Environment-Factor-Intellectual Concentration (EFiC) Framework: Method for Deriving Mechanism for Improving Workplace Environment

  • Kyoko ItoEmail author
  • Daisuke Kamihigashi
  • Hirotake Ishii
  • Hiroshi Shimoda
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)


In this paper, a framework has been examined for quantitatively analyzing the relation between the workplace environment and intellectual concentration, through “factors” that connect between them, in order to improve intellectual concentration in the office. Specifically, “human characteristics” have been focused on and the factors affecting intellectual concentration was categorized into two groups. Using the factors, the measurement method and the quantification method have been considered and EFiC framework (Environment-Factor-intellectual Concentration) has been proposed for deriving the mechanism of intellectual concentration affected by the workplace environment. In order to confirm the effectiveness of EFiC framework, it was applied to the measurement data acquired in a past experiment of the intellectual concentration affected by lighting environment. As a result, concrete suggestions to improve the operating environment based on the characteristics of people were obtained. By applying the framework to measurement experiments of various intellectual concentration, it is expected that effective suggestions for improving intellectual concentration will be obtained.


Intellectual concentration Human characteristics Factors EFiC(Environment-Factor-intellectual concentration) framework Covariance structure analysis 



This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H01777.


  1. 1.
    Tanabe, S., Nishihara, N.: Productivity and fatigue. Indoor Air 2004, 126–133 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M., Ruohomaki, V., Vartiainen, M.: Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams. J. Knowl. Manag. 13(6), 533–546 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Fanger, P.O.: Productivity is affected by the air quality in offices. Proc. Healthy Build. 2000, 635–640 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisk, W.J., Price, P.N., Faulkner, D., Sullivan, D.P., Dibartolomeo, D.L., Federspiel, C.C., Liu, G., Lahiff, M.: Worker performance and ventilation: analyses of time-series data for a group of call-center workers. Indoor Air 2002, 784–795 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kroner, W.M., Stark-Martin, J.A.: Environmentally responsive workstation and worker productivity. ASHARE Trans. 100, 750–755 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sensharma, N.P.: An extension of a rational model for evaluation of human responses, occupant performance, and productivity. healthy buildings 2000. In: Workshop, vol. 9 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swain, A.D., Guttmann, H.E.: Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications, pp. 51–76. NRC, U.S.A (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matthews, G., Jones, D.M.: Refining the measurement of mood: the UWIST mood adjective checklist. Br. J. Psychol. 81(1), 17–42 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Terasaki, M., Kishimoto, Y., Koga, A.: Construction of a multiple mood scale. Jpn. J. Psychol. 62(6), 350–356 (1991–1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Working Group for Occupational Fatigue of Japan Society for Occupational Health : Handbook of Industrial Fatigue. Labor Standards Committee (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyoko Ito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daisuke Kamihigashi
    • 2
  • Hirotake Ishii
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Shimoda
    • 2
  1. 1.Office of Management and PlanningOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Energy ScienceKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations