The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An end‐user's perspective on activity‐based office concepts
Abstract
Purpose: The activity‐based office concept of the modern office is set to increase productivity through the stimulation of interaction and communication while retaining employee satisfaction and reducing the accommodation costs. Although some research has gone into understanding the added value, there is still a need for sound data on the relationship between office design, its intentions and the actual use after implementation. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach: An evaluative study on the effectiveness of activity‐based office concepts was carried out to gain more insight in their use. The study included relevant literature on workplace design, combined with an observation and a survey of 182 end‐users from four different service organizations in The Netherlands. Findings: The findings from these case studies underline some known benefits and disadvantages of activity‐based office concepts, and provide insight in the importance of several physical, social and mental aspects of the office environment in employee choice behavior. This study shows that the office concept is not always used as intended what could result in a loss in productivity, illness and dissatisfaction. People's personal preferences seem to have a bigger effect on the use of certain types of workplaces than some workstation facilities, although ergonomics and IT equipment and systems are expected to be satisfactory everywhere. Misusage of the concept is often the consequence of critical design (process) failures. Originality/value: The originality of this research lies in the combination of studying the program of requirements, a questionnaire and most of all the observation in a quiet period, providing new information on choice behavior.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many companies implement activity-based workplaces.
“Despite this, many companies implement ABWs (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011;Brunia, de Been, and van der Voordt 2016;van Koetsveld and Kamperman 2011;Toivanen 2015;Vos and van der Voordt 2002).”
From Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office (2018) · cites this paper as Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011
The reasons for implementing new office concepts include reducing overhead costs, saving space and increasing flexibility in office use.
“The reasons for implementing new office concepts include reducing overhead costs, saving space and increasing flexibility in office use (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011;de Been and Beijer 2014;Brunnberg 2000).”
From Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office (2018) · cites this paper as Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011
There is a relationship between lowered satisfaction and lack of personal territory.
“Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen (2011) and Lansdale et al. (2011) found a relationship between lowered satisfaction and lack of personal territory.”
From Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office (2018) · cites this paper as Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen (2011)
User involvement decreases misuse of the workplace and supports shared understanding of why it is necessary to implement a change.
“User involvement decreases misuse of the workplace (cf.Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011) and supports shared understanding of why it is necessary to implement a change (Nielsen and Randall 2013).”
From Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office (2018) · cites this paper as Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Barker, R.G. (1968), Ecological Psychology, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
- CIBSE (1999), Environmental Factors Affecting Office Worker Performance: A Review of Evidence, CIBSE Technical Memoranda TM24, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
- Fisk, W.J. (2000), “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 25, pp. 537‐66. · DOI
- Jensen, P.A. (2009), “Theoretical model demonstrating the value adding contribution of facilities management”, Proceedings EFMC 2009 Research Symposium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Kwallek, N., Woodson, H., Lewis, C.M. and Sales, C. (1997), “Impact of three color schemes on worker mood and performance relative to individual environment sensitivity”, Color: Research and Application, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 121‐32. · DOI
- Lee, S.Y. and Brand, J.L. (2005), “Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 323‐33. · DOI
- Nenonen, S. (2005), “The nature of the workplace for knowledge creation”, PhD dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.
- Pole, S. and Mackay, D. (2009), “Occupancy cost reduction: proven techniques for these tough times”, The Leader, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 12‐17.
- Pullen, W.R., Van der Voordt, T.J.M. and Hanekamp, J. (2009), “Input for the 2015 FM research and action agenda”, Proceedings EFMC 2009 Research Symposium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Stone, P.J. and Luchetti, R. (1985), “Your office is where you are”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 102‐17.
- Tabak, V. (2009), “User simulation of space utilisation: system for office building usage simulation”, PhD dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
- Van Ree, H.J. (2002), “The added value of office accommodation to organizational performance”, Workstudy, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 357‐63. · DOI
- Worthington, J. (1997), Reinventing the Workplace, University of York, Oxford.
- Sundstrφm, E. and Sundstrφm, M.G. (1986), Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (2007), “The happy/productive worker thesis revisited”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 269‐307. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2017) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220 · Cited by 223
Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office
Rolfö, L., Eklund, J., & Jahncke, H. (2018) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1398844 · Cited by 121
“Practitioner Summary: Activity-based workplaces (ABWs) are commonly implemented although their effects on performance and well-being are unclear.”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Appel‐Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I.
- Affiliations
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Corporate Real Estate
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2011-05-31
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 122-135
- ISSN
- 1463-001X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096766790
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Corporate Real Estate (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Facilities and Workplace Management
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Real estate and construction management
- Keywords
- activity-based office, workplace design, end-user perspective, office space utilization, productivity, job satisfaction, office environment, human factors, information technology equipment, design failure, service organizations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review