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

Figures & data

Figure 1. Example of a choice set in the questionnaire.

Table 1. Operationalization of workspace characteristics.

Attribute	Levels
Level of enclosure	Enclosed Semi-enclosed Open
Personal control	Full control over workspace Limited control over workspace No control over workspace
Noise	High noise levels Neutral situation Low noise levels
Ergonomics of the workspace	Specialized ergonomic furniture Ergonomic furniture Non-ergonomic furniture
Temperature	Slightly too cold Neutral situation Slightly too hot
Lighting	Much lighting Pleasant situation Little lighting

Table 2. Organizations in the sample.

Type of organization	Sector	Amount of employees	Response rate
Specialists	Healthcare	100	16%
Consultancy firm	Real estate	70	42.6%
Consultancy firm	Real estate	75	13.3%
Investment bank	Finance	35	14.3%
Learning institute	Education	20	60%
Consultancy firm	Real estate	65	18.5%
Bank	Finance	150	13.3%
Concert venue	Leisure	20	15%
University	Support staff	200	20%
University	Research department	40	37.5%
Four companies	Others	250	35.2%

Table 3. Personal characteristics included in the survey.

Personal characteristics	Source
Age (open question)	Haynes et al. (2017)
Gender (male/female)	Lai and Yik (2007)
Eduational level (primary, secondary, vocational, undergraduate, postgraduate)	Haynes et al. (2017)
Job rank (intern, regular employee, support staff, manager, board manager, other)	Hartog, Weijs-Perrée, and Appel-Meulenbroek (2018)
Working hours per week (open question)	De Been et al. (2016)
Current type of workspace (individual cell office, shared room, open 4–9 employees, open 10+ employees, free to choose)	Budie et al. (2018)

Table 4. Multinomial logit models results and statistics.

Attribute	Level	Activity categories
		Individual work	Informal	Formal
Constant		0.146***	1.053***	0.318***
Level of enclosure	Enclosed	0.588***	−0.497***	0.415***
	Semi-enclosed	−0.038	0.307***	−0.050
	Open (base)	−0.550	0.190	−0.365
Personal control	Full control over workspace	0.114**	0.073	0.067***
	Limited control over workspace	−0.083	0.054	−0.080***
	No control over workspace (base)	−0.031	−0.127	0.013
Noise	High noise levels	−1.034***	−0.203***	−0.872***
	Neutral situation	0.326***	0.203***	0.435***
	Low noise levels (base)	0.708	−0.001	0.437
Ergonomics of the workspace	Specialized ergonomic furniture	0.169***	0.111**	0.076
	Ergonomic furniture	0.121**	0.052	0.071
	Non-ergonomic furniture (base)	−0.289	−0.163	−0.147
Temperature	Slightly too cold	−0.215***	−0.106**	−0.219***
	Neutral situation	0.213***	0.201***	0.295***
	Slightly too hot (base)	0.002	−0.095	−0.076
Lighting	Much lighting	0.146***	0.060	0.175***
	Pleasant situation	0.300***	0.247***	0.275***
	Little lighting (base)	−0.446	−0.307	−0.450
Statistics
Log-likelihood of the estimated parameters		−2052.91684	−2153.34376	−2132.85068
Log-likelihood of the zero model		−2481.76516	−2481.76516	−2481.76516
McFadden’s Rho-square		0.173	0.132	0.141
Number of observations		2259	2256	2256
Akaike Information Criterion		1.829	1.918	1.900

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

Figure 2. Utility values for the attribute levels per activity.

Figure 3. Relative impact of attributes on overall workspace preference per activity.

Table 5. Latent class model utility values individual concentration work.

Attribute	Level	Latent classes
		Segment 1	Segment 2	Segment 3
Constant		2.738***	−1.402***	1.044***
Level of enclosure	Enclosed	−0.137	1.042***	1.232***
	Semi-enclosed	0.130	0.018	−0.004
	Open (base)	0.007	−1.060	−1.228
Personal control	Full control over workspace	−0.023	0.246**	0.320**
	Limited control over workspace	−0.075	−0.006	−0.165
	No control over workspace (base)	0.098	−0.240	−0.155
Noise	High noise levels	−0.468***	−1.309***	−2.191***
	Neutral situation	0.136	0.497***	0.726***
	Low noise levels (base)	0.332	0.812	1.464
Ergonomics of the workspace	Specialized ergonomic furniture	0.281***	0.186	0.390***
	Ergonomic furniture	−0.009	0.270*	−0.069
	Non-ergonomic furniture (base)	−0.271	−0.456	−0.321
Temperature	Slightly too cold	−0.579***	−0.028	−0.019
	Neutral situation	0.366***	0.094	0.123
	Slightly too hot (base)	0.213	−0.066	−0.104
Lighting	Much lighting	0.236**	0.257**	0.183
	Pleasant situation	0.299**	0.566***	0.090
	Little lighting (base)	−0.535	−0.823	−0.274
Statistics Log-likelihood of the estimated parameters Log-likelihood of the zero model McFadden’s Rho-square Number of observations Akaike Information Criterion		−1750.42550 −2481.76516 0.295 2259 1.586

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

Table 6. Latent class model utility values informal interactions.

Attribute	Level	Latent classes
		Segment 1	Segment 2
Constant		2.378***	−0.374**
Level of enclosure	Enclosed	−0.657***	−0.157
	Semi-enclosed	0.395***	0.128
	Open (base)	0.262	0.028
Personal control	Full control over workspace	0.072	0.069
	Limited control over workspace	0.043	0.076
	No control over workspace (base)	−0.116	−0.145
Noise	High noise levels	−0.179***	−0.332***
	Neutral situation	0.218***	0.226**
	Low noise levels (base)	−0.038	0.106
Ergonomics of the workspace	Specialized ergonomic furniture	0.136**	0.049
	Ergonomic furniture	−0.028	0.275***
	Non-ergonomic furniture (base)	−0.108	−0.324
Temperature	Slightly too cold	−0.065	−0.212*
	Neutral situation	0.161***	0.275***
	Slightly too hot (base)	−0.095	−0.063
Lighting	Much lighting	0.023	0.151
	Pleasant situation	0.253***	0.330***
	Little lighting (base)	−0.276	−0.481
Statistics Log-likelihood of the estimated parameters Log-likelihood of the zero model McFadden’s Rho-square Number of observations Akaike Information Criterion		−2025.91033 −2481.76516 0.184 2259 1.818

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

Table 7. Latent class model utility values formal interactions.

Attribute	Level	Latent classes
		Segment 1	Segment 2	Segment 3
Constant		8.151	0.277	−2.442***
Level of enclosure	Enclosed	0.401***	0.236*	1.835***
	Semi-enclosed	−0.093	0.122	−0.037
	Open (base)	−0.308	−0.357	−1.798
Personal control	Full control over workspace	−0.088	0.197**	0.500*
	Limited control over workspace	−0.152*	−0.075	−0.339
	No control over workspace (base)	0.240	−0.122	−0.161
Noise	High noise levels	−0.810***	−0.936***	−2.205***
	Neutral situation	0.373***	0.487***	1.194***
	Low noise levels (base)	0.437	0.449	1.012
Ergonomics of the workspace	Specialized ergonomic furniture	0.174*	0.161*	0.401
	Ergonomic furniture	−0.031	0.128	−0.646
	Non-ergonomic furniture (base)	−0.143	−0.289	0.245
Temperature	Slightly too cold	−0.228***	−0.193**	−0.428*
	Neutral situation	0.353***	0.248***	0.208
	Slightly too hot (base)	−0.126	−0.055	0.221
Lighting	Much lighting	0.278***	0.078	0.996***
	Pleasant situation	0.192	0.393***	0.115
	Little lighting (base)	−0.470	−0.470	−1.111
Statistics Log-likelihood of the estimated parameters Log-likelihood of the zero model McFadden’s Rho-square Number of observations Akaike Information Criterion		−1865.43152 −2481.76516 0.248 2259 1.688

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

Figure 4. Impact on overall workspace preference latent segments for individual concentration work.

Figure 5. Impact on overall workspace preference latent segments for informal interactions.

Figure 6. Impact on overall workspace preference latent segments for formal interactions.

Haynes, B., Suckley, L., & Nunnington, N. (2017). Workplace productivity and office type; an evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(2), 111–138.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lai, J., & Yik, F. (2007). Perceived importance of the quality of the indoor environment in Commercial buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 16(4), 311–321.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hartog, L., Weijs-Perrée, M., & Appel-Meulenbroek, R. (2018). The influence of personality on user satisfaction: Multi-tenant offices. Building Research & Information, 46(4), 402–416.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Been, I., Van der Voordt, D. J. M., & Haynes, B. P. (2016). Chapter 9: Productivity. In P. A. Jensen & T. Van der Voordt (Eds.), Facilities management and corporate real estate management as value drivers: How to manage and measure adding value (pp. 140–155). London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Budie, B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Kemperman, A., & Weijs-Perree, M. (2018). Employee satisfaction with the physical work environment: The importance of a need based approach. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 23(1), 36–49.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar