Engelen, L; Chau, J; Young, S; Mackey, M; Jeyapalan, D and Bauman, A (2019) Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Building Research & Information, 47(4), pp. 468-479. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Numerous claims have been made about the benefits of activity-based working (ABW) on workers' health and work performance. Yet, it is unclear if these claims are proven. This systematic review aims to establish whether there is an evidence base for the effects of ABW on health, work performance and perceptions of the work environment. Eight databases were searched in September 2016. Three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed the studies and extracted the data. Seventeen studies involving 36,039 participants were included. The study designs varied in rigorousness from qualitative studies to pre–post-trials and in sample size ranging from 12 to 11,799. This review found that ABW has positive merits in the areas of interaction, communication, control of time and space, and satisfaction with the workspace; however, it is unfavourable for concentration and privacy. For physical and mental health, the evidence is equivocal. ABW seems to be a promising concept that can be implemented and promoted based on some benefits for work performance and perceptions of the work environment when it is coupled with appropriate management support and organization. More high-quality research is needed to strengthen the evidence base further and establish its health effects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | activity-based working; agile working; job performance; occupants; office; workplace; workspace |
| Index terms: | workspace, evidence, sample size, systematic literature review, privacy, database, interaction, work performance, mental health, qualitative study, work environment, satisfaction |
| Subjects: | data management, evaluation and assessment methods, health conditions and diseases, management, professional ethics, research design and methodology, project delivery, operations management, behavioral psychology, research evaluation and metrics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Project Management, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 CTEA |
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