This document provides an overview of Leesman's research on workplace effectiveness and strategy. Leesman has surveyed over 1,290 workplaces across 50 countries, collecting data from 155,000 employees. They have developed the Leesman Index, which uses this data to measure workplace effectiveness on a scale of 0-100. Workplaces that score over 70 on the Index and meet other criteria qualify for Leesman+'s accreditation for outstanding workplace performance. Leesman will continue using its large dataset to research how workplace design impacts employee and organizational performance.

1. A briefing on global workplace strategy, management, satisfaction & effectiveness
Delivering insights that drive better strategies
Changingthe
workplacestrategy
landscape
6.
How the global standard works
9.
Leesman+ as the mark of
outstanding performance
12.
Why beer, steak and an idyllic country
town could change CRE
14.
The rise of ABW – what is it and why do it
24.
Putting user needs front and centre
27.
Clients getting smart to the importance
of effectiveness
How data insights built the global workplace effectiveness standard
Issue 20 | 2016 Q2

2. 2

3. 3
Foreword
Push, probe, challenge. It’s what we do. It’s what has
helped us build the world’s largest insight database on
how workplaces support the employees who use them.
And it’s that database that has exposed that for 45% of
employees, workplaces don’t work.
Back in 2010 in the first issue of the Leesman Review, I
laid out a problem and an idea. The problem as I saw it,
was that workplaces were not properly recognised for
their role in organisational performance. The idea? To
create an independent, universal standard that would
measure that role and contribution. Because with
that insight, there might be some chance of engaging
organisations in a more meaningful debate on the topic.
It’s fair to say that whilst most agreed with the problem, not
all shared the same enthusiasm for my proposed solution.
But six years later and we can justifiably say that the
Leesman Index has established itself as the measurement
instrument of choice for any organisation who place value
on independence, clarity and foresight. The Leesman Index
is the global workplace effectiveness standard.
It is important to understand that it is the data collected
through the Leesman Index that has in effect, self-built
the standard. We didn’t preconceive what average, good or
outstanding was – the data showed us. Or more importantly
the data from the 155,000+ employees who have
completed exactly the same survey did.
So this edition of the Leesman Review, much like
edition one six years prior, places in print a series of
renewed commitments. It reinforces our belief that an
industry collected around a common independent unit
of effectiveness measurement, can better prove the
contribution of workplace to organisational performance.
It outlines the role of our Leesman+ accreditation in
recognising exceptional performance in workplace design,
delivery, management and operational effectiveness.
Further, it shows how these high performance workplaces
will provide an important benchmark and research pool
from which all can learn.
Most importantly though for me now, we outline what is
undoubtedlyourmostsignificantresearchinitiativetodate
–ProjectHenley.We’rewarnedithasthepotentialtochange
theworkplacestrategylandscapeandsomightnotbemet
withuniversalapproval.Itwillcertainly challengeoutdated
greyattitudesandpseudodesignstandardsheadon.
But push, probe and challenge is what sets Leesman, and
those clients, consultants and service providers who’ve
embraced the concept of a unified global effectiveness
standard, firmly apart from the rest. So don’t expect a let
up from us any time soon.
Tim Oldman
Founder & CEO

4. 4
Deliveringinsightsthatdrivebetterworkplacestrategies
We do one thing one way: measure how workplaces support those
who use them. With the amassed data we collect, we challenge
assumptions, confront outdated standards or norms and foster
an open, collaborative investigation into the role of workplace
infrastructures in employee and organisational performance.
Mission statement

5. 5
Contents
6.
The Global Standard Measure
9.
What is Leesman+
10.
Leesman+ Accreditations
12.
The Henley Hypothesis
14.
Louis Louhest – The Rise & Rise of Activity Based Working
16.
ISS – To Thine Own Self Be True
18.
XL Catlin – Workplace Brokers
20.
Sheffield Hallam University – Home from Home
22.
PokerStars – A Full House
24.
Gordon Wright, HOK – The Design of Workplace Things
26.
Johnny Dunford – Answering The Business Need
28.
Impact Code
30.
Leesman+ Appendix

6. 6
TheGlobal
StandardMeasure
This uniquely focused approach has
allowed us to collect data on how more
than 1,290+ workplaces in 50 countries
support 155,000+ employees in the
work they are employed to do.*1
And in
so doing, have collated the largest ever
research and benchmark database
of workplace effectiveness data.
Central to this project is a standardised
employee e-survey. It provides clients
a quick, inexpensive, systematic
approach to the collection, analysis
and benchmarking of workplace
performance data. The survey
generates a single, transferable key
performance indicator of workplace
effectiveness, or fitness for purpose –
our Leesman ‘Lmi’.
This ‘Lmi’ gives clients and their
consultants the unrivalled ability
to compare their operating results
against hundreds of others and
is now widely recognised as the
global standard measure of
workplace effectiveness.
In summer 2015, when the
respondent total passed the 100,000
employee milestone, we asked a
firm of independent statisticians to
review the results. Our collective
findings were then published in our
landmark ‘100,000+ A Workplace
Effectiveness Report’.
These findings and observations
have acted as a catalyst to numerous
hypotheses and further investigations.
And in line with our policy of
openness and free dissemination of
knowledge, this document seeks to
share that data, make available the
key findings and lay out our vision
for our forthcoming investigations.
Lmi model
The Leesman Lmi is calculated from
two out of the five areas of analysis
in the Leesman Index study: Design
Impact, which looks at the overall
impact the workplace is having on
employee sense of productivity,
pride, community etc., and the Work
Activities section which examines
which activities are important in an
employee’s role and how well each is
supported. A ‘score’ is then reported
on a 0-100 scale.
In 2010 Leesman set out with a singular objective – to
examine at a depth and consistency never before attempted,
exactly how corporate workplaces support employee and
organisational performance. And in the time since, we’ve
done nothing else, offering no consultancy or advisory
services whatsoever.
Responses analysed
155,000+
Workplaces
surveyed 1,290+
Physical
features
Services
features
Mobility
profile
+ =
Work
activities
Leesman
Lmi
Design
impact

7. 7
Countries
50
Average response rate
63%
Buildings surveyed
1,290+
Employee responses
155,000+
Languages
27
Minute average response time
9
Economicindicatoragreement%’s
55%
The design of my workplace enables
metoworkproductively
My officeis aplace I’mproudtobring
visitorsto
49%
Thedesignofmy workplace contributes
toasense of communityatwork
58%
*1
Data collected as at 31.03.16

8. 8

9. 9
WhatisLeesman+
By 2013 we had gathered more
workplace occupancy data than
anyone had ever done prior, but it
took a further two years to reach the
point we felt confident that the data
was diverse enough to start probing
at depth.
With 100,000 individual employee
responses then in our database, we
started to see what we could find.
Quickly we realised that we were doing
that from a “workplace bias”. We were
looking for answers to the same old
questions. So instead we decided
to pass the data to independent
statisticians with no particular track
record or interest in corporate real
estate and simply let them play with
the data.
The findings are staggering, bringing
into question so many previously
peddled populous tales of challenged
workplace generations, genders or
industries. The high level results
are captured in a separate Leesman
publication freely available in print
and online, but what also emerged was
the research value of a small group of
workplaces that had achieved overall
workplace effectiveness scores above
a Leesman Lmi of 70.
Accounting for around 5% of the
workplaces surveyed, these locations
were routinely recording productivity
and pride key indicator question
agreement levels that showed they
were key assets in organisational
performance and were superbly
supporting the majority of employees
in their individual roles.
Understanding what makes these
locations different and how their
physical and technical infrastructure
differs to those languishing with the
lower Leesman Lmi scores has become
a key research focus for us now.
Having established a series of strict
‘entry criteria’ or thresholds*2
to
that research group, we are also
able to recognise this outstanding
performance with the award of a
new workplace accreditation we
call Leesman+.
These Leesman+ locations will
provide a rich research resource
that will enable us to further test
our core research questions, but
equally we hope that the recipient
organisations will see the opportunity
to become public ambassadors for how
workplaces can play a central part in
supporting employee performance and
so too, organisational performance.
To the end of March 2016, 42
workplaces have met that criteria and
their performance is highlighted here.
Some of these locations are featured
in further detail in this publication and
more will be included in a forthcoming
Leesman+ resource centre at
leesmanindex.com.
When in 2010 we set out on this journey, we had no idea how
long it might take to amass the volumes of data necessary to
start answering our lead research question: to what extent
does the design and management of a workplace impact on
employee experience and so, organisational performance?
*2
A Leesman+ award will be granted to
those individual workplaces where the
Index workplace survey has achieved
50+ responses, with a 5% margin of error,
a 99% confidence interval and a Leesman
Lmi of 70 or above.

10. 10
The table below shows each of the
organisations that have achieved
the Leesman+ certification. The
aggregated data from this group
now provides a powerful research
pool of some 11,300+ employees.
The data also provides a useful high
performance benchmark that our
clients are increasingly using to see
where most effort and attention
is needed in their own projects to
achieve Leesman+ certification.
Leesman+ comparisons now appear
as standard in our diagnostic reports.
Leesman+
Accreditations
Client Sector Location Lmi Featured
ISS Facility Services Facilities Management & Outsourcing Soborg, Denmark 81.7 P16
Colliers International Real Estate, Architecture & Planning Paris, France 80.2 P30
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Chicago, USA 79.7
– Charitable, NGO’s & Non-profits Phoenix, USA 79.2
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Budapest, Hungary 78.6
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Wilsonville, USA 77.2
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Bangalore, India 76.7
– Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Neuilly, France 76.3
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Seoul, South Korea 76.2
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Lahore, Pakistan 76.0
Plantronics Information Tech, Software & Internet Hoofddorp, Netherlands 75.7 P31
Savills Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London, United Kingdom 75.3 P31
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Silicon Valley, USA 75.2
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Dublin, Ireland 75.1
NCC Construction & Civil Engineering Oslo, Norway 74.4 P31
Nuffield Health Health, Wellness, Hospitals & Healthcare Epsom, United Kingdom 74.4 P32
– Construction & Civil Engineering Solna, Sweden 73.6
SEB Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Riga, Latvia 73.6
– Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Bangkok, Thailand 73.2
– Banking, Insurance & Financial Services London, United Kingdom 73.0
– Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Gentilly, France 72.7
Little Brown Book Group Publishing London, United Kingdom 72.6
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Hyderabad, India 72.6
HOK Real Estate, Architecture & Planning London, United Kingdom 72.2 P24
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Katowice, Poland 72.2
– Information Tech, Software & Internet Moscow, Russia 72.1
ISS Facility Services Facilities Management & Outsourcing Oslo, Norway 71.5
NAB Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Melbourne, Australia 71.5 P32
Sainsbury’s Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Edinburgh, United Kingdom 71.5
– Information Tech, Software & Internet London, United Kingdom 71.5
Network Rail Transportation, Trucking & Railroad Milton Keynes, United Kingdom 71.4 P32
– Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Budapest, Hungary 71.1
Nestlé Food & Beverages Vevey, Switzerland 71.1
Sainsbury’s Retail Coventry, United Kingdom 71.1 P33
SEB Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Vilnius, Lithunia 71.0
– Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Singapore, Republic of Singapore 70.9
– Banking, Insurance & Financial Services Budapest, Hungary 70.5
PokerStars Gambling & Casinos Santa Ana, Costa Rica 70.5
Network Rail Transportation, Trucking & Railroad London, United Kingdom 70.4 P33
– Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Nowe, Poland 70.1
PokerStars Gambling & Casinos Sydney, Australia 70.1 P22
Sheffield Hallam University Higher Education Sheffield, United Kingdom 70.1 P20
– Client name withheld for business confidentiality

11. 11
​How Leesman+ differences drive
high performance workplaces
There are features to Leesman+
workplaces that consistently stand them
above the average. The top 5 might
surprise some. But surprising or not,
these are activities and features that
are difficult to justify from a financial
perspective and will struggle to resist the
pressures of value engineering exercises.
But in constrained projects, investment
in these elements will arguably deliver
greater user and therefore employer
benefit – so these are exactly the
activities and features that should be
the most heavily invested in. The data
Impact Code to P28/29 gap-analyses
all of the factors between the Leesman
database averages and the Leesman+
aggregate group and highlights where
those gaps are the greatest.
1.Videoconferences
2. Relaxing/takingabreak
3.Informalun-plannedmeetings
4.Atriumsandcommunalareas
5.Varietyofdifferenttypesofworkspace
Leesman+
Differences
Here we consistently see the Leesman+ spaces excel. This
could be because the physical facilities are better or that
employees have access to reliable, robust web applications.
Intriguing that the most effective places fairly consistently
achieve satisfaction figures of 80%+. Is it perhaps that
this contributes somehow to social cohesion, learning and
collaboration?
Noticeable that ‘planned meetings’ see virtually no
difference in satisfaction between the average and
Leesman+ spaces. So it is unstructured collaboration
where Leesman+ spaces shine.
Central to our ongoing investigation into whether some
buildings are better equipped to achieve Leesman+ status
is the presence of so many with good communal space and
central atria.
Yet again this attribute statistically justifies much greater
investigation as under numerous analysis, emerges as a
key enabler of employee productivity.
27.2%
80.3%
83.5%
83.4%
75.1%
62.7%
42.7%
63.1%
62.2%
53.4%
+21.7%
+21.2%
+20.4%
+37.6%
+35.5%
% satisfaction Leesman+
% satisfaction overall​
% difference

12. 12
TheHenley
Hypothesis
So how is it some workplaces work
and some don’t? And how do some
– around 5% - manage to elevate
themselves to an elite group to
deliver outstanding effectiveness
performance figures? It’s rare of
course to be able to pin one individual
failing on the poor performance,
or one outstanding feature on high
performance. Our analysis technique
tells us a great deal, but the story is
more nuanced. It is this story that we
were exploring in Autumn 2015 over
a beer and a steak in idyllic Henley
on Thames.
We had just collated a series of images
of our Leesman+ spaces with the
intention of publishing a case-study
book that explored the similarities or
probed the differences. We started to
see some likeness in the base build
architecture – the proliferation of
central atria for example. They also
appeared to be operating at lower
occupant densities.
We have the largest collection of
workplace effectiveness data ever
amassed and it’s a researchers dream.
It is a kaleidoscope of questions and
answers more colourful than most can
imagine. And it has already revealed
where the Leesman+ locations
stand above the rest (see the impact
code gap analysis to P28/29). But
what if we could map our 18 million
lines of employee importance and
satisfaction data to the physical real
estate – not just in terms of the service
and physical features employees
have told us are important – we have
that already – but to the fabric of the
building and the occupation strategy
deployed by the client.
The new data we’re collecting has
been gathered and benchmarked
before by others. Corenet, the BCO,
the RICS etc., all have some form
of CRE benchmarking offer. But not
one of them has the insight into
the user (employee and employer)
experience alongside the CRE
component. That is where we aim
to make a difference.
So in June 2016 we formally launch
Project Henley – a crowdsourced
research initiative that could have
seismic implications to the advice
offered by the real estate advisory
market – from institutional funder,
through to developer, architect, interior
designer and facility management
service provider. We are going to invite
any client who undertakes a Leesman
Index workplace effectiveness study
to share their real estate data
with us.
It’s a simple proposition. Share with
us a series of additional data points
that relate to the physical architecture
and to the way the building is being
operated. The more clients who do it,
the quicker we will be able to assess
the impact these attributes are having
on the experience of the employees
using those spaces.
The workplaces in our Leesman+ group have achieved
something special – a unique mix of physical and service
features that superbly support the employees who use them
in the roles they are employed to undertake.
So does occupant density impact on
employee productivity or does the
vertical distribution of employees
across floors impact on sense of
community or learning from others?
Do desk sharing ratios have a tipping
point of effectiveness and what
benefit do those central atria offer?
This is really not that complex a
challenge. It’s a simple bipartisan
promise to all involved in the design,
delivery and management of the
workplaces we are measuring with
our Leesman Index effectiveness
survey: provide us with as many of the
following additional data points as you
can and we commit to undertake the
widest reaching research project of its
kind ever undertaken and freely share
the findings with you and the wider
workplace management community.
1. Net internal area
2. Number of floors NIA
distributed across
3. Sole occupier / mixed
4. Resident / assigned headcount /
population
5. Proportion of allocated /
unallocated desks
6. Proportion of solo / shared offices
7. Number of enclosed meeting
rooms / sizes
8. Number of other meeting spaces
9. Environmental certification
(LEED / BREEAM etc.)
10. Nature of catering / refreshment /
coffee offer
11. Presence of atrium /
communal space
12. Ease of access to outside spaces
13. Proximity to external retail /
leisure facilities
14. FM service delivery strategy
(in-house or outsourced)
15. Onsite leisure / wellness
provision
Our hope is that we can gather
parallel Leesman Index and Project
Henley data on 250 workplaces by
Spring 2018 and have our findings
published by summer that year. We
will be reviewing the data at intervals
throughout this time frame and if you
would like to join an advisory panel
to review progress, please feel free
to contact our resident academic Dr
Peggie Rothe for further information.
e: peggie.rothe@leesmanindex.com.

13. 13

14. 14
The Rise & Rise
of Activity Based
Working Activity Based Working
Our year-long report assesses
70,000+ employee responses
and outlines the key benefits and
risks of this workplace strategy.
leesman.com/ABW
Louis, Veldhoen & Company are
recognised as the foremost global
authority on Activity Based Working
(ABW). For anyone new to the concept,
could you set the ABW scene?
Simple: it’s a concept that recognises
that through the course of a typical
working day, employees engage in
different and varied activities and they
would therefore benefit from a range of
work settings, each designed physically
and virtually to accommodate these
activities. It is recognising diversity in
the workforce and enabling people to
perform at their best.
That’s a major change in direction
for organisations where
employees have designated desks
or even cellular offices.
Yes, we openly believe in challenging
or breaking with this convention by
making workplaces elastic and linking
different spaces to different activities,
not least because all of those fixed
workplaces are typically used for only
50% of the time. And that’s a huge
waste, not just in terms of square metres
and sustainability, but also in operating
costs. Activities must become the
principle unit of analysis.
Erik Veldhoen’s 1994 book
The Demise of the Office was the
catalyst for the numerous ABW projects
that have come since, but what of the
“demise” – we still have offices.
It’s not about the loss of offices, but
is certainly about the demise of a
traditional Tailorist approach where
cellular spaces are statements of
ActivityBasedWorkingissynonymouswithorganisationswho
embracechange.SoinMarch2015,Leesmansetaboutaglobal
researchprojectthatwouldtesttheclaimsofABW.Herewe
seekfeedbackfromrenownedstrategyconsultantandprolific
LeesmanIndexuserLouisLhoestofVeldhoen&Company.
hierarchy and open plan of total
equality. That doesn’t automatically
mean that people will become less
important or completely equal,
far from it. People perform better
precisely because they first take a
look at the entire spectrum of their
work. And then they gear the facilities
around those needs. Both inside and
outside the office.
For most organisations, that will
need a monumental cultural and
workplace strategy shift. So is ABW
a design solution or a strategy?
Neither and both! This is much more
about change management, than
about designing an office. The point
is that you use the momentum when
creating a new office to accelerate
and support the change you want.
Most organisations are very limited by
the place where they are working. So
ABW challenges habits and routines,
the way we lead and says goodbye to
unnecessary rules and procedures, to
permanent workplaces and to regular
working hours and in its place provides
a variety of choices that make the
workplace fit for everyone.
Leesman’s year-long ABW
research project has delivered
a number of key findings that support
your stance, which do you think is the
most important?
Erik’s original book makes clear that
people who are faced with large-
scale changes have to be guided
carefully. For us that is the most
important but unsurprising finding
– that 20+ years later, it is still the
biggest obstacle to the successful
delivery of ABW programmes. Project
owners are too often seeing ABW
as a physical interior design project
alongside an IT mobility project and
completely underestimating the
magnitude of the behavioral change
management needed to deliver a
successful outcome. Creating an
ABW based way of working entails
a leadership evolution as part of
the process.
But observers looking at your
portfolio of successful projects
will see a glut of visually stimulating,
even design award-winning spaces.
Are you saying this is coincidental or
essential for success?
No. But it’s a finely balanced mix of IT
solutions, human behaviour and new
workspaces, aligned with the client’s
business goals. Employees need to
be able to choose a work point best
suited to the activity they are going to
do. The new interior has to provide the
right mix and help the acceleration of
the behavioural change you’re trying
to implement. Most organisations
are very limited by the place where
they are working, so it is often a key
infrastructure element to fix and is then
the easiest to see from the “outside”.
Give people more guidelines and fewer
rules. Trust is the key element, together
with letting people make their own
choices. It is making sure the whole
experience in the way we work and the
workplace is consistent. That is the key
to success.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q

15. 1515
People perform better precisely
because they first take a look at the
entire spectrum of their work. And
then they gear the facilities around
those needs.

16. 16
ToThineOwnSelf
BeTrue
“Something is rotten in the state
of Denmark,” Marcellus declares in
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The deceit
and corruption of the ruling class
has spread beyond the play’s
claustrophobic castle setting to the
rest of the country and its citizens. It is
an enduring idea that the problems of
a country, organisation or group often
begin with the leadership.
Logic, therefore, dictates that good
leadership can create positive
outcomes. ISS’s head office in the
Danish capital of Copenhagen is
the base for its global operations,
though this represents a much larger
area than Hamlet’s kingdom. Simon
Svegaard, Business Analytics Manager
for ISS, claims the organisation uses
the space as a testing ground for new
ideas, potential innovations and the
dynamic, forward thinking approach it is
attempting to disseminate across the 77
countries in which it currently operates.
In a region that has long been
considered a bastion of progressive
thought, then, ISS is no exception.
The business, whose mission it is
to be ‘the world’s greatest service
organisation’, can already lay claim to
the highest performing workplace in
the world for its Copenhagen office,
according to the Leesman Index.
Svegaard says the initial decision to
use Leesman came from a growing
awareness that the facilities
management sector had changed,
first from single service models to
integrated facilities services solutions,
and then with the development of new
outcome-based approaches.
“We could see a need to understand
how the workplace is going to develop
in the future and how we may benefit,”
he explains – which opened up
questions. “How can we make the
people in the workplace productive
when they are present, and what kind
of surroundings should they have?”
ISS used the Leesman survey on six
sites including its high scoring new
head office. “We wanted to do a test
drive like you would with a new car,”
says Svegaard. “You want to know
how it works if you are going to use
it somewhere else.” In Copenhagen,
the business was previously spread
across four very different properties in
an older part of the city, which meant
that interiors were cramped, layouts
were prohibiting and employees were
isolated. So ISS wanted a new office
The highest performing workplace in the Leesman+ group
belongs to the ISS Group HQ in Copenhagen – a workplace
that the facilities management and outsourcing giant aims
to learn from and replicate the best parts of with customers
across the globe.
ISS World
Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg,
Denmark
4 December 2014
81.7

17. 17
that would not only showcase its
talents but also provide a centralised
space designed specifically for the
benefit of occupants.
In fact, a sense of space has been a key
factor in the success of the building,
according to Svegaard. He says the
design has provided each employee
with generous amounts of room
while pointing out a growing body of
evidence that suggests workspaces
with a very high density of people per
square metre may have a detrimental
effect on productivity. In an internal
Google survey last year, 58% of the
organisation’s UK-based employees
said a spacious office would make them
more productive.
Unlike the confined, suffocating castle
that drives Hamlet’s characters to
treachery, the spacious surroundings
of ISS’s head office bring out the best
qualities in its people. Yet Svegaard
admits this does not reveal the whole
story. The high Lmi score, he says,
has also a great deal to do with the
building’s somewhat linear activity
profile, featuring a homogenous
grouping of similar administrative
functions. The space includes
small meeting rooms and video
conferencing technology for staff that
need to communicate internationally,
quiet zones in which people can
concentrate, and a ground floor
reception that has a strong emphasis
on customer service. “Of course, we
thought through our different needs
and designed the building accordingly,
but we also had the fortune of
having a limited number of needs to
accommodate,” Svegaard explains.
Ultimately, the Copenhagen head office
of ISS achieved the Leesman+ score it
did because the organisation was able
to clearly define user needs. “It seems
like the parameters that were the most
important for our employees, were
the parameters that were scoring very
highly,” explains Svegaard.
ISS has begun to introduce the Leesman
Index into the renewal process for
contracts, but the organisation
understands that among such a large
and varied global client portfolio not
all workplaces will be as simple and
as accommodating as its own. Yet the
hope for Svegaard is that by setting
an example, ISS can lead facilities
management into the 21st century.
WewantedtotestdrivetheLeesman
Index like you would a new car…we
wantedtoknowexactlyhowithandled

18. 18
It was a really good snapshot to
show Catlin’s underwriters what
we needed to effectively support
our guys on a day-to-day basis

19. 19
Though the City of London was a
trading hub for Roman settlers more
than 2,000 years ago, the square mile’s
transformation into a global financial
centre can be traced back to the 17th
century and two ostensibly distinct
items: coffee and insurance.
As merchants and shipmen reaped the
rewards of a burgeoning British Empire,
they brought home new and exotic
items like coffee. Soon coffee shops
were opening throughout the City and
one of the most notable of these was
Lloyd’s Coffee House, which provided
thesamemerchantsandshipmenwitha
space to broker marine insurance deals
before they set off on their next voyage.
This small coffee shop would
eventually become insurance market
Lloyd’s of London, whose impressive
14-storey building on Lime Street is
still a prominent fixture of the City’s
skyline today. In fact, the insurance
sector remains a crucial cog in the
area’s continued development.
Less than a quarter of a mile away
from the Lloyd’s Building is Twenty
Gracechurch Street, the current London
home of international insurance group
XL Catlin. British firm Catlin occupied
seven floors of the property before
merging with US rival XL in 2015, and
the space had already achieved a
Leesman+ accreditation.
Andrew Siddons, UK Property &
Facilities Manager for XL Catlin, explains
his organisation’s mindset as it moved
to make the most of its new offices
in Twenty Gracechurch Street: “We
wanted to make sure standards didn’t
slip and that we were moving with an
environment that is always changing.”
But it wasn’t the front-office
underwriters, who Siddons describes
as “quite traditional in their practices
and their methods”, that displayed
a desire for change. Instead, the
Leesman data revealed that support
service functions such as FM, HR and IT
wanted a more collaborative working
environment, and one that was able
to better facilitate their objectives.
“People were very happy with the
environment but felt that there were
some tweaks and changes that needed
to be made in order to support them
with their day-to-day activities,”
says Siddons. “It was a really good
snapshot at the time to show Catlin’s
underwriters what we needed to
introduce to effectively support our
guys on a day-to-day basis.”
As a result, many of the new features
have been installed on the third floor,
where the support services function
sits. These include non-bookable
breakout spaces, project touchdown
desks, writing walls and locker storage
for anyone using the hot-desking
facilities, as the business continues
to explore agile working methods.
Agile working, as it relates to the
maximising of space, forms an
important part of the ongoing
discussions between the two sides of
the merger, and illustrates some of the
clear cultural differences between the
UK and US teams. Siddons, for example,
is now grappling with the mindset of
an American contingent used to bigger
desks and more space, despite XL’s
previous London office being located
only a few hundred yards away on the
same street.
Siddons claims that the Americans
visiting Twenty Gracechurch Street
often declare how “small and tight”
the space is. “And to an extent, they
are right,” he adds. “But when you look
at the offices they occupy, they may
not be in a prime location and they
may have a slightly larger footprint in
relation to their occupancy numbers.”
Being as generous with space is just
not possible in a prime location like the
heavily congested London borough.
WorkplaceBrokers
More than 300,000 workers commute
into what is one of the most expensive
square miles of real estate on Earth.
“The cost per square foot within the
City is astronomical. So if you are going
to allocate [space] to an individual
where you can potentially put four
people, this doesn’t make economic
sense,” says Siddons.
By being creative, and by gaining a
more comprehensive understanding
of how employees interact with the
workspace, XL Catlin has been able to
work within the physical and financial
parameters set by its City location. Any
kind of occupancy measuring exercise,
Siddons argues, would reveal that
most workers do not spend a full day
at their fixed desks. “So there are ways
to compensate,” he explains. “If you are
not able to give someone a big desk,
you can invest in other means and
provide alternative ways of working.”
Siddons hopes that the success of
Twenty Gracechurch Street will come
to form a design package that XL
Catlin can export to its offices across
the globe in a similar vein to the
shipmen and merchants in the City
of London more than 300 years ago
whose discovery and imports built
an entire capital.
A recent merger between two insurance giants is forcing the
newly amalgamated XL Catlin organisation to consider what
kind of workplace it needs.
XL Catlin
Gracechurch Street, London,
United Kingdom
29 July 2013
73.0

20. 20
HomefromHome
In a matter of weeks, some 250,000
young people will be heading off to start
their first year studies at a UK university.
Armed with essential personal
belongings and a good measure of
excitement, they’ll be leaving the
parental home and arriving at a city
and university they have probably
only seen fleetingly once before.
In loco parentis is a Latin term that
directly translates to ‘in the place of a
parent’. Derived from English common
law, it invokes the legal responsibility
of people or organisations to take on
the duties of a guardian. And though
the concept more faithfully applies to
schoolsthatlookafteryoungchildren,its
ethical underpinnings are increasingly
compatible with universities.
Today, prospective enrollees require
more than just academic excellence
from higher education spaces. Research
by the Association of University
Directors of Estates last year revealed
that 67% of UK students believe
facilities played a key part in their
decision to join the university of their
choice, while only 47% cited the
reputation of the school. According to
Mark Swales, Director of Estates and
Facilities at Sheffield Hallam University
(SHU), this is proof that the quality of
the built environment and the services
that support it are now crucial factors
in student recruitment and retention.
Since 2012, higher tuition fees in
England have served to escalate fierce
competition for new students.
And universities who now find it
to raise funds for capital projects
are being forced to think and act far
more like contemporary businesses.
Most now recognise the student as
the customer.
Deeper inquiry into the design and
effectiveness of the facilities is
therefore required. When SHU initiated
the relocation of its facilities operation
and the Department of International
Business Development to a new
building, Swales and his team began
an in-depth analysis of the working
environment, and its effect on
occupants, using the Leesman Index.
“We were looking to deliver a
completely different working
environment, so we were really keen
to understand and measure the impact
this would have,” Swales explains. The
Leesman survey would measure the
staff satisfaction in the previous and
new workspaces. “It was a significant
investment by the university, so
[Leesman] gave us a way in which we
could articulate the benefits of that
investment,” adds Swales.
Staff satisfaction drastically improved
after the relocation. The new space
achieved a Leesman score of 70.1,
improving on the score of the old facility
by 14 points and earning it a Leesman+
accreditation. The overall average score
(Lmi) in the Leesman Index is 59.9.
Swales believes these results tell
a compelling story of behavioural
change at SHU that has affected
everyone from the management team
to the service staff. For example, while
the previous offices were far more
conventional, a sweeping embrace of
agile working means only two people
have been allocated a fixed desk in the
new building. Here, technology – that
familiar bearer of workplace change –
has been crucial. Employees can access
their personalised desktop from any PC
onsite and the reliance on paper-based
processes such as document storage
has dramatically reduced.
Staff wellbeing has also informed many
of the changes, and additions, to the
Leesman+ space. Bicycle storage and
shower facilities have been installed
for the benefit of employees travelling
to and from work on two wheels.
Swales understands that like the
university’s students, its workers need
environments that support more than
just their work. They need workspaces
that provide them with a positive work /
life balance.
Now, as the university embarks on
a £34m investment to make similar
improvements to an academic facility
used by students and faculty, Swales
believes he can again produce
positive outcomes by measuring
user satisfaction pre and post
occupancy. Behind all this is a tacit
acknowledgement that an institute’s
duty of care has stretched far beyond
its traditional boundaries.
High-performance workspaces need not be the sole preserve
of a cash-rich commercial sector. Sheffield Hallam University
was the first academic institution to receive a Leesman+
accreditation for a facility on its campus earlier this year.
Sheffield Hallam University
Bryan Nicholson Building,
Sheffield, United Kindom
10 November 2015
70.1

21. 21

22. 22
“If we could prove that investing in
workplace and facilities management
positively impacted employee
productivity, we would get lots more
budget” says Hanro Hennig, Director
of Workplace Operations for online
gambling business PokerStars. He
describes this as the “Holy Grail” in
his line of work, underlining a long
standing objective of the FM and
real estate professions to determine
a causal link between investment
in a workplace and improved
organisational performance.
PokerStars is a notable success story
of the dot-com revolution, having
experienced tremendous growth
since its launch in 2001. When Hennig
joined six years later there were 350
employees in Australia, Costa Rica,
London and the Isle of Man. Today the
business employs 2,000 people in
Malta, France, Ireland and the US, too.
“For the first five years of me trying
to set up a real estate function we
had double digit growth in our main
offices. That obviously creates quite a
few challenges with regards to space
planning, and requires a number of
crystal balls to work out how you are
going to prepare for it,” Hennig explains.
Growth had been so rapid that all sorts
of important back-office departments
were given very little thought. “Prior
to me joining, the corporate real estate
function was non-existent,” Hennig
adds. “They didn’t understand the
basic metrics of square feet per person,
what sort of density you should be
putting people into, making sure the
fresh air supply is not affected, and all
these sorts of things.”
Despite its success, however,
PokerStars’ approach to workplace
design has not mirrored the kind
of avant-garde experimentalism
associated with other famous
technology brands. The previous
owners, who only sold the business
two years ago, favoured a more
conservative path. “They were fairly
modest, so our approach was never
to be Google,” Hennig explains.
Double-digitgrowthatPokerStarshaspresentedtherealestate
teamwithauniquesetofchallenges.HannroHennigreveals
howhehascreatedanofflinestrategyfitforanonlinegiant.
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00
AFullHouse
Santa Ana
70.5

23. 23
Instead, the strategy has been to
implement small, incremental, yet
meaningful changes – which is where
Leesman enters. PokerStars was the
very first customer of the Leesman
survey back in 2010 and is now using
the tool across its entire global property
portfolio. In that time, regional offices in
Sydney and Costa Rica have achieved a
Leesman+ score, though Hennig makes
it clear that neither happened at the first
time of asking.
What Hennig did was take the Leesman
Index, identify his organisation’s
weak spots and then challenge the
real estate teams to target the areas
in which they could up their Leesman
score. His formula for this is pretty
simple: learn which areas are the most
important according to the Index,
ascertain which of these important
areas you have scored low in, and then
work on improving them.
“There are definitely deliverables you
can derive from the Leesman report,”
says Hennig. The catering service in
the Dublin office, for example, had
deteriorated due to a number of
factors. The space was run-down and
the incumbent catering provider had
been underperforming, and this was
reflected in a poor Leesman score. But
the company reacted, refurbishing the
break room areas and canteen, opening
the space up and creating an industrial-
style kitchen design. A year later the
scores increased by double figures.
Now Hennig asks each regional team to
produce a three-year plan to turn their
office into Leesman+ space, but he also
understands: “Sometimes you need to
be realistic. Sometimes your space is
not ‘Leesman+–able’ unless you throw
lots of money at it. But we always ask
for a benchmark comparison to the
top 10 performing Leesman+ spaces
in our Leesman reports. Because I
believe that we should be aiming for
excellence in all that we do and in that
benchmark are a set of achievable
targets. If they can do it, we can do it.”
Sometimes you cannot match the
bombast of Google. But by setting a
series of achievable goals, rooted in
reality, you can make a big difference.
“Therearedefinitely
deliverablesyou
canderivefromthe
Leesmanreport”
PokerStars
Santa Ana, Costa Rica
15 June 2014
Sydney, Australia
13 August 2015
70.5 70.1
0 +01 +02 +03 +04 +05 +06 +07 +08 +09 +10 +11 +12/-12 -11
12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24:00 01:00
Sydney
70.1
Malta
63.9
Paris
57.4
Isle of Man
66.3
Dublin
64.0
London
67.9

24. 24
The Design of
Workplace Things
The success of a design hinges on its
ability to communicate the function of
the object to a user. This is the central
thesis laid out by cognitive scientist
Donald Norman in his influential
1988 book The Design of Everyday
Things. Norman argued that while
people often blame themselves
when something malfunctions, the
fault almost always lies with the
design — or, more specifically, the
lack of intuitive guidance that all
design should comprise. Put simply, a
designer’s primary concern should be
the user’s interaction with an object.
As a senior vice president at HOK,
one of the world’s largest design and
architectural firms, Gordon Wright
grapples with these challenges
every day. He is deeply cautious of
the tendency to “design for design’s
sake” and emphasises the necessity
to “design for purpose”. “We have
seen some [workplaces] that looked
beautiful, but the employees
complained like crazy because it
didn’t support what they were trying
to do in their activity-based work,”
he explains.
One of the key factors behind HOK’s
recent decision to implement the
Leesman Index across its entire global
client portfolio is the tool’s explicit
intention to refocus the discourse on
workplace design around the users
of workspaces. “We have heard from
the design teams, we have heard from
the real estate and facilities teams, we
have heard from executive leadership,
and now we are taking the occupant
and putting their view and their
experience front and centre,”
says Wright.
The opinions of directors and
facilities teams still matter, though
now they are viewed as part of a
homogenous entity called ‘the
occupier’. Wright uses the example
of car design to further illustrate his
point. Imagine, he says, if the people
who build highways were asked to
design a car without any input from
drivers. The highwaymen may be
pleased with the reduced impact
on roads, but this would be to the
detriment of the driving experience.
Yet Norman’s hypothesis of intuitive
design can only reach so far.
Organisations like HOK, which has
a Consulting division, have helped
to build an entire industry on the
intuition of experts. Wright explains:
“We worry about this all day long,
which is to say, ‘I’ve done this before
many times therefore you can rely
on me to have a base of knowledge
to make valid recommendations.’”
Wright has a name for this, too: the
‘LinkedIn effect’. The business-
oriented social media platform has
helped foster an online environment
in which millions of people can
engage in discussions and present
opinions as if experts, which can
then spread among entire online
communities with little research
and no accountability. But without
a scientific method to justify design
proposals, workplace design remains
a game of opinions and ensures it
keeps off the top table populated by
decisions makers and other business
critical functions.
HOK has always used its own
employee surveys and data
extraction tools but each time
these were unique to the project in
question, which created headaches.
User experience is fundamental to the design of a workplace
— which is why HOK strives to be a data-driven practice that
puts the needs of the occupier first.
Now we are taking
the occupant
and putting their
view and their
experience front
and centre
HOK
TheQube,London,UnitedKingdom
9 August 2013
72.2

25. 25
“For a long time the industry was
making recommendations based
on a single set of data that had
no benchmark,” Wright explains.
“The lack of data normalisation
made this difficult to do the types
of things we wanted to do.”
Leesman’s huge data sets, on the
other hand, allow HOK to examine
a wealth of information in the
context of what has happened pre
and post occupancy. “What this does
is create its own benchmark by using
the information across multiple
companies and multiple participants
in the survey process,” Wright adds.
“We do this in science all the time.”
However, Wright believes that it
is easy to overcomplicate things.
After all, billions of dollars are
spent on
property
portfolios
around the world.
By focusing on users
and their experience,
then, HOK’s job can be
made simpler and
a whole lot more effective.
To adapt Norman’s argument:
great workplace design must
clearly communicate its function
to the user, but first one must
evaluate what the user’s
needs are.

26. 26

27. 2727
Answering the
business need
What do you see as the major
drivers around property
performance at the moment?
The major drivers are around cost.
Over the last few years there’s been a
massive pressure downwards on the
costs of occupation, but that’s also
being tempered by a need for occupiers
to actually provide space that works
for their business and employees.
Organisations appreciate that they’ve
got to look after their staff and build
space that enhances performance –
not just treat the office floorplate
as a sort of factory environment.
Do you seeadistinctshiftfrom
purely lookingatthe financial
argumentsto amore holistic view?
I do. It’s very easy to measure the
numbers and say we pay X pounds per
square foot and to divide the number
of people you’ve got by the amount
of space and start to determine a
financial argument. The problem is
that doesn’t really tell you anything
about productivity.
How is theworkplace angle
changingdecisionsaround
portfoliomanagement?
The terms of occupation, with for
example, much shorter leases and we’re
seeing the emergence of sophisticated
serviced office providers taking space
and reconfiguring it to suit a variety of
working practices. Some occupiers are
much more agile and quick to embrace
change than others but without a doubt
Clients are increasingly questioning the effectiveness, as well
as the efficiency, of their buildings. We ask Johnny Dunford
Senior Director at BNP Paribas Real Estate, which advises
clients on their real estate portfolio, how BNP is developing
a broader workplace offering.
they’re all asking themselves; ‘is the
workplace suitably configured to
answer the business need?’
DoesthischangeBNP’s
approachtoprovidingreal
estate advisoryservices?
We run portfolios for corporate
occupiers that include Aviva, IBM and
the Post Office, and we understand
the need to ensure that the property
occupiers’ use is aligned to their
business needs. We’re prompting our
clients to be more agile and creative,
with ideas that spur them into thinking
about things in a different way to
increase levels of productivity from
the space they occupy.
Howdoyouthinktherealestate
communityneedstorespondto
latestworkplacetrends?
The property industry is increasingly
working to understand what works
for occupiers and how we can provide
the best quality space to make their
business effective. It’s definitely
happening and in some places it’s
happening very quickly, but for some
in the real estate sector it’s still very
much a change to the norm.
Organisationsareoftenpointing
totheneedfor flexibilityintheir
estate; do you think that will see any
shifts in how property is developed
and how landlords offer space?
An emerging trend that we haven’t yet
seen in this country is the provision
of residential space and leisure-type
facilities; either co-located alongside
the workplace or part of the site. I think
that this approach will be taken up by
corporates to help increase productivity
and offer something new for their
staff, particularly in London where
it’s extremely expensive to buy or
rent accommodation.
We’ll also see businesses sharing
space much more freely – whether
this is retail being integrated with
commercial use or offices combined
with public sector offerings, for
example, libraries or medical facilities.
Developers are already moving in this
direction, so it won’t be a shock but a
process of evolution.
Whatdoyouthinkwillbe
themajortrendsinproperty
provisioninthenextthree years?
There’s a definite trend towards
productivity measurement. We’re
working towards delivering those
sorts of solutions and already use the
Leesman Index as a tool to measure
productivity. We’ll also see increasing
use of sensors that monitor the
workplace environment. The most
obvious one is heating but air control,
air quality and other factors that make
occupants comfortable will increase.
We’ll also see the provision of facilities
– whether that’s bicycle racks, crèches,
comfortable seating, in what people
consider to be services for life and
living, rather than just a place to work.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q

28. 28
ImpactCode
On these two pages we offer the overall performance figures
across the entire database against all core elements of the
Leesman Index survey, reporting on agreement, importance
and satisfaction figures. We have then shown where Gender,
Age or Length of Service impact on these.
%importanceoverall
%satisfactionoverall
%satisfactionLeesman+
Overall/Leesman+gap
Gender
Age
Timewithorganisation
Q3Whichactivitiesdoyoufeelareimportantinyourworkandhow
welliseachsupported?
Individual focused work, desk based
Planned meetings
Telephone conversations
Informal, un-planned meetings
Collaborating on focused work
Reading
Relaxing / taking a break
Thinking / creative thinking
Individual routine tasks
Informal social interaction
Learning from others
Audio conferences
Business confidential discussions
Hosting visitors, clients or customers
Spreading out paper or materials
Collaborating on creative work
Private conversations
Larger group meetings or audiences
Individual focused work away from your desk
Video conferences
Using technical / specialist equipment or materials
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
93.5
78.0
77.9
66.5
59.5
56.2
55.6
53.0
50.9
50.5
50.0
47.7
46.1
44.2
43.7
43.1
42.0
39.0
35.4
31.5
26.7
8.3
2.9
12.2
20.4
14.3
15.7
21.2
16.9
4.9
15.0
8.0
15.3
15.3
18.4
4.1
14.3
14.3
12.8
17.4
21.7
10.2
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
77.1
77.6
63.9
63.1
72.6
58.4
62.2
50.9
86.9
73.5
77.3
65.1
51.6
61.4
58.9
64.3
46.2
61.1
64.0
53.4
64.6
85.4
80.5
76.1
83.5
86.9
74.1
83.4
67.8
91.8
88.5
85.3
80.4
66.9
79.8
63.0
78.6
60.5
73.9
81.4
75.1
74.8
%importanceoverall
%positiveoverall
%positiveLeesman+
Overall/Leesman+gap
Gender
Age
Timewithorganisation
Q2.Whatimpactdoyouthinkthedesignofyourworkspacehason
thefollowingelementsofyourorganisation?
Corporate Image (for visitors, clients, potential recruits etc.)
Workplace Culture
Environmental Sustainability
1
2
3
–
–
–
32.3
22.5
28.4
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
–
–
–
54.5
54.1
41.1
86.8
76.6
69.5
%importanceoverall
%inagreementoverall
%inagreementLeesman+
Overall/Leesman+gap
Gender
Age
Timewithorganisation
Q1.Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowing
statementsaboutthedesignofyourorganisation’soffice?
The design of my workspace is important to me
It contributes to a sense of community at work
It creates an enjoyable environment to work in
It enables me to work productively
It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to
1
2
3
4
5
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
– –5.3
15.6
22.2
15.3
33.0
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
84.8
58.0
56.7
54.8
48.7
90.1
73.6
78.9
70.1
81.7
Gapranking
17
21
15
3
10
7
2
6
19
9
18
8
4
20
10
10
13
13
5
1
16

29. 29
Q4Whichphysical/servicefeaturesdoyouconsidertobeanimportant
partofaneffectiveworkspaceandhowsatisfiedareyouwitheach?
Desk
Chair
Tea, coffee and other refreshment facilities
General cleanliness
Computing equipment, fixed (desktop)
Toilets / W.C.
Printing / copying / scanning equipment
Temperature control
Telephone equipment
Restaurant / canteen
Meeting rooms (small)
IT Service / Help desk
Personal storage
Natural light
WiFi network connectivity in the office
Noise levels
Meeting rooms (large)
General tidiness
Wired in-office network connectivity
Air quality
Computing equipment, mobile (laptop, tablet, etc.)
Office lighting
Parking (car, motorbike or bicycle)
Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs
Remote access to work files or network
General Décor
Security
People walking past your workstation
Informal work areas / break-out zones
Ability to personalise my workstation
Desk / Room booking systems
Dividers (between desks / areas)
Space between work settings
Plants & Greenery
Accessibility of colleagues
Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps etc.)
Atriums and Communal Areas
Mail & post-room services
Reception areas
Health and safety provisions
Leisure facilities onsite or nearby
Art & Photography
Shared storage
Internal signage
Shower facilities
Hospitality services
Audio-Visual equipment
Archive storage
Variety of different types of workspace
Guest / visitor network access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
%importanceoverall
93.3
92.1
88.9
82.8
82.1
81.0
80.9
80.7
80.3
79.5
78.9
78.9
78.2
77.3
76.7
76.5
71.4
69.9
69.7
69.6
68.7
66.4
65.3
63.1
63.0
62.3
57.5
55.9
55.9
55.7
55.6
55.2
55.1
54.9
54.7
54.1
53.1
53.0
52.2
50.4
49.3
42.6
41.4
40.1
39.0
38.4
37.4
36.8
35.1
35.0
%satisfactionoverall
%satisfactionLeesman+
Overall/Leesman+gap
3.5
6.2
20.1
24.1
7.8
21.3
8.3
7.8
8.1
14.6
18.1
-0.8
1.8
18.9
4.8
9.4
14.2
25.5
4.8
15.6
17.4
17.6
6.3
20.9
5.1
34.9
10.5
8.4
36.4
-6.6
4.4
6.1
8.2
23.8
8.7
12.3
37.6
14.1
24.7
14.7
15.3
18.4
8.8
16.2
6.2
22.1
21.4
2.8
35.5
12.9
Gender
Age
Timewithorganisation
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
= of greater impact = of some impact = of no impact
72.6
67.1
63.7
59.0
66.0
47.9
66.7
26.9
68.3
48.8
50.2
57.3
54.9
57.1
58.3
29.7
51.3
57.2
68.1
34.0
63.3
54.5
49.3
25.8
59.2
40.9
68.7
31.2
36.0
46.2
43.4
37.7
46.2
28.1
68.1
66.9
42.7
67.2
61.2
61.7
39.1
21.7
40.4
43.8
31.5
46.6
42.7
36.7
27.2
37.2
76.1
73.3
83.8
83.1
73.8
69.2
75.0
34.7
76.4
63.4
68.3
56.5
56.7
76.0
63.1
39.1
65.5
82.7
72.9
49.6
80.7
72.1
55.6
46.7
64.3
75.8
79.2
39.6
72.4
39.6
47.8
43.8
54.4
51.9
76.8
79.2
80.3
81.3
85.9
76.4
54.4
40.1
49.2
60.0
37.7
68.7
64.1
39.5
62.7
50.1
Gapranking
47
40
13
7
36
11
33
36
35
23
16
50
49
14
44
29
24
5
44
20
18
17
39
12
43
4
28
32
2
38
46
42
34
8
31
27
1
25
6
22
21
15
30
19
40
9
10
48
3
26

30. 30
Leesman+Appendix
Client
Colliers
International
Building
41 Rue Louise Michel,
92300 Levallois-Perret, France
Lmi
80.2
Survey date 02.06.12
No. of respondents 127
Building location City Centre
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Pilot project or test site
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working No
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings A mix of open plan and enclosed office working
How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated
Client
ISS World
Building
Buddingevej 197, 2860 Søborg,
Denmark
Lmi
81.7
Survey date 04.12.14
No. of respondents 135
Building location Suburban
Building style Post Millennium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason New ways of working
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations
We have seen that with such a small
percentage of locations achieving
Leesman+ accreditations an increasing
number of organisations are seeking to
embed Leesman+ as a strategic target
– to develop a workplace programme
that can consistently deliver high
performance certified buildings for
employees. What are these buildings
doing that others are not?
In so far as the Leesman+ benchmark
goes these buildings are superbly
supporting individual employees in
their individual roles, but how and
with what services and infrastructure.
Below we can start to see key data
points such as whether desks are
allocated or shared, if an Activity
Based Working programme has
been implemented, or whether
the workplaces are in urban or
remote locations.
Using this data going forward we can
start a more in-depth analysis and try
to discover what features, services
and infrastructures can consistently
deliver high performance certified
buildings for employees.

31. 31
Client
NCC
Building
Østensjøveien 27, 0661 Oslo, Norway
Lmi
74.4
Survey date 29.5.14
No. of respondents 104
Building location Urban
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Multiple occupants
Survey reason New construction
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working No
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings A mix of open plan and enclosed office working
How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations
Client
Savills
Building
33 Margaret Street, London,
United Kingdom
Lmi
75.3
Survey date 02.05.14
No. of respondents 336
Building location City Centre
Building style New building office
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Relocation
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place Yes
Work settings –
How are work positions allocated –
Client
Plantronics
Building
Scorpius 140, 2132 LR Hoofddorp,
Netherlands
Lmi
75.7
Survey date 12.02.15
No. of respondents 105
Building location Satellite business park
Building style 80’s - 2000
Fitout style Converted
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Multiple occupants
Survey reason Relocation
Survey type Pre-occupancy ahead of relocation
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place Yes
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

32. 32
Client
Network Rail
Building
Milton Keynes: The Quadrant,
United Kingdom
Lmi
71.4
Survey date 29.05.13
No. of respondents 1,342
Building location City Centre
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Owned
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Wider business transformation
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place Yes
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated A mis of allocated and non allocated workstations
Client
Nuffield Health
Building
2 Ashley Ave, Epsom, Surrey,
United Kingdom
Lmi
74.4
Survey date 08.08.14
No. of respondents 242
Building location Suburban
Building style 80’s - 2000
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Relocation
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations
Client
NAB
Building
700 Bourke Street, Melbourne, Australia
Lmi
71.5
Survey date 23.3.16
No. of respondents 950
Building location City Centre
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Wider business transformation
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place Yes
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

33. 33
Client
Network Rail
Building
Stratford Place, London,
United Kingdom
Lmi
70.4
Survey date 27.09.13
No. of respondents 168
Building location City Centre
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Leased
Occupancy mix Multiple occupants
Survey reason Relocation
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated A mix of allocated and non allocated workstations
Client
Sainsbury’s
Building
Ansty - Store Support Centre, Coventry,
United Kingdom
Lmi
71.1
Survey date 31.01.14
No. of respondents 392
Building location Rural
Building style Post Millenium
Fitout style State of the art
Occupancy status Owned
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason New ways of working
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place No
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely designated to named individuals
Client
Nestlé
Building
NBE En Bergère, Avenue Nestlé 55,
Switzerland
Lmi
71.1
Survey date 02.11.15
No. of respondents 61
Building location Urban
Building style 50’s - 80’s
Fitout style Converted
Occupancy status Owned
Occupancy mix Sole occupiers
Survey reason Refurbishment
Survey type Post-occupancy
Growth or Decline Cycle Growth Cycle
Supports home working Yes
Formal homeworking policy in place Yes
Work settings Entirely or almost entirely open plan working
How are work positions allocated Workstations are entirely or almost entirely unallocated

34. 34
ABB
Aedas
Allen & Overy
Altarea Cogedim
AMF Fastigheter
Amgen
AON
AOS Studley
Artillery
Aster Group
AstraZeneca
Atlas Copco
ATOS Consulting
BB&T
BBC
Bethpage Federal Credit Union
BLEDINA OU DNAO
BMC
BNP Paribas
Bosch
Bouygues E&S
Bravida
British American Tobacco
British Council
Buro Happold
Cadillac Fairview
Capita
Capital Group
CD&B
CDS
Channel 4
CHS
CHS Inc.
Ciena
Coca Cola
Colliers International
Colt Technology Services
Compass Group
Contract Workplaces
Crédit Agricole
Cresa Orange County
Cripps
Data-Info Oy
Deloitte
Delta Lloyd
Dentsply
Derwent London
Deutsche Bank
DeVono
Diners Club
Direct Line Group
Discovery Channel
DPR Construction
Duke University
Edge Architecture
eHalsomyndigheten
Elekta
Emcor
Erie Federal Credit Union
Essex County Council
European Central Bank
Eurosport
ExxonMobil
Fidelity International
FKA Architecture + Interiors
FNV
Fortum
Fraikin
Freedom Credit Union
Gavi Alliance
GDF Suez
Gilead Sciences
GMW - Architects
Go to Work
Grant Thornton
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
Hachette
Harry’s
Heerema
Heineken
Helsedirektoratet
Herman Miller
Hirschbach Motor Lines
HM Marievik
HOK
Housing Authority
Hufvudstaden
Husqvarna
IBM
ICA
Ikano Bank
IKEA
IMERYS
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
Interxion
ISO
ISS
JAC Group
Jaguar Land Rover
JM AB/JM Entrepenad
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Controls
Jones Lang LaSalle
Juniper Networks
KBL
Kingsley Napley
KKS Strategy
KPMG
Kraftringen
Landgate
Lendlease
Lewis Silkin
Liberty Syndicates
Lidingö stad
LinkedIn
Lloyds Register
Loblaw
London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA)
Maples Teesdale
Marks and Spencer
MASS Design Group
Max Fordham
MBDA
MCM Architecture
MCS Solutions
Medical Protection Society Limited (MPS)
Mentor Graphics
Merck Serono
Mikomax
Mills & Reeve
MITIE
Moelven Modus
MOMENTUM
Moore Blatch
Morgan Lovell
Morgan Stanley
NAB
NATS
NAV (Ny arbeids- og velferdsforvaltning)
NCC
Nesta
Nestlé
Network Rail
NHS Property Services
NN Slovakia
Nordea
npower
Nuffield Health
Oktra
Orange Centre
Orangina
OSU Federal
Pan Macmillan
Pantheon Ventures
Peabody
Perkins+Will
PGGM
Plantronics
PokerStars
Posten Norge
Preem AB
Prisma Medios de Pago
Produbanco - Grupo Promerica
Provident
Rabobank
Realinform
RLF
Rockwell Collins
Royal Haskoning DHV
Saab AB
Saffron Building Society
Safran
Sainsburys
Sanofi
SAS
Savills
SEB
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheppard Robson
Shoppersdrugmart
Siemens
Sisley
Skanska
SKF
SMABTP
Sodexo
Solocal
Solved
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
Spirit Airlines
Staples
Statsbygg
Stockholm Stad (City council)
Sweco
Swedavia
Swedbank
Swedish Red Cross
SYKOY
Talokeskus
Tavistock
TDC Sverige
Tele2
Telefónica
TeliaSonera
Tenant and Partner
Tengbom
Tetra Pak
The Law Society
The Prostate Cancer Charity
Tillväxtverket
TLV
Trader Media Group
TSK
TTSP
TU Delft
TV4
University of Cambridge
University of Glasgow
University of St Andrews
University Properties of Finland Ltd
Uppsala Kommun
USG People
Utbildningsradion (UR)
Valley of the Sun United Way
Veldhoen + Company
Verity Credit Union
Vinci Concessions
Vodafone
Volvo Cars
Wellcome Trust
Withers worldwide
Woningstichting Haag Wonen
Xchanging
XL Catlin
Yarra Ranges Council
Zespri International
OurClients

35. 35
This is perhaps the greyest place I have even been.
Bar the sparse patches of near luminous lichen,
ground porosity means almost nothing grows here.
It is totally devoid of colour and life. Technically
it is an ‘arctic desert’ – a high volcanic plateau
between the Hofsjökull and Vatnajökull glaciers
in the highlands of Iceland. Iceland’s geology is
volatile – ever changing. But the greyness in this
image, though tiringly expansive, is not universal.
Adjacent to the islands most unstable and hostile
locations, where sulphurous steam bellows from
hillsides or dormant volcanic craters capture the
prolific rainwater, are some of the most exciting
and vividly coloured landscapes imaginable.
Workplace managers take note.

36. Leesman is the world’s largest
workplace effectiveness measurement
standard and works globally for clients
and consultants helping assess and
understand how their workplaces are
performing. For more information on
our work, or to visit us, please feel free
to contact:
London
t. +44 20 3239 5980
New York
t. +1 212 858 9665
Stockholm
t. +46 (0)8 692 65 00
Amsterdam
t. +31 (0)20 893 2598
leesmanindex.com
Design – fullyfledgeddesign.com
Print – mayfield-press.co.uk
Leesman is a registered trademark and
all content is copyright to Leesman Ltd
June 2016. All rights reserved.