Office Design Features and Future Organizational Change toward Supporting Sustainability

Abstract

Organizational change, influenced by such factors as economics, information and communications technologies (ICTs), and users’ wellbeing, is essential for organizational effectiveness, productivity, and sustainability. Thus, there has been a call for urgent changes in workplace design features to respond to future change. This study is concerned with defining the level of change in design features that is needed in existing Saudi governmental workplaces to cope with future visions of sustainability, as well as controlling the cost of such redesigning. It is hypothesized that future challenges related to economics, ICTs, and users’ wellbeing would have a significant impact on the need to change existing workplace design features. Administrator workplaces in three buildings of Saudi organizations and their representative economic, ICT, and wellbeing trends were considered (n = 104, 95, 96). The average level of change in design features in each building was observed and reported. The most changed design features in buildings affected by economic, ICT, and wellbeing trends were minimizing of luxury workplaces, minimizing storage space, and improving thermal/lighting conditions, respectively. However, the most changed design features that were common to all three buildings were spatial and furniture layouts and minimizing storage space.

1. Introduction

In Saudi Arabia, the earliest office buildings were non-purposed. The first governmental organization that occupied the non-purpose Uthmanic building was the Ministry of Finance in 1932 at Makkah in Ajyad district near the Holy Mosque. The history of Saudi office buildings is not well-documented; however, the exploration of oil in 1933 followed by the need to construct oil refineries in 1938 by ARAMCO necessitated the construction of high-tech office buildings. Actual government interest in office building construction started in the late 1960s in eastern and middle provinces [1,2]. The Ministry of Public Works and Housing, together with the Ministry of Finance, was responsible for the construction of infrastructure of the whole country, including office buildings. In 1998, each governmental sector was tasked with establishing its own constructional department responsible for construction and maintenance, which was due to the royal decree concerns with cancelling the Ministry of Public Works and Housing and the takeover of Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs. In the meantime, several international and local architectural offices were invited to contribute to office design. Most of these office buildings were designed by international architectural offices under the supervision of local offices to ensure Saudi spatial needs and identity. Early office buildings constructed during 1968–1978 were designed as a cellular office type providing managers and high-status staff with private offices. In the 1980s, there was a preference for open plans due to the participation of international architectural offices and the reflection of the work style in spatial layouts. In general, most existing governmental office buildings are a combination of cellular and open plan types.

On a global scale, the recent trend in the US concerns transformation toward sustainable offices that promote productivity and provides more attention to workers and their environment. The massive office industry in US has been affected by so many factors during the last two decades. The drop in office space demand due to economic recession, technological intervention, and pandemic diseases have created vacant office buildings. The US Chamber of Commerce survey in 2023 shows that 46% of real estate professionals think that zoning permits prevent them from converting offices for other uses. The survey also found that the future trend of US offices is toward flexible, healthy, and hybrid workspaces collaborating with offsite workers [3]. Research on US workplaces have suggested the need for more focus on information technology, collaborative work style, management, and workplace design [4,5].

The trend for UK companies is to enhance employees’ wellbeing through office design. This includes smart offices, hybrid working and flexibility, and sustainability. There is greater emphasis on the provision of natural light through windows and skylights, control over noise, thermal comfort, amenities, smart furniture, common spaces for informal communication, natural recyclable materials, and the use of plants to enhance interior spaces [6,7]. The British Council for Offices, BCO, was established in 1990 to identify and predict the future of the office sector. Among their main concerns was to investigate the changes that have taken place over the last three decades and provide support and advice to organizations. They also focus on the issues of productivity, wellbeing, heath, sustainability, technology, densification, and globalization and their impacts on the office industry, in addition to design specifications, building utilization, and the new challenges for all involved partners [8].

In fact, workplace quality has become a landmark of a country’s economy. Large organizations need high-quality workplaces to accommodate their business. Companies also allocate vast expenditure to accommodate their staff in high-quality workplaces. This has urged organizations to conduct continuous audits of their facilities and make the necessary changes. The notion of organizations’ effectiveness, including performance, sustainability, and productivity, has become a demand for top management objectives. Users’ satisfaction with physical working environment has become a necessity due to its impact on productivity. Several forces may impact on organizations (e.g., trade policies, political measures, and pandemic diseases), causing economic recession and an ICT revolution in organizations worldwide. Economic and ICT policies in organizations have become a sign of survival over crises and future changes. This study would help decision makers to identify the level of change required in design features affected by economic, ICT, and wellbeing factors to cope with the future challenges of development, including controlling the cost of redesigning. The study focuses on these three challenging factors, which are expected to cause changes in the existing workplace design, to ensure the better effectiveness of organizations. These challenging factors are milestones for the Saudi 2030 Vision and considered significant for productivity, organizational effectiveness, and sustainable development.

However, several issues affect an organization’s structure through its lifecycle, and changes regarding these issues would certainly necessitate urgent organizational restructuring to maintain productivity and organizational effectiveness. The literature can shed light on how wellbeing, technological, and economic issues, adopted for the Saudi future vision of sustainable development, could influence the physical design features of the workplace in its spatial, social, and environmental aspects.

1.1. Users’ Wellbeing Challenge and Sustainability

The role of environmental issues, including physical, spatial, and social factors, in workplace design represents a rich area in the literature. Research has emphasized the role of employee satisfaction and expectation in supporting productivity. Redesigning workplaces by providing a working environment with the opportunity to support organizational objectives, including productivity, has become an essential function of executive management. This is due to the growing evidence that relates employees’ performance and productivity to their satisfaction with the quality of the physical environment of their workplace. Office redesign has become associated with employee productivity based on several performance dimensions. Employees’ ability to control the working environment, such as lighting and visual quality, has been associated with the level of satisfaction, including happiness, alertness, and mood [9,10,11,12].

Employees’ satisfaction with their working environment is also related to their ability to change workplace design features [13]. In a multi-space office, it is correlated to social wellbeing, while in an open plan office, the quality of the working environment, including privacy, is associated with perceived productivity. Employees in multi-space offices do not have designated workspaces and, instead, share workspace clusters with a variety of social, physical, and environmental requirements to suit different tasks, including social gathering, conference meetings, private workspaces, group discussion, and seminar meetings. This idea was developed based on an early ‘multiple activity settings’ concept, where staff mobility and shared facilities were considered key design criteria. Employees are urged to move and churn around these multiple activity settings to support innovation and informal communication, a concept that enhances employee productivity [14]. The early open plan office, including landscape offices, introduced by the German Quickborner consulting team in 1958, was introduced to support workflow and informal contact. The plan is characterized by curves and varying geometric patterns of furniture layout free of walls or partitions. Employees are usually dissatisfied with this type of layout due to lack of privacy and the high level of noise and distractions, resulting in lack of concentration. This type of layout supports workflow but has a negative social impact on sustainability.

Office layout has always been discussed in the literature as a support to sustainability [15,16]. Office size, including single or shared offices, is associated with satisfaction [17]. Productivity, as an important issue of sustainability, was also found associated with office physical configuration, including office furniture, spatial layout, thermal comfort, air quality, noise level, privacy, and environmental control. Office furniture and workspace acoustics have contributed significantly to several aspects of productivity, including employees’ satisfaction, work ability, and recovery [18]. Office quality, including aesthetics and noise level, were also the strongest predictors of perceived productivity in a low-performance office [19]. The social aspect of office redesign has also been associated with friendship, collaboration, and privacy. Both collaboration and privacy positively influence work productivity [20]. In post-occupancy evaluations, the modern work environment has been described as the ability of workplaces to offer employees a good level of spatial and technological change [21]. Various aspects of the interior environment, including changing furniture layout of offices, have also been an area of interest in terms of employees’ uncertainty about their workplace quality [22].

Environmental issues in workplaces have been connected to sustainability. Global conferences and United Nation conventions have lately insisted on the need to maintain a green environment in all aspects of life for sustainable development. Responsive and sustainable workplaces are characterized by synchronizing with the surrounding environment, conservative use of natural resources, being highly conscious of energy consumption, and making use of all forms of renewable energy. These issues became demanded both locally and globally. Issues concerning increasing social, environmental, and economic sustainability have become significant for future organizations. Research has emphasized the connection between the quality of the physical environment of offices and sustainability. Exposure of workers in offices to nature is related to sustainability. Indoor nature exposure was found to be related to social sustainability through improving workers’ health and motivation, while outdoor exposure was related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability through workers’ restoration and stress reduction. Involvement of workers in selecting the desirable working environment is a significant issue in sustainability. Organizations should be aware of office design aspects that contribute to achieving the desired level of social and environmental sustainability. Environmental bullying, such as not giving workers the option to control temperature or creating noise near workspaces, could negatively affect sustainability through its impacts on worker turnover. Social sustainability is also correlated to the quality of the interior design of workplaces through its impact on psychological, environmental, and spatial issues [23,24,25].

Wellbeing is usually associated with satisfaction regarding building performance. In a recent study, employees exhibited higher satisfaction when their office building was renovated, resulting in major improvement in thermal, lighting, and air quality conditions leading to higher productivity [17]. Thermal comfort is a very significant and complicated issue in workplaces. Satisfaction with thermal comfort is significant to gender differences in offices, where women have a different level of perception of thermal comfort in workplaces [26,27]. User control against centrally operated systems is another challenging issue in office thermal comfort. Employees that possessed user control over inside temperature showed higher satisfaction and wellbeing [28]. The office design and layout has a significant impact on the energy used for cooling, heating, lighting, and ventilation performance [29]. Designers should conduct a preliminary study of thermal performance of buildings before construction. Developing frameworks based on use and condition, operation, climate change, and performance indicators would guide designers toward making better decisions [30].

The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of offices has always been an area of concern due to its impacts on health, wellbeing, and satisfaction. IEQ, including air quality, thermal comfort, and light conditions, is associated with stress at work [31]. Stress and concentration among employees were also found to be associated with some aspects of IEQ (e.g., light and daylight) [32], while thermal comfort and indoor air quality were significant to employees’ comfort, health, and productivity [33]. In recent research, IEQ maps have been developed based on the environmental conditions of workplaces, including differences in the thermal, acoustic, air, and lighting between workstations. This would contribute to employees’ wellbeing as they are able to choose between these workstations [34]. Five IEQ aspects (indoor temperature, air quality, lighting, and acoustics) are related to productivity [35]. Acoustics performance, including control over noise through acoustic strategies, is important for employees’ wellbeing [15,36]. Environmental sustainability is usually improved when climate, orientation, solar control, and ventilation are considered [16]. In fact, ensuring users’ wellbeing has become more difficult and complicated in some organizations, especially during times of economic recession or heavy information technology intervention. Apparently, employees’ wellbeing and satisfaction with their spatial, physical, environmental, and social issues of workplaces have become a target for organizations due to their contribution to productivity.

In summary, design features related to users’ wellbeing are issues related to natural/artificial lighting, visual comforts, social wellbeing including privacy, and quality of the working environment, including thermal and visual quality, acoustics, and spatial and furniture layouts. These aspects of the working environment contribute to shaping the level of sustainability in workplaces.

1.2. Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs): Challenges and Sustainability

Globally, workplaces have witnessed dramatic changes due to economic, information technology, and environmental issues. In this work, technology refers to information and communications technologies (ICTs), which have a significant impact on economic growth and productivity. Information and computer technology has contributed positively to sustainability through its impacts on raising employees’ productivity in workplaces [37,38,39,40,41,42].

Examples of research concerned with the impact of information technology on sustainability are abundant in the literature. This impact occurs through minor or major changes in organizations, work style, and the working environment and includes the need for better understanding the connection between the layered evolution of workplace technologies and the nature of work, including the structure of organizations [43]. Studies have also examined the impact of technological changes on employment and working conditions during economic recessions, including the impact of technology-driven trends on how, when, and where we work in workplaces, with focus on flexible work and the changes necessitated by automation [44,45]. The ability of ICTs to expedite channels of communication and data accessibility has contributed to changing the work style in organizations. The level of technology in organizations has become a sign of organizational strength and is considered as one of the main constituent elements of organizations’ structure. The intensive use of ICTs may also enable organizations to decrease the size of their workforce. Employees have become worried about their jobs due to the heavy involvement of automation and technology in organizations. The trend toward minimizing the workforce due to the intensive use of technology may cause a shrinkage in the facilities of organizations, including spatial assets [46,47,48].

Information technology and mobile facilities have a strong impact on workplace design, allowing employees to work anywhere at any time, leading to a surplus in workplaces. The ability of ICT to eliminate paperwork has led to useless storage areas in offices. Early approaches in workplace design have used technology to develop the notion of shared and mobile facilities, including workplaces [14,49].

On the other hand, the increased dependence on ICTs may decrease face-to-face contact and informal communication between employees. This would affect the level of social sustainability in organizations. Research has emphasized the role of social contact, including face-to-face contact, on productivity and employees’ wellbeing [50]. Successful community participation in planning dependent on ICTs requires face-to-face conventional contact, which substantiates the role of face-to-face contact in decision-making process [51]. Other research suggests a role for the change in work style and office utilization, including face-to-face contact, in future sustainable offices [52]. However, offices should integrate technology with formal and informal contact among staff to enhance productivity.

Although ICTs have become an essential issue for future offices, some employees reported stress and dissatisfaction with some computer parts, such as keyboards, mice, and certain IOT items. An automated stress detection system was installed in an office environment reporting employee’s interactions with the computer and other units, and stress was clearly detected among many employees [53]. Stress and frustration due to ICTs could hamper productivity. Designers should be concerned with the correct location and orientation of computers and workstations with respect to other co-workers and windows, encouraging employees to have regular breaks and avoid screen harm through the provision of common spaces for informal communication. ICTs have been used in public transport in the form of high-tech cameras to detect people with special needs, toward providing the required help. A similar approach could be used in workplaces to help employees identify their actual needs, such as checking their heath situation, or in facing any problem at work. This would increase employees’ satisfaction, leading to more sustainable workplaces [54].

However, the US and UK trends in future office design have emphasized the importance of technology and social organization as a key issue for sustainable offices [3,6,7,8]. However, social sustainability in workplaces should not be hampered by technology. Recent research has revealed potential social issues of technology. In general, the impact of the heavy involvement of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in organizations in facilitating work from home, electronic transactions, and automated facilities has contributed effectively to sustainability through raising the level of productivity and efficiency on the one hand, and bridging economic and health difficulties caused by unforeseen factors (e.g., economic recession, and pandemic diseases) on the other. This has resulted in organizations being obliged to reconsider the arrangement of their physical facilities, calling for workplace redesign that encompasses spatial, environmental, physical, and social issues. It includes changes in the number and size of workplaces, storage areas, spatial and furniture layout, and the introduction of new concepts like shared workplaces and mobile facilities.

1.3. Economic Challenges and Sustainability

Throughout history, economic issues have been the salient factor for the survival of organizations, which usually shrink or expand according to their economic situation. Top management in organizations typically prepares continually adapted plans for the growth of their assets. Once a recession is expected, urgent measures are taken to adjust an organizations’ future plans for gradual or sudden shrinkage. During economic recession, companies may need to restructure their entire organization, including all facilities (e.g., spatial, furniture, and equipment), to absorb the shock. While keeping their employees’ motivated, they need to massively reduce the quality of goods and services in trying to run the business with less resources. Although considerations for the causes and consequences of organization restructuring are pursuit for efficiency, research calls for the adoption of restructuring techniques and methods to meet future challenges, especially economic and social difficulties [55,56].

Undoubtedly, economic recession severely impacts on employees and organizations. It is often associated with the employees’ level of wellbeing, distress, and dissatisfaction in workplaces. Surveys in workplaces between 2003 (boom) and 2009 (recession) revealed a significant work pressure associated with staff reduction and company reorganization. Coronavirus has led to economic recession, causing increase in job losses, increase in the mortality rate, and a decrease in life quality [57,58,59].

During a recession, it is important to restructure workplaces to control the level of employee productivity and an organization’s effectiveness. The size of change required for restructuring depends on the scale of economic recession, organization strength, experience, and trust. Changes in workplace organization, including re-engineering, teams, payment, and participation were significant to productivity growth in the US during the 1990s. Changes during a recession in pursuit of productivity may include all working trends such as human skills, workplace organization, and information technology. The change could affect work location, work times, and the management of work trends, including business objectives [60,61].

Job loss caused by organizational shrinkage may cause a surplus in office space and other facilities. Limitations in the financial budget of organizations may also call for massive cuts in their prime assets. Companies may unite or seek partnerships in the private or public sector, and others may struggle for survival in relying on their limited assets. In brief, economic growth is important for organizational productivity and efficiency. However, economic measures and pressure of change caused by growth or shrinkage, workforce, partnership, investment, and future expectations have a significant influence on workplace redesign to maintain sustainable workplaces, which includes workplace number, size, spatial layout, furniture layout, storage space, and the shared concept of facilities.

2. Research Hypothesis

The study examines the existing governmental workplaces in Saudi Arabia in the city of Makkah Al-Mukarramah (known as Mecca) under the three influencing factors (i.e., economic, ICTs, and users’ wellbeing) embodied in the Saudi 2030 Vision for sustainable development. It is claimed that a change in these factors, organizations’ significant factors of productivity, efficiency, and sustainability, is associated with the level of change required in the existing workplace design features in terms of its spatial, physical, social, and environmental attributes.

This hypothesis is examined in this study on some governmental office buildings in Makkah, according to the definition of economics, information technology, and users’ wellbeing within the Saudi vision for the future. The design features were developed based on a literature review, and design teams and facility managers participated in this study.

3. Methodology

The research examined three strategic factors, the economy, ICTs, and users’ wellbeing, together with their relevant subfactors, which are expected to reshape Saudi organizations and influence the physical design of the workplace. From the literature, it was concluded that there are four aspects of design features critical for change; these are environmental, spatial, physical, and social issues. They include the quality of environmental control (e.g., thermal/lighting control), visual quality, privacy level, spatial and furniture layouts, number and size of workplaces, storage area, shared workplaces, and mobile facilities. Two methods were adopted for the research methodology: interviews and the change audit method.

3.1. Interview Method

Design features determined through the literature review were adopted in the study, but to investigate and establish relevant and wider design features, the opinions of facility managers and design teams were considered. The number of facility managers and design team members that participated in the interview in each of the three buildings were 8, 14, and 9. The interview was carried out as an analytical investigation of the study, discussing and reporting all design features that could be affected by future economic, ICT, and users’ wellbeing factors and subfactors, in addition to highlighting design features for which changes were witnessed over the last seven years or where changes within the next three years were expected. At the end, an inventory list of twenty-two design features was enumerated. Participating employees (i.e., administrators) were also interviewed to assess the level of perceived change in environmental aspects, such as thermal, lighting, and acoustics quality. In fact, several measures have already been for launched these buildings regarding economic, ICT, and wellbeing issues. Each building was selected regarding witnessing of change in one targeted strategic factor, while the other two factors were unchanged. The aim was to report changes that took place in the design features among these buildings over the last seven years.

3.2. Change Audit Method

The second part of the methodology concerns the change audit method to reveal actual witnessed change in workplaces. This was achieved through a case–control type of study, as a type of descriptive analytical research. In the Saudi 2030 Vision, wellbeing, ICTs, and the economy are considered as the greatest challenges of future sustainable offices; therefore, for this study, three governmental office buildings were selected, where each represents a different challenge in order to measure modifications and changes in its physical design. The research targets design features that were changed, with the organization having adopted one of the three challenges. Each building should be concerned with only one challenge to eliminate the impacts of other challenges. This was somewhat difficult, as most organizations have a mixed agenda with respect to the three challenges. There were some organizations who, however, adopted a single challenge, as they believed it would be important to start with the one that needed addressing the most. Meanwhile, the higher authorities of these organizations have encouraged them to tackle the issue gradually. The number of governmental purpose office buildings in Makkah was around fourteen buildings, and around five buildings began actually addressing the three challenges. Three buildings with a clear challenge-driven agenda were selected, and another two buildings were deemed inconvenient for study as they simultaneously adopted mixed challenges. The three buildings were located in Makkah, having initially similar design features of a typical governmental workplace building. Through the physical audit, the actual changes in the physical settings were pointed out using architectural drawings in parallel to design team discussion. In the study, several selection criteria were developed, and their suitability to the three case studies for research competence and reliability ensured. These are the type of organization (i.e., governmental), organizational structure (i.e., bureaucracy and decision-making process), location (i.e., Makkah), building age, presence of facility management unit to report workplace change, flexible spatial and furniture layout (i.e., flexible walls and partitions), flexible and adaptable services (i.e., air conditioning and lighting systems), and presence of the concept of shared and flexible facilities.

4. Saudi Workplaces and Future Challenges

Since the 1960s, many office buildings have been constructed as a response to the growing economy of the country. It was not until 1970 that purposed office buildings were considered in Makkah. The main post office in Al-Ghazza district is one of the oldest office buildings in Makkah. The design idea started in 1968, and the actual project handover was in 1979. The building is a simple reinforced concrete structure of a 6 m module in both directions. It has an open plan layout with a variety of space subdivision. The rate and quality office building construction are related to the economic situation. The growth rate of the Saudi economy fluctuates according to oil prices, the inflation rate, and the global situation. As the country became a member of G-20 and possesses one of the world’s highest reserves of oil, its economic performance has progressed well in normal circumstances, although it dropped slightly during the Arabian Gulf Wars and coronavirus pandemic. According to a Ministry of Finance report from 2020, the rate of economic growth in 2019 was 0.3%, −4.1% in 2020, with the expected future rate of 2.6% in 2021 and 7.5% in 2022 [62].

The increased number of office buildings paralleled the boom in oil revenue. Governmental office buildings belong to different ministries, but all are managed by similar laws and regulations. Over the last four decades, minor changes occurred in some buildings and were limited to some renovations and minor modifications. These changes were launched due to the employees’ negative reactions toward the quality of their working environment. Other changes were due to the need to manage the space as an asset among organizations [63,64]. The new 2030 Vision was released as a future plan for the country to meet future challenges and achieve a high level of sustainability. It consists of several milestones, but the economic, technological, and users’ wellbeing challenges are the most critical to workplace design [65]. The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development (HRSD) have also insisted on the need to create productive environments in all governmental workplaces as one of its main strategic measures to maintain sustainable development [66].

The impact of the three challenges on office buildings has been a significant issue for discussion among organizations. The economic factor may cause expansion or shrinkage in organizations’ assets, including space, staff, and equipment. The technological dimension may force organizations to reconsider their work style, management systems, and workplace configuration. Workplace wellbeing could oblige organizations to change office layouts, environmental control systems, and social policies.

According to the 2030 Saudi Vision for sustainable development, the three strategic factors of users’ wellbeing, ICTs, and economy should be considered in all workplaces. This may require the investigation of their implications on the physical setting of workplaces. The future vision has also initiated several subfactors regarding each strategic factor that are vital to future change. The economic challenge concerns five main subfactors: massive cut in jobs, decrease in government financial support, encouraging investment and development, call for partnerships, and identification of organizations’ expectations. Subfactors related to technological issues are the intensive use of information and communications technologies (ICTs), work from home, and the massive use of technological devices and equipment including internet of things (IOT). Users’ wellbeing subfactors concern workplace satisfaction and happiness through upgrading the quality of the physical environment of workplaces (i.e., lighting, thermal, privacy, acoustic, spatial, services, etc.).

5. Case Studies

Building 1, constructed in 1981, is located in Makkah. It is a five-story building fabricated of reinforced concrete of 7.2 m structural span, accommodating 340 employees, and has applied major economic measures for the last 7 years. The building has an open plan office with gypsum walls up to the ceiling around the main circulation areas and building’s core. Workspaces and offices are subdivided by partitions of varying height to create different levels of privacy. The plan has some private offices with gypsum walls up to the ceiling allocated for managers. The building was handed over to a private company under government supervision and partnership. The new organization witnessed critical economic measures such as decreases in government funding and workforce, release of new plans for investment and development, and a significant change in the organization’s expectations. Technological and employee wellbeing issues have not resulted in significant changes in this building.

Building 2, designed and constructed during 1978–1984, is a six-story building located in Makkah that accommodates 395 employees and belongs to the government sector. The wellbeing issue and economic concerns have not resulted in significant changes, but the building has witnessed dramatic change in information technology measures in the last 6 years. The building was designed as a large mass creating a special landmark in the city. It consists of two atriums in the hub of the building to create a desirable internal environment, while all offices are located on a single-loaded corridor around the building. It is a reinforced concrete structure with a 7.2 m structural span. The exterior walls are precast concrete panels with gypsum walls up to the ceiling around the atrium and main circulation areas. Offices and workspaces are subdivided by different height partitions controlled by the occupancy size. It is open plan with some cellular office-type space being created as required. On some floors, there is a fully open plan featuring workspaces with different levels of enclosure. Employees are provided with high information technology capabilities, and the workspaces are equipped with a high level of information and technology infrastructure. This enabled some employees to work from home, accomplishing their work electronically, and workplaces were connected to smart systems.

The third governmental building (Building 3), located in Makkah, was constructed in 1977 and is fabricated of reinforced concrete with a 5.5 m structural span and brickwork in the external walls. It is a five-story building with a double-loaded corridor. Offices along the corridor are subdivided by gypsum wall up to the ceiling. Office areas are subdivided by gypsum walls and partitions as needed. It is rather a conventional cellular plan type with some large rooms of multiple occupancy. The building accommodates 268 employees and has not experienced major changes in economic or technological aspects. Instead, the building witnessed major concern, from the top management, in the last 7 years regarding raising the level of satisfaction and productivity through renovation and development. This includes raising the quality of furniture, services, staff density, environmental comfort issues such as AC and lighting, social issues, and level of privacy. A summary of the significant strategies of organizations regarding the three strategic factors and subfactors as defined by the 2030 Vision in the three selected buildings is shown in (

Table 1. Summary of organizations’ significant strategies in the three selected buildings regarding the three strategic factors and subfactors as defined by the 2030 Vision.

Building 1	Economy
	Government fund	Manpower	Investment and development	Partnership	Organization expectation
	Free governmental fund turned into long term loans.	Massive cut in jobs. Releasing many staff.	Employment of specialized team, investing on local and global scales.	Collaboration with governmental and other private companies.	Change in organizational expectation through desire for expansion and profitability.
Building 2	Information & Communication Technologies ICTs
	Heavy technological intervention	Work from home	Smart and intelligent systems and networks
	Workplaces equipped with advanced ICT equipment and networks.	Employment of experienced staff for work automation, and towards electronic transactions	Introduction of internet of things (IOT). Transfer towards smart technological systems and sensors.
Building 3	Users’ wellbeing
	Raising happiness and satisfaction level working environment supporting productivity Upgrading environmental control issues Renovation of building quality and systems (AC/lighting) Improving staff services

), while expected potential changes for the three buildings are shown in (

Table 2. Potential changes in design features under economic, ICTs, and wellbeing challenges in the three buildings.

Potential Changes in Design Features under Economic Subfactors (Building 1)	Potential Changes in Design Features under ICTs Subfactors (Building 2)	Potential Changes in Design Features under Users’ Well-Being Subfactors (Building 3)
- Spatial/furniture layouts (Space optimization and restructuring). - Workspace size (Cost cut/Space optimization). - Number of workplaces (Reduction due to deceased manpower). - Luxury workplaces (Cost cut). - Spaces for service providers (Services outsourcing). - Department size (Cost cut/Space optimization). - Shared/Flexible workplaces, spaces, and facilities (Cost reduction/facilities management) - Towards standard workplaces (Cost cut) - Green Buildings (Energy saving/sustainability).	- Spatial/furniture layouts (Impact of IT on proximity and activities relationships). - Workplace size (Workspace/IT configurations). - Number of workplaces (IT may decrease manpower). - Department size (Shrinkage due to decreased staff). - Decrease in visitors’ services e.g., parking, waiting areas, WC, etc. (Decrease in visitors) - Shared/Flexible workplaces and facilities (Facilities management) - Less paper storage spaces (IT impact). - Towards standard workplaces (IT management). - Proximity among co-workers: IT diminishes the importance of adjacency. - Green workplaces: (IT impacts on paperwork and transportation). - Quality of working environment (IOT, Sensors and IT systems of intelligent buildings). - Common areas (Informal communication).	- Level of privacy (Satisfaction). - Spatial/furniture layouts(Productivity) - Shared/flexible workplaces and facilities(Productivity) - Green workplaces (Delight/happiness/sustainability) - Environmental control e.g., Air conditioning/lighting (Satisfaction) - Staff services upgrade (Satisfaction) - Visual and pleasure aspects of workplace environment (Satisfaction) - Common areas to support informal contact and communication (Satisfaction/productivity).

).

The three buildings were around 40 years old. As employees’ status and job complexity could cause differences in the level of change in design features, the interviewed participants of the inspected workplaces that were selected belonged to general staff who represent the middle class, i.e., administrators. The staff members of governmental sectors were classified in terms of being secretaries, technicians, administrators, managers, and general managers. Administrators usually represented 45–55% of staff, and 55–65% were included in the study.

The three buildings were visited, and the workplaces were inspected in terms of their physical components. An inventory checklist of the twenty-two adopted design features was enumerated for each building. Facility managers and active staff in each building were also interviewed and declared whether there was any remarkable change in the physical design features over the last seven years, and approved and expected future changes were also considered. To determine the actual change in the physical features, the original architectural drawings and plans of each building were included in the inspection and interviews to evaluate the level of change in the targeted design features.

All design features of the three buildings were recorded in terms of number and size, and they were compared with the ones in the original drawings. The ratio of change was developed for each design feature comparing the existing to the past situation. Spatial and furniture layouts were also measured in terms of added or removed number of walls, partitions, desks, and cabinets, and they were compared with the old layouts. Other spatial features such as storage space, spaces for service providers, shared and common spaces among departments were also measured in terms of percentage of introduced or removed areas. Environmental features such as thermal comfort, including AC, lighting condition, sound level, visual quality, and green workplaces, and social features, such as levels of privacy and informal interaction, were measured through assessment of the employees’ to determine the perceived changes in levels between current and old situations (

Table 3. Summary of methods used to measure design features in the three adopted buildings.

No.		Design Features	Measurement Method (Rate of Change %) Current against Original Layouts
1	Spatial	Spatial layout	% of added or removed walls and partitions
2		Furniture layout	% of added or removed tables, cupboard, desks and cabinets
3		Storage spaces	% of added/removed areas
4		Spaces for service providers	% of added/removed areas
5		Shared spaces among departments	% of added/removed areas
6		Workplace size	% of Av. size of current to original workplace
7		Separation among departments	% of added/removed walls and partitions
8		Department size	% of Av. size of current to original
9		Importance of proximity among coworkers	% of separated/gathered co-workers
10		Frontstage/backstage spaces	% of changed areas
11	Environmental	Thermal/lighting control	% of perceived level compared to past(improvement/deterioration)
12		Quality of visual and pleasure aspects of workplace. environment	% of perceived level compared to past(improvement/deterioration)
13		Green workplaces	% of change towards sustainability aspects
14	Social	Common areas to support informal contact and interaction	% of added/removed areas
15		Level of privacy	% of perceived level compared to past(improvement/deterioration)
16	Physical	Number of workplaces	% of number of currents to original workplaces
17		Luxury workplaces	% of added/removed in number/size
18		Services introduced to customers i.e., parking, waiting etc. areas, WC, etc.	% of added/removed in number/size
19		Shared workplaces and facilities	% of added/removed in number/size
20		Staff services upgrade	% of added/removed in number/size
21		Flexible workplaces and mobile facilities	% of added/removed in number/size
22		Towards standard workplaces i.e., elimination of types.	% of introduced/minimized workplace categories

).

6. Results

The results of the empirical work were analyzed using mean values for all design features. Values ranged between 3 and 51% with standard deviation among recorded results as between 2.8 and 30.1. The top seven design features in the three buildings for which changes were witnessed over the last seven years are reported. The significance of the results was tested through the p-value for the top seven features using z-table, with seven change limits (i.e., 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, and 15%). This will help in understanding the reliability of each value (e.g., minimizing luxury workplaces scored 51% in building 1, indicating that the average change value among all observations is greater than 45%, as the confidence level is p < 0.05). Building 1, which represents the economic trend, has adopted minimization in luxury workplaces, change in spatial layouts, movement toward frontstage space at the cost of backstage space, decrease in customer services, change in furniture layouts, minimization of storage space, and an increase in workplace standardization, respectively. Building 2, which was applying ICT measures, has shown significant changes in minimizing storage space, a change in spatial and furniture layouts, a decrease in several features including workplace standardization, luxury offices, a need for proximity, and an increase in privacy level. Finally, building 3, applying users’ wellbeing measures, reported an increase in environmental control aspects, including a change in thermal and lighting comfort, upgrade in staff services, changes in spatial and furniture layouts, an increase in privacy level among staff, a decrease in storage space, and an increase in the visual and comfort quality of workplaces (

Table 4. Summary of the empirical study results showing comparison between percentage of average witnessed changed values in the three buildings in adopted design features over the last seven years.

No.		Design Features	% of Change Bldg. 1 Economy Trend	% of Change Bldg. 2 ICTs Trend	% of Change Bldg. 3 Wellbeing Trend
1	Spatial	Spatial layout	45 (2) ******	47 (2) ******	36 (3) *****
2		Furniture layout	29 (5) ***	43 (3) *****	31 (4) ****
3		Storage space	−22 (6) **	−49 (1) *******	−23 (6) **
4		Spaces for service providers	7	10	4
5		Shared spaces among departments	4	3	5
6		Workplace size	7	−13	12
7		Separation among departments	−8	−9	−8
8		Department size	−8	−6	−7
9		Importance of proximity among co-workers	−3	−24 (6) **	−13
10		Frontstage/backstage spaces	35 (3) *****	9	8
11	Environmental	Thermal/lighting control	12	6	46 (1) *******
12		Quality of visual and pleasure aspects of workplace. Environment	10	7	18 (7) *
13		Green workplaces	12	5	11
14	Social	Common areas to support informal contact and interaction	8	12	13
15		Level of privacy	9	16 (7) *	30 (5) ***
16	Physical	Number of workplaces	−12	11	−4
17		Luxury workplaces	−51 (1) *******	−28 (5) ***	−12
18		Services introduced to customers, i.e., parking, waiting, etc., areas, WC, etc.	−34 (4) ****	−7	−3
19		Shared workplaces and facilities	5	5	11
20		Staff services upgrade	9	9	42 (2) ******
21		Flexible workplaces and mobile facilities	8	12	12
22		Toward standard workplaces	16 (7) *	−38 (4) ****	11

Number in brackets refers to top seven design features. Negative sign refers to decrease in level of change. Bldg. 1. Witnessed economic measures, n = 104. Bldg. 2. Witnessed Technological measures, n = 95. Bldg. 3. Witnessed economic measures, n = 96. Standard deviation (SD) for all results ranges 30.1-2.8. $z=\left(\stackrel{-}{X}-CL\right)/\left(\frac{SD}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$. $\stackrel{-}{X}$ = average change, CL = change limit 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, and 15. SD = standard deviation, n = number of observations. p = 1 − z, using z-table. ******* p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 45%. ****** p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 40%. ***** p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 35%. **** p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 30%. *** p-value < 0.05 average change among all observations is greater than 25%. ** p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 20%. * p-value < 0.05, average change among all observations is greater than 15%.

). The percentage of change in the adopted design features in the three buildings is illustrated in a bar chart diagram (Figure 1).

7. Discussion

Building 1, adopting economic measures, showed a significant change in issues related to minimizing cost. The highly changed design features in this building were concerned with bringing initial and operational cost to minimum, which appears in minimizing luxury offices, storage space, and moving toward office standardization. The organization of this building was also geared toward creating a better layout for staff through a change in spatial layout and movement toward frontstage rather than backstage spaces, a sign of decreasing the level of bureaucracy moving toward flat rather than deep organization, and seeking the promotion of informal communication for better productivity.

The information technology trend applied in building 2 shows more concern about minimizing storage space due to the overuse of information and communications technology, relying more on electronic transactions than paperwork, leading to massive reductions in storage. The building also shows changes in spatial and furniture layouts, probably due to the change in users’ requirements caused by technological interference. ICTs have also led to a decrease in standardization level, luxury workplaces, the need for proximity, and an increase in privacy level due to the staff need for concentration and minimizing level of distractions.

In users’ wellbeing trend of building 3, the employees’ dissatisfaction and the need to improve their working environment showed a change in several features, including the quality of environmental control issues (i.e., thermal and lighting condition), staff services, spatial and furniture layouts, privacy level, visual and pleasant quality of workplace, and reduction in storage area. As shown in the literature, these features are usually associated with the employees’ satisfaction with working conditions and motivation for productivity.

Finally, this study defined the level of future change in design features according to organizational strategic measures (i.e., economic, ICT, or wellbeing). Organizations adopting the three strategic measures simultaneously may need to compromise on selected design features. The design features common to the three buildings (i.e., spatial layout, furniture layout, and minimizing of storage areas) could help organizations in adopting the three strategic measures. Minimizing luxury workplaces and change toward office standardization could help organizations of economic and ICT trends (i.e., buildings 1 and 2), while a change in the level of privacy could be significant to organizations of ICT and wellbeing trends (i.e., buildings 2 and 3).

The findings of this paper regarding change in the spatial layout to enhance sustainability are supported by several works. Nanayakkara found that once office layout is considered, future offices should be sustainable and wellbeing- and technology-oriented, with a tendency toward smaller office size in creating co-workers’ office spaces [15]. Wu also found significant improvement in environmental sustainability once several environmental issues were considered, including building layout [16]. Others have insisted on a connection between the office layout and the change in work style and office utilization [52]. Open plan layout and workplace flexibilities were also considered a demand of future sustainable offices [67]. Office layout regarding workplace size was also identified as a concern for employee satisfaction [68]. Adjusting furniture layout is also significant for users and organizations [18,22]. The findings concerning the changes in thermal and lighting conditions and their impacts on employees’ wellbeing are supported by several studies covered in the literature review [17,23,27,29,31,33,34,35], whereas findings related to minimizing luxury private offices support the future sustainable office building trend through their emphasis on collaborative work style and the promotion of a social environment [4,5,20,50,51,52].

However, under the economic, technological, and wellbeing pressures of change, several recommendations derived from this research are posed to the design team and decision makers in Saudi organizations in pursuing sustainable future workplaces. Changes in the physical setting of existing workplaces to cope with future organizations’ expectations have become a complicated issue. This may call for the need to establish designated departments concerned with studying the future change requirements of organizations. The concept of workplace sustainability in dealing with people, planet/environment, and profit issues necessitates a precise understanding of the scope and measures of change. Decision makers should be aware of decisions concerning harm and impact on the environment, such as massive building material waste caused by changes in walls, partitions, accessories, facades, and environmental systems. Materials, systems, and fittings should be replaced using local recycled materials and resources. Moreover, decision makers should consider raising workplace quality through satisfying employee’s requirements such as regarding thermal, lighting, acoustics, and spatial conditions as a key issue for sustainability. The sustainability facet of profit in the Saudi future vision is very significant. Decision makers should also understand that massive decreases in storage area could generate surplus office space that could be let to another organization, and such measures might lead to more than one organization residing in a single building, which could raise the issue of spatial optimization among governmental office buildings. However, the decrease in luxury offices, services provided to customers, and the trend toward office standardization could have a positive economic effect.

Highlighted in the findings of this study are some limitations and recommendations that should be considered in future research. The main motivation for this work was to help Saudi organizations define design features of applicable change when launching a future vision of sustainable development. The study findings could be of use to other organizations adopting similar trends. Decision makers should ask designers to conduct further empirical studies to determine significant features in workplaces. Future work could be conducted on a wider scope, including a large number of buildings to generalize results. On the other hand, frequent audits on buildings experiencing modifications are important to report and record the types of change. These measures may contribute in understanding the nature of change and, therefore, assessing the needed cost. The adopted of economic, ICT, and users’ expectation subfactors may vary according to organizations’ policies and objectives. The size of an economic boom or recession, technological involvement, and the level of users’ wellbeing could reveal additional subfactors. Measures and considerations for unforeseen issues like pandemic diseases, including coronavirus, in the workplace design should be carefully considered to revise design features concerning social, environmental, and occupational attributes.

8. Conclusions

The importance of this work lies in helping decision makers of the Saudi governmental sector to define the level of change in public office buildings through design features and according to the future trend of the organization (whether economic, ICT, or wellbeing) to pursue a future vision of sustainable development. This includes reporting the level of change in some design features adopted under the effect of three strategic factors highlighted in the Saudi future vision plan, i.e., economic, ICT, and users’ wellbeing. The literature has defined four aspects of significant change: environmental, physical, social, and spatial. The research consists of two parts. Firstly, design teams and facility managers of the targeted buildings were interviewed to establish a wider and relevant set of possible affected design features under the four defined aspects (i.e., environmental, physical, social, and spatial). Targeted staff in the study (i.e., administrators) were involved in evaluating the perceived environmental quality level of the workplaces. Secondly, an empirical study was conducted, wherein three buildings were selected as representatives of the economic (i.e., building 1), ICT (i.e., building 2), and wellbeing (i.e., building 3) trends. In this study, average mean values were used to highlight the top seven design features that witnessed change for each building. The top changed design features in the buildings of economic, ICT, and wellbeing trends were minimizing luxury workplaces, minimizing storage space, and improving thermal/lighting conditions, respectively. The common design features among the three strategic factors were changing the spatial and furniture layouts and minimizing storage space. Organizations with economic and ICT measures should be more concerned about minimizing luxury workplaces and change toward office standardization. Those organizations with wellbeing and ICT trends should be more concerned about the level of privacy.

Although this study is concerned with changes in workplaces motivated by economic, technological, and wellbeing pressures, organizations should benefit from this experience in planning their future development. Through continuous workplace audit and post-occupancy evaluation (POE) tools, organizations could establish a benchmark for their working environment quality that is suitable for the different internal or external forces of the business. This could be a continuous process that is frequently updated on a regular basis. The impact of each design criterion on workplace performance should be carefully identified, and such an approach would strengthen management’s ability to effectively respond with the necessary changes. Moreover, organizations should make future forecasts regarding their future workplaces based on the trends of frequent audits. The link between past, present, and future changes in the physical setting of workplaces should always be an issue of concern for top management, and this entails continuous updating and developing of new concepts of workplace design. Newly constructed workplaces should also benefit from these design considerations and ideas to accommodate the diversity and complications of future business.