Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 38, Issue 1 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(1): 55-64 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/01/17 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/17
Received: 2023/01/17 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/17
How to cite this article
Fathi M, Sajjadzadeh H, Moini S. Effect of Physical and Spatial Factors of High-Rise Official Buildings in Karaj City, Iran, on Employee Productivity. GeoRes 2023; 38 (1) :55-64
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1428-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1428-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Architecture, Borujerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Borujerd, Iran
2- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bo Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bo Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract (583 Views)
Aims: Office workplace are designed with the aim of providing a place to better perform the tasks of employees. Hence, it is important to know the environmental factors that affect productivity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the spatial configuration of high-rise office buildings in Karaj city on the internal and external scale on employee productivity and compare it with the effect of the physical factors stated in the Haynes model.
Methodology: This descriptive research was conducted in the 2022 in Karaj. The main variables were extracted according to the Haines model and classified using the variance analysis test. Data was collected with a questionnaire. The analysis (ANOVA) of the space syntax of buildings including three variables "integration", "depth" and "connectivity" was performed in UCL.Depthmap.10 three levels "macro", "immediate" and "internal" in the software. In the inferential analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis using "partial least square" method were used in LISREL 10.2.
Findings: Physical factors including "temperature and ventilation", "noise and acoustics", "light", "dimensions" and "ergonomics" had the greatest impact on self-reported productivity in high-rise office building employees. Among other factors, the spatial structure had an impact on the productivity of employees at three macro levels (city scale), immediate area (surrounding area) and internal (architectural plan). The impact of spatial structure was less than that of physical factors, and there were differences in the sub variables of "integration", "depth" and "connectivity” and they were not equal. Among the variables of space syntax, "connectivity" has no relation with productivity It was the staff. The two variables of c integration and depth also had different effects at the urban level and immediately.
Conclusion: In office workplace, physical factors are effective in the productivity of employees, regardless of the work pattern. The internal space syntax is related to the interaction and concentration of employees, and this issue has a different effect depending on the working model. At the urban scale, "integration" has a weak and direct relationship with productivity.
Methodology: This descriptive research was conducted in the 2022 in Karaj. The main variables were extracted according to the Haines model and classified using the variance analysis test. Data was collected with a questionnaire. The analysis (ANOVA) of the space syntax of buildings including three variables "integration", "depth" and "connectivity" was performed in UCL.Depthmap.10 three levels "macro", "immediate" and "internal" in the software. In the inferential analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis using "partial least square" method were used in LISREL 10.2.
Findings: Physical factors including "temperature and ventilation", "noise and acoustics", "light", "dimensions" and "ergonomics" had the greatest impact on self-reported productivity in high-rise office building employees. Among other factors, the spatial structure had an impact on the productivity of employees at three macro levels (city scale), immediate area (surrounding area) and internal (architectural plan). The impact of spatial structure was less than that of physical factors, and there were differences in the sub variables of "integration", "depth" and "connectivity” and they were not equal. Among the variables of space syntax, "connectivity" has no relation with productivity It was the staff. The two variables of c integration and depth also had different effects at the urban level and immediately.
Conclusion: In office workplace, physical factors are effective in the productivity of employees, regardless of the work pattern. The internal space syntax is related to the interaction and concentration of employees, and this issue has a different effect depending on the working model. At the urban scale, "integration" has a weak and direct relationship with productivity.
Keywords:
References
1. Andrew Mc, Francis T (2008). Environmental psychology. Mahmoudi Gh, translator. Tehran: Vaniya Publishing. [Link]
2. Al Horr Y, Arif M, Kaushik A, Mazroei A, Katafygiotou M, Elsarrag E (2016). Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building And Environment. 105:369-389. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001]
3. Allan BA, Autin KL, Duffy R (2014). Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of working framework. Journal of Career Assessment. 22(4):543-561. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1069072713514811]
4. Aries MB, Veitch JA, Newsham GR (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(4):533-541. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.004]
5. Azizi H, Tazikeh Lemski I (2020). The effect of environmental factors on staff productivity in office space; Case study: Information technology companies of Iran. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development. 12(29):113-124. [Persian] [Link]
6. Barbadilla-Martín E, Lissen JMS., Guadix Martín JG Aparicio-Ruiz P, Brotas L (2017). Field study on adaptive thermal comfort in mixed mode office buildings in southwestern area Of Spain. Building And Environment. 123:163-175. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.042]
7. Bisadi M, Mozafar F, Hosseini B (2013). Spatial aspects of public areas affecting the researchers creativity and innovation in an architecture and urban design research center print. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ). 7(2):137-147. [Persian] [Link]
8. Choi JH, Moon J (2017). Impacts of human and spatial factors on user satisfaction in office environments. Building And Environment. 114:23-35. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.003]
9. Davis MC, Leach DJ, Clegg CW (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 27:193-237. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9781119992592.ch6]
10. Dettlaff W (2014). Space syntax analysis-methodology of understanding the space. PhD Interdisciplinary Journal. 1:283-291. [Link]
11. Ghanbaran A, Ebrahimpour R, Payedar Ardakani P, Tohidi Moghadam M (2018) The role of lighting, window views and indoor plants on stress reduction of offices' staffs by psychophysics method. Iran Occupational Health. 14(6):135-147. [Persian] [Link]
12. Golmohammadi R, Pirmoradi Z, Motamedzade M, Faradmal J (2020) assessing lighting and color temperature in the office workplaces and relationship to visual comfort. Iran Occupational Health. 17(1):1-10. [Persian] [Link]
13. Gray T, Birrell C (2014). Are biophilic-designed site office buildings linked to health benefits and high performing occupants? International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health. 11(12):12204-12222. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph111212204]
14. Haddadzadegan H, Zamardian ZS, Tahsildoost M, Jami S (2022). Evaluation of the impact of environmental factors on the satisfaction of the patient and the patient's companion in the rest rooms of Tehran hospitals. Architecture and Urban Planning of Iran. 12(1):251-264. [Persian] [Link]
15. Haynes BP (2008). Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journal Of Corporate Real Estate. 10(4):286-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14630010810925145]
16. Haynes BP (2009). Research design for the measurement of perceived office productivity. Intelligent Buildings International. 1(3):169-183. [Link] [DOI:10.3763/inbi.2009.0014]
17. Haynes BP, Suckley L, Nunnington N (2017). Workplace productivity and office type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 19(2):111-138. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/JCRE-11-2016-0037]
18. Hoboubi N, Choobineh A, Ghanavati FK, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA (2017). The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian petrochemical industry. Safety and Health at Work. 8(1): 67-71. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2016.07.002]
19. Howard MC (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What We are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 32(1):51-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664]
20. Klarqvist B (2015). A space syntax glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning. 6(2):1-10. [Link]
21. Laing A, Duffy F, Jaunzens D, Willis S (1998). New environments for working: The re-design of offices and environmental systems for new ways of working, London: Construction Research Communications Ltd. [Link]
22. Li X, Lv Z, Zheng Z, Zhong C, Hijazi IH, Cheng S (2017). Assessment of lively street network based on geographic information system and space syntax. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 76:17801-17819. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11042-015-3095-2]
23. Nubani LN (2018). Evaluating workplace constructs using computerized techniques of space syntax. Building Performance Evaluation. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-56862-1_11]
24. Permana AY, Nurrahman H, Permana AFS (2021). Systematic assessment with "poe" method in office buildings case study on the redesign results of office interior after occupied and operated. Journal of Applied Engineering Science. 19(2):448-465. [Link] [DOI:10.5937/jaes0-28072]
25. Samani SA, Rasid SZB (2014). A workplace to support creativity. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems. 13(4):414-420. [Link] [DOI:10.7232/iems.2014.13.4.414]
26. Seddigh A, Stenfors C, Berntsson E, Bååth R, Sikström S, Westerlund H (2015). The association between office design and performance on demanding cognitive tasks. Journal Of Environmental Psychology. 42:172-181. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.001]
27. Seyednaghavi M, Ghorbanizadeh V, Ghorbani Paji A (2018). The relationship between conflict management styles with human resource productivity in Sina bank. The Journal of Productivity Management. 11(4(43)):7-44. [Persian] [Link]
28. Shahzad S, Brennan J, Theodossopoulos D, Hughes B, Calautit JK (2017). Energy and comfort in contemporary open plan and traditional personal offices. Applied Energy. 185:1542-1555. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.100]
29. Singh A, Syal M, Grady SC, Korkmaz S (2010) Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. American Journal of Public Health. 100(9):1665-166. [Link] [DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2009.180687]
30. Singh MK, Ooka R, Rijal H, Takasu M (2017). Adaptive thermal comfort in the offices of north-east India in autumn season. Building And Environment. 124:14-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.037]
31. Sun Y, Hou J, Cheng R, Sheng Y, Zhang X, Sundell J (2019). Indoor air quality, ventilation and their associations with sick building syndrome in Chinese homes. Energy and Buildings. 197:112-119. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.046]
32. Tabe-Afshar S, Toofan S, Saghafi-Asl A (2022) Studying the role of workplaces layout on employees health: Sick building syndrome. Iranian Journnal of Ergonomics. 9(4):199-210. [Persian] [Link]
33. Thach TQ, Mahirah D, Dunleavy G, Nazeha N, Zhang Y, Tan CEH, et al (2019). Prevalence of sick building syndrome and its association with perceived indoor environmental quality in an Asian multi-ethnic working population. Building And Environment. 166:106420. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106420]
34. Thatcher A, Adamson K, Bloch L, Kalantzis A (2020). do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? divergent results from laboratory and field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 71:101487. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101487]
35. Vakilinezhad R, Shaeri J (2020). Evaluation of thermal comfort zone in naturally ventilated offices in Bushehr. Hoviatshahr. 14(4):61-72. [Persian] [Link]
36. Vischer JC (2007). The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. California Management Review. 49(2):62-79. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/41166383]
37. Vischer JC, Wifi M (2017). The effect of workplace design on quality of life at work. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_21]
38. Vischer JC (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review. 51(2):97-108. [Link] [DOI:10.3763/asre.2008.5114]