Differences in Occupants’ Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity in High- and Low-Performance Offices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Dataset
2.2. Data Analysis
2.2.1. Factor Analysis with the Use of Dataset (n = 9794)
2.2.2. Identifying Focus Groups: Ten Lowest and Highest Performing Offices
2.2.3. Further Analyses with the Focus Groups
3. Results
3.1. Identifying High- and Low-Performance Offices
3.2. Exploring Predictors Contributing to Perceived Productivity
3.3. Human, Organizational, and Spatial Factors Related to Perceived Productivity
4. Discussion
4.1. Occupants’ Satisfaction
“Lunchroom and kitchen areas are frequently used as work areas due to lack of collaboration space”.“…there are not enough desks for officers and what desks there are overcrowded and noisy due to the overcrowding…” there is no space to store field equipment which is usually stored under desk and then reduces space for ease of using workspace and can cause back issues and pose as trip hazards”.“…kitchen area is too small only has two seats. desk size is so small there is nowhere to eat my lunch, also seat opposite a wall and have no view.”
“Staff on southeastern side have lap rugs and wear their outdoor coats inside, staff on the other side are wearing summer clothes”.“…people on one side of the building can be boiling while people on the other side are freezing”.“CO2 levels are too high and oxygen too low, particularly in the afternoon the air does not seem fresh. This has a significant impact on my alertness and productivity”.
“The responsiveness of building management to fix air conditioning issues is abhorrent.”
4.2. Perceived Productivity
5. Conclusions
- Improved building and workplace aesthetics,
- Abundant use of zoning, strategically placed to accommodate several work-related activities including, but not limited to quietness, focus, and concentration,
- Abundant use of space for breaks, collaboration, and communication,
- Maximizing occupants’ access to daylight and connecting to outdoor environments.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hedge, A. The open-plan office: A systematic investigation of employee reactions to their work environment. Environ. Behav. 1982, 14, 519–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durval, C.L.; Charles, K.E.; Veitch, J.A. Open-Plan Office Density and Environmental Satisfaction; IRC Research Report RR-150; National Research Council Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew, H.; Wheeler, P.; Whitehead, C. The Distributed Workplace: Sustainable Work Environments. London; Spon Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Voordt, T.J.M. Productivity and Employee Satisfaction in Flexible Workplaces. J. Corp. Real Estate 2004, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunia, S.; De Been, I.; Van Der Voordt, T.J. Accommodating new ways of working: Lessons from best practices and worst cases. J. Corp. Real Estate 2016, 18, 30–47. [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 Heal. 2018, 15, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huizenga, C.; Abbaszadeh, S.; Zagreus, L.; Arens, E.A. Air quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: Results of a large indoor environmental quality survey. In Proceedings of the Healthy Buildings 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–8 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Brager, G.; Baker, L. Occupant satisfaction in mixed-mode buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2009, 37, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leaman, A.; Bordass, B. Assessing building performance in use 4: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Kamaruzzaman, N.S.; Egbu, C.O.; Zawawi, E.M.A.; Ali, A.S.; Che-Ani, A.I. The effect of indoor environmental quality on occupants’ perception of performance: A case study of refurbished historic buildings in Malaysia. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Clippard, M.; Pfnür, A. The effectiveness of physical office environments for employee outcomes: An interdisciplinary perspective of research efforts. J. Corp. Real Estate 2018, 20, 56–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haynes, B.P. Office productivity: A theoretical framework. J. Corp. Real Estate 2007, 9, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunn, B.D.; Haberl, J.S.; Davies, H.; Owens, B. Measuring commercial building performance: Protocols for energy, water, and indoor environmental quality. ASHRAE J. 2012, 54, 48–56. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, B.; Ouyang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, L.; Hu, H.; Deng, G. Development of a multivariate regression model for overall satisfaction in public buildings based on field studies in Beijing and Shanghai. Build. Environ. 2012, 47, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deuble, M.P.; De Dear, R.J. Green occupants for green buildings: The missing link? Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gou, Z.; Prasad, D.; Lau, S.S.-Y. Impacts of green certifications, ventilation and office types on occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2014, 57, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, Y.; Göçer, Ö.; Göçer, K. Spatial mapping of occupant satisfaction and indoor environment quality in a LEED platinum campus building. Build. Environ. 2014, 79, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, G.; Thompson, J. Lighting conditions in sustainable buildings: Results of a survey of users’ perceptions. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2012, 55, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriquez, R.G.; Pattini, A. Tolerance of discomfort glare from a large area source for work on a visual display. Light. Res. Technol. 2014, 46, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCunn, L.J.; Kim, A.; Feracor, J. Reflections on a retrofit: Organizational commitment, perceived productivity and controllability in a building lighting project in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 38, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V. Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices—Longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1423–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; De Dear, R. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Danielsson, C.B.; Bodin, L.; Wulff, C.; Theorell, T. The relation between office type and workplace conflict: A gender and noise perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, P.J.; Lee, B.K.; Jeon, J.Y.; Zhang, M.; Kang, J. Impact of noise on self-rated job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: A structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics 2016, 59, 222–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Göçer, Ö.; Göçer, K.; Ergöz Karahan, E.; İlhan Oygür, I. Exploring mobility & workplace choice in a flexible office through post-occupancy evaluation. Ergonomics 2018, 61, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Meijer, E.M.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.; Sluiter, J.K. Effects of office innovation on office workers’ health and performance. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoll, G.; Zimring, C. Effect of innovative building design on physical activity. J. Public Health Policy 2009, 30, S111–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, T.; Birrell, C. Are Biophilic-Designed Site Office Buildings Linked to Health Benefits and High Performing Occupants? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2014, 11, 12204–12222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Candido, C.; Zhang, F.; Kim, J.; de Dear, R.; Thomas, L.; Stapasson, P.; Joko, C. Impact of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity. In Proceedings of the Windsor Conference 2016: Making Comfort Relevant, Windsor: NCEUB Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, Windsor, UK, 7–10 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 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.; Chakraborty, P.; Tjondronegoro, D. The Rise of Office Design in High-Performance, Open-Plan Environments. Buildings 2019, 9, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppanen, O.; Fisk, W.J.; Lei, Q.H. Effect of Temperature on Task Performance in Office Environment (No. LBNL-60946); Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
- Tanabe, S.I.; Nishihara, N.; Haneda, M. Indoor temperature, productivity, and fatigue in office tasks. HVAC&R Res. 2007, 13, 623–633. [Google Scholar]
- Frontczak, M.; Wargocki, P. Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 922–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyon, D.P.; Wargocki, P. Room Temperature Effects on Office Work; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; pp. 181–192. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Haddad, S.; Nakisa, B.; Naim Rastgoo, M.; Candido, C.; Tjondronegoro, D.; de Dear, R. The effects of higher temperature set points during summer on office workers’ cognitive load and thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; De Dear, R.; Hancock, P. Effects of moderate thermal environments on cognitive performance: A multidisciplinary review. Appl. Energy 2019, 236, 760–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, Q.H.; Seppänen, O.; Fisk, W.J. Ventilation and performance in office work. Indoor Air 2006, 16, 28–36. [Google Scholar]
- Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.P.; Baik, Y.K.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.O. Perceived Air Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms and Productivity in an Office with Two Different Pollution Loads. Indoor Air 1999, 9, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J. Lighting for high-quality workplaces. In Creating the Productive Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
- Heschong, L. Windows and office worker performance. In Creating the Productive Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; p. 277. [Google Scholar]
- Heerwagen, J.; Zagreus, L. The Human Factors of Sustainable Building Design: Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, Annapolis, MD; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Aries, M.B.; Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 533–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.A.; Galasiu, A.D. The Physiological and Psychological Effects of Windows, Daylight, and View at Home: Review and Research Agenda; NRC-IRC Research Report RR-325; National Research Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Lottrup, L.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Meilby, H.; Claudi, A.G. The workplace window view: A determinant of office workers’ work ability and job satisfaction. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Croon, E.; Sluiter, J.; Kuijer, P.P.; Frings-Dresen, M. The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics 2005, 48, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, E.S.; Turban, S. The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2018, 373, 20170239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundstrom, E.; Town, J.P.; Rice, R.W.; Osborn, D.P.; Brill, M. Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance. Environ. Behav. 1994, 26, 195–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banbury, S.P.; Berry, D.C. Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics 2005, 48, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.A.; Charles, K.E.; Farley, K.M.; Newsham, G.R. A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haapakangas, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V. Perceived acoustic environment, work performance and well-being–survey results from Finnish offices. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), Foxwoods, CT, USA, 21–25 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hongisto, V.; Haapakangas, A.; Haka, M. Task performance and speech intelligibility-a model to promote noise control actions in open offices. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), Foxwoods, CT, USA, 21–25 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Haynes, B.P. The impact of office layout on productivity. J. Facil. Manag. 2008, 6, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McElroy, J.C.; Morrow, P.C. Employee reactions to office redesign: A naturally occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting. Hum. Relations 2010, 63, 609–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfö, L.V. Relocation to an activity-based flexible office—Design processes and outcomes. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 73, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Candido, C.; Kim, J.; de Dear, R.; Thomas, L. BOSSA: A multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 214–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Bjerke, R.; De Paoli, D.; Ind, N. The impact of aesthetics on employee satisfaction and motivation. EuroMed J. Bus. 2007, 2, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiner, J. The art of space management: Planning flexible workspaces for people. J. Facil. Manag. 2006, 4, 6–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aminu, Y.A.; Kandar, M.Z.; Ossen, D.R.; Jibril, J.D.; Bornoma, A.H.; Abubakar, A.I. Importance of a View Window in Rating Green Office Buildings. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 689, 180–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Questionnaire Items | Component Loading the Contribution of Each Variable on Principal Components | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
Building/office aesthetics and quality | Space for breaks | 0.723 | 0.248 | 0.126 | 0.161 | 0.240 | ||
Space to collaborate | 0.715 | 0.208 | 0.108 | 0.142 | 0.125 | 0.156 | ||
Building aesthetics | 0.698 | 0.248 | 0.103 | 0.173 | 0.371 | |||
Work area aesthetics | 0.693 | 0.254 | 0.148 | 0.139 | 0.373 | 0.146 | 0.104 | |
Interaction with colleagues | 0.604 | 0.184 | 0.180 | 0.376 | ||||
Personalization of work area | 0.519 | 0.142 | 0.272 | 0.170 | 0.159 | 0.348 | ||
Comfort of furnishing | 0.518 | 0.266 | 0.185 | 0.140 | 0.234 | 0.337 | ||
Thermal Comfort and Indoor Air Quality | Humidity | 0.196 | 0.808 | 0.103 | 0.124 | 0.165 | 0.150 | |
Air movement | 0.258 | 0.791 | 0.127 | 0.130 | 0.156 | 0.144 | 0.144 | |
Air quality | 0.288 | 0.790 | 0.120 | 0.149 | 0.210 | 0.109 | ||
Temperature in winter | 0.176 | 0.739 | 0.129 | 0.167 | ||||
Temperature in summer | 0.194 | 0.738 | 0.116 | 0.175 | 0.118 | |||
Noise distraction and Privacy | Sound privacy | 0.134 | 0.123 | 0.830 | 0.267 | |||
Visual privacy | 0.824 | 0.174 | 0.112 | 0.145 | ||||
Unwanted interruption | 0.184 | 0.130 | 0.798 | 0.129 | 0.205 | |||
Overall noise | 0.176 | 0.214 | 0.749 | 0.141 | 0.190 | |||
Personal Control | Personal control of air movement | 0.133 | 0.169 | 0.161 | 0.873 | |||
Personal control of cooling & heating | 0.131 | 0.174 | 0.179 | 0.864 | ||||
Personal control of artificial lighting | 0.145 | 0.824 | 0.113 | 0.138 | ||||
Degree of freedom to adapt | 0.235 | 0.385 | 0.237 | 0.552 | 0.176 | 0.133 | 0.140 | |
Connection to outdoor environment | Access to daylight | 0.179 | 0.130 | 0.865 | 0.180 | 0.114 | ||
External view | 0.258 | 0.122 | 0.125 | 0.849 | 0.121 | |||
Connection to outdoors | 0.414 | 0.157 | 0.159 | 0.180 | 0.709 | 0.106 | ||
Maintenance & Visual Comfort | Personal control shading | 0.163 | 0.112 | 0.162 | 0.273 | 0.671 | 0.201 | |
Cleanliness | 0.489 | 0.242 | 0.143 | 0.611 | ||||
Maintenance | 0.551 | 0.282 | 0.118 | 0.591 | ||||
Lighting | 0.104 | 0.274 | 0.127 | 0.158 | 0.209 | 0.584 | 0.287 | |
Individual space | Amount of workspace | 0.201 | 0.170 | 0.228 | 0.102 | 0.141 | 0.775 | |
Storage space | 0.277 | 0.121 | 0.762 |
Focus Group | Ranking | Sample Size N = 2133 | Office Layout | Tenant | Tenant Certification | Workplace Arrangement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10-LPO | 1 | 82 | Private office & Private office shared with others 8.7%; open-plan with high partitions 24.6%; open-plan with low partitions 61.0%; open-plan without partitions 5.6% | Technology | Green Star | Fixed location |
2 | 78 | Design & consultancy | - | Fixed location | ||
3 | 82 | Consultancy | - | Fixed location | ||
4 | 28 | Property industry | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
5 | 30 | Design & consultancy | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
6 | 232 | Government | - | Fixed location | ||
7 | 383 | Finance | Green Star | Non-fixed location | ||
8 | 26 | Tertiary education | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
9 | 25 | Tertiary education | - | Non-fixed location | ||
10 | 97 | Technology | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
10-HPO | 1 | 112 | Private office & Private office shared with others 2.6%; open-plan with high partitions 2.9%; open-plan with low partitions 21.3%; open-plan without partitions 73.2% | Government | - | Fixed location |
2 | 25 | Property industry | Green Star | Non-fixed location | ||
3 | 32 | Design & consultancy | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
4 | 322 | Property industry | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
5 | 57 | Non-profit | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
6 | 28 | Property industry | Green Star | Non-fixed location | ||
7 | 300 | Consultancy | Green Star | Non-fixed location | ||
8 | 51 | Property industry | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
9 | 39 | Property industry | Green Star | Fixed location | ||
10 | 104 | Property industry | Green Star | Fixed location |
Gender | Female 29.5% | Male 55.3% | Prefer not to Respond 15.1% | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Over 50 years old | 31–50 years old | 30 years old or under | ||
2.8% | 55.4% | 41.8% | |||
Job category | Administrative | Technical | Professional | Managerial | Other |
21.4% | 13.7% | 39.3% | 18.1% | 7.5% | |
Working experience at the office | >5 years | 2–5 years | 1–2 years | 7–12 months | <6 months |
20.5% | 17.5% | 11.9% | 23.1% | 26.9% | |
Working hours in a typical week | >30 h | 11–30 h | <10 h or less | ||
73.2% | 20.4% | 6.3% |
Factors | Mean Scores of Dataset | 10-LPO Mean Scores | PI of 10-LPO | 10-HPO Mean Scores | PI of 10-HPO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building/office aesthetics & quality | 4.50 | 3.55 | −0.95 | 5.88 | 1.38 |
Thermal comfort and Indoor Air quality | 4.56 | 3.75 | −0.80 | 5.43 | 0.87 |
Personal Control | 3.41 | 3.19 | −0.22 | 4.00 | 0.58 |
Noise distraction and privacy | 2.58 | 2.12 | −0.46 | 3.18 | 0.59 |
Connection to the outdoor environment | 4.54 | 3.34 | −1.19 | 5.74 | 1.21 |
Maintenance & Visual Comfort | 4.99 | 4.29 | −0.70 | 5.90 | 0.91 |
Individual space | 5.22 | 4.98 | −0.24 | 5.69 | 0.47 |
Factors Items (Independent Variables) | Dataset (n = 9794) Perceived Productivity | 10-LPO Perceived Productivity | 10-HPO Perceived Productivity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 | β | R2 | β | R2 | β | |
Building/office aesthetics and quality | 0.171 * | 0.41 | 0.108 * | 0.32 | 0.115 | 0.33 |
Thermal comfort & Air quality | 0.076 | 0.27 | 0.068 | 0.26 | 0.077 | 0.27 |
Personal control | 0.122 * | 0.34 | 0.072 * | 0.26 | 0.209 * | 0.45 |
Noise distraction & privacy | 0.028 | 0.16 | 0.038 | 0.19 | 0.026 | 0.16 |
Connection to the outdoor environment | 0.040 | 0.20 | 0.004 | 0.06 | 0.029 | 0.17 |
Maintenance & Visual Comfort | 0.037 | 0.19 | 0.040 | 0.19 | 0.015 | 0.12 |
Individual space | 0.049 | 0.22 | 0.035 | 0.18 | 0.251 * | 0.50 |
Relationship between | Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Work area close to a window & Office layout | Window | 0.044 | 1 | 0.044 | 0.022 | 0.881 |
Office_layout | 14.512 | 4 | 3.628 | 1.842 | 0.118 | |
Window*Office_layout | 26.359 | 3 | 8.786 | 4.462 | 0.004 | |
Work area close to a window & Working experience | Window | 63.160 | 1 | 63.160 | 31.836 | 0.000 |
Time_bldg | 6.994 | 4 | 1.749 | 0.881 | 0.474 | |
Window*Time_bldg | 27.082 | 4 | 6.770 | 3.413 | 0.009 | |
Office layout & Working hours in a week | Office_layout | 12.001 | 4 | 3.000 | 1.457 | 0.213 |
Hours_week | 12.925 | 2 | 6.462 | 3.137 | 0.044 | |
Office_layout*Hours_week | 32.535 | 8 | 4.067 | 1.974 | 0.047 | |
Office layout & Working experience | Office_layout | 9.559 | 5 | 1.912 | 0.942 | 0.453 |
Time_bldg | 13.229 | 4 | 3.307 | 1.630 | 0.164 | |
Office_layout*Time_bldg | 61.413 | 16 | 3.838 | 1.891 | 0.018 | |
Office layout & Workspace arrangement | Office_layout | 22.578 | 5 | 4.516 | 2.215 | 0.051 |
Workspace_arrangement | 5.553 | 1 | 5.553 | 2.724 | 0.099 | |
Office_layout * Workspace_arrangement | 20.669 | 4 | 5.167 | 2.535 | 0.039 |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Göçer, Ö.; Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; Göçer, K. Differences in Occupants’ Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity in High- and Low-Performance Offices. Buildings 2019, 9, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9090199
Göçer Ö, Candido C, Thomas L, Göçer K. Differences in Occupants’ Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity in High- and Low-Performance Offices. Buildings. 2019; 9(9):199. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9090199
Chicago/Turabian StyleGöçer, Özgür, Christhina Candido, Leena Thomas, and Kenan Göçer. 2019. "Differences in Occupants’ Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity in High- and Low-Performance Offices" Buildings 9, no. 9: 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9090199