Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors that influence effective workplace designs for knowledge workers.

During spring 2016, the employees in a large institution for research and higher education, a large consultancy company and a medium-sized consultancy company (in total 4367 employees) in Norway received invitations to participate in an anonymous online survey about workplaces and facilities. In all, 1,670 employees answered the survey (38.2 per cent response rate). The data have been analyzed with IBM SPSS version 23, among others through use of exploratory factor analysis and two-way ANOVA.

Most respondents at the institution for research and higher education have cell offices. Most respondents in the two consultancy companies have open and flexible offices. This paper indicate the respondents’ preferences or perception of their workstation and the workplace’s fit for their tasks is affected both by the respondents’ type of office and how much time they spend at their workstation during the week. There are also possible age or generation effects.

One methodical weakness in the present paper is that two-way ANOVA has been applied on survey data. Experiments are usually arranged to provide almost equal numbers of observations in each category. This is usually not possible with survey data. However, despite this weakness, the present paper provides several findings that challenge some of the workplace research’s taken for givens.

The present paper indicates that facility managers and others responsible for office and workplace design are advised to take the employees’ tasks and work patterns into consideration when designing workplaces and providing offices and workstations to their end-users. The present paper also indicates that employees require different kinds of support facilities and services depending on what kind of offices and workplaces they have.

This is a large N empirical study among knowledge workers in three organizations, one public administration and two private enterprises. The present paper indicate that provision of offices and workstations with supporting facilities should be differentiated according to the end-users’ work tasks and work patterns.

With strategies including flexible work practices, tenants are increasingly seeking flexibility in their physical office space and layouts. The purpose of this paper is to examine to what extent investors address tenants’ changing demand for office space with reference to layouts in new and existing office buildings.

A qualitative study comprising in-depth individual interviews with senior portfolio managers of all listed property trusts investing in the office sector in New Zealand was undertaken.

The findings confirmed property investors incorporate several adaptive and flexible space design and specifications in their modern office buildings to enhance space flexibility and functional efficiency. These include adaptive building structures, efficient floor plates, flexible building services, advanced IT networking, high-quality building amenities and modern building materials. Building structures and layouts are designed to be modified quickly and cost effectively to address tenants’ changing needs. Implications affecting tenant demand for flexible spaces on their lease contracts were also identified.

The findings from this research have implications for management of office space. Although the data were sourced with reference to buildings located in New Zealand only, the findings are applicable to office buildings in other countries.

The study provides an insight into design strategies adopted in modern office buildings to enhance space flexibility and functional efficiency. These findings are of practical application to professionals involved in the design, development, investment and valuation of modern office buildings.

The paper provides in-depth insights into how investors meet tenants’ changing demand for physical space which is linked to delivering improved and stable market-driven returns to investors.

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 aim of this paper is to identify the factors that influence the provision of sustainable and flexible office workplace in built‐facilities, and further, classify these factors under several categories, where commonalities are shared.

The author has analyzed the published literature for the purpose of reviewing the origin of office workplace design and the reasons that promoted the development of flexible workplace in office‐based environments. A sum of 18 factors for facilitating the provision of the flexible workplace were identified. These factors were classified under four categories, including planning of the building, layout of the physical workplace, information technology networking, and building service systems.

The survey of literature has revealed that there is no comprehensive overview of factors that designers, developers, investors, facility managers, and planners can use to provide sustainable and flexible workplace facilities, where flexibility relates to the concept of the physical layout and functional opportunities of the workspace. Based on a study of the literature, 18 factors for facilitating the provision of the flexible workplace have been identified.

Designing a sustainable office work environment is as challenging a task today as ever. New ways of working have arisen and new technologies are being introduced into office work activities. This paper presents advice to designers, planners and real estate developers to consider the concept of designing flexible workplaces to meet the emergence of new technologies and the increase in business competition.

Flexible working practices are now firmly established in many organisations. Cottaging, hot desking and hotelling using the technology of the 1990s can free up office space, benefit the environment and provide the flexibility demanded by workers today. Analysing and planning are the keys to providing the necessary facilities management support to ensure that flexible working is the most effective way for staff to operate and makes best use of available space. It is not a matter of replacing one rigid system with another but of testing non‐traditional ways of working that may or may not prove more efficient. For facilities managers a working knowledge of front office procedures becomes just as important as their expertise in the back office environment.

Drawing on a user-centred design perspective, the purpose of this paper is to (i) provide an overview of three contextual user research methods, namely, spatial walkthroughs, experience curve mapping and card sorting, (ii) exemplify their applications in different case studies and (iii) compare the methods according to their contributions for the study of users’ workplace experiences. Previous workplace studies with qualitative approaches mainly rely on methods such as interviews and observations. Although these methods provide rich data, the understanding of office users, their use situations and finding more fitting workplace designs can benefit from deeper user experience insights.

Three methods and their variants were tested in studies of user experience in flexible offices: spatial walkthroughs, experience curve mapping and card sorting. The methods were tested during workshops and interviews in four case studies with a total of 114 participants.

Spatial walkthroughs were more immersive and provided the most insights on the actual context with respect to spatial design qualities, while experience curve mapping enabled understanding the temporal aspects of the user experience and card sorting enabled exploring user experiences with respect to predetermined spatial qualities and contextual aspects.

Spatial walkthroughs, experience curve mapping and card sorting methods have not previously been applied in workplace studies. They facilitate dialogue, participation and user involvement and provide insights for making evidence-based recommendations for designing or redesigning office environments that fit users’ needs and preferences.

This research aims to aggregate and categorise distinct places for multi-locational work from the 1960s until today. Based on an understanding of the user needs connected to these locations, the paper aims to identify the service concepts and workplace design solutions by which these needs can be met.

The literature review is based on academic journal papers, reports and books related to the topic.

The paper categorises the main multi-locational workplace locations, namely, organisational offices, home offices, mobile workplaces and flexible offices. The user needs in these locations vary from concept to concept, and therefore, the service offers are distinct. Based on the results, the service provision of organisational offices and flexible offices should focus on providing users with the chance for socialisation using collaborative space solutions and community management policies. In the cases of home offices and mobile workplaces, service provision should instead emphasise ensuring functionalities such as efficient virtual connectivity and accessibility. Additionally, more concept-specific user needs are identified.

The paper offers an overview of and framework for future research and concept development. The limitations of cultural differences could have been investigated more.

The results provide insight into the purposes of facilities management and workplace design when developing service concepts for multi-locational workplaces.

The paper establishes a literature-based framework for the service concepts of places for multi-locational work.

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 aim of this research is to determine whether the type of office environment has an impact on satisfaction with the office environment and productivity support.

Three office types that are most common in The Netherlands were distinguished: individual and shared room offices, combi offices and flex offices. 11,799 respondents filled out a questionnaire measuring satisfaction with the work environment and its contribution to productivity.

Regression analysis was used to investigate whether these factors were influenced by office type. Results show that office type is a significant predictor. While in combi and flex offices people can choose to work at diverse workspaces, people evaluate productivity support, concentration and privacy less positive than people working in individual and shared room offices. In combi offices, but not in flex offices, people are more satisfied with communication than in individual and shared room offices.

Nevertheless, satisfaction with the organization explains the most variance with regard to satisfaction with the office environment and productivity support.

In The Netherlands, there are a lot of office buildings with a combi or flexible office concept. The large dataset on which the comparison is based, is a real plus for the research.