MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291383766 · doi:10.15396/eres2015_304

The Productive Workplace for Knowledge Workers: A focus on workplace design and environment across various age groups.

2015· preprint· en· W2291383766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Chadburn, Judy Smith

Bibliographic record

Venue22nd Annual European Real Estate Society Conference · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityAttritionQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)BusinessJob satisfactionPublic relationsEngineeringMarketingManagementPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsGeographyMedicineMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of work has changed and office designers are striving to find the ideal workplace design that meets the needs of knowledge workers. According to Thompson and Kay (2008) the issue of productivity is becoming of key interest in all sectors. In recent years, firms have begun to realise that a workplace environment that has been well designed is more likely to attract the highest calibre of worker and reduce staff attrition. (Gensler, 2005). A poorly-designed workplace can increase stress levels and negatively affect performance. As many as one- fifth of workplaces in the UK do not provide sufficient work place environments, and that at least one quarter of staff in the UK logged ‘serious’ complaints about factors such as poor layout, furniture, temperature and noise, among others (Myerson et al, 2011). Overall, British businesses are still considerably behind in creating workplaces that optimise employee satisfaction. (Arup, 2011). Improved workplace design can lead to a productivity increase Gensler (2005) and Bootle and Kalyan (2002) agree that billions of pounds are wasted each year due to the unproductive layout and design of some offices. There is a clear connection between the work environments and office users' productivity within the workplace. Most studies include the components of furniture, noise, lighting, temperature and spatial arrangements when considering that which affects productivity (Hameed and Amjad, 2009). However, there is no clear consensus as to which factors predominate. Employees of different generations respond differently to how their workplace environment is designed (Myerson et al, 2010). Almost 50% of today’s economy is knowledge-based and more workers are expected to be flexible, creative and communicative, (Greene and Myerson, 2011). The creation of work environments that result in satisfied and productive knowledge workers and end users requires information about user preferences concerning their work environments, and as the nature of work is changing, there is a need for updated research within this subject.Method: This paper will be based on research carried out on knowledge workers in 7 substantial companies within London. Results: Some results are already known and these include: employees are most productive when under pressure and in a buzzy environment; colleagues, design of office and quality of IT are the greatest factors that make employees unproductive.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue22nd Annual European Real Estate Society ConferenceSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207