Productivity, Satisfaction, Work Environment and Health after Relocation to an Activity-Based Flex Office—The Active Office Design Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Settings
2.2. Employee and Work Characteristics
2.3. Work Tasks
2.4. Outcome Variables
2.4.1. Productivity and Satisfaction
2.4.2. Psychosocial Work Environment
2.4.3. Physical Work Environment
2.4.4. Health
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
3.2. Productivity and Satisfaction
3.3. Psychosocial Work Environment
3.4. Physical Work Environment
3.5. Health
3.6. Productivity in the AFO
4. Discussion
Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
AFO | Cell office | |
---|---|---|
Number of Employees | ||
Number of employees scheduled to | 270 | 195 |
work in the office | ||
Number of employees at 18 months follow-up | 315 | 199 |
Organizational Conditions | ||
Clean desk policy a | Applied | Partly applied |
Personal workstations b, % | 2% | 100% |
Shared workstations | Yes | No |
Policies for zones c | No application of zones | No application of zones |
ICT solutions d | Wireless network | Wireless network (in meeting rooms) |
Lap tops and USB docking stations | Stationary computers | |
Skype for Business | Skype for business, small extent. | |
Air media (blue tooth) | Air media in meeting rooms | |
Mobile phones | Stationary telephones | |
VPN tunnel (CISCO) | ||
General Architectural Features | ||
Total area (m2) e | 4805 | 6091 |
Area per person (m2) f | 15 | 31 |
Number of floors | 2 (+1 reception floor) | 3 |
Workstations | ||
Total number of workstations, n | 160 | 202 |
(Desk, chair, computer, screen) | ||
Workstations in open plan offices, n | 116 | 21 |
Cell offices (1–2 persons), n | 44 | 153 |
Cell offices (3–5 persons), n | - | 28 |
Supportive Areas | ||
Touch down seats, n | 46 | - |
Touch down tables, n | 13 | - |
Group tables in open plan offices, n | 5 | - |
- number of seats | 30 | - |
Small meeting rooms (2–6 p) | 11 | 14 |
- number of seats | 52 | 60 |
Large meeting rooms (7–25 p) | 5 | 7 |
- number of seats | 56 | 72 |
Lounges and Break out Spaces | ||
Sofas and lounge chairs, number of seats | 160 | 47 |
Break out spaces, number of seats | 193 | 86 |
Number of standing height tables | 17 | 3 |
Total Number of Seats in the Office | 697 | 467 |
References
- Seddigh, A.; Berntson, E.; Bodin Danielson, C.; Westerlund, H. Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, F. The New Office, 2nd ed.; Conran Octopus Limited: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Lahtinen, M.; Ruohomäki, V.; Haapakangas, A.; Reijula, K. Developmental needs of workplace design practices. Intell. Build. Int. 2015, 7, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsson, C.B. The Office; KTH: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009; ISBN 9789174157000. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.; de Dear, R. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off inopen-plan offices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rolfö, L.V. Relocation to an activity-based flexible office—Design processes and outcomes. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 73, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Janssen, I.; Groenen, P. An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. J. Corp. Real Estate 2011, 13, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Der Voordt, T.J. Costs and benefits of flexible workspaces: Work in progress in The Netherlands. Facilities 2004, 22, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engelen, L.; Chau, J.; Young, S.; Mackey, M.; Jeyapalan, D.; Bauman, A. Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arundell, L.; Sudholz, B.; Teychenne, M.; Salmon, J.; Hayward, B.; Healy, G.N.; Timperio, A. The Impact of Activity Based Working (ABW) on Workplace Activity, Eating Behaviours, Productivity, and Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Been, I.; Beijer, M. The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. J. Facil. Manag. 2014, 12, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haynes, B.; Suckley, L.; Nunnington, N. Workplace productivity and office type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. J. Corp. Real Estate 2017, 19, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfö, L.; Eklund, J.; Jahncke, H. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics 2018, 61, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoendervanger, J.G.; Ernst, A.F.; Albers, C.J.; Mobach, M.P.; Yperen, W. Van Individual differences in satisfaction with activity-based work environments. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haapakangas, A.; Hallman, D.M.; Mathiassen, S.E.; Jahncke, H. Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use. Build. Environ. 2018, 145, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoendervanger, J.G.; Van Yperen, N.W.; Mobach, M.P.; Albers, C.J. Perceived Fit and User Behavior in Activity-Based Work Environments. Environ. Behav. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsson, B.C.; Bodin, L. Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 636–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, E.M.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.W.; Sluiter, J.K. Effects of office innovation on office workers’ health and performance. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nijp, H.H.; Beckers, D.G.J.; van de Voorde, K.; Geurts, S.A.E.; Kompier, M.A.J. Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiol. Int. 2016, 33, 604–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- van der Voordt, T.J.M.; Van Der Klooster, W. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of a New Office Concept in an Educational Setting. In Proceedings of the CIB W070 Conference in Facilities Management, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, 16–18 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, A.; Chugh, J.S.; Kline, T. Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 279–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, M.; Passchier, J. Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache research. Headache 2006, 46, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, P.; Bringsén, Å.; Ingemar, A.H.; Eilertsson, G. Development and quality analysis of the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS). Work 2010, 35, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vischer, J. Workplace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work; Champman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, M.; Karlsson, J.; Ware, J.E. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey-I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995, 41, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bringsén, Å.; Andersson, H.I.; Ejlertsson, G. Development and quality analysis of the Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS). Scand. J. Public Health 2009, 37, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristensen, T.S.; Hannerz, H.; Høgh, A.; Borg, V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand. J. Public Health 2005, 31, 438–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wahlström, J.; Hagberg, M.; Toomingas, A.; Wigaeus Tornqvist, E. Perceived muscular tension, job strain, physical exposure, and associations with neck pain among VDU users; a prospective cohort study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 61, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; Haddad, S.; Zhang, F.; Mackey, M.; Ye, W. Designing activity-based workspaces: Satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Candido, C.; Zhang, J.; Kim, J.; De Dear, R.; Thomas, L.; Strapasson, P.; Camila, J. Impact of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity. In Proceedings of the 9th Windsor Conference: Making Comfort Relevant, Windsor, UK, 7–10 April 2016; pp. 1214–1225. [Google Scholar]
- Soriano, A.; Kozusznik, M.W.; Peiró, J.M.; Mateo, C. The Role of Employees’ Work Patterns and Office Type Fit (and Misfit) in the Relationships Between Employee Well-Being and Performance. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahncke, H.; Hallman, D.M. Objective measures of cognitive performance in activity based workplaces and traditional office types. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morrison, R.L.; Macky, K.A. The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 60, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wohlers, C.; Hertel, G. Longitudinal effects of activity-based flexible office design on teamwork. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wahlström, V.; Fjellman-Wiklund, A.; Harder, M.; Järvholm, L.S.; Eskilsson, T. Implementing a physical activity promoting program in a flex-office: A process evaluation with a mixed methods design. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.; Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; de Dear, R. Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.B.; Knardahl, S. The impact of office design on medically certified sickness absence. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2020, 46, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wahlström, V.; Bergman, F.; Öhberg, F.; Eskilsson, T.; Olsson, T.; Järvholm, L.S. Effects of a multicomponent physical activity promoting program on sedentary behavior, physical activity and body measures: A longitudinal study in different office types. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2019, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AFO (n = 190) | Cell Office (n = 97) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | n (%) | Mean (SD) | n (%) | |
Age 1 | 47.7 (10.3) | 44.7 (11.1) | ||
Sex | ||||
Female | 129 (68) | 92 (95) | ||
Male | 61 (32) | 5 (5) | ||
Degree of Employment | ||||
100% | 177 (93.2) | 77 (79.4) | ||
75–99% | 12 (6.3) | 17 (17.5) | ||
40–74% | 1 (0.5) | 2 (2.1) | ||
Missing | - | 1 (1.0) | ||
Manager | ||||
Yes | 51 (27) | 3 (3) | ||
No | 139 (73) | 93 (96) | ||
Missing | - | 1 (1) | ||
Office Type Before Relocation | ||||
Cell office (1 person) | 126 (66) | 56 (58) | ||
Shared room (2–3 persons) | 20 (11) | 39 (40) | ||
Open plan office | 23 (12) | 0 (0) | ||
No assigned workspace | 17 (9) | 1 (1) | ||
Missing | 4 (2) | 1 (1) | ||
Self-Rated General Health | ||||
Excellent | 28 (15) | 9 (9) | ||
Very good | 88 (46) | 39 (40) | ||
Good | 56 (30) | 32 (33) | ||
Moderate | 15 (8) | 17 (18) | ||
Poor | 2 (1) | 0 (0) | ||
Missing | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | ||
Missing |
AFO | Cell Office | p-Value for Group x Time | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EM | OR | 95% CI | EM | OR | 95% CI | Effect | |
Productivity | <0.001 | ||||||
Baseline | 3.97 | 3.89–4.04 | 3.50 | 3.40–3.60 | |||
6 months | 3.50 a | 3.41–3.58 | 3.58 | 3.46–3.70 | |||
18 months | 3.47 a | 3.38–3.55 | 3.54 | 3.41–3.67 | |||
Satisfaction with the Office Design | <0.001 | ||||||
Baseline | 5.32 | 2.48–11.42 | 1 d | ||||
6 months | 1.12 | 0.63–2.00 | 2.96 | 1.26–7.11 | |||
18 months | 0.86 | 0.48–1.54 | 4.86 | 1.59–14.8 | |||
WEMS Supportive Working Condition | 0.006 | ||||||
Baseline | 76.9 | 74.4–79.3 | 71.4 | 67.9–74.8 | |||
6 months | 72.0 a | 69.3–74.6 | 72.3 | 68.8–76.1 | |||
18 months | 74.5 | 71.9–77.2 | 70.1 | 66.2–74.0 | |||
Internal Work Experience | 0.07 | ||||||
Baseline | 81.6 | 79.5–83.8 | 78.1 | 75.0–81.2 | |||
6 months | 77.3 a | 74.8–79.7 | 77.1 | 73.7–80.6 | |||
18 months | 77.9 b | 75.1–80.8 | 75.1 | 70.9–79.3 | |||
Autonomy | 0.10 | ||||||
Baseline | 68.3 | 65.6–70.9 | 53.6 | 49.8–57.4 | |||
6 months | 68.4 | 65.7–71.0 | 56.2 | 52.5–59.9 | |||
18 months | 68.5 | 65.7–71.2 | 59.1c | 54.9–63.3 | |||
Time Experience | 0.09 | ||||||
Baseline | 47.8 | 44.4–51.2 | 41.9 | 37.2–46.6 | |||
6 months | 48.2 | 44.7–51.7 | 41.3 | 36.4–46.3 | |||
18 months | 48.6 | 45.1–52.2 | 48.3 | 43.1–53.6 | |||
Management | 0.40 | ||||||
Baseline | 72.0 | 69.1–74.8 | 63.4 | 59.5–67.4 | |||
6 months | 68.2 c | 65.0–71.4 | 62.9 | 58.4–67.3 | |||
18 months | 70.1 | 66.7–73.4 | 64.1 | 59.0–69.2 | |||
Reorganization | 0.54 | ||||||
Baseline | 60.0 | 56.4–63.5 | 60.8 | 55.8–65.8 | |||
6 months | 57.9 | 54.1–61.7 | 61.6 | 56.3–67.0 | |||
18 months | 59.4 | 55.2–63.5 | 64.0 | 57.8–70.3 |
AFO | Cell Office | p-Value for Group x Time | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EM | OR | 95% CI | EM | OR | 95% CI | ||
Disturbance from Noise (Voices etc.) | <0.001 | ||||||
Baseline | 0.22 | 0.12–0.38 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 0.79 | 0.48–1.29 | 0.73 | 0.44–1.22 | |||
18 months | 1.05 | 0.63–1.76 | 0.62 | 0.33–1.18 | |||
Lack of Privacy | <0.001 | ||||||
Baseline | 0.40 | 0.21–0.75 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 2.85 | 1.66–4.87 | 0.47 | 0.23–0.998 | |||
18 months | 3.10 | 1.77–5.37 | 0.61 | 0.30–1.24 | |||
Sit Comfort | 0.005 | ||||||
Baseline | 4.04 | 2.04–7.98 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 1.28 | 0.72–2.26 | 1.13 | 0.68–1.89 | |||
18 months | 1.39 | 0.77–2.53 | 1.30 | 0.69–2.46 | |||
Work Posture | 0.001 | ||||||
Baseline | 4.61 | 1.89–11.21 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 0.85 | 0.44–1.62 | 1.35 | 0.67–2.72 | |||
18 months | 0.92 | 0.46–1.81 | 1.59 | 0.64–3.95 | |||
Self-Rated General Health | 0.78 | ||||||
Baseline | 2.15 | 1.04–4.43 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 1.83 | 0.91–3.72 | 1.02 | 0.59–1.78 | |||
18 months | 1.49 | 0.73–3.03 | 0.62 | 0.33–1.20 | |||
Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS) | 0.26 | ||||||
Baseline | 69.7 | 67.1–72.4 | 65.0 | 61.2–68.8 | |||
6 months | 67.1 | 64.2–70.0 | 59.0 b | 55.0–63.1 | |||
18 months | 67.7 | 64.7–70.6 | 58.9 b | 54.4–63.3 | |||
Cognitive Stress (COPSOQ) | 0.47 | ||||||
Baseline | 2.03 | 1.92–2.14 | 2.27 | 2.11–2.42 | |||
6 months | 2.23 a | 2.11–2.35 | 2.49 b | 2.32–2.66 | |||
18 months | 2.14 | 2.01–2.27 | 2.52 b | 2.32–2.71 | |||
Neck/Shoulder Pain | 0.39 | ||||||
Baseline | 0.47 | 0.28–0.81 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 0.74 | 0.44–1.23 | 1.17 | 0.82–1.68 | |||
18 months | 0.69 | 0.40–1.18 | 0.99 | 0.62–1.62 | |||
Back Pain | 0.73 | ||||||
Baseline | 0.55 | 0.31–0.97 | 1 c | ||||
6 months | 0.69 | 0.39–1.21 | 0.99 | 0.63–1.57 | |||
18 months | 0.65 | 0.36–1.18 | 1.05 | 0.64–1.72 |
Number, n (%) | Baseline (EM) | 6 Months (EM) | 18 Months (EM) | p-Value for Time Interaction Effect | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (y) | 0.935 | ||||
18–39 | 53 (27.9) | 4.07 | 3.63 | 3.56 | |
40–49 | 50 (26.3 | 3.99 | 3.58 | 3.55 | |
50–59 | 50 (26.3) | 3.80 | 3.33 | 3.30 | |
60– | 37 (19.5) | 4.00 | 3.43 | 3.46 | |
Gender | 0.778 | ||||
Female | 129 (67.9) | 3.95 | 3.50 | 3.48 | |
Male | 61 (32.1) | 4.00 | 3.49 | 3.45 | |
Individual Work Tasks Requiring Concentration (h/week) | <0.001 | ||||
0–5 | 43 (22.6) | 3.89 | 3.82 | 3.79 | |
6–10 | 42 (22.1) | 3.93 | 3.53 | 3.47 | |
11–15 | 22 (11.6) | 3.89 | 3.15 | 3.18 | |
16– | 36 (19.0) | 4.07 | 3.11 | 3.11 | |
Teamwork, >3 Persons (h/week) | 0.011 | ||||
0–5 | 101 (53.2) | 3.93 | 3.38 | 3.39 | |
6– | 29 (15.3) | 3.87 | 3.77 | 3.74 | |
“Spontaneous Meetings Are Important for My Work” | <0.001 | ||||
1 “I agree” | 35 (18.4) | 3.99 | 3.84 | 3.85 | |
2 | 43 (22.6) | 3.79 | 3.52 | 3.55 | |
3 | 41 (21.6) | 4.07 | 3.35 | 3.30 | |
4 + 5 = “I disagree” | 31 (16.3) | 4.00 | 3.02 | 2.96 | |
Manager | <0.001 | ||||
Yes | 51 (26.8) | 3.85 | 3.73 | 3.75 | |
No | 139 (73.2) | 4.01 | 3.42 | 3.37 | |
Computer Related Tasks (h/day) | 0.128 | ||||
0–4 | 44 (23.1) | 3.97 | 3.71 | 3.62 | |
4–6 | 69 (36.3) | 3.89 | 3.43 | 3.45 | |
6–8 | 77 (40.5) | 4.03 | 3.44 | 3.40 | |
Individual Work, Routine Tasks (h/week) | 0.197 | ||||
0–5 | 65 (34.2) | 3.89 | 3.40 | 3.31 | |
6–10 | 41 (21.6) | 3.96 | 3.47 | 3.47 | |
11– | 33 (17.4) | 3.95 | 3.62 | 3.68 | |
Hours of Work Involving Phone Calls (h/week) | 0.534 | ||||
0–5 | 121 (63.7) | 3.93 | 3.47 | 3.45 | |
6– | 16 (8.4) | 3.87 | 3.19 | 3.18 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Öhrn, M.; Wahlström, V.; Harder, M.S.; Nordin, M.; Pettersson-Strömbäck, A.; Bodin Danielsson, C.; Olsson, D.; Andersson, M.; Slunga Järvholm, L. Productivity, Satisfaction, Work Environment and Health after Relocation to an Activity-Based Flex Office—The Active Office Design Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147640
Öhrn M, Wahlström V, Harder MS, Nordin M, Pettersson-Strömbäck A, Bodin Danielsson C, Olsson D, Andersson M, Slunga Järvholm L. Productivity, Satisfaction, Work Environment and Health after Relocation to an Activity-Based Flex Office—The Active Office Design Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(14):7640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147640
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖhrn, Maria, Viktoria Wahlström, Mette S. Harder, Maria Nordin, Anita Pettersson-Strömbäck, Christina Bodin Danielsson, David Olsson, Martin Andersson, and Lisbeth Slunga Järvholm. 2021. "Productivity, Satisfaction, Work Environment and Health after Relocation to an Activity-Based Flex Office—The Active Office Design Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 14: 7640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147640