A National Survey of Total Office Costs

Type	Web Page
Author(s)	Axcell.A , Proctor,A. , Fennell,B.
Publication year	2001
URL (web address)	http:tocsurvey.com
Notes	ID: AXCELLA2001; A short report and longer research paper which compares notional Total Occupancy Cost per m2 and per person and per workstation for 25 locations, 5 in London, Edingburgh, Cardiff and 18 English towns / cities. All costs relate to a standard 5,000m2 NIA office divided into four rectilinear floor plates and a net total equivalent to 14m2 NIA per person (a density on the high side when compared to surveys - Gerald-Eve, 1999) taken on a ten year lease with fit out annualised over 7 years and best estimates from a series of suppliers concerning hard and soft FM costs (which are shown to be typically around 50% of the TOC. The ODP code code was used. While it could be said to be a fairtly obvious conclusion that total costs in London are nearly three times higher per m2 than in Nottingham, and the FM component is significant (especially in Lower Rental/ Rates locations) the fact that such data were not previously in the public domain is itself a comment on the current stae of knowledge. For this reviewer there remains the same problem. No estimate of value from alternative space usage. Are 'efficient' rectilinear spaces most effective? Are "$meeting rooms, canteen etc" $really $"unproductive"$ or are they actuallty where 'production' of knowledge takes place. Is the dedicated workstation actually the 'unproductive space. The cost standards assume a 50% p.a. churn rate (is this a reflection of an uneffective organisational design? To be fair this was not the intention, and the TOC survey does at least demonstrate the benefits on offer even in cost terms, for different approaches to office usage.
Issue	Research Paper No 2001.01
Availability	Online
Relevance to practice	High
Evidence base	Strong
Readability	High

Comments

No comments yet for this article.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post comments. Login now.