[abstract missing - contribution appeared in the programme]

"The changing nature of work and new business management philosophies has led to vast array of possible ""new ways of working."" This generic term encompasses both work patterns undertaken within the office, and also the possibility of location free work outside the office. Ways of working in the office and flexible working outside the office are interconnected with the office design being the connecting hub. With this revolution in the way we work it is imperative that the alignment with work processes and office design are made if optimum productivity is achieved. This research used a questionnaire to survey 996 office occupiers across 27 Local Government offices. The questionnaire used a 27-item scale, to measure office occupiersí perceptions of how productivity was affected by their office environment. The tool has since been used for an Australian bank a major central Government department and it is proposed for other international projects. The initial results, indicate that it is the variables relating to the dynamics of the office which are perceived as having most influence on productivity in the office environment. The implications being, that to capture the ""office dynamics"", and achieve optimum productivity, a more ""people centred"" approach is required during office design or refurbishment. The tool is now being extended to apply to other contexts such as a Federal Court building in North America, and its scope broadened to evaluate macro factors such as location as well as building design layout and space management issues. The authors believe that the research represents a significant breakthrough in the quest for tangible evidence of ways in which the procurement, design and management of real estate can impact upon productivity. The paper illustrates the background context, the development and refinement of the methodology and the results of several case studies where the instrument has been applied."

This study constructs optimal real estate portfolios using returns from Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Ireland (Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland). Data from IPD for ten major regional centres are used for office and retail property from 1984 through 2002 (excluding London). In addition, total returns, income only returns, and appreciation only returns are used. The optimal portfolios are dominated largely by property in Belfast and Dublin. When three markets areas of London were included in the optimization, the results remained largely the same with London property entering few of the portfolios and with a low allocation.

Risk and uncertainty are inherent parts of the valuation process as often the valuer is unable to specify and price accurately all current and future influences on the value of the asset. The UK valuation profession has been criticised for inconsistencies and failures to reflect risk and uncertainty and this was reinforced by the Investment Property Forum/Investment Property Databank (2000) which highlighted the need for more rigorous risk assessment measures within the property profession. More specifically, they concluded that a new approach is needed which combines conventional analysis of returns uncertainty with a more comprehensive survey of business risks. This debate was brought into shaper focus by the publication of the Carsberg Report (2002), which emphasised the need for more acceptable methods of expressing uncertainty, particularly when pricing in thin markets. This paper presents an alternative methodology for the scoring and reporting of risk ñ Property Risk Scoring ñ which utilises the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multi-criteria decision making tool developed by Saaty (1980). The researchers asked senior valuers in the UK profession to identify, and score, the risks attached to the valuation of prime offices. The focus initially was on investment quality risks and four key risks emerged; yield movement, lease length, rental movement and change in occupier demand. Analysis of the results enabled the development of a generic market model to be used to risk score individual property investments. The results are reported on a 1-5 scale, similar to the widely accepted D&B credit rating technique, thus aiding market acceptance. Property Risk Scoring (PRS) as proposed in this paper, involves the analysis and scoring of the total risk of a property asset, which is then reported to the client under the following 4 key headings: market transparency risk, investment quality risk, covenant strength risk and deprecation and obsolescence risk.