ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

It seems blindingly obvious to say, but the better people feel about their workplace, the more productive employees they become. Although it seems fairly straightforward, there has been much research into this link between our working environment and productivity.

The link is significant to building owners, employers and businesses because it is a much higher cost to employ people than it is to maintain and operate a building. Hence spending money on improving the work environment is the most cost-effective way of improving productivity because a small percentage increase in productivity of 0·1% to 2% can have dramatic effects on the profitability of the company.

The current state of knowledge on this subject is described in CIBSE's TM24 (1999)¹ and Creating the productive workplace (2000)². Practical application of some of this knowledge is also described in Improving office productivity (1999)³. Because productive environments are healthier and leaner in terms of energy consumption, gains in productivity offer energy reductions many times those offered by operation, construction and design respectively^{4 , 5}. Healthy buildings tend to increase productivity and save energy, but they do require good facilities management².

Surveys in several office buildings have shown that crowded work spaces, job dissatisfaction and the physical environment are the main factors affecting productivity^{6, 7}. The data was produced and analysed using an occupational stress indicator in conjunction with the analytical hierarchical process. Thermal problems, stuffiness, sick building syndrome factors and crowded work spaces were the most frequent complaints. The results suggest that the productivity could be improved by 4% to 10% by improving the office environmental conditions.

The business value of buildings
For many years there has been a capital cost culture in the construction industry. Certainly, there is talk about running costs, depreciation and investment value in the market place. Many of the decisions in the design, construction and facilities management processes are led by capital cost arguments which often give rise to low cost but also low quality buildings.

Recognition needs to be given to the fact that a building adds value to the organisation's core business. It has been stated that this is by far the most significant component of the financial aspect of building performance⁸.

The difficulty which remains is that of producing sufficient credible evidence for the client. What needs to be recognised in the building design process is that there are three key attributes which interact. The type of building, the facilities provided for environment and utilities, and the use of the building are three interrelated facets.

In practice these issues are often considered separately but their interaction is ignored. In other words form, function and human needs are the foundation for deriving architecture which not only contributes to the well-being of the individuals occupying the building but also makes a significant impact on the business organisation.

Absenteeism already costs the UK economy £12 billion every year⁹ and a significant proportion of this figure is due to poor environmental conditions in buildings which gives rise to building sickness symptoms (see www.hse.gov.uk). These lower the immune system and generally make the workplace an unhealthy place to be¹⁰.

Unhealthy environments not only affect the way people work but can also be demotivating in the sense that the staff consider that they are working for a non-caring organisation.

Research has shown that job satisfaction contributes up to 16% of output for administrative and professional staff⁸. Further work has sought to see how premises affected job satisfaction. This study showed that a combination of convenience of location and quality of the working environment, contributed on average 25% to the total level of job satisfaction thus affecting active output by up to 4%. Since staff salaries typically are about 90% of turnover, the impact of the building is highly significant¹¹. Costs for maintaining premises, energy, cleaning and administration are only about 5% of staff costs¹². Maintenance is important in that if it is neglected then energy will be wasted and environmental conditions will deteriorate and both of these factors will impact on productivity.

In a report entitled The Long-term Costs of owning and using buildings⁴ for the Royal Academy of Engineering the point was made that the cost of ownership and maintenance of the building is typically about 3% of the overall cost of people working there. The report concludes that there is a good deal of evidence that if the building itself is properly designed and managed it can lead to significant improvements in productivity, by as much 17%. The authors conclude that the facilities manager plays a critical role in maintaining productivity levels and is responsible for operating a feedback and maintenance system which will keep the owner, and other members of the design team informed for future projects.

Comparing costs
Estimates 17 are that the annualised UK building cost, including capital investment, is about £200/m². Of this, energy and plant costs are around £10/m². Annual staff costs are near £15 000/m². Increasing productivity by only 1% creates added value on the staff costs.

Table 1 shows that staff costs are 100 to 200 times the cost of energy, and these costs can be offset by a 0·5% to 1% rise in productivity. Table 1 also shows that staff costs are 20 to 44 times the hvac running costs – which indicates that to offset these costs, a productivity increase of 2% to 5% is required. Productivity gains of just under 10% should balance out the full running and installation cost.

Research in the USA¹⁶ has shown that even when there is an overall impact on productivity of as little as 0·5%, then the payback time for generally upgrading an unhealthy office building in the United States will be as low as 1·6 years. There are also many surveys which estimate higher levels of productivity increase than those shown here.

What do occupants think?
Finding out what users think of the building they occupy is not easy. The method needs to balance subjective factors with objective, and emotional with technical. There are a number of systems which have been developed, and some have been in use for a number of years.

The ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½ Quality Assessment programme (BQA) which originated in New Zealand⁸ and was introduced to Europe in 1985 is one such system. It is based on a weighted evaluation of 137 factors of building design, each of which are given scores and weightings.

The BQA categories include presentation, space functionality, access and circulation, amenities, working environment and business services. Under these headings it's possible to assess reactions to the appearance of the building, working conditions, facilities for occupants as well as electrical services and information technology – and other key issues. It is possible to send out questionnaires to users, suppliers and consultants across the whole spectrum of property and facilities from time to time, to see how opinions and attitudes are changing.

The BQA method was used on twelve primary schools which were appraised and given a BQA score. This was compared to the the schools' educational achievements based on OFSTED results. There was a strong correlation between air quality and better educational achievement.

The methods of performance measurement has been classified into three categories¹³: physiological; objective and subjective. The rationale for using physiological methods is based on the reasoning that physiological measures of activation or arousal are associated with increased activity in the nervous system which is equated with an increase in stress on the operator. However, physiological measures of work load have received wide criticism regarding their validity, as well as the sensitivity of measures to contamination and the intrusive nature of the measures themselves.

Objective measures¹⁴ are frequently used to infer the amount of workload, both mental and physical. A further class of measures of workload comprises subjective measures¹⁵. Subjective measures of workload are applied to gain access to the subjects' perceptions of the level of load they are facing in task performance. Rating scales, questionnaires, and interviews are used to collect opinion about the workload.

While these methods may not have the empirical or quantitative appeal of physiological or objective measures, it is often argued that subjective measures are more appropriate and realistic since individuals are likely to work in accordance with their feeling regardless of what physiological or behavioural performance measures suggest. Several types of productivity metrics have been classified including simulated work diagnostic tests, embedded tasks, absenteeism records, self-assessment and use of existing measures¹⁶.

Research carried out in 2000²⁰ has shown that the main factors affecting productivity are crowded work spaces, job dissatisfaction and the physical environment. This field study focused on the relationship between productivity and the indoor environment in offices. It took into account the fact that productivity depends on other factors, by using an occupational stress indicator. This is a job satisfaction scale involving questions or statements, asking respondents to state what they think or feel about their job as a whole, or specific aspects of it.

The occupational stress indicator is designed to gather information about groups as well as individuals, and it attempts to measure the major sources of: occupational pressure, occupational stress, coping mechanisms, individual differences which may moderate the impact of stress. An environmental dimension has been built into this indicator covering temperature, ventilation, humidity, indoor air quality, lighting, noise, and amount of workspace available to the individual.

Semi-structured interviews were also carried out to establish more details about attitudes and reasons behind the responses. Questionnaires were answered by occupants across the work grades and tasks. When results were analysed, it was found that the level of productivity (by self-assessment) reduces as the workspace becomes more crowded, as job dissatisfaction increases, and as overall dissatisfaction with the indoor environment increases. Occupants judged an increase in overall unsatisfactory environments as being due to thermal problems, crowded workspace and sick building syndrome symptoms. The most common complaints about unsatisfactory environments were those connected with high or low temperature variations; stale and stuffy air; and dry or humid air.

Proving the link
It's obviously of key importance to demonstrate to those who procure buildings that they should consider the building not as a place in which business is simply carried out – but as a significant element of business productivity. The more research that can be done in this area, the better. Lifetime cost ratios have been described4 that dramatically emphasise the need to consider the impact of the buildings we design on the performance of people in the workplace, hence the benefits that accrue from good design to improve effectiveness of business organisations. A diagnostic tool has been developed to assess productivity in the workplace².

There is also a need to agree a building quality assessment programme. The next part of our research programme in this area will examine how we can model this information in a way that is amenable to clients in order to enhance their understanding of value and its impact on life cycle costs.  It is important to show clients that sustainable building design, construction and operation not only save money in terms of energy use, but also result in healthier buildings and more productive staff.

Studies from around the world^{18, 19} demonstrate this clearly. For example, one research project found that when there is an improvement in air quality, the annual benefit is at least ten times higher than the increase in annual energy maintenance costs. This results in a payback period for the hvac capital costs of less than four months.

Where buildings are more environmentally sound, occupants are happier, healthier, and more productive. This means that investors, clients and workers are all better off with better buildings. Establishing this link could be an important step in driving the campaign for more sustainable buildings.