Introduction New working practice Corporateoffice space use is changing. We andoffice space areworking in less space for longer hours and density:a comparison adoptinginnovative new work practices in orderto remaincompetitive and drive our of Australiaand the UK organisationsforward. This is the current beliefof manycorporate real estate CliveM.J. Warren consultantsand workspace designers. There is,however, limited empirical research to eithersupport or disprove this presumption. Ifit istrue that manyorganisations are adoptingnew working practices then is this havingthe desiredaffect inreducing overall officespace requirements and, if so,what doesthis meanfor the corporate The author infrastructureresource manager in terms of futurestrategic asset planning? Clive M.J. Warren is aSenior Lecturer at the Faculty of Thisresearch paper seeks to providesome Built Environment, University ofNew South Wales, of the answersregarding current office use Sydney, Australia. patternsand provides a methodologyfor forecastingfuture trends in space use Keywords patterns.This objective isachieved by first Australia, United Kingdom, Officebuildings, reiteratinga numberof findingsfirst Working practices, Performance measurement presentedat EuroFM(2003) reportingon a surveyof currentoffice use within Australia Abstract andsecond by comparingand contrasting the Australianresults with thosefrom similar The growth offacilities management has brought with ita studiesundertaken in the UK. greater emphasis on the wayin whichwe use office space. The drive for greater economic efficiencyhas resulted in more intense use ofoffices and the introduction ofnew officepractices. This paper compares Background the effect ofnew officepractices on officedensities in Theprovision of reliablequantitative data on both Australia and the UK.Comparing the officeuse whichto compareand evaluate facilities across arange oforganisation functions and use performanceis the cornerstoneof efficient categories, it provides aframework for future andeffective management.The old adage performance measures within the selected markets and wider comparison ofoffice space globally and, as such, ‘‘youcan’ t managewhat youcan’ t measure’’ establishes afoundation for the development ofstrategic isas truefor corporate infrastructure asset plans based on clear measured objectives. resourcingas it isfor any otherbusiness improvementinitiative. Areviewof the facilitiesmanagement Electronic access literatureover the past coupleof decades The Emerald Research Register for this journal is revealsa healthy growthin the levelof available at publishedresearch that providesa numberof http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister metricsagainst which to benchmarkour asset The current issue and fulltext archive ofthis journal is performance.The ground breaking research available at of Zeckhauserand Silverman (1983) urgedus http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm to recognisethe valueof realproperty to the business.In the UK,Avis et al. (1989), andin the USA,Joroff et al. (1993) demonstrated that realproperty assets account for up to 30 percent of acompany’s capital andthat avery Facilities largeproportion of businessesfail to recognise Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . pp. 306-314 # MCBUP Limited . ISSN0263-2772 the needto managetheir real property assets DOI10.1108/ 02632770310507962 orto measureasset performance. 306 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314
Therenow exist a numberof organisations beused for 10 or20 percentof that time.The regularlycollecting and publishing useof techniquessuch as hotelling,hot- benchmarkdata acrossa rangeof metricsthat deskingand virtual office or homeworking in willallow facilitiesmanagers to benchmark the deliveryof efficientoffice space has theirproperty against national averages. The attracted manyorganisations (Reardon, PropertyCouncil of Australiaand 2001). Manyorganisations, recognising the InternationalProperty Databank inthe UK highcosts of officeprovision and the driveto aretypical of thesepublicly available higherdensity of use,have setacross-the- benchmarkproviders. Yet, despite the board,and perhaps somewhat arbitrary, office growinglevel of publishedproperty measures, densitytargets. This practice is particularly thereis still a needfor many organisations to commonwithin larger corporations and the embracethe strategicmanagement of their publicsector, where policy dictates a target propertyassets. A recentsurvey of European occupancydensity (GREG, 2001). However, businessby Ernst& Young(2002) revealed as with otheraspects of corporateoffice use that morethan half of the organisations strategies,there is very little researchwhich surveyeddid not have astrategicasset providesany quantitative measureof the managementplan and that astaggering23 per uptake of modernofficing techniques or any centdid not measure property performance at indicationof the impactthat suchnew all. methodsof usingvaluable spacemight have Themetrics commonly applied to measure onthe organisation’s total spaceneeds. propertyperformance are typically Theneed to developan ongoing time series quantitative innature and concentrate on the measureof workplaceoccupation and the operatingcosts of variouselements of the effect of newworking practices was facility. Thisnarrow approach to facility recognisedin the UKinthe RICS/GeraldEve performancemeasurement has beenthe (2001) researchpaper, Overcrowded, subjectof considerablecriticism as such Under-utilised orJust Right .Thisresearch performancemeasures necessarily do not take soughtto identifythe densityof office accountof the intensityof propertyutilisation occupationas anindication of officeuse orthe quality of the workspaceprovided efficiencyand, at the sametime, to identify (Varcoe,1996; Simpson,1996). Thereis a the extentto whichnew office use techniques needto developperformance measures to hadbeen adopted. Evaluating the densityof providefacilities managers with benchmark officeuse and the useof modernoffice measuresof workplacequality inorder to techniquesover a seriesof similarsurveys satisfy the corporateneed to attract andretain provideda measureof the changingnature of the beststaff andto enhancebusiness officeuse. The UK serieshas been productivity(Bon et al.,1994; Brackertz et al., undertakenon three occasions, 1997, 1999 2002). and2001 andthus provides a valuable Provisionof corporateoffice space is ever benchmarkagainst which to evaluate notjust changingas newmethods of workingare UKofficeoccupancy density but also to apply introducedin the questfor greater efficiency to otherregions. andeconomy. The notion that onework Recognisingthe valueof the UKoffice positionserves all ofanemployee’ s activities densitystudy as abenchmarkfor corporate has changed,workplace design now looks at realestate asset planning,the RICSFacilities ‘‘activity settings’’ inthat ‘‘positionno long ManagementFaculty supportedthe meansplace’ ’. Theoffice layout may Universityof New SouthWales in conducting incorporatea rangeof spaces,open-plan, asimilarsurvey of officedensity in the meetingspaces, quiet concentration areas, Australianmarket (Warren, 2003). The andconference facilities through which Australianoffice density study was designed employeesmove as the type of workthey are to complementand build on the UKstudies, undertakingat any pointin time changes data beingcollected in such a way as to allow (Stoneand Luchetti, 1985). Theteam-based directcomparison between the two regions. workingenvironment particularly lends itself Thecomparison of the UKandAustralian to this freeformworkspace design. Other officeuse patterns provides an interesting organisationshave alsorecognised the insightinto the way that thesetwo apparent waste inproviding dedicated work geographicallydiverse office markets have stations24 hoursa day whenthey may only developedand the differinglevels with which 307 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314 they have embracedthe newmodes of office Onlythose responses providing adequate data use. andsufficient sample size are included in the Australiandata set. Thereare very significantdifferences Comparison of Australian and UKoffice evidentbetween the two regions.The average 2 densities densityfor the Australianmarket is 20.6m comparedto aUKaverageof 16.3m 2. This Boththe Australianand UK officedensity wouldindicate that the averageAustralian studies(Warren, 2003; RICS/GeraldEve, occupiesan additional 4.3m 2 orjust over a 2001), usesimilar methodologies to evaluate quartermore space than theirUK the densityof officeoccupation within the two counterpart.The use of averageor mean regions.The measurement of office figuresin comparisons is supported by the occupationdensity is important in the comparisonof the medians,19.5m 2 and preparationof strategicasset management 14.9m2 respectively.The Australian data has plans.It providesfacilities managers with a a mode of 25m2. measureof howefficiently their office Acomparisonof the upperand lower environmentis being utilised and, more quartilesas shownin Figure 1 revealsthat importantly,with the long-termtrends in whilethe differentialbetween the two regions officedensity which will provide hard data to issmall in the lowerrange of densities,the indicatefuture space requirements. Office disparityin the upperquartile is far greater, densityof occupationis based on the total net with arelatively largefigure of 53m 2 for lettable area (NLA) ornet internal area (NIA) Australia. as derivedin Australia and the UKunder Thislarge upper quartile figure indicates theirrespective codes of measurement.Some that forthis region’s resultsthere is a much minorvariations exist between the broaderrange of officedensities evident in the measurementcodes which could produce an marketand, as such,the levelof reliabilityin errorof 3or4 percent in certain this data setis diminished. circumstances(Warren, 2002). Thesecond Inaddition to the presenceof lower factor inderiving density is the numberof densitiesin a largernumber of Australian employees.This is measured in terms of the offices,the data alsoshows a correspondingly total numberof full-timeequivalents (FTE), fewernumber of highdensity office situations. makingallowance for part-time and casual Thisshift fromthe highdensity end of the workers.Density isnet area/ FTE.Thushigh scaletoward the lowerdensity end is clearly densityof occupationequates to alowsquare seenin Figure 2. Thepercentage of metrefigure and corresponds with agreater respondentsin the UKaregreater in each of intensityof usethan alargersquare metre the chosencategories between 10m 2 and figurewhich provides more space per person 17m2 as opposedto Australiahaving the anda lowerdensity. higherproportion of resultsin the upperthree Thetwo officedensity studies were categoriesbetween 18m 2 andgreater than conductedvia postal surveysof arangeof 25m2.Thisfigure also shows that nearlya businesspremises in 2002 and2001 quarterof the Australianresponses occupy respectively.The surveys were targeted at greaterthan 25m 2,comparedwith just propertyand facilities managers in a rangeof 13 percent in the UK. organisationsof varyingsize and industry Themeasurement of averagedensity across sector.In Australia, participants were sought the entirerange of surveyrespondents fromeach of the majorcities in each State. representingthe wholemarket, while Thetotal numberof officepremises in the providinga goodguide to the market,is not as two studieswas 789 with atotal floorarea of valuable as amoredetailed comparison on a over2 millionsquare metres and as such sectorby sectorbasis. The breakdown of the representsa substantialproportion of the data intomajor sectors, including the type of officemarket in the two countries.Not all functionconducted in the officeand the surveyresults provided full details of the natureof the businessorganisation together propertiesthey occupied.This could be an with the relative locationwithin a city context indicationthat this informationwas not andsize of the business,provides a greater available fromexisting management insightinto the mannerin which informationsystems in some organisations. organisationsoccupy their facilities. 308 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314
Figure 1 Density range
Figure 2 Distribution ofoffice densities
Thedivision of the data by functionin Figure Itisnot clear why this disparityexists between 3confirmsthe existenceof greaterdensities in the countries.It might be expected that the UKacrossall functionalareas. What this administrativefunctions would be amongst figurealso reveals is somedifferential between the mostintensively used space, which is specificfunctions in the two countries.The certainlytrue for the UK,butthe inversein UKdata indicatesthat salesoffices are the Australia.However, a similarargument might mostdensely utilised of the functionalareas at beproffered for branch offices, being the most 15.7m2,followedby headoffice and denselyused over head office administrativefunctions which are closely accommodation.This proposition holds true matched.However, in Australia, the branch forAustralia but not for the UK.Onepossible officefunction is found to bethe mostdensely explanationfor the higherdensities among occupiedat 20.1m 2,closelyfollowed by head headoffice and branch functions in Australia officefunctions at 20.7m 2. couldrelate to locationof thesefunctions
Figure 3 Density by function
309 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314 withinrelatively morecostly city centres Thedensity for industrial sector businesses is encouraginga moreintensive use than very closefor both the Australianand UK perhapsfound in lower cost areas. data, with the formerclosely matching the Acomparisonof officedensities by location lowerdensity figure for offices situated in providesa reasonablyconsistent pattern industriallocations. Indeed the industrial betweenthe countries.Figure 4 showsa close sectoris the onlyAustralian category to have a relationshipbetween the two data setson a higherdensity than that recordedin the UK, locationby locationbasis with the exception albeit inthe sectorhaving the lowestof all of officespace within an industrial location densities.This may supportthe notionthat wherethere is a widedisparity in the data, industrialsector offices are typically locatedin with the UKshowingthe highestdensity for industriallocations. Yet, detailed examination this locationand Australia the lowest.In both of the surveyresults shows that lessthan one casesthe city centrelocation has, as mightbe thirdof Australianindustrial organisations are expected,among the highestdensity of situatedin industrial locations and is occupation. thereforeonly a partial explanationas to why Theother result of noteis that of business the two densityfigures are similar. parksin which both countrieshave Afterindustrial, the publicsector office is the nextlowest density in the UK.A consistentlyhigh densities of use.This is comparisonbetween the business, perhapspredictable given the natureof professionalsector and government sector is businessestypically foundin these locations perhapsthe closestproxy available fora andthe fact that mostbuildings in this sector public/private sectorcomparison. Both wouldtend to beof modernconstruction and, Australiaand the UKshowsimilar results in as such,more likely to beadapted to modern this comparison.The Australian public sector officetechniques. occupies16.8 percent more office space than Thenext major category by whichto theircounterparts in the private sector.While compareoffice use is the natureof the inthe UK,publicsector offices are 9.7 per businessundertaken within the premises. centlarger per employee than forthe private Thiscomparison should reveal any patternof sector. usespecific to the particularsector of the Thefinal major category for comparison is businessmarket. While it wouldbe desirable the relative sizeof the organisation.This can to measureby specificindustries such as bederived from either the extentof the lawyers,accountants, telecommunications premisesoccupied or the financialturnover of etc.,the sizeof the currentdata baseis the business.Both measures are provided in insufficientto dothis. Thedata comparisonis the originalresearch documents but the thusconducted by dividingbusiness activity physical sizeoffers more appropriate results intothe muchbroader ranges of government as, interms of workplacedesign, it mightbe sector,communications, industrial, business expectedthat organisationswith wholeor andprofessional. Figure 5 showsthe resultsof multiplefloor tenancies will be able to reduce the sectorby sectoranalysis. This level of spaceuse via variouseconomies of scale. analysisreveals some interesting Theresults categorised by arangeof typical characteristicsin the data. floorareas in Figure 6 againshow similar
Figure 4 Density by location
310 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314
Figure 5 Density by business sector
Figure 6 Density by officesize
resultsbetween the two countriesbut with smallerpart-floor tenants in optimising Australianfigures consistently showing a workspaceconfiguration, the leaseincentive lowerdensity of occupation.As might be to take wholefloors could lead to spacebeing expected,the largerorganisations with total acquiredfor which no immediate use exists floorareas exceeding 10,000m 2 have the or,more likely, the organisationspreading to highestdensities. In the UKthosewith areas take upthe available space.The relatively over 2,000m2 have very similardensities. This highdensity exhibited by smaller observationis repeatedin Australia where the organisationsis also to beexpected. While densityvaries by lessthan half ametre smallto mediumbusinesses are not able to between2,000m 2 and 10,000m2. Thus it take advantagesof the economiesof scale appearsthat officesize tends to have little or available to biggerorganisations, anecdotal noeffect ondensity in tenancies over about evidencesuggests that thesebusinesses are 2,000m2 ineither region. oftenmore prepared to toleratecramped Thelowest densities occur at the 500m 2 to conditionsto reduceoccupancy costs. 1,000m2 rangein Australia and the 1,000m 2 Thefinal basis of comparisonand the to 2,000m2 inthe UK.Itis not possible from primarydriver for both studieswas anattempt the data providedto say why this isthe case.It to quantify the effectsof newapproaches to mightbe expected that efficiencyof usewould officeuse and how these techniques may increasewith the sizeof the officeas influencethe densityof officeuse. economiesof scaleallow foroptimum design. Participantsin the surveywere asked if they Alternativelythe lowerdensity could be hadinstigated any of the newpractices, hot attributable to anumberof factorswhich desking,hotelling, virtual officingand home mightinclude an affect resultingfrom floor working.In addition to identifying plate size.With typical officebuilding having participationin any of theseinitiatives, floorplates of around1,000m 2 or less, the participantswere also asked to indicatethe organisationswith lowestdensity are those year inwhich they commencedthese new organisationsthat areoccupying one or more practicesand the percentageof staff wholefloors. While they mightbe expected to participatingin the process.The adoption of benefitfrom the scaleof the tenanciesover newoffice techniques does not necessarily 311 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314 resultin a higherdensity of occupation, Themost marked increase in office density althoughthe objective ofintroducingsuch occursin sales offices in both Australiaand schemesis to increasethe timeany particular the UK.Theincreased density results in an workactivity settingis utilised; perhaps it may averageof 6m 2 lessspace per person in bethat the spacesaved is reassignedto amore Australiaand 2.9m 2 inthe UK,inpercentage appropriateuse. An example of this space terms25 percent and 16 percent utilisationmay bewhen introducing respectively.The Australian survey showed hot-deskingto reducethe numberof that 48.9 percent of respondentshad workstations,additional team breakoutareas introducedsome form of newoffice may beintroducedresulting in no increasein technique.The density results in Figure 7 do densityof usebut a moreeffective useof notreveal the extentto whichnew officing has available resources. beenintroduced. Although it isclear from Onanationalbasis the resultsof newoffice both regionsthat organisationsusing new techniquesshow an increased office density officinghave higheroffice density, it isnot figure.This is much more pronounced in the possibleto concludethat the higherdensity is UKmarketthan inAustralia. New office attributable to the useof modernoffice design.The results do however allow usto techniquesoverall in Australia make a concludethat organisationsthat have marginaldifference to the overallaverage embracednew workplace activity settingsdo densityby reducingthat densityby just1.2m 2 reducethe overallamount of spaceper or5 percent. In the UK,however,data shows employee,the reasonfor this saving areductionof 2.1m 2 as aresultof newoffice presentinga clearopportunity for further techniques,a significant12 percent reduction research.How have the changesin workplace overthe non-newoffice organisations. useaffected notjust density but workplace Aclearerindication of hownew office effectiveness?Are employees more or less techniquescan affect the efficiencyof office productivein the higherdensity environment useis more clearly seen at agreaterlevel of andare team-based activity settingsproviding analysis.A comparisonof thoseorganisations greaterproductivity or would some types of that have introducednew office techniques businesssetting benefit from a moreisolated with thosewho have notwithin a business cellularoffice setting. These questions cannot functionlevel can be seen in Figure 7. This beanswered from the data providedbut are graphclearly shows that withinmost of the essentialto the futuredetermination of functioncategories a densityincrease occurs effective officeprovision. as aresultof usingnew office techniques. The onlyexception to this spacesaving from new officingis evident in the figurefor branch Conclusion officesin Australia, which shows an increase inoffice space use in those organisations Iffacilities managers are to managetheir employingnew office techniques. This officeenvironment in order to enable increasecannot be easily explainedand is businessesto becomeincreasingly contraryto data inall othercategories. competitivethen they mustbe able to
Figure 7 Density by function and new officetechniques
312 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314 measurethe efficiencywith whichthey use inLondon being three times those in Sydney assets.The intensity of officeuse, as (Higgins,2001). Alsothe generalnature of measuredby the densityin the surveys,is a Australianconstruction being less constrained usefultool for facilities managers. It mustbe by space,factors such as lessreliance on space recognised,however, that notwo heating,a needfor greater ventilation and organisationsor offices are identical. It isalso lowerland and construction costs all importantto rememberthat densityof use contributeto the useof morespace per doesnot equate necessarily to the quality of person.While the useof morespace per spaceprovided or the productivityof the personincreases costs, the lowertotal relative organisation.Density, therefore,is only one costsper employee in Australia result in a measureof efficiencyand does not necessarily muchreduced affect onthe bottomline of the reflectthe effectivenessof spaceuse. company.It may alsobe true that attempts to Efficiencyof officeresourcing will reduce increaseoffice density may have amore operatingcosts by increaseddensity of significantaffect onworker productivity occupation.It is entirely possible, however, wherestaff have becomemore accustomed to that increaseddensity may have anegative amoreopen use of space. affect oneffectiveness by reducingworker Theuptake of modernoffice practices is productivityas aresultof what isconsidered seento have aconsistenteffect inboth by employeesto becramped working countries,as mightbe expected, by increasing conditions.The survey results for Australia the officedensity of thoseorganisations andthe UKunfortunatelyare only able to adoptingthe newwork practices by upto measureefficiency of usein cost of 25 percent. This reduction in office space can occupationper employee terms, they arenot representa considerablecost saving to the able to determinehow productive that organisationin reduced rent and outgoings. employeeis while in the particularworkplace. What mustbe considered though, and what Thereis a markeddifference between the the surveyis not able to identify,is has the data collectedfor Australia and the published adoptionin modern office practices had a resultsfrom the UKstudies.The difference in positiveor negativeaffect onproductivity and the overallaverage density is 4.3m 2 or 26.5 per has the total costof implementingthese new centmore space per person in Australia than practicesbeen less than the savingsfrom the inthe UK.Furtheranalysis of the data into costsof traditionaloffice provision? the varioussectors based on function, Itcanbe concluded from the comparisonof locationand size of organisationshow that the the two surveysthat notonly are office Australianoffice density is, in most cases, densitiesin Australia consistently lower than lowerthan that forthe UK.Thedisparity inthe UKbutalso the volatility of spaceuse betweenthe two countriesvaries within each withinthe marketis much greater. This sectorof operationin a rangeof plus6.5m 2 in volatility isevidenced by the numberof the retailsector to minus1.8m 2 in the organisationsreporting space use well above industrialsector, based on the UKfigures. the nationalaverage. It is not clear from the Thisdifferential as aproportionof the UK data why this isthe case.Both markets have officedensity is between plus 42 percent to welldeveloped facilities management minus7.1 percent. These space density professionsand considerable attention has differenceshave considerableresource beenpaid to the efficiencyof property implicationsfor the organisationsas this resourcingover the last few decades.New additionaloffice accommodation is translated officedesigns are reportedly targeting intoadditional rent and outgoings for the workspaceratios in the lowteens, yet this is organisation,costs that have to betransferred stillnot borne out by the surveyresults and directlyto the bottomline of the company’s requiresfurther research. It is not possible balancesheet. fromthe data to arriveat any clear Itis notpossible from the data to conclude conclusionsas to why this markeddifference why the densitydifferential exists between the existsother than to perhapsconclude that it is Australianand UK regions.There are afactor broughtabout bythe lowercosts of numerouspossible explanations for the occupationin the Australianmarket and differencewhich include the differencein perhaps,to somedegree, the changein the costsbetween the two countriesin terms of officemarket of the past decadewith high rentand outgoings, the total operatingcosts vacancy factorsand large amounts of 313 Newworking practice and office space density Facilities Clive M.J.Warren Volume 21 . Number 13/14 . 2003 . 306-314 sub-leasespace available. Each of these practiceswithin the two regionsif they areto factorsmight cause organisations to beless providenot only an effective butalso an efficientin their space use. efficientworkplace to supporttheir Theimplications for facilities managers are organisation’s strategicbusiness objectives. quitesignificant. The UK marketbased on the three-yeartime series shows a soundlevel of consistencyfrom one year to the nextand a References growthin the densityof officeuse over the period.It isreasonable to concludefrom this Avis, M.,Gibson, V.and Watts, J.(1989), Managing alevelof maturity inthe marketand a good Operational Property Assets, Department of levelof awarenessof the importanceto the Land Management, University ofReading, efficiencyof the organisationof monitoring Reading. Bon, R.,McMahan, J.F. and Carder, P.(1994), ``Property andcontrolling space use. The Australian performance measurement: from theory to surveyresults are unable at this timeto management practice’’,Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 12, provideany indicationof futuretrends. These pp. 18-24. canonly be achieved from repeating the Brackertz, N., Haywood, C.and Kenley, R.(2002), surveyover a numberof years.By comparing ``Enabling process for strategic outcomes: CREin the resultswith the UKtimeseries, however, the Australian private and public sector’’,Pacific it ispossible to makesome general Rim Property Research Journal, Vol. 8No. 4, pp. 286-99. observationsregarding the officemarket. The Ernst &Young (2002), Views ofCorporate Real Estate consistentuse of muchgreater space per from the Boardrooms ofEurope, Ernst &Young Real personindicates that officedesign and Estate Advisory, London. organisationalallocation of spaceis quite GREG (2001), Australian Government Real Estate Groups, differentfrom the UK.Thereasons for this Benchmarking Report, unpublished. differenceare not clear from the data but Higgins, D.(2001), The Prime OfficeMarket in Australia, warrantfurther research to establishthe Axiss, Sydney. Joroff, M., Louargand, M.and Lambert, S.(1993), rationale.The much wider spread of office Strategic Management ofThe Fifth Resource ± densitycould be an indication of aless Corporate Real Estate, Industrial Development uniformmarket and structured approach to Research Council. officeuse and serves as awarningto potential Reardon, J. (2001), Globalisation ofCorporate Real Estate, occupiersthat someoffice designs may be IRES World Congress, Alaska. considerablymore costly to occupythan RICS/Gerald Eve (2001), Overcrowded, Under-utilised or Just Right? OfficeSpace: HowMuch is Enough, RICS others.It also appears that Australian Foundation, London. organisationsperhaps pay lessattention to the Simpson, E.(1996), ``An assessment offacilities efficiencyof spaceuse, with only69 percent management performance: alook behind the collectingdata onthe costof officeoperation scenes, astroll around the block and avoyage into andeven less using this basedata to develop hyperspace’’, COBRA96, RICS Research. any strategicasset managementplans. Stone, P.J. and Luchetti, R.(1985), ``Your officeis where What mustbe noted by facilitiesmanagers you are’’,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62, March-April, pp. 102-17. if procuringoffice space in different regions of Varcoe, B.J. (1996), ``Facilities performance the worldis that the localnorms in terms of measurement’’, Facilities, Vol. 13 No. 10/11, officedesign and space use differ and must be pp. 46-51. taken intoaccount if localstaff areto be Warren, C.M.J. (2002), ``Benchmarking corporate real providedwith quality, appropriateoffice estate; fundamentals ofmeasurement’ ’,PacificRim workspaceto enablebusiness. Within a global Property Research Journal, Vol. 8No. 4, pp. 277-85. Warren, C.M.J. (2003), Room for Thought: AStudy of context,facilities managers procuring space OfficeUse in Australia, RICS/UNSW, Sydney. fortheir organisations will need to beaware of Zeckhauser, S. and Silverman, R.(1983) ``Rediscover your this apparent disparityin the two marketsand companies real estate’’,Harvard Business Review, becognisant of the differingworkplace January/February, pp. 111-17.
314