World Workplace Europe 2003, Prague, Czech Republic
May 11-13, 2003

Session #: 503
Tuesday, May 13, 2003, from 9:00 to 10:30am

Guidelines for Universally Accessible andUsable Workplaces

Shiro Nitanai, CFMJ, JIA
Japan Post Corporation
Address: 1-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8798
Japan
Phone #: +81-3-3504-4324
FAX #:+81-3-3506-0635
E-mail:s-nitana@soumu.go.jp
Kanya Shiokawa, CFMJ
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone East Corporation
Address: 1-9-1 Konan, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8019
Japan
Phone #: +81-3-3740-9600
FAX #:+81-3-3740-9688
E-mail:k-shiokawa@tokyo.east.ntt.co.jp
Yoko Saito, AIA, CFM, CFMJ
Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning
The University of Michigan
Address: 2568 Stone Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
U.S.A.
Phone #: +1-734-764-2073
FAX #:+1-734-764-2073
E-mail:ysaito@umich.edu

Guidelines for Universally Accessible and Usable Workplaces
Presenters:
Shiro Nitanai, Kanya Shiokawa, Yoko Saito
Collaborators: Ken Adachi, Takanori Ochiai, Toshio Komachi, Dai Sogawa, Yukiko Nakada,
Ichiro Narita, Hitomi Hagino, Kaori Horiguchi, Masayoshi Moriyama
Universal Design Committee, Japan Facility Management Promotion Association
Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
Japan is rapidly rushing into an aging society. The population in Japan is estimatedto reach a peak of 127 million in 2004 and then decline to 92 million in 2050, 39 percent of
which will at that time be age 65 and over. After the workforce aged 15 to 64 achieved its
peak number of 87 million in 1995, it continues to decline as follows: 86 million in 2000, 70
million in 2028 (estimated), and finally 49 million in 2050 (estimated) (National Institute ofPopulation and Social Security Research, 2002). This dynamic demographic change willdefinitely transform future work environments.
The employment of people with disabilities is another critical issue in Japan. In 2001,
the number of non-institutionalized people with physical and/or intellectual impairments
aged 18 and over was estimated to be about 3.5 million, an increase of 8.7 percent since1996 (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [MHLW], 2001a, 2002a). Of this 3.5 million
population, only 190,000, or 5.8 percent, were actually employed by public or private sector
organizations. In addition, while the Law for Employment Promotion, etc., of the Disabled
Persons regulates the employment quota that requires a private company to employ people
with physical and/or intellectual disabilities at 1.8 percent or more of all employees, theaverage of the actual employment rates was only 1.5 percent in 2001 (MHLW, 2001b).
In order to be prepared for increasing diversity of employees, Japan Facility
Management Promotion Association’s (JFMA) Universal Design Committee (formerly called
the Workplace Universal Design Study Team) is working to establish universal design
guidelines for the workplace. At the World Workplace Japan 2003, we gave apresentation titled “The value of universal design in the workplace,” through which we
discussed current social streams associated with universal design in the workplace, mainly
centered offices, and an application of the balanced scorecard to analyze the effectivenessof universal design (Shiokawa & Hagino, in press). As a sequel to this former presentation,
this paper introduces an approach to developing guidelines to integrate universal design
into office planning, as well as the results of a survey regarding the current awareness of
universal design among Japanese facility managers.
2. Attributes of workplace universal design
Let us begin with discussing the difference between universal design and barrier-freedesign. Barrier-free design exclusively focuses on elderly people and those withdisabilities, evaluates built environments only from the viewpoint of physical accessibility,
and conceptually takes “symptomatic measures” to eliminate environmental barriers for
those people. On the other hand, the concept of universal design, according to its mostcommon understanding, goes beyond the notion of barrier-free design and emphasizes an
inclusive approach by which the physical, social, and psychological needs of all possible
users are considered from the early stages of a design process and integrated into physicalFigure 1: Attribute of workplace universal design

design solutions. “Bad design” may require additional barrier-free measures to adjust
physical environments later, but “good design” does not.
As shown in Figure 1, we redefine universal design in the broader sense from a
realistic standpoint. The horizontal axis is drawn from physical (hard) solutions topersonal (soft) ones, and the vertical axis indicates the extent to which the solutions can beshared universally (commonality) or individually (customization). In addition to the notion
of “good design,” by which we mean the general definition of universal design, our definitionof universal design is broadened to encompass a barrier-free approach to adapting of theexisting environments to the needs of people with disabilities, personal assistance as asupplement to physical accommodations, and environmental customization that will beappropriate for each worker.
Figure 1 also compares approaches to the workplace with approaches to public
spaces. Public spaces tend to apply the highest common solutions that will benefit abroad range of unknown users as a whole. The concept of universal design appropriately
satisfies the necessity of universality and commonality in public spaces. In contrast, theworkplace generally targets specific users (employees), so its quality of accommodation
can also be enhanced by personal, on-site, case-by-case measures, such as mutual
considerations and informal arrangements among workers. Even many physical aspectsof the workplace, such as workstations, seat height, lighting, air conditioning, and layouts ofelements, can be relatively flexible and adaptable to the needs or preferences of individual
workers. All of these are attributes of workplace universal design, which not only
considers the collective needs of a group, but also remains sensitive to individual needs.

3. Outline of universal design guidelines for workplace planning
The first step in developing universal design guidelines is to identify critical successfactors (CSFs) that play a key role in any planning and assessment of facilities. CSFs areanalyzed according to five major phases of facility planning: Strategic planning, acquisitionor lease of real estate, base building planning, interior planning, and maintenance andoperation. Each CSF is followed by the description of its objective, the needs of users,
and three levels of criteria that include exemplars to achieve the CSF objective.

Objective

Levels of achievement

Guidelines<Solutions><Solutions><Best><Best>

Most
Most preferable
preferable
Identify
Identify
CSFs
CSFs

Description
Descriptionofofobjective
objective

Case
Case studies/studies/
exemplars
exemplars<Must><Must>

ガイドライン
ガイドライン
ガイドライン
Universal
design
ガイドライン
Universal
design
ガイドライン
ガイドライン（項目ごと）（項目ごと）（項目ごと）
guidelines（項目ごと）
guidelines（項目ごと）（項目ごと）
forfor planningplanning

Minimum
Minimum
requirements
requirements

Interviews
Interviews
withwith companies
companies

Needs
Needs ofof users
users

Benchmarking/
Benchmarking/
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
surveysurveyFigure 2: Workflow to develop universal design guidelines

4. Identifying critical success factors
It is important to clearly identify the factors that are critical in each of the five phases inorder to successfully make the workplace accessible and usable for all individual workers.
Here we discuss the basic categories of CSFs based on an illustrative case of new
construction of an owned building.
Phase 1: Strategic planning
In this phase, the purposes of a project to infuse universal design into a workplace areclearly addressed. The purposes can vary depending on the particular circumstances of acompany: To improve the value of assets, to reduce life cycle costs of a building, toincrease productivity, to accommodate increasing diverse employees, to embody acorporate ideology, and so on. These purposes determine what attributes of users to beconsidered, the required levels of universal design, and the budget. The goals of a projectare determined according to the purposes of the project; then CSFs are determined andidentified as strategies to achieve the goals. Therefore, contents of CSFs and theimportance of each CSF will be based on the nature of the purposes and the goals.

Strategic planning
UD strategies
PurposeTargetLevel of quality

Acquisition/leaseof real estate
Access to location• Public transportation• Access routes
Environmental
conditions• Pollution• Convenience inneighborhood

Base building

Interior planning

Access toentrances

Sign planning• Access routes• Parking areas• Exterior signs• Interior signs

Access to floors• Stairways• Elevators• Escalators• Corridors
Space standards• Bath rooms

Access to offices• Entrances• Circulations
Space planning• Vertical planning• Horizontal planning• Layouts
Space standards

Flexibility/
adaptability• Workstation• Supportive areas• Addition of elevators• Floor plan

Environmental
planning

Maintenance/
operation
Physicalmaintenance• Adjustment• POE
Personal
assistance/services
Daily services
Emergency• Lighting• HVAC
Materials• Safety• ColorFigure 3: Critical success factors in a project

Phase 2: Acquisition (or lease) of real estate
The most important consideration in this phase is the location of a facility. In general,the location is determined by the budget of the investment, relation to clients and/or
customers, convenience of employees to commute, and influence of the location on a
corporate image. From the perspective of universal design, access to and environmental
conditions of the location are two of the major CSFs to be considered.
2-1. Access to a location: For the sake of those with difficulties in mobility who
commute by walking, it is important to take account of distance, safety, andintelligibility of routes between a site and public transportation stops in theneighborhood.
Car commuters need easy vehicular access fromsurrounding streets to the site.
2-2. Environmental conditions: Environmental conditions have a great impact onworkers’ health. Conditions as contamination of toxic substances, air
pollution, noise, and vibration should be carefully examined. In addition, theconvenience of the neighborhood is also taken into account.
Phase 3: Base building planning
Base building is defined as the essential components of a building that are difficult tochange later, such as configuration, structure, and building core. Barrier-free alteration of
the base building is costly (sometimes impossible) compared with the costs of accessible

features applied to a new construction. Therefore, there is a great deal of financial
advantage to applying universal design approaches to newly constructed buildings. To
effectively manage the investment in and the life cycle costs of the building, it is important tomaximize flexibility and adaptability to probable changes of circumstances in the future,including possible changes of accessibility regulations and de facto standards.
3-1. Access to entrances: Parking areas, walkways, and vehicular ways within asite should be made safe, accessible, and easy to understand for both
employees and guests.
3-2. Access to floors: Interior accessible routes, including stairways, elevators,
escalators, and corridors, should be provided from the entrances to each floor.
Thoughtful planning of signs, zoning, and way-finding can enhance ease ofaccess. In addition, it is crucial to carefully plan evacuation routes so thatthey are effective even for people with mobility and sensory impairments.
3-3. Space standards: It is difficult to change size and shape of spaces associatedwith a building core. In particular, bathrooms must be made usable for
elderly people and those with physical disabilities.
3-4. Flexibility and adaptability: Flexibility and adaptability of a building should be
maximized as much as possible to allow for future changes of building use
and/or legal requirements.
Phase 4: Interior planning
Interior settings are relatively easy to change and controllable to meet the needs of acompany. However, since interior planning determines the most immediate work
environments to workers, the quality of such planning has a great impact on workers.
4-1. Sign planning: Signs should be easy to understand for both guests andemployees. Simple, intuitive, and perceptible signs are necessary toprovide accessibility to people with visual and hearing impairments andforeigners who do not use the common language.
4-2. Access to office space: To increase accessibility from building core to officespaces, attention should be paid to circulation, entrances, and signs.
4-3. Space planning: The overall configuration of a workplace strongly affects
accessibility and usability for workers. The most effective vertical andhorizontal distribution of departments and functions, as well as office layouts
within a floor, should be pursued along with consideration of the appropriate
size of areas and costs.
4-4. Space standards: Workstation setting strongly affects usability and comfort
for individual workers. It is preferable to adopt workstations highly adaptable
to the need and preference of individuals and to configure those workstations
in ways that will allow for flexible arrangement. It is also important toappropriately arrange common areas, such as business support areas (e.g.,meeting rooms, reception rooms), information management areas (e.g., OA
rooms, libraries, storage), and amenity areas (e.g., refreshment areas,
cafeteria, gymnasium).
4-5. Environmental planning: Since each person differently perceives the degreeof illumination or temperature, it is important to provide appropriate lighting
and air conditioning systems that allow for flexibility and ease of maintenance.
Perceptibility can be heightened by finishing materials and color schemes forwalls, floors, and ceilings, and combination of lighting with signs. This isparticularly helpful for people who have low vision.
4-6. Materials: Finishing materials contaminated by toxic substances, such asformaldehyde and mold, can cause allergies, so-called “sick building
syndrome,” and other serious health problems. Such health problems must
be prevented by eliminating contaminated finishing materials and improving
the quality of air conditioning.
Phase 5: Maintenance and operation
Comfortable work environments cannot be achieved only by initial planning ofphysical settings. It is equally, or more, important to pay attention to daily maintenanceand operation in terms of both physical and personal aspects. Most of these aspects canbe highly manageable by facility managers and users.
5-1. Physical maintenance: After starting operation, interior settings, including
both workstations and common areas, should be continuously reviewed and,if necessary, modified to increase user satisfaction.
Periodic
post-occupancy evaluation is an effective way to find problems that need
resolution.
5-2. Personal assistance and services: In many workplaces, informal
arrangements and rules to help one another are made among workers. It isparticularly important to establish explicit emergency manuals and regularly
conduct evacuation drills so that workers with mobility and/or sensory
impairments or those with language difficulty can know how to properly
respond to an emergency. Daily services and assistance should also be
provided in multiple modes. In addition to conventional personal assistance,
use of the Internet and/or intranet is an effective way to increase inclusive
communication among workers with differing abilities.
5. Relationship between the types of projects and the use of critical successfactors
In addition to (1) new construction of an owned building, other types of projects can
include (2) alteration of an existing owned building or space, (3) purchase and alteration ofa used building or space, and (4) lease of a building or space.
Figure 4 illustrates differences in the roles of facility managers according to the typesof projects. Basically, CSFs can be used for both planning and assessment. Whether aset of CSFs that belongs to a particular project phase is used for planning or assessment

depends on the type of project. For example, In the case of new construction, all sets of
CSFs are used as planning tools. Meanwhile, when a project focuses on the lease of abuilding or space, the quality of the real estate and the building or space can be evaluatedby CSFs of Phase 2 (acquisition or lease of a building or space) and Phase 3 (the basebuilding planning). In this case, the CSFs function as assessment tools.
¾

In the case of an existing owned building or space, building interior settings andmaintenance/operation systems are frequently reviewed and changed as needed.
Sometimes alterations of part of the base building will take place. For example,
modification of entrances, elevators, and stairways would take place along withstructural reinforcement of earthquake-resistance.

¾

For purchase and alteration of a used building or space, the quality of real estate
and the base building is assessed by the CSFs associated with these phases.
The scope of alteration is then determined by the assessment.

¾

n relation to a lease of a building or space, CSFs are used to assess real estate,
the base building, and the interior settings. CSF-based planning is conducted
for interior settings and maintenance/operation planning. The extent of interior

Figure 4: Use of critical success factors by the type of projects

planning will depend on the conditions of the lease.
6. Achievement of critical success factors
Each of the CSFs has its unique objective. Achievement of each objective and theeventual culmination of all achievements, can lead to successful workplace universal
design initiatives that will indeed satisfy the purpose of a project. Criteria will provide thedetailed means to accomplish the objectives. Following is the basic format of a “CSF
achievement sheet.”TargetTargetlevel
level

Best:
Most preferable
practices

Needs of users

Solutions: Case studies

Must:

１

２

３

４

５

６

Minimum requirements

Intervention
between ideal and reality

Rules
Rules ofof thumb
thumb
Other
Other basic
basic standards
standards
Legal
Legal requirements
requirements

Criteria
Figure 5: How to define the target level of a critical success factor in each project(1) The description of an objective <what>:
This section addresses the qualitative statement of an objective of a CSF.
(2) The needs of users <why>:This section provides the typical needs of users associated with a CSF (cf., The
Kyoyo-Hin Foundation, n.d.). This section not only explains the bases of the following
criteria, but also helps designers and facility managers find heuristic solutions
appropriate for a particular situation. Note that the needs presented here are only
examples, so designers and facility managers must study the real needs of their own
users before and during a project.
(3) Achievement criteria <how>:This section provides descriptive specifications that stipulate the quantities andqualities to be furnished. For a practical reason, the criteria are divided into threelevels: best, must, and practical solutions. By comparing these three levels of criteria,
and these criteria with the situations of each company, facility managers will be able todevelop their own targets and define the solutions most effective for each situation.
Best: Most preferable practices
These criteria should be accomplished as much as possible.
Must: Minimum requirements for accessibility and safety
Category 1 describes the Japanese legal standards regulated by the Law for
Buildings Accessible to and Usable by the Elderly and Physically Disabled
Persons (known as the Heartful Building Law). Category 2 covers otheraccessibility codes and standards, such as the Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), accessibility codes issued by local

Figure 6: An example of the CSF achievement sheet

1. Strategic Planning

2. Real Estate

01. Access to entrance

3. Base Building

02. Access to floors

4. Interior Planning

03. Space standards

5. Maintenance/Operation

04. Flexibility and adaptability

CSF 3.01-01 Circulation within the Boundary of the Site
Objective
Objective

Walks
Walks andand otherother circulation
circulation paths
paths within
within thethe boundary
boundary ofof thethe sitesite should
should be
be mademade safe,
safe, accessible,
accessible, andandintelligible
intelligible soso thatthat both
both employees
employees andand guests
guests cancan have
have smoothsmooth access
access fromfrom public
public streets
streets oror parking
parking lots
lots
toto buildingbuilding entrances.
entrances.

Needs of Users
It is preferable to make entrances equally usable for both people with and without disabilities.
Uneven pavement is inconvenient for people in wheelchairs, those who use canes, and those with baby buggies orsuitcases.
A curb ramp may make people in wheelchairs difficult to manipulate wheelchairs.
Objects put around studded paving blocks are dangerous for people with mobility or visual impairments.
People with visual impairments can recognize their ways through tactile change or high contrast of floor materials.
Handrails are also useful for people with visual impairments to guide themselves.
It is difficult for people with hearing impairments to notice bicycles coming from behind them.

Achievement Criteria<Best>
Avoid differentiated entrances or walks for people with disabilities (c, d).
Differentiate walkways from bikeways.
Minimize a difference in level or slops on walks.
For main access routes, secure a width of 1,800mm (approx. 70-7/8Ó) or more (a). A width of more than 2,300mm(approx. 90-9/16 Ó) is preferable so that two pedestrians with umbrellas can pass each other (c).
 For main access routes, provide a roof or cover to avoid rain (d).
 Provide a bench or other rest areas every 50m (approx. 164Õ0-1/2 Ó) (c).






<Must>
Category 1: the basic standards of the Heartful Building Law
 The surface of floors must be made even with rough or non-slippery materials
 For main access routes:
 Secure a width of 1,200mm (approx. 47-1/4Ó) at minimum; Provide a curb ramp, ramp, elevator, or lift if a route has changes in levels;
 Provide a sound guidance system or studded paving blocks for people with visual impairments;
 Place detectable warnings on floor surfaces at a cross or adjacency to a vehicular way, or the upper
landing of stairs or a ramp.

Category 2: Other accessibility codes and standards
 Separate walkways from vehicular ways by curbs or other edge protection (d).
 The slope of an access route must be no greater than 1:25. An access route with a slope between1:25 and 1:33
must have a flat landing of 1,500mm (approx. 59-1/16Ó) long or more every 30m (approx. 98 Õ5-1/8 Ó) (c).
 The cross slope of an access route must be no greater than 1:100 (c).
 In order to be detected using a cane, an object must be placed within 686mm (27Ó) above the floor. Objects
hanging or mounted overhead must be higher than 2,030mm (80Ó) to provide clear head room. It is not necessary
to remove objects that protrude less than 100mm (4Ó) from the wall ( b, d).
 For main access routes:
 Changes in level up to 6mm (1/4Ó) may be vertical and without edge treatment. Changes in level
between 6mm (1/4 Ó) and 13mm (1/2 Ó) must be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (b).
 The maximum slope of the flare of a curb ramp must be no greater than 1:10 (b).
 Place lighting on walks used during night (d).

Category 3: Rules of thumb and other design guidebooks
 Gratings must be placed as integral part of floor surfaces. The openings of a grating must be no greater than
10mm (approx. 3/8 Ó) wide .

<Solutions>
1. How can you make ŅflatÓwalkways?: Shizuoka Prefecture (reserve)
2. How can you make the best choice between elevators, escalators, and stairs? (reserve)
References: (a) Š The guidance standards of the Heartful Building Law, (b) Š The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG), (c) Š Shizuoka Prefecture universal design codes, (d) Š Company X Õ
s accessibility guidelines

governments, and corporate accessibility standards. Category 3 includes
so-called “rules of thumb” and other design guidebooks.
Practical solutions: Case studies
In many cases, practical interventions are needed between “best” and“must.” How to find such practical solutions can be best learned throughcase studies of corporate practices.
7. The awareness of universal design among Japanese companies: A survey
summary
From January 29th to February 14th, 2003, we conducted a survey to identify thepresent state of the awareness and practices of universal design among companies inJapan. A self-administered questionnaire consisted of fourteen questions with multiple
choices. Since we had assumed that barrier free was more popular than universal designin Japan, some questions were designed to comparatively identify different circumstancesof these two concepts. The questionnaire was distributed to 3,033 facility managers who
subscribe to the JFMA mailing list through e-mail. Filled questionnaires were returned to
JFMA via FAX or e-mail. Of all recipients of the questionnaire, 63 persons (2.1 percent)responded.
Regarding the profile of the respondents, 89 percent, or 56 persons, worked forJapanese companies or organizations, which are defined as companies whose major
origins of capital is in Japan. 11 percent of the respondents, or 7 persons, represented
international companies, defined as companies in Japan whose major capital comes fromother countries. In terms of industry representation, 76 percent of the respondents, or 42
persons, belonged to service industries. 17 percent of the respondents, or 9 persons,worked in manufacturing, and 7 percent, or 4 persons, worked in government agencies,
education, or other institutions.
The results showed that although the concept of universal design has not been
popular in the workplace, many companies expect its introduction to their offices in the
future. This result proves that there is a strong need for the development of universal
design guidelines for the workplace. In addition, the low response rate may be a result
from lack of interest or viewpoint on the issue among Japanese facility managers; it implies
a need for further efforts to raise the awareness of the issue through education andcommunication. Following are the highlights of the results of the survey.
General results¾ The results show that terms “barrier free” and “universal design” are highly known
among Japanese facility managers. About 80 percent of the respondents answeredthat they knew the terms well.
¾ About 60 percent of the companies surveyed answered that universal design or barrier
free was as part of their corporate belief. Meanwhile, about 50 percent of the
respondents answered that their companies have incorporated universal design orbarrier-free design into their principles for the workplace. Universal design is more
likely than barrier free to be employed as corporate belief (33 percent vs. 17 percent,respectively).

¾ Currently, only 20 percent of the companies practice universal design and/or beyond
the legally required level of barrier free measures; 15 percent of the others expressed
their desires to adopt these measures to their workplaces in the future. Meanwhile,
more than 30 percent of the respondents answered “don’t know” for both present andfuture practices, which implies that it is necessary to increase the awareness of theimportance of universal design.
¾ Although more than 60 percent of the companies surveyed are positive about hiring
people with disabilities in the future, more than 50 percent of the respondents thoughtthat it would be unlikely that they would increase elderly employees. This attitude, inpart, reflects the tendency of Japanese companies to lower the retirement age.
¾ Respondents most frequently cited improvement of a corporate reputation (60 percent),
flexibility of human resources (53 percent), and an increase in worker satisfaction andproductivity (43 percent) as expected advantages from adopting universal design orbarrier free. On the other hand, the most frequently cited disadvantages they
expected included an increase in construction costs (53 percent) and inefficiency of
space usage (38 percent).
¾ More than 70 percent of the respondents were concerned about costs as obstacles tointroduce universal design or barrier free, followed by understanding by management(22 percent).
Comparison between Japanese and international companies
The small number of international companies that responded does not allow us toprecisely analyze a comparison between Japanese and international companies.
However, some results explicitly do show different tendencies between the two groups.
¾ Not surprisingly, compared with Japanese companies, international companies are
more likely to address “diversity” in terms of both corporate belief and workplaceprinciples (67 percent vs. 13 percent, respectively). It can be inferred that thistendency is closely related to the fact that more than 70 percent of the international
companies, or four times that of Japanese companies, have already adopted universal
design or the legally required level of barrier free.
¾ International companies are more likely than Japanese companies to be positive
toward hiring people with disabilities. However, with regard to the employment ofelderly people, international companies show more negative tendencies than Japanesecompanies.
Comparison among industries
Similar to the above, since the distribution of respondents by industries was strongly
biased, it is not achievable to compare tendencies by industries. One result, however, thatwould be worth noting is:¾ Most of the companies in service industries addressed universal design or barrier freeas part of their corporate belief, but this belief is not reflected in the principles of theirworkplaces. Therefore, few of these companies take the initiative to implement
universal design or beyond the legally required level for barrier free in their workplaces.
8. Conclusion
This report is part of ongoing research by the Universal Design Committee of theJapan Facility Management Promotion Association and presents our approach todeveloping universal design guidelines for workplace design. The guidelines are underdevelopment and we still need to add a great deal of information and facts to the guidelines
in order to refine them. We also recognize the necessity to learn from more case studies,so that we can make the guidelines more practical and useful. The results of the survey
we reported here have encouraged us to strive to deepen this research for the sake of both
corporate executives and facility users. We strongly hope that this study will contribute tocorporate management in the future as well as to the betterment of work environments
where diverse workers, including elderly people and those with disabilities, can enjoy
gainful work.
References
The Kyoyo-Hin Foundation. (n.d.). Huben-sa chosa database (Surveys on inconvenience:
database). Retrieved Feb. 21, 2003, fromhttp://www.kyoyohin.org/07database/fubensadb.html
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2002). Nihon no Shorai
Suikei Jinko: Heisei 14 nen 1 gatsu Suikei [Population Projection for Japan:
2001-2050] [online]. Retrieved Jun. 17, 2002, fromhttp://www.ipss.go.jp/Japanese/newest02/newest02.html.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). (2001a). Chiteki-Shogaiji(sha) Kiso Chosa
Kekka no Gaiyo (A Basic survey on People with Cognitive Impairments 2000: The
Summary of the Results) [online]. Retrieved Jul. 18, 2002, fromhttp://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/0109/h0919-3.html.
MHLW. (2001b). Shintai-Shogaisha oyobi Chiteki-Shogaisha no Koyo Jokyo ni tsuite (TheState about Employment of People with Physical and Cognitive Impairments) [online].
Retrieved Jul. 18, 2002, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/0112/h1226-1.html.
MHLW. (2002a). Shintai-Shogaiji(sha) Jittai Chosa Kekka no Gaiyo (A Survey on the Actual
Conditions of People with Physical Impairments 2001: The Summary of the Results)[online]. Retrieved Jul. 18, 2002, fromhttp://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/04/h0411-2.html.
Shiokawa, K. & Hagino, H. (in press). The value of universal design in the workplace. In theInternational Facility Management Association (Ed.), the Proceedings of World
Workplace Japan 2003.