Implementation of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—The Importance of Participation in Process Activities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Background
2.2. Design
2.3. Implementation Activities
2.4. Data Collection
2.4.1. Participants
2.4.2. Questionnaire
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Changes in Satisfaction with Knowledge, Office Rules, Information and Support
3.3. Dose—Response Effects of Participation in Activities on Satisfaction with Knowledge, Office Rules, Information and Support
3.4. Dose—Response Effects of Participation in Activities on Changes in Satisfaction after Relocation
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Participation in Process Activities
4.2. Strength and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Appel-Meulenbroek, R.; Groenen, P.; Janssen, I. An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. J. Corp. Real Estate 2011, 13, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blok, M.M.; Groenesteijn, L.; Schelvis, R.; Vink, P. New Ways of Working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work 2012, 41, 2605–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.; Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; de Dear, R. Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Voordt, T.J.M. Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. J. Corp. Real Estate 2004, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wohlers, C.; Hertel, G. Choosing where to work at work–Towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engelen, L.; Chau, J.; Young, S.; Mackey, M.; Jeyapalan, D.; Bauman, A. Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 47, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerdenitsch, C.; Korunka, C.; Hertel, G. Need–Supply Fit in an Activity-Based Flexible Office: A Longitudinal Study During Relocation. Environ. Behav. 2017, 50, 273–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chafi, M.B.; Rolfö, L. Policies in Activity-based Flexible Offices—‘I am sloppy with clean-desking. We don’t really know the rules’. Ergonomics 2018, 62, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoendervanger, J.G.; de Been, I.; van Yperen, N.W.; Mobach, M.P.; Albers, C.J. Flexibility in use: Switching behaviour and satisfaction in activity-based work environments. J. Corp. Real Estate 2016, 18, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chafi, M.B. The Quest for the Room of Requirement—Why Some Activity-based Flexible Offices Work While Others Do Not. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Brunia, S.; De Been, I.; Van Der Voordt, T.J. Accommodating new ways of working: Lessons from best practices and worst cases. J. Corp. Real Estate 2016, 18, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfö, L.; Eklund, J.; Jahncke, H. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics 2017, 61, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marzban, S.; Candido, C.; Mackey, M.; Engelen, L.; Zhang, F.; Tjondronegoro, D. A review of research in activity-based working over the last ten years: Lessons for the post-COVID workplace. J. Facil. Manag. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durlak, J.A.; DuPre, E.P. Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 327–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, K.; Randall, R. The importance of employee participation and perceptions of changes in procedures in a teamworking intervention. Work Stress 2012, 26, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Christersson, M.; Rothe, P. Impacts of organizational relocation: A conceptual framework. J. Corp. Real Estate 2012, 14, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuzcuoğlu, D.; Yang, D.; de Vries, B.; Sungur, A.; Appel-Meulenbroek, R. The phases of user experience during relocation to a smart office building: A qualitative case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.; Audrey, S.; Barker, M.; Bond, L.; Bonell, C.; Cooper, C.; Hardeman, W.; Moore, L.; O’Cathain, A.; Tinati, T.; et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: The need for guidance. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2013, 68, 101–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, V.; Rocha, R. Participatory ergonomics approaches to design and intervention in workspaces: A literature review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergsten, E.L.; Wijk, K.; Hallman, D.M. Relocation to Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—Importance of the Implementation Process. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirola, P.; Haapakangas, A.; Lahtinen, M.; Ruohomäki, V. Workplace change process and satisfaction with activity-based office. Facilities 2021, 40, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijk, K.; Bergsten, E.L.; Hallman, D.M. Sense of Coherence, Health, Well-Being, and Work Satisfaction before and after Implementing Activity-Based Workplaces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Total n = 699 | Participants n = 439 | Non-participants n = 260 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) | Mean (SD) | n (%) | Mean (SD) | n (%) | Mean (SD) | |
Women | 312 (45) | 221 (50) | 91 (35) | |||
Men | 384 (55) | 216 (50) | 168 (65) | |||
Managers | 59 (8) | 41 (9) | 18 (7) | |||
Age | 45.6 (10.5) | 46.2 (10.3) | 45.1 (10.6) | |||
Highsatisfaction psychosocial work environment | 500 (78) | 340 (77) | 160 (62) | |||
Office type | ||||||
Private office | 257 (37) | 189 (43) | 68 (26) | |||
Sharedroom/open-plan office | 442 (63) | 250 (57) | 192 (74) | |||
Participation in activities | ||||||
0 activities | 260 (37) | 260 (37) | ||||
1 activity | 171 (25) | 171 (39) | ||||
2 activities | 148 (21) | 148 (34) | ||||
3 activities | 76 (11) | 76 (17) | ||||
4 activities | 44 (6) | 44 (10) | ||||
High satisfaction | ||||||
Knowledge | 56 (30) | 65 (25) | 40 (30) | |||
Office rules | 58 (28) | 67 (23) | 43 (30) | |||
Information | 54 (28) | 63 (25) | 41 (28) | |||
Support | 59 (30) | 68 (26) | 44 (32) |
Unadjusted | Adjusted | |
---|---|---|
Knowledge | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) |
Intercept | 40.4 (37.0–43.7) ** | 51.5 (38.9–64.0) ** |
3 months after | 14.7 (10.4–18.9) ** | 9.7 (−4.5–24.0) |
9 months after | 16.4 (12.2–20.7) ** | 18.0 (3.4–32.7) * |
Office rules | ||
Intercept | 42.9 (39.8–47.0) ** | 40.0 (27.7–51.3) ** |
3 months after | 23.1 (19.3–27.0) ** | 26.4 (13.4–39.5) ** |
9 months after | 20.7 16.5–24.8) ** | 21.1 (7.0–35.3) ** |
Information | ||
Intercept | 40.6 (37.3–44.0) ** | 44.0 (31.3–56.7) ** |
3 months after | 7.3 (2.4–12.3) ** | 8.4 (−8.0–24.7) |
9 months after | 6.9 (1.7–12.1) * | 29.3 (11.6–46.9) ** |
Support | ||
Intercept | 43.7 (40.1–47.2) ** | 39.8 (26.6–53.0) ** |
3 months after | 13.4 (8.6–18.2) ** | 12.4 (−3.9–28.7) |
9 months after | 12.0 (6.8–17.1) ** | 7.7 (−9.9–25.2) |
Unadjusted | Adjusted | |
---|---|---|
Knowledge | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) |
1 activity | 17.2 (11.8–22.5) | 15.7 (10.4–20.9) |
2 activities | 28.1 (22.6–33.7) | 25.6 (20.0–31.1) |
3 activities | 27.5 (20.5–34.5) | 25.0 (18.0–32.0) |
4 activities | 36.9 (28.1–45.7) | 33.9 (25.1–42.7) |
Office rules | ||
1 activity | 17.2 (12.2–22.2) | 15.1 (10.1–20.0) |
2 activities | 27.1 (21.8–32.3) | 24.2 (18.9–29.4) |
3 activities | 28.9 (22.3–35.6) | 26.0 (19.4–32.7) |
4 activities | 31.2 (22.9–39.5) | 27.6 (19.3–35.9) |
Information | ||
1 activity | 16.5 (11.1–21.8) | 15.0 (9.7–20.3) |
2 activities | 24.8 (19.2–30.4) | 22.7 (17.1–28.3) |
3 activities | 24.9 (17.9–32.0) | 22.8 (15.7–29.9) |
4 activities | 29.4 (20.6–38.2) | 26.8 (17.8–35.7) |
Support | ||
1 activity | 17.8 (12.2–23.5) | 15.00 (9.5–20.5) |
2 activities | 25.1 (19.2–31.0) | 21.4 (15.6–27.2) |
3 activities | 34.2 (26.7–41.7) | 29.8 (22.4–37.2) |
4 activities | 32.2 (22.9–41.6) | 26.6 (17.3–35.8) |
3 Months Follow-Up | 9 Months Follow-Up | |
---|---|---|
Knowledge | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) |
Activities 1 | −4.16 (−10.10–1.77) | −7.42 (−13.49–−1.36) * |
Activities 2 | −9.66 (−15.88–−3.45) * | −11.73 (−18.06–−5.40) ** |
Activities 3 | −8.73 (−16.15–−1.30) * | −10.80 (−18.43–−3.18) * |
Activities 4 | −17.73 (−26.89–−8.57) ** | −17.12 (−26.41–−7.83) ** |
Office rules | ||
Activities 1 | −6.55 (−11.99–−1.11) * | −6.87 (−12.74–−1.00) * |
Activities 2 | −14.16 (−19.85–−8.46) ** | −11.94 (−18.07–−5.81) ** |
Activities 3 | −11.57 (−18.43–−4.72) ** | −17.77 (−25.18–−10.36) ** |
Activities 4 | −13.81 (−22.29–−5.33) ** | −16.00 (−25.06–−6.95) * |
Information | ||
Activities 1 | −8.91 (−15.72–−2.09) * | −6.87 (−14.17–0.43) |
Activities 2 | −6.46 (−13.59–0.68) | −5.02 (−12.63–2.59) |
Activities 3 | -6.64 (−15.13–1.85) | −5.98 (−15.12–3.16) |
Activities 4 | −8.66 (−19.12–1.79) | −6.00 (−17.09–5.08) |
Support | ||
Activities 1 | −6.57 (−13.37–0.23) | −6.01 (−13.27–1.25) |
Activities 2 | −8.68 (−15.80–−1.56) * | −11.49 (−19.07–−3.92) ** |
Activities 3 | −18.05 (−26.56–−9.53) ** | −17.83 (−26.96–−8.70) ** |
Activities 4 | −18.08 (−28.59–−7.58) ** | −19.50 (−30.61–−8.39) ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bergsten, E.L.; Wijk, K.; Hallman, D.M. Implementation of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—The Importance of Participation in Process Activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114338
Bergsten EL, Wijk K, Hallman DM. Implementation of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—The Importance of Participation in Process Activities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):14338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114338
Chicago/Turabian StyleBergsten, Eva L., Katarina Wijk, and David M. Hallman. 2022. "Implementation of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—The Importance of Participation in Process Activities" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 14338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114338
APA StyleBergsten, E. L., Wijk, K., & Hallman, D. M. (2022). Implementation of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—The Importance of Participation in Process Activities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114338