The more complex an employees’ daily work profile, the more beneficial it is for them to work in a mobile way that utilizes multiple locations The more an employee utilizes multiple work locations within the workplace, the more effectively they report the space enables them to work Activity based working can deliver significant operational benefits for employees who utilize the environments provided for them in the manner intended Poor adoption of activity based behavior in activity based workplaces is a significant problem that limits widespread organizational benefits

1. The Rise and Rise of
Activity Based Working
Chris Moriarty
@chrismoriarty3

2. A single product
based on a simple
proposition:
Is your workplace
working?
Technology
Facilities Management
Workplace design
HR / Culture
| Who are Leesman?
Employee
Workplace
Experience

3. ‣ No vested interest
‣ Entirely independent
‣ Driven by curiosity
‣ Free dissemination
of knowledge
| Who are Leesman?

4. Leesman Lmi
Standardised
“Workplace Effectiveness”
score
Work activities important
to an employees role
Overall impact
space has on
employees
The service
features
employees use
The physical features
employees use
Employee internal &
external mobility
+=
Poorly supporting Highly supporting
Lmi 0 Lmi 100
| The Lmi model?

5. Lmi 0 Lmi 100
Poorly supporting Highly supporting
Lmi 0 Lmi 1002
71
388
506
154
13
Lmi 40-49.9 Lmi 50-59.9 Lmi 60-69.9 Lmi 70-79.9
Locations with >50 respondents
Leesman Lmi average today 61.1
| The Lmi model?

6. Post-occupancy review
Closing out project delivery
and independently auditing
whether business objectives
were met
Design brief development
Quickly create an understanding
of how different stakeholders
impact on the overall operating
effectiveness of workplace design
| One standardised tool

7. Annual performance review
Monitoring whether workplace still
fits with business needs and if
delivery standards being
maintained
Post-occupancy review
Closing out project delivery
and independently auditing
whether business objectives
were met
Change management
Understand the potential pains
as well as the gains and de-risk
project by on-boarding
employees early
Business case development
Understand gap between existing
operation and business objectives
and focus attentions on areas of
greatest gain
Design brief development
Quickly create an understanding
of how different stakeholders
impact on the overall operating
effectiveness of workplace design
Employee engagement
Early, efficient and fully
inclusive engagement with
masses, creating potential for
powerful ‘you said we did’ loop
1 tool
| One standardised tool

8. 100,000employee responses
June ’13 | 36,607
June ’14 | 64,062+27,455
June ’15 | 102,815+38,753
| Data diversity

9. 250,000employee responses276,422employee responses
June ’13 | 36,607
June ’14 | 64,062+27,455
June ’15 | 102,815+38,753
June ’16 | 169,838+67,023
June ’17 | 276,422+106,584
| Data diversity

10. 300,942employee responsesemployee responses
| Data diversity
June ’13 | 36,607
June ’14 | 64,062+27,455
June ’15 | 102,815+38,753
June ’16 | 169,838+67,023
June ’17 | 276,422+106,584

11. | Data diversity
workplaces2,200+
3.9%
9.6%
11.7%
23.3%
23.5%
27.9%
67 countries
33 languages
Rest of W
APAC
NA & C
Rest of EU
Nordics
UK & I
4.4%Under 25
27.7%25-34
30.8%35-44
25.4%45-54
11.8%55+
Gender
56%
43%
Age
Geography

12. 40k
30k
20k
| Data diversity
Food&beverage
Utilities,oil&gas
Governmentadministration
Telecommunications
Transportation,railroadsandtrucking
Informationtech,software&internet
Manufacturing&industrialengineering
Insuranceservices
Health,wellness,hospitalsandhealthcare
Banking,investment&financialservices
3.6%
4.7%
3.9%
4.6%
5.3% 5.5% 5.5%
6.1%
10.3%
14.1%
11.3%
Aviation,aero&defence
3.2%
Construction&civilengineering
3.6%
Retail

15. ABW – a brief history
c.1978 Robert Luchetti “activity settings based environments”
1995 Erik Veldhoen – Demise of the Office
2008 Microsoft Amsterdam – Veldhoen & Co
and Sevil Peach
2009 Macquarie Bank Sydney

16. • Confusion
• What are the key ingredients?
• Design strategy, workplace strategy, business strategy?
ABW – a definition?

17. ABW – a definition?
Characteristics
• Detailed analysis of employee
activities
• Highly varied work landscape
• Greater alignment with creative
and cultural objectives
• Lower paper dependency
• Extensively or wholly unallocated
environment
• Place independence so high
mobility
Claimed benefits
• Healthier, more engaged and
motivated employees
• Greater employee empowerment
and self determination
• Better collaboration, knowledge
transfer and learning
• Faster more efficient decision
making
• Flexible physical infrastructure
with greater resilience

18. Testing the claims
1. Leesman core questions
2. Mobility profile
3. ABW support structure

19. 34,912
Main focus of study
74,582
Total responses
615 workplaces, c. 12-months
39,670
Pre-occupancy
335 workplaces
(excluded from study)
23,546
Post-occupancy +
other “steady state”
240 non ABW
workplaces
(control group)
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces

20. 34,912
Main focus of study
23,546
Post-occupancy +
other “steady state”
240 non ABW
workplaces
(control group)
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Pride agreement
“It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to.”
70.8% ABW Group
58.8% Control Group
+12.0%
Headline outcomes

21. 34,912
Main focus of study
23,546
Post-occupancy +
other “steady state”
240 non ABW
workplaces
(control group)
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Sharing ideas + knowledge
“My workplace supports It supports me sharing
ideas/knowledge amongst colleagues”
74.4% ABW Group
72.6% Control Group
+1.8%
Headline outcomes

22. 34,912
Main focus of study
23,546
Post-occupancy +
other “steady state”
240 non ABW
workplaces
(control group)
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Leesman ‘Lmi’
Aggregated workplace effectiveness score
65.1 ABW Group
63.8Control Group
+Lmi 1.3
Headline outcomes

23. 34,912
Main focus of study
23,546
Post-occupancy +
other “steady state”
240 non ABW
workplaces
(control group)
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Productivity agreement
“My workplace enables me to work productively.”
53.3% ABW Group
60.5% Control Group
+7.2%
Headline outcomes

24. How ABW performs
1 Informal meetings
Improvements across all four mobility profiles, especially so in
profiles 3 and 4
2 Collaboration
Marginal improvements on focused collaboration but greater benefit
to creative collaboration.

25. How ABW performs
3 Individual focus
Expect lower satisfaction with “desk based” focused work, but
improvements “away from your desk”.
4 Creative thinking
But only for mobility profiles 3 and 4. Averaged across all
profiles, ABW spaces perform lower.

26. How ABW performs
5 Planned meetings
ABW spaces record marginally lower satisfaction.
6 Paper
Here ABW spaces perform significantly lower than the control group.

27. Presented with these results in isolation, it
could be difficult to build a case for ABW
adoption.
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces

29. 1. Leesman core questions
2. Mobility profile
3. ABW support structure

30. 1. 21 Activities
10/21 higher
10/21 lower
1 equal
2. Features
Variation on mobility
profile
Leesman Core

31. 1. Leesman core questions
2. Mobility profile
3. ABW support structure

32. “I perform most/all of my activities at a single work setting
and rarely use other locations within the office.”
Profile 1
Camper
squatters
“I perform the majority of my activities at a single work
setting but also use other locations within the office.”
Profile 2
Timid
travellers
“I perform some of my activities at a single work setting but
often use other locations within the office.”
Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
“I use multiple work settings and rarely base myself at a
single location within the office.”
Profile 4
True
transients
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

33. Profile 1
Camper
squatters
Profile 2
Timid
travellers
Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
Profile 4
True
transients
Leesman Lmi
59.6
Productivity agreement
41.8%
Pride agreement
54.6%
Pr
65.7
Productivity agreement
54.5%
Productivity agreement
73.1%
P
68.4
Productivity agreement
60.0%
Productivity agreement
81.4%
Pr
71.9
Pr
67.1%
Pr
85.9%
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

34. Profile 1
Camper
squatters
Profile 2
Timid
travellers
Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
Profile 4
True
transients
Leesman Lmi
59.6
Productivity agreement
41.8%
Pride agreement
54.6%
Pr
65.7
Productivity agreement
54.5%
Productivity agreement
73.1%
P
68.4
Productivity agreement
60.0%
Productivity agreement
81.4%
Pr
71.9
Pr
67.1%
Pr
85.9%
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

35. Profile 1
Camper
squatters
Profile 2
Timid
travellers
Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
Profile 4
True
transients
Leesman Lmi
59.6
Productivity agreement
41.8%
Pride agreement
54.6%
Pr
65.7
Productivity agreement
54.5%
Productivity agreement
73.1%
P
68.4
Productivity agreement
60.0%
Productivity agreement
81.4%
Pr
71.9
Pr
67.1%
Pr
85.9%
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

36. 30%
41%
19%
Profile 1
Camper
squatters
Profile 2
Timid
travellers
Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
Profile 4
True
transients 10%
Disappointing
adoption rates
despite apparent
benefits
11,366
ABW group
40 workplaces
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

37. Profile 3
Intrepid
explorers
Profile 4
True
transients
Leesman Lmi
59.6
Productivity agreement
41.8%
Pride agreement
54.6%
Pr
65.7
Productivity agreement
54.5%
Productivity agreement
73.1%
P
68.4
Productivity agreement
60.0%
Productivity agreement
81.4%
Pr
71.9
Pr
67.1%
Pr
85.9%
Averages masking success in
profiles 3 and 4
Self-selected Mobility Profiles

38. So where are the obstacles to
greater mobility adoption?
Testing the claims

39. 1. Leesman core questions
2. Mobility profile
3. ABW support structure

40. Testing the claims Q1. in agreement
67%
1. The design of my
workplace
encourages me to
choose work
settings/locations
that best support
the different tasks I
am undertaking

41. 2. I have the
technology tools
and infrastructure
that enable me to
work across
different locations
within the office
Q1. in agreement
Q2. in agreement
82%
Testing the claims

42. Q1. in agreement
Q2. in agreement
Q3. in agreement
81%
3. The culture of the
organization is
supportive to
working in a
mobile/flexible
way
Testing the claims

43. Q1. in agreement
Q2. in agreement
Q3. in agreement
Q4. in agreement
70%
4. I have access to
training / support
that helps me
work in a
mobile/flexible
way
Testing the claims

44. Q1. in agreement
Q2. in agreement
Q3. in agreement
Q4. in agreement
46%
Why so few?
1. The design of my workplace
encourages me to choose work
settings/locations that best
support the different tasks I am
undertaking
2. I have the technology tools and
infrastructure that enable me to
work across different locations
within the office
3. The culture of the organization is
supportive to working in a
mobile/flexible way
4. I have access to training / support
that helps me work in a
mobile/flexible way
Testing the claims

45. So where are the obstacles to
greater mobility adoption?
Testing the claims

46. No meaningful
differences.
Demographics – length of service

47. Demographics – age
Youngest employees
are the least mobile.
84% belong to
profiles 1 and 2.

48. Activity complexity
What creates the
compulsion to adopt
ABW?

49. Activity
complexity
strongest
indicator of
mobility
adoption
Activity complexity

50. Those with highest complexity, most to lose
by not adopting higher mobility (56.2 – 74.7)
Activity complexity

51. So what conclusions can be
drawn on the benefits of
ABW?

52. The more complex an employees’ daily
work profile, the more beneficial it is for
them to work in a mobile way that
utilizes multiple locations
1
Research outcomes

53. The more an employee utilizes multiple
work locations within the workplace, the
more effectively they report the space
enables them to work
2
Research outcomes

54. Activity based working can deliver
significant operational benefits for
employees who utilize the environments
provided for them in the manner
intended
3
Research outcomes

55. Poor adoption of activity based behavior
in activity based workplaces is a significant
problem that limits widespread
organizational benefits
4
Research outcomes

56. Activity based
design
Activity based
behaviour
Activity
based
behaviour

57. 1. What proportion of employees
have a “complex” activity
profile?
2. Can you build an infrastructure
(hard, soft and virtual) that
provides ample variety and
promotes mobility?
3. Can you support a change
management programme that
articulates the necessary
behavioural change?
Activity complexity
BenefitsofABWadoption
Key considerations

60. The Rise and Rise of
Activity Based Working
Chris Moriarty
@chrismoriarty3