Knowledge workers’ stated preferences for important characteristics of activity-based workspaces

Abstract

It is important for organizations to support employees with suitable workspaces during different activities. Increasingly the activity-based office is seen as the optimal solution, as it provides people with choice between different types of workspaces to perform specific activities. This study addresses the trade-offs knowledge workers make when choosing a workspace for performing three different categories of activities (individual concentration work, informal interactions, and formal interactions). A stated choice experiment was performed through a questionnaire among 251 Dutch knowledge workers in 14 organizations, measuring preferences for hypothetical workspaces described by their six most relevant aspects. Multinomial logit models were estimated to identify the workspace preferences during each activity. Additionally, Latent class models were estimated to find possible segments of workers with specific preferences that need to be supported differently by workplace managers. Findings showed that preferences for psychosocial design aspects (noise, workspace enclosure and control) were more important for workspace selection than indoor environmental quality aspects. They also show more differences between specific activities. Also, not everybody finds full enclosure important for individual concentrated work, and relatively older employees appear to be more critical about workspace suitability to support both formal and informal interaction.

Perceived Fit and User Behavior in Activity-Based Work Environments

“…Our finding that individual high-concentration work fits better with closed work settings than with open work settings is in line with numerous previous research findings (e.g., Compernolle, 2014;De Been & Beijer, 2014;Hoendervanger et al, 2019;Kim & De Dear, 2013;Mahler & Von Hippel, 2005;Seddigh et al, 2014;Van den Berg et al, 2020). Consistent with a similar field study conducted by Hoendervanger et al (2019), we observed that the use of open work settings for individual high-concentration work (which is associated with low perceived fit) was very common.…”

“…In the organizations that were included in the current study, 40% to 60% of the individual work required high-concentration, whereas 5% to 25% of the work settings for individual work were classified as closed. These percentages are in line with other research findings on activity patterns (e.g., Brill & Weidemann, 2001;Gensler, 2012;Hoendervanger et al, 2019) and descriptions of the typical layout of ABW environments (e.g., Van den Berg et al, 2020;.…”

“…When it comes to individual high-concentration work, numerous studies suggest a better fit with closed rather than open work settings (e.g., Compernolle, 2014;De Been & Beijer, 2014;Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al, 2009;Kim & De Dear, 2013;Van den Berg et al, 2020). For example, workers who rated their job as requiring high concentration experienced lower levels of environmental distraction and stress in cell offices compared with open-plan offices (Seddigh et al, 2014).…”

“…More and more organizations worldwide are adopting an activity-based work (ABW) environment (Cushman & Wakefield, 2013;Leesman, 2017;Van den Berg et al, 2020;Van Meel, 2020;. ABW environments provide workers with a range of non-assigned work settings to choose from, which are designed to support different types of work activities (Becker, 1999;Van Meel, 2020;Veldhoen, 2005).…”

Profiling office workers based on their self-reported preferences of indoor environmental quality and psychosocial comfort at their workplace during COVID-19

“…The K-mean clustering algorithm was used to profile occupants based on their lighting control behaviours and dimming level preferences [ 32 ]; on electricity load patterns [ 33 ], HVAC-schedules [ 34 ] and thermal preferences [ 35 ]. More recently, TwoStep clustering has been applied on clustering of primary school children in the Netherlands based on their preferences and needs of IEQ in their classrooms [ 36 ]; home occupants in the Netherlands based on their comfort behaviours and energy use pattern [ 37 , 38 ]; office workers based on their self-reported health and comfort [ 39 ], on control of indoor climate [ 27 ], on comfort related to activities [ 40 ]; and outpatient workers based on their self-reported comfort and preferences of IEQ and social comfort in hospitals [ 41 ]. All of the studies listed above clearly indicate that people can indeed differ in their perceptions, preferences and needs and that it seems possible to distribute them into clusters (profiling).…”