Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2004
Workplace3
efficient
engagingeffective⎮ ⎮
2006
2012
Source: IPD Global Estate Measurement Code for Occupiers, © and database right, Investment Property Databank Limited 2013
10
4 9 14 19£100
£200
£300
£400
£500
£600
£700
£800
£900
£1,000
Space (sqm per FTE)
Tote
l Pro
perty
Cos
ts (£
per
sq
m)
Benchmark: GOOD THING / BAD THING?More space and better
environment
More space but poorer
environment
Less space but better environment
Less space and poorer environment
13
4 9 14 19£100
£200
£300
£400
£500
£600
£700
£800
£900
£1,000
Space (sqm per FTE)
Tote
l Pro
perty
Cos
ts (£
per
sq
m)
Choose your direction wisely
measuring workplace functionality and effectiveness
office | education | healthcare
A New Global Standard?
Design Impact• How much do you agree with the following
statements about the design of your organization'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?
• Design Impact questions provide direct insight to the role of workplace in organisational performance.
• Questions related to Pride and Community can be compared to Employee Engagement results.
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation's office? (Ranked by overall positivity with statement)
Client X Leesman Benchmark (average of Pre & Post Projects)
Top 15 Locations(average of high performing)
Client X % in agreement
Leesman Benchmark % in
agreementDifference % in agreement Difference
The design of my workspace is important to me 82.8% 85.0% -2.2% 91.3% -8.4%
It enables me to work productively 46.9% 54.5% -7.7% 75.6% -28.8%
It contributes to a sense of community at work 50.0% 58.4% -8.4% 78.8% -28.8%
It creates an enjoyable environment to work in 53.1% 57.0% -3.9% 83.2% -30.0%
It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to 32.8% 49.2% -16.4% 88.0% -55.2%
Not all agile workplaces have been created equally
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
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
87%
30%35%
40%37%
90%
74%
84%78%
85%
Private or shared enclosed office Cubicle or designated desk in open plan areaFlexible with low choice Flexible with high choiceDesign impact by work setting.
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 22540
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Total Property Cost £/sqm
Lees
man
Lmi
Net Efficien
cy
Utilisation
Cost(per sqm or per
FTE)
Employee effectiveness
Development of new “Net Efficiency” benchmark – WORK IN PROGRESS
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Wor
kpla
ce “
Lmi”
% in agreement (agree slightly, agree, agree strongly) that the design of the workplace enables them to work productively
Leesman Lmi plotted against “sense of productivity”.
Other Leesman clients
Major Occupier Portfolio Avg
New Out of Town
Old London
60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.060
65
70
75
80
85
Wor
kpla
ce “
Lmi”
% in agreement (agree slightly, agree, agree strongly) that the design of the workplace enables them to work productively
Missing factor X. Why?
Off the boil..?
Smokin’
~20% more people report being productive in a top 15 Lmi building (Leesman) vs. an average one.
1 Cited in Browning B. (2012) The Economics of Biophilia: Why designing with nature in mind makes sense.
Design Impact1
The activities undertaken in the office & how well they are
supportedActivities2
Employee sense of productivity, pride, enjoyment
etc
FeaturesThe physical “things” people
need that allow those activities to happen
3
Facilities The facilities services that keep the workplace operating 4
10%Client bespoke
questions
Leesman LmiThe ability of a workplace to
support employees in their work
=Lmi+ =
External Mobility
Four self selected personas that describe mobility between work locations from “always there” to “rarely
there”5
InternalMobility
Four self selected personas that describe mobility within the workplace from “based at a single location”
to “multiple locations” 6
Leesman+
ISS Group HQ, CopenhagenLmi 81.7, December 2014.
Which facilities do you consider to be an important part of an effective office? (Ranked by number who selected as important)
Client Y Leesman Benchmark (average of Pre & Post Projects)
Top 15 Locations(average of high performing)
Importance ranking
% ranked as Important % satisfaction
Leesman Benchmark
ranking
Leesman Benchmark % ranked as
Important
Leesman Benchmark
% feel satisfied
with facility
Difference% feel
satisfied with facility
Difference
Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities 1 91% 43.3% 1 91% 65.1% -21.8% 88.4% -45.1%
General cleanliness 2 82% 38.9% 2 84% 59.3% -20.5% 83.9% -45.1%
Washroom facilities / showers 3 82% 20.4% 3 82% 46.4% -26.1% 68.2% -47.8%
General tidiness 4 77% 39.2% 5 70% 56.1% -16.9% 78.8% -39.6%
Security 5 71% 70.2% 7 57% 67.6% 2.7% 81.7% -11.5%
Reception areas 6 70% 39.1% 9 54% 62.2% -23.1% 89.4% -50.3%
Restaurant / canteen 7 67% 4.5% 4 80% 49.4% -44.9% 73.5% -68.9%
Atriums and communal areas 8 61% 20.0% 8 55% 44.4% -24.4% 80.6% -60.6%
Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc) 9 58% 73.7% 10 54% 66.0% 7.7% 78.2% -4.5%
Health and safety provisions 10 55% 63.9% 12 49% 60.9% 3.0% 78.3% -14.4%
Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) 11 55% 11.1% 6 66% 48.7% -37.6% 53.1% -42.0%
Mail & post-room services 12 48% 71.9% 11 53% 67.8% 4.1% 84.8% -12.9%
Hospitality services 13 44% 6.9% 15 36% 41.3% -34.4% 81.3% -74.4%
Internal signage 14 41% 37.0% 14 41% 41.9% -4.8% 63.2% -26.2%
Leisure facilities onsite or nearby 15 36% 16.7% 13 49% 38.7% -22.0% 53.7% -37.0%
Profile of Workplace Facilities for Importance and Satisfaction
Client X building A - workplace activities ranked by importance“Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”
Individual focused work, desk based 1 [1] Planned meetings 2 [2]
Informal, un-planned meetings 3 [4] Telephone conversations 4 [3]
Collaborating on focused work 5 [9] Relaxing / taking a break 6 [8]
Reading 7 [5] Individual routine tasks 8 [10]
Private conversations 9 [21] Informal social interaction 10 [11]
Hosting visitors, clients or customers 11 [12] Spreading out paper or materials 12 [7]
Thinking / creative thinking 13 [14] Business confidential discussions 14 [6]
Learning from others 15 [13] Larger group meetings or audiences 16 [15]
Individual focused work away from your desk 17 [16] Audio conferences 18 [17]
Collaborating on creative work 19 [18] Using technical / specialist equipment or materials 20
[19] Video conferences 21 [20]
0 250 500 750 1000Not supported at all Very under-supported Under-supported Supported Well supportedVery well supported
Indi
vidua
l foc
used
wor
k, d
esk
base
d
Plann
ed m
eetin
gs
Telep
hone
con
vers
ation
s
Info
rmal,
un-
plan
ned
mee
tings
Colla
bora
ting
on fo
cuse
d wo
rk
Relax
ing
/ tak
ing
a br
eak
Read
ing
Indi
vidua
l rou
tine
task
s
Priva
te c
onve
rsat
ions
Spre
adin
g ou
t pap
er o
r mat
erial
s
Busin
ess c
onfid
entia
l disc
ussio
ns
Host
ing
visito
rs, c
lient
s or c
usto
mer
s
Indi
vidua
l foc
used
wor
k aw
ay fr
om y
our..
.
Info
rmal
socia
l inte
ract
ion
Larg
er g
roup
mee
tings
or a
udien
ces
Thin
king
/ cre
ative
thin
king
Lear
ning
from
oth
ers
Audi
o co
nfer
ence
s
Colla
bora
ting
on c
reat
ive w
ork
Usin
g te
chni
cal /
spec
ialist
equ
ipm
ent o
r...
Vide
o co
nfer
ence
s
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
site A site B Average of Top 10 High Performing Locations
Profile of Workplace Activities for Satisfaction between Client X Site A and Site BPercentage of respondents satisfied activity is supported.
Desk
Chai
r
Com
putin
g eq
uipm
ent
Tem
pera
ture
con
trol
Prin
ting
/ cop
ying
/ sc
anni
ng e
quip
...
Pers
onal
sto
rage
Tele
phon
e eq
uipm
ent
Natu
ral l
ight
Mee
ting
room
s (s
mal
l)
Mee
ting
room
s (la
rge)
Nois
e le
vels
In-o
ffice
net
work
con
nect
ivity
Office
ligh
ting
Gene
ral d
ecor
Air q
ualit
y
Info
rmal
wor
k ar
eas
/ bre
ak-o
ut z
o...
Quie
t roo
ms f
or w
orki
ng a
lone
or i
n...
Divi
ders
(bet
ween
des
ks /
area
s)
Rem
ote
acce
ss to
wor
k fil
es o
r net
...
Peop
le w
alki
ng p
ast y
our d
esk
Shar
ed s
tora
ge
Spac
e be
twee
n wo
rk-s
ettin
gs
Abili
ty to
per
sona
lise
my
work
stat
ion
Desk
/ ro
om b
ooki
ng s
yste
ms
Gree
nery
Acce
ssib
ility
of c
olle
ague
s
Arch
ive s
tora
ge
Art o
r pho
togr
aphy
Varie
ty o
f diff
eren
t typ
es o
f wor
ks...
Gues
t / v
isito
r net
work
acc
ess
Audi
o-Vi
sual
equ
ipm
ent
0
20
40
60
80
100
Features ranked by importance % of respondents satisfied with feature pre project % of respondents satisfied with feature post project
Profile of Workplace Features for Satisfaction between Client X Site Pre and post occupancy evaluationPercentage of respondents satisfied activity is supported.
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 75.2
7 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Dublin 256 75.1
8 Construction & Civil Engineering Oslo 104 74.49 Health, Wellness, Hospitals & Healthcare Withheld 242 74.4
10 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 72.2NB. Top 15 locations with greater that 100 respondents by Leesman Lmi
Top 15 performing location by Leesman Lmi.
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 46.7
10 Automotive Withheld 360 45.711 Retail London 784 45.512 Information Tech, Software & Internet
Services London 273 45.5
13 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services Portsmouth 386 44.7
14 Information Tech, Software & Internet Services UK 161 44.3
15 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.
The impact on effectiveness
Location Leesman Lmi MSCI £ / sq m NIA £ / Lmi
1 Milton Keynes 71.7 87.64 1.22
2 London KP 64.3 165.31 2.57
3 Reading 63.9 168.57 2.64
4 Croydon 62.6 115.14 1.84
5 Bristol 62.6 117.31 1.87
6 Cardiff 62 180.55 2.91
7 London EAH 61.6 108.32 1.76
8 Manchester 61.5 98.27 1.60
9 London WGO 57.3 110.44 1.93
10 Glasgow BH 54.6 96.49 1.77
11 Birmingham 53.2 110.59 2.08
12 Swindon 53 287.66 5.43
13 London ES 49.3 211.48 4.29
NB. Top 15 locations with greater that 50 to JNJ Pilot study listed by respondents by Leesman Lmi
Top 15 performing OPCO locations by Leesman Lmi.
The impact on effectiveness
