Leaman, A and Bordass, B (1999) Productivity in buildings: The 'killer' variables. Building Research & Information, 27(1), pp. 4-19. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Losses OT gains of up to 15% of turnover in a typical office organization might be attributable to the design, management and use of the indoor environment. There is growing evidence to show that associations between perceived productivity and clusters of factors such as comfort, health and satisfaction of staff. Some of the management, design and use characteristics which contribute towards better energy efficiency also help productivity, thereby helping to close the loop on a potential 'virtuous' circle. Unfortunately, the vast majority of occupied buildings do not have these self-reinforcing qualities and many are unmanageably complex. This paper examines which factors within the control of building designers and managers best contribute to human productivity - the 'killer' variables of the title.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | comfort; complexity; energy efficiency; manageability; personal control; productivity; usability; workplace |
| Index terms: | satisfaction, usability, complexity, personal control, productivity, turnover, manager, evidence, indoor environment, energy efficiency, designer, comfort |
| Subjects: | project delivery, systems engineering, management, behavioral psychology, environmental science, evaluation and assessment methods, business management, sustainability and energy, occupational health and safety management, user-centered design, profession, practitioner |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Project Management, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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