Technology and quality of the working environment
Measuring an element of user satisfaction in a particular context is always less simple than it seems. The only raw answer to the question, regardless of environmental parameters, rarely produces a workable result. Is this the reason why employee satisfaction statistics about the quality of their work environment are bad? Through some simple examples, MoveWORK puts its expertise data analysis at the service of this issue and joined the Facility Management Directors Association (ARSEG) on 1 November 2019.
Is it still necessary to remind ourselves of the impact of a good work environment on employee efficiency? There is a great deal of feedback which, according to different analysis, highlights the influence of a given parameter on increased productivity or reduced occupational health issues. The organisation of spaces, the lighting, air quality, occupancy rate, noise pollution, cleanliness of surfaces… All are recognised worldwide as influencing factors in the perception of work environment quality.
Even if this may be a more recent concern for managers in France, the successive reorganisation of workspaces has been a part of major sociological and technological changes since the 1950s and the advent of Taylorism. The automation of tasks with low added value has put human contribution at the centre of value creation. The decompartmentalization of business processes has shown a new efficiency in collaborative work. Finally, smart technology associated with mobility has redefined the very concept of the workspace. When asked today, however, more than two thirds of employees think that their work environment does not help them optimise their efficiency!
From our experience in customer satisfaction management, cleaning assessments for example, we know that the answer to the question “how do you rate the cleanliness of this space?” does not make much sense if it is not correlated with other environmental parameters. “It was average but there were a lot of people in and out and it was raining outside,” may be worth more than “It was satisfactory but there weren’t many people in and out and the sun was shining all day.”
From this example, we understand that seeking objective answers from a single element of raw evaluation based on feeling gives a result that is difficult to interpret. If we accept the idea that environmental parameters are correlated with each other, we must also know that these correlations remain to be discovered. Finally, it must be understood that in these declarative areas, the objective measure is not an opposable element (The 60% dissatisfied are undoubtedly proof of this). “The brightness is not good in my office” while the sensor measurement is nominal.
The history of measuring other parameters may reveal that this sensation also depends on the temperature, the density of the air or the moisture content or the time of day.
In conclusion, if we want to understand the factors really influencing the evaluation of the quality of the work environment, we must not oppose so-called objective measurements. But they must be immersed in the data that characterises the environment, highlighting the influencing factors. The quality assessment of the work environment is therefore a Big Data approach combined with analysis algorithms that highlight the parameters on which it is appropriate to act.
MoveWORK has filed several patents in these areas of “Business Intelligence”, now implemented in its Software Suite. Faced with the challenges of employee well-being at work and certain economic challenges for companies and, more globally, for public health, MoveWORK has decided to use its ecosystem software to serve this concern and chose to join ARSEG on 1 November 2019.