Donkers, A; Yang, D; Guendouz, S and Wang, B (2024) Making sense of smart features in the smart office: A stated choice experiment of office user preferences. Building Research & Information, 52(4), pp. 388-401. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Smart office concepts are gaining increasing attention in the built environment domain, as they promise efficient and effective workplaces that cater to user needs. While previous researchers have primarily focused on Internet of Things (IoT) technologies in the office environment and their impacts on office users, few studies have addressed the users' preferences of smart office concepts. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating users' preferences for four smart features: smart parking, smart workspace booking, smart temperature control and smart lighting, and exploring how different attributes of these smart features influence users' preferences. The study conducted a stated choice experiment with 137 valid respondents and analysed the data using both Multinomial Logit (MNL) models and Latent Class (LC) models. The MNL model results indicate that users have varying preferences for different smart features and that there are significant interactive impacts between attribute levels and age, gender, working hours per week and attitudes towards technologies, highlighting the heterogeneity in users' preferences. The LC model revealed two distinct user classes for each smart feature, which have significantly improved the overall model performance. This study guides the design and implementation of smart office concepts that cater to users' needs and preferences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | smart features; Smart office; stated choice experiment; user preferences |
| Index terms: | user preference, workspace, implementation, internet, built environment, experiment, preference, user need, multinomial, working hours |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, user-centered design, client relations, computing systems, contractual arrangements, management, decision-making and reasoning, employment law, infrastructure and transport systems, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CEA |
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