NBS

PUBLICATIONS

A11105 753053

NBSIR 87-3688

Office Design Measurements for

Productivity-A Research Overview

Arthur Rubin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Building Environment Division

Washington, DC 20405

December 1987

- QO

100

• U56

87-3688

1987

C . 2

Prepared for: Public Buildings Service

Zjneral Services Administration

ishington, DC 20405

Research Information Center

National Linreau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

NBSIR 87-3688

OFFICE DESIGN MEASUREMENTS FOR

PRODUCTIVITY-A —— RESEARCH OVERVIEW . —— , , — , "

. |q?7

r

Arthur Rubin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Building Environment Division

Washington, DC 20405

December 1987

Prepared for: Public Buildings Service

'General Services Administration

Washington, DC 20405

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ABSTRACT

The Public Building Service of the General Services

Administration sponsored the present investigation to:

1. Determine the effects of building design, and "high guality

design" in particular, on productivity

2. Determine the state of the art of productivity measurement,

applicable to the study of office tasks

3 . Identify the various factors that influence productivity to

better determine those which can be attributed to design issues.

The study is primarily based on a comprehensive literature search

of 15 data bases, supplemented by personal contacts with

specialists on this topic. The report reviews and distills the

major findings of more than 550 publications.

The most significant findings of this investigation are:

1. The preponderance of productivity literature is concerned with

macro-economic studies which cannot be readily related to the

influence of building design on productivity.

2. The few studies dealing with productivity have often drawn

sweeping and guestionable conclusions from information that is

largely subjective, e.g. self-estimates of productivity

improvement

3. Some analytic technigues are available which can be used to

study the "micro" office environment.

Key Words: Productivity, design, design criteria, ergonomics,

office automation, quality of worklife

iii
PREFACE

This report is the most recent in a series of studies performed

by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS ) for the Public Building

Service of the General Services Administration (PBS/GSA) to

examine the effects of automation on office design and in turn on

building occupants. Earlier investigations cite the need to

consider office automation design in the context of several

interrelated issues: organizational, informational,

technological, and ergonomic. The results of these studies are

reported in the following publications:

1. "The Automated Office - An Environment for Productive Work, or

an Information Factory?: A Report on the State-of-the-Art" (NBSIR

83-2784-1), November 1983.

2. "The Automated Office - An Environment for Productive Work, or

an Information Factory?: Executive Summary" (NBSIR 83-2784-2),

December 1983.

3. "Interim Design Guidelines for Automated Offices" (NBSIR 84-

2908)

,

August 1984

4. "Revised Interim Guidelines for Automated Offices" (NBSIR 86-

3430), August 1986.

Automation has proliferated in federal and private sector

offices as a means of increasing office productivity. A guestion

that has been asked repeatedly of late is whether productivity

has increased with the advent of automation. Surprisingly,

despite the expenditure of billions of dollars on automated

information, communication and building management systems, the

effects of automation on office productivity are not well

understood

PBS/GSA has sponsored this activity to respond to the

productivity requirements of organizations housed in federal

office buildings.

The primary purpose of the present study is to summarize and

evaluate the state-of-the-art of productivity measurement. The

long term goal is to upgrade design criteria for federal

buildings to enhance user satisfaction and organizational

productivity. As a step in this direction, a comprehensive

literature search of 'productivity' was undertaken. The report

summarizes the findings of this activity.

The report is organized under a limited number of major

categories as a matter of convenience: design, organizations,

productivity, and ergonomics. These factors are closely

interdependent, which precludes a separate discussion of each.

iy
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to David Eakin of the

Public Building Service of the General Services Administration

for his assistance, guidance and encouragement for the work

reported here.

I would also like to acknowledge the help given to me by the

following members of the staff of the National Bureau of

Standards who reviewed the report at various stages of

preparation and made valuable contributions: Dr. Belinda Collins,

Mr. Gary Gillette, Mr. Roger Rensborger and Mr. Noel Raufaste.

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 . Background 1

2 . Design and Productivity 3

2 . 1 Background 3

2 . 2 Goals 3

2 . 3 Practice - Research 5

2 . 4 Problems 7

2 . 5 Possible Solutions 8

3 . Organization 10

3 . 1 Goals/Criteria . 13

3 . 2 Practice 14

3 . 3 Problems 15

3 . 4 Possible Solutions ............................... 17

4 . Productivity 20

4.1 Goals 20

4 . 2 Practice 21

4 . 3 Problems 24

4 . 4 Possible Solutions 26

5 . Ergonomics 28

5 . 1 Goals/Criteria 28

5 . 2 Practice ......................................... 28

5 .

3

Problems 28

5.4 Possible Solutions 30

6. Conclusions 32

7. Case Studies: Findings and Research Approaches ... 35

Bibliography . 45

Additional Sources 50

yi
1 . BACKGROUND

The present report is a continuation of the work performed for PBS/GSA

to upgrade the design criteria used in federal office buildings. The

earlier research focused on the impacts of office technologies on

building design and performance. Since the primary function of offices

is to serve organizational goals, the next logical step is to

determine how design can enhance the productivity of individuals and

organizations in the federal sector. The current study is designed to

be an initial step in accomplishing these goals.

For more than a decade there have been countless reports by

economists, industrialists, researchers and others bemoaning the fact

that productivity in the l nited States has declined. The white collar

sector has been a special target for those studying productivity. It

has been estimated that productivity in offices has remained virtually

stagnant for many years. The rush to automation in offices has been

largely attributed to these findings. The general view expressed is

that technology can be used to offset the decline in productivity and

lead to a radical restructuring of the office environment to take

advantage of the new means of developing, processing and transporting

information to enhance organizational effectiveness (1).

However, the results of the office automation bandwagon are unclear.

While automation has led to changes in the ways that jnany office tasks

are performed, there is little conclusive evidence that it has

achieved its goal; enhancing office productivity (2). The pace of

automation is accelerating, not because it has been proven to achieve

its goals; instead automation is driven by the technology itself. That

is, vendors have been producing new hardware, software, information

and communication systems that are being purchased because of their

reputed capabilities to improve office operations. Organizations have

largely responded to the vendor and competitive marketplace, with the

assumptions that new technologies will perform effectively, and it is

vital to keep up with competitors, who pursue the same strategy (3).

The old acceptance of poor working conditions, badly designed

equipment and inappropriate environments is disappearing, especially

among younger workers. The upgrading of existing offices is a valuable

part of organizational change and represents a vehicle for changing

attitudes and making a new corporate culture visible and meaningful to

the staff (4)

Earlier research performed for the General Services Administration

(GSA) by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) investigating the

effects of office automation on design indicated that automation

should not degrade the quality of the office (5). Naisbitt (author of

Megatrends) makes the same point: "the more technology around us, the

more the need for human touch ... the more we'll be looking for ways

to reconnect as human beings" (6).

A reflection of the importance of working conditions is the increased

interest expressed by many organizations and researchers in the

'Quality of Worklife' (QWL) . This is a general formulation including

1
management, design and ergonomic issues. A rationale for improving

environmental conditions as a means of increasing productivity is that

improved conditions can lead to greater satisfaction and more

motivation, which can result in improved productivity. Improvements

which include operational factors such as communication and autonomy

on the job are more likely to have beneficial effects (7)

.

QWL is a process whereby all organizational members have some say

about their job design and the general work environment. In this

participative organizational climate, suggestions and comments that

can lead to improvements are encouraged. Increased productivity and

environmental enhancement is expected to result from worker

involvement. An improvement in organizational communications and a reduction in the number and intensity if adversarial relationships is

also anticipated. As individual workers and management agree on common

goals and the means to achieve them, they are more likely to -agree on

how to improve organizational effectiveness (8)

.

Prerequisites for successful QWL programs are:

* Management should be committed to a participative style; inviting

employee involvement.

* Provide employees with opportunities for career advancement.

* Overcome traditional status barriers between management and workers.

* Train supervisors in participative management techniques.

* Provide employees with feedback and recognition for improved

performance

.

* Analyze and evaluate positive and negative results; use findings to

further improve system.

The assumptions for a QWL orientation to improved productivity are:

* Workers are good sources for ideas to increase productivity.

* Work should be rewarding and satisfying.

* Workers take pride in their work.

* Greater job satisfaction results in increased productivity.

* Employers should show more concern for welfare of employees.

* Improved feedback on performance will result in improved attitudes

and greater motivation.

* An improved work environment will result in greater satisfaction,

leading to improved performance.

Evaluating the effects of improved QWL on productivity depends on the

existence of appropriate productivity measures. This is one of the

major goals of the present project - identifying productivity measures

likely to be affected by design. . The design challenge is for a well integrated planning process to

enhance productivity and not diminish environmental quality or

productivity

.

2
2. DESIGN AND PRODUCTIVITY

2 . 1 Background

In the past, office designs often just "happened"; they evolved from

many small scale changes. A major weakness in this approach was that

space and office quality standards were based on status not on job

requirements. The "ideal" design for any facility varies from company

to company? each has a unique personality and culture (9)

Designing buildings to enhance productivity is a growing trend. People

are becoming more aware of the effects of design on productivity. More

investments are made to enhance the environment to attract customers,

assist worker recruitment, retention, and increase comfort, well being

and health. A major reason for upgrading office quality is the growing

number of white collar workers and the recognition that they are the

key to increased productivity.

Making a building environment more productive includes considerations

of layout, flow of people, and activities. Designing for productivity

often does not affect the mechanical, electrical or heating costs.

Higher construction costs can be incurred if spaces such as atria or

break areas are included as amenities in larger office buildings (10).

The search for the effects of design on productivity can be readily

traced to the Hawthorne studies performed in the 1920 's and 1930's

(11). These classic investigations started with an examination of

lighting levels on a variety of tasks. Initial findings suggested that

by increasing levels, productivity increased. But, thanks to the

skepticism of the researcher, followup studies of decreased lighting

levels also resulted in productivity increases. After many years of

investigation, the researchers concluded that many factors influenced

measured performance levels, including psychological, social and

organizational influences. They pointed to the hazard of trying to

find a simple relationship between an environmental change and

productivity. The lessons learned during this pioneering investigation

still form the basis of most behavioral research conducted in the

field, and are central to the current investigation.

Unfortunately, as noted above, while productivity research constitutes

a major body of work, studies directed toward an understanding of the

influence of design issues has not received much attention in recent

years by trained researchers. As an illustration of the neglect of

this topic, Tuttle (12) reviewed hundreds of productivity studies and

categorized them with respect to subject areas. While design was one

of the research topics examined, it was not included in the final

report because of the absence of relevant studies.

3
2.2 Goals

Today, the goal of office planners and designers is to bring

automation to the general office population. Automation equipment is

leaving the controlled environment it once enjoyed, and is being moved

into the office environment, sharing space with other office

technologies. This change creates new environmental demands in general

office areas.

Traditionally, equipment was located in special areas and used by a selected number of trained people. They used the equipment all day

long and became very familiar with it. Today, in many cases, office

automation (OA) equipment is one facet of a complex job, and is ised

occasionally. It should be convenient and easy to operate. The key to

design is to consider the user and equipment as a system, which

accomplish tasks together (13).

Systems analysts rarely consider the effects of physical layout in the

systems they develop. On the other hand, layout specialists tend to

group similar functions without considering information systems flow.

Charting information flow is possible with architectural and

engineering drawings and complete floor plans (14).

Layout should optimize the flow of data and people, interactions;

files should be accessible to users, people having visitors should be

near office entrances. Common use facilities (elevators, copiers)

should be close together and accessible by direct routes. Workstations

should be isolated from noise and other distractions, e.g. areas used

for frequent conversations (15) . Desks and groups of people should be located to facilitate work

effectiveness. For example, in computer facilities the information

flow system channel should be measured. The people along that channel

should be identified. The number of stations, entry computer

operations, trips to the data library for disk packs to run computer

jobs should be detailed. Workstations should be arranged to shorten

traffic routes; and functions grouped from the standpoint of systems

supporting activities.

1
Among the issues to be explored are:

* Whether transactions backtrack or move in one direction.

* The cost of floor space.

* Proximity of people, adjacencies.

* Physical security; susceptibility to damage and/or vandalism.

Good office design combines efficiency, economics, function logistics

and aesthetics. Office planners must accommodate equipment,

environmental features and people. The needs of the users should be

identified before making any planning decisions (16). The office must

allow people to work, create and communicate effectively.

Office facilities are expected to function effectively for a long

period of time, yet maintenance requirements to maintain appearance

and efficiency are often overlooked. A maintenance audit can be

usefully employed to accomplish this goal. Among the issues to be

covered when considering material, furnishings and equipment are (17):

1. Can it be repaired?

2. Can it be replaced?

3 . What special maintenance requirements exist?

4. How long will it last?

5. Will it retain its appearance?

6. How much will it cost to maintain the item's "like new" properties?

7. What periodic maintenance schedules are appropriate; e.g. cleaning

ducts, replacing lamps?

2.3 Practice - Research

Good office design traditionally has as a major objective the

fostering of organizational productivity. However, the documentation

of how this is achieved is very sparse. In recent years, a few major

studies were performed to examine issues of design and productivity.

These will be addressed below.

The most comprehensive and widely cited investigation of the effects

of design on productivity was a questionnaire-based study performed by

BOSTI (18). The report authors concluded that productivity is

substantially influenced by design. The four year study analyzed 23

basic design factors such as lighting, accessibility and temperature

and concluded that well-planned design is essential for increased

productivity. The study gathered data from 4000 managers,

professionals and workers. Proper design includes consideration of

esthetic, environmental, structural and technical elements of the

office. Employee participation in the design process was considered an

important determinant of job satisfaction.

5
Among the major findings were:

* Temperature fluctuations decreased job satisfaction for 30% of the

respondents; air quality was a problem for 10% of them.

* Lighting quality problems were glare, shadows and lack of control.

Workers with the most demanding tasks were the most dissatisfied.

* In open office areas, the greatest satisfaction was expressed by

those with three of the four panels located above eye height while

standing, surrounding the work area.

* Design elements important for worker comfort were chair design, work

surface height, width and depth, room to move and degree of enclosure.

* Among the hazards noted were floor obstacles such as raised

electrical outlets and wires. Snagging clothes and bumping into

furniture were other sources of complaint.

While the general findings of this investigation appear to be

consistent with other related research, the conclusions drawn

concerning the effect of design on productivity are difficult to

substantiate based on published reports. There are two major problems.

First, there is no detailed description of the methodology used to

collect information. Secondly, the primary means of acquiring data is

described as questionnaire findings based on respondent opinions of

design impacts on productivity (19).

Unfortunately, personal assessments of productivity obtained by

questionnaires is employed in most productivity studies and has the

problem of being highly subjective. Without additional supporting

information it is difficult to determine whether the findings are

valid. Objective measures of the physical environment and of

productivity are also required to draw meaningful conclusions about

the relationship of design to productivity.

Another major study of office productivity was sponsored by Steelcase

(20) and indicated that workers believed they could be more productive

in an improved workplace. The key to improvement is that designers be

concerned with the people not the space. Workers indicated they want

comfort, privacy, status, storage, flexibility, adaptability to change

and ease of communication to perform better. Offices must be designed

to accommodate new technology, while being comfortable and enhancing

productivity. An attractive environment is also important.

Workers suggested that they wanted to improve performance. Middle

managers are caught in the middle, they are responsible for

improvements but have insufficient authority to carry out needed

programs

The Steelcase studies indicate that comfort and productivity are

interrelated in the view of office workers. Filing and storage needs

are changing with the electronic office and the increasing cost of

space. Systems furniture is inherently more efficient than a

conventional desk because it utilizes vertical storage space,

primarily above the work surface. A systems approach is needed when

viewing the office environment. The workplace must be viewed in its

6
totality, with systems being a combination of parts forming a unitary

whole. (Like the BOSTI investigation, the findings are based on

opinions about productivity.)

2.4 Problems

Many organizations are not utilizing their offices effectively to

accomplish their goals, and are often not prepared for technological

changes. Little attention is given to the office design's impact on

productivity despite the fact that white collar jobs already comprise

more than 50% of all work.

Too often, the work environment, office equipment, desks and filing

cabinets a re chosen and planned by management to overcome iso] ated

problems. Typically, little thought is given to planning or future

technological changes (21)

Employees with insufficient work surface areas have to work around the

problem. Desks are cluttered with material because of insufficient

storage space or an inadequate arrangement of resources, such as

files. The time to access materials can be substantially reduced by

proper design. Another productivity inhibitor is the sharing of

equipment, away from the primary work area, e.g. copiers and printers.

A major difficulty is the placement of high technology devices on work

surfaces and environments designed for paper based tasks. Problems of

lighting, noise and thermal conditions often accompany equipment and

systems placed in offices without proper planning.

Another important considerations is the need for workers to have a

measure of control over their workstation and furnishings. People

differ in terms of size, preferences and requirements and the work

environment often does not accommodate these differences. For example,

studies have repeatedly shown that people workinq at VDT ' s often

require readily adjustable ergonomic chairs to avoid problems of back

strain

The need for attractive break areas is also intensified as more

workers spend most of their time at VDT's, with little social contact.

Putting together all of the furniture, equipment, engineering,

ergonomic, and design components appropriately is the major challenge,

and this responsibility is often left to the user.

7
2.5 Possible Solutions

The advent of the workstation has changed basic office design. Rather

than a series of furniture items, it is a flexible piece of equipment

in its own right, designed for the individual and the task supported.

Proper design can permit privacy without isolation by swiveling a

chair and using selected modular components; e.g. in a three sided

configuration. The availability of a range of modules provides design

flexibility, while facilitating additions, as well as replacement of

damaged and worn components (22)

.

The key to the electronic office is flexibility, while ensuring that

the space is attractive and conducive to productivity (23).

The desire for private offices, and the convenience and status it

represents, has to be overcome for those who move from them to open

plan workstations. Conference areas with high panels can be employed

to ensure privacy for those activities requiring confidentiality, but

intrusive noise can still be a problem.

Techniques are available which can be employed to collect objective

information about productivity. Six of them have been traditionally

used to measure performance (24)

1. Historical records of performance to determine work output for a

predetermined period

2. Employee reports, including making records of activities covering a

given time period

3. Work sampling, consisting of observers recording activities

performed, using a sampling procedure of tasks and individuals

4 . Stop-watch readings for highly repetitive tasks to determine

methods of avoiding time-wasting actions

5. Predetermined time standards compiled by efficiency experts on the

basis of a fine grained tasks analysis

6. A recent development is a Maynard Operation Sequence Technique

(MOST) , which examines the motions used to perform light or heavy duty

work. It describes body movements such as bend, stretch, walk, grasp,

etc and links them in a sequence of operations.

8
Another key requirement is to involve workers in the office planning

and design process. Recommended steps in this process are (25):

1. Identify office objectives.

2. Determine the specific functions critical to accomplish objectives.

3. Define the space and equipment needs for each office function.

4. Define the interrelationships among office functions with the help

of the staff.

5. Determine the office facility location.

6. Generate alternative space plans.

7. Evaluate alternative plans by identifying critical criteria and

weighting them accordingly.

8. Implement the plan chosen.

9. Maintain and adapt the plan as changes require; employee

involvement is critical to identify equipment needs and provide

feedback information.

Knowledge of organizational dynamics can be used to assess whether the

desired level of face to face contact occurs. It can also help to

structure activities and environments to facilitate performance, based

on how people behave; e. g. physical space can be altered as can

timing and frequency of meetings (26)

9
3. ORGANIZATION

An examination of productivity must start with the organization. Any

organization has a reason for being, and general goals to be pursued

using resources of staff, technology, materials, and finances. Each

organization performs its work idiosyncratically , within a given

cultural framework reflecting the values of management, and sometimes

of the staff as well (27)

.

The pace of automation is accelerating, not because it has achieved

the goals set for it; instead the trend is driven by technology.

Vendors produce new hardware, software, information and communication

systems, purchased because of their reputed capabilities to improve

office operations. Organizations have largely responded to vendors and

the marketplace; they assume the new technology w^ll perform

effectively, and they must match their competitors, who pursue the

same strategy (28)

Office work can be analyzed at three levels, the individual, the

department and the organization. At all levels there is great

diversity in the tasks performed. At the individual workstation,

especially for knowledge workers, individual systems are often needed,

together with generic tools. Communication and information acquisition

and use are the primary requirements for these users (29)

At the department level, the tasks performed can be categorized as the

routine and structured activities typically performed by data

processing, and those which are non-structured - management and

professional functions. The latter are characterized by moving across

organizational boundaries and requiring text and data handling

capabilities

Organizational productivity may be defined in terms of organizational

processes completed on schedule. It includes end-products such as

reports and routine maintenance functions such as updating files.

Improvements in productivity occur when obstacles are removed. This

definition implies the interdependence of organizational processes,

e.g. the output of one is an input to another (30).

Managers define productivity as efficiency, effectiveness, and

performance of individual organizations. Included in the concept are

the absence of disruption, quality and quantity of output, customer

satisfaction, absentee and turnover rates (31)

These latter variables

include objective indicators, useful in measuring productivity.

The organization requires tools that integrate various systems

employed by departmental units - information and communication.

10
Analysis of office tasks required for increased productivity.

Phase 1 Macro Functional Analysis "Top Down"

* Understand overall charter and objectives

* Determine operations in major functional areas

* Determine internal/external functional relationships

* Develop input/output profiles

* Understand information management process

* Determine data base needs for Phase 2 * Obtain management feedback

Phase 2 Micro Activity Analysis "Bottom Up"

* Develop generic activity list describing current operations

* Develop technology indicator log (time spent on tasks)

* Conduct tracking of activities by time

* Analyze results and determine activity changes required

* Obtain management feedback

Phase 3 Concept Formulation and Implementation

* Develop overall automation concept

* Select and evaluate proposed technologies

* Develop before and after scenarios for each automated activity

* Prepare final recommendations

* Obtain management concurrence

* Recommend implementation plan

A five part methodology was developed by Sink (32) for productivity

measurement

.

1. Strategic planning process. This is used to project organizational

goals 10 - 15 years in the future. Plans are then developed for

achieving 2-5 year goals for organizational units; programs,

techniques and a measurement and evaluation system.

2. Input/output analysis. Analyses by each working group of what they

do, how they do it. It includes identifying purposes, services

performed, customers for products (and their needs) , inputs and

outputs of system and process in creating outputs.

3. Identify impediments to productivity and develop techniques to

overcome problems.

4. Develop consensus measurements of productivity within working

groups. The system should be organized to help individuals improve

their own and their group's performance. It should not be seen or used

as a threat.

5. Information developed among groups should be communicated

throughout the organization, within and between departments.

11
Productivity measures for white collar workers can be built on a

conceptual framework as below (33):

InputS“--> Function Performed —-> Outputs (used by "customer")

The customers can be inside or outside the organization, but they

determine meaningful outputs.

A strategy for improving productivity should include:

1. Involve employees in productivity effort.

2. Provide job security, ensuring that improvements will not result in

job loss.

3. Define outputs consistent with organizational needs.

4. Identify client groups for the output, and user value measures for

them.

5. Define inputs and how to measure them (e.g. labor hours).

6. Develop appropriate measures, providing feedback for group and/or

individuals monitored.

7. Employ technology appropriately.

8. Provide management leadership and support for activity.

9. Provide for ongoing education and training.

The development of measures can have many benefits:

1. Involvement of many people with organizational goals and

improvement of performance measures.

2. Improving the understanding of the functions performed by the

organizational unit and how it fits in the "larger picture".

3. Important outputs are identified and understood by all people

involved

4. Relationships with other organizational elements are better

understood

5. Training will upgrade the skill levels of the staff.

The development of indicators starts with understanding the purpose of

the unit. This can be clarified by answering:

* What was it organized to do?

* What is the major transaction flow?

* What are the end products or services?

* Who are the customers for the products or services?

* What is the value to the customers?

The typical approach is to develop a ratio of person/hours of work to

particular outputs.

12
Drucker and Peters/Waterman compared organizational systems

performance criteria as follows (34):

Drucker

Consumer satisfaction

Social responsibility

Employee performance

Management performance

Category Peters and Waterman

Effectiveness Stick to knitting

Bias for action

Efficiency Close to customer

Quality Hands-on , value

driven

Internal productivity

Employee attitude

Management development

Operating budget

Innovation

Productivity Productivity through

people

Quality of

worklif

e

Profitability

Innovation Autonomy

The input and output variables carry quality, quantity and financial

attributes. Three basic productivity measures are identified: static

productivity ratios (a snapshot, not time sensitive) , dynamic

productivity indices (time period comparisons) and surrogate measures.

The latter refer to activities highly correlated with productivity,

such as absentee rate and customer satisfaction (34).

3.1 Goals/Criteria

The QWL concept assumes that people should be looked upon as a long

term capital investment; e.g. training for equipment use should be

included in organizational planning (35).

The basic management function of planning, organizing, leading,

controlling and adapting, exist at all organizational levels. Every

manager is responsible for controlling the performance of particular

organizational units. Systems are developed to monitor performance and

provide feedback information in accomplishing this function. The

systems should determine what performance is achieved and if not

adequate, what it should be.

13
Among the criteria for judging the adequacy of performance measures

are the following:

1. Quantifiable

2. Reliable

3c Must be Information System (IS) products or services

4c Understandable

5 o Under IS control and responsibility

6. Linked to organizational need

7c Cost accountable

8. Improved individual performance indicative of improved productivity

9. Not subject to manipulation and free of bias

10. Data should be available

11. Measurement should not influence performance

Measures of Organization Performance:

There are at least seven measures of organizational performance:

effectiveness, efficiency, product quality, productivity, quality of

work life, profitability, and innovation.

The priorities given to these performance criteria will vary in

accordance with:

* The size of the unit/organization

* Function of the unit/organization

* Type of unit/organization

* Maturity of the unit/organization

* The culture of the unit/organization (political, economic,

managerial, social features)

3.2 Practice

In recent years there has been a trend toward a change in style in

many organizations. There is a tendency to move from an autocratic

leadership style, where all decision making is from the top down, to

an approach where workers are included in many decision making

processes. This change is reflected in many management, behavioral

research and and productivity publications (36,37). Industrial and

office automation has intensified this change.

A primary moving force in this direction has been a change in the

staffing of organizations. White collar work now dominates the job

market. More than 50% of all jobs are now in this category, and it is

anticipated to grow indefinitely (38)

More importantly, most growth

has occurred in the management and professional white collar work

force, the knowledge workers. These workers have been trained to

expect and demand jobs to challenge their intellectual capabilities.

They want to be actively involved in most aspects of their jobs. They

are less likely than other office workers to accept being subordinated

to machines or unquestioningly follow management directives (39).

lb
3.3. Problems

Advances in office automation technology, especially those associated

with multifunction systems, pose many problems to organizational

management concerning informational requirements for decision making

(40).

* Devices for information processing and networking are merging into

multifunction systems.

* Office automation requires organizational changes in procedures used

in administration, records management and distribution.

* Many managers and workers resist technological change.

* The explosive growth of technology makes it difficult to make

appropriate decisions in planning and implementing office automation.

* Most information about technological capabilities comes from

vendors; they are not expert in the needs of particular organizations.

* Office automation is thought to be product oriented, but it is a

process involving an integration of equipment, people and procedures.

The introduction of productivity measurement in organizations poses

several threats to the staff. They are inexact and require

interpretation with knowledge of their limitations (41)

* Their purpose can be misunderstood and results misinterpreted. For

example, introducing new technology often lowers productivity

temporarily. Employees and managers might fear harmful action as a

result of this result.

* People are concerned that their performance will not be judged

fairly; uncertainty about expectations is also threatening.

* Increased record keeping (paper work) might be added to the job,

with little understanding of potential benefits of measures.

* By its choice of measures, management signals are being sent to

staff as to what is important. Performance can be distorted to respond

to the particular tasks being examined.

* Knowledge workers want job autonomy and measurement is seen to

concentrate efforts in particular directions, threatening autonomy in

performing jobs.

The acceptance of a measurement system depends on all levels of an

organization. Often, top management has a different view of its

potential than other levels of the organization. The following

illustration indicates forces for and against the initiation of

measurement by a top manager and that of line managers and

employees (42 )

15
Top Management View

Forces for : Productivity Improvement

Necessary for survival

Improved Management Control

Early Problem Diagnosis

Improved Planning

Ability to Recognize Good Performance

Staff View

Top Management Wants System

Forces Against ; Cost

Employees limited

knowledge

Difficult measurement

More reports

More control

Might be

embarrassing

Nothing in it for me

Excuse to cut costs

Work not measurable

16
3.4 Possible Solutions

A QWL approach to productivity is becoming more common in

organizations concerned with productivity improvement (43).

Eight features are cited as affecting QWL:

1. Adequate and fair compensation.

2. Safe and healthy working conditions.

3. Opportunity to use and develop human capacities.

* Autonomy: does the work permit adequate job control?

* Multiple skills: are a wide range of skills employed?

* Information and perspective: is adequate information

available about the work process and results of ones own

action?

* Whole tasks: does the work encompass complete tasks?

* Planning: does the work include planning as well as

activities performed?

4. Future opportunities for continued growth. Does the job contribute

toward building a career; e.g. more responsible work, broader

perspectives?

5. Social integration in the work organization.

* Egalitarianism - minimal stratification and status

differences

.

* Mobility - opportunities to advance

* Supportive work groups

* Community - a sense of common purpose.

* Interpersonal openness

6. Work organization rights - privacy, right to dissent

7. Work and total life space - how the job fits in with the persons

overall life; home, social and community obligations.

8. Social relevance - is the organization a responsible one; e.g. good

community relations.

The nominal group -technique (NGT) has been employed to identify

productivity improvement opportunities and measurements. It is a means

of achieving group acceptance, consensus and commitment to the

products achieved. A facilitator plays an important role in ensuring

that the meeting is focused on the stated objectives. The steps used

are as follows (44)

1. Each participant independently generates a written list of

suggestions and ideas.

2. In round-table fashion, each person presents ideas for recording on

a flip chart by a facilitator.

3. Each idea is then clarified, evaluated and classified into major

groupings.

4. Participants vote to establish priorities on the initial list,

which is refined during later cycles until a final product is

completed.

One approach is for a performance evaluation, e.g. a scale from 1 to

10, with excellent being 10, 5 being average, and 0 being the lowest

possible. Another scale could depict the number of complaints

17
associated with an activity, bounded by 0 at one end and the

maximum number received at the other end of the scale.

Three general planning approaches for office automation are:

Top-down

Planning is treated as a problem solving activity. The first step

is to determine organizational requirements. Then information is

collected on the available technologies and the experience of

similar organizations dealing with the issue.

These activities are intended to define the problem, specify

requirements for a solution and provide alternative methods of

solving the problem. Implementing a plan entails the setting of

goals, measurement of movement toward them and assessing the

impact of changes on the organization and employees.

A major drawback to this approach has been the lack of

participation by end-users in the process.

Bottom-up

This approach relies heavily on end-users in the planning and

implementation process. Key stake holders are identified and

participate in the activity. The activities performed are the

same as cited above.

This method is very time consuming and often it is difficult to

obtain concrete results due to the lack of focus.

Focused process

Participation of end-users is stressed but a strong team leader

is employed to ensure that discussions are focused toward

tangible objectives. During the planning phase it is essential to

define problems generically. The focus should be on what, not on

how . A "straw man" plan is employed to elicit methods of

improving it; this helps keep the process moving in the direction

sought.

The goal is to strengthen the forces "for" and weaken those

"against" the institution of a system.

A major reason for the discrepancies in viewpoints is that top

management has access to more and better information than

subordinates. One method of overcoming this problem is to share

more information.

Many of the negative forces can be defused by involving staff in

the measurement process and creating a "shared vision" of what

the organization is and where it is going.

18
An approach is recommended which makes the following assumptions

1. Participation in the development of measures enhances

understanding and acceptance.

2. People who do the work can and will assist the process.

3. An appropriate role of management is to define and prioritize

"key result areas"; critical organizational functions.

The methodology employed has six phases:

1. Preplanning. The organization is described in systems terms.

2. Development of key result areas.

3. Development of key indicators. Identification of performances

to be measured - those in key result areas.

4. Review }f indicators. Indicators are reviewed by target

organizational unit to ensure their relevance and feasibility of

being measured.

5. Establishing weights and baseline performance - determining

the relative importance of indicators and agreeing upon norms.

6. Data collection, analysis and interpretation - tracking

indicators over time, and modifying procedures as required.

19
4 . PRODUCTIVITY

Productivity is an elusive concept. Traditional definitions,

measurement techniques and improvement strategies have neglected

several important aspects of productivity

* Productivity issues are complex and thus require multiple measures.

* Productivity has been defined in many different ways.

* Productivity measurement and improvement can be optimized by the

right mix of technical and behavioral approaches (45)

Total productivity measures take into account partial measures of

labor, material and energy; this is difficult to do because of the

number of variables taken into account, e.g. overhead expenses as

partial indirect costs. In white collar situations, the nominal group

technique is being used (46)

.

Productivity measurements are part of a total measurement system for

an organization. Good productivity measures help define the concept of

'productivity' and help guide behaviors to reach organizational goals.

Employees will emphasize the things measured.

The outputs of staff departments may be their contribution to primary

organizational activity. A partial measure is a ratio of output to

just one of the input factors. A total factor measure includes

manpower, materials, energy and capital (47)

4.1 Goals

A productivity strategy must be based on;

* Consideration of the entire organization

* Behavioral changes achieved through management-employee agreements

* A consideration of technological and human resources

* Measurements aimed at motivating workers, not just appraising

progress

* Gains achieved shared throughout the organization (48)

Criteria for studying office activities:

* Measurable information sufficient to support meaningful conclusions.

* Arranged for straightforward implementation

* Relevant to productivity assessment

* Sufficiently general to permit use in multiple environments

* Adequately supported through self-instruction, reference

documentation and automated tools to facilitate use

20
Study procedures:

1. External monitoring; using trained observers

2. Self monitoring

3. External appraisal; differs from monitoring in that judgments are

made rather that mere description of activities

4. Self appraisal; general assessment by respondent, usually

questionnaire, rather than detailed record keeping in 2 above

4 . 2 Practice

The typical office measurements of productivity, such as letters and

reports produced, must consider interrelated organizational and

personal functions. The office must be considered in systems terms.

Factors such as the usefulness of outputs, their effect on the

intended audience and their inter unit impact must also be considered.

The following factors require attention in any productivity

measurement system:

1. Inter unit impact - the extent to which a product or service of one

unit enhances or detracts from the performance of other units.

2. Need - the extent to which the product is needed to make decisions

or contribute to other major organizational functions.

3 . Usefulness - the extent to which products are useful to their

intended customer.

4. Quality - the acceptability of the product.

5. Timeliness - the extent to which the product is available when

needed.

6. Quantity - the number of products or services provided.

7. Cost - the direct and indirect long and short term costs and the

estimated value of the products (50)

The most basic measure is a work standard; the time and effort

required to make a product or perform a service. In an insurance

company an office can quickly determine its efficiency by calculating

the number of claims adjusted per employee for a given time period. If

automation is added then its cost is taken into account in making

before and after comparisons.

Output has both tangible (physical) and intangible properties in many

instances. Productivity studies have focused on these. The quantity

of units produced and the time required to do so are popular measures.

Yet, client satisfaction, added value and feelings associated with

services are important features of many outputs.

21
Routine work is easier to measure than non-routine work. Therefore,

the amount of routine in work should determine the types of measures

possible, and how numbers are used. Yet, this aspect of performance

has not received much attention. The author contends that as task

ambiguity increases, then;

* Measurement validity and reliability decrease

* The utility of efficiency ratios decreases

* The importance of effectiveness ratios increases

* The possibility of a single productivity measure

decreases

' As task ambiguity increases, managers must increasingly;

* Have employees assist in developing and evaluating productivity

measures

* Rate productivity on a group rather than an individual basis

* Take higher risks in predicting outcomes; the process is more

uncertain (49)

Output measures have several dimensions- quality, quantity, timeliness

and service.

Typology of white collar work;

Specificity High | | of Procedure | | Low | | Low High

Tangibility of Product

A single performance indicator is often insufficient, and multiple

productivity measures are required. This process includes several

steps

1. Define the purpose of the unit.

2. Test the definition of purpose with higher management.

3. Identify the outputs which define achievement of purpose.

4. Determine how to measure each output.

5. Calculate productivity for base period, before change is initiated.

6. Establish a rating scale (e.g. 1 to 10) and define performance

levels for each output, with base level at the center of the scale.

7. Develop a rating form depicting current outputs and scale position.

8. Determine weights for each output and combine for total.

9. Identify inputs and measures for them.

10. Monitor performance trends for each output.

Productivity measurements may be analyzed in the following ways (50):

22
1. Output and input elements

2 . Purpose of measurements

3. Functions of productivity indices: cost minimization, profit

maximization, industrial comparisons

4 . Measurement methods

The American Productivity Center conducted a survey to determine the

type of performance measured as productivity indices (51) . Among those

identified were:

* Error reduction

* Task difficulty reduction

* Improved product quality

* Reduction in response time

* Improved space utilization

* Improved communication
Advantages and disadvantages of basic productivity measures

Advantages Disadvantages

Single Factor Productivity

1. Labor productivity is

easy to measure

2 . Man-hour increases has

been traditional result of

technology advances.

3 . Labor input is large

component of total.

4 . Man-hour statistics are

readily available.

Multi-factor Productivity

1. The whole production system

is not measured.

2 . Can be readily

misinterpreted

3 . Can increase rapidly by

technology

4. Can be misleading in labor

negotiations

1. Considers capital and

labor.

2 . More resources included

1. Value added improvements

ignored.

2. Causes of changes not

examined.

3. Relative use of capital and

labor not specified.

Total Productivity

1. Most inclusive index. 1. Is too broad to use as tool

for specific improvements.

2. Provides rate of growth 2. Doesn't show interactions

for entire company. of each input and output.

Productivity is measured for three reasons:

* It is a means to determine how well the organization is doing.

Problems and opportunities are identified.

* It provides a basis for future planning.

* It identifies the activities that management thinks is important.

Traditional industrial engineering (IE) methods have focused on

technical solutions; making systems more efficient. Efficiency

measures seek to assess how well available resources are used.

Effectiveness measures focus on organizational goals and are harder to

define and obtain (52).

4.3. Problems
Reasons for the lack of progress in increasing productivity:

1. There are too many loose definitions of productivity. It takes on

different meanings depending on the frame of reference. IE's want to

establish standards or piece work rates; economists look for

aggregates based on all inputs and outputs. Managers want increases in

direct labor, considering only those which directly control

observable, countable output.

2. Society has changed. Organizations are no longer closed systems;

their work is impacted by many outside forces. Workers values have

changed; they pride themselves on their uniqueness, not their ability

to fit into an organization. Their expectations are higher.

3. The term 'productivity' has negative connotations to workers; it is

equated with speed-up of work.

4. Measurement is difficult.

5. Management is overdependent on technology as the answer to improved

productivity. The relationship of the staff to the technology is

overlooked; e.g. training, participation, involvement.

6. There is limited understanding of the organizational implications

of introducing technology and changing work processes. The behavior of

employees is seriously impacted and must be changed for productivity

programs to work.

Until recently, measurement research has been hampered by the emphasis

on macro productivity measurements. Many economists have concluded

that what is most needed in productivity measures at the company

level, where improvement can be expected to take place. There is no

single formula to gauge the efficiency of each company activity;

instead a family of measures are being pursued.

White Collar Productivity

In measuring white collar productivity, on the input side often only

the labor component is considered; yet, capital, materials and energy

costs are also important. The latter approach would be a total factor

measurement. This would entail not only, e.g. reports produced per

hour worked, but reports per dollar of word processors, files, square

feet of floor space, paper, file folders, and per dollar of energy

consumed.

Measuring white collar worker performance poses several problems:

1. It is difficult to define inputs and outputs as well as the nature,

value, and appropriate measurement units.

2. Analysts measure activities rather than results; e.g. countable

units of work such as program lines written, or pages typed. These

might not be appropriate productivity indicators since they are not

linked with final useful products..

3. It is difficult to match inputs and outputs for a given time frame.

Resources expended may not show results for some time.

4. Quantity and quality of outputs are often inseparable.

5. The distinction between efficiency and effectiveness is not always

considered.

25
6. White collar workers are not accustomed to being measured. It can

be a threat.

Traditional measurement techniques do not work well for white collar

j obs (53)

1. The techniques employed require quantitative data.

2. The problems attacked are based on short-term needs.

3. The lack of quantitative data make it difficult to evaluate the

severity of the problems examined.

4. The problems addressed are not important ones to operating units.

5 . Recommendations for actions are made by a small unit and

implementation is difficult because it often requires approval by

"higher authorities", unfamiliar with the particular issues addressed.

4.4 Possible Solutions

There are five ways of increasing the output/ input ratio of

productivity

1. Increase output faster than input; managed growth.

2. Decrease input more than output; curtailing inefficient operations.

3. Produce the same amount with fewer inputs; cost reductions, greater

efficiency

4. Increase outputs with the same inputs; working smarter.

5 . Maximize the increase by a combination of 1-4 above.

Behavioral Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

* Critical incidents are used to determine job related behaviors, and

important performance dimensions.

* Job-related behaviors identified in critical incidents are

retranslated - behavior is linked with performance.

* Behavioral incidents that can be performance linked are scaled to a

given performance level.

An example of the use of BARS follows:

Supervisors wrote examples of effective and ineffective job behavior

incidents - observable behaviors. Incidents were arranged into

homogeneous job behaviors and summary definitions written.

Then the definitions were reviewed to determine whether:

* The factors were meaningful and important

* Significant performance components were represented

* There was too much overlap

* The definitional language was suitable for the work

performed in the organization

Next, participants were asked to write additional items, representing

more moderate behaviors to augment the extremes identified earlier.

All items were then rated on a nine point scale after being arranged

into particular dimensions.

26
The dimensions resulting from this procedure were:

1. Ability to absorb and interpret policies and procedures.

2. Adaptability - adjustment to new situations.

3. Effective use of resources

4. Interpersonal relationships

5. Job involvement

6. Knowledge and judgment in performing work (54)

Another evaluative process is described by Kristakis (55)

1. Identify major work input and output categories.

2. With more than one category, rank order them for greatest potential

for improvement; costliest, need for improvement.

3. Identify operations and the time needed for completion.

4. Evaluate operations; needed, possibly combined, reduce frequency of

preparation, performed by lower paid people, etc.

5. Identify targets for improvement; largest potential for

improvement, importance.

6. Develop plan for change.

27
5. ERGONOMICS

5.1 Goals/Criteria

The criteria for acceptance of new office technologies are the same as

those for older ones; they should make office work more convenient,

manageable and/or productive. The specification of office criteria is

a primary goal of ergonomic studies.

Ergonomic needs in the physical environment include the work area of

the individual ; the equipment, furniture and environmental systems

supporting the equipment and the shared space , including circulation

paths, walls, ceilings, lighting and acoustics. In a broader content

the QWL issues discussed earlier are based upon the social and

psychological needs as well.

A key to effective ergonomic design is a systems approach to

workstation design, based on human effectiveness, flowing outward from

the end-user (56)

5.2 Practice

The human factor is the overlooked component in office automation. A

management commitment must be made to employees if automation is to

fulfill its promise. * Supervisors and staff members should participate

in the planning process and be thoroughly trained in new technologies

before they are implemented. A conscious effort is needed to overcome

the fear, uncertainty and reluctance associated with the introduction

of new equipment and procedures into the office (57)

With respect to the emphasis today on open office planning, there is

little evidence to indicate whether this approach helps or impairs

productivity. Current data concerns attitudes toward the concept,

subjective evaluations about effectiveness (58).

Ergonomic requirements in offices have been discussed in detail in

many publications and it is beyond the scope of the present study to

treat it in detail. (See the bibliography for reference sources.)

5.3 Problems

* Sophisticated computer hardware and software have been developed and

may not suit the actual work processes or needs.

* Designers have developed equipment that is often unsuitable for

users

* Managers have introduced equipment into the workplace without

sufficient consideration of whether the users can use it or are

capable of being trained to use it.

In the rush to take advantage of powerful technologies, its user is

often overlooked. Work is being polarized into two extremes; routine

operations and knowledge work. Some work is being deskilled and

thoroughly routinized by means of standardized units (59).

28
Studies have indicated a high level of stress among many office

workers: mental and physical. Working in a mechanically controlled

building can contribute to stress. The air is self-filtered, windows

cannot be opened, daylight is often excluded and temperatures are kept

within ranges optimal for equipment, sometimes to the detriment of

workers

.

Mental stress occurs by machine pacing of work, loss of job control to

the computer, and the fact that a computer processes some types of

information much faster than the worker. Electronic monitoring is

another contributing factor ( 60 )

When terminals are first introduced into an environment, they are used

for only a small percentage of the work performed, yet the terminal

and its peripherals are likely to occupy a considerable amount of

table top space. More work surface area must often be found to

accomodate paper work, telephones, etc ( 61 )

Much office furniture prevents satisfactory workstation design. Many

organizations select and place terminals with little thought given to

good viewing conditions; prolonged VDT use combined with poor lighting

often causes headaches and eyestrain.

Even work formerly considered creative often becomes a choice between

a range of predetermined elements and processes. Decision making is

frequently restricted by software design.

Ergonomic features are usually an afterthought to compensate for

faulty design. Equipment and furnishings are not designed to be "user

friendly" at the outset; planning is often non-existent or deficient

in this regard. The proper design of chairs, VDT's, and keyboards are

critical to ensure worker comfort and avoid physical stress.

29
The primary change in the office environment resulting from automation

is the prevalence of VDT's. A summary of the primary interactions

between VDT ' s and the environment is presented below (62):

Comoonent Environment Problem Imoact

Display Screen Lighting Vision Fatigue, glare

discomfort

Keyboard Seating Posture Fatigue, strain

Printers Acoustics Noise Distraction,

Stress

Black Boxes Space layout Cramped

workspace

Inefficient work

Wiring Installation Safety Obstruction,

hazards

5.4 Possible Solutions

Workstation design must reflect a range of human needs:

* Anthropometric - body dimensions, physical capabilities such as

sitting and standing height, reach lengths. The best design reflects

economy of effort, minimizing fatigue.

* Sensory - visual, auditory and thermal comfort needs.

* Social - interpersonal relationships among colleagues and others.

* Privacy - the ability to regulate and control social interactions

and avoid interruptions

* Territoriality - an area with boundaries under control

* Status ~ workstation design is commensurate with organizational

role

Humanizing the workplace can lessen the frustration of the job and the

increasing technological emphasis. People need the feeling that they

are controlling the system and not being controlled by it (63).

* Before purchasing equipment, a realistic needs assessment should be

performed.

* A systems approach to design is essential; components must be

compatible

* Operators must be trained to operate new systems and software.

* Equipment, systems and software should be selected on the basis of

performance and ease of use.

Workspace surface design includes the need for writing, sorting and

storage of materials. Location of reference materials must be

convenient to all users of the information. Workstation design must

balance the particular needs of the individual and supporting

equipment with the requirement to standardize components and

furnishings from an organizational viewpoint - to minimize costs.

30
Flexibility offers the opportunity to make generic choices which can

be modified to suit individual needs.

Individual space requirements should be based on a consideration of

the cubic dimensions of: the equipment, the space occupied by the

person, the actions performed and the support spaces - file and

storage ( 64 )

.

An office should reflect the working style of the user. It should

permit the worker autonomy within a range of possibilities;

rearranging furnishings, using a task light that can be positioned at

the user's discretion.

Stewart (62) suggests the following planning approach to improving

productivity, based on a study of what people require to do their

j obs

Ergonomics inputs to office system design

Stage of life cycle

Analysis

Planning

Design

Implementation

Operation

Ergonomics input

User-needs analysis

User profiles

Allocation of function

User interface design

Office Design

Management of change

Ergonomic evaluation

31
6. CONCLUSIONS

The literature review indicated that the subject of productivity has

received extensive treatment by many disciplines. The publications in

the field are quite extensive, but they do not treat the subject on

design and productivity in much detail. Consequently, methods to

foster productivity by building design features must be developed. Two

general approaches seem feasible based on the research:

1. Developing an environment which makes a contribution to

productivity

2. Eliminating or minimizing factors which are detrimental to

productivity

Much of the research literature reviewed is devoted to identifying

problem areas with office automation that can be overcome with proper

design. These papers range from a concern with environmental issues

such as glare and noise to the need for adjustable chairs and a voice

in design decisions. In many instances proper practices are well known

and merely need to be applied. In other cases, such as the advancement

of QWL issues, the research findings are mixed - programs being

effective in some situations and not in others.

While researchers have examined the effects of variables such as noise

and glare on performance such as legibility of materials (glare) and

the ability to understand speech (noise), studies of ’productivity'

are rare.

With respect to positive design contributions, the claims are

widespread but the proof is not readily available. Many popular

articles have been written about the effectiveness of various

technologies in increasing productivity but supporting material is

typically absent or described in such general terms that general

conclusions cannot be drawn with any assurance.

The Hawthorne studies have provided a model for productivity studies

in demonstrating the need to consider the context in which field

investigations are performed. That is, organizational, social and

psychological factors must be examined when instituting and examining

environmental changes, such as lighting levels, as a means of

increasing productivity. The QWL formulation is one which is

consistent with this approach, being concerned with the "whole"

worker. This includes the need for a proper working environment to

playing a part in the decisions affecting the job.

A simple solution to the design-pro iuctivity problem doesn't appear to

exist. However, researchers and practitioners have developed a number

of approaches which seem to be promising, and identified several "dead

ends"

Two of the key judgments to be made in any line of investigation is to

determine what not to study and how not to study it. These decisions

32
are vital in narrowing the scope of the work. The review of past work

provided several insights in making these choices.

The first studies of office productivity were focused on word

processing activities and employed the measure (s) of word and/or page

counts. Similarly, data processing studies often focused on "lines of

codes" written. These measures appear plausible when first considered,

since they deal with a product and can be readily counted. In short,

they are measures of "efficiency". After some experiences with these

metrics however, it became apparent that they are difficult or

impossible to relate to organizational "effectiveness". For example,

quality considerations are not taken into account; Moreover, is it

plausible to assume that five drafts of a report using a word

processor completed in the time needed for three drafts on a

typewriter, is "more productive"? The primary caution is to be

skeptical of measuring something related to productivity because it is

easy to measure.

Another "blind alley" is the search for factors that directly impact

"organizational productivity". The macro economic studies reviewed

strongly suggest that it is extremely difficult to isolate all of the

factors that influence organizational performance (66). While this is

the most important measure of effectiveness, the likelihood that

design issues can be traced to organizational productivity is slight.

Despite the attraction for comprehensive measures of productivity,

modest initial programs capable of future "modular" or incremental

extension are more likely to prove viable. Concentration on a critical

or bottleneck activity with a potential early payoff can win support

for more ambitious later programs. An important criterion for

selection of department or group to study is its autonomy: the greater

the autonomy, the easier it is to attribute productivity changes to

design issues.

The follow-on work of the current project is the identification and

measurement of critical organizational activities, sensitive to

building design features and the development of productivity

measurement procedures where needed. This work, sponsored by the

PBS/GSA, is under way at the new federal building in Portland, Oregon.

This effort entails the administration of detailed questionnaires,

interviews, examination of records and physical measurements of

environmental conditions and spaces. It is being performed in several

phases, including pre-move, shortly after move-in (approximately six

months) , and one year after initial occupancy.

The activities examined in detail are being selected by researchers

and members of the using organization, the Bonneville Power

Administration ( BPA) . The latter are represented by those with first

hand experience of the activities examined and high level management

representatives who can ensure the tasks examined are important from

an organizational goal perspective. An important research criterion is

that the activities are potentially generic in nature, i.e. not

limited to narrow specific functions. This will facilitate the

development of a viable design-productivity model.

33
The findings of this study, which includes the examination of systems

furniture on productivity, will also be used to further upgrade the

PBS/GSA design criteria for office buildings*

3b
7. CASE STUDIES: FINDINGS AND RESEARCH APPROACHES

Many studies have been performed by federal and private sector

organizations to increase productivity. These reports for the most

part appear in non-technical publications and do not provide much

detail concerning the procedures employed in collecting information.

The findings therefore are difficult to evaluate from a scientific

standpoint. However, they do provide insights as to the problems

encountered and often suggest approaches that are worthwhile to

consider in formal studies. A sample of these investigations are

described below:

Based on several case studies Kinne (67) identified several warning

signals of a failing office environment:

* There are rising expenses for communications, document

production, reproduction, storage, and information retrieval

* There is inadequate integration among planning, design, and

development of data processing applications and office automation

* Services quality has declined; turn around times have

increased.

* Significant changes exist in individual work loads and

expressed dissatisfaction by staff members.

* Unrealized benefits or cost savings from office automation

equipment are available.

These issues lead to the question of what areas can benefit from

automation planning. A suggested planning strategy is as follows:

1. Define organizational goals and develop a strategy to achieve them.

The components of such a strategy include:

* What should' be the scope of the project? Should it cover all

operations or be limited to specific functional areas?

* What level of system integration is appropriate for the

organization? Are shared data bases needed? What are future plans

for integration?

* What criteria are relevant?

* What level of resources should be committed to the project?

* What is an appropriate time frame for the study and its

implementation?

2. Analyze the existing situation.

* What problem areas exist, procedural and technical?

* Identify areas for short and long term improvement in policies,

practices, organization, and systems.

3. Develop a comprehensive improvement plan and program.

* Identify equipment needs, system requirements, training and

control mechanisms.

4. Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) and bid for the systems

desired.

5. Evaluate vendor proposals and select one.

6. Design a systems implementation plan and document new procedures

and policies. Develop a checklist, covering the following:

* What should be done with existing equipment, software and data?

35
* Establish a delivery schedule.

* Develop a plan for staffing and training.

7. Conduct acceptance tests and monitor performance.

* Conduct training for all affected staff members.

* Conduct on-going reviews to improve and fine-tune the system.

Wright (68) stresses the linkage between QWL and productivity,

indicating improvement in one realm should not compromise the other.

Productivity improvement programs should be evaluated on QWL impact.

He describes a case study designed to enhance QWL and productivity.

The program started with a commitment from top management to support

the program goals. All organizational levels were included in the

process. A productivity manager was assigned to oversee the program,

assisted by a steering committee. The committee set productivity

goals, planned resources for initiatives, monitored policies and

activities, provided funding and implemented management controls.

A productivity/QWL council was formed as a working group to enact the

program. Its responsibilities were to:

* Report to the steering committee

* Spearhead projects

* Develop productivity measurement methods

* Lead quality circle teams

* Ensure that productivity initiatives are in plans

* Solicit and disseminates ideas

* Publish periodic scoresheets

* Develop an employee awareness plan

* Schedule and measure departments

Major topics of discussion include plans for facility layout,

automation efforts, methods of managing programs, communication within

and between organizational units and informational requirements at the

individual, department and organizational level. These initiatives

begin at the department level. Initial activities are auditing

paperwork flow, project planning, eliminating duplicate functions and

developing training programs.

A key to the success of office automation programs is the method used

to introduce it into organizations.

Anthony (69) describes a case study of introducing a productivity

measurement system at a banking institution. The tasks examined were

professional, technical, managerial and administrative.

The process employed started with a one sentence description of the

units mission. Task descriptions and the times required to perform

activities are obtained by means of interviews, time diaries kept by

employees for completing tasks, and observations. After the data were

compiled, total time, total work units, time per unit and total time

percentages for each task. Standards are then developed by analyzing

the steps performed to complete each task, simplifying the process by

36
eliminating unnecessary steps or activities, providing better tools or

developing an alternative means of performing work in less time.

McMillan (70) describes another procedure used to introduce automation

into an organization. A committee was formed to oversee its planning

and implementation. The first step was a pilot study to select a

particular workstation among several to be tested. It was to be first

used as a word processor, and later linked to a mainframe providing an

interactive system with shared access to electronic files, electronic

mail and other capabilities.

Management involvement and commitment was seen as a necessary

prerequisite for the study. A top-down approach was employed to ensure

that the focus of the investigation was on professional and managerial

activities. Among the recommendations made after the completion of the

initial study were:

* Training support. Full time personnel are required to handle

the ordering of supplies, furniture, equipment location and ongoing training.

* Installing equipment has important implications for the

facility. Among the questions to be addressed are:

- Where should the workstation be located?

- Will it be connected to the mainframe?

- Will special furniture be needed to accommodate peripheral

devices such as printers?

- Do the workstations require assembly? If so, who will do

it?

* Planning is needed to ensure that the final system operates

effectively and has the proper integration.

* A top-down approach is recommended. If the person at the top of

the organization is for it, others will follow.

Dupre (71) describes a study performed for the Exxon Information

Center, the main business and economics library of the Exxon

Corporation. An on-line system was developed to provide immediate

access to information.

Among the measured benefits of the system were:

* Lower overhead costs; staff was cut from 18 to 14.

* Status reports on wanted items given periodically.

* Database searches can be edited and reformatted using text

processing.

* Statistical usage patterns of individual users and departments are

possible

Among the lessons learned are:

* Use knowledgeable professionals for information on microcomputing

and telecommunications directions and products.

* Appoint a representative from the using group to help select the

system.

* Plan for the future; at least for the next 3-5 years.

37
* In planning a system, important considerations are:

- Adequate storage capability

- System flexibility to allow for change and expansion

- Hardware/software compatibility

- Availability of software to meet specific needs

* Assign someone responsibility for support:

- Software maintenance

- Training and documentation

- Protection of data loss through accident

- Ensuring against unauthorized access

- Destruction of data when no longer needed

Bolte (72) studied productivity at the Intel Corporation. His major

finding was that improving productivity depends or. managers becoming

"change agents". Every department establishes goals for quantity and

quality of output. In the course of the investigation he identified a

number of specific productivity measurements useful in his work:

accounts payable- number paid; materials - line items issued;

maintenance - work orders completed; custodial - sq ft cleaned;

marketing - orders shipped.

Peeples (73) evaluated the productivity of the data services at 14

data centers of GTE. The initial objectives established were to:

1. Establish standard levels of performance for each project or center

acceptable to organizational unit.

2 . Record and report total performance acceptable to management and

customers

3. Provide a standard to compare all projects and centers.

4. Maintain historical records of performance, service.

5. Measure and compare performance at various centers.

6. Foster competitive spirit among units.

7. Publicize the interest in increased productivity internally and

externally, to customers.

The measurement program dealt with timeliness in meeting output

schedules, development of local system support for individual

customers and computer efficiency.

Manoocheri (74) conducted a study of processing insurance claims and

loans and back office bank operations, which exemplify high volume

office work. These activities lend themselves to highly structured

stable tasks. Structuring jobs for performing these activities to

increase productivity has led to problems. Job simplification has

increased the monotony of work; a person does one routine job all of

the time. The de-skilling of jobs eliminates a good deal of the

interest and challenge of work. It ignores involvement of the workers

and commitment to their tasks. It makes the job more abstract; workers

are less in touch with how their job relates to other tasks. The

worker can become insensitive to the importance of the job and become

careless. There is a loss of a feeling of accomplishment and pride in

doing a good job.

38
The initiative and creativity of the individual worker is limited.

Also, automation has increased the isolation of the individual from

his or her colleagues and from the organization as a whole.

Psychological reguirements to offset these problems are:

* Job content should be reasonably demanding from an intellectual

standpoint.

* There should be an opportunity to expand skills on the job and by

means of formal training.

* Some job decision making should be permitted.

* Social support and recognition is important.

* The job should not be perceived as a "dead end" activity.

Garen (75) examined the formation of an information center and cites

the need to better understand the concept of 'productivity'; sometimes

defined as the efficiency of data flow; at other times concerned with • the decision support effectiveness of office automation.

The goal of an information center is to improve the productivity of

end-users by helping them recognize and solve their most important

problems and best utilize new technologies. It is to be staffed by

professionals whose greatest task is to upgrade the skills of all

employees while serving their organizational needs.

End-users require systems that are highly responsive, easy to use and

attuned to individual styles and practices. Workstation and other

interface designs should vary according to individual and group

requirements

Zeppo (76) reports the results of an extensive survey of managers and

secretaries. The survey sought to learn how secretaries and managers

view themselves, their work, the work in the office, office

productivity and office automation. The major findings were:

* Managers overestimated the time secretaries spent on

traditional tasks and underestimated the time spent on nontraditional ones.

* Managers spent more than 10% of their time supervising routine

tasks. They don't delegate because they assume that secretaries

do not have the time to perform them.

* Secretaries felt that their productivity would be increased

with better communications from managers and if they had fewer

interruptions

* Managers said that their productivity would be increased with

fewer interruptions and if secretaries would take on more

responsibilities

* Secretaries said they want more responsibilities.

* Managers believed that automation would improve productivity

(40%) to a greater extent than secretaries (26%).

* Users of automated equipment thought that it increased

productivity; more work, better quality, more time for

challenging tasks.

39
* Based on experience with equipment, users suggest better

training and improved briefing on how equipment should be used,

and more input in equipment selection.

Teger (77) summarizes the findings of an extensive questionnaire

survey of 300 major organizations and more than 5000 individuals.

Three major factors have provided an impetus for office automation:

* Corporate and organizational needs

* End-user requirements

* Technological availability

Successful organizations require high quality information and good

communication resources to make better decisions and improved

productivity. Information must be accurate, timely and relevant. The

specific approaches used to justify automation have been cost

displacement and value added.

Cost displacement is directed to reducing the cost per unit product;

improving the efficiency of routine tasks or eliminating tasks. This

has been applied to word processing primarily and to a lesser extent

to records management. The measurable outcomes of these approaches

have been in reduction of staff, office space and outside services.

Value added systems are those which improve organizational

effectiveness, often by performing tasks not possible before. They

typically are aimed at freeing up the time of managers and

professionals. Tools provided are intended to provide better and more

timely information, resulting in more creative work and improved

decisions

.

Better performance of office employees depend on:

* Job satisfaction

* Recognition of individuality

* Stability

* Status

The tools to assist office workers should have 'functionality' and

'usability'. Functionality refers to the capability to perform the

tasks required, e.g. accessing informational needs. Usability refers

to ease of use, e.g. hardware and software should not require great

training or skill requirements.

Office communication encompasses two areas of importance: people

communicating with others, and with machines by means of hardware and

software systems. Communication by telephone comprises a vital part of

office activities, especially for knowledge workers.

About half the calls made go to persons other than the intended one.

Response is by another person, a busy signal or no answer. When a

message is left, it is not complete, requiring another call. With

respect to receiving calls, 60% of them were regarded as
interruptions; disturbing more important activities. Most calls (56%)

were considered delayable; they could be postponed.

A solution to this problem is a voice mail system. This approach

always indicates that a message is available, and optional ones such

as assigning priorities and forwarding messages. Telephone tag is

avoided and the timing of receiving communication is dictated by the

recipient, minimizing disruptions of ongoing work.

Campbell (78) describes the result of a survey of 80 Canadian

corporations who have instituted programs of productivity improvement.

The characteristics that most of the successful ones share are:

1. Top management support

2. A productivity steering committee to guide the program, staffed by

key line and staff managers

3. A productivity manager with administrative, human resource and

technical experience

4. Coordinators at lower organizational levels

5. The use of measurement tools to track performance

6. Productivity is of central concern to the organization.

7. A limited number of goals are established initially; they should be

achievable and measurable.

8. Staff participation is essential, e.g. quality circles.

9. Minimum performance standards are established.

10. Expectations are communicated and well understood by the staff.

11. Tasks are constantly monitored.

12. When the initial goals are met, the process is refined and

repeated.

13. Appropriate training programs supplements the program.

14. The staff has a sense of responsibility for productivity

improvement

Curley (79) summarizes the experiences of several organizations which

have introduced office automation into their operations.

In a legal department, the addition of a research data base, Lexis,

added 18% in case load without additional staff. Part of the increase

in output is attributed to the electronic indexing system which gave

50 attorneys access to one another's briefs and memos. Research,

writing and typing time can be saved. The thoroughness and timeliness

of data was improved as search time was lowered. Output measured

included cost per case, which was substantially lowered.

An MIS group found the span of control of supervisors was increased

using an electronic mail system; fewer managers were needed as a

result of better communications.

Another saving identified was the time needed to prepare documents and

complete delivery of ordered parts.

Among the lessons learned in the review of experiences are:

bl
1. The introduction of office technology should be tied to achievable,

desirable goals. A specific performance objective should be identified

and monitored as systems are introduced. Among the measurable factors

to be considered are "time", "better quality information", "faster

turnaround time", "improved communication".

2. An ongoing learning process should be instituted. Goals should be

modified as a result of evaluation of experiences.

3. Pilot projects are an important element in an overall strategy.

They can be performed in selected smaller organizational elements at

relatively low cost. One important reason for this approach is that

benefits cannot always be predicted accurately. Assessments can

include issues such as:

* If original objectives were not met, why not?

* Were there any benefits not predicted?

* What problems were encountered?

* Were resources used appropriately?

4. Managers must actively support the learning process needed to take

advantage of office automation. Training is an integral part of

effective use of technologies.

An illustration of the evaluation of a legal productivity program is

given by Gardner (80)

Benefits Users

Atty Non-legal

Profs

Secretary

Quality of work improvement XX . XX XX

Less time to produce reports XX X X

Ready access to research XX

Sharing of typing simplified XX XX XX

Work schedule flexibility

improved XX XX X

Management effectiveness

improved XX XX X

Research time shortened XX

Research accuracy improved XX

XX High impact

X Moderate impact

k2
Meyer (81) conducted an in-depth study of office automation programs

in 35 organizations and describes the factors that led to successful

programs

Office automation has been used to improve the efficiency of wellstructured administrative processes. They focus on reducing costs. The

other general goal has been to add value to products of office work.

These are directed toward increasing managerial effectiveness and/or

productivity. The latter are considered to be have the most potential

for improving organizational improvement.

Office automation is defined as the direct use of information tools by

managers and professionals. Given that organizations change slowly,

successful practitioners start at a small scale; using value added

applications for a limited group of users.

The study raised the following questions:

1. How did the idea of office automation originate with the

organization?

2. What is the organizational climate?

3. How was the concept of office automation "sold"?

4. What is the role of the person responsible for office automation?

5. What organizational considerations were important?

6. What has been accomplished to date?

7. What was the "charter" for the office automation activity?

Successful approaches included:

1. A capability to deliver a broad range of tools was developed. This

included knowledge about available technology and its use and the

ability to manage implementation. A leader was selected to head the

effort and a team formed representing users, data processing,

administrative, business and behavioral science skills.

2. A pilot study is needed to ensure decisions are made based on

hands-on experience with tools and systems. The pilot program should

not have to be cost-justified; rather it should be a research effort.

Training is essential for all system users.

3. Organizational momentum should be fostered by identifying key

functional areas and problems to be addressed, those likely to respond

to technology.

4. Users should be organized into an advisory "council" to identify

organizational needs that can be met by technological systems. An

important function of this group is to identify potential new targets

for pilot studies.

A summary of the experiences and observations over ten years of work

in the area by Sink (82) indicates:

* You usually get what you measure.

* What you measure implies what you or the system feels is important.

* What you measure implies what you will reward or punish for.

* As jobs get more complex, feedback is difficult. People need to know

how they are doing on their jobs.

* There are aspects of the job difficult to measure - qualitative.

^3
* Parts of job cannot be measured directly.

* The best measurement and evaluation systems blend subjective and

objective, qualitative and quantitative, implicit and explicit,

analytical and intuitive approaches.

bh
Bibliography

1. Anonymous "Automation of America's Offices" Office of Technology

Assessment, U.S. Congress, Wash. D.C. Dec 1985

2. Curley, K. "Are there any real benefits from office automation?"

Bus Horizons, Vol 27, No. 4, 1984

3. Martin, T. "Office automation technology and functions: an

overview" J of the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 1983.

4. Stewart, T. "Ergonomics of the office" Ergo, V. 28 No. 8, 1985 pp

1165-1177

5. Rubin, A. "The Automated Office - An Environment for Productive

Work, or an Information Factory?: A Report on the State-of-Art"

,

NBSIR 83-2784-1, National Bureau of Standards, Nov., 1983.

6. Naisbitt, J. "Megatrends", Warner Books, N.Y. 1982.

7. Lawler, E. "Productivity and the quality of work life"

National Productivity Review, Winter 1981.

8. Glaser "Productivity Gains Through Worklife Improvement"

9. Rubin, A. "Revised Interim Design Guidelines for Automated Offices"

National Bureau of Standards, Wash D.C. Aug 1986.

10. Jacobs, B. "Designing Offices that Work" Ind Wk, Vol 220, No. 3,

Feb 1984.

11. Roethlisberger , F. and Dickson, W. "Management and the Worker"

Harv U Press, Cambridge, MA 1941.

12. Tuttle, T. et al "Measuring and Enhancing Organizational

Productivity: An Annotated Bibliography" Manpower and Personnel Div,

Brooks AFB , TX, July 1981

13. Mueller, R. "Automation and the Office Environment" Info and

Records Mgmt, Vol 16, No. 5, May 1982.

14. Matties, L. "The Physical Size of a Management System" J of Syst

Mgmt, Vol 35, No. 10, Oct 1984.

15. Riggs, C. "Tommorrow's office today" D & B Reports, Vol 29, No. 3,

May 1981.

16. Anonymous "Planning and using office space" Exec Skills, Vol 4, No

Bl, Dec 1981.

17. Mueller, R. "Automation and the Office Environment" Vol 16, No. 5,

May 1982.
18. Brill, M. Margulis, S. and Konar, E. "Using Office Design to

Increase Productivity", BOSTI , Buffalo, N.Y. 1984.

19. Dainoff, M. and Dainoff, M. "People and Productivity" Holt,

Reinhart and Winston, Toronto, Canada, 1986

20. Self, J. "Ergonomics and Productivity in the Electronic Office" J

of Info and Image Mgmt, Vol 17, No 4, Apr 1984.

21. Brewster, J. "The Office Memorandum" The Office Today, Mar 1984.

22. Vinson, G. "Office Talk" Ind Soc, Vol 65, Jun 1983.

23. Anonymous "Planned Office Design Increases Production" Office, Vol

97, No. 3, Mar 1980.

24. Anonymous "Work measurement: assessing company productivity" Small

Bus Rept, Vol 11, No. 1, Jan 1986.

25. Frazelle, E. "Worker participation in office space planning and

design process pays large dividends" Ind Eng, Vol 16, No. 12, Dec

1984.

26. Monge, P. "The Dynamics of organizational proximity" Mgmt Science,

Vol 31, Sep 1985.

27. Drucker, P. "Technology, Management and Society" Harper and Row

Pub., N.Y. 1970.

28. Connell, J. "Office Automation" Harv Bus Rev, Jan 1983.

29. Panko, R. "Office work" Office Technology and People, Vol 2, No.

3 , Oct 1984

30. Culnan, M. and Bair J. "Human Communication Needs and

Organizational Productivity: The Potential Impact of Office

Automation", J of the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 1983.

31. Katzell, M. "Productivity: The Measure and the Myth" Amer Mgmt

Assn Survey Report, 1975.

32. Sink, S. "Performance and Productivity Measurement: The art of

developing creative scoreboards" Ind Eng, Vol 18, No. 1, Jan 1986.

33. Christopher, W. "How to measure and improve productivity in

professional, administrative and service organizations" Proc of 1984

IE Conf , May 1984, pp 268-276.

34. Sink, S. "Much Ado About Productivity: Where Do We Go From Here?"

Ind Eng, Oct 1983.

35. Connell, J. "A New Approach Must be devised for Measuring Office

Productivity" Info Wk, Dec 2, 1985.
36. Bickson, T. and Gutek, B."Advanced Office Systems: An Empirical

Look at Utilization and Satisfaction" Rand Corp Rept, Feb. 1983.

37. Shackel, B. Ed. "Human Aspects of Office Systems - User Acceptance

Research Results, Human Computer Interaction - Interact '84, , pp 715-

718, Elsevier Science Pub, North Holland, IFIP, 1985.

38. Kaplan, A. "The Ergonomics of Office Automation", Mod Off Proc,

May, 1982.

39. Dolden M. and Ward, R. Ed "Workshop Proceedings on "The Impact of

the Work Environment on Productivity", Arch Res Ctrs Consortium,

Wash, D.C. 1985.

40. Mortensen, E. "The role of information retrieval in office

automation planning" Proc of the 45th ASIS Mtg, 1982.

41. Long, J. "The Office Environment" Mgmt World, Vol 13, No. 5, Jun

1984.

42. Greiner, J. "Motivating Improved Productivity: Three Promising

Approaches" Pub Mgmt, Oct 1979.

43. Walton, R. "Quality of Working Life: What is it?"

Sloan Mgmt Rev, Vol 15, No 1, 1973.

44. Gregerman, I. "Knowledge worker productivity measurement through

the Nominal Group Technique" AACE Trans 1981.

45. Sink, S. "Management Evaluation of a Methodology for Development

of a Productivity Measurement System", NSF , Wash D.C. 1977.

46. Day, C. "Solving the Mystery of Productivity Measurement" Ind Wk,

Jan 26, 1981.

47. Werther, W. "Productivity Through People" West Pub Co, St Paul,

Minn 1986.

48. Judson, A. "New Strategies to Improve Productivity

Tech Rev, Vol 78, Jul 1982.

49. Balk, W. "Technological trends in productivity measurement" Pub

Pers Mgmt, Vol 4, No. 2, Mar 1975.

50. Hawaleshka, D. "Productivity measurement based on the technology

factor index: A case study" Proc of the 1985 IE Conf, Dec 1985.

51. Hershey, G. "Let quality count in productivity measurement" Word

Proc and Info Sys, Jun 1982.

52. Ruch, R. "The measurement of white-collar productivity" Natl Prod

Rev, Vol 1, No. 4, Autumn 1982.
53. Higgins, B. "Quantifying white collar functions" Natl Prod Rev,

Vol 3, No. 3, Summer 1984.

54. Millard, C. , Luthans, F and Ottemann, R. "A New Breakthrough for

Performance Appraisal" Bus Horizons, Aug 1976.

55. Kristakis, J. "Short Method Makes Frequent Evaluation of Office

Productivity a Realistic Objective" Ind Eng, Vol 15, No. 12, Dec 1983.

56. Galitz, W. "Designing the Workable Workstation" Mgmt World, Vol

11, No. 11, Nov 1982.

57. Barr, C. "Productivity and office automation: focus on the future"

Proc of the ASIS, Vol 20, ASIS, 1983)

58. Martin, T. "Office automation technology and functions: an

overview" J of the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 1983.

59. Dainoff, M. "Ergonomics: The Physical Pain" Computerworld, Vol 16,

No. 13, Mar 1982.

60. Segal-Horn, S. "The Human Implications of New Technology" Mgmt

Svcs , Vol 29, No. 11, Nov 1985.

61. Ryburg, J. "Office Automation and Facilities: A Management

Challenge" Office Automation and Facilities, Fac Mgmt Inst, 1983.

62. Stewart, T. "Ergonomics of the office" Ergo, Vol 28 No. 8, 1985.

63. Anonymous "Frustration in the Workplace: Its effect on

productivity" J of Micrographics, Vol 15, No. 3, Mar 1982.

64. Goldstein M. "The facts of ergonomics" Natl Prod Rev, Vol 4, No.

1, Winter 1984.

65. Malcolm, C. "Paradox in the Office: Fitting the Workplace for

People" Nat Prod Rev, Vol 5, No. 2, 1986.

66. Tuttle, T. "Productivity Measurement of Technical Organizations - Reducing the Threat" Proc of 5th Annual Conf Improv Prod of Tech Res,

1984.

67. Lehman, W. , Santiago, M. "Seven-Step Approach to Automating Your

Office", Price Waterhouse Review, Vol 26, No. 2, 1982.

68. Wright, N. "Productivity/QWL-Part 1, Mgmt World, Vol 11, No. 1,

1982 .

69. Anthony, M. "IEs Measure Work, Write Standards for White Collar

Workers at Financial Institutions", Ind Eng, Vol 16, No. 1, 1984.

70. McMillen, S, "Office Automation - A Local-Government Perspective",

Pub Admin Rev, Vol 44, No. 1, 1984.

48
71. Mortensen, E. "Case Study in Enhancing Productivity through Office

Automation", Proc of the ASIS, Vol 20, 1983.

72. Bolte, K. "Conquering the Administrative Marshmellow: Intel War on

White Collar Productivity", Proc of the 1982 Annual IE Conf. 1982.

73. Peeples, D. , "Measure for Productivity", Datamation, Vol 24, No.

5, 1975.

74. Manoochehri, G, "Automation, Job Design and Productivity of High

Volume Office Operations", J of Sys Mgmt, Vol 36, No. 10, 1985.

75. Teger, S. "Factors Impacting the Evolution of Office Automation",

Proc of the IEEE, 71, 4, 503-511, 1983.

76. Zippo, M. "Not of One Mind - Managers and Secretaries" View Office

Automation, Personnel, Vol 61, No.l. 1984.

77. Teger, S. "Factors Impacting the Evolution of Office Automation",

Proc of the IEEE, Vol 71, No. 4, 1983.

78. Campbell, A. "Productivity Plans - Making them Work", Bus Qtly

(Can), Vol 49, No. 4, 1984.

79. Curley, K. "Are there any Real Benefits from Office Automation?"

Bus Horizons, Vol 27, No. 4, 1984.

80. Gardner, P. "Documenting White Collar Productivity" Govt Data Sys,

Mar-Apr 1987.

81. *Meyer, M. "The Office Automation Cookbook - Management Strategies

for Getting Office Automation Moving", Sloan Mgmt Rev, Vol 24, No. 2,

1983.

82. Sink, S. "Performance and Productivity Measurement: The Art of

Developing Creative Scoreboards", Ind Eng, Vol 18, No. 1, 1986.

19
The present work included a very extensive literature review. The

sources not cited in the main body of the report are included

below, under major categories:

Design

"'Sick' Buildings, a Pandora's Box", Eng News Rec, Vol 211,

No. 17, 28-33, 1983.

"Coping with the Computer in the Open Plan", Off Admin and

Auto, Vol 45, No. 9, 33-40, 1984.

"Equality by Design", Small Bus Rept, Vol 11, No. 7, 38-40,

1986.

"Experts Shuffle Roles to Plan Electronics for Smart

Buildings", Eng News Rec, Vol 213, No. 18, 60-64, 1984.

"How to Plan an Electronic Office Where Workers are

Comfortable and Productive", Prof Rept, 13-15, 1983.

"Open-Plan Offices", Small Bus Rept, Vol 9, No. 5, 69-72,

1984.

"Planned Office Design Increases Production", Office, Vol

97, No. 3, 114-116, 1980.

"Planning and Using Office Space", Exec Skills, Vol 4, No.

81, 1-11, 1981.

"Switching to Quality Lightsavers" , Eng News Rec, Vol 209, No.

20, 47-50, 1982.

"Telecommunications and the Smart Building", Tech Res Inst, 1985.

Arnaud, J. "The Impact of New Technologies on Office

Communications: Beyond Connectivity", IEEE Inti Conf on

Communications - ICC '85, 1985.

Becker, F. "Workspace: Creating Environments in

Organizations", Praeger, Pub., N.Y., 1981.

Bice, K, Role of Voice in Office Automation, Proc of 27th

Annual Mtg of the Human Factors Soc, 1983.

Brewster, J. "The Office Memorandum" , Mgmt Today, 99-120,

1984.

Brill, M. et al "The Office Building as a Tool to Increase

Productivity and the Quality of Working Life", BOSTI

,

Buffalo, N.Y., 1982.

Brill, M. Margulis, S. and Konar, E. "Using Office Design to

Increase Productivity", BOSTI, Buffalo, N.Y. 1984.

Clevinger, M. "The Integration Obstacles to the Office of

the Future", Real Est Rev, Vol 15, No. 3, 83-86, 1985.

Coen, P. "Office Automation - Convergence of Chaos", Proc of

European Info Mgmt Exhib and Conf (IMEC) , 1980.

Croft, B. "The role of context and adaptation in user

interfaces", Inti J of Man-Mach Stud, Vol 21, No. 4,

283-292, 1984.

Cross, T. , Blackman, C. "Intelligent Buildings Come of Age",

Telecom Products and Tech, Vol 2, No. 12, 1, 22-24, 1984.

Gannes, S. "The Bucks in Brainy Buildings", Fortune, Vol

110, No. 13, 132-140, 1984.

Goodbar, I. "Application of the ESI System to Office

Lighting", Light Des and App, Vol 12, No. 11, 19-29, 1982.

Goodrich, E. "Designs for Working" Mgmt Wrld, Dec 1983.

50
Harris, L. & Assoc. "The Steelcase Study of Office

Environments: Do They Work?", Steelcase, Grand Rapids,

Mich . , 1979

Hoeffer, E. "New Terminals Often Require New Furniture",

Purchasing, Vol 92, No. 4, 83-87, 1982.

Holzer, C. "Determining Space Needs is Not a Casual

Process", Office, Vol 103, No. 6, 123, 130, 1986.

Jackson, D. "Implementation of Automated Office Tech and

Effects on Top Mgmt Productivity and Behavior" , Dis Abs

l nti, Vol 44, No. 5, 1557, 1983.

Jacobs, B. "Designing Offices that Work", Ind Wk, Vol 220,

No. 3, 28-33, 1984.

Jankowski, W. "Lighting for CRT Areas" Light Des and App,

23-27, 1981.

Kleeman, W. "Furniture for the Electronic Office", Corp Des,

Vol 2, No. 4, 83-92, 1983.

Long, J. "The Office Environment", Mgmt World, Vol 13, No.

5, 33-35, 1984.

Manning, P. "Lighting in relation to other components of the

total environment", Trans Ilium Eng Soc (London UK), 33, 4,

159-168, 1968.

Monge, P. , Rothman, L. "The Dynamics of Organizational

Proximity", Mgmt Science, Vol 31, 1129-42, 1985.

Mueller, R. "Automation and the Office Environment", Info

and Rec Mgmt, Vol 16, No. 5, 14-17, 20, 1982.

Olgren, C., Parker, L. "Teleconferencing and electronic

technologies :HF" , Madison Ctr Int Prog, Mad. WI, 1983.

Pollack, R. "Where Automation is Taking Office Design",

Office Admin and Auto, Vol 44, No. 1, 36-39, 1983.

Prince, J. "Putting the Power Near the Worker in an

Open-Plan Office", Admin Mgmt, Vol 41, No. 5, 51, 64, 1980.

Riggs, C. "Furnishing Tomorrow's Office Today", D&B Reports,

Vol 29, No. 3/ 34-39, 1981.

Ryburg, J. "Office Automation and Facilities", Fac Mgmt

l nst, 1983.

Shemitz, S. "Evaluating the quality of task/ambient

lighting", Light Des and App, Vol 25, 1970.

Steele, F. "Physical Settings and Organization Development",

Addison Wesley, N.Y., 1973.

Springer, T. "Redesigning the Office" Computerworld, Jun 21,

1982.

Thornton, P. "Integrated Office Networks Are on the Way -But

so are the Problems", Data Com, Vol 13, No. 4, 171-186,

1984 . Valsvik, D. , Plunkett, R. "Predicting Acoustical Properties

of Open Plan Offices" Snd and Vib, Vol 18, No. 7, 14-18,

1984 . Vinson, G. "Office Talk", Ind Soc, Vol 65, 37-38, 1983.

Wainwright, J., Francis, A. "Office Automation - Its Design,

Implementation and Impact", Pers Rev (UK), Vol 13, No. 1,

2-10, 1984.

Whaley, W. "Interior Design: A Process that Affects

Performance", Office, Vol 99, No. 1, 146, 1984.

Williams, C. "The Negotiable Environment", Fac Mgmt Inst,

51
1985.

Wood-Robinson, Visual Aspects of the Electronic Office, I ERE

Conf. Proc. #45, London, UK, 1980.

Worsham, A. "Effects of office design on personal control

and its correlates", Dis Abs Inti, Vol 45, No. 4, 1326,

1984 . Organization

"Building the Everything Box", Bests Rev (Prop/Casualty),

Vol 82, No. 9, 54-60, 1982.

"Computerization - The Methods for Change, Work and People"

(Australian), Vol 7, No. 2, 30-33, 1981.

"If these are your computer needs.... take a good look at

these systems", Staff, Vol 7, 10-15, 1982.

"Information processing and the office of tomorrow",

Fortune, Vol 96, 41-112, 1977.

"Inti Conf in Nature and Quality of Working Life", John

Wiley, N.Y., 1980.

"Measuring and Improving the Productivity of Administrative

Computing and Information Services", Natl Sci Foun, 1977.

"Office Model Spots Productivity Weak Points",

Computerworld , Vol 15, No. 13, SR39-40, 1981.

"Organizational Productivity: The Impact of Office

Technology Change", Amer Soc Pub Admin, 1981.

"Strong Central Management of Office Automation will Boost

Productivity", Gen Acct Off, 1982.

"Work Measurement: Assessing Company Productivity", Small

Bus Rept, 52-56, 1986.

Adams, N. , Dogramaci, A. "Productivity Analysis at the

Organization Level", Martinus Nijhoff, 1981.

Adelman, L. , Paul, J. "The Role of Task Properties in

Determining the Relative Effectiveness of Multi-attribute

Weighting Technique", Organ Beh and Human Perf, Vol 33, No.

2, 243-262, 1984.

Aklilu, T. "Office Automation - Office Productivity The

Missing Link", Office Automation Conference - 1981, AFIPS,

75-85, 1981.

Bavelas, A. , MacGregor, J, Safayeni, F. "Office Automation - A Conceptual Approach", J of Info Science, Vol 5, No. 5,

169-172, 1983.

Beamer, G. "Future Management Concerns Regarding Office

Automation" , Proc of National Computer Conference - NCC

'80, 1980.

Berger, J. et al "Office Automation: Making it pay off" Bus

Wk, Oct 12, 1987.

Bickson, T. , Gutek, B. "Advanced Office Systemm: Emp Look at

Util & Satis", Rand Corporation, 1983.

Bickson, T. , Gutek, B. "Implementation of Info Tech in Off

Set: Lit Rev", Rand Corp, 1981.

Bickson, T. , Stasz, C. "Computer-Mediated Work - Individual

and Organizational Impact", Rand, 1985.

Bj ern-Anersen, "Training for Subjection or Participation",

52
Human-Computer Interaction - Interact ’84 , Ed Shackel

,

Elsevier Science, 839-46, 1985.

Blum, M. "Your Office Automation Plan - Fail-Safe or

Flawed", Mgmn Focus, Vol 30, No. 3, 12-15, 1983.

Boczany, W. "Justifying Office Automation", J of Sys Mgmt,

Vol 34, No. 7, 15-19, 1983.

Borko, H. "The Effects of Automated Information Systems on

Knowledge Worker Productivity", Proc of the ASIS - 1983,

ASIS, Vol 20, 80-82, 1983.

Bracker, L. "A Model for Characterizing Office Procedures",

Dis Abs Inti, Vol 42, 770, 1977.

Burns, A. "Computer-Based Office Automation Increases

Information Flow Across Organizational Functions", Ind Eng,

Vol 15, No. 12, 1983.

Campbell, A. "Productivity Plans- Making them Work", Bus

Qtly (Can), Vol 49, No. 4, 83-86, 1984.

Chan, W. "A Methodology for Verification and Monitoring of

Office Procedures for Office Info Systems", Dis Abs Inti,

Vol 44, No. 1, 231, 1983.

Chism, J. et al, "A Simple Tool for More Organized

Implementation of the Electronic Office", Info and Records

Mgmt, Vol 17, No. 1, 14-16, 27, 1983.

Cole, E. "Old and New Models for Office Automation", J of

the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 234-239, 1983.

Connell, J. "Office Automation", Harvard Bus Rev, Vol 61,

No. 1, 170, 1983.

Conrath, D. , Higgins, C, "The Electronic Office and

Organizational Behavior: Measuring Office Activities", Comp

Networks, Vol 5, No. 6, 1981.

Cook, K. "Streamlining office procedures - An analysis using

the information control net model" Proc of 1980 Comp Conf,

AFIPS, pp 555-565, 1980.

Curley, K. "Are there any Real Benefits from Office

Automation?", Bus Horiz, Vol 27, No. 4, 37-42, 1984.

Damron, J. , Amick, B. , Rivik, P. "Three-Year Followup of

Changes in the Task Structure of Office Workers during

Office Automation", 9th Congress of the Inti Ergo Assn,

1985.

Dolden M. and Ward, R. Ed Workshop Proceedings on ’The

Impact of the Work Environment on Productivity" , Arch Res

Ctr Cons, Wash, D.C. 1985.

Downs, A. "The Future of Office Buildings", Bldgs, Sep,

1981.

Drucker, P. "Technology, Management and Society" Harper and

Row Pub. , N. Y. , 1970.

Drury, C. "Task-Analysis Methods in Industry", App Ergo, Vol

14, No. 1, 19-28, 1983.

Ellis, P. "Office planning and design: the impact of

organizational change due to advanced information

technology." Beh and Info Tech, Vol 3, No. 3, 221-233,

1984 . Epstein, R. "The wizardry of measuring users of

computer-based office systems" Proc of 1982 Office Auto

Conf, AFIPS Press, Arlington, VA, 1982.

53
Falce, T. "Changing Role of Management Information-Systems

and Office Automation", J of Syst Mgmt, Vol 36, No. 5,

3-20, 1985.

Fernberg, P. "Maximizing Space for Productivity,

Profitability and People", Modern Off Tech, Jun 1987.

Forester, T. "The Information Technology Revolution", MIT

Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.

Freudberg, F. "Office Automation Productivity : Lost en route

to the Promised Land", ASIP Sp Pub, 1-26, 1984.

Gael, S. "Job Analysis" Jossey-Bass Pub, San Francisco, CA

1983 . Galliers, R. "An Approach to Information Needs Analysis",

Human Computer Interactions - Interact '84, Elsevier

Science, 619-628, 1984.

Gardner, P. "Documenting White Collar Productivity" Govt

Data Sys, Mar-Apr, 1987.

Goldberg, B. "Methodology for Implementing Office

Automation", Proc of 44th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, 1981.

Green, J. "The Transition Process in Office Automation and

its Impact on Clerical Workers: A Case Study", Dis Abs

Inti, Vol 45, No. 1, 235, 1984.

Greenwood, F. , Greenwood, M. "Principles of Office

Automation", J of Syst Mgmt, Vol 35, No. 2, 13-17, 1984.

Greiner, J. "Motivating Improved Productivity: Three

Promising Approaches", Pub Mgmt, Vol 61, 2-5, 1979.

Grimaldi, J., Schnepper, B. "Managing Employee Stress", Mgmt

Rev, Vol 70, 23-28, 1981.

Hammer, M. and Kunin, J. "Design principles of an office

specification language" Proc of 1980 Computer Conf, AFIPS

,

pp 541-547, 1980.

Hastings, R. "Examining Employee Relations", Bus Horiz, Vol

19, 77-83, 1976.

Hendrix, W. , McNichols, C. "Organizational Effectiveness as

a Function of Managerial Style", J of Exp Ed, Vol 52, No.

3, 145-151, 1984.

Henriques, V., Schirn, J. "Where Does the Employee Fit in

Office Integration?, Office", Vol 103, No. 1, 102-120,

1986 . Higgins, B. , Dice, C. "Quantifying White-Collar Functions",

Natl Prod Rev, Vol 3, No. 3, 288-302, 1984.

Hirschhorn, L. , Farquhar, K. "Productivity. Technology and

the Decline of the Professional", Office Technology and

People (Neth) , Vol 2, 245-265, 1985.

Hoard, B. "Pushing Up Productivity", Computerworld, Vol 15,

No. 13, 1-38, 1981.

Jackson, L. "OA Forcing Organizational Change"

Computerworld, Apr 9, 1984.

Jones, R. "Intelligent Buildings Need Intelligent

Management", Natl Real Est Inv, Vol 28, No. 6, 48-50, 1986.

Kander, S. "The Relations Between an Innovation Strategy and

Success of Telecom Implementation in Organizations", Dis

Abs Inti, Vol 46, No. 5, 1727, 1985.

Kizzier, D. "Attitudes of Office Personnel Toward Advanced

Office Technology", Dis Abs Inti, Vol 46, No. 10, 2877,
1985 . Kleim, R. "Does Automation Necessarily Mean an Increase in

Productivity?", J of Sys Mgmt, 32-34, 1985.

Kopelman, R. "Managing Productivity in Organizations",

Kluwer Nijhoff Hingham, 1986.

Kuraitis, V., Crow, R. "New Approach to Job Evaluations

Enhances Objectivity", J of Comp and Benefits, Vol 1, No.

4, 214-218, 1986.

Lehman, W. , Santiago, M. "Seven-Step Approach to Automating

Your Office", Price Waterhouse Rev, Vol 26, No. 2, 13-18,

1982 . Licker, P. "Will Office Automation Provide the Theory-Z

Organization?", Human Syst Mgmt, Vol 5, No. 1, 11-20, 1985.

Liker, J, Hancock, W. "Organizational Systems Barriers to

Engineering Effectiveness", Trans of Eng Mgmt, Vol 33, No.

2, 82-91, 1986.

Lochovsky, F. "Improving Office Productivity", Proc of the

IEEE, IEEE, Vol 71, No. 4, 512-518, 1983.

Malcolm, C. "Paradox in the Office: Fitting the Workplace

for People" Natl Prod Rev, Vol 5, No. 2, 142-149, 1986.

Mankin, D. , Bickson, T. "Factors in successful

implementation of computer-based office information

systems: Lit rev", J of Organ Beh Meas, Vol 6, No. 34,

1-20, 1984.

Martin, T. "Office Automation Technology and Functions -An

Overview", J of the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 210-214, 1983.

Matherly, D. "The Paperless Chase - Gaining Support for

Office Automation", Bus Horizons, Vol 27, No. 2, 77-79,

1984 . Matties, L. "The Physical Size of a Management System", J of

Syst Mgmt, Vol 35, No. 10, 8-11, 1984.

Meyer, N. , Boone, M. "The Information Edge" McGraw Hill,

N.Y. 1987.

Meyer, M. "The Office Automation Cookbook - Management

Strategies for Getting Office Automation Moving", Sloan

Mgmt Rev, Vol 24, No. 2, 51-60, 1983.

Mick, C. "Planning for Office Automation", J of the ASIS,

Vol 34, No. 3, 22-233, 1983.

Miller, R. "Task Analysis - Sources and Futures", Imp Human

Perf, Vol 2, No. 1, 5-27, 1973.

Mitchell, P. , Nassau, S. "Improving Individual and Organ.

Prod" Symp, Human Factors Soc, 1980.

Moran, L. "Office Automation: Debunking the Myths Concerning

its Impact on the Individual and the Organization", Dis Abs

Inti, Vol 43, No. 6, 1933, 1982.

Mortensen, E. "Office Automation - Agenda for Organizational

Change", Proc of the ASIS, Vol 20, 196-199, 1983.

Mortensen, E. "Role of Information Retrieval in Office

Automation Planning", Proc of the 45th Annual ASIS Meeting,

1982 . Nash, M. "Making People Productive" Jossey-Bass Inc, San

Francisco, CA, 1985.

Nauges, L. "Office Automation Alibis", Datamation, Vol 29,

No. 11, 233, 1983.

55
Nicholas, I. "Organizational Climate and Strategic Decision

Making", J of General Mgmt (UK), Vol 7, No. 3, 57-71, 1982.

Olson, M. , Lucas, H. "The Impact of Office Automation on the

Organization - Some Implications for Research and

Practice", Comm of the ACM, Vol 25, No. 11, 838-847, 1982.

Oman, R. "Office Automation Decisions Require Clear

Analysis", Govt Computer News, Feb 27, 1987.

Paddock C. , Scamell, R. "Office Automation Projects and

their impact on Organization", Planning and Control, ACM

Trans on OA Syst, Vol 2, No. 4, 289-302, 1984.

Panko, R. "Office Work, Office Technology and People"

(Neth) , Vol 2, No. 3, 205-238, 1984.

Peters, A. "Planning a Productive Office", Chief Executive

UK), 60-63, 1983.

Regan, E. "Behavioral and Organizational Issues of Office

Automation Technology", Dis Abs Inti, Vol 43, No. 12, 3970,

1982 . Rhea, J. "Office Automation: Making People More Productive".

Special Issue: Productivity Improvement in Public, Public

Pers Mgmt, Vol 14, No. 4, 437-448, 1985.

Roberts, C. "The Productivity Triad: The Operator, the

Machine and the Environment", Proceedings of the ASIS - 1983, ASIS, Vol 20, 52-57, 1983.

Roberts, C. The Wariness of the Work Force, Proc of the Amer

Soc for Info Sciences, Vol 21, 13-15, 1984.

Rosenthal, L. et al, "Guidance on Requirements Analysis for

Office Automation Systems" NBS Spec. Pub 500-147, National

Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, Mar 1987

Rotolo, E. "You Have to Design Your Own Automated Office",

Pers Admin, Vol 26, No. 4, 28-31, 1984.

Sassone, P. and Schwartz, A. "Cost Justifying OA"

Datamation, Feb 15, 1986.

Schmidt, K. "A Dielectical Approach to Functional Analysis

of Office Work", IEEE Proc on Robotics, Ergo, Art Int '86,

IEEE, 476, 1586-91, 1986.

Schuler, R. "Definition and Conceptualization of Stress in

Organizations", Org Beh and Human Perf, Vol 25, No. 2,

184-215, 1980.

Schwartz, A. "Work Value Analysis Urged", Govt Computer

News, 10 Let 1986.

Seddon, S. "Information-Retrieval as the Kernel of Office

Automation", J of Info Science, Vol 8, No. 2, 67-80, 1984.

Shaw, J. "An Information-Processing Approach to the Study of

Job Design", Acad of Mgmt Rev, Vol 5, No. 1, 41-48, 1980.

Shell, R. , Okogbaa, G. , Huston, T. "The Work Station of the

Future for Knowledge Workers" Ind Eng, Aug 1985.

Showalter, K. "Office Automation Overview, Proc of the 44th

Ann M ;g of the ASIS", 1981.

Sirbu, M. , Schoichet, S. "0AM: An Office Analysis

Methodology", Office Automation Conference - 1982, AFIPS,

317-329, 1982.

Slaubacn, C. "Analysis of Data Development Analysis and

Constrained Facet Analysis Models: Productivity Measures",

Rpt AFIT/GLM/LSM/858-28 , 1985.

56
Smith, C. "Awarenesss, Analysis and Improvement are Keys to

White Collar Productivity", Ind Eng, 82-86, 1984.

Stef fins, J. "Office automation in the UK. . some issues and

problems". Policy studies, Vol 2, 169-188, 1982.

Sumanth, D. "Implementation Steps for a Productivity

Measurement Program in Companies" Proc 1982 Annual Ind Eng

Conf , 335-343, 1982.

Sumanth, D. "Productivity Engineering & Management:

Productivity Measurement", McGraw Hill, N.Y. 1984.

Szlichcinski , K. "Designing for the day after tomorrow: I.

The interaction between communication system design &

social change"., Beh and Info Tech, Vol 2, No. 3, 253-261,

1983 . Taggart, W. , Tharp, M. "A Survey of Information Requirements

Analysis Techniques", Comp Surv, Vol 9, No. 4, 273-290,

1977.

Taylor, R. , Wilsted, W. "Capturing judgment policies in

performance rating", Ind Rel, Volume 15, 216-224, 1976.

Teger, S. "Factors Impacting the Evolution of Office

Automation", Proc of the IEEE, Vol 71, No. 4, 503-511,

1983 . Thomas, M. "A Comparison of Two Potential Bases for Office

Analysis: Function and Organization Unit", Dis Abs Inti,

Vol 46, No. 4, 1024, 1985.

Uttal, B. "What’s Detaining the Office of the Future?",

Fortune, Vol 105, 176-193, 1982.

Vinson, G. , Garlick, R. "Planning for Better Work -Making

the Best of What You Have Got", Chf Exec (UK), 29-33, 1982.

Wakin, E. "The Jury's Still Out on Office Automation",

Today's Office, Vol 20, No. 4, 39-40, 1985.

Walker, R. "Outfitting the high-tech office for people",

Christian Science Monitor, Oct 9, 1984.

Wang, F. "Office Automation", Mini-Micro Sys, Vol 15, No.

12, 198-207, 1982.

Zippo, M. "Not of One Mind - Managers and Secretaries View

Office Automation", Pers, Vol 61, No. 1, 67-70, 1984.

Zisman, M. "Representation, Specification, and Automation

of Office Procedures", Dis Abs Inti, Vol 38, No. 11, 6823,

1977 . Quality of Worklife

"The Quality of Life Concept: A Potential New Tool for

Decision-Makers", The Env Prot Agency, Mar 1973.

Blake, R. , Mouton, J. "Increasing Productivity Through

Behavioral Science", Pers, Vol 58, 59-67, 1981.

Brenner, 0., Blazini, A. "Ease White Collar Woes with the

Job Orientation Dissatisfaction Index", Mgmt Quart, Vol 26,

34-44, 1985.

Brief, A. "How to Manage Managerial Stress", Pers, Vol 57,

No. 5, 25-30, 1980.

Cohen, D. "Why Quality of Worklife Doesn't Always Mean

Quality", Tng , Vol 18, No. 10, 54-60, 1981.

57
Glaser, E. "Productivity Gains Through Worklife

Improvement", Pers, Vol 57, 71-77, 1980.

Jackson, S. "Participation in Decision Making as a Strategy

for Reducing Job-related Strain", J of App Psych, Vol 68,

No. 1, 3-19, 1983.

Jimeno, J. , Carney, B. "U.S. Dept of Agriculture's Quality

of Worklife Survey", Pub Pers Mgmt, Vol 14, No. 4, 367-383,

1985.

Kendall, R. "The Office Revolution? Health Hazards Coming

into Focus", Occup Hazards, Vol 45, No. 10, 79-83, 1983.

Lawler, E. "High Involvement Management" Jossey-Bass Pub.

,

San Francisco, CA, 1986.

Lawler, E. , Ledford, G. "Productivity and the Quality of

Work Life", Nat Prod Rev, Vol 1, No. 1, 23-36, 1981.

Lehrer, R. "Participative productivity and quality of

worklife", Prentice Hall, Englewood Cl, NJ, 1982.

Levitan, S. "Worker participation and productivity change",

Monthly labor review, Vol 107, No. 9, 28-33, 1984.

Matherly, T. , Matherly and Matherly D. "Employee

Participation Eases the Transition to Office Automation", J

of Syst Mgmt, 36, 2, 17-23, 1985.

Matteson, M. , Ivancevich, J. "Straining under too much

stress?", Mgmt World, Vol 8, No. 7, 4-6, 1979.

Moch, M. "Job Involvement, Internal Motivation, and

Employees' Integration into Networks of Work

Relationships", Organ Beh and Human Perf, Vol 25, No. 1,

15 - 31 , 1980.

Moch, M. "Structure, Task Characteristics, and Experienced

Role Stress in Organizations Using Complex Tech.", Organ

Beh and Human Perf, Vol 24, No. 2, 258-268, 1979.

Parker, D. , DeCotiis, T. "Organizational determinants of job

stress", Organ Beh and Human Perf, Vol 32, No. 2, 160-177,

1983 . Ranney, J. "QWL in the Office", Tng and Dev Journal, Vol 36,

No. 4, 74-84, 1982.

Sell, R. "Quality of Working Life and the Introduction of

Technology Into the Office", Erg and Health in Mod. Offices

(Ed Grandjean) , Taylor and Francis, 160-164, 1984.

Stewart, T. "Managing Change in Office Automation - The

People Problem", European Info Mgmt Exhibition and Conf

(IMEC) , 1980.

Walton, R. "Quality of Working Life - What is it?", Sloan

Mgmt Rev, Vol 15, No. 1, 11-21, 1973.

Weiss, H. , Ilgen, D. "Effects of Life and Job Stress on

Information Search Behaviors of Organization Members", J of

App Psych, Vol 67, No. 1, 60-66, 1982.

Werther, W. "Productivity Through People", West Pub Co, St

Paul, MI 1986.

Wolke, R. "People Systems: Motivation and Design for

Effective Contribution", Bus and Econ Rev, Vol 28, No. 4,

12-16, 1982.

Zuboff, S. "Problems of Symbolic Toil: How People Fare with

Computer-Mediated Work", Dissent, Vol 29, 51-61, 1982.

58
Productivity

"IEs Measure Work, Write Standards for White Collar Workers

at Financial Institutions", Ind Eng, Vol 16, No. 1, 76-81,

1984 . "Measurement and Interpretation of Productivity" , National

Academy of Science, 1979.

"Moody, H "Technology in the Office: A Key Productivity

Issue for the 1980's" 1982.

"Multiple Productivity Objectives on Construction Sites",

Project Mgmt Journal, Vol 16, No. 1, 68-75, 1985.

"NASA Symposium on Productivity & Quality: White Collar",

NASA, Wash D.C. 1985.

"Productivity Analysis at the Organization Level", Nijhoff

Pub Co, 1981.

"Productivity Measurement and Analysis", Asian Prod Organ,

1983.

Aft, L. "Productivity Measurement and Improvement", Reston

Pub Co, Reston, VA, 1983.

Aklilu, T. "Office Automation-Office Productivity "The

Missing Link" Office Auto Conf., AFIPS, 1986.

Anthony, G. "Establishing the Productivity Cycle for White

Collar Employees", Proc 1984 Fall Ind Eng Conf, 466-467,

1984.

Anthony, M. "IEs Measure Work, Write Standards for White

Collar Workers at Financial Institutions", Ind Eng, Vol 16,

No. 1, 76-81, 1984.

Austin, J., Braswell, R. "Productivity Measurement: An

Analytic Approach", Rept LAMD-TR-83-4 , 1983.

Balk, W. "Technological Trends in Productivity Measurement",

Pub Pers Mgmt, Vol 4, No. 2, 128-133, 1975.

Barr, C. , Kochen, M. "Productivity and Office Automation

-Focus on the Future", Proc of the ASIS, 20, 194-195, 1983.

Bernolak, I. "Productivity Measurement and Analysis: New

Issues and Solutions", Asian Prod Organ, 1982.

Berryman, R. "Issues in Productivity Measurement" in

"Advances in Office Automation", Vol. 1, Ed. K. Quinn, John

Wiley, N.Y., 1985.

Bhada, V. "A Framework for Productivity Measurement", Bus,

Vol 34, No. 1, 27-33, 1984.

Brief, A. "Productivity Research in the Behavioral & Social

Sciences, Praeger, 1984.

Brisley, C. "Measuring the 'Unmeasurable'", Proc 1983 Fall

Ind Eng Conf, 598-604, 1983.

Christopher, W. "How to Measure and Improve Productivity in

Professional", Admin and Svc Organ, Proc 1984 Annual Inti

Ind Eng Conf, 268-276, 1984.

Day, C. "Solving the Mystery of Productivity Measurement",

Ind Wk, Vol 208, No. 2, 60-66, 1981.

Drange, K. "Office Productivity Factors", J of Sys Mgmt, Vol

36, No. 11, 6-9, 1985.

Drucker, P. "How to Measure White Collar Productivity", Wall

St Jour, Vol 30, 1985.

59
Felix, G. "Productivity Measurement w/Objectives Matrix",

OPC Press, Corvallis, OR, 1983.

Felix, G. , Riggs, J. "Productivity Measurement by

Objectives", Natl Prod Rev, Vol 2, No. 4, 386-393, 1983.

Fleishman, E. "Human Performance and Productivity", Wash Adv

Resources Organ, 1979.

Grahn, J. "White Collar Productivity: Misunderstandings and

Some Progress", Pers Admin, Vol 26, No. 8, 27-31, 1981.

Greenberger, R. "Instant Feedback: Some firms try a new

device to measure worker output"., Wall St Jour, Vol 106,

No. 1, 1, 1982.

Gregerman, I'. "Knowledge Worker Productivity Measurement

Through the Nominal Group Technique", Ind Mgmt, Vol 23, No.

1, 5-8, 1981.

Gregerman, I. "Worker Productivity: Characteristics and

Measurement", AACE Trans, 1981.

Guynup, P. "Information and Productivity", J of the ASIS,

Vol 36, No. 6, 369-375, 1985.

Hatry, H. "The Status of Productivity Measurement in the

Public Sector", Public Admin Rev, Vol 38, No. 1, 29-33,

1978 . Hershey, D. "Let Quality Count in Productivity Measurement",

Word Proc & Info Sys, Vol 9, No. 6, 25, 60,61+, 1982.

Huber, R. "Productivity - How to Define, Measure and

Improve it.", Production, Vol 93, No. 3, 49-63, 1984.

Jaffe, M . "Productivity Measurements Needed to Cash in on

$1600 Worker" Bank Sys & Equip, Jan 1983.

Judson, A. "New Strategies to Improve Productivity", Tech

Rev, Vol 78, 61-67, 1976.

Katzell, M. "Productivity: The Measure and the Myth", AMA

Survey Report, 1975.

Keats, J., Sink, S. "Investigation of Quality Measurement

Systems and a Method for Integrating with Productivity

Measures", Proc. 1982 Annual Ind Eng Conf, 1982.

Kish, J. "Auditing Word-Processing Productivity and

Performance" Natl Prod Rev, Aut 1982.

Kristakis, J. "Short Method Makes Frequent Evaluation of

Office Productivity a Realistic Objective", Ind Eng, Vol

15, No. 12, 48-50, 1983.

Mark, J. "Measuring Productivity in Government" Pub Prod

Rev, Mar 1981.

McGee, J. , Welsh, R. "Need to Redirect IE Toward Office

Productivity", 1982.

Morris, K. "The Application of the Delphi Technique to the

Development of Productivity Measures" Natl Science Found,

Wash, D.C. 1977.

Mundel, M. "Wanted: A System that Provides 'Box Scores for

Productivity'" Ind Eng, Oct 1983.

Mundel, M. "Improving Productivity and Effectiveness",

Prentice Hall, Englewood, N.J. 1983.

Newburn, R. "Measuring Productivity in Organizations with

Unquantif iable End-Products" Pers Jour, Sep 1972.

Packer, M. "Measuring the Intangibles in Productivity", Tech

Rev, Vol 86, No. 2, 48-57, 1983.

6o
Peeples, D. "Measure for Productivity", Datamation, Vol 4,

No. 5, 222-230, 1975.

Radchuck, R. "Measuring Productivity" CA Mag, Oct 1981.

Revey, S. "Improved Technique of Productivity Measurements",

Trans of Amer Assoc of Cost Engrs & 8th Inti Conf 1984,

AACE, Morgantown, WV. 1984.

Riggs, J. "Monitoring with a Matrix that Motivates as it

Measures", Ind Eng, Vol 18, No. 1, 34-43, 1986.

Rittenhouse, R. "Productivity Assessment Issues in Office

Automation", Proc of 16th Hawaii Inti Conf on Systems

Sci-1983 , Vol 1, 576-580, 1983.

Rockhold, A. "White Collar Productivity: Top Management

Doesn't Know What it Wants" Infosystems, Apr 1982.

Rosenbaum, S. "Managing and Measuring Productivity", Amer

Productivity Tng Inst, 1981.

Ruch, W. "The Measurement of White Collar Productivity", Nat

Prod Rev, Vol 1, No. 4, 418-426, 1982.

Shehata, S. "Development of Theoretical Foundation for

Organizational Productivity Analysis and Measurement" , Dis

Abs Inti, Vol 47, No. 2, 742, 1985.

Shen, G. "Productivity Measurement and Analysis", Asian Prod

Organ, 1985.

Siegel, I. "Productivity Measurement in Organizations",

Pergammon Press, N.Y., 1986.

Siegel, I. "Productivity Measurement", Asian Prod Organ,

1980.

Siegel, I. "Productivity Measurement: An Evolving Art", Work

In America Inst, 1980.

Sink, D. , DeVries, S. "Development of a Taxonomy of

Productivity Measurement: Theories and Techniques" 1984.

Sink, S. "Management Evaluation of a Methodology for

Development of a Productivity Measurement System" Natl Sci

Foun, Wash, D ..C . 1977.

Sink, S. "Much Ado About Productivity: Where do we go from

here?", Ind Eng, Vol 15, No. 10, 36-48, 1983.

Sink, S. "Multi-Criteria Performance/Productivity

Measurement Technique", Proc 1984 Annual Inti Ind Eng Conf,

3-8, 1984.

Sink, S. "Organizational System Performance - Is

Productivity a Critical Component?", Proc 1983 Annual Ind

Eng Conf, 412-422, 1983.

Sink, S. "Performance and Productivity Measurement: The Art

of Developing Creative Scoreboards", Ind Eng, Vol 18, No.

1, 86-90, 1986.

Sink, S. "Using Quality Costs in Productivity Measurement",

Trans-37th Annual Tech Conf Amer Soc for Qual Ctrl,

211-216, 1983.

Sink, S. DeVries, S. "In-Depth Study and Review of State of

the Art and Practice Productivity Measurement Techniques",

1984 Annual Inti Ind Eng Conf, 333-334, 1984.

Sink, S., Tuttle, T. , DeVries, S. "Productivity Measurement

and Evaluation: What is Available?", Nat Prod Rev, Vol 3,

No. 3, 265-287, 1984.

Stephenson, B. et al, 'A Structured Approach to MIS

6i
Productivity Measurement", J of Info Sys Mgmt, Vol 2,

34-42, 1985.

Swaim, J. Sink, S. "Decision Support System Development for

the Multi-Factor Productivity Measurement Model", Proc 1984

Fall Ind Eng Conf 310-317, 1984.

Tuttle, T. "Productivity Measurement Methods: Classications

,

Criteria - AF" , Maryland Cntr for Productivity, 1981.

Tuttle, T. "Productivity Measurement of Technical

Organizations - Reducing the Threat" Proc of 5th Annual

Conf Improv Prod of Tech Res, 47-58, 1984.

Tuttle, T. , Wilkinson, R. "Measuring and Enhancing

Organizational Productivity - Biblio", Md Ctr for Prod,

1981.

Udler, A. "Productivity Measurement of Administrative

Services" Pers Jour, Dec 1978.

Van Horn, L. "Productivity Measurement of Professional and

Technical Labor" , Proc of Proj Mgmt Inst 15th Annual

Seminar Symp, Proj Mgmt Inst, Drexel Hill, Pa, 1983.

Wright, N. "Productivity/QWL-Part 1, Mgmt World, Vol 11, No.

1, 33-35, 1982.

Yellowless, R. "White Collar Productivity - The Technology

Challenge" IM, Mar-Apr 1986.

Zaser, R. "Measuring Productivity", New York Times, Vol 130,

No. 21, 1980.

Ergonomics

"Ergonomic Design for People at Work" Vol 1, 2, Van

Nostrand, N.Y. 1983.

"Frustration in the Workplace: Its Effect on Productivity",

J of Micrographics, Vol 15, No. 3, 16-21, 1982.

"Lighting up the CRT Screen - Problems and Solutions", Light

Des and App, Vol 14, No. 1, 14-17, 1984.

"Survey Sinks Myths about Office Automation Revolution", Tng

and Dev Journal, Vol 39, No. 7, 14-15, 1985.

"Video Displays, Work and Vision", Natl Acad Press, Wash,

D. C. , 1983 . "Working Conditions and Environment", Geneva Inti Labor Org,

1983.

Abernethy, C. "Behavioural data in the design of ergonomic

computer terminals and workstations", Beh and Info Tech,

Vol 3, No. 4, 399-403, 1984.

Allaby, I. "Finding a Cure for Terminal Diseases: How to

restore the human touch", Canadian Business (Can), Vol 58,

No. 7, 94-107, 1985.

Becker, F. "The Successful Office", Addison-Wesley , Reading,

MA, 1982.

Bewley, W. , Roberts, T. "Human Factors Testing in the Design

of Xerox's 8010 Star Office Workstation", Xerox Corp, 1983.

Bharucha, R. , Kiyak, H. "Environmental effects on affect:

Density, noise and personality", Population and

Environment: Beh & Social Issues, Vol 5, No. 1, 60-72,

1982 .

62
Bower, B. "Computers at Work: The Human Factor", Science

News, Vol 126, 122-124, 1984.

Carroll, A. "Behavioral Aspects of Developing Computer-Based

Information Systems", Bus Horizons, Vol 25, 54-51, 1982.

Choi, W.E., "The Role of Ergonomics in Aiding Productivity",

Office, Vol 101, No. 3, 20, 1985.

Clapp, R. "Focus on Human Factors When Managing Change", J

of Micrographics, Vol 16, No. 2, 34-36, 1983.

Clark, T. "The Ergonomics of Workplaces", Taylor and

Francis, N.Y. 1984.

Cleveland, P. "The Systematics of Error: With Special

Reference to the Ergonomics of Office Automation", Dis Abs

Inti, Vol 45, No. 8, 2668, 1984.

Corlett, E. and Richardson, J. Ed. "Stress, Work Design, and

Productivity" John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 1981.

Culnan, M. , Bair, J. , "Human-Communication Needs and

Organizational Productivity - The Potential Impact of OA"

,

Proc of the ASIS, Vol 34, No. 3, 215-221, 1983.

Dainoff, M. "Ergonomics - The Physical Pain", Computerworld

,

Vol 16, No. 13, 55-60, 1982.

Dainoff, M. and Dainoff, M. "People and Productivity" Holt,

Reinhart and Winston, Toronto, Canada, 1986.

Donahue, T. "The Human Factor in Productivity", Amer Fed,

Vol 87, 13-15, 1980.

Eason, K. "Office Automation - Making People More

Productive", Publish Pers Mgmt, Vol 14, No. 4, 437-448,

1985.

Eisen, D. "Overview of VDU Problems", Ergonomics Comm of

Amer Indus Hygiene Assn, NIOSH, 15-19, *1982.

Eve, B. "Office Automation and Human Issues", Dis Abs Inti,

Vol 47, No. 3, 875, 1986.

Frazelle, E., Smith, C. "Worker Participation in Office

Space Planning, and Design Process Pays Large Dividends",

Ind Eng, Vol 16, No. 12, 34-37, 1984.

Galitz, W. "Adapt Technology to People, not Visa Versa",

Natl Underwriter (Life/Health), Vol 85, No. 9, 18-19, 1981.

Galitz, W. "Designing the Workable Workstation", Mgmt World,

Vol 11, No. 11, 14, 15, 20, 1982.

Galitz, W. "The Office Environment", Admin Mgmt Soc Found,

1984.

Galitz, W. "What the Office of the 1990's will be like", J

of Forms Mgmt, Vol 10, No. 2, 4-7, 1985.

Garen, M. "Office Automation - The Human Side", Tng and Dev

Journal, Vol 38, No. 3, 22-24, 1984.

Goldstein, M. "The Facts of Ergonomics (Part II)", Natl Prod

Rev, Vol 4, No. 1, 82-85, 1984.

Grandjean, E. "Postures and the Design of VDT workstations."

Beh and Info Tech, Vol 3, No. 4, 301-311, 1984.

Helmreich, R. "Human Aspects of Office Systems - User

Acceptance Research Results", Human Computer Interactions

-Interact ' 84/B, Elsevier Science, 715-718, 1985.

Hendrick, H. and Brown, O. Ed "Human Factors in

Organizational Design and Management" North Holland Pub.,

N.Y., 1984

63
Howard, J. "Proposed Ergonmic Standards: A Study of

Ergonomic Requirements for the Office VDT Workstation", Dis

Ab Inti, Vol 47, No. 2, 582, 1985.

Hunting, W. , Laubli, T. "Postural and visual loads at VDT

workplaces: I. Constrained postures", Ergo, Vol 24, No. 12,

917-931, 1981.

Kaplan, A. "The Ergonomics of Office Automation", Mod Off

Proc, May, 1982.

Kendall, R„ "The Office Revolution: Health Hazards Coming

into Focus", Occup Haz, Vol 45, No. 10, 79-83, 1983.

Knackstedt, M. "Humanizing your office", Mgmt World, Vol 14,

No. 1, 26-27, 1985.

Knave, B. "Ergonomics and Lighting" App Ergo, Vol 15, No. 1,

15-20, 1984.

Koffler, R. "Ergonomics - The Mental Strain", Computerworld,

Vol 16, No. 13, 55, 61, 1982.

Krueger, H. "Lighting characteristics, legibility and

visual comfort of displays" Beh and Info Tech, Vol 3, No.

4, 291-299, 1984.

Laubli, T. , Hunting, W. "Postural and visual loads at VDT

workplaces: II. Lighting conditions and visual

impairments", Ergo, Vol 24, No. 12, 933-944, 1981.

Lauder, R. "Behavioral Issues in Office Design", Van

Nostrand, N.Y., 1986.

Lee, S. "Computer - Based Office Automation and the Dynamics

of Sociotechnical Change: Six Case Studies", Dis Abs Inti,

Vol 47, No. 2, 367, 1985.

Marans, R. , Spreckelmeyer , "Measuring Overall Architectural

Quality: A component of environmental quality", Env and

Beh, Vol 14, No. 6, 652-670, 1982.

Mayer, M. , "Seeing the Light", Courtesy of Abe Feder,

Forbes, Vol 135, No. 10, 77-79, 1985.

Meister, D. "Behavioral Analysis and Measurement Methods"

John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 1985

Nemeth, S. "Applied Ergonomics Improves Productivity" 1983.

Oborne, D. , Heath, T. "The role of social space requirements

in ergonomics.", App Ergo, Vol 10, No. 2, 99-103, 1979.

Otten, K. "Information Tools: Hardware and Software

Ergonomics Determine User Acceptance and Productivity" J of

Info and Image Mgmt, 19-26, 1984.

Ranney, J. , Carder, C, E. "Socio-Technical Design Methods in

Office Settings: Two Cases", Office Tech and People (Neth)

,

Vol 2, No. 3, 169-186, 1984.

Riley, T. "The Human Factor: OA Issues", Computer Data

(Canada), Vol 10, No. 10, 10-11, 1985.

Rinalducci, E. "Video Displays, Work and Vision, National

Academy Press, 1983.

Robinson, D. "IEs Must Consider Ergonomic, Work Area Issues

to Overcome Problems with VDT's", Ind Eng, Vol 16, 58-61,

1984 . Roethlisberger , F. and Dickson, W. "Management and the

Worker" Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1941.

Rubin, A. "The Automated Office - An Environment for

Productive Work, or an Information Factory?: A Report on
the State-of-Art" , NBSIR 83-2784-1, National Bureau of

Standards, Nov., 1983.

Saffle, P. "Behavioural data in the design of ergonomic

computer terminals and workstations: A case study", Beh and

Info Tech, Vol 3, No. 4, 399-403, 1984.

Schneider, F. "Why Ergonomics Can No Longer be Ignored" Off

Admin and Auto, Jul 1985.

Segal-Horn, S. "The Human Implications of New Technology",

Mgmt Svcs , Vol 29, No. 11, 9-12, 1985.

Self, J. "Ergonomics and Productivity in the Electronic

Office", J of Info and Image Mgmt, Vol 17, No. 4, 14-18,

1984 . Shackel, B. Ed. "Human Computer Interaction - Interact '84",

Elsevier Science Pub, North Holland, IFIP, 1985.

Sheridan, P. "Electron- c Monitoring: Stress Producer for VDT

Operators", Occup Hazards, Vol 48, No. 4, 49-53, 1986.

Shneiderman, B. "Designing the User Interface" Addison

-Wesley, N.Y. 1987.

Smith, M. "How to Fit the Work to the Operator", Ergonomic

Committee of Amer Ind Hyg Assn, NIOSH, 119-127, 1982.

Starr, S. "Effects of video display terminals in a business

office.", Human Factors, Vol 26, No. 3, 347-356-, 1984.

Stewart, T. "Ergonomics of the office." Special Issue: Ergo

Inti 85., Ergo, Vol 28, No. 8, 1165-78, 1985.

Sundstrom, E. "Workplaces", Cambridge U. Press, 1986.

Szaniawski, I. "Critical Factors’ in the Humanization of Work

in an Age of Automation", Inti Rev of Educ, Vol 28, No. 3,

367-373, 1982.

Taylor, J. "Socio-Technical Systems and Office

Productivity", Office Auto Conf - 1982, AFIPS, 393-398,

1982 . Van Nes, F. "Limits of visual perception in the technology

of visual display terminals.", Beh and Info Tech, Vol 3,

No. 4, 371-377, 1984.

Wahlund, I. "Work Environment of White Collar Workers",

Stockholm Central Employees in Sweden, 1977.

Warnica, R. "Ergonomics- A New Productivity Challenge" 1982.

Weiss, J. "Working Places", St Martins Press, N.Y., 1980.

Wharton, A., Burris, V. "Office automation and its impact on

women workers:" Special issue: The study of women, Humbolds

J of Soc Rel , Vol 10, No. 2, 112-126, 1983.

Wilson, S. "Designs for Comfort in the Electronic

Workstation", Accountancy, Vol 94, 122-123, 1983.

Zimmer, S. "The Relationship of Computer Implementation to

Human Performance", IEEE Proceedings on Robotics,

Ergonomics '1986, IEEE, 439-443, 1986.

Zisman, M, "Ease of Use - What Does it Mean?",

Computerworld, Vol 16, No. 39, 59-64, 1982.

Case Studies

Edwards, K. "Office Automation - A User Perspective",

European Info Mgmt Exhibition and Conf (IMEC) , 1980.

Ferderber, C. "Measuring Quality and Productivity in a

65
Service Environment" Ind Eng, Jul 1981.

Gleason, J., Barnum, D. "Toward Valid Measures of Public

Sector Productivity: Urban Transport" Mgmt Sci, Vol 28, No.

4, Apr 1982.

Hawaleshka, D. , Mohamed, A. "Productivity Measurement Based

on the Technology Factor Index" - A Case Study" Proc of the

1985 Fall Ind Eng Conf, 1985.

Manoochehri, G. "Automation, Job Design and Productivity of

High Volume Office Operations", J of Sys Mgmt, Vol 36, No.

10, 14-19, 1985.

McMillen, S. "Office Automation - A Local-Government

Perspective", Pub Admin Rev, Vol 44, No. l, 64-67, 1984.

Mortensen, E. "Case Study in Enhancing Productivity through

Office Automation", Proc of the ASIS, Vol 20, 200-202,

1983

Ranney, J., Carder, C. "Socio-Technical Design Methods in

Office Settings: Two Case Studies" in Office: Technology

and People 2, Elsevier Sci Pub, Amsterdam, Neth. 1984.

Smith, J., Balderston, J. "Measuring the Productivity of a

Word Processing Center", Office, Vol 96, No. 5, 101-102,

1982 . Weiss, M. "Analysis of Productivity at the Firm Level: An

Application to the Life Insurance Industry" Dis Abs Inti,

Vol 45, No. 5, 1476, 1984.

66
U.s. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 87-3688

2. Per f orming Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

JANUARY 1988

4. TITLE AND SU BTITLE

Office Design for Productivity - A Research Overview

5. AUTHOR(S)

Arthur I. Rubin

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8.

Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City . Store, ZIP)

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bhography or literature survey, mention it derej'j'hg Public Building Service of the General Services

Administration sponsored the present investigation to: Determine the effects of building design, and "high quality design" in particular, on productivity/Determine the state

of the art of productivity measurement, applicable to the study of office tasks/Ident if

}

the various factors that influence productivity to better determine those which can be

attributed to design issues.

The study is primarily based on a comprehensive literature search of 15 data bases,

supplemented by personal contacts with specialists on this topic. The report reviews

and distills the major findings of more than 550 publications.

The most significant findings of this investigation are: The preponderance of productivity literature is concerned with macro-economic studies which cannot be readily relate

to the influence of building design on productivity . /The few studies dealing with productivity have often drawn sweeping and questionable conclusions from information that

is largely subjective, e.g. self-estimates of productivity improvement ./ Some analytic

techniques are available which can be used to study the "micro" office environment.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Productivity, design, design criteria, ergonomics, office automation, quality of

worklif

e

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

' yi Uni imited For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

PRINTED PAGES

83

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 15. Price

X Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

$13.95

USCOMM-OC 6043-P 80
.