Towards a holistic approach for assessing the impact of IEQ on satisfaction, health, and productivity

Franke, M and Nadler, C (2021) Towards a holistic approach for assessing the impact of IEQ on satisfaction, health, and productivity. Building Research & Information, 49(4), pp. 417-444. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

While there is broad evidence of the impact of tangible factors (i.e. room temperature, indoor air quality) on work well-being and productivity, the objective measurement of intangible factors (i.e. ergonomics and privacy) is still an under-researched subject. A holistic approach to indoor environmental quality (IEQ) has been developed in this study by combining the research dimensions of IEQ factors (tangible vs. intangible), outcome (workplace satisfaction, health, productivity), method (subjective vs. objective assessment) and impact (direct vs. indirect effects), and it has been tested in a laboratory (n = 180). The main findings are that (i) workplace satisfaction, health and productivity are more strongly affected by intangible factors than by tangible ones, (ii) impaired privacy leads to sick building symptoms and less creativity, (iii) negative self-assessment impairs objective performance in the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy, while (iv) personality traits correlate differently with ergonomics and privacy. Hence, a holistic IEQ approach that also considers interrelations between the research dimensions is beneficial for creating supportive workplace designs.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: human performance; indoor environmental quality; well-being; workplace design
Index terms: holistic approach, privacy, indoor environmental quality, indirect effect, indoor air quality, well-being, ergonomics, evidence, workplace design, productivity, human-performance, room temperature, personality, dimension, satisfaction, laboratory, creativity
Subjects: professional ethics, business, occupational health and safety management, human factors and perception, innovation and creative processes, design practice, research management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, management, building performance, analytical methods, mental health and wellbeing, project delivery, environmental health, behavioral psychology, evaluation and assessment methods
Topics: Health and Safety, Project Management, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Research Practice, 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