Indergård, K and Hansen, G K (2025) The impact of workplace design on academic staff: A systematic literature review. Building Research & Information, 53(4), pp. 479-491. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The physical work environment can impact workers' productivity, job satisfaction, health, and well-being. Workplace design has become a key strategic resource for many organizations and is also highly relevant to universities. The field of workplace design is expanding, but research focusing specifically on workplace design for academic staff is limited. This systematic literature review maps the current literature on workplace design for academic staff and analyses it according to a theoretical framework of office productivity, examining components of both the physical and behavioural environments. The review identified 32 relevant studies. This literature review examines various types of office designs and identifies several features that need particular attention. The results show that the most positive outcomes of more open office designs were increased interaction and more informal meetings, while the most negative outcomes were lack of privacy and noise disturbances. The workplace should facilitate both collaborative and individual work. While there is no universal solution to this issue, finding the right balance between the two is crucial, as it significantly impacts productivity, well-being and job satisfaction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | academic staff; academic workplace; office concepts; productivity; workplace design |
| Index terms: | job satisfaction, interaction, productivity, well-being, work environment, maps, strategic resource, workplace design, literature review, office design, privacy, systematic literature review |
| Subjects: | management, specialized design, mental health and wellbeing, design practice, behavioral psychology, spatial and geospatial analysis, research evaluation and metrics, professional ethics, data analysis and analytics, economics |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here