Advertisement

Using Occupancy Feedback: A Strategy for Managing Workspace Improvements

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer

Abstract

A women’s magazine reports that 70 per cent of people working in office buildings in Montreal and Toronto in 1993 complain of indoor air quality problems. What this apparently means is that workers in 70 per cent of the office buildings in these two cities express, when asked, concerns about indoor air pollution. The article warns its largely young, female readers to beware of the air in sealed, high-rise office buildings, implying that their health might be at risk.1 This type of journalism is far from unusual where indoor air quality is concerned. Hardly a magazine, newspaper, or newsletter in recent years has not carried at least one story on indoor air pollution and the implied threat to the health of office workers, to the point where office workers everywhere are concerned about the air quality in their buildings. However, these concerns are often incompletely linked to the objective facts of ventilation systems’ operation. These topics are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Keywords

Customer Satisfaction Office Building Total Quality Management Building Manager Building Occupant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Veronique Robert, “Changez d’air,” Chatelaine September 1993, p. 49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Timothy J. Springer, “Does Ergonomics Make Good Business Sense?” Facilities Design and Management, July 1992, pp. 46–49.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MIT Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, unpublished case study, Cambridge, Mass. 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    John Markoff, “Apple Computer’s new approach: private offices and common areas,” The New York Times, 25 April 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation (BOSTI) “The Impact of the office environment on productivity and the quality of working life” Buffalo: Westinghouse Furniture Systems, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Francis, D. Dressel, S. MacArthur, R.D. Neathammer, “Office Productivity: Contributions of the Physical Setting” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C.E.R.L. Technical Report P-86/13, September 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carole Sullivan, “Employee Comfort, Satisfaction and Productivity: Recent Efforts at Aetna,” in Promoting Health and Productivity in the Computerized Office: Models of Successful Interventions eds. S. Sauter, M. J. Dainoff, and M. J. Smith; New York: Taylor and Francis, 1990. pp. 28–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Springer, Improving Productivity In the Workplace: reports from the field St. Charles, Illinois: Springer Associates, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Architectural Research Centers Consortium, “The Impact of the Work Environment on Productivity” workshop proceedings, Washington, D. C., ARCC, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Raw, A. Leaman, and M. C. Roys, “Further Findings From the Office Environment Survey” London, England Building Research Establishment, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreon Cyros, personal communication, November 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Springer, “Improving Productivity in the Workplace,” p. 50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Improving the quality of light… and work performance, Office Administration and Automation May 1984, pp. 38–48.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization New York: Doubleday, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Senge, The Fifth Discipline,p. 78.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Workplace Network: A Forum For Learning and Sharing report on an international workshop Sweden, 1991, Ottawa: Public Works Canada, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Indoor Air Quality: Blowing In the Wind, Buildings March 1993, pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michael L. Joroff, “Corporate Real Estate 2000: Management Strategies for the Next Decade,” The Industrial Development Research Foundation, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W.F.E. Preiser, H.Z. Rabinowitz, and E.T. White, Post-Occupancy Evaluation New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See, for example, John Case, “The Knowledge Factory,” Inc. October 1991, pp. 54–59; and E. M. Goldratt, and J. Cox, The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement North River Press Inc., 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quality: Small and Midsize Companies Seize the Challenge—Not a Moment Too Soon, Business Week November 30, 1992, p. 66Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Facilities Management Association (IFMA) provides results from nationwide applications of its own client satisfaction survey, for example.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Christine H. Neldon, “Asset management: Benefiting facility management and the bottom line,” Haworth Office Journal #2, March, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations