do workplaces work?

68
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com Workplace isn’t working… Workplace Trends 24.10.13 @Leesman_index

Upload: su-butcher

Post on 28-Jan-2015

110 views

Category:

Business


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Presentation by Tim Oldman, Leesman Index, to the WorkPlace Trends Conference 2013 in London What role does the workplace play in the post-recessional economy and who exactly are those places really working for: the employer, the employee or the landlord and his institutional investors? With barely more than half of the 40,000 employees we've talked to able to report that the design of their workplace enables them to work productively, clearly the world of workplace is a mess.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Workplace isn’t working… Workplace Trends 24.10.13 @Leesman_index

Page 2: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Workplace performance measures

Page 3: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Workplace performance measures £$€ sqm

Page 4: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Workplace performance value?

Page 5: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

11th Workplace trend? All talk (listening) no action…

Page 6: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 7: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 8: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

value?

Page 9: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

2010: Leesman Office One standardised measure of workplace effectiveness

An x-ray of workplace performance

Page 10: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 11: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

“Lies, damned lies and statistics.”

@Leesman_index

Page 12: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

+13% / person

* financial services sector downsizing

11.8 sqm / p

British Council for Offices “guide to specification”.

10.9 sqm / p

* Financial services off-loading people faster than they can off-load surplus space.

Page 13: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 14: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

1986 – DNA profiling first used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Colin Pitchfork convicted 5.8 x 108

Page 15: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Evidence Based Design

Page 16: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

“the law of large numbers”

Page 17: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement about the design of your organisation’s office?

42,677

Page 18: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

“It enables me to work productively”

42,677

Page 19: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively* 53% * % agreement across whole database

Page 20: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively 83% * % agreement to high performing project

Page 21: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively 15% * % agreement to low performing project

Page 22: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively 73% * % disagreement to low performing project

Page 23: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to 5% * % agreement to low performing project

Page 24: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Workplace isn’t working…

Page 25: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

3.2

1.1

2

1.1

1.8

1.4

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Group profit before tax £m

* From low performing client annual report and accounts 2012

Page 26: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively ?% * % agreement to low performing project post occupancy study

Page 27: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 28: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 29: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 30: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 31: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 32: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

1724 thermometer invented 1727 evidence of weather records 1914 “official records” began 1919 Meteorological Society founded

@Leesman_index @Wtrends13

Page 33: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

2,000,000 0  

1  

2  

3  

Page 34: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Government Soft Landings

&DELQHW�2I¿FH

6HFWLRQ�����)XQFWLRQDOLW\�DQG�(IIHFWLYHQHVV

Page 35: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

“Which activities are important to you in your work,

“Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?” ?%

Page 36: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0   5000   10000   15000   20000   25000   30000   35000   40000  

Individual focused work, desk based

Planned meetings

Telephone conversations

Informal, un-planned meetings

Collaborating on focused work

Reading

Relaxing / taking a break

Thinking / creative thinking

Individual routine tasks

Learning from others

Informal social interaction

Business confidential discussions

Hosting visitors, clients or customers

Spreading out paper or materials

Audio conferences

Collaborating on creative work

Larger group meetings or audiences

Individual focused work away from your desk

Private conversations

Video conferences

Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

42,114 respondents: workplace activities ranked by importance “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 37: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0   5000   10000   15000   20000   25000   30000   35000   40000  

Individual focused work, desk based

Planned meetings

Telephone conversations

Informal, un-planned meetings

Collaborating on focused work

Reading

Relaxing / taking a break

Thinking / creative thinking

Individual routine tasks

Learning from others

Informal social interaction

Business confidential discussions

Hosting visitors, clients or customers

Spreading out paper or materials

Audio conferences

Collaborating on creative work

Larger group meetings or audiences

Individual focused work away from your desk

Private conversations

Video conferences

Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

42,114 respondents: workplace activities ranked by importance “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 38: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0   5000   10000   15000   20000   25000   30000   35000   40000  

Individual routine tasks

Individual focused work, desk based

Learning from others

Planned meetings

Informal social interaction

Collaborating on focused work

Telephone conversations

Collaborating on creative work

Informal, un-planned meetings

Individual focused work away from your desk

Audio conferences

Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

Relaxing / taking a break

Larger group meetings or audiences

Hosting visitors, clients or customers

Reading

Spreading out paper or materials

Thinking / creative thinking

Business confidential discussions

Video conferences

Private conversations

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

42,114 respondents: workplace activities ranked by satisfaction “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 39: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  

Individual routine tasks

Individual focused work, desk based

Learning from others

Planned meetings

Informal social interaction

Collaborating on focused work

Telephone conversations

Collaborating on creative work

Informal, un-planned meetings

Individual focused work away from your desk

Audio conferences

Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

Relaxing / taking a break

Larger group meetings or audiences

Hosting visitors, clients or customers

Reading

Spreading out paper or materials

Thinking / creative thinking

Business confidential discussions

Video conferences

Private conversations

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

42,114 respondents: workplace activities ranked by satisfaction “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 40: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Thinking & creative thinking Bus’ confidential discussions Video conferencing Private conversations 50%

Page 41: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0   10   20   30   40   50   60   70  

Individual routine tasks Learning from others

Telephone conversations Individual focused work, desk based

Informal social interaction Individual focused work away from your desk

Spreading out paper or materials Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

Reading Collaborating on creative work Collaborating on focused work

Thinking / creative thinking Planned meetings

Informal, un-planned meetings Relaxing / taking a break

Audio conferences Business confidential discussions

Private conversations Larger group meetings or audiences Hosting visitors, clients or customers

Video conferences

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

Low performing workplace: workplace activities ranked by satisfaction “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 42: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0   10   20   30   40   50   60  

Using technical / specialist equipment or materials Learning from others

Reading Audio conferences

Telephone conversations Individual routine tasks

Hosting visitors, clients or customers Individual focused work away from your desk

Planned meetings Informal social interaction

Individual focused work, desk based Informal, un-planned meetings

Larger group meetings or audiences Business confidential discussions

Relaxing / taking a break Thinking / creative thinking

Collaborating on creative work Collaborating on focused work

Private conversations Spreading out paper or materials

Video conferences

Not  supported  at  all   Very  under-­‐supported   Under-­‐supported   Supported   Well  supported   Very  well  supported  

High performing workplace: workplace activities ranked by satisfaction “Which activities are important to you in your work, and how well are they supported?”

Page 43: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The standardised measure of workplace effectiveness. The standardised measure of workplace effectiveness. How well the space, supports the work. Lmi

Page 44: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

The fitness for purpose of corporate workplaces

Page 45: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Lmi 84.6

0 100

Lmi 33.3

Poorly supporting Highly supporting

51.4

Page 46: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

6

27

98

115

37

17

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Leesman Lmi banding – 300 properties as at May 2013

Bottom 15% Top 15%

Page 47: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Activities Activities Features Activities Features Facilities

Page 48: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

-­‐15%  

-­‐10%  

-­‐5%  

0%  

5%  

10%  

15%  In

form

al s

ocia

l inte

ract

ion

Rela

xing

/ ta

king

a b

reak

Priva

te c

onve

rsat

ions

Lear

ning

from

oth

ers

Thin

king

/ cr

eativ

e th

inki

ng

Colla

bora

ting

on c

reat

ive w

ork

Usin

g te

chni

cal /

spe

cial

ist e

quip

men

t or

mat

eria

ls

Vide

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k aw

ay fr

om y

our

desk

Host

ing

visito

rs, c

lient

s or

cus

tom

ers

Busin

ess

confi

dent

ial d

iscus

sions

Colla

bora

ting

on fo

cuse

d w

ork

Tele

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns

Read

ing

Indi

vidua

l rou

tine

task

s

Info

rmal

, un-

plan

ned

mee

tings

Plan

ned

mee

tings

Larg

er g

roup

mee

tings

or a

udie

nces

Audi

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k, d

esk

base

d

Spre

adin

g ou

t pap

er o

r mat

eria

ls

% Importance - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom

Page 49: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

-­‐15%  

-­‐10%  

-­‐5%  

0%  

5%  

10%  

15%  In

form

al s

ocia

l inte

ract

ion

Rela

xing

/ ta

king

a b

reak

Priva

te c

onve

rsat

ions

Lear

ning

from

oth

ers

Thin

king

/ cr

eativ

e th

inki

ng

Colla

bora

ting

on c

reat

ive w

ork

Usin

g te

chni

cal /

spe

cial

ist e

quip

men

t or

mat

eria

ls

Vide

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k aw

ay fr

om y

our

desk

Host

ing

visito

rs, c

lient

s or

cus

tom

ers

Busin

ess

confi

dent

ial d

iscus

sions

Colla

bora

ting

on fo

cuse

d w

ork

Tele

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns

Read

ing

Indi

vidua

l rou

tine

task

s

Info

rmal

, un-

plan

ned

mee

tings

Plan

ned

mee

tings

Larg

er g

roup

mee

tings

or a

udie

nces

Audi

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k, d

esk

base

d

Spre

adin

g ou

t pap

er o

r mat

eria

ls

% Importance - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom •  Informal social interaction •  Relaxing / taking a break •  Private conversations •  Learning from others •  Thinking / creative thinking •  Collaborating on creative work

Page 50: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

-­‐15%  

-­‐10%  

-­‐5%  

0%  

5%  

10%  

15%  In

form

al s

ocia

l inte

ract

ion

Rela

xing

/ ta

king

a b

reak

Priva

te c

onve

rsat

ions

Lear

ning

from

oth

ers

Thin

king

/ cr

eativ

e th

inki

ng

Colla

bora

ting

on c

reat

ive w

ork

Usin

g te

chni

cal /

spe

cial

ist e

quip

men

t or

mat

eria

ls

Vide

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k aw

ay fr

om y

our

desk

Host

ing

visito

rs, c

lient

s or

cus

tom

ers

Busin

ess

confi

dent

ial d

iscus

sions

Colla

bora

ting

on fo

cuse

d w

ork

Tele

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns

Read

ing

Indi

vidua

l rou

tine

task

s

Info

rmal

, un-

plan

ned

mee

tings

Plan

ned

mee

tings

Larg

er g

roup

mee

tings

or a

udie

nces

Audi

o co

nfer

ence

s

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k, d

esk

base

d

Spre

adin

g ou

t pap

er o

r mat

eria

ls

% Importance - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom •  Spreading out paper / materials •  Individual focused work, desk based •  Audio conferences •  Larger group meetings / audiences •  Planned meetings •  Informal un-planned meetings

Page 51: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rela

xing

/ ta

king

a b

reak

Host

ing

visito

rs, c

lient

s or

cu

stom

ers

Info

rmal

, un-

plan

ned

mee

tings

Busin

ess

confi

dent

ial

disc

ussio

ns

Info

rmal

soc

ial in

tera

ctio

n

Thin

king

/ cr

eativ

e th

inki

ng

Read

ing

Plan

ned

mee

tings

Colla

bora

ting

on fo

cuse

d w

ork

Audi

o co

nfer

ence

s

Lear

ning

from

oth

ers

Tele

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k, d

esk

base

d

Indi

vidua

l rou

tine

task

s

% Supported - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom TOP   BOTTOM  

•  Telephone conversations •  Individual focused work, desk based •  Individual routine tasks

Page 52: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rela

xing

/ ta

king

a b

reak

Host

ing

visito

rs, c

lient

s or

cu

stom

ers

Info

rmal

, un-

plan

ned

mee

tings

Busin

ess

confi

dent

ial

disc

ussio

ns

Info

rmal

soc

ial in

tera

ctio

n

Thin

king

/ cr

eativ

e th

inki

ng

Read

ing

Plan

ned

mee

tings

Colla

bora

ting

on fo

cuse

d w

ork

Audi

o co

nfer

ence

s

Lear

ning

from

oth

ers

Tele

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns

Indi

vidua

l foc

used

wor

k, d

esk

base

d

Indi

vidua

l rou

tine

task

s

% Supported - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom TOP   BOTTOM  

•  Relaxing / taking a break •  Hosting clients / visitors •  Informal unplanned mtgs •  Business confidential discussions •  Informal social interaction

Page 53: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% In

form

al w

ork

area

s / b

reak

-out

zon

es

Gre

ener

y

Gen

eral

déc

or

Mee

ting

room

s (s

mal

l)

Mee

ting

room

s (la

rge)

Qui

et ro

oms

for w

orki

ng a

lone

or i

n pa

irs

Pers

onal

sto

rage

Air q

ualit

y

Natu

ral li

ght

Peop

le w

alki

ng p

ast y

our d

esk

Prin

ting

/ cop

ying

/ sca

nnin

g eq

uipm

ent

In-o

ffice

net

wor

k co

nnec

tivity

Spac

e be

twee

n w

ork-

setti

ngs

Noise

leve

ls

Offi

ce lig

htin

g

Desk

/ ro

om b

ooki

ng s

yste

ms

Tem

pera

ture

con

trol

Rem

ote

acce

ss to

wor

k fil

es o

r net

wor

k

Acce

ssib

ility

of c

olle

ague

s

Divid

ers

(bet

wee

n de

sks

/ are

as)

Com

putin

g eq

uipm

ent

Chai

r

Desk

Tele

phon

e eq

uipm

ent

Abilit

y to

per

sona

lise

my

wor

ksta

tion

% Satisfied - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom TOP BOTTOM

•  Informal work areas / breakout zones •  Greenery & Planting •  General décor •  Meeting rooms (small) •  Meeting rooms (large) •  Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs

Page 54: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% In

form

al w

ork

area

s / b

reak

-out

zon

es

Gre

ener

y

Gen

eral

déc

or

Mee

ting

room

s (s

mal

l)

Mee

ting

room

s (la

rge)

Qui

et ro

oms

for w

orki

ng a

lone

or i

n pa

irs

Pers

onal

sto

rage

Air q

ualit

y

Natu

ral li

ght

Peop

le w

alki

ng p

ast y

our d

esk

Prin

ting

/ cop

ying

/ sca

nnin

g eq

uipm

ent

In-o

ffice

net

wor

k co

nnec

tivity

Spac

e be

twee

n w

ork-

setti

ngs

Noise

leve

ls

Offi

ce lig

htin

g

Desk

/ ro

om b

ooki

ng s

yste

ms

Tem

pera

ture

con

trol

Rem

ote

acce

ss to

wor

k fil

es o

r net

wor

k

Acce

ssib

ility

of c

olle

ague

s

Divid

ers

(bet

wee

n de

sks

/ are

as)

Com

putin

g eq

uipm

ent

Chai

r

Desk

Tele

phon

e eq

uipm

ent

Abilit

y to

per

sona

lise

my

wor

ksta

tion

% Satisfied - Sorted by Diff between Top & Bottom TOP BOTTOM

•  Dividers between desks / areas •  Computer equipment •  Chair •  Desk •  Telephone equipment •  Ability to personalise my workstation

Page 55: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Social cohesion…? Or just emotionally intelligent organisations?

Page 56: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Position Client Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Productivity agreement Pride agreement

1 A Tech Soft / Hardware UK 77 83.9 83% 92%

2 B Corporate Real Estate France 127 80.4 78% 96%

3 C Tech Soft / Hardware USA 125 80.1 83% 93%

4 C Tech Soft / Hardware USA 140 75.4 73% 86%

5 C Tech Soft / Hardware Ireland 256 75.2 77% 86%

6 D Financial Services UK 453 73.3 72% 89%

7 E Tech Soft / Hardware Poland 142 72.4 68% 71%

8 F Tech Soft / Hardware UK 180 71.8 70% 90%

9 G Infrastructure UK 1342 71.7 63% 87%

10 G Infrastructure UK 168 70.4 60% 84%

Page 57: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Position Client Sector Location Respondents Leesman Lmi Productivity agreement Pride agreement

1 H Manufacturing UK 112 48.9 41% 16%

2 I Financial Services UK 244 48.9 32% 19%

3 G Infrastructure UK 66 48.3 31% 15%

4 H Manufacturing UK 116 47.8 44% 28%

5 H Manufacturing UK 546 47.6 46% 32%

6 H Manufacturing UK 92 47.2 39% 22%

7 I Retail UK 784 45.9 30% 33%

8 H Manufacturing UK 360 45.7 38% 23%

9 J Financial Services UK 66 33.3 15% 5%

10 C Tech Soft / Hardware USA 50 33.2 24% 4%

Page 58: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 59: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 60: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 61: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 62: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 63: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 64: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 65: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Page 66: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

For lots of employees… workplace isn’t working

Page 67: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Is the Campus working..? Workplace Trends 2014?

Page 68: Do WorkPlaces Work?

Workplace  Isn’t  Working  24.10.13  ©  Leesman   leesmanindex.com  

Learning from leaders

Dell S

treak

3.1

in x 6

in – 2

009

Barn

es &

Noble

Nook

4.9

in x 7

.7in

- 2

009

JooJo

o Table

t

7.8

in x 1

2.8

in

Apple

iPad

7.4

7in

x 9

.56in

Sony P

RS-6

5 Touch

4.6

77in

x 6

.614in

Sam

sung G

ala

xy Tab

4.7

41in

x 7

.482in

Tosh

iba Fo

lio

7.1

2in

x 1

1.0

54in

Am

azo

n K

indle

3G

4.8

in x 7

.5in

Arc

hos 7

4.2

08in

x 7

.986in

Vie

wso

nic

Vie

wPad

7in

x 1

0in

Apple

iPad m

ini

5.3

in x 7

.87in

Tesc

o H

udl

5.0

7 in

x 7

.59in

Tablet global market 2009 – 2 million units | Tablet global market 2013 – 227 million units (predicted) Source: IDC

2009 2011 2012 20132010

Europe's largest measure of workplace satisfaction and e!ectiveness

INSIDE

Jane BristowAs higher education now comes with a

seriously high price tag, how does this

@ƤDBS�RSTCDMSRŗ�DWODBS@SHNMR��Page 4

Jack Pringle

Copycat competitors exist in all areas of business. But with higher education, like commerce, now under pressure to innovate, what role do mimics play in the adoption of new thinking?

This issue: Higher Education special – market competition, cohesion, consumerism and choice

Issue 11leesmanindex.com

Nigel BunclarkHow Network Rail is creating dynamic

workplace environments by embarking

on a journey towards agile working. Page 10

2GNCCX�QDRHCDMBD�AKNBJR�VNMŗS�BTS�HS�HM�SGD�battle to attract top students. We need

a new solution for a new age. Page 8

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively Agree 53.3%

Neutral 16.8%

Disagree 29.9%

0\�RUJDQLVDWLRQśV�RƫFH�LV� a place I am proud to bring visitors to Agree 47.9%

Neutral 21.4%

Disagree 30.7%

The design of my workplace is important to me Agree 84.6%

Neutral 12.1%

Disagree 3.3%

�����4��%ULHƩQJ�

Lmi 59.4- 0.5 | hi 84.6 | lo 32.9

40,734 respondents

91 surveys

331 properties

63% av response rate

11 min av response time

The Lmi is Europe’s central workplace effectiveness benchmark, reporting on a scale of 0-100 on the ability of a workplace to support important workplace activities.Data reported at 30.09.2013

No of properties by Lmi band

Lmi 0-16 = 1Lmi 17-33 = 3Lmi 34-49 = 35Lmi 50-66 = 206Lmi 67-83 = 77Lmi 84-100 = 9

[email protected]

It is said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. For the agile organisations whose cutting-edge ideas carve new territories, it might seem a hollow compliment. But in commerce and now in higher education, these mimics bring benefit, because for trailblazing thought leaders, this is merely the next inevitable stage in innovation chronology. It is rarely a case of ‘if’ innovation will be copied, more a case of ‘who’ and ‘when’.

For those involved in delivering higher education there is huge pressure to innovate. As fees become the focus, ‘student experience’ becomes the measure by which universities battle for market share; academic standing alone is no ‘unique selling proposition’.

In commerce, innovative products often only develop market recognition when competitors arrive with their mimic solution. It can be hard to justify the benefits

of new thinking when you are alone proposing it. So having a competitor reassures customers that the thinking is credible, worth competing over, and gives them a choice.

In one US academic study by Daniel Mochon of Tulane University on ‘the power of choice’, subjects were shown two virtually identical electrical products and asked which they would buy. Thirty-four per cent chose one product and 32 per cent the other. But when choice was removed for a second group and just one product offered, 10 per cent said they would buy it. So competition is good. It gives customers the chance to compare and control.

In 2010, when Leesman laid out its proposal for a wholly independent workplace effectiveness measure, we set out to change the way workplace performance is measured. The proposal emerged from extensive consultation with our potential customers, embedding their voice in

our solution.Two weeks before, Apple’s

first generation iPad went on sale in London with media scepticism matching Apple bravado. They laid out a promise to change the way we used computers. Safe to say they succeeded? Within two years the market was flooded with me-too offerings that helped establish phenomenal tablet adoption.

Three years later, tablet computer sales for the fourth quarter of 2013 are expected to top personal computers for the first time as consumers continue to switch to tablets, confounding sceptics by carrying more than one device (iPad for web and mail, Kindle for reading). According to data published by US researchers IDC, from a relative trickle of two million annual sales in 2009, global tablet sales for the last quarter of 2013 will top 84.1 million units, compared with 83.1 million for PCs.

Now UK supermarket giant Tesco has decided tablets should be part of its

stall. In September it unveiled its seven-inch Hudl which retails at just £120. But these are crowded waters. Google’s Nexus 7 and Amazon’s Kindle Fire both sit sub-£200 and arguably come with greater tech brand credibility. Critics questioned how this can possibly be a profitable proposition for Tesco when Amazon’s Jeff Bezos publicly reported that his £159 Kindle Fire HD ‘made not a penny in profit’ for his company.

Is Apple concerned? I doubt it. As copyists work to squeeze a market at the bottom of the food chain, they are simply helping accelerate the pace of PC to tablet migration, creating new tablet adopters who will doubtless quickly become accustomed to the results of the brutal ‘value engineering’ needed to pitch a product at £120. These are consumers who will learn that for £120, there is little left for a premium customer experience. So will the same be true of higher education

and the ‘student experience’?In the new customer-

driven economy, those who place a stronger emphasis on enhancing the customer experience across the sum total of all client interactions will gain competitive advantage because they are partnering with their clients and embedding the voice of the customer directly into their processes and organisational DNA. This is where the best universities are trailblazing now.

For organisations who simply attach copyist bolt-ons to their service or product portfolio, in vain attempts to keep abreast with contemporary thinking, customer pressure increases to reverse innovations back through their historic service offerings – or risk them being seen as clunky and out of touch. What the copyists will come to learn is that customers know that price is rarely totally unrelated to quality of experience.

Overseas studentsTop three universities with highest

proportion of overseas students

University of St Andrews 41.63%Imperial College London 37.57%

University College London 36.75%

University tuition feesAlmost 75% of English universities

plan to charge £9,000 for at least some courses in 2014-15. The average fee level

for 2014-15 will rise by around £150 to about £8,650

Sour

ce: U

nive

rsity

of B

uckingham

Buckingham UniversityHow a student at Buckingham can save £11,080 by doing a two-year course

Buckingham UniversityYears Tuition Living CostsYear one £11,960 £8,000Year two £11,960 £8,000Total £39,920

Other UK universitiesYear one £9,000 £8,000Year two £9,000 £8,000Year three £9,000 £8,000Total £51,000

Total student populationTop three student city populations

1 Greater London – 595,580

2 Birmingham – 134,470

3 Manchester – 105,855

Good honours % of students achieving

a 1st/2:1 degree

Highest 90.9% Oxford University

Lowest 41.9%University College

Birmingham

Average weekly rent Average weekly rent in purpose-built student

accommodation is £123.96, or £5,244 a year – 95% of the maximum available

student maintenance loan

‘Poshest’ university % of students from

independent schools

Highest 45.7%Oxford

Lowest 0%Ulster

Student:sta! ratioAverage number of students

per member of sta!

Highest 10 University College London

Lowest 21.8University College

Birmingham

Graduate prospectsHighest 92.1%

St. George’s University of London

Lowest 39.4%East London

Facilities spendExpenditure per student on

sta!/student facilities

Highest £1,071 Royal Agricultural University

Lowest £79St George's,

University of London

Average price per pint

Highest £3.60Imperial College London

Lowest £2.50Liverpool

Sourc

e: HESA

Sour

ce: H

ESA

Sour

ce: O

FFA (O

!ce

for F

air Access)

Sour

ce: C

omple

te

University Guide

Sour

ce: C

omple

te

University Guide

Sour

ce: S

tude

nt B

eans

Sour

ce: D

aily M

ail

Sour

ce: N

atio

nal U

nion of Students

Sour

ce: C

omple

te

University Guide

Sour

ce: C

omple

te

University Guide

2

Education by osmosis

The UK university market is changing. The market for students is now a highly competitive one where institutions are having to think clearly and carefully about the positioning and posturing that will best draw student attention to select them as their place of study. Because universities also have to justify the very comparable and public price tag that they are attaching to that higher education.

Universities hate the idea of students as customers, but students see themselves as paying. In our research, students are adopting a different relationship with and attitude towards the institution delivering the education they are paying for.

For many universities this is new ground. As students become customers and faculties the profit centres, university estate directors are under increasing pressure to understand the role of the campus in supporting the delivery of an educational programme that comes with a £9,000 fee.

A key factor in this estate performance evaluation and a recurrent topic of discussion at this year’s Design and Management of Learning Environments conference in London (theme: the user experience) was ‘stickiness’. How can the campus attract and keep students there, learning, collaborating, exchanging? As technologies allow students to work anywhere any time, university spaces need to work harder to attract and bind students together in a socially cohesive way.

That’s what keeps them engaged and bound in a collective journey through their education. Students who drift off campus to study in isolation are

often found to be those struggling – especially among first years. What is most interesting, perhaps, is that our Leesman Office data offers clear evidence that this is the factor that differentiates leading commercial organisations’ workplaces from the poor performance ones. Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer may have been on to something when she said she preferred staff to work in the office rather than at home.

With our database now passing 40,000 individual respondents across 340 individual buildings, analysis of what characteristics separate the highest from the lowest achievers becomes significantly more and more robust. And the nature of those activities and physical features is starting to point firmly to social cohesion factors delivering significantly enhanced workplace effectiveness.

When we analysed the top and bottom 15 per cent of buildings in our database, we identified a series of key areas where high-performance spaces consistently differ the most from those at the bottom of the league table.

Social activitiesWithin the group of highest-performing buildings, occupants consistently rated such features as ‘Informal social interaction’, ‘Relaxing and taking a break’, ‘Learning from others’, ‘Thinking/creative thinking’ and ‘Collaborating on creative work’ as significantly more important than those in the lowest-performing group. When we then examined how well these activities

were supported within the working environment, this high-performing group were again delivering significantly greater satisfaction levels than the bottom group.

The routineIn contrast, our top-performing building occupants attached less importance to routine activities like ‘Spreading out paper and materials’, ‘Individual focused work’, ‘Individual routine tasks’ and ‘Planned meetings’.

And here we found that while satisfaction levels were still moderately higher for those activities among our top-performing space occupiers, the results were considerably closer. So across high- and low-performing spaces, similar importance and satisfaction is attached to routine tasks. In other words, the routine is not where high performance creates difference.

Social infrastructureWhen we turned to examining the physical features that differentiate our two groups, we were interested to see that it is satisfaction with ‘Informal work areas and breakout zones’, ‘Greenery and planting’, ‘General décor’, ‘Meeting rooms’ and ‘Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs’ where the

difference in satisfaction was at its greatest.

The basicsOnce again, the routine features ‘Computer equipment’, ‘Desk’, ‘Chair’ and ‘Telephone equipment’ saw significantly less clear water between the groups. So it appears that these basic essentials are rarely performance-enhancing measures and just basic provisions that almost all workplace providers are getting right. This is not where the high-performance group are making the difference.

Leesman EducationApplying the same measurement protocol to university estates could provide similarly powerful insights. And these insights could then be used to both fine-tune the student (customer) experience and improve the educational outcome.

The Leesman Education tools are being designed to provide university estates directors with line of sight to where their collections of buildings and facilities are supporting the academic programme. From there we can understand the role of university buildings in supporting their student experience in an increasingly competitive world.

With ‘social cohesion’ appearing to be a key indicator of high-performance workplaces, what can universities learn from commerce?

University Student NumbersUniversity of London* 132,325

University of Manchester 40,680

2GDƧDKC�'@KK@L�4MHUDQRHSX� ������

University of Nottingham 35,630

Manchester Metropolitan University 34,595

University of South Wales 33,500

University of Leeds 32,510

University of Central Lancashire 31,530

University of Plymouth 31,105

University of Birmingham 31,070

Coventry University 31,045

University of the West of England 30,390

"@QCHƤ�4MHUDQRHSX� ������

University of Northumbria 29,300

Teesside University 28,040

Leeds Metropolitan University 27,985

Nottingham Trent University 27,930

University of Edinburgh 27,675

University of Warwick 27,440

4MHUDQRHSX�NE�'DQSENQCRGHQD� ������

University of Ulster 26,570

University of Greenwich 26,445

University of Glasgow 26,395

Kingston University 26,180

4MHUDQRHSX�NE�2GDƧDKC� ������

University of Oxford 25,595

Liverpool John Moores University 24,455

University of Southampton 24,135

University of Portsmouth 23,830

Bangor University 23,545

Middlesex University 23,540

London Metropolitan University 23,485

Birmingham City University 23,440

London South Bank University 23,350

4MHUDQRHSX�NE�'TKK� ������

University of East London 23,225

Queen's University Belfast 22,990

$CFD�'HKK�4MHUDQRHSX� ������

4MHUDQRHSX�NE�'TCCDQRƥDKC� ������

University of the Arts London 22,315

University of Bedfordshire 22,275

University of Brighton 22,075

University of Liverpool 21,875

2S@ƤNQCRGHQD�4MHUDQRHSX� ������

University of Salford 21,755

Anglia Ruskin University 21,605

University of Westminster 21,500

University of Newcastle 21,055

University of Kent 20,310

University of Cambridge 19,945

University of Strathclyde 19,870

Swansea University 19,790

Bournemouth University 19,750

City University 19,340

University of Bristol 19,220

Canterbury Christ Church University 19,105

University of Exeter 18,720

University of Derby 18,495

Oxford Brookes University 18,425

University of East Anglia 17,610

University of York 17,405

University of Sunderland 17,380

University of Leicester 17,055

University of Dundee 16,585

University of Durham 16,570

Loughborough University 16,195

Glasgow Caledonian University 16,120

Imperial College London 16,000

Brunel University 15,885

Aberystwyth University 15,605

University of Aberdeen 15,515

University of Essex 15,215

University of Bath 15,135

University of the West of Scotland 14,845

Southampton Solent University 14,750

Top 75 UK universities ranked by full-time student numbers

‘As technologies allow students to work

anywhere any time, university spaces

need to work harder to attract and bind

students together in a socially cohesive

V@X �2STCDMSR�VGN�CQHES�NƤ�B@LOTR�SN�study in isolation are often found to

be those struggling – especially among

ƥQRS�XD@QR’

+DDRL@M�K@TMBGDR�HSR�+DDRL@M�$CTB@SHNM�DƤDBSHUDMDRR�LD@RTQDLDMS�SNNKR�NM� 28 November. For more information contact [email protected]

Source: HESA* The University of London is a federal public university in London. It comprises

18 constituent colleges, 10 research institutes and a number of central bodies.