Health-Related Workplace Productivity Measurement: Adding to the List

2003 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 912-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Stewart ◽  
Brian Schwartz ◽  
Judith Ricci
2003 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Loeppke ◽  
Pamela A. Hymel ◽  
Jennifer H. Lofland ◽  
Laura T. Pizzi ◽  
Doris L. Konicki ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Bortoluzzi ◽  
D. Carey ◽  
J.J. McArthur ◽  
C. Menassa

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive survey of workplace productivity key performance indicators used in the office context. Academic literature from the past ten years is systematically reviewed and contextualized through a series of expert interviews. Design/methodology/approach – The authors present a systematic review of literature to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and methods of workplace productivity measurement, complemented by insights semi-structured interviews to inform a framework for a benchmarking tool. 513 papers published since 2007 were considered, of which 98 full-length papers were reviewed, and 20 were found to provide significant insight and are summarized herein. Findings – Currently, no consensus exists on a single KPI suitable for measuring workplace productivity in an office environment, though qualitative questionnaires are more widely adopted than quantitative tools. The diversity of KPIs used in published studies indicates that a multidimensional approach would be most appropriate for knowledge-worker productivity measurement. Expert interviews further highlighted a shift from infrequent, detailed evaluation to frequent, simplified reporting across human resource functions and this context is important for future tool development. Originality/value – This paper provides a summary of significant work on workplace productivity measurement and KPI development over the past ten years. This follows up on the comprehensive review by B. Haynes (2007a), providing an updated perspective on research in this field with additional insights from expert interviews.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon Bortoluzzi ◽  
Daniel Carey ◽  
J.J. McArthur ◽  
Carol Menassa

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive survey of workplace productivity key performance indicators (KPIs) used in the office context. Academic literature from the past 10 years has been systematically reviewed and contextualized through a series of expert interviews. Design/methodology/approach The authors present a systematic review of the literature to identify KPIs and methods of workplace productivity measurement, complemented by insights semi-structured interviews to inform a framework for a benchmarking tool. In total, 513 papers published since 2007 were considered, of which 98 full-length papers were reviewed, and 20 were found to provide significant insight and are summarized herein. Findings Currently, no consensus exists on a single KPI suitable for measuring workplace productivity in an office environment, although qualitative questionnaires are more widely adopted than quantitative tools. The diversity of KPIs used in published studies indicates that a multidimensional approach would be the most appropriate for knowledge-worker productivity measurement. Expert interviews further highlighted a shift from infrequent, detailed evaluation to frequent, simplified reporting across human resource functions and this context is important for future tool development. Originality/value This paper provides a summary of significant work on workplace productivity measurement and KPI development over the past 10 years. This follows up on the comprehensive review by B. Haynes (2007a), providing an updated perspective on research in this field with additional insights from expert interviews.


2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 521-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish V. Joshi ◽  
S. Suresh Madhavan ◽  
Ambarish Ambegaonkar ◽  
Michael Smith ◽  
Virginia (Ginger) Scott ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Bortoluzzi ◽  
D. Carey ◽  
J.J. McArthur ◽  
C. Menassa

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive survey of workplace productivity key performance indicators used in the office context. Academic literature from the past ten years is systematically reviewed and contextualized through a series of expert interviews. Design/methodology/approach – The authors present a systematic review of literature to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and methods of workplace productivity measurement, complemented by insights semi-structured interviews to inform a framework for a benchmarking tool. 513 papers published since 2007 were considered, of which 98 full-length papers were reviewed, and 20 were found to provide significant insight and are summarized herein. Findings – Currently, no consensus exists on a single KPI suitable for measuring workplace productivity in an office environment, though qualitative questionnaires are more widely adopted than quantitative tools. The diversity of KPIs used in published studies indicates that a multidimensional approach would be most appropriate for knowledge-worker productivity measurement. Expert interviews further highlighted a shift from infrequent, detailed evaluation to frequent, simplified reporting across human resource functions and this context is important for future tool development. Originality/value – This paper provides a summary of significant work on workplace productivity measurement and KPI development over the past ten years. This follows up on the comprehensive review by B. Haynes (2007a), providing an updated perspective on research in this field with additional insights from expert interviews.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer H Lofland ◽  
Laura Pizzi ◽  
Kevin D Frick

Author(s):  
Amy Hasselkus

The need for improved communication about health-related topics is evident in statistics about the health literacy of adults living in the United States. The negative impact of poor health communication is huge, resulting in poor health outcomes, health disparities, and high health care costs. The importance of good health communication is relevant to all patient populations, including those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Efforts are underway at all levels, from individual professionals to the federal government, to improve the information patients receive so that they can make appropriate health care decisions. This article describes these efforts and discusses how speech-language pathologists and audiologists may be impacted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document