THE IMPACT OF BPO BUILDINGS’ SPACE CHARACTERISTICS TO USERS’ WORK
PRODUCTIVITY IN DAVAO CITY
Dwayne T. Piamonte1 and Nurvin Zary E. Bustillo2
Student, College of Architecture and Fine Arts Education, University of Mindanao, Philippines
2
Professor, College of Architecture and Fine Arts Education, University of Mindanao, Philippines
1
Abstract
In the competitive business industry, organizations can no longer afford to waste their workforce's potential.
The workplace environment key factor that greatly impacts the employee's motivation and performance level. The
workplace environment's importance affects the user's morale, productivity, and engagement - positively and negatively.
It is not just new that programs addressing lifestyle changes, work/life balance, health, and fitness - are now primary
considerations of potential employees and common practices among the most admired companies (Chandrasekar, 2011).
According to Lacson (2019), the developers are becoming more conscious about sustainability, wellness,
curating experiences, and providing state-of-the-art amenities that create a better office space occupiers’ environment.
This study used a quantitative method in research. The researcher will measure the productivity of
the workers through the labor productivity equation. It will also evaluate the satisfaction of the workers to their workplace
environment using survey questionnaires. After gathering the data, the analysis will take place. The research design of
this study is correlational research.
The data gathered and presented in the tables shows that in the three space characteristics which is Physical
Space, Social Space, Ambiance, the one with highest mean value among them in terms of importance level is the Physical
Space. The features of this space characteristics (Physical Space) have a strong correlation to the productivity of the
workers. In the current workplace environment of the respondents, the users are not satisfied. It needs renovation and the
need to improve some of the features. The rate of their workplace is also low in level. With all these data gathered by the
researcher, it concludes that the better the physical characteristics of a workplace the higher the productivity and
satisfaction of the users.
Keywords: BPO, workplace environment, quantitative, performance and satisfaction, characteristics.
1. Introduction
In
the competitive business industry,
organizations can no longer afford to waste their
workforce's potential. The workplace environment key
factor that greatly impacts the employee's motivation and
performance level. The workplace environment's
importance affects the user's morale, productivity, and
engagement - positively and negatively. It is not just new
that programs addressing lifestyle changes, work/life
balance, health, and fitness - are now primary
considerations of potential employees and common
practices among the most admired companies
(Chandrasekar, 2011).
According to Lacson (2019), the developers are
becoming more conscious about sustainability, wellness,
curating experiences, and providing state-of-the-art
amenities that create a better office space occupiers’
environment.
Today, people tend to be more social and
productive. That is why working together in one place like
an office environment is seen as desperate and dated.
Therefore, Chandrasekar (2011) stated that the connection
or relationship between the work, work tools, and
workplace had become the utmost important aspect in
their work itself. In this research, several factors of the
workplace environment that affect employees'
performance will be determined and discussed. The
workplace environment characteristics are supervisor
support or relationship, opportunity to get promoted,
performance feedback, goal setting, workplace incentives,
mentoring, coaching, and the physical work environment
(Naharuddin & Sadegi, 2013).
2. Review of Related Literature
2.1.1. Physical Space Characteristics
This space characteristic is categorized into
five (5); interior, exterior, layout, decoration, and design.
These categories affect the workers feeling and behavior.
Interior spaces in a workplace include lighting,
flooring, cleanliness, temperature, and smells. According
to Anandasivam & Cheong (2008), "good lighting,
decorations on the walls, comfortable furniture, not an
annoying odor and other things can make the users feel
encouraged.
Excitable behavior may subdue using a dark
color and will stimulate when using bright color (McCabe,
2003). In the past years, used preferred dark colors in the
workplace, but natural and bright colors are highly
selected (Ozguner, 2017). According to Sufar et al. (2012),
there is vast importance of the workplace's noise and
sound level. When noise levels exceeded 85 decibels,
there is a negative effect report to the workers, stated by
Cooper et al. (2009). They also noted that plants' presence
in the environment has an increasing impact on the users'
comfort and well-being. Also, the view from inside the
workplace has a positive effect.
Proper lighting is a very debatable component in
office spaces. According to Knez and Enmarker (2008),
the lightings affects different gender; females prefers
reddish lighting and males prefers bluish lighting.
However, both genders prefer the least cool lighting and
warmest in color temperature. A study from the
Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment
and the British Council for Offices revealed that proper
lighting and adequate daylight increase productivity
between 20 and 28 percent.
The flexibility of both personnel and space needs
to be offered today and in the future workplaces that allow
them to interchange ideas and communicate (Anjum, et al.,
2005). Therefore, the characteristics of the environment
are very important for the workers to be happy and
successful. A lot of people want to work in a better
workplace environment. Workplace design is one of the
factors that influence job satisfaction and performance.
2.1.2. Social Space Characteristics
This space characteristic includes privacy,
place attachment, communication, respect, the ownership
feeling, trust, anonymity, social interaction opportunity,
productivity, and linger opportunity. Place attachment,
defined by Altman and Low (1992), is the bond between
people and places. They stated that when people are under
stress, they want to be attached to sites. People develop
security and comfort from the figure they want to be
connected with. Moreover, when their attachment figure
becomes inaccessible, people tend to protest. Studies have
shown that both social and physical imperatives result in
the feeling of attachment (Waxman, 2006); (Burley, 2007)
2.1.3. Ambiance Characteristics
The ambiance, defined by (Stroebele & Castro,
2004), includes several factors: physical and social
surroundings, smell, temperature, sound, distractions,
environment color, and temperature. In the environmental
aesthetics, ambiance describes the overall impact of
certain physical and social features of an environment;
that is, personal feelings (affect) and attitudes, acts, or
reactions are the focus of preferenda.
According to environmental psychologists,
individuals respond to their environment in one of two
ways: approach or avoidance (Mehrabian & Russell,
2004), where the solution is a desire to linger, discover,
and affiliate with others, and release is the polar opposite.
According to Sufar et al. (2012), the physical
world's sensory elements can influence mood and emotion.
In its most basic form, perception of the environment
refers to becoming conscious of space via the acquisition
of knowledge through the senses of sight, hearing, smell,
touch, and taste. The internal processing of this sensory
input is known as cognition. This cognition may include
tasks such as thinking about, recalling, or analyzing the
data. Responses and reactions to environmental
information gained by perception and cognition are
referred to as spatial behavior. The designer uses
environmental stimuli to guide these psychological stages
and secondary processes such as motivation, impact, and
development. Another deciding factor to consider by the
interior designer is ecological preferences, which evolve
due to experience and interaction with the environment.
According to Ulrich (2003), the inability to control
the workplace's ambient properties to meet workers'
requirements is likely to result in some increased levels of
personal stress. The stuff most likely to have a detrimental
effect on employees' health is air quality and workplace
noise. Depending on demographic factors such as gender
and other office design concerns, light and lighting in the
workplace may positively or negatively affect employees'
mental health (e.g., open-plan versus segmented office
layout). Finally, views from windows, as well as the
inclusion of windows and plants in the office, tend to have
a beneficial effect on employees' mental health. Subjects
in the sample, both men and women, showed more
creative thinking and created innovative solutions to
office issues when introduced plants and flowers to the
work environment. Ambient atmosphere quality includes
lighting, and air quality, which are important mediating
and moderating variables as well as temperature, color,
ventilation, humidity, access to nature, having views of
nature, and natural sunlight, and having plants in offices
and homes, according to the study (Cooper & Boyko,
2009).
ergonomic physical workplace at work (Cooper & Dewe,
2004).
Moreover, Brill (2002) stated that a few aspects
of the workplace atmosphere needed to be changed.
Lighting, floor design, office layout, and furniture layout
are all things to consider. He explained that the workplace
environment elements must be for workers to be stressfree when performing their duties. They also noted in their
article that the physical aspect plays an important role in
developing the network and relationships at work.
2.1.5. Employee’s Productivity
2.1.4. Workplace Environment
A commonly held belief is that a
more positive work climate motivates workers and leads
to better results. Can identify the physical and behavioral
components of the office environment. These elements
can be further subdivided into various independent
variables. The physical environment of an organization
and its architecture and layout can influence employee
behavior in the workplace (Massoudi & Hamdi, 2017).
According to Brill (2002), workplace physical design
changes will result in a 5-10% increase in employee
productivity. He claimed that increasing the company's
physical architecture is built around the needs of
employees to increase efficiency and satisfaction.
2.1.4.1. Definition of Workplace Environment
The work environment refers to the workplace's
physical geographical location, including the workplace
surroundings, such as an office building or a construction
site. Other considerations related to the workplace, such
as air quality, noise level, and additional incentives and
advantages of jobs, such as free child care or unlimited
coffee, or ample parking, are usually included
(www.businessdictionary.com).
Also, the term "work climate" refers to the
environments in which an employee works. Physical
environments, such as office temperature, or equipment,
such as personal computers, may make up the work
environment. It may also be related to work processes or
procedures (Massoudi & Hamdi, 2017).
The term "ergonomic workplace" refers to a
physical working environment. Research into the
workplace environment is needed to have an ergonomic
workplace for all employees. Employees would be less
likely to suffer from nerve injuries if they have this
Employee productivity (also known as staff
productivity) is a measurement of workers' or workers'
production (whatis.techtarget.com). Productivity can be
measured in terms of an employee's productivity over a
set time. Typically, a worker's productivity is measured in
comparison to the average for workers doing similar jobs.
Employee productivity is an important factor for
companies because their employees' productivity is so
important to their performance (Massoudi & Hamdi,
2017).
According to Sinha (2001), if workers are eager
and open to do their jobs, it will improve their productivity,
leading to better results. Employee performance may also
be described as a person's ability to perform and their
desire and ability to execute. The term "willingness to
succeed" refers to an employee's ability to bring in as
much effort as possible in their work.
2.1.6. Physical Work Environment and Employee’s
Productivity
In terms of the physical work environment,
there are a few variables that may influence employee
efficiency. The lighting in the office is one of the factors.
Several other factors could affect the employees'
productivity. Other distractions include noise, which
causes workers to be uncomfortable and reduces their
productivity (Boyce, 2003).
Furthermore, employee satisfaction can
influence employee productivity. As a result, to keep
workers happy, the physical workplace aspect that was
stated earlier must be considered (Brill, 2002). According
to McCoy and Evans (2005), Employees who have
become stressors at work are more likely to complete their
tasks slowly, affecting their performance. Employees'
version can be influenced by the role they are assigned and
the atmosphere in which they function. Employees will
devote their full attention and resources to their job if they
work in a pleasant atmosphere.
2.1.7. Sustainable
Workplaces
Construction
to
Sustainable
While environmental concerns in the built
environment are concentrated on building "green" and are
often given priority by businesses, occupational health
and wellness considerations are more difficult to measure
and have less attention. However, achieving sustainable
development is increasingly clear in the built environment
requires an emphasis on sustainable workplaces and
sustainable building (Smith & Pitt, 2011).
Given reports that employee disengagement is
on the rise (Pech & Slade, 2006), it's critical to create
workplaces that promote employee happiness. Employees
feel energized when engaged in their work and productive
about it and see it as a challenge rather than a source of
stress (Bakker, et al., 2008).
According to research, enhancing the
workplace climate decreases grievances and absenteeism
while also increasing efficiency (Roelefsen, 2002). Wells
(2000) found that workplace satisfaction is linked to job
satisfaction and that workplace efficiency perceptions
have a direct impact on building users' psychology.
Lee and Brand (2005) discovered a connection
between perceived personal control and self-reported job
satisfaction over the physical environment. They also
found that job satisfaction was linked to a sense of
personal power. When people are confined to open-plan
offices, it can be difficult to achieve the comfort levels
they want, so having more control over their surroundings
and the use of technology can help.
People who have more time and space in the
building are generally happier (Leaman & Bordass, 2007).
A good working environment is free of harmful
chemicals and has the fewest possible safety hazards. A
safe working climate can enhance worker's happiness. As
a result, Indoor air quality (IAQ) is a major problem in the
workplace, and it's an environment where there's a lot of
room for improvement. Sustainable construction practices
may have a big effect (Smith & Pitt, 2011).
2.1.8. Sustainable
Productivity
Workplace
Influences
on
There is a lot of literature about how various
workplace aspects affect efficiencies, such as privacy,
color, interior planting, personal control, windows,
lighting, and personalization (Smith & Pitt, 2011).
Lee and Brand (2005) discovered a connection
between self-reported job satisfaction and perceived
personal control over the physical environment. They also
found that job satisfaction was linked to a sense of
personal power. Although one of the most common
complaints, particularly in open-plan offices, is a lack of
privacy. Good distractions, such as trees, plants, and water,
may be integrated into buildings to increase the
workplace's efficiency and productivity.
Shibata and Suzuki (2002) discovered that
plants could influence people's moods, and Kaplan (1993)
said that those who have a view of nature, such as trees
and greenery, are happier, and that even brief exposure to
a natural setting can be therapeutic:
"Those who had a view of nature were less
frustrated and patient, found their job more challenging,
showed more passion for it, and registered higher life
satisfaction and overall health." (Kaplan, 1993)
According to Kaplan (1993), providing outdoor
areas at work can be beneficial for views or direct
participation, such as lunch areas and walking areas. With
landscaped atria and "streets" within buildings, bringing
nature into buildings is becoming increasingly common.
Green solar architecture is a form of sustainable
building that uses natural elements and regulates the
indoor climate with plants (Freeman, 2008). Green solar
architecture offers a system for designing and constructing
safe facilities that are cost-effective and environmentally
friendly.
2. Theoretical Framework
The researcher adopted three space
characteristics in the adapted framework shown in Fig. 1.
First is the social space, which is the core of the
framework; in this space, it includes the characteristics of
noise, creativity, privacy, socialization, workers,
productivity, security, and other customers. Secondly, the
physical space is the lighting, layout, design style,
furniture, cleanliness, menu, and color. Lastly, the third
space is the ambiance, and this includes the space
characteristics of amb-color, air quality, amb-noise, music
choice, amb-view, amb-design style, amb-lighting
(Özguner, 2017).
2.1.9. Workspace Productivity
Satisfaction Support
and
Workspace
(Leaman & Bordass, 2007), Productivity is
characterized as people's ability to increase their job
production by increasing the quantity and quality of the
product or service they produce. The physical office
environment's effect on employee efficiency has been
highlighted in workplace research.
Workplace characteristics such as temperature,
air quality, noise, lighting, and office design are all factors
that influence the health, happiness, and productivity of
office workers (Horr, et al., 2016). Employees' selfreported indicators of job satisfaction, well-being, and
efficiency are all linked to the use of space and physical
conditions in the building (Haynes, 2008).
Employee satisfaction (physical workspace
characteristics) and respective feelings about their work
environment expressed in terms of the sense of territory
(ownership and belonging) and perceived productivity are
common behavioral or outcome indicators in workplace
environment research. Employee satisfaction with work
environment features is linked to self-reported success,
efficiency, and job satisfaction. Workspace efficiency is a
metric that measures how well the physical environment
serves workers in terms of quality and quantity of work
completed, time spent, and overall output (Vischer, 2008).
Employee satisfaction was assessed in another
study using 22 workplace characteristics and their relative
value in terms of employee perceived productivity.
According to the findings, job satisfaction is linked to
perceived efficiency (Fassoulis & Alexopoulos, 2015).
2.1.10. Attachment of Employees to their Workspaces
Place attachment in the workplace is
concerned with the affective aspect of the relationship
between workers and their surroundings (Scannell &
Gifford, 2010). According to Inalhan and Finch (2004), to
improve an employee's attachment to the workplace, a
physical environment plays a vital role. Employees'
loyalty to their workplace should be continually improved
by good workspace design, which aims to retain certain
meaningful and familiar characteristics (Ujang &
Zakariya, 2015). As a result, the analysis of position
attachment in the Stress and Workplace Attachment
workplace atmosphere leads to the development and
maintenance of office setting attraction and purpose.
In contrast to satisfaction, which is described as
an attitude toward the physical environment at work,
workplace attachment is a more nuanced measure that
involves behavioral and emotional dimensions that go
beyond a simple positive assessment (Giuliani, 2003).
Place satisfaction is linked to place attachment,
which is linked to good results in the workplace.
According to a study by Zenker and Rütter (2014), high
citizen satisfaction (with a position) increases feelings of
place attachment. High levels of place attachment reduce
the desire to leave that place.
3. Methodology
3.1.1. Research Design
This study used a quantitative method in
research. The researcher will measure the productivity of
the workers through the labor productivity equation. It
will also evaluate the satisfaction of the workers to their
workplace environment using survey questionnaires.
After gathering the data, the analysis will take place.
The research design of this study is
correlational research. The data gathered from evaluating
the worker's satisfaction with the workplace environment
and measuring their work productivity will answer the
study's research question one (RQ 1), which is to know
whether the workplace environment of BPO buildings has
an impact on the worker's productivity, and this will also
answer the research question two (RQ 2) which among the
stated three space characteristics affects them most.
4. Results and Discussion
The first category of the survey questionnaire is
about the demographics of the respondents; it has five (5)
questions that ask about their age, gender, occupation,
education level, and marital status.
In the first question, the respondent’s age, 300 of the
respondents are 20-29 years old, and 4 of them are 30-39
years old. In the second question, the respondent’s gender,
136 of them are female, and 168 are male. In the third
question, their education level, 256 of the respondents are
graduate, and 48 of them are still in a university. In the
fourth question, the respondent’s occupation, 304 of the
respondents are call center agents. In the fifth question,
the marital status of the respondents, 24 are married, and
280 are single.
4.1. Frequencies and Percentage of Respondent’s Age,
Gender, Education Level, Occupation, Marital Status
Table 4.1.1: Frequencies and Percentage of
Respondent’s Age, Gender, Education Level,
Occupation, Marital Status
RESPONDE
FREQU
PERCEN
NT’S AGE
ENCY
TAGE
Less than 20
0
0
300
98.7%
years old
20-29 years
304
100%
MARITAL STATUS
Single
280
92.1%
Married
24
7.9%
Divorced
0
0
Widowed
0
0
TOTAL
304
100%
The second category of the survey questionnaire is the
importance level of Physical Space features to the
respondents/workers and to their productivity, it was
scaled from 2 to1 (Strongly important/agree), 0 (Neutral),
-1 to -2 (Strongly unimportant/disagree).
4.1.2. Descriptive level of the importance of physical
space features
old
30-39 years
4
1.3%
40 or above
0
0
TOTAL
304
100%
old
Female
136
44.7%
Male
168
55.3%
TOTAL
304
100%
EDUCATION LEVEL
Primary
0
0
High
0
0
University
48
15.8%
Graduate
256
84.2%
TOTAL
304
100%
OCCUPATION
Call center
304
Table 4.1.2:
Importance level of physical space
features: Lighting, Furniture, Layout, Cleanliness,
Design style, View, Color.
CATEGORY 2:
Please indicate the importance level of physical
space features below.
GENDER
agent
TOTAL
100%
Descriptive
Means
Statistics
Std.
Descriptive
Deviatio
Level
n
Lighting
4.980
0.1613
Very High
Furniture
4.954
0.2527
Very High
Layout
4.967
0.2124
Very High
Cleanliness
4.984
0.1274
Very High
Design style
4.964
0.2039
Very High
View
4.961
0.2113
Very High
Color
4.964
0.2195
Very High
OVERALL
4.967
0.1983
Very High
TOTAL
Shown in the table above, the physical space
features listed, among these features “Cleanliness” has the
highest mean (4.984; 0.1274) and “Furniture” is the
lowest with a mean of (4.954; 0.2527). The overall mean
total of (4.967; 0.1982) has a descriptive level of VH (Very
high). This shows that the features given above in the
physical space is important to the workplace for the
workers working in the three selected BPO companies in
Davao City.
The third category, the importance level of
Social Space features was scaled from 2 to 1 (Strongly
important/agree), 0 (Neutral), -1 to -2 (Strongly
unimportant/disagree), by the respondents according to
their productivity.
In the first question, to indicate the importance
level of the social space features: Privacy level, Noise
level, Productivity level, Creativity level, Socialization
level, Security level, Worker behavior.
4.2. Descriptive level of physical space features
4.3. Descriptive level of the importance of social space
features
according to productivity level
4.2.1. Indicate the physical space features below
according to the respondent’s productivity level;
Lighting, Furniture, Layout, Cleanliness, Design style,
View, Color.
Please indicate the physical space features below
Means
Statistics
CATEGORY 3:
Please indicate the importance level of social
space features below.
according to your productivity level.
Descriptive
4.3.2. Indicate the importance level of the social space
features: Privacy level, Noise level, Productivity level,
Creativity level, Socialization level, Security level,
Worker behavior.
Std.
Descriptive
Deviation
Level
Lighting
4.921
0.4226
Very High
Furniture
4.918
0.4558
Very High
Layout
4.928
0.4079
Very High
Cleanliness
4.931
0.4282
Very High
Design style
4.918
0.4411
Very High
View
4.924
0.4032
Very High
Color
4.905
0.4745
Very High
OVERALL
4.920
0.4333
Very High
Descriptive
Means
Statistics
Std.
Descriptive
Deviatio
level
n
Privacy
4.964
0.2341
Very High
Noise level
4.954
0.3005
Very High
Productivit
4.961
0.2786
Very High
4.947
0.2881
Very High
4.954
0.2655
Very High
4.961
0.2786
Very High
4.964
0.2608
Very High
4.957
0.2723
Very High
level
y level
Creativity
level
Socializatio
TOTAL
n level
In this question, the respondents indicated the
importance level of the features according to their
productivity level. Among the features, “Cleanliness” has
the highest mean (4.931; 0.4282) and the lowest means are
“Furniture” (4.918; 0.4558) and “Design style” (4.918;
0.4411). All of the features descriptive level is VH (Very
high) with the total mean of (4.920; 0.4333). These
features are important in improving the productivity level
of the workers.
Security
level
Worker
behavior
OVERALL
TOTAL
TOTAL
Among the features of the social space listed
above, “Privacy level” with a mean of (4.964; 0.2341) and
“Worker behavior” with a mean of (4.964; 0.2786) are the
highest. The lowest mean is the “Creativity level” (4.947;
0.2881). The overall mean total of the features is (4.957;
0.2723) with a descriptive level of VH (Very high). This
shows that the social space features above are important
to the workplace of the BPO workers.
4.4. Descriptive level of social space features according
to productivity level
4.4.1. Indicate the social space features below
according to the respondent’s productivity level;
Privacy level, Noise level, Productivity level, Creativity
level, Socialization level, Security level, Worker
behavior.
Please indicate the social space features below
Means
Statistics
Privacy
4.951
4.5. Descriptive level of the importance of ambiance
features
4.5.1. Importance level of ambiance features; AmbDesign style, Amb-Color, Amb-Lighting level, Air
Quality, Amb-View, Amb-Noise level.
CATEGORY 4:
according to your productivity level.
Descriptive
Shown in the table above, the social space features
indicated their importance according to the productivity
level of the respondents. The highest mean of (4.957;
0.2722), the “Productivity level” feature and the lowest
mean of (4.938; 0.3625), the “Noise level” feature. With
the mentioned means, both are still in the level of Very
High. The total mean of the features is (4.948; 0.2990)
with a descriptive level of Very High. This shows that all
these features are important to the productivity of the
workers.
Std.
Descriptive
Deviation
level
0.2710
Very High
Please indicate the importance ambiance features
below.
Descriptive
Means
Statistics
level
Std.
Descriptive
Deviatio
level
n
Noise level
4.938
0.3625
Very High
Productivity
4.957
0.2722
Very High
Amb-
4.967
0.2124
Very High
Amb-Color
4.954
0.2527
Very High
Amb-
4.961
0.2405
Very High
Air Quality
4.967
0.2124
Very High
Amb-View
4.951
0.2586
Very High
Amb-Noise
4.957
0.2598
Very High
4.959
0.2394
Very High
Design
level
style
Creativity
4.941
0.3491
Very High
level
Socializatio
4.947
0.2881
Very High
Lighting
n level
level
Security
4.954
0.3113
Very High
level
Worker
4.954
0.2393
Very High
behavior
level
OVERALL
4.948
0.2990
Very High
OVERALL
TOTAL
Physical, Social, Ambiance, and others. Each were
scaled from 1 to 4, 1 being the highest.
The ambiance features listed above with a total mean of
(4.959; 0.2394) with a descriptive level of Very High. This
shows the importance level of these features to the
workplace of the workers.
CATEGORY 5: Order of the importance level of each
spaces
1
2
3
4
4.6. Descriptive leevl of ambience features according to
productivity level
TOTA
L
4.6.1 Ambiance features according to the respondent’s
productivity level; Amb-Design style, Amb-Color,
Amb-Lighting level, Air Quality, Amb-View, AmbNoise level
Physic
f = 288
f=4
f=4
f=8
f = 304
al
%=
% = 1.3
%=
%=
%=
Please indicate the ambiance features below
space
94.7
according to your productivity level.
Social
f=4
f = 274
f = 18
f=8
f = 304
space
%=
%=
%=
%=
%=
1.3
90.1
5.9
2.6
100
Ambia
f=9
f = 18
f = 269
f=8
f = 304
nce
%=
% = 5.9
%=
%=
%=
88.5
2.6
100
Descriptive
Means
Statistics
Amb-
4.938
Std.
Descriptive
Deviation
level
0.3341
Very High
Design style
Amb-Color
4.934
0.3753
Very High
Amb-
4.951
0.3160
Very High
Lighting
3.0
4.944
0.3544
Very High
Amb-View
4.934
0.3573
Very High
Amb-Noise
4.941
0.3297
Very High
4.940
0.3444
Very High
level
TOTAL
According to the productivity level of the respondents
shown in the table above, the features of the ambiance are
important to them in improving their productivity with an
overall mean total of (4.940; 0.3444) with a descriptive
level of Very High.
f=4
f=4
f = 292
f = 304
s
%=
% = 1.3
%=
%=
%=
1.3
96.1
100
Shown in the table above, 288 of the respondents scaled
the physical space as the highest, second is the social
space with 274 respondents, third is the ambiance with
269 respondents, and lastly, others being scaled as the
lowest in the importance level among the four choices
with 292 respondents.
4.8 Descriptive level of satisfaction of the users and
their recommendation level
4.8.1 Satisfaction of the respondents in their workplace
and the recommendation of their working place to
their friends
Descriptive
Mean
Statistics
4.7 Frequencies and Percentage of the Importance
Level of Spaces
4.7.1 order among the importance level of features;
100
f=4
1.3
Air Quality
2.6
Other
level
OVERALL
1.3
Are you
2.030
Std.
Descripti
Deviation
ve level
0.9276
Low
satisfied
Productive
2
.66%
about
Social
19
6.25%
working in
Good workers
55
18.09%
this place?
Good color
3
.98%
Others
10
3.29%
TOTAL
304
100%
Do you
2.220
0.8409
Low
recommend
working in
this place to
your
friends?
In the table above, the mean of the question “Are you
satisfied about working in this place?” is (2.030; 0.9276)
with a descriptive level of L (Low). This shows that the
respondents are not satisfied in their workplace same goes
to their recommendation of the place to their friends, a
mean of (2.220; 0.8409) with a descriptive level of L
(Low), showing that they do not recommend their working
place to them.
4.9 Frequencies and Percentage in describing their
current workplace
4.9.1 Describing their workplace, choices were Good
lighting, Secure, Creative, Clean, Good design, Good
privacy, Good noise level, Good view, Productive,
Social, Comfortable furniture, Good air quality, Good
workers, Good layout, Good color, and Others
How do you describe this place to your
friends? (Kindly check
your selected
Shown in the table below, 86 of the respondents
described their workplace as “secured”, 55 of them
described their co-workers as “good”, 49 respondents
described their workplace as “clean”, 41 respondents
described it with “good lighting”, 29 as “creative”, 19
respondents as “social”, 10 were “good privacy” and
“others”, 3 were “good color”, and 2 as “productive”. In
the three anonymous company that has been chosen for
this study, majority of this described their place as
“secure”.
4.10 Descriptive level of their current workplace
environment
4.10.1 How do they rate their workplace environment,
by choosing whether it is “Too bad”, “Bad”, “Neutral”,
“Good”, and “Very good”.
Descriptive
Mean
Std.
Descripti
Statistics
Deviatio
ve level
n
How do you
2.500
0.8124
Low
rate your
workplace
answers.)
FREQUE
PERCENTAG
NCY
E
Good lighting
41
13.49%
Secure
86
28.29%
Creative
29
9.54%
Clean
49
16.12%
Good privacy
10
3.29%
environment
?
As shown in the table below, a mean of (2.500; 0.8124)
with a descriptive level of L (Low) to the question “How
do you rate your workplace environment?” shows that the
respondents are not satisfied in their workplace
environment.
4.11 Frequency and Percentage of estimated working
hours
30-40
3
1%
35
36
11.8%
HOURS
FREQU
PERCE
35-40
2
0.7%
ENCY
NTAGE
40
23
7.5%
6 hours
1
0.3%
40-50
3
1%
8 hours
237
78%
50
16
5.3%
9 hours
62
20.4%
55
1
0.3%
10 hours
4
1.3%
60
7
2.3%
TOTAL
304
100%
60-100
1
0.3%
80-90
1
0.3%
100
2
0.7%
TOTAL
304
100%
The table shown below is the number of working hours of
the respondents. It shows that majority of the working
hours in the company is 8 hours and some even go beyond
it, 9 hours to 10 hours of working. Only 1 answered 6
hours of estimated working hours.
4.12 Frequency and Percentage of estimated outputs
OUTPUT
Estimated number of outputs is shown in the table below.
The highest output listed is 100 but with only 2
frequencies. The highest frequency and percentage in the
table is the 30 output per day and the lowest output is 8.
The data below will be used in getting the productivity of
a worker together with the data from Table 12.
FREQUEN
PERCENT
CY
AGE
8
3
1%
10
3
1%
10-15
9
2.9%
10-20
2
0.7%
15
4
1.3%
15-20
2
0.7%
20
29
9.5%
good view”
20-25
10
3.3%
“I just want it
20-30
8
2.6%
to be clean and
25
27
8.9%
worker friendly
25-30
2
0.7%
to ease the
30
96
31.6%
work”
30-35
14
4.6%
“Need
4.13 Suggestions of the respondents to their workplace
SUGGESTIO
FREQUE
PERCEN
NS
NCY
TAGE
“Change office
2
8.6%
1
4.3%
1
4.3%
6
26%
color”
“Should have a
renovation”
Noise level
9,173.5
2,402
3.82/hr
9,191
2,425
3.79/hr
9,223.5
2,410
3.83/hr
9,113.5
2,402
3.79/hr
9,293.5
2,426
3.83/hr
9,178.5
2,401
3.82/hr
AMBIANC
TOTAL
TOTA
LABOR
E
OUTPU
L
PRODUCTIVI
T
INPU
TY
T
(output/hour)
8,993.5
2,392
3.76/hr
Amb-Color
9,018.5
2,400
3.76/hr
Amb-
9,091
2,423
3.75/hr
Air quality
9,028.5
2,415
3.74/hr
Amb-View
8,891
2,384
3.73/hr
Amb-Noise
9,013.5
2,400
3.76/hr
“None”
8
34.7%
Productivit
“Change the
1
4.3%
y level
lightings”
Creativity
“Uncomfortabl
4
level
17.2%
e furniture’s”
Socializatio
TOTAL
23
n level
100%
Security
The table above are the suggestions of the respondents to
their workplace.
level
Worker
Labor Productivity Results
behavior
PHYSICA
TOTAL
TOTA
LABOR
L SPACE
OUTPU
L
PRODUCTIVI
FEATURE
T
INPU
TY
T
(output/hour)
S
Lighting
9,058.5
2,393
3.79/hr
Furniture
8,998.5
2,390
3.77/hr
Layout
9,058.5
2,397
3.78/hr
Cleanliness
9,153.5
2,409
3.80/hr
Design
8,918.5
2,381
3.75/hr
style
View
8,918.5
2,384
3.74/hr
Color
8,818.5
2,368
3.72/hr
SOCIAL
TOTAL
TOTA
LABOR
SPACE
OUTPU
L
PRODUCTIVI
FEATURE
T
INPU
TY
T
(output/hour)
2,400
3.78/hr
S
Privacy
level
9,701
AmbDesign
style
Lighting
level
level
Bibliography
Altman, I. & Low, S. M., 1992. Place attachment.
Anandasivam, K. & Cheong, C. F., 2008. Designing a
creative learning environment: NTU's new Art, Design
and Media Library.
Anjum, N., Paul, J. & Ashcroft, R., 2005. The changing
environment of offices: A challenge for furniture design.
Correlational Result
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P. & Janssen, I., 2011.
An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office
concepts.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. & Taris, T.
W., 2008. Work engagement: an emerging concept in
occupational health psychology.
Boyce, P. R., 2003. Human Factors in Lighting.
Brill, M., 2002. Workspace design and productivity.
Budie, L. B., 2016. The employee in the modern work
environment: A need-based approach to determine the
effect of personal characteristics on satisfaction with the
physical work environment in conventional and activitybased offices.
Burley, D., 2007. Place Attachment and Environmental
Change in Coastal Louisiana.
5. Conclusions & Recommendation
The data gathered and presented in the tables shows that
in the three space characteristics which is Physical Space,
Social Space, Ambiance, the one with highest mean value
among them in terms of importance level is the Physical
Space. The features of this space characteristics (Physical
Space) have a strong correlation to the productivity of the
workers. In the current workplace environment of the
respondents, the users are not satisfied. It needs
renovation and the need to improve some of the features.
The rate of their workplace is also low in level. With all
these data gathered by the researcher, it concludes that the
better the physical characteristics of a workplace the
higher the productivity and satisfaction of the users.
Chandrasekar, D. K., 2011. Workplace Environment and
Its Impacts on Organisational Performance in Public
Sector Organisations.
Cooper, C. L. & Dewe, P., 2004. Stress: A brief history.
Cooper, R. & Boyko, C., 2009. The effect of the physical
environment on mental capital and wellbeing.
Enmarker, I. K. &. I., 2008. Effects of office lighting on
mood and cognitive performance and a gender effect in
work-related judgement.
Fassoulis, K. & Alexopoulos, N., 2015. The workplace
as a factor of job satisfaction and productivity: A case
study of administrative personnel at the University of
Athens.
Freeman, K., 2008. Plants in "Green Buildings".
Giuliani, M., 2003. Theory of Attachment and Place
Attachment.
Haynes, B. P., 2008. An evaluation of the impact of the
office environment on productivity.
Horr, D. Y. A. et al., 2016. Occupant Productivity and
Office Indoor Environment Quality: A Review of the
Literature.
Inalhan, G. & Finch, E., 2004. Place attachment and
sense of belonging.
Kaplan, R., 1993. The Role of Nature in the context of a
workplace.
Kasthuri Anandasivam & Fatt Cheong, ., 2008.
Designing a creative learning environment: NTU's new
Art, Design and Media Library.
Knez, I. & Enmarker, I., 2008. Effects of office lighting
on mood and cognitive performance and a gender effect
in work-related judgement.
Leaman, A. & Bordass, B., 2007. Productivity in
Buildings: The killer variables.
Lee, S. Y. & Brand, J. L., 2005. Effects of Control over
Office Workspace on Perceptions of the Work
Environment and Work Outcomes.
Massoudi, D. A. H. & Hamdi, D. S. S. A., 2017. The
Consequence of work environment on Employees
Productivity.
McCabe, G. B., 2003. Planning the Modern Public
Library Building.
McCoy, J. M. & Evans, G. W., 2005. Physical Work
Environment.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. A., 2004. An approach to
environmental psychology.
Naharuddin, N. M. & Sadegi, M., 2013. Factors of
Workplace Environment that Affect Employees
Performance: A Case Study of Miyazu Malaysia.
Ozguner, E., 2017. The Influence of Space
Characteristics on the Preference of Cafes as
Workplaces.
Pech, R. & Slade, B., 2006. Employee Disengagement.
Pitt, A. S. &. M., 2011. Sustainable workplaces and
building user comfort and satisfaction.
Roelefsen, P., 2002. The impact of office environments
on employee performance: the design of the workplace
as a strategy for productivity enhancemen.
Sadegi, N. M. N. &. M., 2013. Factors of Workplace
Environment that Affect Employees Performance: A
Case Study of Miyazu Malaysia.
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R., 2010. Defining Place
Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework.
Shibata, S. & Suzuki, N., 2002. Effects of an indoor
plant on creative task performance and mood.
Sinha, E.-S., 2001. The skills and career path of an
effective project manager.
Smith, A. & Pitt, M., 2011. Sustainable workplaces and
building user comfort and satisfaction.
Stroebele, N. & Castro, J. M. D., 2004. Effect of
ambience on food intake and food choice.
Sufar, S., Talib, A. & Hambali, H., 2012. Towards a
better Design: Physical Interior Environments of Public
Libraries in Peninsular Malaysia.
Ujang, N. & Zakariya, K., 2015. Place Attachment and
the Value of Place in the Life of the Users.
Ulrich, K., 2003. Product design and development.
Vischer, J. C., 2008. Towards an Environmental
Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by
Environments for Work.
Waxman, L., 2006. The coffee shop: social and physical
factors influencing place attachment.
Wells, M. M., 2000. Office clutter or meaningful
personal displays? The role of office personalization in
employee and organizational wellbeing.
Zenker, S. & Rutter, N., 2014. Is satisfaction the key?
The role of citizen satisfaction, place attachment and
place brand attitude on positive citizenship behavior.
PEER REVIEWED BY: CLASSMATE
Christian.pdf
PEER REVIEWED BY: DESIGN 10 STUDENT
chanchanfinal.pdf