Student of TUIT, Faculty “Economics and Management in ICT”, 3rd year student, group 115-21: Sukhrobov Siroj

Report on the topic “USA, Wellbeing Lab”

I'll talk about America's Well Living Lab in this report. The actions of the tenant or employee are impacted by the
interior environment. In particular, employee comfort, contentment, health, and productivity can all be positively or
negatively impacted by workplace lighting, temperature, and sound levels. Enhancing the workplace atmosphere may
benefit companies monetarily in addition to raising employee happiness. Norms for acceptable environmental conditions
already exist, and new construction is progressively implementing updated norms that prioritize the well-being of
employees. Furthermore, nevertheless, we must research our comprehension of various environmental situations.
Understanding a single environmental condition by itself does not guarantee the combination of several circumstances.
Research has indicated that when temperature, ventilation, and noise levels are combined, workers' performance is
affected more than when these factors are present alone. According to another study, the total impact of six
environmental factors was shown to be more than double that of the individual factors. When two environmental factors
come together, an unanticipated reaction is produced. In a study that tested the effects of noise and temperature, people
who felt that it was too hot made mistakes in their performance. In the case where noise in the office increased, the
amount of heat they felt was minimized. One environmental condition affects the perception of the other. In other words,
there is interaction between environmental conditions each other. There is no way to predict this kind of complex outcome
if we do not do an interaction test between environmental conditions. However, very few experiments combine the
environment conditions. The reason is that the test is difficult and expensive. One of the traditional models of research is
called the Environment Chamber, which is to keep the experimenter in a specially designed room and measure the
experience. But this type of chamber research can’t create a real environment with a variety of variables, and it can’t do
long – term experiments. When experimenting with how participants react to environmental conditions, they need to be
well controlled and natural, and be able to keep track of how the effects change over time. The Living Lab method allows
participants to stay in simulated real-world environments for long periods of time. Real-life simulation Living Lab are
different from traditional simple simulation experiments. Participants are able to engage in real-life activities in a living-
lab environment. Well being Labs in USA adopted a Living Lab method to test the office environment. They decided to
measure the impact of varying sound, light and temperature conditions on the worker’s experience. Living Labs are a
halfway pint between Chamber studies and field studies. It’s becoming a paradigm that goes beyond previous research
models. Because of the natural environment of Living Labs, participants can act as usual. They can work in the space for
weeks or months. So scientists can capture real activity and real responses. In the study, Mayo clinic workers were chosen
as participants. This clinic is also an organization that runs the well-being lab. Organizers spend their working hours
here, performing routine tasks throughout the day. Scientists put together 6 environmental conditions, including sound,
light, and temperature.
Case 1: General environment condition similar to the participants’ previous office conditions: sunlight, view, cold,
average air temp, no noise.
Case 2: More optimized conditions.
Case 3 and Case 5: No exterior light and no view, air temperature was somewhat cold and noise was added.
Case 4 and Case 6: Noise, air temp. was higher, exterior light and visibility.
Experiments lasted 18 weeks.
On the first and last day of the survey, organizers received a basic response through participant survey and they
compared it to the other 5 responses. 8 people participated (2 men, 6 women with the average age of 48).
There were 6 experimental modules in Living lab, they used 3 modules.
Survey was conducted on a 5 point scale for noise, light, temp, air circulation and air quality items.
Participants said that working in case 3 was the most difficult. They also said that the noise of 4 and 5 and 6 was worse
than noise of case 1. When organizers introduced noise that was made virtually, they had the lowest levels of satisfaction
with cases 4 and 6. In case 1, it turns out that the same noise does not affect satisfaction. There was less satisfaction with
light in 3 and 5 compared to case 1, there was no outside light, and barrier was lowered. Regarding temperature, cases 2,
3, and 5 were uncomfortable to participants. They said that it was hard to type since it was cold. Case 1 and 2 were set at
the same temperature. Air circulation and air quality didn’t change in all situations during the study. Air in case 1 worse
than in case 3, 5, and 6. And in cases 3 and 6, air was bad.

Conclusion:
In average, participants were more sensitive to temperature than to other factors. Unlike heat, they were particularly
susceptible to cold. Every individual is more vulnerable to specific environmental factors. Among the eight participants,
four were particularly sensitive to noise. The other four are susceptible to external light. Overall, it was discovered that,
depending on the experimental setting, participants' comfort, contentment, mood, and work performance were all
impacted.
The three most crucial factors are light, sound, and temperature. It is challenging to operate in a chilly, dark, and
windowless environment. When individuals identify environmental situations, they view them as a whole instead of as
discrete elements. The environment has an impact on people's sentiments and emotions as well. Participants reported that
when using blue light intensely, their sleep