Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol 1

Proceedings of level-headed Buildings 2000, Vol 1 629 PRODUCTIVITY AND INDOOR ENVIRONMENT Derek Clements-Croome1 and Li Baizhan2 University of interlingual rendition, Department of bend counseling and Engineering, UK Jukes Associates, UK scam Surveys in several(prenominal) power constructions guide shown that herd pop off places, frolic dissatis detailion and material milieu are the main factors affect productioniveness. the data was produced and analyzed victimisation occupational dialect indicant in union with the uninflected hierarchical process. hermal problems, parsimony, gag expression syndrome factors and move blend in places were most usual complaints. the results suggest that the productiveness could be amend by 4 to 10% by improving the positioning milieual conditions. KEYWORDS SBS, productiveness, thermal comfort, perceived manner quality, stress raiseing It is untold racyer cost to implement bulk then it is to maintain and cash in ones chips a mental synthesis, hence spending bills on improving the fix environs is the most cost marrowive elbow room of improving productiveness because of small dower sum up in productivity of 0. % to 2% can have dramatic make on the profitability of the comp any. The current tell apart of knowledge on this field of view is describe by Clements-Croome 1. Practical applications of some of this knowledge is described by Oseland and Barlett 2 METHODS This look focuses on the relationship amidst productivity and the interior(prenominal) environment in the offices and takes into account the fact that productivity depends on different factors by victimisation an Occupational Stress indication (OSI) which has been developed to include an environmental belongings 3,4.OSI is a employment propitiation casing involving question or statements, asking responsive to state what they think or intent ab place their traffic as intact or specific aspects of it. Likeret sc aling using fiver, seven or ennead period of time scales is usually employ. The OSI has been demonst consecrated by Arnold 5. The occupational stress indicator is designed to converge randomness closely roots as soundly as mortals and it attempts to measure the major sources of occupational pressure occupational stress act mechanisms and individual differences which may moderate the electric shock of stress.An environmental dimension has been built into this indicator covering temperature, ventilation, humidity, interior air quality, lighting, noise, displace work lacuna and is referred to as EPOSI which has been utilize to gather information ab let on the occupants in the makes that have been surveyed. This method of ego opinion provides valuable information on individual as vigorous as theme responses. The data from the questionnaire is analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) originated by Saaty6. AHP uses nine point judgement scales for use with slender questionnaires aided by semi-structured interviews.The method is ground on the theory of 630 Exposure, tender responses and construct investigations hierarchies and is a way of structuring complex multi-dimensional systems, by analyzing the interaction among elements in to each one layer of the hierarchy in scathe of their impact on elements in the stratum immediately above. It is possible to have several levels of hierarchies, besides in this case five have been selected beginning with productivity followed by human factors system factors wellness factors environmental factors. The questionnaires were answered by occupants across various work grades and tasks and were designed to elicit background information some the organization and the workplace how much the environment and the job cause dis happiness the emotional states of the subject about their current working land site the principle causal factors influencing health symptoms of occupants which fact ors decide job satisfaction and productivity Semi-structured interviews were carried out to establish more details about attitudes and reasons behind responses. stake survey A detailed environmental survey was carried out at an office in Reading in 1996. he questionnaire was in five sections Section A The Questionnaire asks the occupants to judge the sensual factors in the environment covering temperature, stuffiness and draughts, dryness, indoor air quality, sunlight, lightning, noise and vibration, and crowded workplaces. Questions were also asked about ad hominem health job stress job satisfaction an boilersuit opinion about the indoor environment including questions about five categories of sick building syndrome covering sensory indignation skin irritations nervous problems nasal and smelling complaints. Section BThe questionnaire concerned subjects views on how they want the office layout and decoration as well as questions about their job in relation to productivity. They are also asked to rate how much personal control they matte up had over temperature and lighting. Four questions were asked to determine ego assessed productivity covering the amount of work accomplished quality of work feeling of creativity and degree of responsibility. Section C The questionnaire was concerning information which describes the characteristics of the organization, workplace and some personal information.Occupants were then asked about human factors much(prenominal) as well-being ability to fulfill motivation job satisfaction and expert competence. Finally on that point was a group of questions concerned with indoor environment atmospheric condition outdoorsy view organizational factors occupational factors facilities and service and personal factors. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol 1 631 Section D The questionnaire was found on information gathered using EPOSI and five major human factors were determine which determine productivity ( well -being, ability to perform, motivation, job satisfaction, technical competence).Six system factors ( indoor environment, put up and outdoor views, organizational aspects, occupational issues, facilities and services, personal aspects) were examined to see how they influenced the human factors. Section E The questionnaire covered interactions mingled with sick building sickness symptoms and an array of personal, occupational and environmental factors. RESULTS Analysis of the data shows that the level of productivity by self assessment reduces as the workspace becomes more crowded, as job dissatisfaction increases and as overall dissatisfaction of the indoor environment increases. he results lead to the overall conclusion that an median(a) the self assessed productivity could be better by about 10% by improving the office environmental conditions. The Spearman rank- coefficient of correlation coefficient, rs, was used to assess measure of association between any cardinal variables . The statistical analyzes of the results is stipulation in detail by Li 7. It was shown that a significant rank-correlation exists between self-assessed productivity and environment, job dissatisfaction and job stress, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. The association between self assessed productivity, environment and job factors. portion Associated Factor Spearman RankCorrelation Coefficient Self-assessed productivity Unsatisfactory indoor -0. 49 environment think over dissatisfaction -0. 36 business stress -0. 21 Unsatisfactory indoor Job stress +0. 31 environment Job dissatisfaction +0. 43 Job stress Job dissatisfaction +0. 36 There is strange relationship between the individual, the environment and the building they inhabit. Satisfaction with the environment. satisfaction with the environment muster ups from a number of issues apart from personal health (r=0. 34), sick building syndrome symptoms (r=0. 5), visual and aural problems (r=0. 36), thermal problems (r=0. 49), and cr owded work space (r=0. 50). The correlation coefficients were statistically significant for p F? = 0,01 3, 152 = 3. 92 ) (1) This indicates that subjects who suffer from somatogenetic environmental factors will suffer an increase in overall unsatisfying environment which is positively related to thermal problems, crowded workspace and sick building syndrome symptoms. The multiple regression toward the mean equation for job satisfaction was found to be JD = 1. 2055 + 0. 3157* JS + 0. 2572 * En + 0. 1023 * CS r = 0. 5367, F=19. 56 F? = 0,01 3,149 = 3. 92 ) (2) This shows that utmost job dissatisfaction results from job stress, crowded workspace and an overall unequal environment. For self assessed productivity, the regression equation was developed using a standard wise regression procedure P=6. 8510-0. 3625*En-0. 1542*JD-0. 1329*CS (r = 0. 5083, F= 14. 86 F? = 0,01 3, 132 = 3. 94 (3) The pencil lead factors which affect self assessed productivity in the offices surveyed were an overall disappointing environment, crowded workspace and job dissatisfaction.A distinction was make between exact exertions (i. e. those effects that do not result from any other variable in the pose) and auxiliary or in develop effects which a approach from the interaction between one or more variables in the model. (Cohen 1983). For example an overall unsatisfactory environment has a direct effect on self assessed productivity, plainly there is also an indirect effect because it also affects job satisfaction which in turn also affects self assessed productivity.The append indirect effect is estimated by the product of the effects of an overall unsatisfactory environment on job satisfaction, and job satisfaction on self assessed productivity. The total effect of environment on self assessed productivity is then the result of combining the direct and indirect effects. Further analyzes showed that the most green complaints about unsatisfactory environments were those co nnected with high or low temperature variations stale and close air dry or humid air. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol 1 633 CONCLUSIONSThe asterisk conclusions were Individual responses illustrate that the majority of respondents believed that the office environment had a direct influence on their well-being and self assessed productivity. When dissatisfaction with the environment and job were high there was a low level of self assessed productivity. Results showed that there were more occupants suffering from an overall unsatisfactory environment than from job stress and job dissatisfaction. People may be all told satisfied with their job, but could also be quite unhappy about their work environment.In general however people report negative attitudes towards the environment were also the people with high job stress and job dissatisfaction. move workspaces, thermal problems, and sick building symptoms due to whatever cause were the principal complaints about unsatisfactory environments. Nearly two thirds of the occupants thought that a 10% or more increase in their productivity was possible by improving the office environment. Results of the analysis also indicated that self assessed productivity could be improved by about 10%.Further analysis using the AHP model illustrated that the ability to perform, and wellbeing, were the two most all- measurable(prenominal) human factors that influenced the productivity of occupants in the offices surveyed. These factors unneurotic with job satisfaction and indoor environment form a virtuous thud which is highly important in intent creative workplaces. In this study there was a small effect of the outdoor environment on productivity but this was insignificant compared to the effect of the indoor environment.Indoor air quality and pollution were the most important environmental factors influencing sick building syndrome. Compared with other personal factors (e. g. gender and type A behavior) an d occupational factors, job stress was the contiguous most significant factor which gave rise to sick building syndrome symptoms.. Results showed that the primary factors influencing productivity varied between organizations, and also between buildings or offices within the same building. This research has established a reliable methodological analysis for evaluating self assessed productivity. SymbolsCS En F JD JS p P r rs SBS Th Crowded working space (7 score) An overall unsatisfactory indoor environment (7 score) For statistical F-test Job dissatisfaction (7 score) Job stress (7 score) The level of statistical significance Self assessed productivity (9 score) The correlation coefficient Spearman rank-correlation coefficient Suffer from SBS symptoms (7 score) Suffer from thermal conditions (7 score) 634 Exposure, human responses and building investigations REFERENCES 1. Clements-Croome, D. J. , 2000, Creating the Productive Workplace, Spon Routledge. 2.Oseland, N. , Bartlett, P. , 1999, Improving Office Productivity, Longman. 3. Cooper, C. L. , 1998, Occupational Stress Indicator Management Guide, NFERNelson, Windsor. 4. Clements-Croome, D. J. , Li B. , 1995, Impact of Indoor environs on Productivity, Workplace Comfort Forum, olympian Institute of British Architects, London. 5. Arnold, J. , Cooper, C. L. , Robertson, I. , (1998), Work psychological science Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, 3ra Edition, Financial Times-Pitman Publishing. 6. Saaty, T. L. , 1972, Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, unused York. 7. Li, B. 1998, Assessing the Influence of Indoor surround on Self Reported Productivity in Offices, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading. 8. Raw, G. J. , et al. , 1989, Further Findings From the Office Environment Survey, Part I Productivity, Building enquiry Establishment, Note No. N79/89. 9. Anderson, D. , et al. , 1990, Statistics for Business and Economics, fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, USA. 10. Cohen, J. , Cohen, P. , 1983, Applied triune Regression Correlation Analysis for Behaviourial Sciences, 2d Edition, Lawrence Earle Baum Associates, New Jersey/London.