1f:~~.END

QAT EFlL~ E 0

8— 78

I

I f’~ ~~~ I~III2~ ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~C

I I ~• ~ L8

• UkII ‘ ~ IIIlli~ ~H

MI : I~flI RLSOLU I I(I N ii

- - ~~~~~~~ ______

_ LEVEL~LOZAR*

~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 7D D C

(i ESTABLISHING HABITABILITY ~ACTORS FOR THE DESIGN

~~F OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS .JUL 12 1978-

—

~1 ~~~~~~~ [i[1L~~16 u UL~it:’ JUN 1978

U.S. Army onst h LaboratoryChampaign, IL 61820

Purpose

The purpose of this presentation is to document an overall meth-odology which incorporates experimental design considerations from thesocial sciences , specifically environmental psychology , and transfersthat technology to planning and design application to improve habita—bility in office environments. The importance of this application isthat the habitability factors which are involved in most office en-vironments do not have a firm basis in basic research , and are not welldocumented in terms of guidance information for designers . This paper

>2 will present a discussion of a means of derivation for habitability~~~~~_

factors in a particular context of office environments. However, thesame methodology will be shown to be applicable to other types of en—

C..) vironinents, with the process being beneficial to the generation of newbasic research, application of new concepts , and continuing accumula—

Li_I tion of new knowledge in the area of habitability factors for any en-.._.Jvironment.

BackgroundCuu~~ There are four important considerations which point to the need

for a methodology to develop habitability factors for environmentalresearch, design, or application. These four considerations are:

1. For a period of time now there has been no sophisticated , welldocumented basic research from environmental psychology in the determ-ination of habitability factors which affect individuals , either intheir office work stations or any other kinds of living environments.Of course, there have been human factor studies , productivity studies ,and general evaluations of management climate.(l) However,

IB~~ION j~A~~ME~~~~~~8 0 6 12 OQ~

_________________________________ 4

~~~~~~~ for public r.I.o~~ I

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ - _____________________________

LOZAR*

consideration for the physical environment as it affects individual’sattitudes, preferences , and feelings has not developed to the point

• where it can provide design decision guidance, or technology transfer• of basic research.

2. This basic technology transfer, information, lacking in theresearch literature , is precisely the kind designers need to apply tophysical environments. In view of the lack of this kind of informa-tion, most schools of design operate on an intuitive basis, predomi-nated by the master studio student relationship . Any guidance re-ceived is based on intuition and experience and is not verified em-pirically through research data or documented in a way in which itcan be used over and over again.

3. It follows logically from the first two considerations thatthere is a need to improve the overall research information qualityused to design physical environments, in this case offices . However ,

• because of the limitations of the first two items , it is impossibleto document research knowledge which can accumulate and thereby pro-vide a basis for using each design of a new office as a field test togain new habitability information. Consequently , there is generallyno improvement in the quality or depth of research information avail-able to address the problem of habitability factors as they apply tospecific environments.

4. The information from environmental psychology that presentlyexists in this context, is then mostly academic and does not seriouslyattempt to make effective technology transfer since it does not pro-vide a means of determining either the return—on— investment payoffsor guidance in the allocation of funds based upon the determination ofhabitability factors.

Therefore , although there are certain factors such as privacy ,professional image, room occupancy , etc . which appear in the generalliterature on habitability , (2) there is little consideration of ameans of transferring this information to application in the fieldand , thereby , providing a means of technology transfer and return—on—investment. Furthermore, the existing research literature suffersfrom serious methodological deficits in terms of its application tofield situations.

Previous Research and Its Limitations

General and intuitive descriptions of office work environmentsexist in the commercial literature. However, there are also some re-cent studies from environmental psychology which suggest that theoffice environment is a viable area for empirical research and in—vestigation . These studies can be divided into two general groups :those which provide methodologically tight organization of- variables

_ _

0 6 12 004Li -~~~~~~

-

~~~~

• LOZAR*

and assume some scientific generalizability , and those which takebehavioral and psychological information and translate it into pro-gramming recommendations for design planning. Examples of the formerare comparisons of open and closed plan offices by Brooks and Kaplan(3) and Nemecek and Grandjean. (4) Results of these investigationssuggest major important habitability variables in office settings.Examples of studies which translate user need research into design andplanning recommendations are those described by Deasey, (5) Moleski,(6) and Davis. (7) However, in order to explore some of the morerelevant habitability relationships suggested in the earlier discus—sion , we need to identify specific major environmental issues whichmay have an impact upon employee performance or productivity . Sug-gestions for the purposes of examining previous research are profes-sional image, privacy , room occupancy , office partition type , win-dows and views, and color.

Professional image is both an organizational and a personalvariable. If an office work station looks professional, well kept, andneat, some qualitative things about the pride of the employee aresuggested . This form of a sense of identity is discussed by Steele(8) as a reflection of what the organization “is.” In another dis—

• cussion of identity , pride, and self—image , Braum (9) suggests thatself—image and individual worth may be related to the physical en—vironment and productivity . In general, the image of the environmentand its relationship to the person’s self—image is not a well—researched area.

Privacy in offices is a very topical issue as many large organiza—tions shift to open—landscaped planning arrangements. Altman (10)suggests that privacy is selective control of access to one ’s self fromthe group . In offices, changes in privacy can occur easily since byvarying the partition types, one has a great deal of control overaccess to other persons. Johnson (4) suggests that control over pri-vacy behavior is a means of reducing some forms of stress and also away of governing a path towards one’s work objectives. Implicationsfor office environments are obvious , but the specific question is howis one to manipulate all of the interacting variables in the physicaland social environment to achieve this? This is, in particular , wherethe programming e.f forts of the designer supplement the statistics ofthe psychologist.

Room occupancy and partition use in office design is related toconcepts of population density and personal territory , both perhapsrelated to privacy . Density , with research into its effect upon be-havior, has been discussed by Calhoun, (12) Sommer , (13) andRappoport. (14) It is worth noting that this subject is still underconsiderable controversy . Some researchers would suggest an optimum

LOZAR*

density in an office space is a concept relating to the nature of thework which generates some level of noise which is transmitted oversome physical distance determinant of density. Partition type, that

• is, the mode of division of office work spaces , is a little researchedarea. In a study by Dinnat and Gibbs , (15) comparisons were made be-tween open—plan, bank—screen, and landscaped partition types. Also,human factors studies by Probst (16) in the development of an officeproduct line have provided much useful data about behavior—workstation interaction and have been used in designing work station com-ponents, such as partitions . Layout of partition type is an ambiguousarea of research. In studies comparing office arrangements, Wells (17)

• noted small office arrangements were more conducive to small groupidentity and open plans were more conducive to interpersonal contact.Brookes and Kaplan (18) noted that landscaped offices did not functionas well as conventional offices , but were aesthetically more pleasing.However, Zeitlin (19) notes that landscaped offices tend to reduce

• privacy . Partition type then is a determinant of the mode of layout,and in turn can influence attitudes toward habitability factors in thewhole office.

Windows and views and color are important to all workers. How im—• portant is, however, an unclear area in the research literature. In a

• summary of research dealing with psychological reaction to environ—ments with and without windows done by National Bureau of Standards ,(20) the results were inconclusive. That is, there seemed to be gen—eral disagreement on the importance of windows to employee performancethroughout most studies. Color in offices and work areas is anotherimportant issue in office planning , but still subject to much intul—tive decision making. In most office studies, the question of colorpreference is asked of the employees, but documentation of effects ofcolor is hard to find. A study by Goodfellow and Smith (21) even sug-gests that color of rooms has no effect upon psychomotor task ac-complishment at all.

In summary then, much of the research in this realm of habitabil-ity factors and office design is somewhat formative, inconclusive , andexploratory . That is, the relationships between physical parametersand social effects are not clearly defined so that the empirical in-spection of relationships can occur for planning purposes . Further-more , there are serious limitations relating to the generalizabilityof information which hinder the application of previous studies to thedevelopment of well—based habitability factors . These limitations areas follows:

1. Most of the academic studies are one—shot affairs and do notuse a standardized questionnaire over and over again in various fieldtests. Therefore, although the questionnaire may be pretested for

• -‘

• LOZAR* -

local population , its generalizability is limited . Consequently , thecomparison between different field environments in most of the previousliterature cannot occur , and generalizability is limited or not pos-sible at all. (22)

2. There is a differentiation of experimental methods in all ofthe research liter.~ture on habitability parameters . There are almostno studies which are replications ; and , generally , the literature doesnot contain enough information on methodology to allow a valid repli-cation. Therefore , generalizability , without experimental bias dueto different field methods , is impossible . Since the methodologiesand generally the questionnaire instruments are not comparable , therehas been no effort to compare data across field studies to verify ageneral basis for habitability parameters. (23)

3. Therefore, the environmental psychology research literaturepresently in existence appears fragmented , has many different factors

• involved , and does not provide a consistent basis for overall general—izability to habitability factors . This situation inhibits the de-velopment of guidance and the achievement of technology transfer .

4. Finally , there is little emphasis on the allocation of fundsin a rational, acceptable way to determine returns on design invest-ments related to habitability factors . Since this data does not exist,

- . most of the dollar allocations in any new building or renovation of anoffice tend to still be done intuitively , and consequently there is nopossibility of doing an estimate of a return—on—investment .

In summary then, there is the lack of a consistent experimentalmethod which will provide a long—term basis for deriving generalizablehabitability factors. In view of these deficits in the researchliterature , a process has been developed and documented herein torectify this situation. This process enables both the designer and

• the researcher to work together to build a cumulative process of de-riving habitability factors from various office settings , each oneregarded as an individual field study contributing to both theorybuilding and technology transfer .

• Field Studies to Create a Data Base

The purpose of conducting field studies is to provide an experi-mental basis for determining habitability factors . In administrativefacilities such as offices , data from users can be used to establishfactors of habitability , such as privacy , space, view, noise, orimage. Evaluation of these environmental factors can then be appliedto interior design solutions in order to improve the habitability forall office occupants. The methodology of this type of field researchIs to: 1) analyze results from a before— and after—renovation study ,and 2) generate design criteria for layout and workstations of offices.

~~~

— -~~~- - ~~—~~~~~~~‘- -— ~~~~~ —- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOZAR*

The approach to determining habitability factors for office occu-pants consists of the design of a before—after experiment in whichcertain parameters of the environment (such as floor space , distanceto next person, and degree of enclosure of the work—station) can bemeasured. For example, an existing office building of 130 personsparticipated over a one year period in an evaluation. The initialcomprehensive survey of occupant attitudes and behaviors indicatedcertain environmental conditions related to the habitability for the

• office occupants . New office layouts and workstation arrangementswere designed and installed . The workstation components were designedin such a way that a within—groups experimental design for some para-meters (high vs. low partitions , floor area variations , etc.) waspossible.

After an occupancy period of six months in the new office environ-ment, the users were again surveyed . Data analysis consisted of be-fore—after comparisons, satisfaction with privacy , space , image, noise,etc . and with individual aspects of the workstation such as floor area,storage, work surface, etc. Factors of habitability (such as work-station image, privacy , and furniture satisfaction) were further ana-lyzed with regressions to indicate shifts in user ’s cognitive aware-ness of the environment in the before and aft-er office conditions .

The data from this office study is then incorporated into a database using Statistical Package for Social Sciences programs (SPSS)(24). Other office contexts can then be added to this original study

• in the data base to provide a basis for comparison . These variouscontexts have included the Army Research Office, the ConstructionEngineering Research Laboratory , the National Aviation FacilitiesExperimental Center, Foreign Science and Technology Building, etc. fora total of over 700 individual subjects .

To provide for a basis for generalizability in a habitabilitydata base for offices , there must be three common elements across alloffice research contexts . They are as follows:

1. Most of the office environments in the before condition aresimilar in character , arrangement , floor area, lighting levels , etc.Since most of these office environments are from Government technicalinstallations, the overall organizational character of the sponsoringorganization is somewhat the same also.

2. A second commonality amongst the environments studied is thedemographics of the subjects . Most individuals in these offices wereof three groups: (1) managers, (2) research/technical—oriented in-vestigators, or (3) support personnel such as secretaries , etc.

LOZAR*

3. The same commonality across grcups exists in terms of theirtasks; that is, subjects are either involved in research generationand investigation , support of that research endeavor, or management ofthat research or technical endeavor.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is some degree ofcomparability across the office environments in the data base. Thedemographics , the tasks, the environments, and the settings are simi-lar. The experimental prerequisites are sufficient for the creationof a comparative data base. In summary , then, the information fromthe before and after evaluations of the field studies are structured ainto an SPSS data base, and the data base used to investigate habita-bility factors, such as privacy , within the office context beingevaluated , and comparatively over other office contexts . A simplematrix representation of the data base is shown in Fig. 1.

Methodology for Empirical Habitability Factors

By careful statistical manipulation of the data base, the ex-perimenter can isolate the individual effects of separate , independentvariables operating simultaneously on a single dependent variable. Bydoing this comparatively across a number of individual settings , theresearcher can develop a basis for theory building to establishhabitability factors in offices. A major goal of theory building isto make use of the deductive types of arguments which can go beyondcommon sense but still can be empirically verified . Therefore , it isnecessary for the experimenter to be cognizant of the limitations ofhis experimental design and still be perceptive of inferences whichmay be made by comparing individual designs . In most experimé~taldesigns referenced in this paper , Campbell and Stanley ’s definition ofthe pre—test/post—tes t control group design is most applicable . (25)In some instances, in determining the effect of complex researchvariables on one another, a Solomon four—group design is used . Inconditions where it was impossible to do a post—test , a pre—test orstatic group comparison was used .

In order to generate habitability information in the form of non—generalizable guidance, standard statistical analyses are used , whichwould result in a statement of guidance as shown in Fig. 2. Thiscould be used for the particular office design, but would not havegeneralizable validity until comparatively checked with other officeevaluation results in the data base. To make the information moregeneralizable, the researcher determines a habitability factor anddevelops statistical comparisons as shown in Fig. 3.

By constructing a data base of this nature dealing with over 1200(before and after conditions) individual subjects at five differentoffice sites with similar demographics , environments, tasks, and

_ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- -- ---~~ -

_

-~~

LOZAR*

“—. ~-i ~~~~~~~~

.cZO QI c~ 0 ~

~xa

~~~OD a) ~~.oe —I .~~4 ~a - ~-~~ Qz U-~ 0 c 1 ,.4

2 w0 2~ °a: -

— ‘4-4 I.~~~ 4> - 0 w ’4-i ,--4

Ct I~4 c ~C w o nU.J ax) 0 bO 0~-4 .C.,-4

LL0 ~~0 4-’ 0 W 0 0.J 0 C .C C a )

~U) .-4~~~~~ a) u)

CL ~~ ~~~ ~,. ~— ~~ 4-’ N

.

~

~~~~~~~~~~~W ~~

~~~ (I) I—za:

—~t L - — — - — — - - - —

V k.‘~ ~~~<~~~~~~z Z Z Q~

_ _ _ _ _

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U

- -~

— - ~~~—.- — - —5

’ in 4-i C Ia C

I!!.! ~~ !. ~~~! ~~~~ i~2i~~~

i lL ~: ::: ~ !~~~~~~~~~ u:::: 111!!c,’o~or-

~~~~~~~ i. C1

.0

4, .. 5- - — . 0 4.4 ~C C , 0u1~ ‘- . . . -, -. • ft IA 44 2-)

— . _ _ I.i ni~~ ______ _. .._!I • . °

- o C — ~~~~~~~~ ‘2 - = __________ — U ~~. ~~~C

c~;E -~~

~-

~~ . 4— — — 0 4.4 - 440) 4-i — 4-ia C -.- — U _ C ~ - 0 0..~

C’ T r S ~~ (0 C0 03 -4. ~~ ~~ C~)(0 O3 + ~~~~~~~o - - — . I I 0 - = is

~~ ~~~l’” . 4E U- .1- t---- C C I V

15 fl = 1- s_i . 03 0 1) Ci

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ ~; ~~~~~~~~~~~ ,~~V 4 - U C~ - C ’ S S J C J S 0.1V .— ‘U S. .0 4.1

4 ))_ — - -‘ - — — in - V 5, a)

• 4 2 ‘ O C i s Ca

-~~~~~ 5 ~~ifl I0~~~~~~ ~~‘ Ca .

- - I V *2 S. -— C’4 — 4 003 ($1 ti 14_ C~~~~~.~ 0 $.~

~~~~~

_ _ _ _

~ ~~

+ +~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

U 5 ~~~~~~~~~~ = -~~ ~~

‘ ~~~~

C~~~~ C.S’ 0 . 0 ~1, a)

C’ -— —. >t 5 - 4 ( 0 .-

i - s . . 5 5 — ~~~~~~~~~ ~~- b0.

• •. - 7., S. t S. U ‘4- .. 4.1 C‘ C C’ ~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~

— •, I 4-1 i n . 4 Ci

c , — o’ ~. ~~ O C’l(D C~~ — ~~ 0 1- ‘S V V .

°‘~~~~‘~~~

‘ . .~~ ~~

0 0 0 0 -~~ ‘0 0) 1)5-.—, >, .0- C to ,C V

- (4_i — ‘0 4-i ~~ .4 0 - C U 4.1 (44

5 , 4) — ~~~~~~ _____ — ____

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ 0

C _ S. C ——010 0 •.. ‘._ it- -—~

i_ _ C = ....4 ... ~ .-. 5_l W

C C 0 04 - - E a ~.- a I..5~5 % > . .~?, ~~~~~~~~

-- C U (C - — C 0. U V (0— ~~Ie

in 0 S. 42 OS *2 0 U .0 .. ~ .. e >~ 0 ‘ 4• •..- S.•s- o A 0S . * - 2 o~~~~~C 5 . a C 14-4 ~~

~~ V ‘4- U 0. ___________ ~~~~ ,.~ ~3 ~~

‘~ (5 0. in 1~ C- Q 4_ I

. c~~0 w0

4) 44 C ‘[i~~ ’I ‘4- ’ ~~~~ ~ \ 4.4 V Ca ‘S V . in , — _ .,—4 4_I ~~ 0 4) - ~s ‘-~~ ‘ 1 — S. C’ 4) 0) 7. 15 5 in— ‘5 Ci 5 i—I 0

.4 ~ ‘~~~~~~ ~=~~ -:i .[~ - ‘0 . ~~C C

~ - E ~~ ~~ S4) ‘5 4.4 - - . 000 4-i O 741

— .r a ‘0 S. -.- - in t in > .. in S.o... 3 • r— ’ - . .44 0 44 4.- C C 0 0 C 0 0 C 15 15

~~~~•

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j~~r~~~

-

~~~!. r~E~~~~

s_ ia 0 C 1 .- i : 2 S 5t~~ ~~~~~~~~ a) 0 0

. 0 4 4 .- E iS 0 . = *2 0 0 (5 5. ~~~~ E .C.3 .4 4) 0 C 15 44 U V C) 1 5 ‘4. ~ ~4) a)U

~~- 5~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ — S ~~~ — .--~~ ~~~~~~~ 0 C

l0 ~~-0 ~~~~~~~~~~ -~~ - _C~~ 0 U 0 ~~~S C 0’ ~-.- -C ~-4 ~_i4) 0 U C i n ) C in 44 1 a)

~~~ ~. ~~~ I -~~ ~~ ~~

0 4 4 O U O . =-; >0 0 . 0 _ C01_ i 4.1 — a .4 0 *2 in -— 0 ‘ 5 0 0 4 -~~ OJ ..C 0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~i~~1 ~ 0 E~~~0 _ 0 4 - 4 ..~5(_.~~ V L S . 4

0. 4.4 3 r C C 0 C O U00 C ‘.— I - .,~ r—) 44 o O i ~ • C ..— ‘a o a -c t UU CS •l fl - i. I / 4.4 ft -— S. 4) 0 (5 (5 (5 4-) 3 U .- (34) 4) 44 in I’ i’1,’~’ - - .1’ 44 0 S. 1- C_ i 0 0 ‘0 0C It 4) 44 - •‘~ ri---. _J I t I 0 ‘5 0.4) -i- - 0 S. 15 .— U__ 41 S. ••• 0 ~~~~ I ‘~ ‘ — I C C . — 15 4--’ 0 0 CO C C

• — is -.— 3 -- • -, I a in a -.- -.4 14 C.) 4) ti C C 0E ~ 15 ~ .-‘ I r - .. , 0 4.1 CO I— - -‘ 44 5- V C 4- in -—I. C V i_i ,~~~ 1— - - - ..~ 0. 5- -— 15 , . -U. ‘S in 0 i 4) 5)O 4.4 0 .5 -— (C -— 7. 4.) ~J C --- S. -—1.) ~ ‘5 1- 4.) 1. V 0 U 0 -— C ‘I.. — .4 > C V t.zaU C 0. ~i4-2 C 4_i C C *2 0 4) -— — i-’ C0 0 iS 10 - - 0 ‘I 5) 0 (7142 .- 0 0 42 4_ i 0

0 - 0 0 . 4 O . - C , C * 2 0 C i-I S _ C O O45 i~1 0 4) 4) (5 ‘I - =0 - II . 0 4-- 5” 31 *2 0 -s Ci.1 ri r 41 S~ E I C ) 0 - O i n C ” .04.1 4-’ ‘5 in -i ~~ ‘ (1 1. S. C itS V 4.) 4/ -— 4) C ._ .4 -— 4)C 5 i5 •

~ J r1~~~~ _ I11 01) 4_i 4) in 0. 4-4 -— i-i54 C ‘4- L d5 .C ’O C J C C O ’ C ) S . 1 4 4 4 41.15.3 5- C EJ . 1 4 )1 1 4) 4_ i _ C O C 2 C t i C O . 5

‘5 00 .41 0 > 4- •~-~ .0 * 2 . - 1 4 _ C > C 4 .~~ S. -.- . - 0 4 41.. 5- 5. 4.1 0 - 1 - _i4 3 . 5 . 4 4 ) 5 5 / C a 0 . U 0 04_i -— U •.- ‘5 q— -’ 4- os. e 5 5 C 2 O 0 . .5 4 _ i C

I_i — S. 3- . i ~~ a c ~. 0 ~ 5- .15- • 1.) 4 1 — .- ,I - 4-i 3 V C 5 ’.V I. ‘~ 0 5’ 1 •1 _~~‘—. • I I C’ 55 C 5. 44 (1 4-’ C 0 4—

‘50 3 0 0 — -—----- -. I C C C 5 5 0 C ~~ -~~~-.-- 0 4-4 >, 0~ “4~ U C ‘ ‘ - ‘ 1-.) — 4, 0 0 i- o 0- 4) is i_i

C C C 5- ‘ - .4.-_ .— - CS V in C S LaS 0 4 ) 0 4 0 0 ii .1 .4 — i-’ .42 C C) — (5 1) 55z I_i . .. - - . I - 0...0 0..5 1.. -i. *25 4-’ 4) U 2) [ - _i - - C] 4-La V La £ Ci 0. in *2 C

C O 0 t J 440 . - : . - . r ~~ 1 5_ C . ‘1- 0 0 1 5 4 4• 0 U ‘I- -— 0.0 1 - - r- r- -.4 0 .4 csa 7., .— 54 —4 C4-i’4.* 0 44 4- in — -, I - i -‘ U 4) C IC C — U 14 0 ‘5-4 4 5 - . — . - - I - C~C S 4 2 i n - (5 (3 4 ( 5 ClU .4 0 V - 4 - 0 , 4) 0 • 3- 24 CC • _ fl4 .~ I 1 ’ s o 3 0 1 1 0.Cl . 0 5 - 1 4 - ’ s3C - . 0 ~~0 1’ ‘ i I I1 L ” C .a 0 0 U S . i n a 1 5 Ui~( 5 10 0 - r I - I I I LI ~5- IJ 14 S. 4.4 C) C 0 Cl 4- 5..3*.. 4.1 0- C i i -, I I . 5La ’ i _ 4 - i . 4C 571 2 4 ( 3 5- 0 4 4,~~0 4 - g o C ‘ ) Li . 2 ’ 5 Q _ i ‘4. 42 (3 4. C ) O

4) C C i’I .4 ..~J . . -, ~~ 4 2 . 4 4 0 4 4 7 1 C O O 4 . S ~r.Ii .4 4) ... -.— ‘0 ~‘ a — 1 . 4 _ i1 4 4 ( 5 O 0 4 . 0 4 1 24 ‘ 5 ( 55)5 * 5- 5- .— - - - I 4) S . i 2 2 4 5 ) ._.4- 5 ’ O — 5 4 S

- t45 Ci- .) - ‘‘ . — . - U ._ i i,’ - t ’ ” — 5 . C O V C/‘4 15 .3 (44 4_i t_i ~~ - . 0 *,~ . I C O f l * ,~~ V . 40(14 4.4 441.2 _ S . - •, I . - . 4 5 - 5 . 5 - i _ irI s. = S . C 7 1 4 - I

.44 4)0 5 - ’ ‘ Is iL .~ SI

~I- C 0’— .~ 4.: .4 0 ‘I 4 0 4-)A. ~~.. cg ct I_I U .U I ‘-_i ..__- .0 ~t IV -— U ~I s 4 to 5) I_i 45 ) ~

_ _ _ - . - -- -~~~~ . ..~~~~~

LOZAR*

,‘4 Ii4-i_ S I-a

. 4 4’ 1 0 .4) VS 0-~~ 14 54 4.) ‘4) 4) 41—I ‘0 C 0 i-S 415 -~ i-S 0) 4_I£ 0 5. • - • . a)

~~~ O I4. C E

,-I t~ 0 . D

-A ( C C ~~ -,-I i_I+

•~-I 0. U3~~~4C (0 0.1 0).4 ~~~~~4,J (0 *4.4S 4 ~~ 4 4 C E

‘~~~~~ VS .4) ifS 4) VS0 4 4 4.. . -~ VS 0 54)4 - i l 4.1 O~ i-~ -~ C~

4-. I I 4-i~~~ Q) Q)

‘(314) ~~~4-~~0 (~.5-I ~)+ 0 C 0 0 S ~~~-i

• is-I .~~~

.~I 4.I 0

4_I 4.1 •,-~~ 4 I 0.1-

-* ~~ Q W Q 4 _ I CJ~~~.4

.4 01 (~~ ..-4 a ) 4 J

~~~I ‘0 - -~ - 4~ . -. C~~~ 4~4 4 . _ I

4-i u 0 ) C U )

41

+ (I) 44~ I.i C~~L*-i

4, C ’~-4

~~~~~~~ 44 U)0 0 51-1 4_I

I. U) C C~~~~ 0) s—4C O U o c o

• 3 4.4 ~~ -~~ -~ 14 04 0 0) W Z S- - I I .5.4 ._I . 4_ I ~

.4 0 ) C~ C) •~~~a) 0. ~~,•4 CI) ~0

+ 0 C 0 . ~4-)

a ) U

4) 4) ‘0 .4) ~~~~~~II3 ’~~

4J~~~4) 4.1 0 4.1 4) 4) 0) r1 C- 10 i-I ‘0 4.4 ‘0 VI

.~~~~ S. ..

~44 .5~4 t1-4 .i-4 4 ) Q a )4_I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I C~~~ Q) 5l-4 Q S

I )1 4..1 0 ._I W 4-I(73 ,_I Il-I rJ ._I

-s 5 1.1 11-4 ._I Ca) U-i

4.4 0. i4 04 415 0 a )~~~’ 0 U - i 5

e 4*U U U U U

.1 C C i

~~ :‘ ~ ~U U 4 2 U C~~~ 4) 4 ) 4 _ i i_i .IC 14 4-4 ‘4 ~~~in i_i C~~~

~~~~

4 - —.-— .. - ---- - _ -_ ~__ ~_~~ .___ - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~~‘‘~~~ ‘4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

~~~~~~

LOZAR*

settings, the earlier criticisms of the lack of an empirical basis fordeveloping habitability factor research are negated . By using thedata base, it is possible to determine , recognizing some inherentmethodological biases, generalizability across various factors andgroups. An example of this process follows.

Establishing Habitability Factors

One basis for determining habitability factors is to start withthe evaluation of the validity of certain hypotheses about the inter-action of man, his attitudes , and the environment in the office . Thesehypotheses are generally built out of the research data which exists inthe literature. For instance, the hypothesis that there is a relation-ship between the distance from workstation to the circulation pathsand ratings of overall privacy in an office is documented in a numberof publications . Using the data base, these hypotheses can be testedfor single office studies and comparatively over other studies . Anexample of this type of analysis is presented in Fig. 2. Here, simplestatistical analysis is used to indicate trends . This is adequate fora single office context , but has little generalizability . By compar-ing results over different office studies , the researcher can feelmore confidence in his interpretation of data.

Taking as an example , a simple regression analysis to determinethe major components of satisfaction with furnishings , the results areseen in Fig. 3. These results are for five office environments andwould be generalizable to other office environments. The major fac—

- - 1 tors which contribute most to the variance of the dependent variableare shown underlined in this table . Although this is not a completeanalysis, it does give the reader an indication of how a designer anda researcher would collaborate using the data base to determine majorhabitability factors and taking that information to determine prior-ities for renovation scheduling or priorities for the allocation ofdollars to a renovation. In this way the app lication of the data baseto existing problems would accomplish a number of specific improve-ments over previous literature. Therefore , the researcher could usethe data base to create a number o regression analyses for comparisonacross different physical office conditions to determine the amount ofvariance accounted for , and the designer would use these equations asa guide to the allocation of funds to improve habitability in officeenvironments . This would enable the designer to make an evaluationfor an existing environment and that evaluation could be generalizableto a new building design .

In sununary then, a methodology is presented for establishingoverall habitability factors with some degree of generalizability .This is done by creating a standardized methodology which addresses thelimitations of a pre—tested questionnaire , the comparability of data,

- - -

- - - - - —~- L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - -__ -— ~~~~—. - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ .

-

LOZAR*

and the comparison of research environmental contexts. By using thedata from different contexts in a comparative data base, the research-er and the designer are able to collaborate in the establishment andthe application of information . Furthermore , each application of theinformation in a new context represents a step forward in another ex-perimental design as it is added to the existing data base. This newapplication can then be used to replicate previous studies , to vali-date previous information and hypotheses , or to develop new I~ II~~ - i.calor intuitive insights into other habitability factors .

The point of this then is that the designer no longer lacks basichabitability research information , but now has a step by step methodto improve the overall quality of his design decision making alongwith the researcher improving the overall quality of his basic re-search in real field contexts .

Developing Guidance for Technology Transfer

This method for determining habitability factors provides a basisfor developing guidance to apply research information from the database to new field situations . In simple terms, this is regarded astechnology transfer. By using this approach , that is, standardizingthe method across environments and comparing from a data base, one isable to develop three specific technology transfer impacts at dif—ferent levels of application. All of these contribute to the develop—ment, support , and app lication of habitability factors in office en—vironments, or may be used appropriately to other environments.These are:

1. Information developed from the application of the data basecan be translated into “design guides” which are similar to catalogsspecifying types of components to go in a new office environment. Thespecific difference between these and ordinary catalogs is that theelements of the design guide are selected on the basis of the infor-mation derived from an analysis of variables within the office database. As an example, one might select three different manufacturersof desk types as being acceptable to improving overall satisfaction inoffice environments based upon a comparative analysis of satisfactionwith different furniture types .

2. Information derived from the data base can be used for smallproblem field consulting . This is a case in which a client is in needof some level of decision making and does not req~.Jre a major researcheffort , his variables may be related to those already in the data base.By manipulating the data base, one can determine some level of predict—ability in order to suggest actions for implementation . An examplemay be a client who wishes to know the impact of energy conservationmeasures in a particular type of office environment . One can partition

— — —~~~~~~~~ - - - ‘5 -~~~~~~~~~~-La’5--- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

• LOZAR* -

the group of subjects in the data base with low lighting levels anddetermine the minimal lighting level which will conserve energy andyet provide adequate satisfaction for office occupants .

3. Finally , one of the benefits of the construction of a field—oriented methodological data base dealing in habitability factors isthat it provides the basis for project—to—project comparison , valida—tion, reliability testing , and generation of new hypotheses whichserve to build the basis for a theory of habitability in office en-vironments. This same methodology for field application and compar-ability can also be used for housing, hospitals , residences , etc. The .4

application of this procedure could be of great benefit to the entirefield of habitabiliLy research and provide a systematic approach todefining, verifying, and validating habitability factors where onepresently does not exist.

REFERENCES

(1) Proshansky, Ittleson , Rivlin (ed.), Environmental Psychology:(1st Edition) Man and His Physi3al Setting, Holt , Rinehart , andWinston, 1967.

(2) Proshansky , Ittleson, Rivlin (ed.), Environmental Psychology:(2nd Edition) Man and His Physical Setting, Holt , Rinehart , andWinston, 1976.

(3) Brookes M., Kaplan, A., The Office Environment : Space Planningand Affective Behavior , Human Factors 1972, 14, p 373—391.

(4) Nemecek, J., and Grandjean, E., Results of an Ergonomic Investi-gation of Large—space Offices , Human Factors 1973, 15, p 111—124 .

(5) Deasey , C. M., Design of Human Affairs, John Wiley and Sons,N.Y., 1974.

(6) Moleski, W., Behavioral Analysis and Environmental Programmingfor Offices , in Lang et. al (ED) Designing for Human Behavior,Dowden, Hutchinson . and Ross, 1974 p 302—314.

(7) Davis, G., Apply ing a Planned Design Process and Specific Researchto the Planning of Offices , in Carson (ED) Man—EnvironmentInteractions, Dowden , Hutchinson, Ross , 1974, Vol II, p 63—90.

(8) Steele, Fred , Architecture and Organizational Health , in Archeaand Eastman (ED), Proceedings of Second Annual EnvironmentalDesign Research Conf ., Haistead Press, 1970, p 252.

(9) Braum, “Identity Behavior and Architectural Form ,” unpublishedpaper , Dept. of Architecture , University of Illinois, 1964.

- 4 - - -5- — - - - __~~~~~~~~~ ____U_ --.-— --~~~~~-- — - - - - -—-- - -5 - - — —- -5-- -.---—--- -

—— ..— - -—---~~ ~~r~~~

- ---- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4r~~~~— _- -—- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - L : ’ .__

LOZAR* -

(10) Altman , I., The Environment and Social Behavior, Brooks/Cole,Monterey , Cal., 1975, p 52—58.

(11) Johnson, S., unpublished communication with author, June 1974.(12) Calhoun, J. B., Population Density and Social Pathology ,

Scientific American, 1962, p 139—145.

(13) Sommer , R., Studies in Personnel Space, Sociometry, 1959, 22,p 247—260.

(14) Rappoport , A., Toward a Redefinition of Density , Environmentand Behavior, Sage Publications , Vol 7, No. 2 June 1975, p 131.

(15) Dinnat, R. M., Gibbs, W., Cost—Effectiveness of Three DifferentInterior Open—Type Offices, Technical Report D—2 , U. S. ArmyConstruction Engineering Research Laboratory , 1973.

(16) Probst, R., The Office: A Facility Based on Change, HermanMiller Research Corp., 1968.

(17) Wells, B., The Psycho—social Influence of Building Environment :Sociometric Findings in Large and Small Office Spaces , inR. Gutman (Ed.) People and Buildings, Basic Books, N.Y.

4. (18) Brookes and Kaplan, Ibid .

(19) Zeitlin (This is not a report but part of a study referenced in.fr~ Brookes and Kaplan [1]).

(20) U. S. Department of Commerce , Windows and People: a LiteratureSurvey , NBS Building Science Series #70.

(21) Goodfellow, R., Smith, P., Effects of Environmental Color onTwo Psychomotor Tasks, Perceptual Motor Skills, 1973 , 37,p 296—298.

(22) See Proceeding~ of the Environmental Design Research AssociationConferences, 1969—1977 (various publishers).

(23) Lozar , C., “Measurement Techniques Toward a Measurement Tech-nology ,’1 in Carson, D., Methods and Measures, Man—EnvironmentInteractions——The State of Art in Environmental Design Research,Milwaukee, Wis., p 185, 1974.

(24 ) Nie, Hull , et. al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,McGraw—Hill Books, 1975.

(25) Campbell and Stanley , Experimental and Quasi-ExperimentalDesigns for Research, Rand—McNally , 1963.