Factors facilitating effective workplace designs

for knowledge workers

Dr. Oecon Knut BogeAssociate Professor, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo Business School

How to facilitate the knowledge workers’ productivity?

• Today, most industrialized countries are highly dependent of the so-called knowledge workers’ (white collar workers) productivity (Drucker, 1995)

• Most knowledge workers work together with other knowledge workers – usually at physical workplaces (offices)

• Measuring knowledge workers’ productivity is difficult

Agenda

• Application of FM ideas and principles can be highly relevant to develop workplaces that support and improve the effectiveness of organizations’ core activities

• To facilitate application of the knowledge workers’ knowledge and skills

Theory: background/context/literature

• Different kinds of offices and workstations (Jensen 2001; Booty 2009; de Been and Beijer 2014)

• Knowledge work is intangible and “difficult to map and assess” (Greene and Myerson 2011)• Measure perceived productivity (de Been et al. 2016)

• “Anchors” vs. “Connectors” vs. “Gatherers” vs. “Navigators” (Greene and Myerson 2011)

• Dilemma – traditional offices that offer concentration or offices without personal desks (NewWoW) with better architectonical qualities (de Been et al 2015; Appel Meulenbroek et al. 2015; van der Voordt et al. 2016)• Flexible offices can result in increased working from home (Gorgievski et al. 2010)

Methodology

• During spring 2016 Bakken, Johansen and Mandrup made an anonymous online census among the employees at a Norwegian institution for research and higher education and two consultancy companies (N = 4535)• 1670 respondents (37 per cent) answered the census

• Questionnaire with demographic questions (nominal level) and questions concerning workplace and facilities (10 point Likert scale)• Cronbach’s alpha .824-.972, except access to facilities (.666)

• Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with ML factor extraction and Varimax rotation• 12 constructs

• Multiple OLS regression with 10 IV and F7 Workplace design effectiveness as DV

• Dummy OLS regression to test whether different categories of respondents have different perceptions of F7 Workplace design effectiveness

The respondents’ officesFlexible office with free seating (%)

Flexible office with reserved positions (%)

Cell office with reserved positons (%)

Total (%)

Research and higher education

44 (4.6) 53 (5.6) 850 (89.8) 947 (60.6)

Consultancy company (L)

5 (0.9) 368 (64.2) 200 (34.9) 573 (37.6)

Consultancy company (M)

1 (2.4) 38 (90.5) 3 (7.1) 42 (2.7)

Total 50 (3.2) 459 (29.4) 1053 (67.4) 1562 (100.0)

Respondents with workstations in open or semi open landscapes

Traditional open/semi open office shared by several persons (%)

Group based office (organizational belonging) (%)

Activity based office depending on activity (%)

Total (%)

Research and higher education

47 (50.5) 14 (15.1) 32 (34.4) 93 (18.6)

Consultancy company (L)

232 (63.0) 115 (31.3) 21 (5.7) 573 (73.7)

Consultancy company (M)

26 (68.4) 8 (21.1) 4 (10.5) 42 (7.6)

Total 305 (61.1) 137 (27.5) 57 (11.4) 499 (100.0)

Which factors are most influencing the knowledge workers’ perception of F7 Workplace design effectiveness?

• F7 Workplace design effectiveness is most influenced by (R2 .477, adjusted R2 .454)• F1 Common areas (B .241, p .000, Beta .261)

• F3 Freedom of Choice (B .228, p .000, Beta .237)

• F8 Meeting rooms (B .194, p .004, Beta .200)

• The model’s other seven factors/constructs are not significant

Different organizations

• Mean score on F7 Workplace design effectiveness for respondents in the institution for research and higher education (N = 947) was 7.177 [95% CI 7.035-7.320]• The respondents in the large consultancy company (N = 573) had .600 (t

5.067, p .000) higher mean score than respondents in the institution for research and higher education

• The respondents in the medium size consultancy company (N = 42) had .717 (t 2.135, p .033) higher mean score than respondents in the institution for research and higher education

Cell offices vs. flexible offices

• The respondents with cell offices (N = 1053) had a mean score of 7.287 [95% CI 7.151-7.422] on F7 Workplace design effectiveness• The respondents with flexible offices and reserved seats (N = 459) have a

mean score that is .387 (t 3.056, p .002) higher than those with cell offices.

• The respondents with flexible offices and free seating (N = 50) have a mean score that is .595 (t 1.913 p .056) higher than those with cell offices

Workstations in different kinds of open or semi open landscapes

• Respondents with traditional open or semi open offices shared by several persons had 7.354 [95% CI 7.234-7.474] as mean score on F7 Workplace design effectiveness

• Respondents with group based offices according to organizational belonging had a mean score .568 (t 2.848 p .004) higher than respondents with traditional open or semi open offices

• Respondents with activity based offices had a mean score .385 (t 1.258 p .209) higher than respondents with traditional open or semi open offices

Conclusions

• F1 Common areas, F3 Freedom of choice and F8 Meeting rooms are most important for the respondents’ perception of F7 Workplace design effectiveness

• Respondents with flexible offices and reserved seats have a significantly higher mean score on F7 Workplace design effectiveness than respondents with cell offices• Even respondents with flexible offices and free seating have a higher (but not significant)

mean score on F7 Workplace design effectiveness than respondents with cell offices

• Respondents with group based offices according to organizational belonging had a significantly higher mean score on F7 Workplace design effectiveness than respondents with traditional open or semi open offices • Even respondents with activity based offices had a higher score (not significant) on F7

Workplace design effectiveness than respondents with traditional open or semi open offices

Recommendation to relevant practitioners

• There are obviously some tensions between the facilities managers’ desire to reduce the area and the organization’s carbon footprint and the knowledge workers’ requirements to functional and well-designed workplaces

• However, knowledge workers may actually prefer flexible offices and so-called NewWoW to cell-offices if the workplace is well designed and adaptable to various tasks

Suggestions for future research

• Comparative studies of traditional vs. new ways of working supplementing Leesman Office and others’ studies