See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280153802

Designing the Factory of the Future

Conference Paper · July 2008

CITATIONS READS

7 851

8 authors, including:

Keith Ridgway Cristina Cerulli

University of Strathclyde Sheffield Hallam University
143 PUBLICATIONS 3,832 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 141 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matthew C Davis Rose Shepherd

University of Leeds The University of Sheffield
38 PUBLICATIONS 1,198 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 596 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew C Davis on 10 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper prepared for AEI 2008: Please do not distribute
Designing the Factory of the Future

Ridgway, Keith
Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre with Boeing / Rolls-
Royce Factory of the Future / University of Sheffield /
Advanced Manufacturing Park / Wallis Way / Catcliffe /
Rotherham / S60 5TZ UK
E-mail: k.ridgway@amrc.co.uk
Cerulli, Cristina
School of Architecture / The University of Sheffield / Arts
Tower / Western Bank / Sheffield / S10 2TN UK
E-mail: c.cerulli@sheffield.ac.uk

Davis, Matthew
Leeds University Business School / The University of Leeds /
Maurice Keyworth Building / Leeds / LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: bnmcd@leeds.ac.uk

Challenger, Rose
Leeds University Business School / The University of Leeds /
Maurice Keyworth Building / Leeds / LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: r.challenger@lubs.leeds.ac.uk

Wiseall, Steve
Manufacturing Technology / Rolls Royce plc / PO Box 3 /
Filton / Bristol / BS34 7QE UK
E-mail: steve.wiseall@rolls-royce.com

Hill, Peter
R&T Cost Engineering / Rolls-Royce plc / PO Box 31 / Derby /
DE24 8BJ UK
E-mail: peter.hill2@rolls-royce.com

Hollis, Kate
Human Resources / First Floor / Sainsbury's Store Support
Centre / 33 Holborn / London / EC1N 2HT UK
E-mail: kate.hollis@sainsburys.co.uk

Clegg, Chris
Leeds University Business School / The University of Leeds /
Maurice Keyworth Building / Leeds / LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: c.w.clegg@leeds.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
Research is amassing as to the effects that the physical workspace may have upon
both individuals and organizations. However the design process for new workplaces
is still relatively unstudied by organizational psychologists. We discuss the
involvement of a group of organizational psychologists in the design of a new work
facility - the Factory of the Future. We describe their contribution and the
sociotechnical systems approach adopted. We highlight areas in the design process
where organizational psychologists can make a contribution. The rationale for
taking a sociotechnical perspective and similarities to lessons learned from more
general organizational change programmes are discussed.

Keywords
Design, workspace, sociotechnical, control, participation, factory

INTRODUCTION
For most organizations the physical work environment (workspace) constitutes their
second largest financial overhead (after human resources) [21], however the
impact of workplace design extends well beyond the financial realm. Evidence is
accumulating relating the features of the physical workspace and its design to
outcomes including job performance, environmental satisfaction and individual well-
being [30, 32]. Indeed it has been estimated that 20% of productivity gains (or
losses) may be attributable to the impact of buildings on their occupants [17].
Whilst a well designed environment may or may not have beneficial effects
(dependent on other factors such as job design etc.), a poorly designed
environment will have a negative impact [20, 32].

This paper describes our contribution and involvement, as a multi-disciplinary group

of organizational psychologists, an architect and engineers, in the design process of
a new manufacturing and research facility, working alongside the design team,
clients and users. It is unusual for organizational psychologists to have such an
opportunity, to work alongside architects, project engineers, project sponsors and
end users. For this reason we focus upon the role and approach of the
psychologists in this process. The presence of organizational psychologists in the
design team has been to ensure that the human and organizational issues are
included during the design process. We have adopted a broadly sociotechnical
systems perspective [5] which stresses the importance of the early inclusion of a
wide range of human and organizational factors. A theme to which we return at
the end of the paper, is the similarity between the issues arising in this context and
those arising during the design of new computer-based systems, an area in which
organizational psychologists have much more experience. We begin this paper with
a description of the project as it has progressed through various design stages,
highlighting the activities in which we have been involved.

BACKGROUND AND STAKEHOLDERS

The Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) is a multi-million pound
partnership which builds on the shared scientific excellence, expertise and
technological innovation of Boeing, the world’s leading aerospace company and
world-class research within the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering. The
purpose of this partnership is to create a community in which research, design and
manufacturing can interact, to showcase methods of best practice and to help raise
local and national manufacturing performance. The AMRC focuses on aerospace
technology. Essentially, the AMRC’s output is knowledge; the factory does not
conduct full-scale production; it extends its findings into large-scale production
through its partner facilities. The success of this partnership has necessitated the
AMRC’s expansion, which has taken the form of a new building – the ‘Factory of the
Future’. The remit of this building has been to not only extend workspace facilities,
but to symbolise – and in the long term strengthen – the AMRC’s ability to
innovate.

There are a large number of stakeholders involved in this project. Whilst

organizations such as Boeing, Rolls-Royce, the University of Sheffield, and
Yorkshire Forward offer significant financial support, there are over 20 other
companies offering support through the provision of machinery and other
supporting technology.

The organizational psychologists became involved in the design process due to

existing relationships with Rolls-Royce and the director of the AMRC. Their remit
was to represent and champion the human and organizational issues which are
frequently overlooked during the design of new systems [23], with the view to
adding value to the design process.

THE DESIGN STAGES

A New Facilities Planning Model, developed by Rolls-Royce for use in other similar
projects was used to organize the design process into four phases. A series of
different work streams (e.g., IT systems, equipment, methods and layout) were
involved during each stage.

Stage 1 (‘Definition stage’) (One month)

This first stage involved defining the organizational vision, structure and working
practices for the Factory. Case studies regarding workspace planning [31],
research involving business change [16] and the implementation of new IT systems
[7], have demonstrated the need for a strong and consistent vision to help such
projects succeed. The organizational psychologists became involved in establishing
initial visions for the Factory through facilitating a stakeholder event, attended by
over 50 people, and scenarios planning workshop, attended by approximately 12
people. During the stakeholder event, break-out groups discussed certain
questions relating to the Factory: What is our vision of the new factory? What
excites us about this new factory? What are the key operational decisions we need
to make before we start building? The outputs from this event then helped to
inform a preliminary brief for tendering architects. During the scenarios planning
workshop, stakeholders were encouraged to examine different scenarios for the
Factory of the Future in terms of its main processes, its workers and its outputs. It
was determined that the Factory should be viewed as an extension of the current
AMRC rather than as a separate entity, and should embody its current principles
and goals.

We believe that the involvement of organizational psychologists was important at

this stage to ensure that a consensus was reached with regards the Factory’s
vision. The formation of this vision helped ensure all the work streams had a
shared understanding of the goals to work towards, and also that the design
embodied its aims and objectives (e.g., the Factory should be transparent to
visitors, and the external design should reflect the ‘brand’ of the Factory).

Stage 2 (‘Evaluation stage’) (Two months)

This stage involved a review of relevant academic literature and other similar
design projects so that lessons on best practice could be extrapolated, and
benchmarking carried out. The topics covered included factories and architecture,
the environment, ergonomics and the physical environment, together with the role
of end-users. Important conclusions to emerge from this literature review include:
• A transparency of function and vision is critical, e.g. BMW central building
[11].
• The design of the new Factory should help to create a sense of community
amongst employees, e.g. Bloomberg offices [31], BMW central building
[11], Keltec EMDS Ltd [12].
• A professional and innovative approach should be taken to cater for visitors
 [11, 22].
• Aesthetics should be equally as important on the interior as the exterior of
the Factory. The architecture of the Factory should be used to represent its
‘brand’ or vision, e.g. the McLaren Technology Centre [22].
• Maintaining flexibility in the physical nature of the Factory as well as the
work practices employed within the Factory is important [12].
• Improvements in communication within an organization can result in
improved overall performance and productivity [28]. Techniques for
improving information flow and communication include open plan offices
situated adjacent to the factory floor [12], height restrictions on partitioning
and adequate signage [2].
• Factors such as noise, temperature, ventilation, lighting and general comfort
should be taken into account when designing the Factory [17, 18, 29, 32].
• In workplace design, it is important to consider workers’ jobs and roles
when making decisions about design and layout [12]. Consideration of these
factors necessitates involvement of the end-users within the design process
[20].

Following the literature review, a report was submitted to the architects leading the
design team, which informed the development of building objectives (e.g., brand,
communication, flexibility, teamwork). The report included the AMRC mission
statement (developed in the previous stage), the people and organizational
requirements, suggestions for the design process, and the concept of a ‘metaphor’
for the new Factory. The organizational psychologists’ input at this stage was
instrumental in highlighting the people and organizational requirements of the
Factory, such that the design could incorporate the above factors.

Stage 3 (‘Concept Design stage’) (One month)

This stage involved defining the organization, location and space requirements
(structure, working practices, roles and responsibilities). A key concern was the
involvement of end-users, which is fundamental to good sociotechnical design [5]
and paramount to understanding the needs of the business and its users, to clarify
user expectations, and to enhance workers’ feelings of ownership over the design
process [23].

To determine the needs and requirements of the AMRC, an assessment of the

current AMRC building was undertaken through interviews, observations and
discussions with staff, over a period of three weeks. The interviews were conducted
with seven members of staff, drawn from all the major work teams, forming a
cross-section of the current AMRC. Participants were asked to offer their opinions
regarding each feature of the building, and encouraged to make suggestions for the
new Factory.

The key finding from interviews was that the functionality of the current building
was adequate, with staff feeling they had the resources they needed to perform
their jobs effectively. It was a primary concern that this aspect should not be lost in
the new Factory. Similarly, staff felt the general layout of their current building
was adequate, although a lack of social space was noted, with a place for informal
socialisation, and eating and drinking, being widely requested. The interviews also
revealed that the current facilities could no longer meet future requirements due to
spatial limitations, highlighting the need to consider the AMRC’s future needs in the
design process. Additionally noted, was the need to consider team functioning, for
example, in terms of the areas of the AMRC to which frequent access would be
required.
To examine the layout and spatial requirements of the new Factory, user
consultation was performed with the aid of Dr Cerulli, an architect experienced in
briefing. The layout and spatial requirements study consisted of: a motion study,
where staff were provided with colour coded plans of the current AMRC building and
asked to map their movements, and frequency of these movements, within the
building during one workday; and three workplace scenarios addressing the types
of workspace most frequently utilised (employing Duffy’s [9] conceptualizations of
workspace; cell, den, hive or club), the strengths and limitations of generic
workplace layouts (open plan throughout, team based open plan and Duffy’s [9]
workspace types), and the location of office type workspace in relation to
workshop/factory type space (completely separate, office space over two floors and
integrated). This was carried out over a period of one month, and allowed staff to
have their say in the design of their new workplace.

The overall results suggested that AMRC staff needed to work in an environment
that allowed them to communicate, interact, and work within teams with ease on a
daily basis, whilst also having provisions for quieter, more solitary work when
required. Hence, a variety of workspace types is essential. This is especially
important in this case, as the exercise demonstrated that individual groups and
teams would use different types of workspace to a greater or lesser extent on a
typical working day. Another key finding was the high demand for meeting space
expressed, this being of a much greater concern than had been appreciated by the
design team.

Stage 4 (‘Detailed design stage’) (Two months)

This stage involved considering the impact of detailed building features on human
and social issues, and defining the nature, culture and structure of the organization
occupying the building. Again a literature review was performed, this time looking
at the influence of internal layout and décor on human and social issues within the
workplace, and on organizational structure. For example, it was highlighted that
internal layout and décor could influence: employees’ productivity, satisfaction and
well being [12, 19, 24]; social interaction [9, 26]; and visitors’ perceptions of the
organization. A report was devised providing advice for the interior design of the
new Factory. In terms of occupational structure, lessons were taken from other
comparable organizations (organizations which rely on innovation and knowledge
creation), such as Formula 1 motor racing teams [15].

Three different perspectives were taken on the structure: skill-based, highlighting

divisions in the organization by skill type; project-based, highlighting divisions by
projects; and a management perspective, highlighting both inward and outward
management. The differing nature of these perspectives were discussed to aid the
stakeholders in determining the organization’s structure post expansion. Each
would result in workers being organized in different ways (e.g. functional teams or
larger multi-disciplinary project teams) and this could have implications for the
design and use of the interior workspace.

At this point, the organizational psychologists presented a ‘Design Nuggets’ report,

reiterating the core function of the new Factory, imparting a clear message
regarding human and organizational design features: functionality; promoting social
interaction; and the use of a metaphor for the Factory. The formulation of practical
suggestions (design nuggets) were used to help focus the architects’ attention
towards the areas which the organizational psychologists regarded as key and to
avoid marginalisation during a highly technical phase of the design process.

During the Build

The organizational psychologists facilitated consultation between the architects,
stakeholders and AMRC staff regarding the proposed interior décor and furniture.
This interaction allowed the end users to become better aware of, and familiar with,
the interior designs, whilst also providing the opportunity for a degree of control
over some of the detail (e.g., alternative types of chairs to be made available for
those who requested them).

OBSERVATIONS OF THE DESIGN PROCESS

Successes
• Documented process that is relatively unstudied from a psychological
perspective, with most existing accounts coming from design disciplines.
We believe that the description of the organizational psychologists’
involvement in such a project can help to illustrate areas where
organizational psychology may be able to offer useful input as well as
signpost possible extensions for the future.
• Diverse multi-disciplinary teams brought together. This encouraged
discussion regarding the implications of design decisions made by one group
upon the interests of the others (e.g., the location of office space impacting
upon organizational aspects such as communication and information flow,
engineering aspects such as ventilation systems, services etc., in addition to
the impact on numerous other design streams).
• Real impact achieved through design suggestions (e.g., design nuggets).
The presentation of design suggestions helped focus other team members
towards the issues that were of most concern to the functioning and
performance of the end work system.
• High expectations for transfer of lessons learned.

Difficulties
• Financial cost – value engineering. The first costing of the original building
design was some millions of pounds over-budget. As a result there was an
extensive value engineering phase, during which the focus turned away
from human and organizational issues.
• Potential to be sidelined – marginalisation (e.g., metaphor issue not widely
picked up on or discussed). What should the new facility ‘feel like’? What
should a visit to the Factory remind people of? A hospital, a street, a
marketplace, a mountain lodge, a church..? Discussing and agreeing on this
issue would have allowed the project team to stamp down a clearer shared
vision and set of requirements for the Factory.
• Possibility of human factors considerations becoming token gestures and not
functioning solutions (e.g., potential risk with social hub).
• Difficulties agreeing a shared vision and a shared brief/set of requirements.
Agreeing a shared vision is crucial in terms of providing architects with a
clear and succinct brief from which they can produce designs.
Disagreements reaching a consensus on the vision and brief added delays to
the initial design stage, highlighting the need for compromise between
stakeholders.
• Time constraints. There were severe time constraints in place in this project
due to funding-related deadlines, which had numerous implications
including: a danger that constraints and interdependencies within and
between work streams would not be noticed; the architects being pushed to
view the social impact of the design as a useful luxury if time would permit.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In this paper we have outlined the background to, and our involvement in, the
design of the Factory of the Future. We have described each of the four design
phases and emphasized the contribution that the organizational psychologists in the
team have made in these. We have drawn attention to some of the successes and
difficulties that we have experienced along the way. Our approach has, from the
outset, been guided by sociotechnical thinking [5] and our experience of other
change programmes. This will now be discussed in more detail.

Sociotechnical emphasis
Psychological theory advocates the early focus on human and social factors in the
design of systems [5] and we believe the involvement of organizational
psychologists has ensured a greater coverage of these. The wider change
management literature often notes a lack of systems thinking or end user
participation accompanying less successful change programmes [14]. The
sociotechnical approach requires the whole organization, including the individual
workers, the technology, work processes and physical work environment etc., to be
considered as a single system [13]. Organizational psychology’s contribution in
clarifying the human and organizational issues for the other members of the design
team (e.g., identifying office layouts that would assist the varying users’ work
styles and the need for high levels of meeting space) enabled them to be
incorporated into the design from the very outset. Aiding architects’ understanding
as to how the workspace is to be utilized and the organizational requirements of the
space, is congruent with a sociotechnical design process, whereby all constituent
parts of the system are considered in parallel [5], reducing the chance of one
element being considered over others (in this case, the physical environment being
designed without due thought as to how it interacts with the users and the
organizational structure). It has been suggested that the high failure (or non
success) rate of business change initiatives may in part be attributable to
inadequacies in understanding the social and organizational factors of the work
systems in which they are to be integrated [6, 23]. We believe that the adoption of
a sociotechnical approach, promoting the consideration of these wider social and
organizational factors throughout the design, alongside the technical aspects,
increases the chance that the end facility will fulfill the requirements of both the
users and the organization.

Participation
The process of engaging end users and allowing them a degree of control (input) in
the design and implementation process has been consistently demonstrated as
beneficial to both the design of new workspaces (e.g., increased functionality) and
the extent to which employees accept the change in working practice [31].
Participation has the potential not only to gain a greater insight into the functional
needs of the end users of buildings, but also to provide a sense of ownership over
the final product [3]. We believe that our approach has, unusually, extended this
to the design of a workplace.

We believe that the time spent understanding the structures and working styles of
the members of the AMRC enabled a much more accurate set of requirements to be
presented to the other members of the design team. Information on the clients’
needs is key to developing the architects’ brief and to the overall success of the
design of a workplace [10, 27, 31]. The resulting design included a diversity of
working spaces. The space planning exercises, demonstrated that within teams
and within individual job roles, the types of tasks users engaged in vary
enormously, as do the way in which they fulfill them. The need to understand
these requirements and select the appropriate workspace solution necessitates
involving the workers in such decisions [1].

Lessons from other areas

It is possible to draw parallels between the design of new workspaces and that of
new IT systems. The first similarity is the benefit that can be gained through
pursuing a multidisciplinary approach to design. With regards to implementing new
IT systems, it has been noted that “no single discipline or professional group is
likely to be able to provide a complete understanding of the overall system” [7,
p214]. This reflects our experience with the Factory of the Future, with real value
being taken from the differing perspectives provided by the range of professionals
involved in the design team. The experience that we have gained through this
design process would support the proposal that embracing a multidisciplinary
approach provides a greater breadth of knowledge and understanding to inform
design, as too does working together with stakeholders and end users.

A further important point to arise from our experience in the design of the Factory
of the Future has been the need for compromise between all parties. This
compromise can be viewed as establishing a balance between competing elements
of a work system, to reach solutions that enable all constituent parts to work
together to perform optimally [7, 13, 23]. That is, we should not seek to optimize
only one part of the system, e.g. the building design, but to consider all the
elements together [7], as a change to one part may result in necessary changes to
others, e.g. a change in office layout may result in the need for different
communication practices and vice versa. This joint consideration necessitates
compromise; this was indeed our experience.

The physical workplace has been associated with negative effects on employees,
including on motivation, job satisfaction, wellbeing, physical stress, environmental
satisfaction and performance [4, 8, 25], with many of these relationships
hypothesized to stem from the workplace not providing for the employees’ needs
(e.g., privacy, quiet space). It has been noted that when changes to office design
and layout are implemented in a top down manner, or without adequate
involvement of the end users, negative outcomes can result [31]. We suggest the
design of a new work facility encompasses the same sets of issues as change
programmes in general and technology led innovations in particular, due to the
tendency for ‘experts’, e.g. IT professionals, to “design a system, and then push it
at its end users” [7, p215]. This is, speculatively, analogous to an architectural
design team designing a commercial building, in relative isolation to the functioning
and structure of the organization which is to occupy the workspace, and expecting
that the users will simply adapt to, and learn how to use, the new space once it has
been built. This is in opposition to what has been described as “pull-based user-
owned change” [6, p235], whereby end users pull the project through to successful
completion by taking ownership of, and having input into, the process, ensuring
that it meets their needs. The sociotechnical approach consistently suggests that
participation and involvement by end users is necessary for optimal systems design
and should begin in the initial design phase and carry through to completion/use
[7, 23].

Future directions for research and practice

The points discussed in this paper reflect the experiences gained during our
involvement in the design of the Factory of the Future. We have discussed the
rationale behind the approach that we have taken and the possible comparisons
and theoretical similarities that may be drawn. However, we do not attempt to
suggest that the description of our experience offers firm proof as to a successful
approach to workplace design. Nonetheless it does suggest fruitful directions for
future research and practice, including:
• Making use of possible benefits of integrated multi-disciplinary design teams
that include members with expertise in user consultation and organizational
psychology.
• Adopting a systems perspective, i.e., viewing a new work facility as a change
process, which acknowledges that social/organizational issues will influence
 the design and that design has the potential to engender change in the
organization.
• Facilitating processes to identify the needs of both end users and stakeholders
and promoting participation throughout.
• Examination as to whether the provision of workspace tailored to different
types of tasks results in benefits to individual workers or organizational
outcomes.
• Evaluations as to the organizational benefit of incorporating features that
originate from end users/wider organizational considerations.
• Examination by organizational psychologists as to the benefit that can be
derived from a more user led process itself, e.g. potential psychological
benefit that employees may gain through participation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the staff, stakeholders and design team involved
in the AMRC and Factory of the Future for their continued cooperation, support and
time throughout this process. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Emer
Lynam and Natalie Curd for all their work during this project.

REFERENCES
1. Anjum N; Paul J; Ashcroft R, 2005, The changing environment of offices. A
challenge for furniture design, Design Studies, 26, 73-95.
2. Bilalis N; Scroubelos G; Antoniadis A; Emiris D; Koulouriotis D, 2002, Visual
factory: basic principles and the 'zoning' approach, International Journal of
Production Research, 40, 15, 3575 - 88.
3. Blundell-Jones P; Petrescu D; Till J, 2005, Architecture and participation.,
London: Spon Press.
4. Brennan A; Chugh JS; Kline T, 2002, Traditional versus open office design: a
longitudinal study, Environment and Behavior Vol 34(3) May 2002, 279-299,
5. Cherns A, 1987, Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisited, Human Relations,
40, 3, 153-61.
6. Clegg CW; Walsh S, 2004, Change management: Time for a change!, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 2, 217 - 39.
7. Clegg CW; Shepherd C, 2007, The biggest computer programme in the world
ever!: time for a change in mindset?, Journal of Information Technology, 22,
212-21.
8. De Croon E; Sluiter J; Kuijer PP; Frings-Dresen M, 2005, The effect of office
concepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the
literature, Ergonomics, 48, 119-34.
9. Duffy F, 1997, The new office, London Conran Octopus.
10. Duffy F; McMahan J; Pringle J, 1999, Offices. In Adler D. (Ed.), Metric
handbook : planning and design data (2nd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.
11. Gannon T, 2006, Zaha Hadid : BMW Central Building, Leipzig, Germany, New
York: Princeton Architectural Press.
12. Hall DJ; Ford TQ, 1998, A quality approach to factory design, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 6, 241 – 5.
13. Hendrick H, 1997, Organizational design and macroergonomics. In Salvendy G.
(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 594 - 637). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
14. Holman D; Axtell C; Clegg C; Pepper K; Waterson P; Cantista I, et al., 2000,
Change and innovation in modern manufacturing practices: An expert panel
survey of U.K. companies, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing,
10, 2, 121-37.
 15. Jenkins M; Pasternak K; West R, 2005, Performance at the Limit: Business
Lessons from Formula 1 Motor Racing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Kotter JP, 1995, Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail., Harvard
Business Review, 73, 2, 59-67.
17. Leaman A; Bordass W. (2005). Productivity in Buildings: the Killer Variables
The Usable Buildings Trust
18. Leather P; Pyrgas M; Beale D; Lawrence C, 1998, Windows in the Workplace:
Sunlight, View, and Occupational Stress, Environment and Behavior, 30, 6,
739-62.
19. Lee SY; Brand JL, 2005, Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions
of the work environment and work outcomes, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 25, 3, 323-33.
20. Marberry S. Designing Better Buildings: What Can Be Learned from Offices,
Factories & Schools [paper prepared for The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation].
In press 2004.
21. McCoy J, Mitchell, 2005, Linking the Physical Work Environment to Creative
Context, The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 3, 169-91.
22. McLaren Group, McLaren Technology Centre; [cited 2006]; Available from:
http://www.mclaren.com/technologycentre/.
23. Nadin SJ; Waterson PE; Parker SK, 2001, Participation in job redesign: An
evaluation of the use of a sociotechnical tool and its impact, Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 11, 1, 53-69.
24. Norman DA. Emotion and design: attractive things work better. Interactions.
2002:36 - 42.
25. Oldham GR; Brass DJ, 1979, Employee Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A
Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 2,
267-84.
26. Osmond H, 1959, The relationship between architect and psychiatrist. In
Goshen C. (Ed.), Psychiatric Architecture (pp. 16 - 20). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association
27. Preiser WFE; Vischer JC, 2005, Assessing Building Performance, Oxford:
Elsevier.
28. Snyder RA; Morris JH, 1984, Organizational communication and performance,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 3, 461-5.
29. Sundstrom E; Town JP; Rice RW; Osborn DP, 1994, Office noise, satisfaction,
and performance, Environment and Behavior 26, 2, 195 - 222.
30. Veitch JA; Newsham GR, 2000, Exercised control, lightng choices, and energy
use: An office simulation experiment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20,
3, 219 - 37.
31. Vischer JC, 2005, Space meets status: Designing workplace performance,
Oxon: Routledge.
32. Vischer JC, 2007, The effects of the physical environment on job performance:
towards a theoretical model of workplace stress, Stress and Health, 23, 175 -
84.

View publication stats