after arriving, causing the temperature to drop back to 18°C, with the process to increase the temperature level having to start over again when they re-enter. And some users feel cold because they wear light clothing irrespective of the weather.

Further, some individuals are reported as bringing in their own heaters, which is both contrary to the LSE's sustainability objectives, as well as preventing the building from operating correctly, as it causes the BMS [Building Management System] to read a higher temperature than has been reached by the heating system.

These findings point to the relevance of communicating the School’s net zero carbon aims, and its implications, and fostering appreciation by the notable numbers of users who report the upper floors of MAR as being too cold that appropriate occupant dress is the responsible way to manage this.

The remaining sets of questions (barring movement round the building) resulted in a mix of Major Successes, Successes and Issues. The feedback for these was mostly Positive or OK (entirely so for IT), and end users concluded their interviews with the verdict of Major Success on being pleased with MAR overall.