leesman data presentation sml
TRANSCRIPT
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Lmi 59.9
100,000+ data report
London – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015
100,000+ data reportLondon – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015Amsterdam – January 2016New York – February 2016
Lmi 59.9
100,000+ data report
London – 5th November 2015Stockholm – 12th November 2015
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Agenda
The new Global Standard• Brief overview of the Leesman workplace effectiveness measurement model • The impact of workplace of organisational performance
Data Diversity• Looking at how the data we’ve collected stacks up from a diversity perspective
What the Data Says• Playing with the numbers
Leesman+• Understanding the highest performance workplaces.
The Next Five Years
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The New Global Standard
2010
• Proposed a simple, accessible, independent evaluation technique.
• No other services, so no vested interest in findings.
• Met with skepticism and intrigue in equal proportions.
• Aimed at design community with anticipation of getting them closer to the business of their clients
• Taken up by the clients wanting to be better informed about impact of the services they were buying!
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The New Global Standard
Design Impact• How much do you agree with the following
statements about the design of your organisation’s office?
Activity Analysis• Which activities are important to you in your
work and how well is each supported?
Physical Features• Which physical features do you consider to
be an important part of an effective workplace and how satisfied are you with each?
Service Features• Which service features do you consider to be
an important part of an effective workplace and how satisfied are you with each?
5
The Leesman Index model
The Leesman Index survey has been deployed now across 1,000+ workplaces in 49 countries in 25 languages. The diversity of the data collected gets wider by the week as we work with leading global organisations as part of major capital projects, on estate-wide baseline evaluations, or on ongoing healthchecks of property performance.
Central to that technique is a standardised e-questionnaire that examines what employees are doing and how the physical and virtual infrastructure supports them doing it. The Leesman Lmi key performance indicator is calculated from the Design Impact and the Activities Analysis questions and should therefore be seen as a test of the ability of a workplace to support the needs of employees – its operational effectiveness.
Design Impact Analysis – how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the overall design of your organisation’s current workspace?
Activity Analysis – which activities are important to you in your work and how well is each supported?
Physical Features Analysis – which physical features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
Service Features Analysis – which service features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
This publication aims to offer an initial examination of that data and provide key statistics and findings for your review.
Responses received 112,300+
Workplaces surveyed 1,000+
Leesmananalytics
Actionableoutcomes
LeesmanLmi
Activities
Features
Facilities
Designimpact
11 minuteemployee
questionnaire
5
The Leesman Index model
The Leesman Index survey has been deployed now across 1,000+ workplaces in 49 countries in 25 languages. The diversity of the data collected gets wider by the week as we work with leading global organisations as part of major capital projects, on estate-wide baseline evaluations, or on ongoing healthchecks of property performance.
Central to that technique is a standardised e-questionnaire that examines what employees are doing and how the physical and virtual infrastructure supports them doing it. The Leesman Lmi key performance indicator is calculated from the Design Impact and the Activities Analysis questions and should therefore be seen as a test of the ability of a workplace to support the needs of employees – its operational effectiveness.
Design Impact Analysis – how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the overall design of your organisation’s current workspace?
Activity Analysis – which activities are important to you in your work and how well is each supported?
Physical Features Analysis – which physical features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
Service Features Analysis – which service features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
This publication aims to offer an initial examination of that data and provide key statistics and findings for your review.
Responses received 112,300+
Workplaces surveyed 1,000+
Leesmananalytics
Actionableoutcomes
LeesmanLmi
Activities
Features
Facilities
Designimpact
11 minuteemployee
questionnaire
5
The Leesman Index model
The Leesman Index survey has been deployed now across 1,000+ workplaces in 49 countries in 25 languages. The diversity of the data collected gets wider by the week as we work with leading global organisations as part of major capital projects, on estate-wide baseline evaluations, or on ongoing healthchecks of property performance.
Central to that technique is a standardised e-questionnaire that examines what employees are doing and how the physical and virtual infrastructure supports them doing it. The Leesman Lmi key performance indicator is calculated from the Design Impact and the Activities Analysis questions and should therefore be seen as a test of the ability of a workplace to support the needs of employees – its operational effectiveness.
Design Impact Analysis – how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the overall design of your organisation’s current workspace?
Activity Analysis – which activities are important to you in your work and how well is each supported?
Physical Features Analysis – which physical features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
Service Features Analysis – which service features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?
This publication aims to offer an initial examination of that data and provide key statistics and findings for your review.
Responses received 112,300+
Workplaces surveyed 1,000+
Leesmananalytics
Actionableoutcomes
LeesmanLmi
Activities
Features
Facilities
Designimpact
11 minuteemployee
questionnaire
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
122,500+
1,000+
49
respondents
locations
countries
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
43% agree
25% neutral
32% disagree
54% agree
16% neutral
30% disagree
It enables me to work productively
It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to
How much do you agree / disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation'scurrent workspace?
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
greater than 50
less than 50% productive
Less than 50
432 locations >50 respondents
134 <50% productivity agreement
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
Impact on organisational performance
Impact on engagement
Impact on discretionary effort
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Pride agreement Productivity agreement
1 Facilities Management & Outsourcing Copenhagen 135 81.7
84% 75%
2 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Paris 127 80.23 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Chicago 125 79.74 Biotech & Pharmaceuticals Paris 141 76.35 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London 336 75.36 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services California 140 75.27 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Dublin 256 75.18 Construction & Civil Engineering Oslo 104 74.49 Health, Wellness, Hospitals & Healthcare Withheld 242 74.410 Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Riga 154 73.611 Banking, Insurance & Financial Services London 453 73.012 Biotech & Pharmaceuticals France 521 72.713 Publishing London 121 72.614 Telecommunications Stockholm 155 72.515 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Katowice 142 72.2
NB. Top 15 locations with greater that 100 respondents by Leesman Lmi
Top 15 performing location by Leesman Lmi.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Pride agreement Productivity agreement
1 Transportation, railroad & Trucking Birmingham 212 48.1
23% 35%
2 Charities, NGO’s, & Non-profit Stockholm 130 48.13 Automotive Withheld 116 47.84 Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London 198 47.75 Automotive Withheld 496 47.66 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 125 47.37 Transportation, railroad & Trucking Glasgow 196 47.28 Utilities, Oil & Energy UK 220 47.29 Facilities Management & Outsourcing UK 190 46.710 Automotive Withheld 360 45.711 Retail London 784 45.512 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services London 273 45.513 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Portsmouth 386 44.714 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 161 44.315 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 118 36.8
NB. Bottom 15 locations with greater that 100 respondents by Leesman Lmi
Bottom 15 performing location by Leesman Lmi.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Inform
al%social%interaction
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Reading
Individual%routine%tasks
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Private%conversations
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%
or%materials
Top%15 Bottom%15Activities ranked by importance – Top 15 against Bottom 15 Lmi locations.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Individual%routine%tasks
Planned%m
eetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Learning%from%others
Inform
al%social%interaction
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Video%conferences
Audio%conferences
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%
or%materials
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Telephone%conversations
Reading
Business%confidential%discussions
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Private%conversations
Top%15 Bottom%15Activities ranked by satisfaction – Top 15 against Bottom 15 Lmi locations.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact on effectiveness
Observations
• The difference between the best and worst performing places is huge (40% difference in productivity agreement.
• Employers are failing to recognise the role of the workplace in organisationalperformance
• We now need to do more to understand the particulars associated with poor performance.
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
56% Male
44% Female
0% Prefer not to say
Gender No of respondents Lmi
Male 61,339 59.4
Female 47,582 60.8
Prefer nts 391 51.1
Distribution of respondents by gender
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
13% 55 and over
27% 45-54
30% 35-44
26% 25-34
4% Under 25
Age range No of respondents Lmi
55 and over 14,181 60.2
45 - 54 29,777 59.6
44 - 35 34,204 59.0
25 - 34 29,611 60.9
Under 25 4,542 66.0
Distribution of respondents by age range
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
Time with org No of respondents Lmi
Over% 12%years 34,730 59.5
8 – 12%years 13,728 58.9
3%– 8%yeasr 29,046 59.2
18m%– 3%years 13,283 60.0
6%– 18%months 13,313 61.7
0%H6%months 8,007 65.0
Distribution of respondents by time with org
31% Over 12 years
12% 8 – 12 years
26% 3 – 8 yeasr
12% 18m – 3 years
12% 6 – 18 months
7% 0 -6 months
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
Region locations respondents Lmi
UK 535 46,679 59.1
Nordics 188 36,235 58.8
Rest of Euro 238 19,497 62.7
Americas 82 5,361 64.1
Asia Pacific 45 1,409 60.7Rest of World 20 697 65.1
Distribution of respondents by geography
42% United Kingdom
33% Nordics
18% Rest of Europe
5% Americas
1% Asia Pacific
0% Rest of the World
87% Sweden
9% Norway
3% Finland
1% Denmark
Region locations respondents Lmi
Sweden 31,925 58.4
Norway 3,181 62.1
Finland 1,129 57.3
Denmark 441 69.0
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
Survey type locations respondents Lmi
Pre 714 82,972 58.2
Post 108 16,704 66.4
Other 288 9,761 63.3
Distribution of respondents by project type
76% Pre
15% Post
9% Other
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
Distribution of respondents by industry14% Banking, insurance 9% Transportation9% Automotive5% Information tech5% Retail4% Telecomm’s4% Government4% Aviation3% Utilities, oil & gas3% Construction & Eng2% Other
Industry Locations Respondents
Banking, insurance 103 18,743
Transportation 151 12,191
Automotive 49 11,228
Information tech 198 7,176
Retail 37 7,102
Telecomm’s 53 5,425
Government 34 5,073
Aviation 39 4,880
Utilities, oil & gas 32 4,273
Construction & Eng 31 3,469
Combined others 35 1788
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data diversity
Observations
• Extensively UK and Scandinavia, but US and Australia growing rapidly.
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The New Global Standard
“You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be led”
Stan Laurel.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Data mining
The treasure trove• An academics dream.
Independent analysis• Commissioned Formulate to “play” with the data.
Patterns• Looking at for patterns within the data. Correlations, differences, similarities.• Impact coding (probability / odds)
Walk you through the data…. Picking out highlights• The impact of age – what’s important to whom• The impact of time• The impact of work setting• The impact of activities undertaken• The impact code
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
The% design% of%my%workspace% is%
important%to%me
It's%a% place%I'm%proud%to%bring%
visitors%to
It%enables% me% to%work%
productively
It%creates% an%enjoyable%
environment% to%work%in
It%contributes% to%a%sense% of%
community%at%work
Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overDesign impact by age. See page 10.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
Probability ratios – Activities (top 15). See page 8.
Age group 25-34 Age group 35-44 Age group 45-54 Age group 55-64
Audio conferences 1.89 2.92 3.23 2.85Video conferences 1.78 2.56 2.81 2.74Business confidential discussions 1.70 2.51 2.91 2.64Hosting visitors clients or customers 1.57 2.10 2.57 2.55Thinking / creative thinking 1.32 1.79 2.16 2.25Reading 1.43 1.79 2.17 2.16Larger group meetings or audiences 1.37 1.81 2.12 1.98Telephone conversations 1.31 1.64 1.90 1.98Collaborating on creative work 1.37 1.83 1.99 1.94Individual focused work, desk based 1.30 1.59 1.83 1.83Planned meetings 1.52 2.04 2.14 1.82Informal, un-planned meetings 1.53 2.07 2.12 1.78Using technical, specialist equipment or materials n.s. 1.24 1.52 1.73Private conversations 1.24 1.43 1.55 1.56Spreading out paper or materials n.s. n.s. 1.29 1.48
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
Probability ratios – Activities (remainder). See page 8.
Age group 25-34 Age group 35-44 Age group 45-54 Age group 55-64
Collaborating on focused work 1.36 1.52 1.60 1.38Individual focused work away from your desk 1.23 1.36 1.42 1.33Individual routine tasks 0.84 0.87 n.s. 1.24Informal social interaction n.s. 1.08 1.12 1.11Learning from others 0.87 0.82 0.92 n.s.Relaxing / taking a break 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.92
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
Under%25 25H34 34H55 45H54 55%or%overImportance of activities by age. See page 10.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
Under%25 34H55Importance of activities by age. See page 10.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
Probability ratios – Features (top 15). See page 9.
Age group 25-34 Age group 35-44 Age group 45-54 Age group 55-64
Noise levels 1.22 1.53 2.11 2.42Toilets / W.C. 1.14 1.45 1.78 2.21Air quality 1.16 1.43 1.82 2.20Office lighting n.s. 1.17 1.64 2.10Internal signage 1.08 1.28 1.62 2.00Accessibility of colleagues n.s. 1.26 1.66 1.98Dividers (between desks areas) 1.25 1.41 1.61 1.77Health and safety provisions 0.93 n.s. 1.44 1.74Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.12 1.29 1.44 1.73Archive storage n.s. n.s. 1.29 1.67Printing / copying / scanning equipment 0.88 n.s. 1.22 1.67Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 0.89 0.89 1.15 1.58General cleanliness n.s. n.s. 1.24 1.55People walking past your workstation 1.14 1.27 1.43 1.50Wired in-office network connectivity 1.16 1.38 1.50 1.50
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
Probability ratios – Features (bottom 15). See page 9.
Age group 25-34 Age group 35-44 Age group 45-54 Age group 55-64
Temperature control 0.87 0.88 n.s. 1.15Reception areas n.s. n.s. 1.12 1.14Meeting rooms (large) n.s. n.s. 1.16 1.11Chair n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Computing equipment (fixed desktop) n.s. 0.89 n.s. n.s.Restaurant / canteen n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Variety of different types of workspace n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.11 1.09 n.s. n.s.Shower facilities n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Shared storage n.s. 0.93 n.s. n.s.Desk Room / booking systems 1.08 1.10 1.15 n.s.WiFi network connectivity in the office n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.IT Service / Help desk n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Ability to personalise my workstation 0.81 0.72 0.75 0.83Informal work areas / breakout zones n.s. n.s. 0.91 0.76
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those under 25.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Desk
Chair
Temperature%control
Meeting%rooms%(small)
Personal%storage
Natural%light
Noise%levels
Meeting%rooms%(large)
Air%quality
Office%lighting
Quiet%rooms%for%working%alone%or%in%pairs
General%Décor
People%walking%past%your%workstation
Inform
al%work%areas%/%breakHout%zones%
Ability%to%personalise%m
y%workstation
Desk%/%Room%booking%systems
Dividers%(between%desks%/%areas)
Space%between%work%settings
Plants%&%Greenery
Accessibility%of%colleagues%
Atriums%and%Communal%Areas
Art%&%Photography
Shared%storage
Archive%storage%
Variety%of%different%types%of%workspace
Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overImportance of physical features by age. See page 11.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tea,%coffee%and%other%refreshment%
facilities
General%cleanliness
Computing%equipment,%fixed%(desktop)
Toilets%/%W
.C.
Printing%/%copying%/%scanning%equipment
Telephone%equipment
Restaurant%/%canteen
IT%Service%/%Help%desk
WiFi%network%connectivity%in%the%office
General%tidiness
Wired%inHoffice%network%connectivity
Computing%equipment,%mobile%(laptop,%
tablet,%etc.)
Parking%(car,%m
otorbike%or%bicycle)%
Remote%access%to%work%files%or%network
Security%
Access%(e.g.%lifts,%stairways,%ramps%etc)
Mail%&%postHroom%services
Reception%areas%
Health%and%safety%provisions%
Leisure%facilities%onsite%or%nearby
Internal%signage
Shower%facilities
Hospitality%services
AudioHVisual%equipment
Guest%/%visitor%network%access
Under%25 25H34 35H44 45H54 55%or%overImportance of service features by age. See page 11.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
Observations
• significant differences found between the age groups and the youngest age group are least "demanding”
• design in response to gen Y and you will miss the needs of the majority
• differences between age groups not to be confused with or interpreted as generational differences – rather life stage differences!
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
The design of my workspace is important to me
It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to
It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in
It contributes to a sense of community at work
0H6%months 6H18%months 18mH3y 3H8%years 8H12%yearsDesign impact by service length. See page 14.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
Probability ratios – Activities (top 15). See page 12.
6-18 months 18 m - 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 12 years
Telephone conversations 1.18 1.25 1.35 1.45Hosting visitors, clients or customers 1.17 1.36 1.43 1.41Private conversations 1.15 1.24 1.28 1.27Business confidential discussions 1.06 1.15 1.26 1.27Individual focused work, desk based 1.23 1.24 1.27 1.26Larger group meetings or audiences 1.14 1.21 1.23 1.25Informal unplanned meetings 1.16 1.24 1.23 1.25Audio conferences 1.18 1.21 1.19 1.24Planned meetings 1.14 1.20 1.15 1.23Spreading out paper or materials n.s. 1.09 1.13 1.18Video conferences 1.14 1.19 1.17 1.10Individual focused work away from your desk n.s. n.s. 1.06 1.08Individual routine tasks n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.08Thinking / creative thinking 1.07 1.11 n.s. 1.06Relaxing / taking a break n.s. n.s. 1.05 n.s.
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
Probability ratios – Activities (remainder). See page 12.
6-18 months 18 m - 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 12 years
Relaxing / taking a break n.s. n.s. 1.05 n.s.Informal social interaction n.s. 1.06 n.s. n.s.Collaborating on focused work n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Collaborating on creative work n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Reading 0.90 n.s. n.s. n.s.Using technical / specialist equipment or materials n.s. n.s. 1.07 n.s.Learning from others 0.87 0.79 0.75 0.71
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
0H6%months 6H12%months 18m%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of activities by service length. See page 14.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
Under%25 25H34 34H55 45H54 55%or%overImportance of activities by age. See page 10.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
Probability ratios – Features (top 15). See page 13.
6-18 months 18 m - 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 12 years
Archive storage 1.19 1.26 1.38 1.51Mail & postroom services 1.12 1.20 1.31 1.43Temperature control 1.10 1.16 1.38 1.42Shower facilities n.s. n.s. 1.14 1.32Shared storage 1.09 1.11 1.26 1.31Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) n.s. 1.07 1.12 1.26Air quality 1.08 1.13 1.23 1.24Desk / Room booking systems 1.19 1.16 1.16 1.24Health and safety provisions n.s. n.s. 1.09 1.19Telephone equipment n.s. n.s. 1.08 1.19Guest / visitor network access 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.19Noise levels 1.11 1.11 1.16 1.18Meeting rooms (large) 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.18WiFi network connectivity in the office n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.18IT Service / Help desk n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.18
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
Probability ratios – Features (bottom 15). See page 13.
6-18 months 18 m - 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 12 years
General tidiness 0.91 0.88 0.92 n.s.Space between work settings n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Audio-Visual equipment n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Desk n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Personal storage n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Plants & Greenery n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Hospitality services 0.93 n.s. n.s. n.s.General Décor n.s. 0.94 n.s. n.s.Natural light n.s. 0.92 n.s. n.s.Ability to personalise my workstation n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Informal work areas / break-out zones n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.Art & Photography n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.93Reception areas 0.92 0.85 0.91 0.90Atriums and Communal Areas n.s. 0.92 0.89 0.88Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities n.s. 0.88 0.81 0.82
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting a Feature as important compared to the “base group” – those with less than 6 months with the organisation.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Desk
Chair
Temperature%control
Meeting%rooms%(small)
Personal%storage
Natural%light
Noise%levels
Meeting%rooms%(large)
Air%quality
Office%lighting
Quiet%rooms%for%working%alone%or%in%pairs
General%Décor
People%walking%past%your%workstation
Inform
al%work%areas%/%breakHout%zones%
Ability%to%personalise%m
y%workstation
Desk%/%Room%booking%systems
Dividers%(between%desks%/%areas)
Space%between%work%settings
Plants%&%Greenery
Accessibility%of%colleagues%
Atriums%and%Communal%Areas
Art%&%Photography
Shared%storage
Archive%storage%
Variety%of%different%types%of%workspace
0H6%months 6H18%months 18%months%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of physical features by service length. See page 15.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tea,%coffee%and%other%refreshment%
facilities
General%cleanliness
Computing%equipment,%fixed%(desktop)
Toilets%/%W
.C.
Printing%/%copying%/%scanning%equipment
Telephone%equipment
Restaurant%/%canteen
IT%Service%/%Help%desk
WiFi%network%connectivity%in%the%office
General%tidiness
Wired%inHoffice%network%connectivity
Computing%equipment,%mobile%(laptop,%
tablet,%etc.)
Parking%(car,%m
otorbike%or%bicycle)%
Remote%access%to%work%files%or%network
Security%
Access%(e.g.%lifts,%stairways,%ramps%etc)
Mail%&%postHroom%services
Reception%areas%
Health%and%safety%provisions%
Leisure%facilities%onsite%or%nearby
Internal%signage
Shower%facilities
Hospitality%services
AudioHVisual%equipment
Guest%/%visitor%network%access
0H6%months 6H18%months 18%months%H 3%years 3H8%years 8H12%yearsImportance of service features by service length. See page 15.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of time
Observations
• Length of service does not have as big of an impact as age has on importance of activities and features
• New comers place larger importance on learning from others and less importance on individual activities, while there is no difference regarding collaborative activities
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Tea, coffee and refreshment facilities
• Importance 89.3%
• Satisfaction 64.5%
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
My own workstation in an open plan office areaA shared office (enclosed room/space)A flexible / non-allocated workstationA private office assigned solely to youA cubicle
A shared team table
A meeting room
In the office, what type of work setting do you use most often?
Number of respondents % Lmi
My own workstation in an open plan office area 60,849 56 58.2
A shared office (enclosed room/space) 17,515 16 60.7
A flexible / non-allocated workstation 11,607 11 60.4
A private office assigned solely to you 9,205 8 68.1
A cubicle 5,749 5 59.8
A shared team table 2,534 2 61.9
A meeting room 1,248 1 58.1
Other 579 1 57.7An informal work-setting such as a break-out zone 428 - 60.9
A quiet room / private office (available for flexible use) 316 - 59.9
A specialist practical or technical setting 287 - 58.5
Distribution of respondents by work setting
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
Probability ratios – Activities (top 15). See page 16.
Allocated open plan
Informal, un-planned meetings 1.26Planned meetings 1.22Relaxing / taking a break 1.11Collaborating on creative work 1.09Learning from others 1.08Larger group meetings or audiences 1.07Informal social interaction 1.06Collaborating on focused work 1.05Video conferences n.s.Telephone conversations n.s.Individual focused work, desk based n.s.Private conversations n.s.Individual focused work away from your desk n.s.Individual routine tasks n.s.Spreading out paper or materials 0.97
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with a private or shared office.
Flexible
Collaborating on creative work 1.08Informal unplanned meetings 1.07Planned meetings n.s.Relaxing taking a break n.s.Informal social interaction n.s.Collaborating on focused work n.s.Private conversations 0.95Learning from others 0.93Individual focused work away from your desk 0.91Larger group meetings or audiences 0.90Individual routine tasks 0.84Business confidential discussions 0.84Audio conferences 0.83Telephone conversations 0.82Reading 0.78
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
Probability ratios – Features (top 15). See page 17.
Allocated open plan
Dividers (between desks / areas) 2.40People walking past your workstation 1.80Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.70Desk / Room booking systems 1.45Space between work settings 1.45Chair 1.41Informal work areas / break-out zones 1.33Toilets / W.C. 1.32Meeting rooms (small) 1.31General tidiness 1.29Office lighting 1.28General Décor 1.25Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.23Shared storage 1.20Noise levels 1.19
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with a private or shared office.
Flexible
Variety of different types of workspace 1.87Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.64Desk / Room booking systems 1.47Informal work areas / break-out zones 1.41General tidiness 1.36People walking past your workstation 1.36General Decor 1.28Atriums and Communal Areas 1.22Dividers (between desks / areas) 1.22WiFi network connectivity in the office 1.16Meeting rooms (small) 1.15Restaurant / canteen 1.14Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.14Toilets / W.C. 1.13Internal signage 1.09
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
Probability ratios – Features (bottom 15). See page 17.
Allocated open plan
Art & Photography n.s.Mail & post-room services 0.97Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 0.96Accessibility of colleagues 0.96Health and safety provisions 0.96Telephone equipment 0.95Guest / visitor network access 0.94Shower facilities 0.94Computing equipment, mobile (laptop, tablet, etc) 0.91Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 0.90WiFi network connectivity in the office 0.90Archive storage 0.90IT Service / Help desk 0.88Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) 0.83Hospitality services 0.81
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those with a private or shared office.
Flexible
Health and safety provisions 0.94Chair 0.92Mail & post-room services 0.92Personal storage 0.92Guest / visitor network access 0.91Natural light 0.89Remote access to work files or network 0.87Printing / copying / scanning equipment 0.84Wired in-office network connectivity 0.84Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) 0.71Computing equipment, fixed (desktop) 0.70Desk 0.67Archive storage 0.66Telephone equipment 0.63Ability to personalise my workstation 0.63
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
Private enclosed space
Allocated open space
Non-allocated open spaceSatisfied with variety
Non-allocated open spaceOthers
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
Private%or% shared%enclosed%office Cubicle%or%designated%desk%in%open%plan
Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choicePerceived support for activities by work setting. See p 18.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
48%
68%
43% 43%
52%
37%
45%
27%
71%
58% 57%
51%
39%
48%
37%41%
31%
47%44%
40% 42%
79%82%
72%
86% 88%
75%
88%
72%
91% 91%86%
76%
69%
81%
60%
83%
67%
76%
83%
64%
75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Individual%focused%work,%desk%based
Planned%m
eetings
Telephone%conversations
Inform
al,%unHplanned%meetings
Collaborating%on%focused%work
Reading
Relaxing%/%taking%a%break
Thinking%/%creative%thinking
Individual%routine%tasks
Inform
al%social%interaction
Learning%from%others
Audio%conferences
Business%confidential%discussions
Hosting%visitors,%clients%or%customers
Spreading%out%paper%or%materials
Collaborating%on%creative%work
Private%conversations
Larger%group%meetings%or%audiences
Individual%focused%work%away%from%your%
desk
Video%conferences
Using%technical%/%specialist%equipment%or%
materials
Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choicePerceived support for activities by work setting. See p 18.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
87%
30%
35%
40%37%
90%
74%
84%
78%
85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The design of my workspace is important to me
It enables me to work productively
It creates an enjoyable environment to work in
It contributes to a sense of community at work
It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to
Private%or% shared%enclosed%office Cubicle%or%designated%desk%in%open%plan%area
Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choiceDesign impact by work setting. See page 18.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
87%
30%
35%
40%37%
90%
74%
84%
78%
85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The design of my workspace is important to me
It enables me to work productively
It creates an enjoyable environment to work in
It contributes to a sense of community at work
It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to
Flexible% with%low%choice Flexible% with%high%choiceDesign impact by work setting. See page 18.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
A non-work specific home location (such as a dining table)A dedicated work room or office
A dedicated work area (but not a separate room)
Other
When working from home, what type of work setting do you use most often?
Number of respondents %
A non-work specific home location (such as a dining table) 12,604 43
A dedicated work room or office 10,751 37
A dedicated work area (but not a separate room) 5,367 19
Other 387 1
TOTAL 29,109 26 (of total)
Distribution of respondents by home work setting
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of work setting
Observations
• Clear differences in the features demand of respondents in different settings. Respondents with designated workstation in open plan require "territorial features" while variety of settings is what singles out flexible workers
• Impact of work setting on importance of indoor environment quality features (more likely to be important to those with designated setting in open plan, while flexible workers pay just as much or less importance compared to private office workers)
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Number of activities selected as important – all respondents. See page 20.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
38% 24% 22%16% of respondents
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
25% 0 - 5
45% 6 to 10
19% 11 - 15
11% 16 - 21
Number of activities selected as important – differences by age. See page 21.
19% 0 - 5
41% 6 to 10
24% 11 - 15
16% 16 - 21
15% 0 - 5
38% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
22% 16 - 21
14% 0 - 5
35% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
26% 16 - 21
Activity profileUnder 25
Activity profile25 - 34
Activity profile35 - 44
Activity profile45 - 54
25% 15%
19% 14%
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
25% 0 - 5
45% 6 to 10
19% 11 - 15
11% 16 - 21
Number of activities selected as important – differences by age. See page 21.
19% 0 - 5
41% 6 to 10
24% 11 - 15
16% 16 - 21
15% 0 - 5
38% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
22% 16 - 21
14% 0 - 5
35% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
26% 16 - 21
Activity profileUnder 25
Activity profile25 - 34
Activity profile35 - 44
Activity profile45 - 54
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
25% 0 - 5
45% 6 to 10
19% 11 - 15
11% 16 - 21
Number of activities selected as important – differences by age. See page 21.
19% 0 - 5
41% 6 to 10
24% 11 - 15
16% 16 - 21
15% 0 - 5
38% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
22% 16 - 21
14% 0 - 5
35% 6 to 10
25% 11 - 15
26% 16 - 21
Activity profileUnder 25
Activity profile25 - 34
Activity profile35 - 44
Activity profile45 - 54
11% 22%
16% 26%
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Probability ratios – Features (top 15). See page 22.
6 – 10 activities 11 – 15 activities 16 – 21 activities
Variety of different types of workspace 1.98 4.80 24.06Meeting rooms (large) 2.65 6.87 21.25Meeting rooms (small) 3.25 9.02 20.38Accessibility of colleagues 2.05 4.76 19.41Guest / visitor network access 1.91 4.01 17.12Office lighting 1.92 4.48 16.47Printing / copying / scanning equipment 2.24 5.40 16.02Informal work areas / break-out zones 2.14 4.97 15.85Audio-Visual equipment 1.82 3.94 15.57Desk / Room booking systems 2.35 5.21 15.38Noise levels 2.06 4.58 14.69Air quality 1.86 3.96 14.13Remote access to work files or network 2.27 4.87 13.56Internal signage 1.69 3.53 13.53Wired in-office network connectivity 2.20 4.73 13.52
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those selecting 0-5 activities as important in their work.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Probability ratios – Features (16 - 30). See page 22.
6 – 10 activities 11 – 15 activities 16 – 21 activities
Natural light 2.18 4.84 13.21General Décor 1.83 3.81 13.07Telephone equipment 2.21 4.87 12.75Art & Photography 1.70 3.40 12.67Health and safety provisions 1.68 3.49 12.57Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 2.38 5.08 12.43Atriums and Communal Areas 1.84 3.95 12.04General tidiness 1.88 3.97 11.89Reception areas 1.72 3.61 11.73Archive storage 1.57 2.84 11.54Shared storage 1.52 2.96 11.44People walking past your workstation 1.63 3.13 11.23Security 1.68 3.44 11.11Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 1.66 3.31 10.94Mail & post-room services 1.68 3.21 10.76
NB. The figures indicate the probability of selecting an activity as important compared to the “base group” – those selecting 0-5 activities as important in their work.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23.
Collaborating on focused work
Collaborating on creative work
Informal unplanned meetings
Informal social interaction Learning from others
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Collaborating on focused work Collaborating on creative work Informal unplanned meetings Informal social interaction Learning from others
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.6 Informal work areas
breakout zones 1.5 Accessibility of colleagues 1.8
Wired in-office network connectivity 1.2 Guest visitor network
access 1.3 Informal work areas breakout zones 1.4 Accessibility of colleagues 1.4 Health and safety
provisions 1.5
Remote access to work files or network 1.2 Air quality 1.3 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Natural light 1.4 Air quality 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.2 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Remote access to work files or network 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Office lighting 1.4
Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Audio Visual equipment 1.2 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3 Shower facilities 1.4 General cleanliness 1.4
Meeting rooms small 1.2 Art Photography 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Security 1.3
Natural light 1.2 Meeting rooms small 1.2 Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.2 General Decor 1.3 Access eg lifts stairways
ramps etc 1.3
Space between work settings 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.2 Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Atriums and Communal
Areas 1.3 Telephone equipment 1.3
General cleanliness 1.2 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.2 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.2 Plants Greenery 1.3 General tidiness 1.3
Shared storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2 Atriums and Communal Areas 1.1 WiFi network connectivity
in the office 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23. 4 x 3 x 2 x
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Collaborating on focused work Collaborating on creative work Informal unplanned meetings Informal social interaction Learning from others
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.6 Informal work areas
breakout zones 1.5 Accessibility of colleagues 1.8
Wired in-office network connectivity 1.2 Guest visitor network
access 1.3 Informal work areas breakout zones 1.4 Accessibility of colleagues 1.4 Health and safety
provisions 1.5
Remote access to work files or network 1.2 Air quality 1.3 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Natural light 1.4 Air quality 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.2 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Remote access to work files or network 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Office lighting 1.4
Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Audio Visual equipment 1.2 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3 Shower facilities 1.4 General cleanliness 1.4
Meeting rooms small 1.2 Art Photography 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Security 1.3
Natural light 1.2 Meeting rooms small 1.2 Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.2 General Decor 1.3 Access eg lifts stairways
ramps etc 1.3
Space between work settings 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.2 Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Atriums and Communal
Areas 1.3 Telephone equipment 1.3
General cleanliness 1.2 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.2 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.2 Plants Greenery 1.3 General tidiness 1.3
Shared storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2 Atriums and Communal Areas 1.1 WiFi network connectivity
in the office 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23. 4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Collaborating on focused work Collaborating on creative work Informal unplanned meetings Informal social interaction Learning from others
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.6 Informal work areas
breakout zones 1.5 Accessibility of colleagues 1.8
Wired in-office network connectivity 1.2 Guest visitor network
access 1.3 Informal work areas breakout zones 1.4 Accessibility of colleagues 1.4 Health and safety
provisions 1.5
Remote access to work files or network 1.2 Air quality 1.3 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Natural light 1.4 Air quality 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.2 Quiet rooms for working
alone or in pairs 1.3 Remote access to work files or network 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Office lighting 1.4
Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Audio Visual equipment 1.2 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3 Shower facilities 1.4 General cleanliness 1.4
Meeting rooms small 1.2 Art Photography 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Security 1.3
Natural light 1.2 Meeting rooms small 1.2 Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.2 General Decor 1.3 Access eg lifts stairways
ramps etc 1.3
Space between work settings 1.2 Meeting rooms large 1.2 Desk Room booking systems 1.2 Atriums and Communal
Areas 1.3 Telephone equipment 1.3
General cleanliness 1.2 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.2 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.2 Plants Greenery 1.3 General tidiness 1.3
Shared storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2 Atriums and Communal Areas 1.1 WiFi network connectivity
in the office 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23. 4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Importance Mentions Feature Importance overall % Satisfaction overall %
1 4 Accessibility of colleagues 54.7 68.1
2 3 Meeting rooms small 78.9 50.2
3 3 Informal work areas breakout zones 55.9 36.0
4 3 Variety of different types of workspace 35.1 27.2
5 3 Wired in-office network connectivity 69.7 68.1
6 2 Natural light 77.3 57.1
7 2 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 63.1 25.8
8 2 Atriums and Communal Areas 53.1 42.7
9 2 Remote access to work files or network 63.0 59.2
10 2 Air quality 69.6 34.0
Factor analysis of features – Collaboration / interaction. See page 23. 4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24.
Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or
customers Planned meetings
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24.
Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or customers Planned meetings
Meeting rooms large 2.7 Audio Visual equipment 3.0 Guest visitor network access 2.4 Meeting rooms small 2.8
Meeting rooms small 1.7 Guest visitor network access 1.6 Hospitality services 1.9 Meeting rooms large 2.3
General tidiness 1.4 Hospitality services 1.5 Reception areas 1.7 Desk Room booking systems 1.8
Desk Room booking systems 1.4 Remote access to work files or network 1.5 Meeting rooms large 1.6 Desk 1.5
Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.4 Archive storage 1.6 Remote access to work files or network 1.4
Reception areas 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Mail post room services 1.5 Chair 1.4
General cleanliness 1.3 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4
Office lighting 1.3 Meeting rooms large 1.4 Shared storage 1.4 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.3 Reception areas 1.4 General Decor 1.3 Computing equipment mobile laptop tablet etc 1.3
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Internal signage 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24.
Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or customers Planned meetings
Meeting rooms large 2.7 Audio Visual equipment 3.0 Guest visitor network access 2.4 Meeting rooms small 2.8
Meeting rooms small 1.7 Guest visitor network access 1.6 Hospitality services 1.9 Meeting rooms large 2.3
General tidiness 1.4 Hospitality services 1.5 Reception areas 1.7 Desk Room booking systems 1.8
Desk Room booking systems 1.4 Remote access to work files or network 1.5 Meeting rooms large 1.6 Desk 1.5
Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.4 Archive storage 1.6 Remote access to work files or network 1.4
Reception areas 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Mail post room services 1.5 Chair 1.4
General cleanliness 1.3 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4
Office lighting 1.3 Meeting rooms large 1.4 Shared storage 1.4 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.3 Reception areas 1.4 General Decor 1.3 Computing equipment mobile laptop tablet etc 1.3
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Internal signage 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24.
Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Hosting visitors clients or customers Planned meetings
Meeting rooms large 2.7 Audio Visual equipment 3.0 Guest visitor network access 2.4 Meeting rooms small 2.8
Meeting rooms small 1.7 Guest visitor network access 1.6 Hospitality services 1.9 Meeting rooms large 2.3
General tidiness 1.4 Hospitality services 1.5 Reception areas 1.7 Desk Room booking systems 1.8
Desk Room booking systems 1.4 Remote access to work files or network 1.5 Meeting rooms large 1.6 Desk 1.5
Variety of different types of workspace 1.4 Variety of different types of
workspace 1.4 Archive storage 1.6 Remote access to work files or network 1.4
Reception areas 1.3 Art Photography 1.4 Mail post room services 1.5 Chair 1.4
General cleanliness 1.3 Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 1.4 Meeting rooms small 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4
Office lighting 1.3 Meeting rooms large 1.4 Shared storage 1.4 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.4
Informal work areas breakout zones 1.3 Reception areas 1.4 General Decor 1.3 Computing equipment mobile laptop tablet etc 1.3
Accessibility of colleagues 1.3 Internal signage 1.3 Variety of different types of workspace 1.3 Wired in-office network connectivity 1.3
4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Importance Mentions Feature Importance overall % Satisfaction overall %
1 4 Meeting rooms large 71.4 51.3
2 3 Meeting rooms small 78.9 50.2
3 2 Desk Room booking systems 55.6 43.4
4 1 Audio Visual equipment 37.4 42.7
5 2 Guest visitor network access 35.0 37.2
6 3 Reception areas 52.2 61.2
7 2 Remote access to work files or network 63.0 59.2
8 1 Printing copying scanning equipment 80.9 66.7
9 1 Hospitality services 38.4 46.6
10 1 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 63.1 25.8
Factor analysis of features – Formal meetings. See page 24. 4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 24.
Individual focused work desk based Individual routine tasks Reading Thinking creative thinking
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 24.
Individual focused work desk based Individual routine tasks Reading Thinking creative thinking
Desk 3.0 Desk 1.6 Noise levels 1.4 Noise levels 1.5
Chair 2.1 Shared storage 1.5 Chair 1.3 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3
Noise levels 1.5 General tidiness 1.5 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3 Wired inoffice network connectivity 1.3
Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4 Chair 1.5 People walking past your workstation 1.2 Remote access to work files or
network 1.2
Computing equipment fixed desktop 1.4 Office lighting 1.5 Desk 1.2 People walking past your workstation 1.2
Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.4 Health and safety provisions 1.5 Personal storage 1.2 Natural light 1.2
Personal storage 1.4 Internal signage 1.5 Dividers between desks areas 1.2 Air quality 1.2
Dividers between desks areas 1.4 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.5 Archive storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2
People walking past your workstation 1.4 Archive storage 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.2 Space between work settings 1.2
Natural light 1.4 Mail postroom services 1.5 Air quality 1.2 Variety of different types of workspace 1.2
4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 25.
Individual focused work desk based Individual routine tasks Reading Thinking creative thinking
Desk 3.0 Desk 1.6 Noise levels 1.4 Noise levels 1.5
Chair 2.1 Shared storage 1.5 Chair 1.3 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3
Noise levels 1.5 General tidiness 1.5 Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs 1.3 Wired inoffice network connectivity 1.3
Printing copying scanning equipment 1.4 Chair 1.5 People walking past your workstation 1.2 Remote access to work files or
network 1.2
Computing equipment fixed desktop 1.4 Office lighting 1.5 Desk 1.2 People walking past your workstation 1.2
Tea coffee and other refreshment facilities 1.4 Health and safety provisions 1.5 Personal storage 1.2 Natural light 1.2
Personal storage 1.4 Internal signage 1.5 Dividers between desks areas 1.2 Air quality 1.2
Dividers between desks areas 1.4 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.5 Archive storage 1.2 Accessibility of colleagues 1.2
People walking past your workstation 1.4 Archive storage 1.5 Printing copying scanning equipment 1.2 Space between work settings 1.2
Natural light 1.4 Mail postroom services 1.5 Air quality 1.2 Variety of different types of workspace 1.2
4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Importance Mentions Feature Importance overall % Satisfaction overall %
1 3 Desk 93.3 72.6
2 3 Chair 92.1 67.1
3 3 Noise levels 76.5 29.7
4 3 People walking past your workstation 55.9 31.2
5 2 Printing copying scanning equipment 80.9 66.7
6 1 Space between work settings 54.9 28.1
7 2 Natural light 77.3 57.1
8 1 Computing equipment fixed desktop 68.7 63.3
9 1 Office lighting 66.4 54.5
10 1 Temperature control 80.7 26.9
Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 25. 4 x 3 x 2 x
NB. Weighted response frequency.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Observations
• The more complex the activity profile, the bigger the demand on the workplace
• Therefore, variety is key
• Most important features to support collaboration does not include large meeting rooms!
• Small meeting rooms for collaboration, large meeting rooms for formal meetings
• Desk, chair and noise levels most important for individual activities
Questions
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
The impact of activities undertaken
Factor analysis of features – Individual work. See page 25.
26
The impact code
On the final two pages we offer the overall performance figures across the entire database against all core elements of the Leesman Index survey, reporting on agreement, importance and satisfaction figures. We have then shown where Gender, Age or Length of Service impact on these.
% im
port
ance
ove
rall
% im
port
ance
ove
rall
% im
port
ance
ove
rall
% s
atis
fact
ion
over
all
% s
atis
fact
ion
over
all
% s
atis
fact
ion
over
all
% s
atis
fact
ion
Lees
man
+%
sat
isfa
ctio
n Le
esm
an+
% s
atis
fact
ion
Lees
man
+
Ove
rall
/ Lee
sman
+ di
ffer
ence
Ove
rall
/ Lee
sman
+ di
ffer
ence
Ove
rall
/ Lee
sman
+ di
ffer
ence
Gen
der
Gen
der
Gen
der
Age
Age
Age
Tim
e w
ith
orga
nisa
tion
Tim
e w
ith
orga
nisa
tion
Tim
e w
ith
orga
nisa
tion
Q1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation’s office?
The design of my workspace is important to meIt contributes to a sense of community at work It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to
12 345
–––––
–––––
– –84.858.0 56.754.8 48.7
90.1 73.6 78.9 70.1 81.7
5.3 15.6 22.2 15.3 33.0
Q2. What impact do you think the design of your workspace has on the following elements of your organisation?
Corporate Image (for visitors, clients, potential recruits etc.) Workplace CultureEnvironmental Sustainability
12 3
–––
54.554.141.1
86.876.669.5
32.322.528.4
Q3 Which activities do you feel are important in your work and how well is each supported?
Individual focused work, desk based Planned meetingsTelephone conversations Informal, un-planned meetingsCollaborating on focused workReadingRelaxing / taking a breakThinking / creative thinking Individual routine tasks Informal social interactionLearning from othersAudio conferencesBusiness confidential discussionsHosting visitors, clients or customersSpreading out paper or materialsCollaborating on creative workPrivate conversations Larger group meetings or audiencesIndividual focused work away from your deskVideo conferencesUsing technical / specialist equipment or materials
12 34567 89101112 1314151617 18192021
93.578.077.966.559.556.255.653.050.950.550.047.746.144.243.743.142.039.035.431.526.7
77.177.663.963.172.658.462.250.986.973.577.365.151.661.458.964.346.261.164.053.464.6
85.480.576.183.586.974.183.467.891.888.585.380.466.979.863.078.660.573.981.475.174.8
8.32.9
12.220.414.315.721.216.94.9
15.08.0
15.315.318.44.1
14.314.312.817.421.710.2
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
–––
–––––––––––––––––––––
–––
––
–
–
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Leesman+
Soft launched in January• Recognition programme for
outstanding performance.• Lmi 70 and above
Leesman, Henry Wood House, 2 Riding House Street, London W1W 7FA
Delivering insights that drive better strategies
ISS WorldThis is to certify that
Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg, Denmark
was awarded Leesman+ certification for
on 4 December 2014
Tim Oldman | Founder & CEO
Achieving an Lmi of 81.7
ISS Group HQ, CopenhagenLmi 81.7, December 2014.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
01
Sainsbury’s Bank HQ3 Lochside Avenue, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DJ
02
� Edinburgh, a vibrant capital city, is a major financial, administrative, legal and commercial centre. Strong property fundamentals ensure that the city remains a key destination for UK and international investment.
� HQ office building strategically located on Edinburgh Park, Scotland’s premier business park.
� 84,373 sq ft of Grade A office accommodation is split over 4 levels, allowing further subdivision in the future, with the benefit of 303 dedicated car parking spaces (1:278 sq ft).
� Let on FRI terms to the excellent covenant of Sainsbury’s Bank plc, D&B rating of 5A 1, until 29 September 2029, subject to a tenant break option on 29 September 2024.
� The current passing rent of £1,274,037.71 per annum equates to a rate of £15.25 per sq ft for the office accommodation and £7.63 per sq ft on the reception area.
� Heritable interest (Scottish equivalent of English Freehold).
� Offers in excess of £19,000,000 (Nineteen Million Pounds) are sought for our client’s Heritable interest, subject to contract and exclusive of VAT.
� A purchase at this level would provide a net initial yield of 6.31%, after purchaser’s costs of 6.25%, and a capital rate of £225 per sq ft.
Investment Summary
Prime Business Park Investment Opportunity
Leesman+
Soft launched in January• Recognition programme for
outstanding performance.• Lmi 70 and above
19
Sainsbury’s Bank HQ3 Lochside Avenue, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9DJ
20
Further Information
EPCThe property has an EPC rating of D.
A copy of the Energy Performance Certificate is available on the dataroom.
Capital AllowancesAll remaining Capital Allowances will be retained by the vendor.
Value Added TaxVAT will be applicable to the sale of the property, which we anticipate will be undertaken by way of Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).
DataroomA dataroom has been created which contains all of the relevant building and sale information. Access will be provided to genuinely interested parties.
HQ office building located on Edinburgh Park, Scotland’s Premier Business Park
Sainsbury’s BankLmi 71.5, January 2015.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Leesman+
Soft launched in January• Recognition programme for
outstanding performance.• Lmi 70 and above
Little Brown Book Group, LondonLmi 72.6, February 2015.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Leesman+
Raises questions• What is different about
these buildings• Is it possible to probe
further• Raises more questions
about CRE strategy
• Leesman launching facility in January 2016 for clients and consultants to upload CRE data for future analysis and research.
NCC, OsloLmi 71.5, January 2015.
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
Leesman+
Real EstateInsert below your key CRE data below.
Net% internal%area
Sq ft
Sq m
Number% of%floors
Number% of%enclosed% meeting% rooms
Number% of%seats% %to%enclosed%meeting% rooms
?
?
?
OperationsInsert below your key HR and FM data below.
Number% of%desk% positions%available%
Number% of%visitors%to%the%location
Number% of%employees% allocated%to%location%
Number% of%parking% spaces% available%to%staff
?
?
?
?
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
10 –– Issue 15
Darwin is often mis-quoted as saying it is the strongest who survive. He actually proposed
that it is the “adaptable” who survive – those who change and develop in line with changes in their surroundings. If the same is true in corporate life, is it not time to offer greater help for employees to adapt to workplace changes
around them by looking at the world from their angle? So I’ve ploughed through large amounts of change, change management and workplace change literature. And at the risk of oversimplification, I would say most focus on employee resistance and on the various “tricks,” such as communication and
engagement, to overcome this resistance.
But I think it’s a bit too harsh to say that people blindly resist change – I would suggest instead that they merely “react.”And I think you will agree that to “react” is an entirely reasonable response when stuff is going on around you.
Wouldn’t it in fact be rather alarming if nobody challenged a move from a private office to open plan, or giving up their designated desk in return for having the option to choose between numerous free workstations every morning? Wouldn’t that signal a complete lack of
engagement and motivation? So everyone should
be allowed – or actually encouraged – to challenge new things in their organisations. So I suggest we stop talking about employee resistance as the worst challenge a manager can face, and instead embrace the change critique that people offer.It has also frustrated me while digging through endless academic papers on transformational change, how employees are too often lazily massed as a homogenous group called “the employees” and how this group is then seen as an object in which change needs
to be implemented. It is almost as if the employees were one and the same person who thinks and reacts in the same way. Yet we all know this to be so far from reality. The reality is, not everyone will react in the
same way. When change is delivered, some people get excited while others put their foot down and challenge what is happening. We simply are not all the same.
At the Workplace Trends event in London a few weeks ago, one of the speakers was asked how the employees had reacted to the workplace
change that they had delivered. Her answer “Some people will always complain” was met with comfortable laughter from the audience, as to confirm “we know what
you mean, we’ve all dealt with those people.”But instead of just laughing and accepting that some employees will “always” complain and using that as justification to ignore the problem, why not make an effort to actually understand why some people
always complain. One popular model used to describe the emotional process that employees go through when confronted with change is the so-called Change Curve. It was originally developed by Kübler-Ross to explain how people deal with catastrophic loss, and it suggests that people go through the stages
of denial, anger, bargaining
and depression before reaching the final stage of acceptance. Although it serves the purpose of communicating the emotional process people might go through in change, there’s again a risk that it is used to oversimplify the experience of several individuals into one collective
experience. And certainly don’t expect employees to progress through the curve at the same pace. In my research I’ve heard two individuals from the same organisation, who were subject to the same communication and engagement, give completely contradicting answers about certain events related to their office relocation. I’ve also seen how location decisions, distribution of office rooms and allocation of parking spaces have become big issues and have caused unnecessary distractions for project teams because of unanswered questions, wrong interpretations and a
M@KXRHR��[��/DFFHD�1NSGD�
The LPSRUWDQFH�RI�SHUFHLYHG�IDLUQHVV�LQ�WKH�FKDQJH�SURFHVV
!DENQD�INHMHMF�+DDRL@M�� I spent my time at the Aalto University in 'DKRHMJH�QDRD@QBGHMF�how people experience relocations and VNQJOK@BD�BG@MFD �I’ve had a chance to dig deep into case organisations and assess how employees, as individuals, make sense of the process @QNTMC�SGDL �
‘Wouldn’t it in fact be rather alarming if nobody challenged a move from a private NƧBD�SN�NODM�OK@M��NQ�FHUHMF�TO�SGDHQ�designated desk in return for having the option to choose between numerous free VNQJRS@SHNMR�DUDQX�LNQMHMF�ŗ
7KH�.»EOHU�5RVV�FKDQJH�FXUYH
Source: Adapted from Kübler-Ross (1982) & Procheska and Diclemente (1992)
ShockSuprise or shock at the event
DenialDisbelief; looking for evidence that it isn’t true
FustrationRecognition that things are different;sometimes angry
DepressionLow mood; lacking energy
ExperimentInitial engagement with the new situation
DecisionLearning how to work in the new situation; feeling more positive
IntegrationChanges integrated;a renewed individual
Pre contemplationContemplation
PreperationAction
Maintenance
Mor
ale
and
com
pete
nce
Time
+
Leesman Review –– 5
Online workplace forums
were alight recently with
discussion about an article in
the UK’s Guardian Online
newspaper that asked, “Is
this the end of the office as
we know it?” Apparently, 46%
of UK workers find their local
coffee shop a more productive
environment than their office.
However, the footnote
to the article revealed the
journalistic equivalent of
bubble-wrap: “Content on
this page is paid for and
produced to a brief agreed
with O2 Business.”
It is yet another article
rallying knowledge workers to
break from the shackles of their
ineffective offices, authored by
the mobile communications
giants who stand to gain most
from swathes of mobile tech
users becoming reliant on
(addicted to) super-fast
mobile networks.
The paid-for content was
based on “a survey of 10,000
workers” and was conducted
by Telefonica’s O2. Few
details are available about
the questions that were asked
but the resultant findings
“revealed that more than
half of respondents thought
technological breakthroughs
will transform the way we
work over the next five to
10 years.” No s**t Sherlock!
This was hot on the heels
of another study conducted by
Virgin Media, one of the UK’s
largest providers of domestic
broadband connections,
which concluded “The UK
economy could receive a £1.7
billion boost if employees are
given the option to carry out
their work from where they
see fit.” They of course mean
from home – using an internet
connection provided by them!
They appear to have
drawn this figure from a
Confederation of British
Industry report that states
that £17 billion is lost every
year through absenteeism.
It is unclear whether the
“£1.7 billion boost” is calculated
from 10% of those absent
employees suddenly feeling
well enough to contribute from
their sickbeds because they
have blisteringly fast fibre optic
internet connectivity, or whether
it is their office-based healthy
co-workers picking up the
slack by adding hours when
they get home or using their
mobile tech while en route.
O2 and Virgin Media are
not alone - Microsoft has a
Chief Envisioning Officer, BT
a futurologist and Vodafone a
workplace strategy consultancy
service - and much of what
they propose is beneficial.
The ‘evidence’ would be
so much more compelling if
it focused on the core issue.
If indeed employees are
retreating to cafés en masse,
it surely says more about the
quality of the workplace they
are escaping from, than it does
of a technology or caffeine
fuelled yearning for greater
concentration.
Rather than pitching mobile
technologies and coffee at us,
perhaps the communications
giants could focus their PR
based “research” activities
on raising the debate about
the design quality of office
environments: just 54% of the
70,000 employees Leesman
has asked, report that the
design of their space enables
them to work productively!
There is little doubt that
for some employees struggling
with low enclosure offices, the
opportunity to escape for the
sanctuary of home is a lifeline.
Across Leesman’s 70,000
research respondents, 33%
indicate that they work from
home at least occasionally
and 17% work from home
more than one day per
week, but 44% of those
homeworkers say they have
no dedicated space or room
to work from when at home.
Clearly improvements in
technological connectivity
allow these respondents to
contribute and be productive,
but to what extent can they
really be ‘connected’? Is it
possible to create a socially
cohesive ‘unit’ working
towards a common goal if
the team members are not
in the same physical space?
There may be a small
number of roles and
personality types for whom
isolation is beneficial, but our
data tells us that whilst for
some, concentrated activities
may be better supported by
the solitude of home, almost
all collaborative activities,
including ‘learning from
others’, are hampered by it.
For HR professionals the
management of remote teams
produces bigger issues. With
a growing awareness of the
impact of social isolation on
clinical depression, we have
to question whether it is really
possible to have any sense of
employees’ physical or mental
wellness when they are not in
the office. Our data leaves us in
no doubt that the most
productive workplaces are
those that have the best
“social infrastructures,” not
the best patronage of local
coffee shops. Looks like that
makes property an HR issue.
Journalists’ doomsday predictions of ‘the death of the office’ abound. But can HR professionals cut
through the lazy reporting and help shape a better understanding of the impact of place on people?
Stephen Haynes and Colin Bullen
Opposing opinion pieces discussing
whether wellness campaigns can
deliver real value to organisations and
individuals. Has wellness failed? Pages 2/3
Jonny Gifford and Peter Cheese
The human imprint in workplace
design – the need to develop
collaboration between professional
disciplines. Page 9
Peggie Rothe
Leesman’s newest recruit, fresh from her
PhD workplace research, examines the risk
of not seeing change from an employee’s
perspective. Page 10
Issue 15 | 2014 Q3
leesmanindex.com
Data reported 30.09.2014
Leesman Lmi
59.8Lmi 58.0 pre-occupancy
Lmi 67.6 post-occupancy
This issue: Human Resource Special. Looking at wellness programs, the change process and a case study of Nordea.
69,504 respondents
2.3 million sq m surveyed
579 properties
63% av response rate
11 min av response time
Our performance
54.3%
The design of my workplace
enables me to work productively
48.7%
My office is a place I’m proud
to bring visitors to
Economic indicators
Top 5 Activities, Features and
Facilities by importance, with
satisfaction / support rankings.
Activities:
Individual focused work,
desk based 78%
Planned meetings 76%
Telephone conversations 66%
Informal, unplanned meetings 63%
Collaborating on focused work 73%
Features:
Desk 72%
Chair 68%
Computing equipment 66%
Telephone equipment 68%
Printing / copying /
scanning equipment 63%
Facilities:
Tea, coffee and other
refreshment facilities 65%
General cleanliness 58%
Washroom facilities / showers 46%
Restaurant / canteen 48%
General tidiness 55%
See more on pages 6-7...
Data rise and fall
25
20
000s
15
10
5
0 RoWRoEScanUK
UK 35,890
Scandinavia 18,840
Rest of Europe 9,341
Rest of world 4,644
Data distribution
Pre 72%
Post 17%
Day 2 11%
10.0
– 1
9.9
20.0
– 2
9.9
30
.0 –
39
.94
0.0
– 4
9.9
50
.0 –
59
.96
0.0
– 6
9.9
70.0
– 7
9.9
80
.0 –
89
.99
0.0
– 1
00
.0
0.0
– 9
.9
Distribution of properties surveyed
with 50 respondents or more by
Lmi banding.
Lmi Location spectrum
90
120
150
60
30
0
123
102
18
22
24
A briefing on global workplace strategy, management, satisfaction & effectiveness
Delivering insights that drive better strategies
‘If indeed employees are retreating to cafés
en masse, it surely says more about the quality
of the workplace they are escaping from,
than it does of a technology or caffeine fuelled
yearning for greater concentration. ’
Top 5 coffee producers
1. Brazil
2. Vietnam
3. Columbia
4. Indonesia
5. Ethiopia
The Bean Belt
All the world’s coffee grows here:
Top 5 coffee consumers
1. United States
2. Germany
3. Italy
4. Japan
5. France
Britain’s coffee shop market by share
In 2013 the total UK coffee shop market was estimated
at 16,501 outlets with a £6.2 billion total turnover.
The branded coffee chain segment recorded £2.6 billion
turnover across 5,531 outlets. After 15 years of
considerable growth, the coffee shop sector continues
to be one of the most successful in the UK economy.
UK’s top 3 branded chain outlet share in 2013
Costa Coffee (1,670 outlets)
Starbucks Coffee Company (790)
Caffè Nero (560)
Sources: Allegra Strategies UK, British Coffee Association, Mintel Coffee UK
Amount of caffeine per cup:
125 million people
depend on coffee
for their livelihoods
None of the above countries
are locacted within the
‘Bean Belt’
Did you know?
Coffee roasting is generally done at 500°F
Coffee grows in more than 50 countries
It takes 42 coffee beans to make an espresso
35% of coffee drinkers take their coffee black
Coffee takes 14 hrs to digest
The average coffee cup size is 9 oz
The average coffee drinker consumes approx
3 cups of coffee per day
Decafcoffee3 mg
Hotchocolate
19 mg
Shot ofespresso
27 mg
Can of cola
40 mg
Black tea
45 mg
Red Bull
80 mg
Brewed coffee95 mg
Coffee is the most popular drink worldwide with around two billion cups
consumed every day. In the UK, we drink approximately 70 million cups of
coffee per day.
Coffee is the second most traded commodity
after crude oil. Coffee is also the second most
popular drink in the world after water.
2b 70m
2nd
Others11%
Costa Coffee46.8%Starbucks
27%
Caffè Nero13.8%
AMT Coffee1.4%
Market segment by brand
Property becomes an HR issue
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
+
23
United Kingdom No. of respondents 44,649
Percentage of database:42.3%Locations surveyed 455
Pre Post 57.9 69.4
Europe No. of respondents 54,202
Percentage of database:51.3%Locations surveyed 353
Pre Post 61.3 66.1
Rest of the World No. of respondents 6,746
Percentage of database:6.4%Locations surveyed 85
Pre Post 61.4 71.8
62.5
67.3
64.6
62.1
70.8
59.863.3
63.2
60.8
68.6
60.3
71.7
70.0
62.4
100,000+%data%report%5th November% 2015
+For more information on Leesman, the LeesmanIndex, our research or our publications, please feel free to browse our website at leesmanindex.com, contact us at [email protected], or drop in and see us at our offices in London, Stockholm or New York.
Contact