Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Technical notes

Vol. 49 No. 1 (2025)

Acoustic comfort and fit-out in open space offices: considerations based on a real case assessment

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ria1-2025oa20512
Submitted
giugno 30, 2025
Published
2025-09-22

Abstract

Multiple activities in open offices lead to multiple sound sources that can negatively affect users. In response, an approach has been developed that considers objective parameters, subjective perception, and architectural solutions. However, common practice reveals interferences between these areas, causing poor acoustic design. This paper aims to identify these interferences by analyzing a real case. Objective parameters (STI, RT, and LAeq,T) were measured and evaluated according to EN ISO 3382-3 and BS ISO 22955. A synthesized GABO questionnaire was distributed to identify the most annoying sound sources. The results show that compliant STI and RT do not lead to low annoyance levels from understandable and unintelligible speech. Compliant noise levels are still perceived as annoying for all activities. Additionally, the position of functions can affect how sources are perceived differently.
This highlights the need for multi-criteria analysis to analyze and overcome these interferences and ensure high acoustic comfort.

References (including DOI)

  1. S. Banbury, D.C. Berry, Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise, British Journal of Psychology 89 (1998) 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8295.1998.TB02699.X.
  2. D.C. LeCompte, Extending the Irrelevant Speech Effect Beyond Serial Recall, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20 (1994) 1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1396.
  3. M.J. Jafari, R. Khosrowabadi, S. Khodakarim, F. Mohammadian, The Effect of Noise Exposure on Cognitive Performance and Brain Activity Patterns, Open Access Maced J Med Sci 7 (2019) 2924. https://doi.org/10.3889/OAMJMS.2019.742.
  4. C.J.P. Oswald, S. Tremblay, D.M. Jones, Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound, Memory 8 (2000) 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117762.
  5. I. Knez, S. Hygge, Irrelevant speech and indoor lighting: Effects on cognitive performance and self-reported affect, Appl Cogn Psychol 16 (2002) 709–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/ACP.829.
  6. D.M. Jones, W.J. Macken, Phonological Similarity in the Irrelevant Speech Effect: Within- or Between-Stream Similarity?, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21 (1995) 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.103.
  7. A. Kjellberg, Noise annoyance during the performance of different non auditory tasks, Percept Mot Skills 73 (1991) 39. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.73.4.39-49.
  8. L. Mayiwar, T. Hærem, Open-office noise and information processing, Journal of Managerial Psychology 38 (2023) 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2023-0140.
  9. L. Brocolini, E. Parizet, P. Chevret, Effect of masking noise on cognitive performance and annoyance in open plan offices, Applied Acoustics 114 (2016) 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APACOUST.2016.07.012.
  10. A. Ebissou, E. Parizet, P. Chevret, Use of the Speech Transmission Index for the assessment of sound annoyance in open-plan offices, Applied Acoustics 88 (2015) 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APACOUST.2014.07.012.
  11. Open-plan office density and environmental satisfaction - NRC Publications Archive - Canada.ca, (n.d.). https://nrc-publications.
  12. canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=b5008ea2-42b7-40ae-ae93-ff6bb70279ce (accessed March 16, 2025).
  13. J.J. Hurrell, M.A. McLaney, Exposure to job stress-a new psychometric instrument., Scand J Work Environ Health 14 (1988) 27–28.
  14. M. Pierrette, C. Marquis-Favre, J. Morel, L. Rioux, M. Vallet, S. Viollon, A. Moch, Noise annoyance from industrial and road traffic combined noises: A survey and a total annoyance model comparison, J Environ Psychol 32 (2012) 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2012.01.006.
  15. IEC 61672-1:2013 | IEC, (n.d.). https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/5708 (accessed March 16, 2025).
  16. M. Pierrette, P. Chevret, Gêne acoustique dans les bureaux ouverts (GABO), (2019) 27. https://doi.org/10.34894/VQ1DJA.
  17. ISO 22955:2021 - Acoustics – Acoustic quality of open office spaces, (n.d.). www.iso.org/standard/74237.html (accessed March 16, 2025).
  18. ISO 3382-3:2022 - Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 3: Open plan offices, (n.d.). www.iso.org/standard/77437.html (accessed March 16, 2025).
  19. M. Pierrette, E. Parizet, P. Chevret, J. Chatillon, Noise effect on comfort in open-space offices: development of an assessment questionnaire, Ergonomics 58 (2015) 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.961972.
  20. E. Sundstrom, J.P. Town, R.W. Rice, D.P. Osborn, M. Brill, Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance, Environ Behav 26 (1994)
  21. –222. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600204.
  22. M. Tavakol, R. Dennick, Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha, Int J Med Educ 2 (2011) 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/IJME.4DFB.8DFD.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...