Kampschroer, K and Heerwagen, J H (2005) The strategic workplace: Development and evaluation. Building Research & Information, 33(4), pp. 326-337. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The US General Services Administration initiated a new programme that aims to understand better the linkages between the workplace and organizational effectiveness. This programme was motivated by the desire to bring the federal workplace into better alignment with the technological, organizational and demographic shifts that characterize work today. The process and methodologies in pilot projects are used to develop a workplace that more effectively supports the client organization's business goals and needs than current workspaces. The research approach studies these sites pre- and post-occupancy to identify the extent to which desired outcomes have been achieved. The research approach uses the Balanced Scorecard as a framework for developing goals, hypotheses and metrics for each project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; building performance; business outcomes; design quality; organizational effectiveness; project delivery; property management; quality control; workplace effectiveness |
| Index terms: | balanced scorecard, design quality, building performance, asset management, workspace, linkage, client organization, organizational effectiveness, programme, methodology, effectiveness, quality control, property management, project delivery |
| Subjects: | client relations, business, project delivery, professional practice, real estate economics, performance management, research methods, performance measurement, management, quality assurance, asset management, project controls |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Time Control, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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