Search results

This paper aims to explore the relationship between satisfaction with buildings, facilities and services and perceived productivity support and to test whether the findings from a similar study of Batenburg and Van der Voordt (2008) are confirmed in a repeat study after 10 years with more recent data.

Data were traced from a database with data on user satisfaction and perceived productivity support. These data were collected through the work environment diagnostic tool WODI light. The data include responses from 25,947 respondents and 191 organisations that have been analysed by stepwise multiple-regression analyses.

In total 38% of the variation of office employees’ satisfaction with support of productivity can be explained by employee satisfaction with facilities, the organisation, current work processes and personal- and job-related characteristics. The most important predictor of self-assessed support of productivity is employee satisfaction with facilities. In particular, psychological aspects, i.e. opportunities to concentrate and to communicate, privacy, level of openness, and functionality, comfort and diversity of the workplaces are very important. The findings confirm that employee satisfaction with facilities correlates significantly with perceived productivity support. Other factors that are not included in the data set, such as intrinsic motivation, labour circumstances and human resource management may have an impact as well.

This research provides a clear insight in the relation between employee satisfaction with facilities and the perceived support of productivity, based on survey data collected over almost 10 years in 191 organisations.

The purpose of this study is to explore which factors may explain the high or low percentages of satisfied employees in offices with shared activity-based workplaces.

The paper compares data on employee satisfaction from two cases with remarkably high satisfaction scores and two cases with significantly lower satisfaction scores (total N = 930), all of the same organisation. These cases were selected from a database with employee responses to a standardised questionnaire in 52 flexible work environments. In the four case studies, also group interviews were conducted.

Overall, there are large differences in employee satisfaction between cases with, at first sight, a similar activity-based office concept. The main differences between the best and worst cases regard employee satisfaction with the interior design, level of openness, subdivision of space, number and diversity of work places and accessibility of the building. Employee satisfaction shows to be influenced by many physical characteristics of the work environment and by the implementation process. Satisfaction with the organisation may have an impact as well.

Almost all cases regard Dutch organisations. Due to the lack of quantitative scales to define the physical characteristics of the work environment, the study is mainly descriptive and explorative and does not include advanced multivariate statistical analyses.

The data revealed clear critical success factors including a supportive spatial layout to facilitate communication and concentration, attractive architectural design, ergonomic furniture, appropriate storage facilities and coping with psychological and physical needs, such as privacy, thermal comfort, daylight and view. Critical process factors are the commitment of managers, a balance between a top-down and a bottom-up approach and clear instructions on how to use activity-based workplaces.

The study connects descriptive research with inductive reasoning to explore why employees may be satisfied or dissatisfied with flex offices. It is based on a combination of quantitative survey data from 52 cases and a closer look at two best cases and two worst cases based on qualitative data from interviews and personal observations. The study has high practical value due to the integral approach that incorporates many items of the physical environment and context factors like the implementation process.

Many organisations have changed to new ways of working, steered or followed up by design interventions and sharing of activity related workplaces. Expectations have been high. Innovative offices should lead to more efficient use of space and other facilities; greater job satisfaction; the projection of a positive image to clients; an improved performance of the organisation and its staff; and reduced costs. Have innovations in the working environment fulfilled these high expectations? Are the new offices really more efficient and more pleasant to work in? Or will constant changing of the workplace reduce satisfaction and productivity? What are the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of teleworking? Are the extra costs of nice ergonomic furniture, high‐tech information and communication technology (ICT) and image‐boosting gadgets counterbalanced by the expected profits in higher productivity and more efficient use of space? Evaluative research results show a mixed picture. Besides the considerable satisfaction with the attractive design and the improved opportunities to interact, there are many complaints about problems in concentrating on work. Psychological mechanisms, such as the need for status, privacy and individual territory, do not necessarily hinder ‘flexi‐working’, but only when the new situation provides considerable added value. Teleworking offers more freedom of choice, but there are attendant risks.

The purpose of this paper is to present a process model of value-adding corporate real estate and facilities management and indicators that can be used to measure and benchmark workplace performance and the added value of workplace interventions for an organisation.

The paper compares the performance measurement and benchmarking theory with current practice and data from different work environments. The paper builds on two books on adding value through buildings, facilities and services, both edited and co-authored by the authors of this paper. The books were based on literature reviews, interviews with practitioners, cross-border studies of performance measurement and benchmarking and in-depth analyses of various value parameters by experts from different countries. In addition, theory and empirical examples of benchmarking have been included.

The paper presents 12 value parameters that are seen as relevant in measuring and benchmarking of workplace performance: four people-oriented, four business processes-related, two economic and two social parameters. Because not all values can be easily expressed in monetary units, various other ways of measuring are presented that can help to monitor and to benchmark workplace performance. The 12 values and ways to measure can be used to support a more integrated business case approach that goes beyond “dollar-metrics” and spreadsheet-based decision-making. Both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators, including hard and soft factors, are needed to define the trade-off between the costs and benefits of interventions in corporate real estate, facilities and services and to cope with the interests and needs of different stakeholders.

To add value to an organisation, workplaces have to provide value for money by a positive trade-off between the benefits, i.e. support of the organisational objectives and the primary processes and the costs, time and risks connected with achieving these benefits. Widely used indicators to measure the costs are the investment costs, running costs and total cost of occupancy. These metrics are primarily connected to efficiency, i.e. to optimal use of the resources of a firm, but much less to effectiveness and benefits such as user satisfaction, productivity, health and well-being.

The paper links performance measurement and benchmarking to value-adding corporate real estate and facilities management and presents new ways to measure and benchmark the performance of buildings, facilities and services in connection to organisational performance.

In the early 1990s, a few organisations in the Netherlands began to experiment with flexible workplaces. Traditional cellular offices and the open‐plan offices or team‐oriented bullpen spaces in which everyone had their own fixed workplace were no longer a matter of course. Making use of modern information and communication technology, the pioneers redirected their attention towards the sharing of activity related workplaces in a combi‐office. Economic considerations (eg low occupancy of expensive workplaces), organisational developments (network organisations, teamwork, fast exchange of knowledge, part‐time work) and external developments (globalisation, strong competition) are important drivers for change. The aim is to stimulate new ways of working (dynamic, less closely linked to place and time), to improve labour productivity and to make major cost savings (fewer workplaces, fewer square metres), without reducing employee satisfaction. Since then a number of new offices have been realised. Twelve per cent of organisations that have moved recently use flexible workspaces for the most part or exclusively. An important question now is whether the aims have been achieved. What are the actual benefits? What are the risks? How should consultants advise their clients? The field is dominated by the opinions of those in favour and those against. Statements expressing the successes or failures of flexible offices contradict each other. Hard data are almost lacking. Due to the scarcity of empirically supported insights, the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands together with the Centre for People and Buildings and the Centre for Facility Management are carrying out investigations into the costs and benefits of workplace innovation. This paper reports on progress so far, with a focus on employee satisfaction and labour productivity.

The purpose of this paper is to present an empirical-based typology of facilities management (FM) and corporate real estate management (CREM) interventions that can add value to the core business of organisations and possibly the wider society. The typology is explained, elaborated and discussed with the aim to reach a deeper understanding of value adding management in the context of FM and CREM.

The paper is based on FM and CREM literature, a survey with 15 expert interviews from six different European countries and cases with examples of interventions from earlier research.

The typology consists of six types of interventions, some mainly product-related, some mainly process-related and some that can be both. Each type is underpinned by examples from a case company and from interviews.

The number of interviews is limited. The typology with related interventions is not necessarily complete. However, the typology is regarded to include the most important interventions in the current state of practice of FM and CREM.

The typology provides an overview of the different ways FM and CREM can add value. The cases and examples can be used as inspiration for developing specific interventions in practice.

The typology is the first to provide a classification of FM and CREM interventions. By integrating findings from interviews and case studies, this typology contributes to a better understanding and practicing of value adding management.

This paper aims to explore the impact of workplaces, which support concentration and communication, and self-management practices on individual and team productivity. The underlying hypothesis is that the impact of these variables on the two levels of productivity (individual and team) and the two dimensions of productivity (quantity and quality) may be different.

The paper is based on survey data from 998 Finnish knowledge workers. Factor analysis was used to test the dimensions of the conceptual model. Insights into the impact of workplaces for concentration and communications and self-management practices on productivity were obtained by multiple-regression analyses.

The findings show that self-management practices have a larger impact on the quality and quantity of individual output and the quantity of team output than workplaces for communication and concentration. Improving self-management skills is key to increase all productivity dimensions and in particular the quality of the output.

This paper contributes to a better understanding of the impact of workplace characteristics and self-management practices on different levels and dimensions of productivity. It offers valuable lessons for managers, as they are able to recognize how productivity can be approached from several perspectives. Different dimensions can be enhanced using different workplace settings. For example, the quantitative output of employees can be increased by adding more space for concentration, while quantitative team productivity can be increased by providing appropriate space for collaboration. An important means to enhance a higher quality of the output is to improve self-management skills. The findings also suggest that collaboration between different disciplines – corporate management, corporate real estate management, human resource management and IT – is needed to optimize individual and team productivity.

This paper explores work environment experiences of Finnish office workers and connects both workplace appraisal and work practices to perceived productivity support, on individual level and team level. It also adds insights into the different impacts on quantity and quality.

Because of the transition of the Dutch health care sector from a governmentally steered domain towards regulated market forces, health care organisations have become fully responsible for their real estate. This paper aims to explore if/how Dutch health care organisations adopt the concept of adding value by corporate and public real estate, which values are prioritised and how these values are implemented in daily practice.

Literature study and a meta-analysis of six student theses (1 × BSc, 1 × MSc, 3 × post-MSc and 1 × PhD) on adding value by health care facilities were conducted, using document analysis and semi-structured interviews with CEOs, project leaders, real estate managers and facility managers. All respondents work in Dutch hospitals, assisted living facilities for the elderly, or mental health care facilities. The interviews were jointly prepared by the students, and the author of this paper being their supervisor.

End-user satisfaction, enhancing productivity and stimulating innovation are highly prioritised. Which values are prioritised depends on the organisational objectives, target group, available budget, position in the life cycle of design, construction and use and external context, in particular governmental policy and competition with other health care suppliers. The operationalisation into concrete design choices and strategic management of buildings-in-use is still underdeveloped.

The interviews lasted 1-1.5 hours, which is rather limited to get a complete picture. Although much work has been done to operationalise the added value of corporate real estate and building-related facilities, there is still a lack of a widely agreed taxonomy of added values and how to measure and manage these values. Ongoing international collaboration between researchers and practitioners aims to contribute to a common framework and to develop standardised measurement methods.

The insights can support decision-makers in value-adding real estate and facilities management value by public and corporate real estate. The listings of prioritised values and related interventions can be used as a frame of reference to improve the current design and management of health care real estate.

A clear insight in value-adding management of corporate real estate may result in a better fit among real estate, organisational objectives and end-user needs.

The findings link the added value theory to corporate real estate management in Dutch health care practice.