Changing the workplace strategy landscape - Leesman

Issue 20 | 2016 Q2

A brieﬁng on global workplace strategy, management, satisfaction & effectiveness Delivering insights that drive better strategies 6.

How the global standard works

9.

Leesman+ as the mark of outstanding performance

12.

Why beer, steak and an idyllic country town could change CRE

14.

The rise of ABW – what is it and why do it

24.

Putting user needs front and centre

27.

Clients getting smart to the importance of effectiveness

Changing the workplace strategy landscape How data insights built the global workplace effectiveness standard

2

Foreword Push, probe, challenge. It’s what we do. It’s what has helped us build the world’s largest insight database on how workplaces support the employees who use them. And it’s that database that has exposed that for 45% of employees, workplaces don’t work. Back in 2010 in the first issue of the Leesman Review, I laid out a problem and an idea. The problem as I saw it, was that workplaces were not properly recognised for their role in organisational performance. The idea? To create an independent, universal standard that would measure that role and contribution. Because with that insight, there might be some chance of engaging organisations in a more meaningful debate on the topic. It’s fair to say that whilst most agreed with the problem, not all shared the same enthusiasm for my proposed solution. But six years later and we can justifiably say that the Leesman Index has established itself as the measurement instrument of choice for any organisation who place value on independence, clarity and foresight. The Leesman Index is the global workplace effectiveness standard. It is important to understand that it is the data collected through the Leesman Index that has in effect, self-built the standard. We didn’t preconceive what average, good or outstanding was – the data showed us. Or more importantly the data from the 155,000+ employees who have completed exactly the same survey did. So this edition of the Leesman Review, much like edition one six years prior, places in print a series of renewed commitments. It reinforces our belief that an industry collected around a common independent unit of effectiveness measurement, can better prove the contribution of workplace to organisational performance. It outlines the role of our Leesman+ accreditation in recognising exceptional performance in workplace design, delivery, management and operational effectiveness. Further, it shows how these high performance workplaces will provide an important benchmark and research pool from which all can learn. Most importantly though for me now, we outline what is undoubtedly our most significant research initiative to date – Project Henley. We’re warned it has the potential to change the workplace strategy landscape and so might not be met with universal approval. It will certainly challenge outdated grey attitudes and pseudo design standards head on. But push, probe and challenge is what sets Leesman, and those clients, consultants and service providers who’ve embraced the concept of a unified global effectiveness standard, firmly apart from the rest. So don’t expect a let up from us any time soon. Tim Oldman Founder & CEO

3

Mission statement Delivering insights that drive better workplace strategies We do one thing one way: measure how workplaces support those who use them. With the amassed data we collect, we challenge assumptions, confront outdated standards or norms and foster an open, collaborative investigation into the role of workplace infrastructures in employee and organisational performance.

4

Contents

6.

The Global Standard Measure

9.

What is Leesman+

10.

Leesman+ Accreditations

12.

The Henley Hypothesis

14.

Louis Louhest – The Rise & Rise of Activity Based Working

16.

ISS – To Thine Own Self Be True

18.

XL Catlin – Workplace Brokers

20.

Sheffield Hallam University – Home from Home

22.

PokerStars – A Full House

24.

Gordon Wright, HOK – The Design of Workplace Things

26.

Johnny Dunford – Answering The Business Need

28.

Impact Code

30.

Leesman+ Appendix

5

Responses analysed 155,000+ Workplaces surveyed 1,290+

The Global Standard Measure In 2010 Leesman set out with a singular objective – to examine at a depth and consistency never before attempted, exactly how corporate workplaces support employee and organisational performance. And in the time since, we’ve done nothing else, offering no consultancy or advisory services whatsoever. This uniquely focused approach has allowed us to collect data on how more than 1,290+ workplaces in 50 countries support 155,000+ employees in the work they are employed to do.*1 And in so doing, have collated the largest ever research and benchmark database of workplace effectiveness data. Central to this project is a standardised employee e-survey. It provides clients a quick, inexpensive, systematic approach to the collection, analysis and benchmarking of workplace performance data. The survey generates a single, transferable key performance indicator of workplace effectiveness, or fitness for purpose – our Leesman ‘Lmi’. This ‘Lmi’ gives clients and their consultants the unrivalled ability to compare their operating results against hundreds of others and is now widely recognised as the global standard measure of workplace effectiveness. In summer 2015, when the respondent total passed the 100,000 employee milestone, we asked a firm of independent statisticians to review the results. Our collective 6

findings were then published in our landmark ‘100,000+ A Workplace Effectiveness Report’. These findings and observations have acted as a catalyst to numerous hypotheses and further investigations. And in line with our policy of openness and free dissemination of knowledge, this document seeks to share that data, make available the key findings and lay out our vision for our forthcoming investigations.

Lmi model The Leesman Lmi is calculated from two out of the five areas of analysis in the Leesman Index study: Design Impact, which looks at the overall impact the workplace is having on employee sense of productivity, pride, community etc., and the Work Activities section which examines which activities are important in an employee’s role and how well each is supported. A ‘score’ is then reported on a 0-100 scale.

+

=

Design impact

Work activities

Leesman Lmi

Physical features

Services features

Mobility proﬁle

Economic indicator agreement %’s

155,000+ Employee responses

55%

1,290+ Buildings surveyed

The design of my workplace enables me to work productively

63%

49% My office is a place I’m proud to bring visitors to

58% The design of my workplace contributes to a sense of community at work

Average response rate

50

Countries

27

Languages

9

Minute average response time

Data collected as at 31.03.16

*1

7

8

What is Leesman+ When in 2010 we set out on this journey, we had no idea how long it might take to amass the volumes of data necessary to start answering our lead research question: to what extent does the design and management of a workplace impact on employee experience and so, organisational performance? By 2013 we had gathered more workplace occupancy data than anyone had ever done prior, but it took a further two years to reach the point we felt confident that the data was diverse enough to start probing at depth. With 100,000 individual employee responses then in our database, we started to see what we could find. Quickly we realised that we were doing that from a “workplace bias”. We were looking for answers to the same old questions. So instead we decided to pass the data to independent statisticians with no particular track record or interest in corporate real estate and simply let them play with the data. The findings are staggering, bringing into question so many previously peddled populous tales of challenged workplace generations, genders or industries. The high level results are captured in a separate Leesman publication freely available in print and online, but what also emerged was the research value of a small group of workplaces that had achieved overall workplace effectiveness scores above a Leesman Lmi of 70. Accounting for around 5% of the workplaces surveyed, these locations were routinely recording productivity and pride key indicator question agreement levels that showed they

were key assets in organisational performance and were superbly supporting the majority of employees in their individual roles. Understanding what makes these locations different and how their physical and technical infrastructure differs to those languishing with the lower Leesman Lmi scores has become a key research focus for us now. Having established a series of strict ‘entry criteria’ or thresholds*2 to that research group, we are also able to recognise this outstanding performance with the award of a new workplace accreditation we call Leesman+. These Leesman+ locations will provide a rich research resource that will enable us to further test our core research questions, but equally we hope that the recipient organisations will see the opportunity to become public ambassadors for how workplaces can play a central part in supporting employee performance and so too, organisational performance. To the end of March 2016, 42 workplaces have met that criteria and their performance is highlighted here. Some of these locations are featured in further detail in this publication and more will be included in a forthcoming Leesman+ resource centre at leesmanindex.com.

*2

A Leesman+ award will be granted to those individual workplaces where the Index workplace survey has achieved 50+ responses, with a 5% margin of error, a 99% confidence interval and a Leesman Lmi of 70 or above.

9

Leesman+ Accreditations The table below shows each of the organisations that have achieved the Leesman+ certification. The aggregated data from this group now provides a powerful research pool of some 11,300+ employees. The data also provides a useful high

performance benchmark that our clients are increasingly using to see where most effort and attention is needed in their own projects to achieve Leesman+ certification. Leesman+ comparisons now appear as standard in our diagnostic reports.

Client

Sector

Location

Lmi

Facilities Management & Outsourcing Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Information Tech, Software & Internet Charitable, NGO’s & Non-profits Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Construction & Civil Engineering Health, Wellness, Hospitals & Healthcare Construction & Civil Engineering Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Publishing Information Tech, Software & Internet Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Information Tech, Software & Internet Information Tech, Software & Internet Facilities Management & Outsourcing Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Information Tech, Software & Internet Transportation, Trucking & Railroad Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Food & Beverages Retail Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Gambling & Casinos Transportation, Trucking & Railroad Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Gambling & Casinos Higher Education

Soborg, Denmark Paris, France Chicago, USA Phoenix, USA Budapest, Hungary Wilsonville, USA Bangalore, India Neuilly, France Seoul, South Korea Lahore, Pakistan Hoofddorp, Netherlands London, United Kingdom Silicon Valley, USA Dublin, Ireland Oslo, Norway Epsom, United Kingdom Solna, Sweden Riga, Latvia Bangkok, Thailand London, United Kingdom Gentilly, France London, United Kingdom Hyderabad, India London, United Kingdom Katowice, Poland Moscow, Russia Oslo, Norway Melbourne, Australia Edinburgh, United Kingdom London, United Kingdom Milton Keynes, United Kingdom Budapest, Hungary Vevey, Switzerland Coventry, United Kingdom Vilnius, Lithunia Singapore, Republic of Singapore Budapest, Hungary Santa Ana, Costa Rica London, United Kingdom Nowe, Poland Sydney, Australia Sheffield, United Kingdom

81.7 80.2 79.7 79.2 78.6 77.2 76.7 76.3 76.2 76.0 75.7 75.3 75.2 75.1 74.4 74.4 73.6 73.6 73.2 73.0 72.7 72.6 72.6 72.2 72.2 72.1 71.5 71.5 71.5 71.5 71.4 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.0 70.9 70.5 70.5 70.4 70.1 70.1 70.1

ISS Facility Services Colliers International – – – – – – – – Plantronics Savills – – NCC Nuffield Health – SEB – – – Little Brown Book Group – HOK – – ISS Facility Services NAB Sainsbury’s – Network Rail – Nestlé Sainsbury’s SEB – – PokerStars Network Rail – PokerStars Sheffield Hallam University

– Client name withheld for business confidentiality

10

Featured P16 P30

P31 P31

P31 P32

P24

P32

P32

P33

P33 P22 P20

Leesman+ Differences ow Leesman+ differences drive H high performance workplaces There are features to Leesman+ workplaces that consistently stand them above the average. The top 5 might surprise some. But surprising or not, these are activities and features that are difficult to justify from a financial perspective and will struggle to resist the pressures of value engineering exercises. But in constrained projects, investment in these elements will arguably deliver greater user and therefore employer benefit – so these are exactly the activities and features that should be the most heavily invested in. The data Impact Code to P28/29 gap-analyses all of the factors between the Leesman database averages and the Leesman+ aggregate group and highlights where those gaps are the greatest.

1. Video conferences 75.1% 53.4% +21.7% Here we consistently see the Leesman+ spaces excel. This could be because the physical facilities are better or that employees have access to reliable, robust web applications.

2. Relaxing / taking a break 83.4% 62.2% +21.2% Intriguing that the most effective places fairly consistently achieve satisfaction figures of 80%+. Is it perhaps that this contributes somehow to social cohesion, learning and collaboration?

3. Informal un-planned meetings 83.5% 63.1% +20.4%

% satisfaction Leesman+ % satisfaction overall % difference

Noticeable that ‘planned meetings’ see virtually no difference in satisfaction between the average and Leesman+ spaces. So it is unstructured collaboration where Leesman+ spaces shine.

4. Atriums and communal areas 80.3% 42.7% +37.6% Central to our ongoing investigation into whether some buildings are better equipped to achieve Leesman+ status is the presence of so many with good communal space and central atria.

5. Variety of different types of workspace 62.7% 27.2% +35.5% Yet again this attribute statistically justifies much greater investigation as under numerous analysis, emerges as a key enabler of employee productivity.

11

The Henley Hypothesis The workplaces in our Leesman+ group have achieved something special – a unique mix of physical and service features that superbly support the employees who use them in the roles they are employed to undertake. So how is it some workplaces work and some don’t? And how do some – around 5% - manage to elevate themselves to an elite group to deliver outstanding effectiveness performance figures? It’s rare of course to be able to pin one individual failing on the poor performance, or one outstanding feature on high performance. Our analysis technique tells us a great deal, but the story is more nuanced. It is this story that we were exploring in Autumn 2015 over a beer and a steak in idyllic Henley on Thames. We had just collated a series of images of our Leesman+ spaces with the intention of publishing a case-study book that explored the similarities or probed the differences. We started to see some likeness in the base build architecture – the proliferation of central atria for example. They also appeared to be operating at lower occupant densities. We have the largest collection of workplace effectiveness data ever amassed and it’s a researchers dream. It is a kaleidoscope of questions and answers more colourful than most can imagine. And it has already revealed where the Leesman+ locations stand above the rest (see the impact code gap analysis to P28/29). But what if we could map our 18 million lines of employee importance and satisfaction data to the physical real estate – not just in terms of the service 12

and physical features employees have told us are important – we have that already – but to the fabric of the building and the occupation strategy deployed by the client. The new data we’re collecting has been gathered and benchmarked before by others. Corenet, the BCO, the RICS etc., all have some form of CRE benchmarking offer. But not one of them has the insight into the user (employee and employer) experience alongside the CRE component. That is where we aim to make a difference.

So does occupant density impact on employee productivity or does the vertical distribution of employees across floors impact on sense of community or learning from others? Do desk sharing ratios have a tipping point of effectiveness and what benefit do those central atria offer? This is really not that complex a challenge. It’s a simple bipartisan promise to all involved in the design, delivery and management of the workplaces we are measuring with our Leesman Index effectiveness survey: provide us with as many of the following additional data points as you can and we commit to undertake the widest reaching research project of its kind ever undertaken and freely share the findings with you and the wider workplace management community. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

So in June 2016 we formally launch Project Henley – a crowdsourced research initiative that could have seismic implications to the advice offered by the real estate advisory market – from institutional funder, through to developer, architect, interior designer and facility management service provider. We are going to invite any client who undertakes a Leesman Index workplace effectiveness study to share their real estate data with us. It’s a simple proposition. Share with us a series of additional data points that relate to the physical architecture and to the way the building is being operated. The more clients who do it, the quicker we will be able to assess the impact these attributes are having on the experience of the employees using those spaces.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Net internal area Number of floors NIA distributed across Sole occupier / mixed Resident / assigned headcount / population Proportion of allocated / unallocated desks Proportion of solo / shared offices Number of enclosed meeting rooms / sizes Number of other meeting spaces Environmental certification (LEED / BREEAM etc.) Nature of catering / refreshment / coffee offer Presence of atrium / communal space Ease of access to outside spaces Proximity to external retail / leisure facilities FM service delivery strategy (in-house or outsourced) Onsite leisure / wellness provision

Our hope is that we can gather parallel Leesman Index and Project Henley data on 250 workplaces by Spring 2018 and have our findings published by summer that year. We will be reviewing the data at intervals throughout this time frame and if you would like to join an advisory panel to review progress, please feel free to contact our resident academic Dr Peggie Rothe for further information. e: [email protected].

13

The Rise & Rise of Activity Based Working

Activity Based Working Our year-long report assesses 70,000+ employee responses and outlines the key benefits and risks of this workplace strategy. leesman.com/ABW

Activity Based Working is synonymous with organisations who embrace change. So in March 2015, Leesman set about a global research project that would test the claims of ABW. Here we seek feedback from renowned strategy consultant and prolific Leesman Index user Louis Lhoest of Veldhoen & Company. Louis, Veldhoen & Company are recognised as the foremost global authority on Activity Based Working (ABW). For anyone new to the concept, could you set the ABW scene? Simple: it’s a concept that recognises that through the course of a typical working day, employees engage in different and varied activities and they would therefore benefit from a range of work settings, each designed physically and virtually to accommodate these activities. It is recognising diversity in the workforce and enabling people to perform at their best.

Q

That’s a major change in direction for organisations where employees have designated desks or even cellular offices. Yes, we openly believe in challenging or breaking with this convention by making workplaces elastic and linking different spaces to different activities, not least because all of those fixed workplaces are typically used for only 50% of the time. And that’s a huge waste, not just in terms of square metres and sustainability, but also in operating costs. Activities must become the principle unit of analysis.

Q

Erik Veldhoen’s 1994 book Q The Demise of the Office was the catalyst for the numerous ABW projects that have come since, but what of the “demise” – we still have offices. It’s not about the loss of offices, but is certainly about the demise of a traditional Tailorist approach where cellular spaces are statements of 14

hierarchy and open plan of total equality. That doesn’t automatically mean that people will become less important or completely equal, far from it. People perform better precisely because they first take a look at the entire spectrum of their work. And then they gear the facilities around those needs. Both inside and outside the office. For most organisations, that will need a monumental cultural and workplace strategy shift. So is ABW a design solution or a strategy? Neither and both! This is much more about change management, than about designing an office. The point is that you use the momentum when creating a new office to accelerate and support the change you want. Most organisations are very limited by the place where they are working. So ABW challenges habits and routines, the way we lead and says goodbye to unnecessary rules and procedures, to permanent workplaces and to regular working hours and in its place provides a variety of choices that make the workplace fit for everyone.

Q

Leesman’s year-long ABW research project has delivered a number of key findings that support your stance, which do you think is the most important? Erik’s original book makes clear that people who are faced with largescale changes have to be guided carefully. For us that is the most important but unsurprising finding

Q

– that 20+ years later, it is still the biggest obstacle to the successful delivery of ABW programmes. Project owners are too often seeing ABW as a physical interior design project alongside an IT mobility project and completely underestimating the magnitude of the behavioral change management needed to deliver a successful outcome. Creating an ABW based way of working entails a leadership evolution as part of the process. But observers looking at your portfolio of successful projects will see a glut of visually stimulating, even design award-winning spaces. Are you saying this is coincidental or essential for success? No. But it’s a finely balanced mix of IT solutions, human behaviour and new workspaces, aligned with the client’s business goals. Employees need to be able to choose a work point best suited to the activity they are going to do. The new interior has to provide the right mix and help the acceleration of the behavioural change you’re trying to implement. Most organisations are very limited by the place where they are working, so it is often a key infrastructure element to fix and is then the easiest to see from the “outside”. Give people more guidelines and fewer rules. Trust is the key element, together with letting people make their own choices. It is making sure the whole experience in the way we work and the workplace is consistent. That is the key to success.

Q

People perform better precisely because they first take a look at the entire spectrum of their work. And then they gear the facilities around those needs.

15 15

81.7

To Thine Own Self Be True

ISS World Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg, Denmark 4 December 2014

The highest performing workplace in the Leesman+ group belongs to the ISS Group HQ in Copenhagen – a workplace that the facilities management and outsourcing giant aims to learn from and replicate the best parts of with customers across the globe.

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” Marcellus declares in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The deceit and corruption of the ruling class has spread beyond the play’s claustrophobic castle setting to the rest of the country and its citizens. It is an enduring idea that the problems of a country, organisation or group often begin with the leadership. Logic, therefore, dictates that good leadership can create positive outcomes. ISS’s head office in the Danish capital of Copenhagen is the base for its global operations, though this represents a much larger area than Hamlet’s kingdom. Simon Svegaard, Business Analytics Manager for ISS, claims the organisation uses the space as a testing ground for new ideas, potential innovations and the 16

dynamic, forward thinking approach it is attempting to disseminate across the 77 countries in which it currently operates. In a region that has long been considered a bastion of progressive thought, then, ISS is no exception. The business, whose mission it is to be ‘the world’s greatest service organisation’, can already lay claim to the highest performing workplace in the world for its Copenhagen office, according to the Leesman Index. Svegaard says the initial decision to use Leesman came from a growing awareness that the facilities management sector had changed, first from single service models to integrated facilities services solutions, and then with the development of new outcome-based approaches.

“We could see a need to understand how the workplace is going to develop in the future and how we may benefit,” he explains – which opened up questions. “How can we make the people in the workplace productive when they are present, and what kind of surroundings should they have?” ISS used the Leesman survey on six sites including its high scoring new head office. “We wanted to do a test drive like you would with a new car,” says Svegaard. “You want to know how it works if you are going to use it somewhere else.” In Copenhagen, the business was previously spread across four very different properties in an older part of the city, which meant that interiors were cramped, layouts were prohibiting and employees were isolated. So ISS wanted a new office

We wanted to test drive the Leesman Index like you would a new car…we wanted to know exactly how it handled

that would not only showcase its talents but also provide a centralised space designed specifically for the benefit of occupants. In fact, a sense of space has been a key factor in the success of the building, according to Svegaard. He says the design has provided each employee with generous amounts of room while pointing out a growing body of evidence that suggests workspaces with a very high density of people per square metre may have a detrimental effect on productivity. In an internal Google survey last year, 58% of the organisation’s UK-based employees said a spacious office would make them more productive. Unlike the confined, suffocating castle that drives Hamlet’s characters to

treachery, the spacious surroundings of ISS’s head office bring out the best qualities in its people. Yet Svegaard admits this does not reveal the whole story. The high Lmi score, he says, has also a great deal to do with the building’s somewhat linear activity profile, featuring a homogenous grouping of similar administrative functions. The space includes small meeting rooms and video conferencing technology for staff that need to communicate internationally, quiet zones in which people can concentrate, and a ground floor reception that has a strong emphasis on customer service. “Of course, we thought through our different needs and designed the building accordingly, but we also had the fortune of having a limited number of needs to accommodate,” Svegaard explains.

Ultimately, the Copenhagen head office of ISS achieved the Leesman+ score it did because the organisation was able to clearly define user needs. “It seems like the parameters that were the most important for our employees, were the parameters that were scoring very highly,” explains Svegaard. ISS has begun to introduce the Leesman Index into the renewal process for contracts, but the organisation understands that among such a large and varied global client portfolio not all workplaces will be as simple and as accommodating as its own. Yet the hope for Svegaard is that by setting an example, ISS can lead facilities management into the 21st century.

17

It was a really good snapshot to show Catlin’s underwriters what we needed to effectively support our guys on a day-to-day basis

18

Workplace Brokers A recent merger between two insurance giants is forcing the newly amalgamated XL Catlin organisation to consider what kind of workplace it needs. Though the City of London was a trading hub for Roman settlers more than 2,000 years ago, the square mile’s transformation into a global financial centre can be traced back to the 17th century and two ostensibly distinct items: coffee and insurance. As merchants and shipmen reaped the rewards of a burgeoning British Empire, they brought home new and exotic items like coffee. Soon coffee shops were opening throughout the City and one of the most notable of these was Lloyd’s Coffee House, which provided the same merchants and shipmen with a space to broker marine insurance deals before they set off on their next voyage. This small coffee shop would eventually become insurance market Lloyd’s of London, whose impressive 14-storey building on Lime Street is still a prominent fixture of the City’s skyline today. In fact, the insurance sector remains a crucial cog in the area’s continued development. Less than a quarter of a mile away from the Lloyd’s Building is Twenty Gracechurch Street, the current London home of international insurance group XL Catlin. British firm Catlin occupied seven floors of the property before merging with US rival XL in 2015, and the space had already achieved a Leesman+ accreditation. Andrew Siddons, UK Property & Facilities Manager for XL Catlin, explains his organisation’s mindset as it moved to make the most of its new offices in Twenty Gracechurch Street: “We wanted to make sure standards didn’t slip and that we were moving with an environment that is always changing.” But it wasn’t the front-office underwriters, who Siddons describes as “quite traditional in their practices and their methods”, that displayed a desire for change. Instead, the Leesman data revealed that support

service functions such as FM, HR and IT wanted a more collaborative working environment, and one that was able to better facilitate their objectives. “People were very happy with the environment but felt that there were some tweaks and changes that needed to be made in order to support them with their day-to-day activities,” says Siddons. “It was a really good snapshot at the time to show Catlin’s underwriters what we needed to introduce to effectively support our guys on a day-to-day basis.” As a result, many of the new features have been installed on the third floor, where the support services function sits. These include non-bookable breakout spaces, project touchdown desks, writing walls and locker storage for anyone using the hot-desking facilities, as the business continues to explore agile working methods. Agile working, as it relates to the maximising of space, forms an important part of the ongoing discussions between the two sides of the merger, and illustrates some of the clear cultural differences between the UK and US teams. Siddons, for example, is now grappling with the mindset of an American contingent used to bigger desks and more space, despite XL’s previous London office being located only a few hundred yards away on the same street.

73.0

XL Catlin Gracechurch Street, London, United Kingdom 29 July 2013

More than 300,000 workers commute into what is one of the most expensive square miles of real estate on Earth. “The cost per square foot within the City is astronomical. So if you are going to allocate [space] to an individual where you can potentially put four people, this doesn’t make economic sense,” says Siddons. By being creative, and by gaining a more comprehensive understanding of how employees interact with the workspace, XL Catlin has been able to work within the physical and financial parameters set by its City location. Any kind of occupancy measuring exercise, Siddons argues, would reveal that most workers do not spend a full day at their fixed desks. “So there are ways to compensate,” he explains. “If you are not able to give someone a big desk, you can invest in other means and provide alternative ways of working.” Siddons hopes that the success of Twenty Gracechurch Street will come to form a design package that XL Catlin can export to its offices across the globe in a similar vein to the shipmen and merchants in the City of London more than 300 years ago whose discovery and imports built an entire capital.

Siddons claims that the Americans visiting Twenty Gracechurch Street often declare how “small and tight” the space is. “And to an extent, they are right,” he adds. “But when you look at the offices they occupy, they may not be in a prime location and they may have a slightly larger footprint in relation to their occupancy numbers.” Being as generous with space is just not possible in a prime location like the heavily congested London borough. 19

70.1

Home from Home

Sheffield Hallam University Bryan Nicholson Building, Sheffield, United Kindom 10 November 2015

High-performance workspaces need not be the sole preserve of a cash-rich commercial sector. Sheffield Hallam University was the first academic institution to receive a Leesman+ accreditation for a facility on its campus earlier this year. In a matter of weeks, some 250,000 young people will be heading off to start their first year studies at a UK university. Armed with essential personal belongings and a good measure of excitement, they’ll be leaving the parental home and arriving at a city and university they have probably only seen fleetingly once before. In loco parentis is a Latin term that directly translates to ‘in the place of a parent’. Derived from English common law, it invokes the legal responsibility of people or organisations to take on the duties of a guardian. And though the concept more faithfully applies to schools that look after young children, its ethical underpinnings are increasingly compatible with universities. Today, prospective enrollees require more than just academic excellence from higher education spaces. Research by the Association of University Directors of Estates last year revealed that 67% of UK students believe facilities played a key part in their decision to join the university of their choice, while only 47% cited the reputation of the school. According to Mark Swales, Director of Estates and Facilities at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU), this is proof that the quality of the built environment and the services that support it are now crucial factors in student recruitment and retention. Since 2012, higher tuition fees in England have served to escalate fierce competition for new students. 20

And universities who now find it to raise funds for capital projects are being forced to think and act far more like contemporary businesses. Most now recognise the student as the customer. Deeper inquiry into the design and effectiveness of the facilities is therefore required. When SHU initiated the relocation of its facilities operation and the Department of International Business Development to a new building, Swales and his team began an in-depth analysis of the working environment, and its effect on occupants, using the Leesman Index. “We were looking to deliver a completely different working environment, so we were really keen to understand and measure the impact this would have,” Swales explains. The Leesman survey would measure the staff satisfaction in the previous and new workspaces. “It was a significant investment by the university, so [Leesman] gave us a way in which we could articulate the benefits of that investment,” adds Swales. Staff satisfaction drastically improved after the relocation. The new space achieved a Leesman score of 70.1, improving on the score of the old facility by 14 points and earning it a Leesman+ accreditation. The overall average score (Lmi) in the Leesman Index is 59.9. Swales believes these results tell a compelling story of behavioural

change at SHU that has affected everyone from the management team to the service staff. For example, while the previous offices were far more conventional, a sweeping embrace of agile working means only two people have been allocated a fixed desk in the new building. Here, technology – that familiar bearer of workplace change – has been crucial. Employees can access their personalised desktop from any PC onsite and the reliance on paper-based processes such as document storage has dramatically reduced. Staff wellbeing has also informed many of the changes, and additions, to the Leesman+ space. Bicycle storage and shower facilities have been installed for the benefit of employees travelling to and from work on two wheels. Swales understands that like the university’s students, its workers need environments that support more than just their work. They need workspaces that provide them with a positive work / life balance. Now, as the university embarks on a £34m investment to make similar improvements to an academic facility used by students and faculty, Swales believes he can again produce positive outcomes by measuring user satisfaction pre and post occupancy. Behind all this is a tacit acknowledgement that an institute’s duty of care has stretched far beyond its traditional boundaries.

21

-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

07:00

08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

Santa Ana

70.5

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

A Full House Double-digit growth at PokerStars has presented the real estate team with a unique set of challenges. Hannro Hennig reveals how he has created an offline strategy fit for an online giant. “If we could prove that investing in workplace and facilities management positively impacted employee productivity, we would get lots more budget” says Hanro Hennig, Director of Workplace Operations for online gambling business PokerStars. He describes this as the “Holy Grail” in his line of work, underlining a long standing objective of the FM and real estate professions to determine a causal link between investment in a workplace and improved organisational performance. 22

PokerStars is a notable success story of the dot-com revolution, having experienced tremendous growth since its launch in 2001. When Hennig joined six years later there were 350 employees in Australia, Costa Rica, London and the Isle of Man. Today the business employs 2,000 people in Malta, France, Ireland and the US, too. “For the first five years of me trying to set up a real estate function we had double digit growth in our main offices. That obviously creates quite a

few challenges with regards to space planning, and requires a number of crystal balls to work out how you are going to prepare for it,” Hennig explains. Growth had been so rapid that all sorts of important back-office departments were given very little thought. “Prior to me joining, the corporate real estate function was non-existent,” Hennig adds. “They didn’t understand the basic metrics of square feet per person, what sort of density you should be putting people into, making sure the fresh air supply is not affected, and all these sorts of things.” Despite its success, however, PokerStars’ approach to workplace design has not mirrored the kind of avant-garde experimentalism associated with other famous technology brands. The previous owners, who only sold the business two years ago, favoured a more conservative path. “They were fairly modest, so our approach was never to be Google,” Hennig explains.

0

+01

+02

+03

+04

+05

+06

+07

+08

+09

+10

+11

+12/-12

-11

23:00

24:00

01:00

Isle of Man

66.3 London

67.9 Dublin

64.0

Paris

Malta

57.4

63.9

Sydney

70.1

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

Instead, the strategy has been to implement small, incremental, yet meaningful changes – which is where Leesman enters. PokerStars was the very first customer of the Leesman survey back in 2010 and is now using the tool across its entire global property portfolio. In that time, regional offices in Sydney and Costa Rica have achieved a Leesman+ score, though Hennig makes it clear that neither happened at the first time of asking.

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

in which they could up their Leesman score. His formula for this is pretty simple: learn which areas are the most important according to the Index, ascertain which of these important areas you have scored low in, and then work on improving them.

“There are definitely deliverables you can derive from the Leesman report”

“There are definitely deliverables you can derive from the Leesman report,” says Hennig. The catering service in the Dublin office, for example, had deteriorated due to a number of factors. The space was run-down and the incumbent catering provider had been underperforming, and this was reflected in a poor Leesman score. But the company reacted, refurbishing the break room areas and canteen, opening the space up and creating an industrialstyle kitchen design. A year later the scores increased by double figures.

What Hennig did was take the Leesman Index, identify his organisation’s weak spots and then challenge the real estate teams to target the areas

Now Hennig asks each regional team to produce a three-year plan to turn their office into Leesman+ space, but he also understands: “Sometimes you need to be realistic. Sometimes your space is

21:00

70.5

22:00

70.1

PokerStars Santa Ana, Costa Rica 15 June 2014 Sydney, Australia 13 August 2015

not ‘Leesman+–able’ unless you throw lots of money at it. But we always ask for a benchmark comparison to the top 10 performing Leesman+ spaces in our Leesman reports. Because I believe that we should be aiming for excellence in all that we do and in that benchmark are a set of achievable targets. If they can do it, we can do it.” Sometimes you cannot match the bombast of Google. But by setting a series of achievable goals, rooted in reality, you can make a big difference. 23

72.2

The Design of Workplace Things

HOK The Qube, London, United Kingdom 9 August 2013

User experience is fundamental to the design of a workplace — which is why HOK strives to be a data-driven practice that puts the needs of the occupier first. The success of a design hinges on its ability to communicate the function of the object to a user. This is the central thesis laid out by cognitive scientist Donald Norman in his influential 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things. Norman argued that while people often blame themselves when something malfunctions, the fault almost always lies with the design — or, more specifically, the lack of intuitive guidance that all design should comprise. Put simply, a designer’s primary concern should be the user’s interaction with an object. As a senior vice president at HOK, one of the world’s largest design and architectural firms, Gordon Wright grapples with these challenges every day. He is deeply cautious of the tendency to “design for design’s sake” and emphasises the necessity to “design for purpose”. “We have seen some [workplaces] that looked beautiful, but the employees complained like crazy because it didn’t support what they were trying to do in their activity-based work,” he explains. One of the key factors behind HOK’s recent decision to implement the Leesman Index across its entire global client portfolio is the tool’s explicit intention to refocus the discourse on workplace design around the users of workspaces. “We have heard from the design teams, we have heard from the real estate and facilities teams, we have heard from executive leadership, and now we are taking the occupant 24

Now we are taking the occupant and putting their view and their experience front and centre and putting their view and their experience front and centre,” says Wright.

many times therefore you can rely on me to have a base of knowledge to make valid recommendations.’”

The opinions of directors and facilities teams still matter, though now they are viewed as part of a homogenous entity called ‘the occupier’. Wright uses the example of car design to further illustrate his point. Imagine, he says, if the people who build highways were asked to design a car without any input from drivers. The highwaymen may be pleased with the reduced impact on roads, but this would be to the detriment of the driving experience.

Wright has a name for this, too: the ‘LinkedIn effect’. The businessoriented social media platform has helped foster an online environment in which millions of people can engage in discussions and present opinions as if experts, which can then spread among entire online communities with little research and no accountability. But without a scientific method to justify design proposals, workplace design remains a game of opinions and ensures it keeps off the top table populated by decisions makers and other business critical functions.

Yet Norman’s hypothesis of intuitive design can only reach so far. Organisations like HOK, which has a Consulting division, have helped to build an entire industry on the intuition of experts. Wright explains: “We worry about this all day long, which is to say, ‘I’ve done this before

HOK has always used its own employee surveys and data extraction tools but each time these were unique to the project in question, which created headaches.

“For a long time the industry was making recommendations based on a single set of data that had no benchmark,” Wright explains. “The lack of data normalisation made this difficult to do the types of things we wanted to do.” Leesman’s huge data sets, on the other hand, allow HOK to examine a wealth of information in the context of what has happened pre and post occupancy. “What this does is create its own benchmark by using the information across multiple companies and multiple participants in the survey process,” Wright adds. “We do this in science all the time.” However, Wright believes that it is easy to overcomplicate things. After all, billions of dollars are

spent on property portfolios around the world. By focusing on users and their experience, then, HOK’s job can be made simpler and a whole lot more effective. To adapt Norman’s argument: great workplace design must clearly communicate its function to the user, but first one must evaluate what the user’s needs are. 25

26

Answering the business need Clients are increasingly questioning the effectiveness, as well as the efficiency, of their buildings. We ask Johnny Dunford Senior Director at BNP Paribas Real Estate, which advises clients on their real estate portfolio, how BNP is developing a broader workplace offering. What do you see as the major drivers around property performance at the moment? The major drivers are around cost. Over the last few years there’s been a massive pressure downwards on the costs of occupation, but that’s also being tempered by a need for occupiers to actually provide space that works for their business and employees. Organisations appreciate that they’ve got to look after their staff and build space that enhances performance – not just treat the office floorplate as a sort of factory environment.

Q

Do you see a distinct shift from purely looking at the financial arguments to a more holistic view? I do. It’s very easy to measure the numbers and say we pay X pounds per square foot and to divide the number of people you’ve got by the amount of space and start to determine a financial argument. The problem is that doesn’t really tell you anything about productivity.

Q

How is the workplace angle changing decisions around portfolio management? The terms of occupation, with for example, much shorter leases and we’re seeing the emergence of sophisticated serviced office providers taking space and reconfiguring it to suit a variety of working practices. Some occupiers are much more agile and quick to embrace change than others but without a doubt

Q

they’re all asking themselves; ‘is the workplace suitably configured to answer the business need?’ Does this change BNP’s approach to providing real estate advisory services? We run portfolios for corporate occupiers that include Aviva, IBM and the Post Office, and we understand the need to ensure that the property occupiers’ use is aligned to their business needs. We’re prompting our clients to be more agile and creative, with ideas that spur them into thinking about things in a different way to increase levels of productivity from the space they occupy.

Q

How do you think the real estate community needs to respond to latest workplace trends? The property industry is increasingly working to understand what works for occupiers and how we can provide the best quality space to make their business effective. It’s definitely happening and in some places it’s happening very quickly, but for some in the real estate sector it’s still very much a change to the norm.

Q

Organisations are often pointing to the need for flexibility in their estate; do you think that will see any shifts in how property is developed and how landlords offer space? An emerging trend that we haven’t yet seen in this country is the provision

Q

of residential space and leisure-type facilities; either co-located alongside the workplace or part of the site. I think that this approach will be taken up by corporates to help increase productivity and offer something new for their staff, particularly in London where it’s extremely expensive to buy or rent accommodation. We’ll also see businesses sharing space much more freely – whether this is retail being integrated with commercial use or offices combined with public sector offerings, for example, libraries or medical facilities. Developers are already moving in this direction, so it won’t be a shock but a process of evolution. What do you think will be the major trends in property provision in the next three years? There’s a definite trend towards productivity measurement. We’re working towards delivering those sorts of solutions and already use the Leesman Index as a tool to measure productivity. We’ll also see increasing use of sensors that monitor the workplace environment. The most obvious one is heating but air control, air quality and other factors that make occupants comfortable will increase. We’ll also see the provision of facilities – whether that’s bicycle racks, crèches, comfortable seating, in what people consider to be services for life and living, rather than just a place to work.

Q

27

28

= of some impact

Age

Time with organisation

Gender

–

– – –


32.3 22.5 28.4


Gender

86.8 76.6 69.5

Age

Overall / Leesman+ gap

54.5 54.1 41.1

Age

% positive Leesman+

– – –

= of no impact


Gap ranking

Gender

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 Informal social interaction Learning from others Audio conferences Business confidential discussions Hosting visitors, clients or customers Spreading out paper or materials Collaborating on creative work Private conversations Larger group meetings or audiences Individual focused work away from your desk Video conferences Using technical / specialist equipment or materials

= of greater impact

–

= of no impact

Q3 Which activities do you feel are important in your work and how well is each supported? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

– – – – –

% satisfaction Leesman+

= of some impact

5.3 15.6 22.2 15.3 33.0

% positive overall

Corporate Image (for visitors, clients, potential recruits etc.) Workplace Culture Environmental Sustainability

= of greater impact

90.1 73.6 78.9 70.1 81.7

= of no impact

Q2. What impact do you think the design of your workspace has on the following elements of your organisation? 1 2 3

84.8 58.0 56.7 54.8 48.7

% satisfaction overall

= of some impact

– – – – –

% importance overall

= of greater impact


The design of my workspace is important to me It contributes to a sense of community at work It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to


1 2 3 4 5

% in agreement Leesman+

Q1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the design of your organisation’s office?

% in agreement overall

On these two pages we offer the overall performance figures across the entire database against all core elements of the Leesman Index survey, reporting on agreement, importance and satisfaction figures. We have then shown where Gender, Age or Length of Service impact on these.


Impact Code

93.5 78.0 77.9 66.5 59.5 56.2 55.6 53.0 50.9 50.5 50.0 47.7 46.1 44.2 43.7 43.1 42.0 39.0 35.4 31.5 26.7

77.1 77.6 63.9 63.1 72.6 58.4 62.2 50.9 86.9 73.5 77.3 65.1 51.6 61.4 58.9 64.3 46.2 61.1 64.0 53.4 64.6

85.4 80.5 76.1 83.5 86.9 74.1 83.4 67.8 91.8 88.5 85.3 80.4 66.9 79.8 63.0 78.6 60.5 73.9 81.4 75.1 74.8

8.3 2.9 12.2 20.4 14.3 15.7 21.2 16.9 4.9 15.0 8.0 15.3 15.3 18.4 4.1 14.3 14.3 12.8 17.4 21.7 10.2

17 21 15 3 10 7 2 6 19 9 18 8 4 20 10 10 13 13 5 1 16

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – –

–

–

= of greater impact

= of some impact

Gap ranking

Gender

72.6 67.1 63.7 59.0 66.0 47.9 66.7 26.9 68.3 48.8 50.2 57.3 54.9 57.1 58.3 29.7 51.3 57.2 68.1 34.0 63.3 54.5 49.3 25.8 59.2 40.9 68.7 31.2 36.0 46.2 43.4 37.7 46.2 28.1 68.1 66.9 42.7 67.2 61.2 61.7 39.1 21.7 40.4 43.8 31.5 46.6 42.7 36.7 27.2 37.2

76.1 73.3 83.8 83.1 73.8 69.2 75.0 34.7 76.4 63.4 68.3 56.5 56.7 76.0 63.1 39.1 65.5 82.7 72.9 49.6 80.7 72.1 55.6 46.7 64.3 75.8 79.2 39.6 72.4 39.6 47.8 43.8 54.4 51.9 76.8 79.2 80.3 81.3 85.9 76.4 54.4 40.1 49.2 60.0 37.7 68.7 64.1 39.5 62.7 50.1

3.5 6.2 20.1 24.1 7.8 21.3 8.3 7.8 8.1 14.6 18.1 -0.8 1.8 18.9 4.8 9.4 14.2 25.5 4.8 15.6 17.4 17.6 6.3 20.9 5.1 34.9 10.5 8.4 36.4 -6.6 4.4 6.1 8.2 23.8 8.7 12.3 37.6 14.1 24.7 14.7 15.3 18.4 8.8 16.2 6.2 22.1 21.4 2.8 35.5 12.9

47 40 13 7 36 11 33 36 35 23 16 50 49 14 44 29 24 5 44 20 18 17 39 12 43 4 28 32 2 38 46 42 34 8 31 27 1 25 6 22 21 15 30 19 40 9 10 48 3 26

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –



93.3 92.1 88.9 82.8 82.1 81.0 80.9 80.7 80.3 79.5 78.9 78.9 78.2 77.3 76.7 76.5 71.4 69.9 69.7 69.6 68.7 66.4 65.3 63.1 63.0 62.3 57.5 55.9 55.9 55.7 55.6 55.2 55.1 54.9 54.7 54.1 53.1 53.0 52.2 50.4 49.3 42.6 41.4 40.1 39.0 38.4 37.4 36.8 35.1 35.0

Age

% satisfaction Leesman+

Desk Chair Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities General cleanliness Computing equipment, fixed (desktop) Toilets / W.C. Printing / copying / scanning equipment Temperature control Telephone equipment Restaurant / canteen Meeting rooms (small) IT Service / Help desk Personal storage Natural light WiFi network connectivity in the office Noise levels Meeting rooms (large) General tidiness Wired in-office network connectivity Air quality Computing equipment, mobile (laptop, tablet, etc.) Office lighting Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle) Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs Remote access to work files or network General Décor Security People walking past your workstation Informal work areas / break-out zones Ability to personalise my workstation Desk / Room booking systems Dividers (between desks / areas) Space between work settings Plants & Greenery Accessibility of colleagues Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc.) Atriums and Communal Areas Mail & post-room services Reception areas Health and safety provisions Leisure facilities onsite or nearby Art & Photography Shared storage Internal signage Shower facilities Hospitality services Audio-Visual equipment Archive storage Variety of different types of workspace Guest / visitor network access

% satisfaction overall

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50


Q4 Which physical / service features do you consider to be an important part of an effective workspace and how satisfied are you with each?

–

– –

– –

–

–

– – – –

–

–

– – – – – –

– –

– – – –

–

= of no impact

29

Leesman+ Appendix We have seen that with such a small percentage of locations achieving Leesman+ accreditations an increasing number of organisations are seeking to embed Leesman+ as a strategic target – to develop a workplace programme that can consistently deliver high performance certified buildings for employees. What are these buildings doing that others are not? In so far as the Leesman+ benchmark goes these buildings are superbly supporting individual employees in their individual roles, but how and with what services and infrastructure.

Client ISS World

30

Using this data going forward we can start a more in-depth analysis and try to discover what features, services and infrastructures can consistently deliver high performance certified buildings for employees.

Building Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg, Denmark

Survey date 04.12.14 No. of respondents 135 Building location Suburban Building style Post Millennium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason New ways of working Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations

Client Colliers International

Lmi 81.7

Below we can start to see key data points such as whether desks are allocated or shared, if an Activity Based Working programme has been implemented, or whether the workplaces are in urban or remote locations.

Lmi 80.2

Building 41 Rue Louise Michel, 92300 Levallois-Perret, France

Survey date 02.06.12 No. of respondents 127 Building location City Centre Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Pilot project or test site Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working No Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings A mix of open plan and enclosed office working How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

Client Plantronics

Lmi 75.3

Building 33 Margaret Street, London, United Kingdom

Survey date 02.05.14 No. of respondents 336 Building location City Centre Building style New building office Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Relocation Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place Yes Work settings – How are work positions allocated –

Client NCC

Building Scorpius 140, 2132 LR Hoofddorp, Netherlands

Survey date 12.02.15 No. of respondents 105 Building location Satellite business park Building style 80’s - 2000 Fitout style Converted Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Multiple occupants Survey reason Relocation Survey type Pre-occupancy ahead of relocation Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place Yes Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

Client Savills

Lmi 75.7

Lmi 74.4

Building Østensjøveien 27, 0661 Oslo, Norway

Survey date 29.5.14 No. of respondents 104 Building location Urban Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Multiple occupants Survey reason New construction Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working No Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings A mix of open plan and enclosed office working How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations

31

Client Nuffield Health

32

Lmi 71.5

Building 700 Bourke Street, Melbourne, Australia

Survey date 23.3.16 No. of respondents 950 Building location City Centre Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Wider business transformation Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place Yes Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

Client Network Rail

Building 2 Ashley Ave, Epsom, Surrey, United Kingdom

Survey date 08.08.14 No. of respondents 242 Building location Suburban Building style 80’s - 2000 Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Relocation Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations

Client NAB

Lmi 74.4

Lmi 71.4

Building Milton Keynes: The Quadrant, United Kingdom

Survey date 29.05.13 No. of respondents 1,342 Building location City Centre Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Owned Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Wider business transformation Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place Yes Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated A mis of allocated and non allocated workstations

Client Nestlé

Lmi 71.1

Building Ansty - Store Support Centre, Coventry, United Kingdom

Survey date 31.01.14 No. of respondents 392 Building location Rural Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Owned Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason New ways of working Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely designated to named individuals

Client Network Rail

Building NBE En Bergère, Avenue Nestlé 55, Switzerland

Survey date 02.11.15 No. of respondents 61 Building location Urban Building style 50’s - 80’s Fitout style Converted Occupancy status Owned Occupancy mix Sole occupiers Survey reason Refurbishment Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place Yes Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

Client Sainsbury’s

Lmi 71.1

Lmi 70.4

Building Stratford Place, London, United Kingdom

Survey date 27.09.13 No. of respondents 168 Building location City Centre Building style Post Millenium Fitout style State of the art Occupancy status Leased Occupancy mix Multiple occupants Survey reason Relocation Survey type Post-occupancy Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle Supports home working Yes Formal homeworking policy in place No Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations

33

Our Clients ABB Aedas Allen & Overy Altarea Cogedim AMF Fastigheter Amgen AON AOS Studley Artillery Aster Group AstraZeneca Atlas Copco ATOS Consulting BB&T BBC Bethpage Federal Credit Union BLEDINA OU DNAO BMC BNP Paribas Bosch Bouygues E&S Bravida British American Tobacco British Council Buro Happold Cadillac Fairview Capita Capital Group CD&B CDS Channel 4 CHS CHS Inc. Ciena Coca Cola Colliers International Colt Technology Services Compass Group Contract Workplaces Crédit Agricole Cresa Orange County Cripps Data-Info Oy Deloitte Delta Lloyd Dentsply Derwent London Deutsche Bank DeVono Diners Club Direct Line Group Discovery Channel DPR Construction Duke University Edge Architecture eHalsomyndigheten Elekta Emcor Erie Federal Credit Union Essex County Council European Central Bank Eurosport ExxonMobil Fidelity International FKA Architecture + Interiors FNV Fortum Fraikin Freedom Credit Union Gavi Alliance GDF Suez Gilead Sciences GMW - Architects Go to Work Grant Thornton Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Hachette Harry’s Heerema

34

Heineken Helsedirektoratet Herman Miller Hirschbach Motor Lines HM Marievik HOK Housing Authority Hufvudstaden Husqvarna IBM ICA Ikano Bank IKEA IMERYS Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) International Air Transport Association (IATA) Interxion ISO ISS JAC Group Jaguar Land Rover JM AB/JM Entrepenad Johnson & Johnson Johnson Controls Jones Lang LaSalle Juniper Networks KBL Kingsley Napley KKS Strategy KPMG Kraftringen Landgate Lendlease Lewis Silkin Liberty Syndicates Lidingö stad LinkedIn Lloyds Register Loblaw London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) Maples Teesdale Marks and Spencer MASS Design Group Max Fordham MBDA MCM Architecture MCS Solutions Medical Protection Society Limited (MPS) Mentor Graphics Merck Serono Mikomax Mills & Reeve MITIE Moelven Modus MOMENTUM Moore Blatch Morgan Lovell Morgan Stanley NAB NATS NAV (Ny arbeids- og velferdsforvaltning) NCC Nesta Nestlé Network Rail NHS Property Services NN Slovakia Nordea npower Nuffield Health Oktra Orange Centre Orangina OSU Federal Pan Macmillan Pantheon Ventures Peabody Perkins+Will PGGM

Plantronics PokerStars Posten Norge Preem AB Prisma Medios de Pago Produbanco - Grupo Promerica Provident Rabobank Realinform RLF Rockwell Collins Royal Haskoning DHV Saab AB Saffron Building Society Safran Sainsburys Sanofi SAS Savills SEB Sheffield Hallam University Sheppard Robson Shoppersdrugmart Siemens Sisley Skanska SKF SMABTP Sodexo Solocal Solved Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Spirit Airlines Staples Statsbygg Stockholm Stad (City council) Sweco Swedavia Swedbank Swedish Red Cross SYKOY Talokeskus Tavistock TDC Sverige Tele2 Telefónica TeliaSonera Tenant and Partner Tengbom Tetra Pak The Law Society The Prostate Cancer Charity Tillväxtverket TLV Trader Media Group TSK TTSP TU Delft TV4 University of Cambridge University of Glasgow University of St Andrews University Properties of Finland Ltd Uppsala Kommun USG People Utbildningsradion (UR) Valley of the Sun United Way Veldhoen + Company Verity Credit Union Vinci Concessions Vodafone Volvo Cars Wellcome Trust Withers worldwide Woningstichting Haag Wonen Xchanging XL Catlin Yarra Ranges Council Zespri International

This is perhaps the greyest place I have even been. Bar the sparse patches of near luminous lichen, ground porosity means almost nothing grows here. It is totally devoid of colour and life. Technically it is an ‘arctic desert’ – a high volcanic plateau between the Hofsjökull and Vatnajökull glaciers in the highlands of Iceland. Iceland’s geology is volatile – ever changing. But the greyness in this image, though tiringly expansive, is not universal. Adjacent to the islands most unstable and hostile locations, where sulphurous steam bellows from hillsides or dormant volcanic craters capture the prolific rainwater, are some of the most exciting and vividly coloured landscapes imaginable. Workplace managers take note.

35

Leesman is the world’s largest workplace effectiveness measurement standard and works globally for clients and consultants helping assess and understand how their workplaces are performing. For more information on our work, or to visit us, please feel free to contact: London t. +44 20 3239 5980 New York t. +1 212 858 9665 Stockholm t. +46 (0)8 692 65 00 Amsterdam t. +31 (0)20 893 2598 leesmanindex.com

Design – fullyfledgeddesign.com Print – mayfield-press.co.uk Leesman is a registered trademark and all content is copyright to Leesman Ltd June 2016. All rights reserved.