Aalto, L; Sirola, P; Kalliomäki-Levanto, T; Lahtinen, M; Ruohomäki, V; Salonen, H and Reijula, K (2019) User-centric work environments in modular healthcare facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(6), pp. 1047-1062. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The challenges arising from the reform of the social and healthcare sector call for efficient, effective and novel processes in both public and private health and medical care. Facilities need to be designed to suit the new processes and to offer usable workspaces at different levels of healthcare services. Along with traditional construction, modular facility innovations could be one solution to these pressures. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: This case study analyzed the different usability characteristics of the work environment in modular and non-modular healthcare facilities (HCFs). The qualitative research method was based on semi-structured interviews of employees and observations of the case buildings. Findings: According to the results, the usability characteristics were divided into four main categories: functionality, healthiness, safety/security and comfort. The main differences between the modular and non-modular facilities appeared to be room size, soundproofing, safety issues and the utilization of colors and artwork, which were all perceived as better realized in the non-modular facilities. The staff highlighted functionality as the most important characteristic in their work environment. They even considered functionality as a feature of a comfortable work environment. Originality/value: This paper presents new knowledge and a detailed description of the opinions and experiences of healthcare professionals concerning a user-centric, usable environment in the context of modular and non-modular HCFs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; design; design management |
| Index terms: | methodology, design management, interview, usability, functionality, safety issue, qualitative research method, comfort, work environment, case study, traditional construction, workspace |
| Subjects: | research methods, management, design process, financial risk, occupational health and safety management, heritage and conservation, research design and methodology, user-centered design, data collection methods, design features |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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