Table 2. Evaluation of affordances,... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2.

Evaluation of affordances, lighting and acoustic conditions

Affordances	Evaluation results from evaluation probes (EP) and workshop
1) Support awareness and ad hoc problem solving with face-to-face seating arrangement	Participants reported increased communication (7/8) (EP2). All participants reported an increased awareness of others. The seating arrangement and increased awareness decreased the threshold to ask questions, and request collaboration-supported problem-solving (workshop) [Figures 1(b) and (i)]
2) Support collaboration with visualisation tools and furniture	Participants (3/8) reported having used drawing boards (EP2) [Figure 1(e) and (g)]. Drawing boards support the projects’ design phase. Still, it is more productive to use the computer during the implementation phase to test solutions on-the-go (workshop)
3) Support focused work in a multitenant workspace	Participants in Room 2 reported (EP2) that the room supported focused work equally to prior intervention (1/4), the acoustics was slightly better (1/4). Still, phone- or videoconferences frequently caused distractions (2/4). Acoustic screens [Figure 1(i)] provided privacy (2/4) and a “nest-like” feeling to the workstation (1/4). Room 1 participants stated that focused work was hindered (4/4). 6/8 participants stated that the intervention does not support focused work because of noise, discussions, proximity, routing and phone- or videoconferences
4) Support confidential tasks with increased visual privacy	Room 2 participants seated next to the outside wall positively reviewed the visual privacy of their workstations (EP2). Exposed computer screens lead to a lack of visual privacy and the need to hide confidential material [Figure 1(b)]
8) Support group meetings with a workspace	All participants reported morning meetings (EP1). The space was also used for one-to-one discussions and problem-solving [Figure 1(e) and (h)]
9) Support recovery with relaxing space	The space was also used for social gatherings. The design was reported as comfortable and peaceful
10) Support client communication events with phonebooth	The phonebooth was tested by (5/9): its privacy was insufficient as the voices carried through to nearby workstations (3/9). Participants (8/9) reported a preference for using their workstations for either phone or videoconference calls (EP2) as they needed a computer [Figure 1(h)]
Lighting	The participants positively reviewed lighting in the intervention and at the workstation (8/9). One participant considered the light to be too bright at their workstation. The lighting evaluation results will be published in more detail elsewhere (Markkanen et al., submitted for publication)
Acoustics	The participants (5/8) perceived that wall- and ceiling-mounted acoustic boards, curtains and carpets positively decreased echoes in workspaces. The changes in acoustics were not measured

Affordances	Evaluation results from evaluation probes (EP) and workshop
1) Support awareness and ad hoc problem solving with face-to-face seating arrangement	Participants reported increased communication (7/8) (EP2). All participants reported an increased awareness of others. The seating arrangement and increased awareness decreased the threshold to ask questions, and request collaboration-supported problem-solving (workshop) [Figures 1(b) and (i)]
2) Support collaboration with visualisation tools and furniture	Participants (3/8) reported having used drawing boards (EP2) [Figure 1(e) and (g)]. Drawing boards support the projects’ design phase. Still, it is more productive to use the computer during the implementation phase to test solutions on-the-go (workshop)
3) Support focused work in a multitenant workspace	Participants in Room 2 reported (EP2) that the room supported focused work equally to prior intervention (1/4), the acoustics was slightly better (1/4). Still, phone- or videoconferences frequently caused distractions (2/4). Acoustic screens [Figure 1(i)] provided privacy (2/4) and a “nest-like” feeling to the workstation (1/4). Room 1 participants stated that focused work was hindered (4/4). 6/8 participants stated that the intervention does not support focused work because of noise, discussions, proximity, routing and phone- or videoconferences
4) Support confidential tasks with increased visual privacy	Room 2 participants seated next to the outside wall positively reviewed the visual privacy of their workstations (EP2). Exposed computer screens lead to a lack of visual privacy and the need to hide confidential material [Figure 1(b)]
8) Support group meetings with a workspace	All participants reported morning meetings (EP1). The space was also used for one-to-one discussions and problem-solving [Figure 1(e) and (h)]
9) Support recovery with relaxing space	The space was also used for social gatherings. The design was reported as comfortable and peaceful
10) Support client communication events with phonebooth	The phonebooth was tested by (5/9): its privacy was insufficient as the voices carried through to nearby workstations (3/9). Participants (8/9) reported a preference for using their workstations for either phone or videoconference calls (EP2) as they needed a computer [Figure 1(h)]
Lighting	The participants positively reviewed lighting in the intervention and at the workstation (8/9). One participant considered the light to be too bright at their workstation. The lighting evaluation results will be published in more detail elsewhere (Markkanen et al., submitted for publication)
Acoustics	The participants (5/8) perceived that wall- and ceiling-mounted acoustic boards, curtains and carpets positively decreased echoes in workspaces. The changes in acoustics were not measured