RESUMEN
Little is known about the factors that explain the differences in the ways that individuals use activity-based offices (ABOs). This study aimed to investigate whether person-related and situational factors are associated with self-reported use of workspaces and the perceived person-environment (P-E) fit in ABOs, independently of the job profile. Survey data were gathered in one organisation (N = 332) 7-11 months after an office re-design. Younger age, male gender, managerial position, and better work ability were associated with more frequent use of different workspaces. Workspace switching was perceived as more time-consuming by employees who worked at the office less, had a high workload, and were dissatisfied with ergonomics. All variables except gender were associated with the P-E fit. Person-related and situational factors appear relevant to workspace use and P-E fit, independently of job contents. Contextual, cultural, and office design differences should be considered when generalising these results.Practitioner summary: This case study investigated individual differences in how activity-based offices are used. Being younger, male, a manager, or having good work ability were associated with using workspaces more actively. Person-related and situational factors appear relevant to how offices are used and perceived, in addition to job characteristics.Abbreviations: ABO: activity-based office; P-E fit: person-environment fit; RQ: research question; SD: standard deviation; IN: interactive needs; CD: cognitive demands; OR: odds ratio; M: mean; ref.: reference category; CI: confidence interval; h: hour; PO: proportional odds.
Asunto(s)
Ergonomía , Lugar de Trabajo , Humanos , Masculino , Lugar de Trabajo/psicología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Autoinforme , Carga de Trabajo/psicologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to describe a set of participatory methods that we have either developed or modified for developing future work and service environments to better suit renewable rehabilitation processes. We discuss the methods in a larger framework of change process model and participatory design. BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation organizations are currently in transition; customer groups, financing, services, and the processes of rehabilitation centers are changing. The pressure for change challenges the centers to develop both their processes and facilities. There is a need for methods that support change management. METHODS: Four participatory methods were developed: future workshop, change survey, multi-method assessment tool, and participatory design generator cards. They were tested and evaluated in three rehabilitation centers at the different phases of their change process. RESULTS: The developed methods were considered useful in creating a mutual understanding of the change goals between different stakeholders, providing a good picture of the work community's attitudes toward the change, forming an integrated overview of the built and perceived environment, inspiring new solutions, and supporting the management in steering the change process. CONCLUSIONS: The change process model described in this article serves as a practical framework that combined the viewpoints of organizational and facility development. However, participatory design continues to face challenges concerning communication between different stakeholders, and further development of the methods and processes is still needed. Intervention studies could provide data on the success factors that enhance the transformations in the rehabilitation sector. KEYWORDS: Design process, methodology, organizational transformation, planning, renovation.