A PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 
OF MEASURED SURVEY METHODS 
Salim Elwazani 
Architecture & Environmental Design Studies Program, 
College of Technology, Bowling Green State University 
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-USA; Email: selwaza@bgnet.bgsu.edu 
KEY WORDS: method, performance, user, heritage recorders, integration, selection, measured surveys 
ABSTRACT 
There are challenges surrounding the planning of field measured surveys for graphical documentation of heritage buildings. The 
survey teams’ technical know-how of different survey methods is undoubtedly important, but more so is the survey planners’ ability 
to select appropriate survey methods for diverse survey projects. In response to the selection challenge, this paper is aimed at 
devising a performance-based procedure for evaluating—and ultimately selecting—measured survey methods. Consisting of data 
collection and data processing function, the devised procedure design builds on performance of survey methods in accuracy, 
thoroughness, and rate; the contextual conditions of the documentation subject; and the project situation requirements imposed by the 
purpose of survey, significance of the structure, and urgency of documentation. The procedure’s principal merit lies in its potential 
as a guiding instrument for planning field measured surveys. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Those of us who are in the business of heritage documentation 
wonder at times if the projects we are entrusted with are carried 
out to our own satisfaction, let alone to the satisfaction of the 
client. This kind of speculation has undoubtedly invigorated the 
current wave of re-examining the relationship between 
providers and users (LeBlanc, 2002; Letellier, 2002), the 
counterpart players of the documentation undertaking. Of the 
hoard of motives for re-examining such relationship, two come 
readily to mind: first, users are entitled to quality products; 
second, providers are expected to take advantage of 
professional opportunities. 
There are ways to enhance the players’ relationship in the 
documentation undertaking. In measured surveys, the form of 
documentation of interest for this study, this can be done 
through improving the decision-making practices of survey 
method selection. The assumption is that sound decision 
making practices lead to “appropriate” method selection. Why 
and how does a heritage survey team or a governmental 
documentation program arrive at a decision to use a specific 
survey method from an array of methods? The scope of this 
study falls in line with the theme of this method selection. 
This study recognizes a decision making process for selecting 
measured survey methods for heritage buildings. This process 
builds on three aspects of the documentation situation: a) 
performance of survey methods in accuracy, thoroughness, and 
rate; b) the contextual conditions pertaining to the 
documentation subject, such as complexity of building 
surfaces; and c) the project requirements emanating from the 
purpose of survey, significance of the structure, and urgency of 
documentation. A published paper (Elwazani, 2002) of the 
author has addressed some features of the method selection 
process. It specifically investigates the effect of the contextual 
conditions on the performance of measured survey methods. 
That study ended with establishing a set of standards for 
evaluating such effect. 
Building on the results of the above paper, this study aims at 
devising a procedure for evaluating the performance of 
measured survey methods-—into which the developed 
performance standards are integrated. 
The undertaking involves laying out the basis for the procedure 
and describing the procedure’s data collection and data 
processing functions. Accordingly, the rest of this paper 
discussion is organized under the following headings: 
Basis for the procedure 
The procedure’s data collection function 
The procedure’s data processing function 
2. BASIS FOR THE PROCEDURE 
As a background for this study, this section draws heavily on 
the results of the previous paper. However, this discussion 
goes beyond that and presents new information needed to pave 
the way for the procedure’s data collection and data processing 
functions. The discussion here is organized under the 
subheadings “Survey Project Situation” and “Performance 
Standards”. 
2.1 Survey Project Situation 
2.1.1 Basic Elements. A field measured survey project has 
the following interrelated elements: 
o Survey subject: A building in its entirety is the 
documentation subject. However, because field survey 
activities proceed from one building part to another, say 
from front elevation to the next, building “part” is the 
survey operational subject in planning the procedure.