Leesman data presentation sml

100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015

Lmi 59.9

100,000+ data report

London – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015

100,000+ data reportLondon – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015Amsterdam – January 2016New York – February 2016

Lmi 59.9

100,000+ data report

London – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015


Agenda

The new Global Standard• Brief overview of the Leesman workplace effectiveness measurement model • The impact of workplace of organisational performance

Data Diversity• Looking at how the data we’ve collected stacks up from a diversity perspective

What the Data Says• Playing with the numbers

Leesman+• Understanding the highest performance workplaces.

The Next Five Years


The New Global Standard

2010

• Proposed a simple, accessible, independent evaluation technique.

• No other services, so no vested interest in findings.

• Met with skepticism and intrigue in equal proportions.

• Aimed at design community with anticipation of getting them closer to the business of their clients

• Taken up by the clients wanting to be better informed about impact of the services they were buying!



Design Impact• How much do you agree with the following

statements about the design of your organisation’s office?

Activity Analysis• Which activities are important to you in your

work and how well is each supported?

Physical Features• Which physical features do you consider to

be an important part of an effective workplace and how satisfied are you with each?

Service Features• Which service features do you consider to be

an important part of an effective workplace and how satisfied are you with each?

5

The Leesman Index model

The Leesman Index survey has been deployed now across 1,000+ workplaces in 49 countries in 25 languages. The diversity of the data collected gets wider by the week as we work with leading global organisations as part of major capital projects, on estate-wide baseline evaluations, or on ongoing healthchecks of property performance.

Central to that technique is a standardised e-questionnaire that examines what employees are doing and how the physical and virtual infrastructure supports them doing it. The Leesman Lmi key performance indicator is calculated from the Design Impact and the Activities Analysis questions and should therefore be seen as a test of the ability of a workplace to support the needs of employees – its operational effectiveness.

Design Impact Analysis – how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the overall design of your organisation’s current workspace?

Activity Analysis – which activities are important to you in your work and how well is each supported?

Physical Features Analysis – which physical features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?

Service Features Analysis – which service features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?

This publication aims to offer an initial examination of that data and provide key statistics and findings for your review.

Responses received 112,300+

Workplaces surveyed 1,000+

Leesmananalytics

Actionableoutcomes

LeesmanLmi

Activities

Features

Facilities

Designimpact

11 minuteemployee

questionnaire

5











Leesmananalytics

Actionableoutcomes

LeesmanLmi

Activities

Features

Facilities

Designimpact

11 minuteemployee

questionnaire

5











Leesmananalytics

Actionableoutcomes

LeesmanLmi

Activities

Features

Facilities

Designimpact

11 minuteemployee

questionnaire


Data diversity

122,500+

1,000+

49

respondents

locations

countries


The impact on effectiveness

43% agree

25% neutral

32% disagree

54% agree

16% neutral

30% disagree

It enables me to work productively

It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to

How much do you agree / disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation'scurrent workspace?



greater than 50

less than 50% productive

Less than 50

432 locations >50 respondents

134 <50% productivity agreement



Impact on organisational performance

Impact on engagement

Impact on discretionary effort



Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Pride agreement Productivity agreement

1 Facilities Management & Outsourcing Copenhagen 135 81.7

84% 75%

2 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Paris 127 80.23 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Chicago 125 79.74 Biotech & Pharmaceuticals Paris 141 76.35 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London 336 75.36 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services California 140 75.27 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Dublin 256 75.18 Construction & Civil Engineering Oslo 104 74.49 Health, Wellness, Hospitals & Healthcare Withheld 242 74.410 Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Riga 154 73.611 Banking, Insurance & Financial Services London 453 73.012 Biotech & Pharmaceuticals France 521 72.713 Publishing London 121 72.614 Telecommunications Stockholm 155 72.515 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Katowice 142 72.2

NB. Top 15 locations with greater that 100 respondents by Leesman Lmi

Top 15 performing location by Leesman Lmi.



Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Pride agreement Productivity agreement

1 Transportation, railroad & Trucking Birmingham 212 48.1

23% 35%

2 Charities, NGO’s, & Non-profit Stockholm 130 48.13 Automotive Withheld 116 47.84 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London 198 47.75 Automotive Withheld 496 47.66 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 125 47.37 Transportation, railroad & Trucking Glasgow 196 47.28 Utilities, Oil & Energy UK 220 47.29 Facilities Management & Outsourcing UK 190 46.710 Automotive Withheld 360 45.711 Retail London 784 45.512 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services London 273 45.513 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Portsmouth 386 44.714 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 161 44.315 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 118 36.8

NB. Bottom 15 locations with greater that 100 respondents by Leesman Lmi

Bottom 15 performing location by Leesman Lmi.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Individual%focused%work,%desk%based

Planned%m

eetings

Telephone%conversations

Inform

al,%unHplanned%meetings

Collaborating%on%focused%work

Inform

al%social%interaction

Relaxing%/%taking%a%break

Thinking%/%creative%thinking

Reading

Individual%routine%tasks

Learning%from%others

Audio%conferences

Private%conversations

Business%confidential%discussions

Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers

Spreading%out%paper%or%materials

Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences

Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%

desk

Collaborating%on%creative%work

Video%conferences

Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%

or%materials

Top%15 Bottom%15Activities ranked by importance – Top 15 against Bottom 15 Lmi locations.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Planned%m

eetings



Inform




Video%conferences

Audio%conferences


Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%

or%materials


desk

Inform





Reading





Top%15 Bottom%15Activities ranked by satisfaction – Top 15 against Bottom 15 Lmi locations.



Observations

• The difference between the best and worst performing places is huge (40% difference in productivity agreement.

• Employers are failing to recognise the role of the workplace in organisationalperformance

• We now need to do more to understand the particulars associated with poor performance.

Questions


Data diversity

56% Male

44% Female

0% Prefer not to say

Gender No of respondents Lmi

Male 61,339 59.4

Female 47,582 60.8

Prefer nts 391 51.1

Distribution of respondents by gender


Data diversity

13% 55 and over

27% 45-54

30% 35-44

26% 25-34

4% Under 25

Age range No of respondents Lmi

55 and over 14,181 60.2

45 - 54 29,777 59.6

44 - 35 34,204 59.0

25 - 34 29,611 60.9

Under 25 4,542 66.0

Distribution of respondents by age range


Data diversity

Time with org No of respondents Lmi

Over% 12%years 34,730 59.5

8 – 12%years 13,728 58.9

3%– 8%yeasr 29,046 59.2

18m%– 3%years 13,283 60.0

6%– 18%months 13,313 61.7

0%H6%months 8,007 65.0

Distribution of respondents by time with org

31% Over 12 years

12% 8 – 12 years

26% 3 – 8 yeasr

12% 18m – 3 years

12% 6 – 18 months

7% 0 -6 months


Data diversity

Region locations respondents Lmi

UK 535 46,679 59.1

Nordics 188 36,235 58.8

Rest of Euro 238 19,497 62.7

Americas 82 5,361 64.1

Asia Pacific 45 1,409 60.7Rest of World 20 697 65.1

Distribution of respondents by geography

42% United Kingdom

33% Nordics

18% Rest of Europe

5% Americas

1% Asia Pacific

0% Rest of the World

87% Sweden

9% Norway

3% Finland

1% Denmark

Region locations respondents Lmi

Sweden 31,925 58.4

Norway 3,181 62.1

Finland 1,129 57.3

Denmark 441 69.0


Data diversity

Survey type locations respondents Lmi

Pre 714 82,972 58.2

Post 108 16,704 66.4

Other 288 9,761 63.3

Distribution of respondents by project type

76% Pre

15% Post

9% Other


Data diversity

Distribution of respondents by industry14% Banking, insurance 9% Transportation9% Automotive5% Information tech5% Retail4% Telecomm’s4% Government4% Aviation3% Utilities, oil & gas3% Construction & Eng2% Other

Industry Locations Respondents

Banking, insurance 103 18,743

Transportation 151 12,191

Automotive 49 11,228

Information tech 198 7,176

Retail 37 7,102

Telecomm’s 53 5,425

Government 34 5,073

Aviation 39 4,880

Utilities, oil & gas 32 4,273

Construction & Eng 31 3,469

Combined others 35 1788


Data diversity

Observations

• Extensively UK and Scandinavia, but US and Australia growing rapidly.

Questions



“You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be led”

Stan Laurel.



The start.


Data mining

The treasure trove• An academics dream.

Independent analysis• Commissioned Formulate to “play” with the data.

Patterns• Looking at for patterns within the data. Correlations, differences, similarities.• Impact coding (probability / odds)

Walk you through the data…. Picking out highlights• The impact of age – what’s important to whom• The impact of time• The impact of work setting• The impact of activities undertaken• The impact code


The impact of age


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

The% design% of%my%workspace% is%

important%to%me

It's%a% place%I'm%proud%to%bring%

visitors%to

It%enables% me% to%work%

productively

It%creates% an%enjoyable%

environment% to%work%in

It%contributes% to%a%sense% of%

community%at%work

Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overDesign impact by age. See page 10.


The impact of age

Probability ratios – Activities (top 15). See page 8.

Age group 25-34 Age group 35-44 Age group 45-54 Age group 55-64

Audio conferences 1.89 2.92 3.23 2.85Video conferences 1.78 2.56 2.81 2.74Business confidential discussions 1.70 2.51 2.91 2.64Hosting visitors clients or customers 1.57 2.10 2.57 2.55Thinking / creative thinking 1.32 1.79 2.16 2.25Reading 1.43 1.79 2.17 2.16Larger group meetings or audiences 1.37 1.81 2.12 1.98Telephone conversations 1.31 1.64 1.90 1.98Collaborating on creative work 1.37 1.83 1.99 1.94Individual focused work, desk based 1.30 1.59 1.83 1.83Planned meetings 1.52 2.04 2.14 1.82Informal, un-planned meetings 1.53 2.07 2.12 1.78Using technical, specialist equipment or materials n.s. 1.24 1.52 1.73Private conversations 1.24 1.43 1.55 1.56Spreading out paper or materials n.s. n.s. 1.29 1.48

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.


The impact of age

Probability ratios – Activities (remainder). See page 8.


Collaborating on focused work 1.36 1.52 1.60 1.38Individual focused work away from your desk 1.23 1.36 1.42 1.33Individual routine tasks 0.84 0.87 n.s. 1.24Informal social interaction n.s. 1.08 1.12 1.11Learning from others 0.87 0.82 0.92 n.s.Relaxing / taking a break 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.92

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences

Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%

materials

Under%25 25H34 34H55 45H54 55%or%overImportance of activities by age. See page 10.


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences


materials

Under%25 34H55Importance of activities by age. See page 10.


The impact of age

Probability ratios – Features (top 15). See page 9.


Noise levels 1.22 1.53 2.11 2.42Toilets / W.C. 1.14 1.45 1.78 2.21Air quality 1.16 1.43 1.82 2.20Office lighting n.s. 1.17 1.64 2.10Internal signage 1.08 1.28 1.62 2.00Accessibility of colleagues n.s. 1.26 1.66 1.98Dividers (between desks areas) 1.25 1.41 1.61 1.77Health and safety provisions 0.93 n.s. 1.44 1.74Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.12 1.29 1.44 1.73Archive storage n.s. n.s. 1.29 1.67Printing / copying / scanning equipment 0.88 n.s. 1.22 1.67Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 0.89 0.89 1.15 1.58General cleanliness n.s. n.s. 1.24 1.55People walking past your workstation 1.14 1.27 1.43 1.50Wired in-office network connectivity 1.16 1.38 1.50 1.50

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.


The impact of age

Probability ratios – Features (bottom 15). See page 9.


Temperature control 0.87 0.88 n.s. 1.15Reception areas n.s. n.s. 1.12 1.14Meeting rooms (large) n.s. n.s. 1.16 1.11Chair n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Computing equipment (fixed desktop) n.s. 0.89 n.s. n.s.Restaurant / canteen n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Variety of different types of workspace n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.11 1.09 n.s. n.s.Shower facilities n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Shared storage n.s. 0.93 n.s. n.s.Desk Room / booking systems 1.08 1.10 1.15 n.s.WiFi network connectivity in the office n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.IT Service / Help desk n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Ability to personalise my workstation 0.81 0.72 0.75 0.83Informal work areas / breakout zones n.s. n.s. 0.91 0.76

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Desk

Chair

Temperature%control

Meeting%rooms%(small)

Personal%storage

Natural%light

Noise%levels

Meeting%rooms%(large)

Air%quality

Office%lighting

Quiet%rooms%for%working%alone%or%in%pairs

General%Décor

People%walking%past%your%workstation

Inform

al%work%areas%/%breakHout%zones%

Ability%to%personalise%m

y%workstation

Desk%/%Room%booking%systems

Dividers%(between%desks%/%areas)

Space%between%work%settings

Plants%&%Greenery

Accessibility%of%colleagues%

Atriums%and%Communal%Areas

Art%&%Photography

Shared%storage

Archive%storage%

Variety%of%different%types%of%workspace

Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overImportance of physical features by age. See page 11.


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tea,%coffee%and%other%refreshment%

facilities

General%cleanliness

Computing%equipment,%fixed%(desktop)

Toilets%/%W

.C.

Printing%/%copying%/%scanning%equipment

Telephone%equipment

Restaurant%/%canteen

IT%Service%/%Help%desk

WiFi%network%connectivity%in%the%office

General%tidiness

Wired%inHoffice%network%connectivity

Computing%equipment,%mobile%(laptop,%

tablet,%etc.)

Parking%(car,%m

otorbike%or%bicycle)%

Remote%access%to%work%files%or%network

Security%

Access%(e.g.%lifts,%stairways,%ramps%etc)

Mail%&%postHroom%services

Reception%areas%

Health%and%safety%provisions%

Leisure%facilities%onsite%or%nearby

Internal%signage

Shower%facilities

Hospitality%services

AudioHVisual%equipment

Guest%/%visitor%network%access

Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overImportance of service features by age. See page 11.


The impact of age

Observations

• significant differences found between the age groups and the youngest age group are least "demanding”

• design in response to gen Y and you will miss the needs of the majority

• differences between age groups not to be confused with or interpreted as generational differences – rather life stage differences!

Questions


The impact of time


The impact of time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

The design of my workspace is important to me

It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to

It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in

It contributes to a sense of community at work

0H6%months 6H18%months 18mH3y 3H8%years 8H12%yearsDesign impact by service length. See page 14.


The impact of time


6-18 months 18 m - 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 12 years

Telephone conversations 1.18 1.25 1.35 1.45Hosting visitors, clients or customers 1.17 1.36 1.43 1.41Private conversations 1.15 1.24 1.28 1.27Business confidential discussions 1.06 1.15 1.26 1.27Individual focused work, desk based 1.23 1.24 1.27 1.26Larger group meetings or audiences 1.14 1.21 1.23 1.25Informal unplanned meetings 1.16 1.24 1.23 1.25Audio conferences 1.18 1.21 1.19 1.24Planned meetings 1.14 1.20 1.15 1.23Spreading out paper or materials n.s. 1.09 1.13 1.18Video conferences 1.14 1.19 1.17 1.10Individual focused work away from your desk n.s. n.s. 1.06 1.08Individual routine tasks n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.08Thinking / creative thinking 1.07 1.11 n.s. 1.06Relaxing / taking a break n.s. n.s. 1.05 n.s.

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.


The impact of time

Probability ratios – Activities (remainder). See page 12.


Relaxing / taking a break n.s. n.s. 1.05 n.s.Informal social interaction n.s. 1.06 n.s. n.s.Collaborating on focused work n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Collaborating on creative work n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Reading 0.90 n.s. n.s. n.s.Using technical / specialist equipment or materials n.s. n.s. 1.07 n.s.Learning from others 0.87 0.79 0.75 0.71

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.


The impact of time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences


materials

0H6%months 6H12%months 18m%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of activities by service length. See page 14.


The impact of age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences


materials

Under%25 25H34 34H55 45H54 55%or%overImportance of activities by age. See page 10.


The impact of time



Archive storage 1.19 1.26 1.38 1.51Mail & postroom services 1.12 1.20 1.31 1.43Temperature control 1.10 1.16 1.38 1.42Shower facilities n.s. n.s. 1.14 1.32Shared storage 1.09 1.11 1.26 1.31Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) n.s. 1.07 1.12 1.26Air quality 1.08 1.13 1.23 1.24Desk / Room booking systems 1.19 1.16 1.16 1.24Health and safety provisions n.s. n.s. 1.09 1.19Telephone equipment n.s. n.s. 1.08 1.19Guest / visitor network access 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.19Noise levels 1.11 1.11 1.16 1.18Meeting rooms (large) 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.18WiFi network connectivity in the office n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.18IT Service / Help desk n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.18

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.


The impact of time



General tidiness 0.91 0.88 0.92 n.s.Space between work settings n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Audio-Visual equipment n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Desk n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Personal storage n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Plants & Greenery n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Hospitality services 0.93 n.s. n.s. n.s.General Décor n.s. 0.94 n.s. n.s.Natural light n.s. 0.92 n.s. n.s.Ability to personalise my workstation n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Informal work areas / break-out zones n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Art & Photography n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.93Reception areas 0.92 0.85 0.91 0.90Atriums and Communal Areas n.s. 0.92 0.89 0.88Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities n.s. 0.88 0.81 0.82

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.


The impact of time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Desk

Chair

Temperature%control

Meeting%rooms%(small)

Personal%storage

Natural%light

Noise%levels

Meeting%rooms%(large)

Air%quality

Office%lighting

Quiet%rooms%for%working%alone%or%in%pairs

General%Décor

People%walking%past%your%workstation

Inform

al%work%areas%/%breakHout%zones%

Ability%to%personalise%m

y%workstation

Desk%/%Room%booking%systems

Dividers%(between%desks%/%areas)

Space%between%work%settings

Plants%&%Greenery

Accessibility%of%colleagues%

Atriums%and%Communal%Areas

Art%&%Photography

Shared%storage

Archive%storage%

Variety%of%different%types%of%workspace

0H6%months 6H18%months 18%months%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of physical features by service length. See page 15.


The impact of time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tea,%coffee%and%other%refreshment%

facilities

General%cleanliness

Computing%equipment,%fixed%(desktop)

Toilets%/%W

.C.

Printing%/%copying%/%scanning%equipment

Telephone%equipment

Restaurant%/%canteen

IT%Service%/%Help%desk

WiFi%network%connectivity%in%the%office

General%tidiness

Wired%inHoffice%network%connectivity

Computing%equipment,%mobile%(laptop,%

tablet,%etc.)

Parking%(car,%m

otorbike%or%bicycle)%

Remote%access%to%work%files%or%network

Security%

Access%(e.g.%lifts,%stairways,%ramps%etc)

Mail%&%postHroom%services

Reception%areas%

Health%and%safety%provisions%

Leisure%facilities%onsite%or%nearby

Internal%signage

Shower%facilities

Hospitality%services

AudioHVisual%equipment

Guest%/%visitor%network%access

0H6%months 6H18%months 18%months%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of service features by service length. See page 15.


The impact of time

Observations

• Length of service does not have as big of an impact as age has on importance of activities and features

• New comers place larger importance on learning from others and less importance on individual activities, while there is no difference regarding collaborative activities

Questions


Tea, coffee and refreshment facilities

• Importance 89.3%

• Satisfaction 64.5%


The impact of work setting



My own workstation in an open plan office areaA shared office (enclosed room/space)A flexible / non-allocated workstationA private office assigned solely to youA cubicle

A shared team table

A meeting room

In the office, what type of work setting do you use most often?

Number of respondents % Lmi

My own workstation in an open plan office area 60,849 56 58.2

A shared office (enclosed room/space) 17,515 16 60.7

A flexible / non-allocated workstation 11,607 11 60.4

A private office assigned solely to you 9,205 8 68.1

A cubicle 5,749 5 59.8

A shared team table 2,534 2 61.9

A meeting room 1,248 1 58.1

Other 579 1 57.7An informal work-setting such as a break-out zone 428 - 60.9

A quiet room / private office (available for flexible use) 316 - 59.9

A specialist practical or technical setting 287 - 58.5

Distribution of respondents by work setting




Allocated open plan

Informal, un-planned meetings 1.26Planned meetings 1.22Relaxing / taking a break 1.11Collaborating on creative work 1.09Learning from others 1.08Larger group meetings or audiences 1.07Informal social interaction 1.06Collaborating on focused work 1.05Video conferences n.s.Telephone conversations n.s.Individual focused work, desk based n.s.Private conversations n.s.Individual focused work away from your desk n.s.Individual routine tasks n.s.Spreading out paper or materials 0.97

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with a private or shared office.

Flexible

Collaborating on creative work 1.08Informal unplanned meetings 1.07Planned meetings n.s.Relaxing taking a break n.s.Informal social interaction n.s.Collaborating on focused work n.s.Private conversations 0.95Learning from others 0.93Individual focused work away from your desk 0.91Larger group meetings or audiences 0.90Individual routine tasks 0.84Business confidential discussions 0.84Audio conferences 0.83Telephone conversations 0.82Reading 0.78




Allocated open plan

Dividers (between desks / areas) 2.40People walking past your workstation 1.80Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.70Desk / Room booking systems 1.45Space between work settings 1.45Chair 1.41Informal work areas / break-out zones 1.33Toilets / W.C. 1.32Meeting rooms (small) 1.31General tidiness 1.29Office lighting 1.28General Décor 1.25Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.23Shared storage 1.20Noise levels 1.19


Flexible

Variety of different types of workspace 1.87Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.64Desk / Room booking systems 1.47Informal work areas / break-out zones 1.41General tidiness 1.36People walking past your workstation 1.36General Decor 1.28Atriums and Communal Areas 1.22Dividers (between desks / areas) 1.22WiFi network connectivity in the office 1.16Meeting rooms (small) 1.15Restaurant / canteen 1.14Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.14Toilets / W.C. 1.13Internal signage 1.09




Allocated open plan

Art & Photography n.s.Mail & post-room services 0.97Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 0.96Accessibility of colleagues 0.96Health and safety provisions 0.96Telephone equipment 0.95Guest / visitor network access 0.94Shower facilities 0.94Computing equipment, mobile (laptop, tablet, etc) 0.91Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 0.90WiFi network connectivity in the office 0.90Archive storage 0.90IT Service / Help desk 0.88Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) 0.83Hospitality services 0.81


Flexible

Health and safety provisions 0.94Chair 0.92Mail & post-room services 0.92Personal storage 0.92Guest / visitor network access 0.91Natural light 0.89Remote access to work files or network 0.87Printing / copying / scanning equipment 0.84Wired in-office network connectivity 0.84Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) 0.71Computing equipment, fixed (desktop) 0.70Desk 0.67Archive storage 0.66Telephone equipment 0.63Ability to personalise my workstation 0.63



Private enclosed space

Allocated open space

Non-allocated open spaceSatisfied with variety

Non-allocated open spaceOthers



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences


materials

Private%or% shared%enclosed%office Cubicle%or%designated%desk%in%open%plan

Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choicePerceived support for activities by work setting. See p 18.



48%

68%

43% 43%

52%

37%

45%

27%

71%

58% 57%

51%

39%

48%

37%41%

31%

47%44%

40% 42%

79%82%

72%

86% 88%

75%

88%

72%

91% 91%86%

76%

69%

81%

60%

83%

67%

76%

83%

64%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Planned%m

eetings


Inform



Reading




Inform



Audio%conferences








desk

Video%conferences


materials

Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choicePerceived support for activities by work setting. See p 18.



87%

30%

35%

40%37%

90%

74%

84%

78%

85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



It creates an enjoyable environment to work in



Private%or% shared%enclosed%office Cubicle%or%designated%desk%in%open%plan%area

Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choiceDesign impact by work setting. See page 18.



87%

30%

35%

40%37%

90%

74%

84%

78%

85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



It creates an enjoyable environment to work in



Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choiceDesign impact by work setting. See page 18.



A non-work specific home location (such as a dining table)A dedicated work room or office

A dedicated work area (but not a separate room)

Other

When working from home, what type of work setting do you use most often?

Number of respondents %

A non-work specific home location (such as a dining table) 12,604 43

A dedicated work room or office 10,751 37

A dedicated work area (but not a separate room) 5,367 19

Other 387 1

TOTAL 29,109 26 (of total)

Distribution of respondents by home work setting



Observations

• Clear differences in the features demand of respondents in different settings. Respondents with designated workstation in open plan require "territorial features" while variety of settings is what singles out flexible workers

• Impact of work setting on importance of indoor environment quality features (more likely to be important to those with designated setting in open plan, while flexible workers pay just as much or less importance compared to private office workers)

Questions


The impact of activities undertaken



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Number of activities selected as important – all respondents. See page 20.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

38% 24% 22%16% of respondents



25% 0 - 5

45% 6 to 10

19% 11 - 15

11% 16 - 21

Number of activities selected as important – differences by age. See page 21.

19% 0 - 5

41% 6 to 10

24% 11 - 15

16% 16 - 21

15% 0 - 5

38% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

22% 16 - 21

14% 0 - 5

35% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

26% 16 - 21

Activity profileUnder 25

Activity profile25 - 34



25% 15%

19% 14%



25% 0 - 5

45% 6 to 10

19% 11 - 15

11% 16 - 21


19% 0 - 5

41% 6 to 10

24% 11 - 15

16% 16 - 21

15% 0 - 5

38% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

22% 16 - 21

14% 0 - 5

35% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

26% 16 - 21







25% 0 - 5

45% 6 to 10

19% 11 - 15

11% 16 - 21


19% 0 - 5

41% 6 to 10

24% 11 - 15

16% 16 - 21

15% 0 - 5

38% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

22% 16 - 21

14% 0 - 5

35% 6 to 10

25% 11 - 15

26% 16 - 21





11% 22%

16% 26%




6 – 10 activities 11 – 15 activities 16 – 21 activities

Variety of different types of workspace 1.98 4.80 24.06Meeting rooms (large) 2.65 6.87 21.25Meeting rooms (small) 3.25 9.02 20.38Accessibility of colleagues 2.05 4.76 19.41Guest / visitor network access 1.91 4.01 17.12Office lighting 1.92 4.48 16.47Printing / copying / scanning equipment 2.24 5.40 16.02Informal work areas / break-out zones 2.14 4.97 15.85Audio-Visual equipment 1.82 3.94 15.57Desk / Room booking systems 2.35 5.21 15.38Noise levels 2.06 4.58 14.69Air quality 1.86 3.96 14.13Remote access to work files or network 2.27 4.87 13.56Internal signage 1.69 3.53 13.53Wired in-office network connectivity 2.20 4.73 13.52

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those selecting 0-5 activities as important in their work.



Probability ratios – Features (16 - 30). See page 22.

6 – 10 activities 11 – 15 activities 16 – 21 activities

Natural light 2.18 4.84 13.21General Décor 1.83 3.81 13.07Telephone equipment 2.21 4.87 12.75Art & Photography 1.70 3.40 12.67Health and safety provisions 1.68 3.49 12.57Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 2.38 5.08 12.43Atriums and Communal Areas 1.84 3.95 12.04General tidiness 1.88 3.97 11.89Reception areas 1.72 3.61 11.73Archive storage 1.57 2.84 11.54Shared storage 1.52 2.96 11.44People walking past your workstation 1.63 3.13 11.23Security 1.68 3.44 11.11Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 1.66 3.31 10.94Mail & post-room services 1.68 3.21 10.76

NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those selecting 0-5 activities as important in their work.



Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23.

Collaborating on focused work

Collaborating on creative work

Informal unplanned meetings

Informal social interaction Learning from others



Collaborating on focused work Collaborating on creative work Informal unplanned meetings Informal social interaction Learning from others

Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.6 Informal work areas

breakout zones 1.5 Accessibility of colleagues 1.8

Wired in-office network connectivity 1.2 Guest visitor network

access 1.3 Informal work areas breakout zones 1.4 Accessibility of colleagues 1.4 Health and safety

provisions 1.5

Remote access to work files or network 1.2 Air quality 1.3 Quiet rooms for working

alone or in pairs 1.3 Natural light 1.4 Air quality 1.4

Informal work areas breakout zones 1.2 Quiet rooms for working

alone or in pairs 1.3 Remote access to work files or network 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Office lighting 1.4

Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Audio Visual equipment 1.2 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3 Shower facilities 1.4 General cleanliness 1.4

Meeting rooms small 1.2 Art Photography 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Security 1.3

Natural light 1.2 Meeting rooms small 1.2 Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.2 General Decor 1.3 Access eg lifts stairways

ramps etc 1.3

Space between work settings 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.2 Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Atriums and Communal

Areas 1.3 Telephone equipment 1.3

General cleanliness 1.2 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.2 Variety of different types of

workspace 1.2 Plants Greenery 1.3 General tidiness 1.3

Shared storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2 Atriums and Communal Areas 1.1 WiFi network connectivity

in the office 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3

Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23. 4 x 3 x 2 x








provisions 1.5








ramps etc 1.3








NB. Weighted response frequency.








provisions 1.5








ramps etc 1.3











Importance Mentions Feature Importance overall % Satisfaction overall %

1 4 Accessibility of colleagues 54.7 68.1

2 3 Meeting rooms small 78.9 50.2

3 3 Informal work areas breakout zones 55.9 36.0

4 3 Variety of different types of workspace 35.1 27.2

5 3 Wired in-office network connectivity 69.7 68.1

6 2 Natural light 77.3 57.1

7 2 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 63.1 25.8

8 2 Atriums and Communal Areas 53.1 42.7

9 2 Remote access to work files or network 63.0 59.2

10 2 Air quality 69.6 34.0





Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24.

Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or

customers Planned meetings




Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or customers Planned meetings

Meeting rooms large 2.7 Audio Visual equipment 3.0 Guest visitor network access 2.4 Meeting rooms small 2.8

Meeting rooms small 1.7 Guest visitor network access 1.6 Hospitality services 1.9 Meeting rooms large 2.3

General tidiness 1.4 Hospitality services 1.5 Reception areas 1.7 Desk Room booking systems 1.8

Desk Room booking systems 1.4 Remote access to work files or network 1.5 Meeting rooms large 1.6 Desk 1.5

Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Variety of different types of

workspace 1.4 Archive storage 1.6 Remote access to work files or network 1.4

Reception areas 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Mail post room services 1.5 Chair 1.4

General cleanliness 1.3 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4

Office lighting 1.3 Meeting rooms large 1.4 Shared storage 1.4 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.4

Informal work areas breakout zones 1.3 Reception areas 1.4 General Decor 1.3 Computing equipment mobile laptop tablet etc 1.3

Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Internal signage 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3

4 x 3 x 2 x

















4 x 3 x 2 x

















4 x 3 x 2 x





1 4 Meeting rooms large 71.4 51.3

2 3 Meeting rooms small 78.9 50.2

3 2 Desk Room booking systems 55.6 43.4

4 1 Audio Visual equipment 37.4 42.7

5 2 Guest visitor network access 35.0 37.2

6 3 Reception areas 52.2 61.2

7 2 Remote access to work files or network 63.0 59.2

8 1 Printing copying scanning equipment 80.9 66.7

9 1 Hospitality services 38.4 46.6

10 1 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 63.1 25.8

Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24. 4 x 3 x 2 x




Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 24.

Individual focused work desk based Individual routine tasks Reading Thinking creative thinking





Desk 3.0 Desk 1.6 Noise levels 1.4 Noise levels 1.5

Chair 2.1 Shared storage 1.5 Chair 1.3 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3

Noise levels 1.5 General tidiness 1.5 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3 Wired inoffice network connectivity 1.3

Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4 Chair 1.5 People walking past your workstation 1.2 Remote access to work files or

network 1.2

Computing equipment fixed desktop 1.4 Office lighting 1.5 Desk 1.2 People walking past your workstation 1.2

Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.4 Health and safety provisions 1.5 Personal storage 1.2 Natural light 1.2

Personal storage 1.4 Internal signage 1.5 Dividers between desks areas 1.2 Air quality 1.2

Dividers between desks areas 1.4 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.5 Archive storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2

People walking past your workstation 1.4 Archive storage 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.2 Space between work settings 1.2

Natural light 1.4 Mail postroom services 1.5 Air quality 1.2 Variety of different types of workspace 1.2

4 x 3 x 2 x






Desk 3.0 Desk 1.6 Noise levels 1.4 Noise levels 1.5

Chair 2.1 Shared storage 1.5 Chair 1.3 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3

Noise levels 1.5 General tidiness 1.5 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3 Wired inoffice network connectivity 1.3

Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4 Chair 1.5 People walking past your workstation 1.2 Remote access to work files or

network 1.2

Computing equipment fixed desktop 1.4 Office lighting 1.5 Desk 1.2 People walking past your workstation 1.2

Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.4 Health and safety provisions 1.5 Personal storage 1.2 Natural light 1.2

Personal storage 1.4 Internal signage 1.5 Dividers between desks areas 1.2 Air quality 1.2

Dividers between desks areas 1.4 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.5 Archive storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2

People walking past your workstation 1.4 Archive storage 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.2 Space between work settings 1.2

Natural light 1.4 Mail postroom services 1.5 Air quality 1.2 Variety of different types of workspace 1.2

4 x 3 x 2 x





1 3 Desk 93.3 72.6

2 3 Chair 92.1 67.1

3 3 Noise levels 76.5 29.7

4 3 People walking past your workstation 55.9 31.2

5 2 Printing copying scanning equipment 80.9 66.7

6 1 Space between work settings 54.9 28.1

7 2 Natural light 77.3 57.1

8 1 Computing equipment fixed desktop 68.7 63.3

9 1 Office lighting 66.4 54.5

10 1 Temperature control 80.7 26.9

Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 25. 4 x 3 x 2 x




Observations

• The more complex the activity profile, the bigger the demand on the workplace

• Therefore, variety is key

• Most important features to support collaboration does not include large meeting rooms!

• Small meeting rooms for collaboration, large meeting rooms for formal meetings

• Desk, chair and noise levels most important for individual activities

Questions




26

The impact code

On the final two pages we offer the overall performance figures across the entire database against all core elements of the Leesman Index survey, reporting on agreement, importance and satisfaction figures. We have then shown where Gender, Age or Length of Service impact on these.

% im

port

ance

ove

rall

% im

port

ance

ove

rall

% im

port

ance

ove

rall

% s

atis

fact

ion

over

all

% s

atis

fact

ion

over

all

% s

atis

fact

ion

over

all

% s

atis

fact

ion

Lees

man

+%

sat

isfa

ctio

n Le

esm

an+

% s

atis

fact

ion

Lees

man

+

Ove

rall

/ Lee

sman

+ di

ffer

ence

Ove

rall

/ Lee

sman

+ di

ffer

ence

Ove

rall

/ Lee

sman

+ di

ffer

ence

Gen

der

Gen

der

Gen

der

Age

Age

Age

Tim

e w

ith

orga

nisa

tion

Tim

e w

ith

orga

nisa

tion

Tim

e w

ith

orga

nisa

tion

Q1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation’s office?

The design of my workspace is important to meIt contributes to a sense of community at work It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to

12 345

–––––

–––––

– –84.858.0 56.754.8 48.7

90.1 73.6 78.9 70.1 81.7

5.3 15.6 22.2 15.3 33.0

Q2. What impact do you think the design of your workspace has on the following elements of your organisation?

Corporate Image (for visitors, clients, potential recruits etc.) Workplace CultureEnvironmental Sustainability

12 3

–––

54.554.141.1

86.876.669.5

32.322.528.4

Q3 Which activities do you feel are important in your work and how well is each supported?

Individual focused work, desk based Planned meetingsTelephone conversations Informal, un-planned meetingsCollaborating on focused workReadingRelaxing / taking a breakThinking / creative thinking Individual routine tasks Informal social interactionLearning from othersAudio conferencesBusiness confidential discussionsHosting visitors, clients or customersSpreading out paper or materialsCollaborating on creative workPrivate conversations Larger group meetings or audiencesIndividual focused work away from your deskVideo conferencesUsing technical / specialist equipment or materials

12 34567 89101112 1314151617 18192021

93.578.077.966.559.556.255.653.050.950.550.047.746.144.243.743.142.039.035.431.526.7

77.177.663.963.172.658.462.250.986.973.577.365.151.661.458.964.346.261.164.053.464.6

85.480.576.183.586.974.183.467.891.888.585.380.466.979.863.078.660.573.981.475.174.8

8.32.9

12.220.414.315.721.216.94.9

15.08.0

15.315.318.44.1

14.314.312.817.421.710.2

= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact



–––

–––––––––––––––––––––

–––

––

–

–


Leesman+


Leesman+

Soft launched in January• Recognition programme for

outstanding performance.• Lmi 70 and above

Leesman, Henry Wood House, 2 Riding House Street, London W1W 7FA

Delivering insights that drive better strategies

ISS WorldThis is to certify that

Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg, Denmark

was awarded Leesman+ certification for

on 4 December 2014

Tim Oldman | Founder & CEO

Achieving an Lmi of 81.7

ISS Group HQ, CopenhagenLmi 81.7, December 2014.


01

Sainsbury’s Bank HQ3 Lochside Avenue, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DJ

02

� Edinburgh, a vibrant capital city, is a major financial, administrative, legal and commercial centre. Strong property fundamentals ensure that the city remains a key destination for UK and international investment.

� HQ office building strategically located on Edinburgh Park, Scotland’s premier business park.

� 84,373 sq ft of Grade A office accommodation is split over 4 levels, allowing further subdivision in the future, with the benefit of 303 dedicated car parking spaces (1:278 sq ft).

� Let on FRI terms to the excellent covenant of Sainsbury’s Bank plc, D&B rating of 5A 1, until 29 September 2029, subject to a tenant break option on 29 September 2024.

� The current passing rent of £1,274,037.71 per annum equates to a rate of £15.25 per sq ft for the office accommodation and £7.63 per sq ft on the reception area.

� Heritable interest (Scottish equivalent of English Freehold).

� Offers in excess of £19,000,000 (Nineteen Million Pounds) are sought for our client’s Heritable interest, subject to contract and exclusive of VAT.

� A purchase at this level would provide a net initial yield of 6.31%, after purchaser’s costs of 6.25%, and a capital rate of £225 per sq ft.

Investment Summary

Prime Business Park Investment Opportunity

Leesman+



19

Sainsbury’s Bank HQ3 Lochside Avenue, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DJ

20

Further Information

EPCThe property has an EPC rating of D.

A copy of the Energy Performance Certificate is available on the dataroom.

Capital AllowancesAll remaining Capital Allowances will be retained by the vendor.

Value Added TaxVAT will be applicable to the sale of the property, which we anticipate will be undertaken by way of Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

DataroomA dataroom has been created which contains all of the relevant building and sale information. Access will be provided to genuinely interested parties.

HQ office building located on Edinburgh Park, Scotland’s Premier Business Park

Sainsbury’s BankLmi 71.5, January 2015.


Leesman+



Little Brown Book Group, LondonLmi 72.6, February 2015.


Leesman+

Raises questions• What is different about

these buildings• Is it possible to probe

further• Raises more questions

about CRE strategy

• Leesman launching facility in January 2016 for clients and consultants to upload CRE data for future analysis and research.

NCC, OsloLmi 71.5, January 2015.


Leesman+

Real EstateInsert below your key CRE data below.

Net% internal%area

Sq ft

Sq m

Number% of%floors

Number% of%enclosed% meeting% rooms

Number% of%seats% %to%enclosed%meeting% rooms

?

?

?

OperationsInsert below your key HR and FM data below.

Number% of%desk% positions%available%

Number% of%visitors%to%the%location

Number% of%employees% allocated%to%location%

Number% of%parking% spaces% available%to%staff

?

?

?

?


10 –– Issue 15

Darwin is often mis-quoted as saying it is the strongest who survive. He actually proposed

that it is the “adaptable” who survive – those who change and develop in line with changes in their surroundings. If the same is true in corporate life, is it not time to offer greater help for employees to adapt to workplace changes

around them by looking at the world from their angle? So I’ve ploughed through large amounts of change, change management and workplace change literature. And at the risk of oversimplification, I would say most focus on employee resistance and on the various “tricks,” such as communication and

engagement, to overcome this resistance.

But I think it’s a bit too harsh to say that people blindly resist change – I would suggest instead that they merely “react.”And I think you will agree that to “react” is an entirely reasonable response when stuff is going on around you.

Wouldn’t it in fact be rather alarming if nobody challenged a move from a private office to open plan, or giving up their designated desk in return for having the option to choose between numerous free workstations every morning? Wouldn’t that signal a complete lack of

engagement and motivation? So everyone should

be allowed – or actually encouraged – to challenge new things in their organisations. So I suggest we stop talking about employee resistance as the worst challenge a manager can face, and instead embrace the change critique that people offer.It has also frustrated me while digging through endless academic papers on transformational change, how employees are too often lazily massed as a homogenous group called “the employees” and how this group is then seen as an object in which change needs

to be implemented. It is almost as if the employees were one and the same person who thinks and reacts in the same way. Yet we all know this to be so far from reality. The reality is, not everyone will react in the

same way. When change is delivered, some people get excited while others put their foot down and challenge what is happening. We simply are not all the same.

At the Workplace Trends event in London a few weeks ago, one of the speakers was asked how the employees had reacted to the workplace

change that they had delivered. Her answer “Some people will always complain” was met with comfortable laughter from the audience, as to confirm “we know what

you mean, we’ve all dealt with those people.”But instead of just laughing and accepting that some employees will “always” complain and using that as justification to ignore the problem, why not make an effort to actually understand why some people

always complain. One popular model used to describe the emotional process that employees go through when confronted with change is the so-called Change Curve. It was originally developed by Kübler-Ross to explain how people deal with catastrophic loss, and it suggests that people go through the stages

of denial, anger, bargaining

and depression before reaching the final stage of acceptance. Although it serves the purpose of communicating the emotional process people might go through in change, there’s again a risk that it is used to oversimplify the experience of several individuals into one collective

experience. And certainly don’t expect employees to progress through the curve at the same pace. In my research I’ve heard two individuals from the same organisation, who were subject to the same communication and engagement, give completely contradicting answers about certain events related to their office relocation. I’ve also seen how location decisions, distribution of office rooms and allocation of parking spaces have become big issues and have caused unnecessary distractions for project teams because of unanswered questions, wrong interpretations and a

M@KXRHR��[��/DFFHD�1NSGD�

The LPSRUWDQFH�RI�SHUFHLYHG�IDLUQHVV�LQ�WKH�FKDQJH�SURFHVV

!DENQD�INHMHMF�+DDRL@M�� I spent my time at the Aalto University in 'DKRHMJH�QDRD@QBGHMF�how people experience relocations and VNQJOK@BD�BG@MFD �I’ve had a chance to dig deep into case organisations and assess how employees, as individuals, make sense of the process @QNTMC�SGDL �

‘Wouldn’t it in fact be rather alarming if nobody challenged a move from a private NƧBD�SN�NODM�OK@M��NQ�FHUHMF�TO�SGDHQ�designated desk in return for having the option to choose between numerous free VNQJRS@SHNMR�DUDQX�LNQMHMF�ŗ

7KH�.»EOHU�5RVV�FKDQJH�FXUYH

Source: Adapted from Kübler-Ross (1982) & Procheska and Diclemente (1992)

ShockSuprise or shock at the event

DenialDisbelief; looking for evidence that it isn’t true

FustrationRecognition that things are different;sometimes angry

DepressionLow mood; lacking energy

ExperimentInitial engagement with the new situation

DecisionLearning how to work in the new situation; feeling more positive

IntegrationChanges integrated;a renewed individual

Pre contemplationContemplation

PreperationAction

Maintenance

Mor

ale

and

com

pete

nce

Time

+

Leesman Review –– 5

Online workplace forums

were alight recently with

discussion about an article in

the UK’s Guardian Online

newspaper that asked, “Is

this the end of the office as

we know it?” Apparently, 46%

of UK workers find their local

coffee shop a more productive

environment than their office.

However, the footnote

to the article revealed the

journalistic equivalent of

bubble-wrap: “Content on

this page is paid for and

produced to a brief agreed

with O2 Business.”

It is yet another article

rallying knowledge workers to

break from the shackles of their

ineffective offices, authored by

the mobile communications

giants who stand to gain most

from swathes of mobile tech

users becoming reliant on

(addicted to) super-fast

mobile networks.

The paid-for content was

based on “a survey of 10,000

workers” and was conducted

by Telefonica’s O2. Few

details are available about

the questions that were asked

but the resultant findings

“revealed that more than

half of respondents thought

technological breakthroughs

will transform the way we

work over the next five to

10 years.” No s**t Sherlock!

This was hot on the heels

of another study conducted by

Virgin Media, one of the UK’s

largest providers of domestic

broadband connections,

which concluded “The UK

economy could receive a £1.7

billion boost if employees are

given the option to carry out

their work from where they

see fit.” They of course mean

from home – using an internet

connection provided by them!

They appear to have

drawn this figure from a

Confederation of British

Industry report that states

that £17 billion is lost every

year through absenteeism.

It is unclear whether the

“£1.7 billion boost” is calculated

from 10% of those absent

employees suddenly feeling

well enough to contribute from

their sickbeds because they

have blisteringly fast fibre optic

internet connectivity, or whether

it is their office-based healthy

co-workers picking up the

slack by adding hours when

they get home or using their

mobile tech while en route.

O2 and Virgin Media are

not alone - Microsoft has a

Chief Envisioning Officer, BT

a futurologist and Vodafone a

workplace strategy consultancy

service - and much of what

they propose is beneficial.

The ‘evidence’ would be

so much more compelling if

it focused on the core issue.

If indeed employees are

retreating to cafés en masse,

it surely says more about the

quality of the workplace they

are escaping from, than it does

of a technology or caffeine

fuelled yearning for greater

concentration.

Rather than pitching mobile

technologies and coffee at us,

perhaps the communications

giants could focus their PR

based “research” activities

on raising the debate about

the design quality of office

environments: just 54% of the

70,000 employees Leesman

has asked, report that the

design of their space enables

them to work productively!

There is little doubt that

for some employees struggling

with low enclosure offices, the

opportunity to escape for the

sanctuary of home is a lifeline.

Across Leesman’s 70,000

research respondents, 33%

indicate that they work from

home at least occasionally

and 17% work from home

more than one day per

week, but 44% of those

homeworkers say they have

no dedicated space or room

to work from when at home.

Clearly improvements in

technological connectivity

allow these respondents to

contribute and be productive,

but to what extent can they

really be ‘connected’? Is it

possible to create a socially

cohesive ‘unit’ working

towards a common goal if

the team members are not

in the same physical space?

There may be a small

number of roles and

personality types for whom

isolation is beneficial, but our

data tells us that whilst for

some, concentrated activities

may be better supported by

the solitude of home, almost

all collaborative activities,

including ‘learning from

others’, are hampered by it.

For HR professionals the

management of remote teams

produces bigger issues. With

a growing awareness of the

impact of social isolation on

clinical depression, we have

to question whether it is really

possible to have any sense of

employees’ physical or mental

wellness when they are not in

the office. Our data leaves us in

no doubt that the most

productive workplaces are

those that have the best

“social infrastructures,” not

the best patronage of local

coffee shops. Looks like that

makes property an HR issue.

Journalists’ doomsday predictions of ‘the death of the office’ abound. But can HR professionals cut

through the lazy reporting and help shape a better understanding of the impact of place on people?

Stephen Haynes and Colin Bullen

Opposing opinion pieces discussing

whether wellness campaigns can

deliver real value to organisations and

individuals. Has wellness failed? Pages 2/3

Jonny Gifford and Peter Cheese

The human imprint in workplace

design – the need to develop

collaboration between professional

disciplines. Page 9

Peggie Rothe

Leesman’s newest recruit, fresh from her

PhD workplace research, examines the risk

of not seeing change from an employee’s

perspective. Page 10

Issue 15 | 2014 Q3

leesmanindex.com

Data reported 30.09.2014

Leesman Lmi

59.8Lmi 58.0 pre-occupancy

Lmi 67.6 post-occupancy

[email protected]

This issue: Human Resource Special. Looking at wellness programs, the change process and a case study of Nordea.

69,504 respondents

2.3 million sq m surveyed

579 properties

63% av response rate

11 min av response time

Our performance

54.3%

The design of my workplace

enables me to work productively

48.7%

My office is a place I’m proud

to bring visitors to

Economic indicators

Top 5 Activities, Features and

Facilities by importance, with

satisfaction / support rankings.

Activities:

Individual focused work,

desk based 78%

Planned meetings 76%

Telephone conversations 66%

Informal, unplanned meetings 63%

Collaborating on focused work 73%

Features:

Desk 72%

Chair 68%

Computing equipment 66%

Telephone equipment 68%

Printing / copying /

scanning equipment 63%

Facilities:

Tea, coffee and other

refreshment facilities 65%

General cleanliness 58%

Washroom facilities / showers 46%

Restaurant / canteen 48%

General tidiness 55%

See more on pages 6-7...

Data rise and fall

25

20

000s

15

10

5

0 RoWRoEScanUK

UK 35,890

Scandinavia 18,840

Rest of Europe 9,341

Rest of world 4,644

Data distribution

Pre 72%

Post 17%

Day 2 11%

10.0

– 1

9.9

20.0

– 2

9.9

30

.0 –

39

.94

0.0

– 4

9.9

50

.0 –

59

.96

0.0

– 6

9.9

70.0

– 7

9.9

80

.0 –

89

.99

0.0

– 1

00

.0

0.0

– 9

.9

Distribution of properties surveyed

with 50 respondents or more by

Lmi banding.

Lmi Location spectrum

90

120

150

60

30

0

123

102

18

22

24

A briefing on global workplace strategy, management, satisfaction & effectiveness

Delivering insights that drive better strategies

‘If indeed employees are retreating to cafés

en masse, it surely says more about the quality

of the workplace they are escaping from,

than it does of a technology or caffeine fuelled

yearning for greater concentration. ’

Top 5 coffee producers

1. Brazil

2. Vietnam

3. Columbia

4. Indonesia

5. Ethiopia

The Bean Belt

All the world’s coffee grows here:

Top 5 coffee consumers

1. United States

2. Germany

3. Italy

4. Japan

5. France

Britain’s coffee shop market by share

In 2013 the total UK coffee shop market was estimated

at 16,501 outlets with a £6.2 billion total turnover.

The branded coffee chain segment recorded £2.6 billion

turnover across 5,531 outlets. After 15 years of

considerable growth, the coffee shop sector continues

to be one of the most successful in the UK economy.

UK’s top 3 branded chain outlet share in 2013

Costa Coffee (1,670 outlets)

Starbucks Coffee Company (790)

Caffè Nero (560)

Sources: Allegra Strategies UK, British Coffee Association, Mintel Coffee UK

Amount of caffeine per cup:

125 million people

depend on coffee

for their livelihoods

None of the above countries

are locacted within the

‘Bean Belt’

Did you know?

Coffee roasting is generally done at 500°F

Coffee grows in more than 50 countries

It takes 42 coffee beans to make an espresso

35% of coffee drinkers take their coffee black

Coffee takes 14 hrs to digest

The average coffee cup size is 9 oz

The average coffee drinker consumes approx

3 cups of coffee per day

Decafcoffee3 mg

Hotchocolate

19 mg

Shot ofespresso

27 mg

Can of cola

40 mg

Black tea

45 mg

Red Bull

80 mg

Brewed coffee95 mg

Coffee is the most popular drink worldwide with around two billion cups

consumed every day. In the UK, we drink approximately 70 million cups of

coffee per day.

Coffee is the second most traded commodity

after crude oil. Coffee is also the second most

popular drink in the world after water.

2b 70m

2nd

Others11%

Costa Coffee46.8%Starbucks

27%

Caffè Nero13.8%

AMT Coffee1.4%

Market segment by brand

Property becomes an HR issue


+

23

United Kingdom No. of respondents 44,649

Percentage of database:42.3%Locations surveyed 455

Pre Post 57.9 69.4

Europe No. of respondents 54,202


Pre Post 61.3 66.1

Rest of the World No. of respondents 6,746


Pre Post 61.4 71.8

62.5

67.3

64.6

62.1

70.8

59.863.3

63.2

60.8

68.6

60.3

71.7

70.0

62.4


+For more information on Leesman, the LeesmanIndex, our research or our publications, please feel free to browse our website at leesmanindex.com, contact us at [email protected], or drop in and see us at our offices in London, Stockholm or New York.

Contact