Upload
workplace-trends-mem-events
View
126
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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.
Citation preview
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace isn’t working… Workplace Trends 24.10.13 @Leesman_index
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace performance measures
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace performance measures £$€ sqm
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace performance value?
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
11th Workplace trend? All talk (listening) no action…
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
value?
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
“Lies, damned lies and statistics.”
@Leesman_index
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.
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Evidence Based Design
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
“the law of large numbers”
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
“It enables me to work productively”
42,677
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
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
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
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
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace isn’t working…
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
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
2,000,000 0
1
2
3
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Government Soft Landings
&DELQHW�2I¿FH
6HFWLRQ�����)XQFWLRQDOLW\�DQG�(IIHFWLYHQHVV
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?” ?%
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?”
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?”
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?”
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?”
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Thinking & creative thinking Bus’ confidential discussions Video conferencing Private conversations 50%
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?”
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?”
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
The fitness for purpose of corporate workplaces
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Lmi 84.6
0 100
Lmi 33.3
Poorly supporting Highly supporting
51.4
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%
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Activities Activities Features Activities Features Facilities
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
/ 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
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
/ 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
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
/ 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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rela
/ 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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rela
/ 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
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
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
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Social cohesion…? Or just emotionally intelligent organisations?
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%
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%
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
For lots of employees… workplace isn’t working
Workplace Isn’t Working 24.10.13 © Leesman leesmanindex.com
Is the Campus working..? Workplace Trends 2014?
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
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.