The cover story for the December issue of Building Operating Management is an article about how corporate culture influences facility interior design and vice versa, and how both may influence productivity. The article, written by Pamela Light, an interior designer with HOK in Los Angeles, posits the seemingly common-sense conclusion that a well-designed, well-lighted, well-temperature-controlled interior that matches a company’s culture can positively affect worker productivity.
This is not a new argument by any means. Facility executives are probably well-aware of the broiling debate about whether productivity gains are possible by using this strategy or that type of design. In fact, we also ran an article in our November Green Building Report that highlights several studies providing strong evidence for a link between good indoor air quality and increased worker productivity.
Even so, skeptics remain. The most common gripe – and certainly a legitimate one – is that no true metric for productivity exists. There are too many variables. You just can’t make the argument with numbers. How do you quantify exact productivity gains from a lighting upgrade, convert that into dollars and cents and then calculate a return on investment that won’t get you laughed out of the CFO’s office? In fact, most facility executives would agree that productivity gains is a somewhat silly argument for a lighting upgrade when so many other, more concrete ones (energy savings, better aesthetics) could be made.
Perhaps, if facility executives want to brave the waters, the best way to make a productivity-based argument is to turn it on its head – that is, “I don’t know for absolute certain that I can make productivity gains with facility upgrades, but I sure know that I can affect productivity negatively if I neglect them.” It’s hard to argue with that!
Do you think facility upgrades can affect productivity positively? Do you have evidence? Let us know with your comments.