Relationship between office workers’ staying and workstation attributes in a non-territorial office using ultra wide band sensor network

Abstract

This paper investigates the staying and moving characteristics of office workers in a non-territorial office using an ultra wide band (UWB) impulse radio sensor network. The differences between office workers’ staying and moving are clarified according to the individual workstation type that they select. The study determines the characteristics of each type of workstation. By clarifying office workers’ preference for staying and moving with regard to individual workstation types and office worker post, the reasons why office workers in different posts tended to select different types of workstations were revealed. Specifically, leaders tended to select workstations at the “inner meeting corner side” most frequently, as they had a greater need to stay in other areas. In contrast, ordinary staff needed to visit office workers in other areas less often, and as such, they tended to select individual workstations at the “middle meeting corner side.” Barring this, they tended to select individual workstations at the “middle corridor side” or “outer-meeting corner side.” Temporary staff members had little need to visit or stay at other places so they tended to select individual workstations at the “window side,” which is seldom visited or stayed at by other office workers and they could be disturbed less often from their solo work.

Keywords

workplace / non-territorial office / staying behavior / ultra wide band (UWB) / sensor network

Introduction

In response to the need for greater information sharing between office workers, a “free address” workplace system, which incorporates greater flexibility in terms of the utilization of space, was innovated. This system was expected to enable a more flexible use of space and offer greater potential for information sharing.

In a non-territorial office, office workers can situate themselves wherever they like. There are two execution types in practice. In the first type, office workers are assigned self-owned desks and can move them anywhere they wish. The second type allows office workers to occupy any workstation for their personal work, but once the work is over they are instructed to vacate the workstation and to take their personal belongings (laptops or documents) with them, leaving the workstation free to be occupied by the next office worker.

Several studies have been conducted on the aforementioned two types of non-territorial offices. Some have concentrated on satisfaction evaluation. For instance, Shimamura et al. [1] evaluated user satisfaction by distributing a questionnaire and soliciting responses before and after in an office in which a non-territorial arrangement was implemented. Communication is another area that is generally regarded as being affected by the shift toward non-territorial offices. Allen and Gerstberger [2] traced the variations in communication in a year-long investigation into a non-territorial office that was of the free-choice workstation type. Yamada et al. [3] compared the volumes of communication among offices in different states of transformation by employing periodic photo shoots. Other studies have analyzed office worker behavior. Yamada et al. [4,5] examined how communication between office workers was affected by changes in the office layout. Mori et al. [6] clarified the relationship between the layout plan and the working style in an office; this study included investigations into the staying location, content of working behavior, and moving times.

Detailed information regarding how office workers use the non-territorial workplace for work remains unclear. However, due to a lack of objective and continuous data, an ultra wide band (UWB) impulse radio sensor network, which continuously records the location of office workers inside a building, was used for non-territorial workplace research in this study.

Purpose and significance

In our last paper, we clarified office workers’ tendency to select individual workstations at a non-territorial office [7]. Herein, we focus on office workers’ space staying and moving behavior in the same non-territorial workplace using continuous and objective location data recorded by an UWB sensor network, in order to determine the reasons why office workers use workstations with different attributes. These findings should provide valuable information for office layout design.

The purposes of this study are as follows:

1) To measure how long and how frequently each place in the office is used by office workers and to clarify the different moving and staying characteristics when office workers select different types of workstations.

2) In terms of office worker post, to clarify the staying and moving behavior of office workers of the same post whose workstations are in a different category, in order to reveal why they selected workstations differently.

Offices with open floor plans are usually shared by office workers belonging to different posts or groups who have different work styles who need workplaces that fit their specific work styles. Some work styles in a non-territorial office are suggested by the way in which office workers stay and use the different areas of the workplace. By interpreting office workers’ space staying behavior, we may identify ways in which to improve non-territorial office spaces.

Method

Devices

Two types of sensors were used in the investigation, an UWB sensor network for location positioning and an acceleration sensor for data correction. The UWB sensor network is composed of a tag, antenna, and computer server (Fig. 1). The signal, whose frequency is 1/1.5 seconds, is sent from a tag transferred by an antenna and is finally recorded by the computer server. The acceleration sensor (Fig. 2) can detect the office worker’s acceleration when walking. Clarification of staying and walking duration by this means allows us to revise the location data recorded by UWB sensors.

Basic information

A non-territorial office of an architecture design company with 100 registered office workers was chosen as the subject of investigation (Table 1, Fig. 3). The total area under investigation is 381.8 m². It is composed of a main working space (including individual workstations and meeting corners) and surrounding service spaces (including meeting spaces for larger meetings, copy corners, and lockers for personal belongings and shared documents). A row of document lockers separates the investigation area into two parts: one beside the window (window area) and the other composed of large tables (table area). The table area is broken down into three groups: the architecture design groups (areas 1 and 2), the structure group (area 3), and the equipment group (area 4). This territory assignment is merely for reference purposes. Office workers are not restricted to locations within their department territories; they may choose any workstation in the office according to their needs.

In a non-territorial office, the day starts with the removal of laptops from lockers and the choosing of a workstation at which to do one’s work. The day ends with tidying up one’s workstation, clearing it of all personal belongings, and leaving it free for occupation by someone else.

Investigation

The investigation was conducted over nine successive weekdays, from November 17 to November 28, 2008. At 9 a.m. on each investigation day, office workers in the investigation area were randomly assigned UWB sensor tags that recorded their names and the individual workstations they selected.

Database

According to the locating accuracy of the UWB sensor network, the actual office layout division, and the distance to adjacent workstations, office workers’ staying location in the office was divided into 35 zones (Fig. 4, Table 2). The workstations were classified into seven types according to their spatial characteristics (Fig. 5).

Definition of staying locations

When the office worker appeared in the office, the temporal coordinate figure of his/her location was recorded by the UWB sensor. Based on the staying period recorded by the acceleration sensor, the temporal coordinate figures in each staying period were converted to zones. When office workers left the office to go to other places in the building, the antenna could not receive the signal of the UWB sensor tag; these periods were termed “out”.

When office workers stayed in certain zones, we defined that behavior as staying behavior.

In other territories, the spatial unit was directly defined by the functional it was located in. In the working territory, the spatial unit in which the testee’s individual workstation was located in was defined as the “individual workstation nearby area”; others were defined as the “same area” or “other area” according to the location of the testee’s individual workstation. The zones of working territories were also classified into “meeting corner side zone,” “corridor side zone,” and “window side zone” according to spatial attributes.

For example, if the circle x in Z2 of Fig. 5 is where the testee’s individual workstation is located, when he/she stayed in Z2, his/her staying location is defined as staying at the “individual workstation nearby area.” If he/she stayed at M1 or M2, his/her staying location is defined as staying at the “meeting corner side zone” in the same area. If he or she stayed at Z1, Z3, or Z4, his/her staying location is defined as staying at the “corridor side zone” in the same area. If he or she stayed at W4, W5, or W6, his/her staying location is defined as staying at the “window side zone” in the same area. If he or she stayed in area 2, the staying location was defined as “other area.”

Classification of workstations

In our last study, it was found that office workers’ selection of individual workstations appeared related to their spatial attributes. On the basis of these spatial attributes, the workstations are classified into seven categories (Fig. 6).

Based on post attributes, office workers could be classified into three categories (i.e., “leader,” “ordinary staff member,” and “temporary staff member”) or another five categories according to office workers’ specialty groups.

Original databases that combined the investigated data, the attributes of zones, and office workers’ attributes were then created (Fig. 7) and subsequently analyzed, as described later in this paper.

Office workers’ staying behavior in all areas of the non-territory office

In order to clarify the difference in how office workers stayed at each place in the non-territorial office, the duration rate and frequency of office workers’ staying at each defined place was calculated. Additionally, office workers’ moving duration rate and frequency inside the office were also calculated. The office workers’ moving inside the “individual workstation nearby” area was counted instead of staying frequency.

As presented in Tables 3 and 4, all investigated office workers spent 78.6% of the time under investigation in a working territory: the “individual workstation nearby area” was stayed at the longest (67.1%) and most frequently, followed by the “other area” (6.1%) and the “same area” (5.4%); in contrast, the “other territory” was not stayed at for any length of time. Office workers spent 13% of the time out of the office.

The analysis above revealed that the time office workers spent in “other territory” was less than 4%; most of the time was spent staying in the “working territory” and out of the office.

The analysis revealed the different zones office workers visited and how long they stayed in the “working territory.” It was found that when office workerrs visited and stayed in both the “same area” and the “other area,” the “meeting corner zone” was stayed at the most, as judged by the highest staying duration rate (3.8% + 4.5%) and the highest staying frequency (0.43+ 0.52 t/h; the “corridor side zone” was also used, while the “window side zone” was seldom used (Table 5). Given this, the staying behavior at the “other territory” and the “window side zone” of the working territory are not considered in the analysis of the relationship between the type of office workers’ individual workstations and their staying behavior.

A single-sample t test was used in order to show the significant change in staying and moving when office workers were located at different types of workstations compared with the mean (without clarification of workstation type).

All office workers’ moving and staying according to individual workstation type

As presented in Tables 6 and 7, comparing the means of all investigated office workers, when they selected workstations at the “window side” as an individual workstation, their frequency of moving inside the office increased significantly (7.8 t/h, p<0.05); meanwhile, their frequency of staying at the same area also increased significantly (1.02 t/h, p<0.05) by increasing their staying frequency at both the “meeting corner zone” (0.56 t/h, p<0.05) and the “corridor side zone” (0.4 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “inner meeting corner side,” office workers’ duration rate of moving inside the office (7.7%, p<0.05) and staying “outside the office” (21.2%, p<0.01) increased significantly, but their duration rate of staying at the “individual workstation nearby” (58.1%, p<0.01) and the “meeting corner zone” (2.3%, p<0.05) in the same area decreased significantly. Additionally, office workers’ staying frequency decreased at the “meeting corner zone” (0.3 t/h, p<0.01) in the same area but increased at the “corridor side zone” (0.44 t/h, p<0.05) in the same area.

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle meeting corner side,” office workers’ moving duration rate inside the office decreased significantly (4.9%, p<0.01) whereas their staying duration rate increased significantly at the “individual workstation nearby” (72.4%, p<0.05), but decreased at the “meeting corner zone” (1.5%, p<0.01) in the same area and the zones of the other areas. The same state is seen by comparing the moving and staying frequencies. Moreover, the moving frequency inside the “individual workstation nearby” (1.99 t/h, p<0.05) and staying frequency outside the office decreased (0.85 t/h, p<0.05).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “Outer-Meeting corner side”, office workers’ frequency of moving inside the “individual workstation nearby” increased significantly (3.38 t/h, p<0.01) whereas their staying frequency at the same area decreased significantly (0.36 t/h, p<0.01). This is mainly caused by the significant decrease in staying at the “meeting corner zone” (0.08 t/h, p<0.01). Additionally, their frequency of staying outside the office also decreased significantly (0.58 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle corridor side,” although office workers’ staying duration rate (0.5%, p<0.01) and frequency (0.15 t/h, p<0.01) at the “corridor side zone” in the same area decreased significantly, the significant increase of staying frequency at the “meeting corner zone” (0.76 t/h, p<0.05) led to a significantly increased change of staying frequency at the same area (0.97 t/h, p<0.05). Meanwhile, office workers’ staying frequency rate at other areas increased significantly (1.12 t/h, p<0.05).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “outer corridor side,” office workers’ staying frequency (0.06 t/h, p<0.01) at the “corridor side zone” of the same area and outside of the office decreased significantly but the staying frequency that increased significantly at the “meeting corner zone” (0.82 t/h, p<0.05) of other areas led to a significantly increased change at that area (1.2 t/h, p<0.05). The office workers’ staying duration rate at the “corridor side zone” significantly decreased (0.3 %, p<0.01).

The aforementioned results not only revealed how office workers’ staying and moving differed according to the types of individual workstations, they also indicated the advantages of each different workstation. Specifically, the “window side,” which is seldom visited and stayed at by other office workers, enabled the office workers located there to concentrate more easily on solo work but they moved more frequently and longer as a result of staying at the table area to engage in communication. The “inner meeting corner side,” which is located in the center of each area and is beside the meeting corner, allowed the office workers located there to use the closest meeting corner for communication conveniently and made moving to other places easier. The “middle meeting corner,” which is surrounded by other workstations and meeting corners, enabled the office workers located there to use the closest meeting corner more conveniently but made it inconvenient to visit other places. The “middle meeting corner,” which is beside the corridor and meeting corner, acted almost the same as the “inner meeting corner side”; however, as it is located on one side of the office, the distance to some places lengthened and the office workers could not move to other places efficiently. This is why the moving duration rate of office workers located there is lower and why their duration rate of staying at the “individual workstation nearby area” is higher. The workstations at the “inner corridor side,” the “middle corridor side,” and the “outer corridor side” acted almost the same; they made it convenient for office workers located there to move to and stay at other places.

Office workers of different posts moving and staying according to individual workstation type

In order to identify the office workers’ characteristics and tendency to select certain types of workstations, the selecting ration was calculated by the following formula:

(1)r_i={\displaystyle \frac{f_{pi}/(n_i\times d)}{S_p/(N\times d)}}

Notes: r: selecting ration

f: selecting frequency

S: summation of officers

i: given workstation

p: officer in given post

d: investigation duration

n: number of workstation

N: summation of workstation

In the latter analysis, regarding the posts, the moving and staying of office workers, of which the selecting ration at a given workstation over 1 is concerned, are presented in Table 8.

1) Leaders

Using the selecting ration listed in Table 9, leaders tended to select the individual workstation at the “Inner-Meeting corner side” most frequently; in order of frequency, they next chose the “Inner-Corridor side,” the “middle-meeting corner side,” and the “outer-meeting corner side”; in contrast, the “window side” was seldom selected.

According to Tables 10 and 11, compared with the means of all investigated leaders, when selecting the individual workstation at the “inner meeting corner side,” leaders’ duration rate of moving inside the office (10.1%, p<0.05) increased significantly, but their duration rate of staying at the “individual workstation nearby” (48.4%, p<0.01) decreased significantly. Additionally, their staying frequency increased significantly at other areas (1.69 t/h, p<0.05), caused by the increasing tendency in both the “meeting corner side zone” and the “corridor side zone.” Meanwhile, in both zones of other areas, leaders’ average staying duration rate and frequency were obviously higher than other office workers.

When selecting the individual workstation at the “inner-corridor side,” leaders’ staying frequency at the same area decreased significantly (0.32 t/h, p<0.05). This was caused by the decreased frequency of staying at the “Meeting corner zone” (0.17 t/h, p<0.05) and the “corridor side zone” (0.07 t/h, p<0.05). Their frequency of staying at other areas also decreased significantly (0.44 t/h, p<0.01), which was mainly caused by the significantly decreased frequency of staying at the “corridor side zone” (0.07 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle meeting corner side,” leaders’ moving duration rate inside the office decreased significantly (4.7%, p<0.05); their staying duration rate decreased significantly in the same area (1.6%, p<0.01) and other areas (1.7%, p<0.01), which was caused by the significantly decreased staying duration rate in the “meeting corner zone” in both areas. The same state is shown by comparing the moving and staying frequencies. Moreover, leaders’ moving frequency inside the “individual workstation nearby” (1.52 t/h, p<0.05) decreased significantly.

When selecting the individual workstation at the “outer meeting corner side,” leaders’ duration rate of staying at the “corridor side zone” of both the same area and other areas decreased significantly. Moreover, leaders’ frequency decreased significantly in terms of moving inside the office (4.79 t/h, p<0.05) but increased significantly in terms of moving inside the “individual workstation nearby” (2.77 t/h, p<0.01). Additionally, leaders’ staying frequency decreased significantly at the same area and other areas, which is mainly caused by the significantly decreased staying frequency at the “meeting corner zone” in both areas. Their staying frequency outside of the office also decreased significantly (0.44 t/h, p<0.01).

The aforementioned results may be due to the needs of leaders’ different daily work. That is, when leaders have a greater need to visit office workers in other areas, they select an individual workstation at the “inner meeting corner side,” which enables them to visit other areas more efficiently and also allows them to conveniently utilize the closest meeting corner to communicate with the office workers who visit them. In contrast, when their need to visit office workers in other areas is less, they select an individual workstation at the “outer meeting corner side” or the “middle meeting corner side.” When selecting an individual workstation at the “inner corridor side,” leaders visit the zones of the same or the other areas less frequently.

2) Ordinary staff members

Using the selecting ration presented in Table 8, ordinary staff tended to select the individual workstation at the “outer meeting corner side” most frequently, followed by the “outer corridor side,” the “middle meeting corner side,” the “inner meeting corner side,” and the “middle corridor side.”

As displayed in Tables 9 and 10, compared with the means of all investigated ordinary staff members, when selecting the individual workstation at the “outer meeting corner side,” ordinary staff members’ staying duration rate increased significantly at the “individual workstation nearby” (73.3%, p<0.05) but decreased at the outside office (6.7%, p<0.01). Moreover, ordinary staff members’ frequency of moving inside the “individual workstation nearby” increased significantly (3.48 t/h p<0.01). Their frequency of staying at the “meeting corner zone” of the same area decreased significantly (0.08 t/h, p<0.01), which led to the decreased frequency of staying at the same area (0.38 t/h, p<0.01). The staying frequency outside the office also decreased significantly (0.6 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “outer corridor side,” ordinary staff members’ frequency of moving inside the office decreased significantly (8.78 t/h, p<0.05); their staying frequency and staying duration rate decreased significantly at the “corridor side zone” of the same area.

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle meeting corner side,” ordinary staff members’ moving duration rate inside the office decreased significantly (5.2%, p<0.01). Their staying duration rate increased significantly at the “individual workstation nearby” (71.7%, p<0.05) but decreased at the “meeting corner zone” (1.7%, p<0.01) of the same area and the “corridor side zone” (0.9%, p<0.01) of the other area. The same state is shown by comparing the moving and staying frequencies. Moreover, their moving frequency inside the “individual workstation nearby” (2.07 t/h, p<0.05) and staying frequency outside the office decreased (0.82 t/h, p<0.05).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “inner meeting corner side,” ordinary staff members’ staying duration rate decreased significantly at the “individual workstation nearby” (59.9%, p<0.05) and the “meeting corner zone” of the same area (2.2%, p<0.05). However, their staying duration rate outside the office increased significantly (23.2%, p<0.01). Moreover, ordinary staff members’ frequency of staying at the “meeting corner zone” decreased significantly (0.27 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle corridor side,” ordinary staff members’ frequency of moving inside the “individual workstation nearby” decreased significantly (1.74 t/h, p<0.01); their staying frequency increased significantly at the “meeting corner zone” of the same area (0.77 t/h, p<0.05) but decreased at the “corridor side zone” (0.07 t/h, p<0.01). The significantly increased staying frequency at the other area (1.24 t/h, p<0.05) was mainly caused by the increased staying frequency at the “meeting corner zone” (0.68 t/h, p<0.05).

The results above reveal that when ordinary staff members have less need to visit office workers in other areas, they select an individual workstation at the “middle meeting corner side,” which enables them to conveniently use the closest meeting corner without moving and results in more continual staying at their individual workstation and nearby. The same thing took place at the individual workstation at the “outer meeting corner side.” In contrast, if the ordinary staff members had a greater need to visit office workers in other areas, they would select an individual workstation at the “middle corridor side,”— the inter area location and the corridor beside it enable them to visit other areas more easily.

3) Temporary staff members

Using the selecting ration showed in Table 8, temporary staff members tended to select an individual workstation at the “window side” most frequently; next came the “outer corridor side” and the “middle meeting corner side.”

As presented in Tables 9 and 10, compared with the means of all investigated temporary staff members, when they selected the workstations at the “window side” as an individual workstation, their moving duration rate and frequency increased significantly; their staying duration rate and frequency also increased significantly. Meanwhile, compared with other office workers that selected the same type of workstation, temporary staff members’ staying duration rate was much lower at each zone of the same and other areas, which indicates that they need less communication than other office workers.

When selecting the individual workstation at the “outer corridor side,” the temporary staff members’ duration rate of staying at the “corridor side zone” (0.1%, p<0.01) of other areas and outside the office (4.9%, p<0.05) decreased significantly; their frequency of staying at the “meeting corner zone” of the same area decreased significantly (0.08 t/h, p<0.01).

When selecting the individual workstation at the “middle meeting corner side,” temporary staff members’ moving duration rate inside the office decreased significantly (4.98%, p<0.01); their staying duration rate increased significantly at the “individual workstation nearby” (84.5%, p<0.05), but decreased at both the “meeting corner zone” (0.04%, p<0.01) and the “corridor side zone” (0.05%, p<0.01) of the same area. The same state is shown by comparing the moving and staying frequencies. Their staying frequency outside the office also decreased (0.86 t/h, p<0.05).

The aforementioned results reveal that because the “window side” is seldom visited for staying and temporary staff members who located their individual workstations there were less disturbed in their solo work, although they spent more time moving and staying at other places, the time they spent was much less than that of other office workers.

Conclusions

This paper examined the differences in office workers’ staying and moving behavior according to the individual workstation type that they selected in a non-territorial office. This study ascertained the characteristics of each type of workstation and, by clarifying the preference of office workers’ staying and moving behavior with regard to individual workstation type and office worker post, the reason why office workers in different posts tended to select different types of workstation was revealed.

The findings in regard to the investigated office workers and the non-territorial office are as follows:

1) The “middle meeting corner side” and the “outer meeting corner side” enabled the office workers that located their individual workstations there to use the meeting corner more conveniently and therefore shorten the time spent visiting and staying at other places in the same area. The “outer corridor side” and “middle corridor side” enabled the office workers who located their individual workstations there to move to other places more easily. The “inner meeting corner side” enabled the office workers located there to conveniently use the closest meeting corner for communication and made moving to other places easier. Office workers with workstations at the “window side,” which is seldom visited and stayed at by other office workers, were less often disturbed by other office workers.

2) With regard to post, office workers’ tendency to select different types of workstations is a result of their different needs, that is, leaders tended to select a workstation at the “inner meeting corner side” most frequently, as they had to visit more and stay in other areas. In contrast, when they had less of a need to visit office workers in other areas, they would select a workstation at the “outer meeting corner side” or the “middle meeting corner side.”

When ordinary staff members had less of a need to visit office workers in other areas, they would select individual workstations at the “middle meeting corner side” more frequently; failing that, they tended to select an individual workstation at the “middle corridor side” or the “outer meeting corner side” more frequently, as being next to the corridor and to the former’s inter area location made visiting other areas easier.

Temporary staff members had less of a need to visit and stay at other places than other office workers so they tended to locate their individual workstations most frequently at the “window side,” which is seldom visited and stayed at by other office workers, and they would be disturbed from their solo work less often.

This examination of office workers’ moving and staying characteristics at different types of workstations proved some of the hypotheses of our last paper. The free selection of individual workstations is flexible and helpful in enabling office workers of different posts to meet their various needs. Additionally, the detailed insights into office workers’ moving and staying in the nonterritorial office provided information that may be of value in terms of office layout design. With regard to the findings outlined herein, some improvements could be considered in customizing the office space. For instance, the space at the window side is too narrow to permit other office workers to stay. This resulted in leaders and ordinary office workers seldom selecting them as individual workstations. This space could therefore be enlarged or a workstation could be transformed into a meeting corner. In the future, we will strive to further clarify the office workers’ different moving and staying characteristics in a non-territorial office compared with a territorial office. In this manner, we expect to gain even greater insight into how office workers use non-territorial offices for their work.

References

[1] Shimamura Hi, Inoue M, Yamada T. User evaluation on a free address layout for a research office. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 1996, 483: 159-168

[2] Allen T J, Gerstberger P G. A field experiment to improve communications in a product engineering department: The nonterritorial office. Human Factors, 1973, 15 (5): 487-498

[3] Yamada T, Shimamura H, Iwata Y, Sugiyama T. A study on the free-address process of research office Part 2: Change of the amount and the places of communication in a free-address office with folding moving desks. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 2000, 528: 119-124

[4] Yamada T, Inoue M, Shimamura H. Designing of a free-address research office with user's territories. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 1996, 486: 69-78

[5] Shimamura H, Yamada T, Sugiyama T, Iwata Y. A study on the free-address process of research office Part 1: The effect of a new type free address office analyzed by user satisfaction evaluation. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 1998, 509: 129-134

[6] Mori A, Tsunekawa K, Kato A, Le Roux P C. A study on relationships among plan compositions, work-styles, and communication behaviors in office. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 2002, 551: 129-134

[7] Qu X Y, Zhang X N, Izato T, Munemoto J, Matsushita D. Behavior concerning choosing workstations in non-territorial offices. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2010, 9(1): 95-102

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg