Is the systematic installation of sensors in offices a solution?
Putting sensors everywhere in offices, and for everything, would be useless. Hence costly in terms of investment and data analysis time. The implementation of a systematic recording system opens the door to abuses of surveillance and coercion. Such as sound level indicators that trigger alerts. Or reprimands in shared spaces under the pretext of comfort for all. We have seen managers installing decibel meters to penalize those who speak too loudly in some business incubators. Alternative would have been to attack the problem at the root, … by closing the space with a window maybe?
Measuring is only useful if you have specific objectives to achieve. Objectives can be defined at the time of programming. They must be reviewed regularly, periodically (every quarter for example) and on the occasion of each major reorganization. In addition, they must be absolutely in line with the company’s culture and vision and respond to the Space-Organization mismatches highlighted by the surveys.
How to define objectives to be achieved?
These objectives can be classified according to the following axes. From the most individual to the most global:
- Individual productivity or ability to concentrate,
- Individual sensory comfort or accessibility and consumption,
- Ability to exchange or share and collaborate,
- Adaptability to needs or projects and overflows
- Intra-team and inter-departmental efficiency
- Inclusivity
- Costs
- Income
- Image (Awareness, Employer branding, CSE…)
- Sustainability (Energy, waste, reuse, team involvement)
Techniques derived from data analysis make it possible to establish correlations between the indicators and the quantitative and qualitative objectives defined. Therefore, all you have to do is clearly state the objectives and identify the measures that could contribute to them. For example, if we compare the occupancy rate of the zones to the temperature and the noise level throughout the day, we highlight the zones favorable to concentration. We know if the concentration is often disturbed there, or if they are weakly occupied or saturated. Thus, setting an objective of maximum occupancy rate below the noise concentration threshold makes it possible to offer optimal productivity to a population in flex office .
What about the collaborative spaces?
Similarly, the minimum occupancy threshold for collaborative spaces (excluding meeting rooms) is an indicator of suitability for sharing. On the other hand, the only measurement of the time of occupation of a workstation or a meeting room will certainly have an impact on the programming of future premises. However, it does not make it possible to progress towards one of the objectives listed above.
In conclusion, to achieve this, these indicators and objectives must cross-reference information measured in space with information drawn from digital tools. Such as room booking, instant messaging, interactive terminals (dispensers for example) when these are accessible.
Excerpt from “Why are we going to the office”, by Rémi Mangin and Michel Ciucci, Eyrolles editions. This article is a contribution of Cyril Hadji-Thomas and Clara Tomasini.
article liés
