An evaluation of the impact of the office environment on productivity

Article English OPEN
Haynes, Barry

<p>Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a validated theoretical framework for the evaluation of office productivity, which includes components to represent both the physical and the behavioural environment. It is proposed that by adopting such an approach, insights into the dynamic nature, or connectivity, of office environments can be established. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of the office environment on its occupants' perceived productivity.</p> \ud <p>Design/methodology/approach – The study's strength is that it is based on two sizable data sets. The data collected consists of data about the physical characteristics of the office environment and data pertaining to the behavioural environment.</p> \ud <p>Findings – Results are analysed for specific work patterns, to establish meaning and relationships. In all of the four work patterns evaluated it was found that interaction was perceived to be the component to have the most positive affect on productivity and distraction was perceived to have the most negative. It is proposed that the results in this paper will provide support for the hypothesis that it is the behavioural components of the office environment that have the greatest impact on office productivity.</p>\ud <p>Research limitations/implications – This research establishes that to truly appreciate office productivity there is a need to further understand the behavioural environment. Whilst this research evaluates different work styles and office productivity, there is a possibility to extend this to investigate personality and team role types.</p> \ud <p>Originality/value – This study establishes that it is the behavioural environment that has the greatest impact on office productivity. It demonstrates that it is the dynamic elements of the office environment, interaction and distraction that are perceived as having the greatest positive and negative influences on self assessed productivity.</p>
  • References (33)
    33 references, page 1 of 4

    Becker, F. and Pearce, A. (2003) "Considering corporate real estate and human resource factors in an integrated cost model", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 5, no. 3. pp. 221-241.

    Bootle, R. and Kalyan, S. (2002) Property in business - a waste of space? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London.

    Bradley, S. (2002) "What's working: Briefing and evaluating workplace performance improvement", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 150-159.

    Brennan, A., Chugh, J. and Kline, T. (2002) "Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study", Environment and Behavior, vol. 34,no. 3, pp. 279-299.

    Clark, L., Haynes, B. P., Pinder, J., and Price, I. (2004) "The boundaries of workplace evaluation", Futures II in Property and Facilities Management, London.

    Clements-Croome, D. (2005) Creating The Productive Workplace. E & FN Spon, London.

    Downer, B. (2001) Does Informal Teleworking Benefit the Employee's? MBA Dissertation, Sheffield Hallam University.

    Dunleavy, P. (2003) Authoring a PhD Palgrave MacMillan, New York.

    Eltringham, M. (1998) "Interesting Times - putting people at the heart of change", Space Management no. February, pp. 24-26.

    Haynes, B.P (2005) Workplace Connectivity: A study of its impact on self-assessed productivity. PhD Thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive - IRUS-UK 0 1,108
Share - Bookmark