Aktivitetsbaserade kontor - Planering och utfall. Linda Rolfö Lund

Transkript

1 Aktivitetsbaserade kontor - Planering och utfall Linda Rolfö Lund

2 Dagens agenda det har kommit önskemål om att ha en utbildning i nedanstående med dig Om/nybyggnation. Linda Rolfö Från traditionellt kontor till aktivitetsbaserat kontor. 1/2 dagsutbildning. Hur en optimal flyttprocess bör vara.

3 Dagens agenda Goda exempel på implementeringar av aktivitetsbaserade kontor Nöjdhet och prestation innan och efter flytt från öppna kontorslandskap till aktivitetsbaserade kontor Planlösning, täckningsgrad och estetik i aktivitetsbaserade kontor Bör man applicera regler i det aktivitetsbaserade kontoret? Vad vet vi om organisatoriska förutsättningar för implementering av aktivitetsbaserade kontor? Arbetsmiljöingenjörer och ergonomers roll i planering och projektering av nya arbetsmiljöer

4 Explore/Investigate/Identify Jämförelse mellan kontor Kontorslösningen Planeringsprocessen Regler Organisatoriska förutsättningar Arbetsmiljöexperters roll Agenda

5 Activity-based Flexible office (A-FO)

6 Objectives

7 Skulle du kunna tänka dig att sitta i ett aktivitetsbaserat kontor?

8 Why study A-FOs? Sometimes after lunch, you have to go four laps and just pick a spot in the middle of a team that you know speaks a lot, because there are no desks available. I cannot choose (I12-Case 1). Support has decreased since everyone is isolating themselves. It s an unexpected effect of this environment, whereby more people want to protect themselves. More who are not present and you don t know where they are (I6-Case 5).

9 Preference for the A-FO Proportion of employees n=695, response rate 0.75

10 Results Case 1: Relocation from OPO to A-FO Background noise (p=0.03) Air quality (p=0.002) Temperature (NS) Visual comfort (NS) Amount of light (NS) Outdoor view (p<0.001) Aesthetics (p<0.001) Visitor space (p=0.014) Adjustability of furniture (NS) Distance to colleague (NS) Workspace separation (NS) Ease of interaction (NS) Possibility of privacy (NS) Auditory privacy (p=0.039) Speech level (NS) Visual privacy (NS) Personalization (NS) Baseline ratings (OPO) Follow-up ratings (ABW) -1,5-0,5 0,5 1,5 2,5 Mean satisfaction ratings

11 Results Case2: Relocation from OPO to A-FO Aesthetics (p=<0.001) Functionality of furniture (p=0.02) Access to equipment (p=0.009) Distance to colleague (NS) Workspace separation(ns) Possibility of privacy (p=<0.001) Noise level (NS) Airflow (p=<0.001) Temperature (p=0.005) Amount of light (p=<0.001) Visual comfort (p=<0.003) Outdoor view (p=<0.001) Pre-relocation Post-relocation

12 Results Study I (C1) Study II (C2) n=28 Aesthetics p<0.001, n=34 p<0.001 Outdoor view p<0.001, n=34 p<0.001 Air quality p=0.002, n=34 p<0.001 Noise 2/3 questions p= , n=34 1/1 question NS NS 1/3 questions, n=34 Possibility to privacy NS, n=34 <0.001 Communication parameters Satisfied with physical work environment NS 4/5 questions, n=66 1/5 question p=0.014, n=66 88% (sign. from neutral), n=66 5/5 questions p= From Pre 54% to Post 93 % Preference for the A-FO Pre 16%, Post 47%, n=66 From Pre 68% to Post 82% Perceived performance NS 2/2 questions 4/4 questions p= Rolfö, Eklund & Jahncke, 2017; Rolfö 2018

13 Percentage of employees Percentage of employees Case 1 Case Baseline 30 Follow-up Pre-relocation Post-relocation Preferred office type

15 C1: Insurance company

16 C2: IT service and support provider

17 C3: Health and safety knowledge provider

18 C4: IT, telecom and technique consulting providers

19 Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4 Acoustics Amount of background noise Noise level (vent., printer, speech) Speech level C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A

20 Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4 Privacy Acoustic privacy Visual privacy (not being obs.) Visual distr. from bypassers Visual distr. from people closeby C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A N/A

21 Workspace ratios C1 C2 C3 C4 Desk-sharing ratio Small meeting room ratio (per employee) Back-up room ratio Open-plan surface area (per employee) Open-plan surface area (per workstation) Maximum no. of workstations in open-plan areas 5.1 m m m m m m m m Results Workspace Space configuration Distance to colleague Workstation separation Possibility of privacy Outdoor view C1 C2 C3 C4

22 Results Aim 3: Workspace Communication and cooperation Cooperation Intra-team communication Intra-team spreading of info. Intra-team spreading of ideas Inter-team spreading of ideas Getting help from colleague C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A N/A N/A Interpersonal relations Atmosphere Involvement in community Work environment satisfaction Environmental satisfaction Preference for A-FO Perceived performance Individual productivity Intra-team productivity Office optimally designed for work tasks N/A

23 Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4

24 Ratios Workspace Parametersratios C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 Desk-sharing ratio Small meeting room ratio (per employee) Back-up room ratio Open-plan surface area (per employee) Open-plan surface area (per workstation) Maximum no. of workstations in open-plan areas 5.1 m m m m m m m m C3 C4 Mean percentage of time spent at office 92 % 64 % 81 % 84 %

25 Interior design

26 Summary Spacious ratios Zoning Spacious ratios Zoning, (Well separated) No corridors Sat. with space configuration Sat. with privacy Mental working conditions Short distance between zones Sat. with communication Sat. with interpersonal relations

27 Hur fungerar Planlösningar Täckningsgrader Estetik i de kontor ni varit på?

29 Planning process The whole process High aims

30 The company IT service and support provider Best workplace in Sweden 35 in workforce Growing out Discussions within company

31 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Autumn 2015 Spring 2016

32 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016

33 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 Questionnaire 3 Questionnaire 4 Questionnaire 5 Employees Complete responses Response rate 92 % 70 % 86 % 84 % 90 % Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 R

34 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 R

35 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

36 Deciding office concept

37 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the physical environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Feedback on flowchart Deciding office Reference site visit concept Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

38 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the organizational and social environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Feedback on Deciding office Rules workshop flowchart concept Reference site visit Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

39 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the organizational and social environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 -Beehives -Focus groups Rules workshop Feedback lecture -Diaries -Questionnaire Groundbreaking Interior design Feedback on Deciding office ceremony group flowchart concept Reference site visit Kickoff and workshop R Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

40 Relocation Performance and distraction Intervju Always Often 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 Productivity n=28-46 Sometimes Seldom 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 Distraction n=28-46 Never 1, Perceived productivity and distraction

41 Relocation Satisfaction with the physical Intervju environment Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1, Satifaction n=28-45

42 Performance and distraction Intervju Boring Repulsive Stressful Noisy Calm Exposed Messy Inspiring Pleasant Calm Quiet Pulsating Private Well-ordered 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

43 Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Intervju Conclusion Nothing was left to chance. As a company, they took the process very seriously (I-402) Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 -Beehives -Focus groups Rules workshop Feedback lecture -Diaries -Questionnaire Groundbreaking Interior design Feedback on Deciding office ceremony group flowchart concept Reference site visit Kickoff and workshop R Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

44 Föreställningar om flexkontor Type of company Total employees Number of interviewees Gender Female/Male Age, mean (minmax) Case 1 (C1) Case 2 (C2) Case 3 (C3) Case 4 (C4) Knowledge and training provider IT service and support providers Insurance company 79 + approx. 20 consultants Science park 13 + approx. 30 external stakeholders /4 5/38 10/16 7/5 50 (37-65) 38 (23-61) 43 (31-60) 47 (27-65) Babapour & Rolfö, in press

45 Föreställningar om flexkontor Babapour & Rolfö, in press

46 Results Design and implementation processes C1 C2 C3 C5 Involvement before deciding on the office type No Yes Yes No Needs and Activity analysis No Yes Yes Yes Employees participation in decision on policies Clear communication of policies No Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Years of planning 0,75 2,5 1,5 0,5 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

47 Implementera ABW Skulle du rekommendera att skaffa ett ABW om man inte hade tiden som ni har haft på er? Absolut inte! Du måste ha den tiden på dig för det finns inga genvägar. Det går att korta ner människa-process-delen men det måste ändå vara lika omfattande. Annars kommer det aldrig gå. Alla måste få vara med och bestämma och tycka till. Om någon bestämmer så här ska du göra så fallerar konceptet. Man måste gå igenom hela processen själv. Man kan inte kopiera någon annans.

48 Results Design and implementation processes Meaningful objectives Financial and time resources In-depth work analysis Employee participation and empowerment Inclusion of org. and social change Open and adequate information Management commitment (Rolfö, 2018)

49 Summary Spacious ratios Zoning Sat. with space configuration Spacious ratios Zoning, (Well separated) No corridors Sat. with privacy Mental working conditions Short distance between zones Sat. with communication Sat. with interpersonal relations

50 Hur ser era erfarenheter ut gällande Målsättning/tid/medarbetarinvolvering/ organisatoriskt fokus ut i implementeringsprocessen?

52 POLICIES FOR SHARING WORKSPACES IN ACTIVITY-BASED FLEXIBLE OFFICES Linda Rolfö & Maral Babapour KTH & Chalmers, Sweden Babapour & Rolfö, in press

53 Policies Desk-sharing policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

54 Policies Speech Policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

55 Outline Compare explicit/implicit policies Compare Compliance/Disregardance Work condition consequences Planning process Babapour & Rolfö, in press

56 Föreställningar om flexkontor Babapour & Rolfö, in press

57 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

58 Desk-sharing policies 1. To remove belongings 2. Restrictions on using the same workstation in open areas in consecutive days 3. Restrictions on using workstations in scarce zones in consecutive days Babapour & Rolfö, in press

59 Desk-sharing policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

60 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

61 Speech policie 4. To interact with colleagues in different zones 5. To speak on the phone in different zones Babapour & Rolfö, in press

62 Speech policies Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Strictly quiet zone Semi-quiet zone Lively zone Babapour & Rolfö, in press

63 Speech policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

64 Speech policies Case 3 Case 1 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

65 Intervju Outline Compare explicit/implicit policies Compare Compliance/Disregardance Work condition consequences Planning process Rules 1. To remove belongings 2. Restrictions on using the same workstation in open areas in consecutive days 3. Restrictions on using workstations in scarce zones in consecutive days 4. To interact with colleagues in different zones 5. To speak on the phone in different zones

66 Hur och vilka regler har implementerats i era fall?

68 Organizational factors

69 Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Concentration A-FO / Other office types Speaking on the phone A-FO / Other office types Writing/Generating texts A-FO / Other office types Innovation A-FO / Other office types Learning and searching for information A-FO / Other office types

70 Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Office type before relocation Cell office / Open-plan office

71 Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Preference for the A-FO before relocation A-FO / Other office types

72 Vilka organisatoriska faktorer har ni sett/ tror ni påverkar utfallet?

73 Discussion

74 Discussion A-FO definition Desk-sharing policies High Low Flexible office / Hot-desking Open-plan office Activity-based flexible office Combi-office (or an over-crowded openplan office) Low High Workspace diversity (enabled by plan layout and speech policies)

75 Objectives

76 Conclusion Linda Rolfö Tel:

78 Deltagande i projektering 263 svarande 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0,0 Aldrig 1-5 gånger Mer än 5 gånger

79 397 svarande Deltagande i projektering

80 Påverkansmöjligheter 8 0

81 Hur kan man förmedla till de som är inblandade i byggprocessen att arbetsmiljöingenjörer och ergonomer kan bidra i projektering och utformning av arbetsmiljöer i ny-, om- och tillbyggnader? Kategori Skapa kompetens hos FHV och AMI/Erg. Medvetandegör kunskap hos andra aktörer genom utbildning Antal kommentarer Byggbranschen Arkitekter Blivande ingenjörer Arbetsmiljökommittéer och skyddskommittéer Fackliga organisationer Chefer och företag Målgrupp för information och marknadsföring Kanaler för Marknadsföring Marknadsföringsinnehåll Ställ krav Övrigt - Arbetsmiljökrav - Lagkrav - Checklistor och kravspecifikationer - Krav för bygglov - Skapa rutiner - Att FHV kan bidra - Tjänster - Bred kompetens - Goda exempel - Vinster - Kostnadsförluster - Tidig delaktighet Möten - Hemsida och nyhetsbrev - Kampanjer - Artiklar - Branschorganisationer - AV - Kontakter - Relation med kundföretag

82 Metoder och roller Expertmetoder Delaktighetsmetoder Facilitatorrollen Politisk navigator

83 Konsultroller Accepterande Katalysatorroll Konfronterande Preskriptiv Teorier /principer /metoder (Blake and Mouton 1985)

84 Roller för FHV Oberoende, partsneutral Expertroll Verka för en god arbetsmiljö

85 Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 7 ROLE OFTHE ERGONOMIST POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR

86 POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR POLITICAL Pursuing a health and safety agenda Building a health and safety network REFLECTIVE Take stock of the situation Role shifting Mobilising different knowledge types Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 86

87 POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR POLITICAL Pursuing a health and safety agenda Building a health and safety network REFLECTIVE Take stock of the situation Role shifting Mobilising different knowledge types NAVIGATOR Navigate in a complex design project Understand the actors different positions Able to have the employees represented Translator between different languages Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 87

88 POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR Understand design projects and the language of engineers and architects Stakeholder analysis Change processes = political processes Navigate in organisations Understand and translating between different knowledge domains Role shifting and mobilising different types of knowledge Proactive and persistent Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 88

89 Finance SOFT-modellen SSpace O Work Pratice Organization F Technology T

90 SOFT-modellen

91 Implementera ABW

92

93 Implementera ABW

94 Ergonomi Implementera ABW

95 Implementera ABW

96 Implementera ABW

97 Implementera ABW

98

99 Spagettidiagram

100 Functions layout design game

101 Riskbedömning ROSA

102 Vad är målet med medarbetarinvolveringen? Vad är öppet i SOFT? Vem ska delta? Vad är din roll? Välj medierande objekt Passar objekten deltagarna? Sätt spelregler PARTICIPATORY Hur ska resultaten överföras till projekteringsprocessen? Förbered ett manus på förhand METHODS Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 40

103 ethods for office planning hange drivers & Vision Explore the organisation's urpose with the change, esired strategies, structures, ork process and culture articipatory methods Analysis - of the existing work/workplace, needs and activities Conceptualization and visualization -match needs to concept Detailed planning Post-relocation evaluation orkshops 34 SOFT 19 Architectural drawing analysis 10 Improvement logging 32 Interviews 5,36 rainstorming 5 Space utilization studies 29 Flow simulation (flow in shoeboxes) 8 Feedback training 34 Follow-up questionnaires 5 oundrobin 40 Activity/work analysis 5,16,34 1:1 + Roleplay 8,15 Scenario analysis 6,23 orming of workgroups 34 Design dialogs 15 Scenario analysis 6,7,23 1:1 + Roleplay 8 isit/excursion/photo Safari 7 Workbook 7,35 Layout design game 7 ood board 34 ErgoVSM 20 Workshop on behavioural rules 31 WAT 37 Usability analysis 4 Design decision group 40,41 rofessional methods Scenario analysis 6,23 Needfinding 28 Workshops 34 Interviews 5,36 Diaries 14 Questionnaires 5 Forming of workgroups for HR/IT 34 isk assessment 2 Risk assessment 2 Risk assessment 2,25 Risk assessment 2,25 Risk assessment (e.g. ROSA) 25 ommunicative methods Design and implementation processes Results Methods framework for office design and implementation Requirement specifications 26,41 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Supplier meetings Follow up - usability analysis 4 Observations 5,36 Follow-up checklists 5,3 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Follow-up Checklists 5,3 Checklists? 5,3 Follow-up checklists 5,3 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Measurement of Speech transmission index (STI) 18 Follow-up space utilization 29 Measurement of Speech transmission index (STI) 18 resentations/meetings 38 Presentations/meetings 38 Mock-ups 7,38 ScetchUp 7,27 Presentations/meetings 38 ewsletters 38 Newsletters 38 Models 7,38 Mood board 34 Newsletters 38 ntranet 38 Intranet 38 Mood board 34 Intranet 38 Suggestion box 33 Relocation

104 Evaluation of framework The methods framework made me think about how to conduct my work (Q1-8) A mental fundamental structure (Q2-1)

105 Course in workplace planning and design Preparatory work: Contact clients, Specify problem Course day 1: Learn methods framework and methods Intervention at client: Use a method Course day 2: Presentation and discussion

106 1. Friktioner och konflikter som kan uppstå pga. ABAlösningen och hur man kan hantera dem? 2. Vad vet vi om olika störningsmoment och hur man kan reducera dem? 3. Finns det någon enkel termometer för att snabbt mäta personalens upplevelser, erfarenheter och fånga problemområden innan de hinner växa till sig?

107 3 nivåer Ambitioner och målsättning Interventioner Implementering Forskningslitteratur Nivåer Rogier van Koetsveld and Luc Kamperman, 2011

108 Forskningslitteratur Produktivitet i ABW Negativ påverkan på produktivitet Samma akustiska problem som i kontorslandskap (Banbury and Berry, 2005) Medarbetare i ABW är mindre distraherade än i kontorslandskap (Seddigh et al. 2014) 45% svarade att de är mindre effektiva i ABW än i cellkontor (Brunnberg, 2000, konferensbidrag) Hot-desking (inte ha fasta arbetsplatser) har en vissa negativa konsekvenser: Transporttider (Wolfeld, 2010) Installering och acklimateriseringstid (Gorgievski, 2010) Hitta lämplig arbetsplats (Brunnberg, 2010, konferensbidrag) Hitta kollegor (van der Voordt, 2003) Positiv påverkan på produktivitet Förbättrad kommunikation (Vos and Voordt, 2002, de Croon) Underlättar spontan kommunikation (Wolfeld, 2010) Förbättrad tillgänglighet av kollegor (Wolfeld, 2010) Ökar gruppkänsla (Vos and Voordt, 2002) Underlättar inlärning (Brill, 2001) Autonomi Val av arbetsplats (Vos and Voordt, 2002)

109 Forskningslitteratur Nöjdhet i ABW Negativ påverkan på tillfredsställelse Otillräcklig avskildhet (Gorgievski, 2010) Audiell avskildhet Visuell avskildhet (Marquardt, 2002) Förlorade kognitiva fördelar med att sprida ut papper (Lansdale, 2011) 10-20% tycker illa om icke-tilldelade arbetsplatser (Gorgievski, 2010) Positiv påverkan på tillfredsställelse Arkitektur och layout Avancerad ICT (van der Voordt et al., 2008) Autonomi (Danielsson, 2008) Kontroll till avskildhet ( Nya möbler (Marquardt, 2002) De flesta studier drar slutsatsen att medarbetare generellt sett är nöjda i ABWs (Van der vordt 2002; Meijer, 2014, Gorgievski et al., 2010; Lansdale, 2011; Danielsson och Bodin, 2008)

110 Hälsa Källa: Bodin Danielsson, /

111 Preference for the A-FO Proportion of employees Org. type Public Public Public Municip ality Private Public Private Non-prof Private Private Company size ? at office Respondents Females/Male / / / / / / / /8 46 6/ /17 s Response rate 66 % 64 % 60 % 85 % 84 % 76 % 73% 90 % 92 % 58 % n=695, response rate 0.75