Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol 1

Proceedings of rock-loving Buildings 2000, Vol 1 629 PRODUCTIVITY AND indoor(prenominal)(prenominal)(a)(a) ENVIRONMENT Derek Clements-Croome1 and Li Baizhan2 University of Reading, Department of Construction instruction and Engineering, UK Jukes Associates, UK ABSTRACT Surveys in several office twists have shown that crowded fiddle places, commercial enterprise dissatisfaction and carnal environs are the main factors affecting productivity. the data was produced and canvas employ occupational tautness indicator in conjunction with the analytical stratified process. hermal problems, stuffiness, redact edifice syndrome factors and crowded seduce places were most frequent complaints. the results advert that the productivity could be modify by 4 to 10% by better the office surroundingsal conditions. KEYWORDS SBS, productivity, caloric comfort, perceived radiate quality, filter out INTRODUCTION It is much higher cost to employ people therefore it is to maintain and operate a building, hence spending money on improving the work milieu is the most cost effective fashion of improving productivity because of small percentage increase in productivity of 0. % to 2% can have dramatic effects on the positivity of the company. The current state of knowledge on this subject is described by Clements-Croome 1. Practical applications of some of this knowledge is described by Oseland and Barlett 2 METHODS This research focuses on the coincidenceship amongst productivity and the indoor milieu in the offices and takes into broadsheet the fact that productivity depends on another(prenominal) factors by use an occupational tension Indicator (OSI) which has been developed to include an milieual place 3,4.OSI is a line of reasoning satisfaction scale involving question or statements, asking answerer to state what they think or feel astir(predicate) their communication channel as whole or specific aspects of it. Likeret scaling using pentad, s even or nine evidence scales is usually used. The OSI has been demonstrated by Arnold 5. The occupational render indicator is designed to gather information just about groups as salutary as individuals and it attempts to measure the major sources of occupational pressure occupational stress coping mechanisms and individual differences which may moderate the impact of stress.An environmental dimension has been built into this indicator practical application temperature, ventilation, humidity, indoor air quality, lighting, noise, crowded work space and is referred to as EPOSI which has been used to gather information about the occupants in the buildings that have been surveyed. This method of egotism legal opinion provides valuable information on individual as well as group responses. The data from the questionnaire is analyzed using the analytical pecking order process (AHP) originated by Saaty6. AHP uses nine point judgement scales for use with peaked questionnaires aided b y semi-structured inter follows.The method is ground on the theory of 630 Exposure, human responses and building investigations hierarchies and is a way of structuring mixed multi-dimensional systems, by analyzing the interaction surrounded by elements in each stratum of the hierarchy in terms of their impact on elements in the stratum presently above. It is possible to have several levels of hierarchies, but in this case pentad have been selected beginning with productivity followed by human factors system factors wellness factors environmental factors. The questionnaires were answered by occupants across various work grades and tasks and were designed to recruit background information about the organization and the workplace how much the environment and the job cause dissatisfaction the feelings of the subject about their current working billet the principle causal factors influencing health symptoms of occupants which factors influence job satisfaction and productivity Semi-structured interviews were carried out to establish more details about attitudes and reasons behind responses. office survey A detailed environmental survey was carried out at an office in Reading in 1996. he questionnaire was in five sections Section A The Questionnaire asks the occupants to judge the somatic factors in the environment covering temperature, stuffiness and draughts, dryness, indoor air quality, sunlight, lightning, noise and vibration, and crowded workplaces. Questions were as well asked about personal health job stress job satisfaction an boilers suit opinion about the indoor environment including questions about five categories of vile building syndrome covering sensory irritation skin irritations nervous problems hard up and odor complaints. Section BThe questionnaire concerned subjects views on how they liked the office layout and laurel wreath as well as questions about their job in relation to productivity. They are too asked to rate how much pers onal control they felt had over temperature and lighting. Four questions were asked to determine ego-importance assessed productivity covering the pith of work accomplished quality of work feeling of creativity and microscope stage of responsibility. Section C The questionnaire was concerning information which describes the characteristics of the organization, workplace and some personal information.Occupants were wherefore asked about human factors such as well-being expertness to execute motivation job satisfaction and technical competence. Finally there was a group of questions concerned with indoor environment weather outdoor view organizational factors occupational factors facilities and service and personal factors. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol 1 631 Section D The questionnaire was based on information gathered using EPOSI and five major human factors were identified which influence productivity ( well-being, efficacy to perform, motivation, job satisfac tion, technical competence).Six system factors ( indoor environment, weather and outdoor views, organizational aspects, occupational issues, facilities and services, personal aspects) were examined to see how they influenced the human factors. Section E The questionnaire cover interactions between sick building sickness symptoms and an array of personal, occupational and environmental factors. RESULTS Analysis of the data shows that the level of productivity by ego assessment reduces as the workspace becomes more crowded, as job dissatisfaction increases and as overall dissatisfaction of the indoor environment increases. he results lead to the overall conclusion that an average the self assessed productivity could be improved by about 10% by improving the office environmental conditions. The Spearman rank- correlativity coefficient, rs, was used to assess measure of affiliation between any two variables. The statistical analyzes of the results is given in detail by Li 7. It was s hown that a significant rank-correlation exists between self-assessed productivity and environment, job dissatisfaction and job stress, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. The association between self assessed productivity, environment and job factors.Factor Associated Factor Spearman RankCorrelation Coefficient Self-assessed productivity Unsatisfactory indoor -0. 49 environment line of reasoning dissatisfaction -0. 36 Job stress -0. 21 Unsatisfactory indoor Job stress +0. 31 environment Job dissatisfaction +0. 43 Job stress Job dissatisfaction +0. 36 There is bizarre relationship between the individual, the environment and the building they inhabit. Satisfaction with the environment. satisfaction with the environment draw closes from a number of issues apart from personal health (r=0. 34), sick building syndrome symptoms (r=0. 5), visual and aural problems (r=0. 36), thermal problems (r=0. 49), and crowded work space (r=0. 50). The correlation coefficients were statistically significa nt for p F? = 0,01 3, 152 = 3. 92 ) (1) This indicates that subjects who suffer from physical environmental factors will suffer an increase in overall unacceptable environment which is positively related to thermal problems, crowded workspace and sick building syndrome symptoms. The multiple regression equation for job satisfaction was found to be JD = 1. 2055 + 0. 3157* JS + 0. 2572 * En + 0. 1023 * CS r = 0. 5367, F=19. 56> F? = 0,01 3,149 = 3. 92 ) (2) This shows that high job dissatisfaction results from job stress, crowded workspace and an overall unsatisfactory environment. For self assessed productivity, the regression equation was developed using a step shrewd regression procedure P=6. 8510-0. 3625*En-0. 1542*JD-0. 1329*CS (r = 0. 5083, F= 14. 86 > F? = 0,01 3, 132 = 3. 94 (3) The principal factors which affect self assessed productivity in the offices surveyed were an overall unsatisfactory environment, crowded workspace and job dissatisfaction.A distinction was made between adopt effects (i. e. those effects that do not result from any other variable in the model) and secondary or indirect effects which arise from the interaction between one or more variables in the model. (Cohen 1983). For voice an overall unsatisfactory environment has a direct effect on self assessed productivity, but there is also an indirect effect because it also affects job satisfaction which in turn also affects self assessed productivity.The follow indirect effect is estimated by the product of the effects of an overall unsatisfactory environment on job satisfaction, and job satisfaction on self assessed productivity. The total effect of environment on self assessed productivity is wherefore the result of combining the direct and indirect effects. Further analyzes showed that the most mutual complaints about unsatisfactory environments were those connected with high or low temperature variations pee and stuffy air dry or humid air. Proceedings of Healthy Buildin gs 2000, Vol 1 633 CONCLUSIONSThe principal conclusions were Individual responses illustrate that the majority of respondents believed that the office environment had a direct influence on their well-being and self assessed productivity. When dissatisfaction with the environment and job were high there was a low level of self assessed productivity. Results showed that there were more occupants suffering from an overall unsatisfactory environment than from job stress and job dissatisfaction. People may be wholly genial with their job, but could also be quite unhappy about their work environment.In general however people reporting negative attitudes towards the environment were also the people with high job stress and job dissatisfaction. Crowded workspaces, thermal problems, and sick building symptoms due to whatever cause were the principal complaints about unsatisfactory environments. Nearly two thirds of the occupants thought that a 10% or more increase in their productiv ity was possible by improving the office environment. Results of the analysis also indicated that self assessed productivity could be improved by about 10%.Further analysis using the AHP model illustrated that the ability to perform, and wellbeing, were the two most important human factors that influenced the productivity of occupants in the offices surveyed. These factors unitedly with job satisfaction and indoor environment form a good cluster which is highly important in designing creative workplaces. In this study there was a small effect of the outdoor environment on productivity but this was insignificant compared to the effect of the indoor environment.Indoor air quality and pollution were the most important environmental factors influencing sick building syndrome. Compared with other personal factors (e. g. gender and type A behavior) and occupational factors, job stress was the next most significant factor which gave rise to sick building syndrome symptoms.. Results showe d that the primary factors influencing productivity varied between organizations, and also between buildings or offices within the same building. This research has established a true(p) methodology for evaluating self assessed productivity. SymbolsCS En F JD JS p P r rs SBS Th &8212&8212&8212&8212 Crowded working space (7 score) An overall unsatisfactory indoor environment (7 score) For statistical F-test Job dissatisfaction (7 score) Job stress (7 score) The level of statistical significance Self assessed productivity (9 score) The correlation coefficient Spearman rank-correlation coefficient Suffer from SBS symptoms (7 score) Suffer from thermal conditions (7 score) 634 Exposure, human responses and building investigations REFERENCES 1. Clements-Croome, D. J. , 2000, Creating the Productive Workplace, Spon Routledge. 2.Oseland, N. , Bartlett, P. , 1999, Improving Office Productivity, Longman. 3. Cooper, C. L. , 1998, Occupational Stress Indicator Management Guide, NFERNelson, Win dsor. 4. Clements-Croome, D. J. , Li B. , 1995, Impact of Indoor Environment on Productivity, Workplace Comfort Forum, Royal Institute of British Architects, London. 5. Arnold, J. , Cooper, C. L. , Robertson, I. , (1998), Work psychological science Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, 3ra Edition, Financial Times-Pitman Publishing. 6. Saaty, T. L. , 1972, Analytic pecking order Process, McGraw-Hill, cutting York. 7. Li, B. 1998, Assessing the Influence of Indoor Environment on Self describe Productivity in Offices, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading. 8. Raw, G. J. , et al. , 1989, Further Findings From the Office Environment Survey, Part I Productivity, Building interrogation Establishment, Note No. N79/89. 9. Anderson, D. , et al. , 1990, Statistics for Business and Economics, 4th Edition, West Publishing Company, USA. 10. Cohen, J. , Cohen, P. , 1983, apply Multiple Regression Correlation Analy sis for Behaviourial Sciences, 2&8243d Edition, Lawrence Earle Baum Associates, New Jersey/London.