HENN Workplace Analytics

  • Giovanni BettiEmail author
  • Saqib AzizEmail author
  • Gili Ron
Conference paper


In this paper we present an experimental methodology for the evaluation and comparison of indoor workplace qualities. We investigate how factors such as the overall available spatial connectivity and visual perception in conjunction with environmental variables such as natural daylight affect the face-to-face communication potential in office spaces. We visualize these findings through various interactive graphical maps. Subsequently we conclude our finding by offering a multi-category profiling of the probed spaces, highlighting potential spatial zones for the various modes of communication that we further explore in this paper.


Workplace environment Social Physics Social dynamics Digital crafting Workplace qualities Allen curve Connectivity Visibility Environmental qualities Daylight Factor Generative modelling Architecture Space syntax 


  1. 1.
    Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., Wargocki, P.: Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air J. 22(2), 119–131 (2012). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gensler Research Institute: Germany Workplace Survey (2019).
  3. 3.
    Pentland, A.: Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread - the Lessons from a New Science. Penguin, London (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pentland, A.: The new science of building great teams. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(4), 60–69 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boston Consulting Group: The edge: creating the world’s most sustainable and most connected office building by integrating smart technologies and collaborating with suppliers. Case Study, World Economic Forum, Geneva (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randall, T.: The Smartest building in the world: inside the connected future of architecture. Case Study, Bloomberg Businessweek (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, C., Bailey, C., Heumann, A., Davis, D.: Augmented space planning: using procedural generation to automate desk layouts. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 16(2), 164–177 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., et al.: A Future that Works: Automation, Employment, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen, T.J., Henn, G.: The Organization and Architecture of Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology. Routledge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loftus, G.R., Harley, E.M.: Why it is easier to identify someone closer than far away? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12(1), 43–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sundstrom, E., Town, J.P., Rice, R.W., Osborn, D.P., Brill, M.: Office noise, satisfaction and performance. Environ. Behav. 26(2), 195–222 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HENNBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations