WORKPLACE DESIGN By: Chris West
Figure Metropolitan Life 1896 (http://www.officeinsight.com/1953)
The Workplace Environment: Evolution to the Present Day and What It May Look Like In the Future Knowledge workers have recently been freed from land-line telephones and desktop computers, but this freedom has been replaced with smaller work spaces, longer hours, and a barrage of technological distractions. This freedom has created new approaches to working, called alternative workplace strategies (AWS). By definition, this means telecommuting, an arrangement in which employees regularly work from home or other places. (Herman Miller, 2007) The traditional office is evolving rapidly, from box offices, to cubicles, to open spaces, to telecommuting. Workplaces of today must be more creative and effective than ever before to accommodate a wider variety of needs, and to inspire worker performance and productivity. Looking back at the history of office planning and design, the worker was not the focus. In fact, one of the earliest workplace designers in 1904, an engineer named Frederick Taylor, was mostly interested in efficiency (Taylor, 1911). His approach was to crowd workers together in an open environment as management looked on from private offices. 1
WORKPLACE DESIGN By the 1950’s management began to spread out within the office instead of being clumped together (Becker, 1995). European design was evolving more rapidly, influenced by the Quickborner Team (Quickborner Team, 2013). Quickborner Team, a company headed by brothers Eberhard and Wolfgang Schnelle, and Hermann Dunst, pioneered the open landscape approach, which was based on egalitarian principles emerging in northern Europe. This had a tremendous influence on American designers, and one in particular, Robert Propst, who worked for Herman Miller under the supervision of George Nelson. Where the Quickborner Team simply used standard office furniture in a more open configuration, Propst designed the first modular business furniture system, with flexible work surfaces and adjustable heights. This was a breakthrough in office design in the United States, called the Action Office, and is still widely used. “The Action Office system was designed to promote productivity, privacy, and health (they attempted to increase blood flow)” (Herman Miller, 2013).
Figure Early Prototype of Action Office System (Herman Miller)
Propst conducted research which showed that open environments did not increase, but instead reduced collaboration, and hindered personal resourcefulness (Herman Miller, 2007). He also came to the conclusion that there needed to be a variety of options for different people. Propst found that a majority of people are more productive within a personalized space, but also 2
WORKPLACE DESIGN require vistas outside their space. His solution was a two or three-sided vertical division to define territory and provide privacy, but also allowing a view and participation in surrounding activities (Herman Miller, 2013).
Figure First Commercial Installation (Herman Miller)
His design was aimed at reconfiguring the maze of office caves of the early 20th century; however, his intention was lost when the open-plan was adopted as merely a cost-saving measure, reducing the square foot per person. Propst complained that, "the cubicle-izing of people in modern corporations is monolithic insanity" (Lohr, 1997).
3
WORKPLACE DESIGN
Figure The Cubicle (http://www.mikanet.com/museum/item.php?item=2010)
As workplace design evolves, emphasis has shifted away from the cubicle to more openspace planning, and new studies are pointing us in the direction of process. One such study concludes that the new metrics for examining the allocation of space are measuring three separate areas: collaboration, concentration, and community. (Miciunas, 2013) Balancing these three activities is emerging as critical to performance and productivity. In traditional offices, 70 percent of the space is allocated to individuals. That leaves only 30 percent for shared support space, including both collaboration and community space. Research is showing that this 70/30 ratio does not support the new ways of working in the mobile workforce. The new ratio which supports mobility is approximately 50/50. “The current focus on wellness and well-being at work encourages movement. Activity-based settings that break apart the functions of the cubicle require people to move around throughout the day.� (2013, p. 3) Not surprisingly, Propst ascertained this while designing the Action Office system. This knowledge has been available since 1965.
4
WORKPLACE DESIGN Steelcase has a similar take on the allocation of space, but they have defined four areas: Focus, Learn, Collaborate and Social. (Moses, 2013) The trend towards open workplace environments was an attempt to increase collaboration. While trying to increase worker collaboration, the absolute necessity for focus work was neglected and disregarded. Not only has the shift affected focus work, but the idea that open space would improve collaboration has been largely unsuccessful. This has stifled productivity and eroded innovation. (2013, p. 9) Some of the reasons are sited in a report from researchers Jungsoo Kim and Richard de Dear, who conclude that the open plan creates a lack of “sound privacy� (Quirk, 2013). They argue that this strongly outweighs its positive qualities. According to this research, the traditional open plan does not make a measurable improvement in communication at all, and rates the highest percent of worker dissatisfaction.
5
WORKPLACE DESIGN
Figure Sound Privacy
The 2013 Gensler Workplace Survey (WPS) came to similar conclusions; that over 50% of respondents said that they were distracted by others when they needed to focus. (Gensler, 2013) The important fact to note is that when employees could not focus individually, collaborative work was also less productive. “Our results,” the researchers conclude, “categorically contradict the industry-accepted wisdom that open-plan layout enhances communication between colleagues and improves occupants’ overall work environmental satisfaction" (Burkeman, 2013). This cannot be emphasized enough, focus work, vital to collaboration has been diminished, and collaboration is also compromised in traditional open workplace environments.
6
WORKPLACE DESIGN However, the Gensler study suggested that “the best way to design a successful workplace was to provide the right balance between spaces which allow employees to focus, and spaces which allow them to collaborate with others – most importantly making sure that these spaces do not interfere with each other” (Gensler, 2013). Steelcase has outlined a model for four areas of combined space: I, We, Shared, and Owned. (Steelcase, 2012) (Figure 2) For example: The phone room is personal, but shared by all, collaborative is both shared and we-space, team space is owned we-space, and personal space is solely owned by one.
Figure Four Areas of Combined Space
The new freedom brought on by technology, combined with dissatisfaction of the workplace, has caused many workers to find alternative environments in which to work. A mass exodus from the overcrowded and distracting workplace has created an entirely new culture called Coworking. (The New Third Place, 2013)
Coworking, another form of alternative work environments, is defined as: shared workplaces that bring together diverse groups of people (Davies, 2013). Telecommuters working from home have found that working in isolation is not the ideal solution to overcrowded offices. 7
WORKPLACE DESIGN People need social interaction (Davies, 2013). Being connected either through planned events, conversations over coffee, social activities, shared values, or chance encounters has significance and worth. This new Coworking culture has an informal feel, like the combination of a café and your own living room. Space at these workplaces can typically be rented through a monthly membership. Small companies enjoy the benefit as well as individuals, where there is greater flexibility which a long-term lease cannot provide. Another benefit is in “sharing the cost of very high-performance collaborative spaces that are being utilized 80 percent of the time. If each company created comparable space just for them, everybody would spend significantly more and have a much lower utilization rate” (Steelcase, 2012). Paul Saffo, a director of the Institute for the Future, said, "Work is changing so rapidly and becoming so diverse; there is no one way to do an office anymore" (Lohr, 1997). Gensler has been conducting ongoing research since 2005 to determine how design can best serve the knowledge worker’s engagement and performance. They are discovering that the workplace, if it’s aligned with the needs of both the organization and the worker, can have a profound influence on employee performance.
8
WORKPLACE DESIGN
Figure Evolution of Work (Forbes)
9
WORKPLACE DESIGN Gensler’s key findings in 2005 showed that employees felt there was a definite correlation between the physical work environment and productivity (Gensler, 2013). Year after year this was reiterated and emphasized. By 2008 Gensler found a clear framework beginning to emerge revealing four primary work modes: “focus, collaborate, learn, and socialize” (2013, p. 3). The crowded open-space plan does not support focus work, and the data showed that without space for focus work, other modes suffered. By 2013, Gensler was concluding that focus was indeed crucial, but also the balance of focus and collaboration was imperative. Having choice over where to work creates worker satisfaction and increases performance and innovation (Gensler, 2013). What they are finding is that focus and collaboration are not conflicting, they are complements to each other, but the first step of the process is focus (Gensler, 2013). They discovered that employees who are supported in their focused tasks are better able to collaborate, learn, and socialize. This goes hand-in-hand with their job satisfaction, success at their job, and therefore, their self-esteem. When workers see themselves as successful, collaboration and interpersonal connection is improved. Employers are beginning to realize that when workers are satisfied, performance and productivity go up (Gensler, 2013). So, this leads to the question, what exactly is optimum workplace design for worker satisfaction and wellbeing?
Figure Ability to Choose and Move
10
WORKPLACE DESIGN From Gensler’s research, among many other sources, we are learning that employers need to create work settings where there is choice in the amount of stimulation at any given time (Gensler, 2013). The ability to move and choose is crucial. (see figure 7) According to Susan Cain, the author of the book Quiet, “both extroverts and introverts find the openness of the modern workplace a source of distraction, but introverts suffer more from it. Innovation is best served by letting people choose openness or quiet and allowing them feel at ease and able to be themselves” (Cain, 2013). When Cain was asked if she wrote her book in the quiet of her own home, she replied that she wrote most of it at a café. Choosing quiet does not always mean choosing solitude, which is why choice is so important. There is such a thing as too much quiet, even for the introvert. Cain said the difference between working in the café environment to an open-plan office is freedom. She points out that, in a café, you can come and go as you please, you can remain inconspicuous, and you are not required to participate in conversations, meetings, or events. If you are distracted, you can choose to move. Distraction is cited as being one of the leading causes of the decline in productivity. (Whitson, 2013) Workers in an open-plan office have 63% of their tasks interrupted, but research has found that even those who work in private offices have 49% of their tasks interrupted as well. (2013, p. 3) It would seem that the problem of distraction is beyond simply the difference between open-plan or closed office. To understand why this problem can be experienced across the spectrum of workplaces, distraction has been separated into categories. First, there is direct interruption by others, when a person speaks to you, which is simply a matter of etiquette, and is a problem that has existed well before phones were invented. There is also indirect interruption such as phone calls or text messages, which can be avoided if employers give workers the ability to unplug for certain hours
11
WORKPLACE DESIGN during the day. Finally, there is the environment based distraction, which mostly has to do with noise. (2013) This problem has been researched and addressed for over 40 years, and is still not solved in a satisfactory way. Studies are showing that noisy equipment can be distracting, but not as much as background conversations. “The threshold for understandable background speech is roughly 24% of the conversation. At that point, the mind starts to make sense of the conversation and seeks to fill in the blanks. A study by Banbury and Berry found overhearing background conversations could reduce test performance by two-thirds” (2013, p. 4). To create a distraction free workplace there is a standard for speech privacy that can be implemented in the early planning phase of an office. This is called a Privacy Index, and is a measure for rating speech privacy of an architectural space. (2013, p. 5) To understand how privacy is measured, imagine being at your desk and reading 100 words out loud. If a person in the next desk can understand clearly 15 words out of the 100, the Privacy Index is 85. The findings show that some of the key design factors for achieving privacy goals are the sound absorption of the ceiling, floors, panels, walls, and sound masking. The new trend in architectural fashion is to have open plenum ceilings, bare concrete floors, and open-plan workplaces. However, the effect is proving to significantly decrease productivity, even in private offices. The Privacy Index must be factored in during the beginning phase of the design process. Focus has emerged as the number one issue that cannot be compromised, but that doesn’t mean that collaboration has decreased in importance. Innovation is comprised of both focus and collaboration, and teamwork is how ideas grow and spread. It has been found that the balance between focus and collaboration is possible in either private or open space offices, so the primary factor is choice between the two. Performance and innovation have been found to increase when
12
WORKPLACE DESIGN employees are given the ability to choose, and having choice has been found to decrease employee turnover. This is ultimately going to affect the bottom line of any company. When employees are satisfied with both their job and workplace, performance and innovation soar. It’s been found that with choice, employees don’t necessarily choose to work from home. They often will make the decision to go where they can connect to resources and to people, and spend the majority of their time (70%) at the office. (2013, p. 13) This brings us back to the question: if workers have the choice, what would cause them to choose the office? It won’t be the same for every person, but if space is provided for focus without distraction, and a quality environment is provided for collaboration, they are more likely to choose the space where they will be able to perform effectively. (Steelcase, 2012) The physical environment has been shown to increase performance in team work. (Grulke, 2001) In a case study conducted at the University of Kentucky, six teams with equal performance abilities were given the same task, three in a treatment group, and three in a control group. The teams in the treatment group were given a choice of spaces which would specifically enhance and support the assigned task with flexible furnishings and computer resources. The other three teams (control group) were allowed to choose from less satisfactory spaces. Interestingly, the three teams in the control group were allowed to use any space within the complex, but they avoided the standard classroom with chairs lined up facing front. Instead they chose spaces where the configuration was more collaborative, even when resources were not as accessible. However, in the end, the three teams in the treatment group who were given access to the well-designed spaces performed much higher. (2001, p. 319) They all had choice, but the treatment group had better designed space to choose from.
13
WORKPLACE DESIGN Conclusions from the study, after the six teams ranked their environments, showed that access to resources was the top priority. Ease of interaction was second, mobility (choice between focus and collaboration) was third, and flexibility of the space was ranked fourth. In conclusion it was found that “physical environments that support team activities invite collaboration and foster communities of practice” (2001, p. 328).
Figure Collaborative Space Support Team Activities
Results have shown that the physical environment can increase performance by fostering a more healthy and sustainable life for employees. Choice between a wide array of spatial settings, for social, learning, collaborative and focus work, with adequate separation from interference between them, has been found to be ideal. It’s not difficult to imagine that
14
WORKPLACE DESIGN workplaces of the future will utilize this knowledge and design hyper-collaborative, distractionfree spaces to support worker satisfaction. Today, we need to use this new research to re-imagine workplace design to be employee-centric, considering movement, choice, flexibility, comfort, and overall wellbeing of employees.
Bibliography
Robert Propst. (2013, Jun 26). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Propst_(inventor) The New Third Place. (2013). 360 Magazine, p. Issue 63. Retrieved from Steelcase 360 Magazine: http://360.steelcase.com/articles/the-new-third-place/ 15
WORKPLACE DESIGN Cain, S. (2013). Stressed Out by Openess. Retrieved from dialogue 22: http://m.gensler.com/feature/dialogue-22 Davies, A. &. (2013). The Style of Coworking. Slovakia: Prestel Verlag. Franck, K. A., & Lepori, R. B. (2000). Architecture Inside Out. West Sussex: Wiley-Academy. Gensler. (2013). 2013 U.S. Workplace Survey/ Key Findings. Gensler. Groves, K. (2012). I Wish I Worked There! West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Grulke, E. A. (2001). Grulke, E. A., Beert, DThe Effects of Physical Environment on Engineering Team Performance: A Case Study. Journal of Engineering Education, 90: 319–330. Herman Miller. (2007). Set Them Free. Retrieved from Herman Miller: http://www.hermanmiller.com/content/dam/hermanmiller/documents/research_summaries /wp_Alternative_Work_Styles.pdf Kent, F. (2013, Feb 03). Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving Beyond Iconic to Extraordinary. Retrieved from Project for Public Spaces: http://www.pps.org/reference/toward-an-architecture-of-place-moving-beyond-iconic-toextraordinary/ Kuang, C. (2009, Mar 23). Evolution of Office Spaces Reflects Changing Attitudes Toward Work. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/culture/design/magazine/17-04/pl_design Lohr, S. (1997, Aug 11). Cubicles Are Winning War Against Closed Offices. Retrieved from NYTimes: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/081197cube.html Miciunas, G. (2013, Nov 8). A New Set of Metrics for High-Performance Workspaces. Retrieved from Work Design Magazine: http://workdesign.co/2013/11/a-new-set-of-metrics-forhigh-performance-workspaces/ Morgan, J. (2013, Sep 10). The Evolution of Work. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2013/09/10/the-evolution-of-work/ Moses, E. (2013, Oct 21). Interview with Emily Moses. (C. West, Interviewer) Seattle. Quirk, V. (2013, Nov 25). Is the Open Plan Bad for Us? Retrieved from Archdaily: http://www.archdaily.com/450972/is-the-open-plan-bad-for-us/ Roby, W. (2008, Jul 20). Spaced out. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jul/21/workandcareers1 Steelcase. (2012). The New Third Place Issue 63. Retrieved from 360 Steelcase: http://360.steelcase.com/articles/the-new-third-place/ Steelcase. (2012, Feb). The Next Office: Why CEO's are paying Attention. Retrieved from 360: http://360.steelcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Steelcase-360-Issue63.pdf Treasure, J. (2012, Sep). Julian Treasure: Why architects need to use their ears. (J. Treasure, Performer) TEDGlobal 2012. Retrieved from TED : http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_why_architects_need_to_use_their_ears.html Whitson, A. B. (2013, Oct 28). Turning Green into Gold. Retrieved from officeinsight: http://www.officeinsight.com/1953
16