Research

CBRE and the University of San Diego surveyed 154 LEED certified or Energy Star labeled buildings containing over 2,000 tenants in May 2009 to determine occupant productivity impacts in sustainably designed buildings.  As the survey was broad in scope, multiple benefits were determined:

• 90% of those surveyed reported equal (45%) or reduced (45%) absenteeism
  • “The 10% that reported more sick time after moving were in Energy Star-labeled buildings and not LEED certified.  It appears that they suffer what often happens to new buildings when ventilation systems are not kept clean or VOCs are not eliminated from new construction materials and finishes… we should emphasize that these are not LEED buildings.”
• 97.5% of those surveyed reported equal (43%) or increased (54.5%) employee productivity.
• Of those reporting increased productivity, the average productivity increase was 4.88%, resulting in an annual benefit of $5,204 per worker. When considering LEED only buildings, the average impact was slightly higher at 5.24% ($5,588).

Survey responses about perceptions of productivity in sustainable buildings.

Another study examining air quality impacts on worker productivity led the authors to believe that one cannot consider energy efficiency alone if a company is trying to create a high performance environment.  As cited in the CBRE/USD study:

It has now been shown beyond reasonable doubt that poor indoor air quality in buildings can decrease productivity in addition to causing visitors to express dissatisfaction. There is an approximate 20% to 70% linear relationship between the percentage dissatisfied with indoor air quality and the measured decrement in performance. The size of the effect on most aspects of office work performance appears to be as high as 6 – 9%, the higher value being obtained in field validation studies.

Further confirmation of the importance of a wider view of workplace performance comes from studies referenced by Research Design Connections and presented at the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) conference. These studies found that “25% of job satisfaction can be tied to the workplace, with 5% of individual performance and 11% of team performance dependent on a good workplace. When asked, 75% of managers stated that they believed that the workplace can affect productivity and the bottom line.”

The impact of job satisfaction is highlighted by a GSA study of 12 environmentally friendly buildings. This determined that in addition to utility and other economic savings, the occupants of sustainably designed buildings scored higher on occupant satisfaction surveys. “Occupant satisfaction is important because it correlates with personal and team performance.  That often means higher productivity and creativity for an organization.”

Implications

We see two important issues to glean from these studies.

1. There is a definite distinction between pursuing LEED certification and Energy Star labeling. While achieving both is ideal, narrowly focusing on energy use at the expense of air quality and other factors can have negative consequences. Both systems help designers develop energy efficient designs, but after the energy efficient equipment and appliances are considered, the LEED system also balances its ratings by considering the human interactions and experiences in the building. Air quality, daylighting and user-control are some of the factors that workers may consider important that are credited in LEED but not Energy Star.
2. There are many subjective factors that employees factor into their perception of the workplace and how satisfied they are with working in that place. The common thread in all of those subjective factors is the employees feeling of being considered by the designer and the things that should be considered are not just new furniture and equipment, but simple design moves like openness, views, natural lighting and fresh air are features that can enhance the employees satisfaction. To design a truly high performance building, one cannot focus on energy efficiency alone.



Citations

Fowler, M. Kim and Rauch, M. Emily. Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Battelle Memorial Institute, for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. General Service Administration, 2008. via RDC.

Miller, Norm et al. Green Buildings and Productivity. CBRE/USD Center for Real Estate. August 19, 2009.

Workplace Working Group. Research Design Connections. July 2002.

Wyon, D. (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air, 14 (s7), 92-101 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00278.x

Research

A study published in the Journal of Housing for the Elderly examined in some detail the visitation patterns in assisted living environments and the perceptions of residents on the impact have on their well-being. Such visits are both common and critical to the well-being of residents, with 90% of those responding to survey rating the ability to receive visitors as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Fortunately, 80% of respondents received visits at least occasionally, with most receiving visits on a weekly basis or more.

While the decisions about when and how to allow visitors is more of an operational issue, the research into the activities performed during visits provide us implications for the design and layout of facilities serving these patients. Visitations are “overwhelmingly centered on quiet sitting activities”, with the most common tasks included below (based on percentage of patients responding):

• 47% – Sitting/playing games together
• 20% – Taking care of affairs/family business
• 14% – Visiting with grandchildren or great grandchildren
• 10% – Reminiscing/looking at photo albums
• 2% – Watching TV or talking about current events

Implications

If single occupancy rooms are provided for the residents, all that may be required is a small seating area and table within the room to provide a suitable area for all of the activities listed above.   Some form of task lighting should be located in this area to ensure that any documents being reviewed as part of the ‘taking care of affairs/family business’ activity or games played can be read by an elderly population with diminishing eyesight.

Hotel business centers may provide a good model for a private "affairs/family business" meeting area in assisted living facilities.

Many facilities feature multi-occupant rooms, and it would be wise to consider individual meeting areas that can be reserved or used on an impromptu basis.  Many facilities include group meeting spaces, but fewer have areas that allow for visual and acoustical privacy.  At least one should be equipped a computer connected to the internet, a printer, and a telephone with teleconference capabilities to support any external business activities that may be required for the resident who may or may not be able to leave the facility for certain appointments.

Citation

Thompson, D., Weber, J., & Juozapavicius, K. (2001). Chapter 2 Residents in Assisted Living Facilities and Visitation Patterns. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 15 (1), 31-42 DOI: 10.1300/J081v15n01_03

Research

Soon after I started at LS3P I was asked by a College of Charleston Hospitality and Tourism Management professor to present to their students regarding the myriad ways that design can affect the guest or customer experience of a company. He had recently read (and had his students read) a paper titled Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees, and tasked me with providing a broader view of the research on the subject for his students.

Who doesn't like waiting in line?

While the scope of the research presented is too broad to cover in a single post, one of the favorite topics relates to the ways in which architecture can influence actual and perceived wait times of customers, a topic described well in a 1985 article from David Maister titled the Psychology of Waiting Lines. While I’ll cover many of the practical applications in the Implications section below, the root of the theory can be summed up in a simple formula. Maister’s take on what he calls the ‘First Law of Service’:

S = P – E
In this formulation, ‘S’ stands for satisfaction, ‘P’ for perception and ‘E’ for expectation. If you expect a certain level of service, and perceive the service reviewed to be higher, you are a satisfied client. If you perceive the same level as before, but expected higher, you are disappointed and, consequently, a dissatisfied client.

The reason this concept is so critical is that it highlights how the actual wait time a customer endures isn’t necessarily the most important driver with their satisfaction of a given service or company, their perception of the wait is arguably more important. People accept the fact that we need to wait in a variety of situations, so the important thing is to bring the customer’s perception of the wait time below their expectation of what a reasonable wait time should be. Fortunately, a body of research has taught us ways that designers can potentially help get this equation into positive territory.

The perception of wait time has huge implications on overall satisfaction, with one study in urgent care settings determining that “that total time spent waiting for the clinician was the most significant predictor of patient satisfaction”.

Implications

Maister offers up eight rules of waiting in his article that I suggest any business owner read. Below I’ve cherry picked those that have the biggest implications for design. Ultimately these issues are rooted in operations, but in most instances these operations can benefit by having an environment that supports what you’re trying to accomplish through service.

• Occupied time feels shorter than unoccupied time
  • Hotels place mirrors next to elevators to distract guests waiting for them
  • Grocery stores place reading materials in checkout lines
  • Blockbuster places a TV with coming attractions near their checkout lines
  • Restaurants give patrons menus before they sit down to peruse
  • Waiting rooms in healthcare settings can provide self-help informational materials for the subject patients are seeking care for

Grocery stores are increasingly moving towards branded TV networks in their checkout lines

• ‘Start’ the service early
  • Restaurants send patrons to the bar while waiting for a table. One popular seafood restaurant in Charleston has host staff pass out free hush puppies to patrons waiting outside.
  • SC DMV uses a concierge to check people in immediately, generally giving them forms to fill out before meeting the attendant
• Anxiety makes waits seem longer
  • In the DMV situation above, the concierge also lets people know whether or not they have the materials they need, reducing anxiety
  • Consider estimated wait times for airport security checkpoints
• Uncertain/Unexplained waits are longer than known, finite waits
  • Highways are increasingly showing travel times based on current traffic on heavily traveled highways
  • Amusement parks place placards explaining estimated wait times at certain points in line for popular rides
  • Restaurants frequently tell patrons overestimated wait times (reducing ‘E’) so they will be pleased when seated in a more timely fashion
  • Highways increasingly provide accident info (“Wreck on exit 43”) so people have some explanation of what is causing the delay
  • Break or non-service areas should be staged away from the view of those being served (e.g. a bank teller needing to catch up on paperwork needs an area away from sight of those seeking service to do so… people don’t understand why the teller is just ‘standing there’ not helping)

Signs estimating wait times for subways/buses are becoming increasingly popular.

• Fair waits are shorter than unfair waits
  • Single line served by multiple tellers ensure first come, first served, while multiple lines (one per teller) often results in fast lane slow lane issues.
• People will wait longer for services that seem more valuable
  • People are willing to wait far longer for higher end restaurants than those in fast food or lower priced establishments
• Solo waits feel longer than group waits
  • Consider ways to encourage social interaction among people in line

Citations

Beckler, Franklin and Stephanie Jones Douglass. The Ecology of the Patient Visit: Physical Attractiveness, Waiting Times, and Perceived Quality of Care.  Healthcare Design.  November 2006.

Bitner, Mary Jo. Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing. Vol 56: April 1992, 57-71.

Maister, David. The Psychology of Waiting Lines. The Service Encounter. ed. John A Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol Suprenant. DC Heath and Company: Lexington Books, 1985.