Smart and Sustainable Offices (SSO): Presentación de un enfoque holístico para implementar la próxima generación de oficinas

A. Cobaleda Cordero; U. Rahe; H. Wallbaum; Q. Jin; M. Forooraghi

doi:10.3989/id.55278

Authors

A. Cobaleda Cordero Department of Product and Production Development. Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6734-7584
U. Rahe Department of Product and Production Development. Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-4321
H. Wallbaum Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5809-9400
Q. Jin Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4331-7983
M. Forooraghi Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1287-8817

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/id.55278

Keywords:

Office DNA, employees’ needs, comfort experience, indoor environmental quality, sustainable office design, space-resilience, work patterns

Abstract

The Smart Sustainable Offices project (SSO) is a product of years of research with large sets of data collected from more than 30 office buildings in Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain. Based on scientific evidence, the concept of SSO, initially conceived as a research plan to address the interdependencies between office users and their working environment in a European context, is now used as a qualitative and quantitative mixed method approach for office diagnosis and ideation. At the current stage, the SSO methodology aims to implement a new paradigm of user-oriented, lower carbon footprint and resilient office design solutions. The main strategy is articulated around the “office DNA” of every organisation, decoded as a compound of work patterns, operational and individual needs, and their potential to define design criteria. The practical application of SSO and its tentative findings exemplified through three pilot test office-demonstrators are described in this paper.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

(1) USGBC, United States Green Building Council (2016). LEED by the numbers: 16 years of steady growth. http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-numbers-16-years-steady-growth

(2) Feige, A., Wallbaum, H., Krank, S. (2011). Harnessing stakeholder motivation: towards a Swiss sustainable building sector. Building Research & Information, 39(5): 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.589788

(3) Bluyssen P. M., Aries M., Van Dommelen, P. (2011). Comfort of workers in office buildings: The European HOPE project. Building and Environment, 46(1): 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.07.024

(4) Peiró, J. M., Ayala, Y., Tordera, N., Lorente, L., Rodríguez, I. (2014). Bienestar sostenible en el trabajo: Revisión y reformulación. Papeles del Psicólogo, 35(1): 5-14.

(5) Moen, P., Kelly, E.L., Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social Problems, 58(1): 69-98. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2011.58.1.69 PMid:21532909 PMCid:PMC3084004

(6) Kim, J., de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36: 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007

(7) ISO (2007). EN ISO 7726-ergonomics CEN. EN 15251 Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings e addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics. European Standardisation Organisation.

(8) ISO (2005). EN ISO 7730 Moderate thermal environments - analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort. International Standard Organization, Geneva.

(9) Feige, A., Mcallister, P., Wallbaum, H. (2013). Rental price and sustainability ratings: which sustainability criteria are really paying back? Construction Management and Economics, 31(4): 322-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.769686

(10) Meins, E., Wallbaum, H., Hardziewski, R., Feige, A. (2010). Sustainability and property valuation: a risk-based approach. Building Research & Information, 38(3): 280-300, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613211003693879 https://doi.org/10.1080/09613211003693879

(11) World Green Building Council (2014). Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices. http://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/compressed_WorldGBC_Health_Wellbeing__Productivity_Full_Report_Dbl_Med_Res_Feb_2015.pdf

(12) Wohlers, C., Hertel, G. (2016). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 1-20.

(13) De Been, I., Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2): 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011

(14) Newsham, G., Birt, B., Arsenault, C., Thompson, A., Veitch, J., Mancini, S., Galasiu, A., Gover, B., Macdonald, I., Burns, G. (2013). Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research and Information, 41(4): 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.789951

(15) Robertson, M., Huang, YH., O'Neill, M., Schleifer, L. (2008). Flexible workspace design and ergonomics training: Impacts on the psychosocial work environment, musculoskeletal health, and work effectiveness among knowledge workers. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4): 482– 494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.02.022 PMid:18462704

(16) Agha-Hossein, M., El-Jouzi, S., Elmualim, A., Ellis, J., Williams, M. (2013). Post-occupancy studies of an ofﬁce environment: Energy performance and occupants' satisfaction. Building and Environment, 69: 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.003

(17) Ekstrand, M., Damman, S. (2016). Front and backstage in the workplace. Journal of Facilities Management, 14(2): 188-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-10-2015-0029

(18) Brunia, S., De Been, I., Van der Voordt, T. (2016). Accommodating new ways of working: lessons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(1): 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0028

(19) De Been, I., Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2): 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011

(20) Windlinger, L., Janser, M., Feige, A., Wallbaum, H. (2012, 18-19 April). The role of office users in the sustainability of office buildings - an empirical investigation and implications for FM. 7th International Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings (IEECB) (pp. 651-660). Frankfurt a.M.

(21) Vos, P., Van der Voordt, T. (2001). Tomorrow's offices through today's eyes; effects of office innovation in working environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4(1): 48-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010210811778

(22) Cushman & Wakefield (2013). Workplace transformation survey; a global view of workplace change.

(23) Herbig, B., Schneider, A., Nowak, D. (2015). Does office space occupation matter? The role of the number of persons per enclosed office space, psychosocial work characteristics, and environmental satisfaction in the physical and mental health of employees. Indoor Air 2016, 26: 755-767.

(24) Bridger, R., Brasher, K. (2011). Cognitive task demands, self-control demands and the mental well-being of office workers. Ergonomics, 54(9): 830-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.596948 PMid:21846282

(25) Gorgievski, M., Van der Voordt, T., Van Herpen, S., Van Akkeren, S. (2010). After the fire. Facilities, 28(3/4): 206-224. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771011023159

(26) Ophir, E., Nass, C., Wagner, A. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37): 15583-15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 PMid:19706386 PMCid:PMC2747164

(27) Haynes, B. (2007). The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(3): 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960710775045

(28) Maher, A., Von Hippel, C. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2): 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.05.002

(29) Hoendervanger, J., De Been, I., Van Yperen, N., Mobach, M., Albers, C. (2016). Flexibility in use. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(1): 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0033

(30) Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L., de Dear, R. (2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Building and Environment 103: 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.015

(31) Singh, A., Syal, M., Korkmaz, S., Grady, S. (2011). Costs and Benefits of IEQ Improvements in LEED Office Buildings. Journal of Infrastructure System, 17(2): 86-94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000046

(32) Bodin, C., Bodin, L. (2009). Difference in Satisfaction with Office Environments among Employees in Different Office Types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3): 241-257.

(33) De Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P., Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48(2): 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130512331319409 PMid:15764312

(34) IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Working Group III - Mitigation of Climate Change. https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/ipcc_wg3_mitigation_climatechange.pdf

(35) BPIE, Buildings Performance Institute Europe (2011). Europe's buildings under the microscope. A country –by country review of the energy performance of buildings. http://bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10 HR_EU_B_under_microscope_study.pdf

(36) Mosteiro-Romero, M., Krogmann, U., Wallbaum, H., Ostermeyer, Y., Senik, J., Andrews, C. (2014). Relative importance of electricity sources and construction practices in residential buildings: A Swiss-US comparison of energy related lifecycle impacts. Energy and Buildings, 68: 620-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.046

(37) Wallbaum, H., Jakob, M., Martius, G. (2013, 23-28 September). Assessment of the relevance of "embodied energy" in the building stock of the city of Zurich. Sustainable Building Conference (pp. 751-759). Graz.

(38) Hong, T., Lin, HW. (2012, January). Occupant behavior: impact on energy use of private offices. ASim - 1st Asian conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association. Shanghai.

(39) Steemers, K., Manchanda, S. (2010). Energy efficient design and occupant well-being: Case studies in the UK and India. Building and Environment, 45(2): 270-278, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.025

(40) UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (2012). The Emissions Gap Report 2012. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2012

(41) Meier, P., Vagliasindi, M., Imran, M. (2014). The Design and Sustainability of Renewable Energy Incentives: An Economic Analysis. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/20524 922240PUB0978100Box385358B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

(42) Majcen, D., Itard, L., Visscher, H. (2013). Theoretical vs. actual energy consumption of labelled dwellings in the Netherlands: Discrepancies and policy implications. Energy Policy, 54: 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.008

(43) European Parliament (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings.

(44) European Parliament (2012). Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency.

(45) Mawson, A. (2002). The Workplace and its Impact on Productivity. Advanced Workplace Associates, London. http://www.occupier.org/uploads/articles/1article8.pdf

(46) Haynes, B. (2008). The impact of office layout on productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 6(3): 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960810885961

(47) Leitfaden für Nachhaltige Bürogebäude. http://www.nachhaltigebueros.ch/