Keywords: N.A.
Digital transformation significantly impacts various societal aspects, including the domain of
the built environment (Thomas, 2020). Smart technologies promote the “application of data
to drive autonomous controls […] to deliver improved health, wellness, human performance,
comfort, efficiency, safety and security” (Nelson et al., 2022, p. 326). Smart technologies
which involve the acquisition, analysis and application of data (Zhang et al., 2022) are also
being integrated into workplaces, transforming them into smart offices. This research focuses
on those that assess the health and comfort of office workers which is a scarcely researched
subdivision of smart offices (Papagiannidis & Maeikyan, 2020). Thus, this thesis is predominantly an exploratory research trying to contribute to this research gap.
Improving working conditions and office workers’ satisfaction is a growing priority
for many employers (Attaran, 2017; Brugmans et al., 2017). Related to that is the health and
comfort in the office which are important concerns among office workers and their employers
promoting this for them (Borsos et al., 2021). Consequently, it seems especially relevant to
investigate assessment tools, which in this study can be defined as instruments and methodologies used to acquire, analyse and apply data to promote the two objectives of health and
comfort in the office. Since these assessment tools are mostly implemented for the benefit of
the office workers, understanding their preferences towards these tools is critical for a successful office design (De Been & Beijer, 2014; Kim & de Dear, 2012). That said, little research is done regarding the opinions of office workers themselves about these assessment
tools.
This research focuses on two main constructs: First, based on the literature review, the
types of assessment tools and which characteristic attributes of these tools office workers prefer are analysed. In particular, four assessment tools that are especially representative of tools
existing in real offices and are distinguishable by their level of smartness are identified: surveys, smartphone app-based surveys, room-mounted sensors, and wearables. Which specific
health and comfort aspects these tools should address from the viewpoint of the office workers are derived from the literature review. The sedentary behaviours, stress levels, as well as
lighting, temperature, and noise conditions are concluded to be the five most prominent aspects of office workers’ health and comfort in the office environment. Second, the literature
reveals that the perception of the assessment tools is influenced by various personal characteristics of office workers, such as their perceptions of health and comfort regarding their current office environments, their demographic backgrounds (age, gender, origin, education
4
level) and their previous experiences (with assessment tools and with digital devices, as well
as their attitudes towards data privacy). Thus, the main research question is formulated as follows:
How do attributes of assessment tools and personal characteristics relate to office
workers’ preferences for assessment tools assessing their health and comfort in the
office?
An online questionnaire is developed for this exploratory research that is distributed within
personal and professional networks. 46 responses from office workers predominantly from
the Netherlands and Germany are included in the descriptive and bivariate analysis.
The analysis reveals a generally positive attitude of office workers towards tools
providing (very) personalised outputs, measuring environmental and bodily parameters, utilising artificial intelligence, and collecting data via the smartphone. A high accuracy of tools
and frequent data measurements are also viewed favourably among office workers. Conversely, a neutral opinion exists towards tools tracing movement patterns, the responsibility
of data collection (internal vs. external party), and the method of data collection (self-reported vs. automatic). Office workers express dislike if personal information is collected and
if measurements take place directly on the body.
Many of the tools’ specific attributes significantly impact their desirability among office workers – if the tool’s attributes are perceived positively, it is likely that this assessment
tool as a whole is rated positively. Smarter tools, such as wearables, offer substantial benefits
but are perceived as more intrusive. The trade-offs between these attributes relate to how
tools are ranked and which ones workers prefer to have in their offices. Notably, office workers prefer room-mounted sensors for assessing comfort aspects, while wearables are favoured
for measuring health aspects despite the fact this tool collects personal information directly
on the body. Thus, a general preference for smarter tools seems to exist. Wearables are an
outlier, being preferred for health but not comfort. Surveys are also widely accepted despite
their unfavourable ranking, suggesting that non-smart tools are less polarising compared to
smart tools. That said, a majority of office workers favour having surveys, smartphone apps,
and room sensors present in the office and would like to have all five major health and comfort aspects addressed by these tools.
While attributes of assessment tools majorly relate to office workers’ preferences, personal characteristics like demographics also play a role. Interestingly, relatively older office
workers (the mean age of the sample being 32.7 years) show greater favour towards advanced
tools, and women tend to be more supportive of wearables and prefer their own organisation
5
to be in charge of data collection. If office workers are already pleased with the health and
comfort in their office, they are less inclined to favour tools that address their health and
comfort. While these insights contribute new findings to existing literature, other variables
like the origin and education level of office workers, contrary to prior findings in the literature, do not seem to have a relationship with office workers’ perceptions within this sample.
Similarly surprising is that previous experiences with tools as well as office workers’ technology savviness and attitude towards data privacy do not consistently predict preferences,
which challenges the initial expectations.
The findings are intended to help workplace managers and assessment tool manufacturers in creating more favourably received assessment tools providing a higher utility to office workers. When introducing assessment tools in the office, a gradual implementation to
get office workers acquainted with the tools while paying attention to their different personal
needs and concerns can enhance the usage of the assessment tools. While there is no onesize-fits-all solution, tool manufacturers should minimise intrusiveness while maximising the
personal insights of tools. Making tools more customisable for the individual while prioritising data privacy is a possible design strategy.
The study has several limitations. The sample is relatively small and biased towards
highly educated, relatively young office workers from the Netherlands and Germany. The
risk of confounding variables and underlying biases because of the chosen methodology
moreover limits the validity of the insights, resulting in, amongst other aspects these key
takeaways for future research efforts: a larger, more diverse sample, incorporating qualitative
or mixed methods, and exploring additional variables.