Introduction Why this is important
The Gould Evans Research Studio and Research Fellowship aim to investigate the role of research in the design and construction of our built environment. We believe a non-traditional approach to solving problems is what needs to become “the new normal” to ultimately achieve the level of innovation that design-thinking can produce. This semester, we investigated numerous topics all with the same goal in mind, utilizing evidence based design in real life situations through synthesis. “Design is always about synthesis—synthesis of market needs, technology trends, and business needs” (Jon Kolko). Synthesis is critical to our role as designers, it is the process that we seek to “organize, manipulate, prune, and filter gathered data into a cohesive structure for information building” (Jon Kolko). It is how we rationalize our ideas and bring clarity to the task at hand. “When synthesis is conducted as a private exercise, there is no visible connection between the input and the output...clients are left to trust the designer, and more often than not, the clients simply reject the insight as being “blue sky” or simply too risky” (Jon Kolko). Currently, this design synthesis occurs within the office or even within our own heads. The goal of this research is to provide fact based explanations for the design decisions that we make and the design ideas that we propose and to “find relationships or themes in the research data, and to uncover hidden meaning in the behavior that is observed and that is applicable to the design task at hand.” (Jon Kolko).
Lindsay Pericich
Lindsay is a second year graduate student working on her masters of Architecture at the University of Kansas. She is passionate about how the built environment impacts the end user and is extremely interested in human based design. With a BFA in Art History, she values the impact of research on design practices and hopes to integrate it into her career.
2
Special thanks to the University of Kansas Architecture Department Both Paola Sanguinetti, Chair of the School of Architecture, and John Gaunt, Dean of the School of Architecture, Design, and Planning, have been integral in the formation and continuation of this research-based collabortation between the University of Kansas School of Architecture and Gould Evans. Our shared vision is to explore the role of research in contemporary architecture and the impact it may have on our built environment. The Gould Evans Research Fellowship is led by Kelly Dreyer, senior design leader for Gould Evans. One of his many interests lies in the application of research-based methodology in the design and execution of our built environment to inform powerful and provocative outcomes. The Gould Evans Research Fellowship is jointly funded and made possible by Gould Evans and Bob and Karen Gould.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
3
4
1 2 3 4
Building on What We Know Research Studio .01
Part I: Black Box Workplace Evolution of the Workplace Defining Success Black Box Design Designing the Undesigned Studio Case Study
Part II: Intersection of Workplace & H.E. Student Success Higher Education Ties Prezi Diagram Diagram Breakdown Defining the Key Players Bringing it all together Company Categories Defining Traits for Success Determining Company Type Company Case Studies Conclusions
What’s Next?
Conclusions & Next Steps
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
5
1
Building on what we know Big Data in Workplace Design
Last spring the Gould Evans Research Studio, which consisted of 6 individuals from multi disciplinary backgrounds, dove into multiple facets of research concerning workplace design. They began by visiting multiple different companies and benchmarking them against a series of variables (spatial, experiential, and branding) to determine how each functioned and what was the most and least successful out of each of these workplaces. What they identified through their research were a few areas of focus: the “feel good” factor, 6
the experience of authenticity, and the idea of psychological comfort. The “feel good” factor is a variable in office design that they identified as being very influential to the overall quality of the office experience. In the most literal sense, the “feel good” factor is a feeling that people are behaving authentically and engaging with each other and their workspace. It was observed that when the space feels good the spaces were more successful for the people occupying them.
Their research into the experience of authenticity led to the discussion what allows one to be their authentic self within an environment. How can we, as designers, create spaces that allow people to behave naturally rather than conforming to the predetermined actions created by the designer of the space? Building off of the research into the “feel good” factor of a space and the experience of authentic self, the team began to look into psychological comfort and how these variables are intertwined.
This semester we are seeking to look deeper into this idea of architects being designers of experiences rather than designers of spaces and continue to build upon some of the research that came out of last semester’s efforts. For more information about the research that was conducted during the spring of 2014, please see the publication BIG DATA in workplace design, Gould Evans Research Studio .01.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
7
PART I
BLACK BOX WORKPLACE
2
BLACK BOX WORKPLACE Where the research took us.
One of the most provocative discoveries that came out of the last research effort was the idea of black box design being applied to an office environment. What this means is that rather than defining and designing the spaces that people occupy while at work, the people themselves are in control of their own work environment. This concept was observed at Cisco, where people were able to define there own work spaces and bring a lot of personal touches to their environment. The observed outcome was that people were happier and ultimately more productive at work. This concept is the jumping off point for the research effort of this semester. We began with trying to define success within the constraints of the workplace. This became a pivotal moment for rest of the semester, because even as our research shifted we found that these same defining factors of success could be applied at multiple scales and to multiple different groups within the broader scale of our research outside of workplace design. The research into defining success in the workplace led to a greater investigation of the evolution of the workplace and how to define a kit of parts that could help lay the foundation for the black box design office space.
10
90% of business owners indicated that culture positively affects their company with productivity, attracting and retaining top talent, and increasing profitability
90% of small business owners identify culture as foundational to the success of their companies
80%
of business believe that their
physical environment plays a role in fostering
vibrant culture
Highly engaged workers are 50%
more likely to exceed expectations
than the least engaged workers. Employees who feel welcome to express their authentic
selves exhibit higher levels of organizational commitment, individual performance, and propensity to help others
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
11
evolution of the workplace changing how we work
The evolution of the workplace began in 1904 with the creation of Taylorism, named after Fredrick Taylor an American engineer credited with being one of the first people to ever design a workplace. His main focus was to create the most efficient workspace while allowing bosses to manage the employees mimicking the way in which factories were run at that time. The floor plans were open with everyone seated facing the same direction with the bosses offices located at the front for a good view of everyone. B端rolandschaft movement occurred in Europe starting in 1960. It was referred to as the German office landscape and integrated the socialist values of the time into workplace organization. Work stations were laid out by work type and bosses were no longer secluded into private workspaces. In 1968 the Action Office replaced B端rolandschaft courtesy of Herman Miller. The Action Office was the first modular business furniture system (the beginning of the cubicle). It consisted of low dividers and flexible work surfaces. 1980 marked the ultimate use of cubicles. The high walled cubes laid out in repetitive patterns were created to satisfy the desire for a personal office in the cheapest way possible. Currently, many work environments consist of a layout referred to as Networking. The new goal is to get rid of the sea of cubicles while still maintaining an appropriate level of personal space and privacy. By breaking down the walls of the cubicle more opportunities for collaboration are presented. However, the networking layout does not necessarily work for everyone. Not all people can perform to their fullest potential in the same environment. This leads us to the potential of the black box design for office spaces. By allowing people to control their own environment, they are able to create their own personal workspaces that allow them to be the most productive.
12
Taylorism - 1904 Office is arranged with a completely open floor plan for workers while bosses observed from private offices. Reminiscent of a factory.
Bürolandschaft - 1960 Inspired by socialist values, workspaces varied by function and bosses were no longer separated, and overall layout is undivided.
Action Office - 1968 Creation of Herman Miller. Incorporates low dividers and flexible work-surfaces. The birth of the cubicle.
Cube Farm - 1980 Extreme use of the cubicle. The increase of middle class workers in the workforce, management responds in the cheapest way possible. This arrangement lends itself to its name, the cube farm. It reverts back to the factory layout, while cutting off collaboration. Networking - Present The open floor plan. Currently the trend is breaking down the walls of the dreaded cubicle to create open floor plans. This ups the potential for collaboration, but does not meet the needs of each unique employees personal work habits. Everyone can’t work in the same environment. Black Box - Future What happens if the arrangement of workspace it turned over to the individual workers? By allowing people to ‘design’ their own spaces they become empowered, happy, and more productive.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
13
defining success
“Success is having a culture where opposite types can thrive and work cooperatively”
Success within the workplace can be broken down into five categories: Culture, Collaboration, Authenticity, Profitability, and Self-Actualization. Within each category are more words and ideals that further define success. It is important to note that not all companies exhibit all of the categories of success. Each unique company’s values determine what factors of success they seek to embrace within their over arching structure and values. These five categories are tightly linked, and each rely on the others to create overall success within the company. The culture of the workplace is a topic that was touched on the in the previous research effort. Office culture is a direct resultant of the values, branding, and authenticity that is predetermined by how the company chooses to represent itself. Collaboration is key for the productivity of office environments, the overall happiness of employees, and the engagement of individuals on the tasks at hand. Authenticity has to do with how genuine the company is perceived to be. This authenticity is tied to creating genuine relationships within the workplace, creating a signature experience for both employees as well as clients, being transparent with employees about what is happening in the company, and how the branding is applied in correspondence with the company’s values and the values of the employees. Profit defines success quite literally for the company. Profit revolves around the financial gain a competitive advantage that the company holds over its competitors. Finally, self-actualization is about the individual. These success traits focus on individuality, empowerment, self-determination, dedication, etc. By examining the traits of success on a company to company basis, it allows the designer insight into the values of the client, and can help determine the best approach to the design problem.
14
SUCCESS IN THE WORKPLACE
LEGEND DIRECTLY RELATED
ADAPTABILITY
LONG TERM EMPLOYEE
ORDER
BRAND
TRANSPARENCY
DEDICATION
TRANSCENDENCE
HOLISTIC APPROACH
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF-DETERMINATION
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
PRODUCTIVITY
EMPOWERMENT
CONNECTIONS
SIGNATURE EXPERIENCE
AUTHENTIC
FINANCIAL GAIN
COLLABORATION
AUTHENTICITY
CULTURE
ENGAGEMENT
CATEGORIES
VALUES
NON-RELATED
GENUINE RELATIONSHIPS
COULD BE RELATED
PROFIT SELF-ACTUALIZATION VALUES ENGAGEMENT AUTHENTICITY GENUINE RELATIONSHIPS FINANCIAL GAIN CONNECTIONS EMPOWERMENT PRODUCTIVITY SIGNATURE EXPERIENCE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE INDIVIDUALITY SELF-DETERMINATION HOLISTIC APPROACH TRANSCENDENCE DEDICATION TRANSPARENCY BRAND ORDER ADAPTABILITY LONG TERM EMPLOYEE
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
15
key words for success
“Companies that successfully create and communicate signature experiences understand that different types of people will excel at different companies, and that not all workers want the same things.”
Artifacts:
Overt and obvious elements of an organization
Espoused Values:
The company’s declared set of values and norms
Shared Basic Assumptions:
Beliefs and behaviors so deeply embedded that they can sometimes go unnoticed; the essence of culture
Attract & Retain:
Good companies attract and retain the right people
Deeply Engaged:
Employees will be deeply engaged if their work experience is what they expect it to be, and if their values align with the companies
Signature Experience:
Creates value for the firm, serves as a powerful and constant symbol of the organization’s culture and values; bundle of everyday routines, or signature processes
Shared Values:
Employees that have shared values with the company help create the foundation for productivity
16
The Right Employee:
Avoid high turnover, high recruitment/training costs, and disengaged, unproductive employees by hiring those that are intrigued by the work environment provided, regard is their loyalty
Competitive Advantage:
What makes your company the one to pick; based on the employees rather that the products
Office Culture:
Fuels employee positivity, productivity and loyalty
Break from Convention:
Creativity stems from breaking away from tradition, order, and convention
Collaboration:
People need to focus alone or in pairs to generate ideas or process information; then come together to build on those ideas; it is a rhythm of coming together and breaking apart
Authenticity:
Workers can bring their passions into the office; the freedom to be oneself in the workplace; workplace needs to be authentic, leaders need to be authentic; employees who feel welcome to express their authentic selves at work exhibit higher levels of organizational commitment, individual performance, and desire to help others
Value Adding:
Companies need to add value to their employees rather than just taking it from them in order to keep top talent; add value to valuable people; attract and retain great talent
Rewarding:
Aim to create the most productive and rewarding working environment possible
Transcend:
The ideal organization makes explicit efforts to transcend the dominant currents in its culture
Individuality:
Let people be themselves
Organizational Order:
By nurturing individuality, companies may have to forgo some degree of organizational orderliness
Brand:
Brand needs to give elite status to the employees; create and foster a sense of empowerment; “I want to work for an organization where I can really feel where the company comes from and what it stands for so that I can live the brand.” — Harvard Business Review
Other Common Words for Success in the Workplace: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
Adaptable Working with Employees’ Need Great Productivity Greater Financial Gain Happy Clients Social Connections Organized Disrupting Social Norm Employee Satisfaction Profitable Transparency Innovation Holistic Approach Self-Determination Competition for Talent Productive for the Long-term Healthy Fun Internal Branding Empower Employees Company Ethos Genuine Relationships Dedication Employee Engagement
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
17
black box workplace Designing the undesigned office
The benchmarking of many of the country’s leading tech and design institutions in the previous research studio uncovered a potential link between the lack of formal design (which will be referred to as “black box” design). It was observed that a group’s positive self-assessment, self-actualization, democratic organization, and ultimately, positive work output were directly impacted by this free control over their personal work environment. We believe that this link between the empowerment of the employees and their workplace design directly correlates with the overall workplace happiness and ultimately the success of the company. This discovery led to the in-depth analysis of workplace environments, the evolution of the workplace, and the attempt to create a kit of parts that could potentially be used in the creation of future black box workspaces.
18
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
19
designing the undesigned Building the argument for Black Box Design
1 2 3 4
20
Basic Workplace Needs
Authenticity and Culture
Collaboration and Productivity
Adding Value
At the most basic level, what elements are required in order for a workplace to be successful? What is the basic framework?
How does allowing workers to bring their passions into the office and be themselves impact and contribute to the office culture and overall authenticity place? Through the careful organization or disorganization of space, how can we enable people to focus alone, in pairs, and come together to build upon their ideas? How do we facilitate this rhythm? How do we add value for each employee that occurs on a daily basis, rather than a financial incentive? What can we Provide that will encourage loyalty for the long-term?
5 6 7
Designing to the Individual
What questions need to be asked to initially determine the Real Values of the end users? How do we determine the unique needs of each specific client?
Kit of Parts
Once the needs have been determined for the client, what options could be presented as design (or undesigned) solutions?
The Black box
Let’s test it! By applying the above pieces to design, we can create the Black box Workspace, enabling today’s workers to be the best and feel their best.
Office
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
21
1
At the most basic level a workplace only needs a few ingredients to exist: a space, work surfaces, technology, people, and some kind of organizational infrastructure. But what can be added or subtracted to create the most successful environment for the company and its employees?
2
Within a company there are a declared set of values and norms that are referred to as espoused values. These values work in direct correlation with the culture that the company has established and is fostering. These values must align with the shared basic assumptions (beliefs and behaviors deeply embedded in the company’s culture) of the employees in order to create a cohesive culture that is authentic. The combination of the company’s values, shared basic assumptions, and overall culture form the signature experience that makes the company
22
“the place to work”. This signature experience creates a brand for the organization and is a constant symbol of the culture and values. This signature experience, however, does not refer to branding in the traditional sense. It is not about the slogans written on the walls or about the company name of everyone’s coffee cup. “Companies that successfully create and communicate signature experiences understand that different types of people will excel at different companies, and that not all workers want the same things” (Erikson, 2007). The signature experience is the everyday routines, arrangements, work-flows, and expectations that occur within the company. The signature experience is about environment. By allowing employees to be their authentic selves and organization can establish freedom within the workplace. This freedom leads employees to feel empowered to take charge of their work, interact more with fellow employees, and have higher job satisfaction. This authentic environment also leads to higher levels of organizational commitment, individual performance, and a greater desire to help others.
3
“All types of face to face communication promote personal attraction and team cohesion by encouraging feelings of familiarity, similarity, and shared affect”(Schwede, Davies, Purdey, 2008).
4
In an age of economic uncertainty and the startup company, the ways in which companies provide value to their employees is changing. How can the design of the space provide the value needed to attract and retain top talent, in lieu of large bonuses and other more traditional perks? By having an awareness about the potential of a space to impact the desirability of a company high turnover rates can be avoided, high recruitment could be expected, and highly motivated employees that are intrigued by the work environment could be attracted, hired, and retained. By adding value to the employee through the design of the workplace, the company gains a
“By adding value to the employee through the design of the workplace, the company gains a competitive advantage over other organizations stuck in the traditional workplace. “Innovative workplaces improve organizational performance by attracting and retaining more innovative workers” (Haynes and Price, 2004).
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
23
competitive advantage over other organizations stuck in the traditional workplace. “Innovative workplaces improve organizational performance by attracting and retaining more innovative workers” (Haynes and Price, 2004). This break from convention allows for more creativity within the workplace, which then leads to highly engaged employees, and increased productivity.
5
As the trend shifts from designing for cost reduction to designing for value added, the individual employee and his or her needs are beginning to play a large role in design considerations. “Work environments need to be more flexible to suit a broader range of users, including teams. Facilities and furniture must be more adaptable so that foot prints can be reduced to help cut real estate costs” (Duffy, 2001). In order to design for the individuals within a unique company there must be an established set of questions to quickly obtain an understanding of their needs and working style.
24
•• How much privacy is required? •• How much interaction is desired? •• Where do people go when they need to work together? •• How much private space is required? •• What computer hardware is needed? •• How will employees interact with technology within the space? •• What is the expected time of one stretch of work (before the employee takes a break)? •• How much work surface is required? •• Do individuals need assigned workstations? •• What are the day to day tasks that will need to be accomplished? •• What is normally needed to facilitate those tasks? •• How much storage is required? How often is it accessed? The overall well being and happiness of the individual is also important to consider. Job satisfaction is tied to the happiness/well being of the employee, which is then linked to productivity and willingness to collaborate. Therefore, a happy employee equals a happy and successful company.
Things to consider: •• Physical: each individual needs to feel comfortable within their workplace. Factors that impact this are: furniture design, access to daylight, good lighting, temperature, acoustics, and air quality •• Spiritual: Being aware of the impact of colors, textures, shapes, materials, lights, and sounds on the human psyche. •• Intellectual: all aspects of the environment should promote creativity, learning, and access to information through collaboration and solitude •• Social: the environment should make it easy to communicate, interact, and even play with fellow colleagues *Duffy, 2001
6
Each client is unique much in the same way that each employee is unique. There is not one prescribed solution to designing the workplace. The elements listed below outline aspects that should be taken into consideration
when laying out a black box workspace. However, not all options should be applied every time. They should be reviewed with the client in order to create the custom workspace that is in turn customizable on a daily basis. Head count density: number of organizational members located within close proximity (10 meters) to one another should be between 16-20 to encourage maximum face-to-face collaboration Visibility/Transparency: high visibility allows for greater accessibility amongst workers, but does not necessarily have to translate to an open floor plan. Not all individuals can be productive in an open floor plan, but while working in quiet spaces, visibility in and out still needs to exist
Carefully laid out circulation paths: In order to encourage the greatest amount of productivity and Collaboration, any workstations need to be set up along the main circulation path, not isolated or on a perimeter (Stryker, 2012) Raised Floor systems: in order to provide the space
with the greatest flexibility for reorganization, a raised floor system should be used. This allows for easy movement of electronics and connection to cables however the space is arranged on a particular day Collaboration Opportunity: create, or make available, specific places within the physical layout that encourage people to gather and includes formal spaces (conference rooms) and informal spaces (lounges, coffee bars). These spaces create a “center of gravity” (Stryker, 2012) that lend themselves directly to greater interaction and collaboration. “Community spaces reinforce people’s feelings of membership in the group” (Duffy, 2001). These spaces should “reflect the culture, values, and personality of the organization, as well as accommodate the behaviors that the organization encourages”(Duffy, 2001).
the employees to customize their space to enable them to be the most productive and content. The flexibility of spaces and furniture needs to relate directly to the client’s needs and the way in which they conduct their day to day business Awareness of Acoustics
7
Apply these observations and theories to a real life situation and see the results.
Flexibility in Furniture Uses and locations: By designing spaces to be flexible with furniture that allows for that flexibility (easily) the foot print required to effectively run the organization can be reduced, saving money for the company. An added benefit is empowerment of
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
25
studio case study
Applying the black box to studio
available furniture: Old Drafting Desks: Large, heavy, falling apart, unnecessary (few draft by hand) Old Computer Chairs:
While researching the ideas associated with the black box design, I realized that a perfect case study was happening right in front of me. In my studio we were being faced with the issue of how the room was originally arranged by our professor and the reality of the tasks that we needed to be able to accomplish. The initial arrangement of the room would not serve the purpose that we needed it to, so collectively we decided to rearrange the layout of the room. These are the results of those actions:
Existing Obstacles
•• Awkward dimensions of room (long and narrow) •• Large column in the middle of room •• Furniture is large, heavy, and dated •• Fixed projector and screen •• Pin-up wall •• Fixed Chalkboard
Padded; uncomfortable; must be raised to its limit in order to function with the drafting desk New Computer Chairs: Not padded; improved back support; must be raised to to function; there are not very many of these chairs
2 Light Tables: Old, but functional; not needed all of the time
2 Mini-Fridges: Left by past students
1 Computer station: Older computer (by school standards); has all programs needed 1 Odd Sized Desk
26
Existing Conditions:
Large Windows: deep sills; desirable for storage purposes Fixed Screen: screen placement, drops down over pin up wall Pin up wall: occupies majority of the west wall Large Column Chalkboard: located by the door; normally in the way or covered up
Professor’s Arrangement:
Fixed Wall Shelving: Optimum storage that exists in the room Computer station: tucked in corner under the projector
Computer Station
Desks Lining perimeter: allows for individual work spaces
Light Table Mini-Fridge Extra Desk Drafting table
Observations
In this arrangement, there is an emphasis on the individual’s workspace and the collaboration of the class as a whole. However, this is for a comprehensive studio that revolves mainly around work in pairs, which is not easily accommodated in this set up.
Desks in center of room: doubles as individual work spaces and a large “table” to gather around for discussions Extra Tables: pushed to the west wall in front of chalkboard and pin-up space
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
27
Ideal
Partner Pods:
Conditions:
After discussing ideal arrangements with the class, it was decided that the dream arrangement would be to have partner pods. This arrangement would consist of two computer stations and a work table for model building and sketching
Ideal
Individual computer stations:
Conditions
Individual Computer stations allow for seamless partner work and allows for studio culture
(for this room):
Large table: Large central table allows for class discussion and a place to build models
This corner is the only instance of the arrangement not working perfectly.
Observations
In this arrangement, there is an emphasis on the individual’s workspace and the collaboration of the class as a whole. However, this is for a comprehensive studio that revolves mainly around work in pairs, which is not easily accommodated in this set up.
28
Results After Student Adjustments:
Still Flawed: While this arrangement is better for most partners, it did not satisfy the desire to sit together for all members of the studio. (Shown with Green Arrows)
Observations
Once the studio was broken into partners, it became imperative that the partners sit adjacent to each other. The options available were to sit next to each other or to sit across from each other. The preferred option was to sit next to the partner, which led to some creative reorganization of the room. While the new arrangement is functional for the partners, the space is now very cramped and difficult to move through. The lower corner of the room is cut off during class discussions. Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
29
PART II
INTERSECTION OF WORKPLACE & H.E. SUCCESS
3
Intersection of workplace & h.e. student success Higher Education Ties — How do we change the paradigm?
Half way through the semester there was a shift in the trajectory of the research. We realized that the parameters that were defined about success could be applied to other areas of design outside of the workplace and the idea of the black box workspace. We began to examine the ties between higher education and the world of work, and the links were surprising, intriguing, and provacative. We identified 4 key groups within the scope of our analysis: the world of higher education, the world of work, the student, and the employee. This breakdown of groups led to a deeper analysis of the interactions between the 4, what each needs, and what each gives. What we discovered was that there are a lot of missing pieces to this puzzle and that not all of the needs are being met.
“What do companies want vs. what is higher education providing the next generation of the work force? Companies want “a highly trained and flexible workforce who are willing and able to undertake a continuous process of learning and training.” (Seagraves).
32
Higher Education
Workplace
Student
Employee
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
33
exploring the overlap Higher Education & the World of Work
This investigation began with an indepth discussion between Kelly Dreyer, Tony Rohr, and myself. We made a mind map of the different connections that could be drawn between the world of work and the world of higher education, focusing on the wants and needs of each group and the identifying where those needs overlapped or conflicted. Beginning with how each group defines success, we were able to trace through how the two groups interact and what is lacking in their very dependent relationship. From this discussion we were able to identify that this discussion can not just be limited to the relationship between the world of work and the world of higher education, but also must include an anlysis of the students and employees, their wants and needs, and how they define success when interacting with the other three groups. This discussion has been diagramed out in the next few pages, but can also be viewed as a Prezi presentation here:
https://prezi.com/iijcsryqh1bm/higher-education/
34
View full Prezi presentation at: https://prezi.com/iijcsryqh1bm/higher-education/
Corporation’s Perspective: Health Stock Prices Visibility Giving Back
Higher Education
University’s Perspective: Research dollars Visibility Money Retention Graduation Attract top faculty Industry Outreach Student Success & Corporate Engagement
Customers & Top Talent
Student Success: •• Attract Top Talent •• Students •• Retain •• Graduate on time •• Career Prep •• Advising •• Placement Opportunities •• Exposure to Top Companies •• Return on investment
What does Success look like?
What does each want?
What does each offer?
HOw do they Define success?
Employee’s Perspective: Opportunities Meaningful work Culture Empowerment Work/Play intersection
Soft Skills & Top Talent
Funding for education & Real World Experience
Corporate Success: •• Attract Top Talent •• Retain •• Ability to grow •• Soft skill capabilities •• Return on investment
Money
World of Work Accreditation
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
35
Creating a new square foor metric
Collaboration Density = Interaction/SF/Year
How can we define success for the future? Better Space & Fewer Walls
Collaboration
Vs.
Isolation
36
View full Prezi presentation at: https://prezi.com/iijcsryqh1bm/higher-education/
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
37
how does this translate to architecture?
No longer designing old model stock buildings
We need to be designing for a new building class.
38
View full Prezi presentation at: https://prezi.com/iijcsryqh1bm/higher-education/
Used to design Class A, B, C: •• Floor plates •• Amenities •• Windows •• Volume
•• •• •• ••
More affordable More community More about “Us” Not about “Mine”
Large Communal Collaborative Spaces
Small Collaborative Work Stations
•• All about Environment •• Not About Finishes •• Deconstructed spaces
Private Small Collaborative Spaces
Individual Work Stations
CLASS MILLENNIAL SPACE Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
39
evolving the diagram
Further examination of the original discussion yielded some interesting findings.
40
The goal for this overlap between all groups is to create the desire, drive, and opportunity for life long learning.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
41
evolving the diagram What does success look like?
After the discussion with Tony, it was apperant that the mind map that was created was only the tip of the iceberg. The real discussion needed to include the student and employee perspectives in order to gain a full understanding of the problem at hand. The diagram evolved by asking the same questions but bringing in the new perspectives and additional research. By expanding this diagram, we were able to zero in on what the missing links within the overlap are: students need more soft skills and job specific training while in university, and employees need to have access to continuing education opportunities. We think that this need presents a potential for a new type of learning where this overlap is embraced.
42
What does success look like?
Higher Education: •• Research Money •• Visibility •• Money •• Retention •• Graduation •• Top Faculty •• Industry Outreach
World of Work: •• Attract Top Talent •• Retain •• Ability to grow •• Soft skill capabilities •• Return on investment •• Giving back •• Stock Prices
Students: •• Graduate on time •• Career Prep •• Mentorship •• Placement Opportunities •• Exposure •• Return on investment
Employees: •• Opportunities for personal growth •• Meaningful work •• Culture •• Empowerment •• Work/play intersection •• Soft Skill Capabilities
but are we succeeding?
Students view higher education
No, we are currently not
How much formal learning is
How can it be better
as a hurdle to overcome to
succeeding. There is a
internalized?
transferred into the world of
reach the workplace. They
disconnect between the needs
are not receiving the skills/
of all parties.
work?
knowledge needed to succeed in the world of work. Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
43
evolving the diagram What do all the groups want?
Student Success & Corporate Engagement Are we actually providing the quality of education required for a 21st century workplace?
What does each want?
New employees currently are not coming in with the neccessary skills — need real world experience
What are the responsibilities Foster critical thinking & reflection
of higer education and the workplace?
Soft Skills & Top Talent
Soft Skills: •• Critical thinking •• Clear communication •• Ability to solve complex problems •• Ability to work in/with a team •• Drive to succeed •• Leadership Skills Offer real world experience: •• Internships •• Mentoring •• Leadership involvement &/ or training
How do we provide change without changing higher education into vocational/trade school?
44
What does top talent want?
•• Work./school as a calling •• emphasis on personal fulfillment •• intellectually stimulating •• challenging •• sense of purpose •• sense of belonging
•• Meaningful work •• Strong culture •• Making money by age 30 •• Work/Life/ Community •• Workd and play together •• investment by company in the employee
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
45
evolving the diagram People Centric Design Create Collaboration Opportunities
Formal and Informal Spaces
CLASS MILLENNIAL SPACE
Foster gathering environments
Encourage team cohesion
aCTIVITY BASED WORKING/LEARNING
•• People choose how and where they work •• Enstill a sense of employee empowerment •• employees can structure their work days •• Allows for greater overall productivity 46
Face-to-Face Communication: •• Close proximity to one another •• High densisty layout required •• openness and location on an integrated circulation path = more opporunities to interact
•• Turn learning environment into
WE
instead of ME •• Create a hierarchy of spaces and a hierarchy of interactions
Flexible Spaces: •• Adaptability allows for a smaller footprint •• More productivity •• More engagement •• Shift from cost reduction to
Value Added
“When the change is percieved to be concordant with self-concept and it if provides opportunities for self expression and self enhancement, occupants can be expected to support or even promote change.” —Occupant Satisfaction with Workplace Design
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
47
defining the key players How to universities actually tie into the workplace? Honors Program: •• Taught by top faculty •• Connections to top alumni •• Offers experiential learning •• Select group of students = more personalized attention •• Better quality advising, interested in not only academics but also long term plans
Career Center: •• Annual career fair •• Provides career counselling but no real networking opportunites •• Not part of the curriculum •• Must be independently sought out by the student
48
Main Focus: Research: •• Scholars •• PHD Faculty •• Academics •• Teaching Museums •• Libraries
Higher Education
•• •• •• •• ••
University Career Center Business Career Center Engineering Career Center Journalism Career Center Music Career Center
But where is Career Building?
How does this translate to life outside of academia?
Serves the entire student body Specialized services that are major specific, but don’t exist for every school
Mission: •• Instruction •• Research •• Service •• International Dimension •• Values
Problem Solving Skills
Clear Communication
Critical Thinking
The Workplace
Drive to Succeed
Soft Skills
Ability for team work
Leadership Skills
BIG DISCONNECT
What if corporate learning/training were integrated with university courses?
How do we begin to bridge the gap? The disconnect exists because all the groups are interacting with each other but do not fully understand the needs and wants of the fellow participants. The missing piece exists because the universities’ values do not align with those of the students or the corporations. The focus is not on preparing students for the workplace, rather it is to grow academia through research. Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
49
missing links? Possible outcomes from closing the gap between Higher Education and the World of Work
• • • • • • • • • • •
Better prepared graduates Creating continuing education opportunities for working adults Infinitely more networking Provide training and real world experience for students while still in school Keep adults up-to-date on new technologies and ideologies Identify top talent sooner and cultivate it sooner “The Learning Company”-a company that portrays itself as a learning environment Encourage employees to further their education in many ways (invest in employees for the long term) Create an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself Degree programs in a mixed in-company/on-campus setting Help to facilitate the work/life balance that millennials are seeking
The best ideas happen
OUTIDE OF THE CLASSROOM. The best ideas happen in
CHANCE INTERACTIONS.
50
Higher Education
Workplace
Student
Employee
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
51
bringing it all together Higher Education University Types: A. Research Driven B. Career Driven C. Money Driven D. Student Driven
Traits of Success
Employee/Student (The Individual) Personality Types: A. Extrovert B. Introvert C. Go-Getter D. Blind Follower
52
World of Work Company Types: A. The “Big Idea� Co. B. The Highly Effective Machine C. The Backyard Boutique D. The Know Everybody Co. E. The Corporate Co. Questions to ask the client: 1. How do you define success in HE? What are the necessities required to create that success? 2. What do you think is currently missing in Higher Education? 3. How do you think a link between HE and the workplace could facilitate a more successful learning environment? 4. What do you think students are lacking upon graduation? 5. How important is collaboration to what you do? a. How often do you go outside of your school or department to work with others? b. Do you think that it would be beneficial to create more interdisciplinary interactions on campus? c. Should HE be encouraging different disciplines to interact? How do you think this would impact the workplace? 6. How much involvement is too much involvement on the part of the corporations? 7. How much time is spent teaching/training new hires? How could this be improved through connection with HE? 8. (Students & Young Professionals) How could your education have better prepared you? What do you think is missing now in order for you to be job ready upon graduation? 9. Are we actually providing the education needed to be a contributing member of a 21st century workplace? 10. What are the responsibilities of HE and the workplace, and how could those responsibilities be tied together to create a new form of life long learning? 11. How can we alter the classroom and the workplace to create better environments? 12. How can we provide more meaningful interactions and learning experiences? 13. How could bringing members of the working community into HE benefit both communities? a. Continuing education b. Networking for students c. More observation time for scoping out top talent d. Catering to the needs of the workplace 14. How do we need to rethink the curriculum?
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
53
defining success Main categories of emphasis
Culture
Connections Holistic Approach Brand Transcendence Adaptability Long-term Employee Fostering Community
Collaboration
Engagement Productivity Communication Team Work Interconnected Genuine Relationships Idea Building
Culture, Collaboration,
and Authenticity have a lot of overlap in their traits for success. These three categories are often closely linked within the professional world of work.
Authenticity
Brand Set Values Genuine Relationships Signature Experience Transparency Break from Convention Unique
Profit
Financial Gains Competitive Advantage Order Machine Productivity Organizational Order
Profit
stands alone. There is some overlap, but if the primary goal is money then a specific type of company can be anticipated.
SelfActualization is
really about the individual, especially focusing on the employee/student perspective, and their personal well being while in their everyday work environment.
54
Self-Actualization
Individual Empowerment Self-Actualization Dedication Healthy Workplace
defining the company type Company Types
Defining the Type
The “Big� Idea Co. This is the hip and trendy company that everyone wants to
work for. They are the research and design companies that are constantly seeking to come up with the next big thing. They consist of creative minded people who are looking for a certain type of work-life integration.
This is the company that places profit as its number one The Highly goal. They seek to create spaces that allow for the most Effective Machine productivity to take place. They are interested in cranking out work, and they know how to make it happen.
The Backyard Boutique
This is the small company that has a unique and custom service or knowledge base to offer. They have a specific market to target. They are typically small, focused, and looking for work only within their area, not looking for nationwide attention.
The Know Everybody Co.
This is a company that is looking to network. They want to know everyone, and they want everyone wanting what they have to offer.
The Corporate Co. This is a company that is content with the way things have been for years and are not looking to change. How could we make them aware of the possibilities and potential in changing the way that we work?
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
55
traits for success
The “Big” Idea Co.
The Highly Effective Machine
The Backyard Boutique
The Know Everybody Co.
The Corporate Co.
56
Flexibility Values Culture Engagement Authentic Financial Gain Connections Empowerment Productivity Signature Experience Competitive Advantage Individuality Self Determination Holistic Approach Transcendence Brand Order Adaptability Long-term Employee Break From Convention Collaboration Employee Satisfaction Innovation Set Hours
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
57
determining the company type Who are you working with?
Do they value flexibility, authenticity, innovation,
Yes
and breaking from
No
convention?
Are they interested in productivity and Does the company
having long-term
Yes
employees?
have a strong office culture?
No Is a main value productivity?
Is the company primary concern financial gain?
Yes No Are they concerned
about the happiness of their employees?
58
Do they want to cultivate a signature experience?
Yes No
Are they interested in keeping their business close?
Yes
The “Big” Idea Co.
No
Yes
The Highly Effective Machine
No The Backyard Boutique
Interested in
Yes No
increasing productivity and work environment?
Yes No The Know Everybody Co.
Do they focus
Yes
on networking?
No
Yes No
The Corporate Co. Is the company looking to change how they currently operate?
Yes No
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
59
case study 1: ford “The distance between you and an amazing career has never been shorter.”
Ford believes that “employee development is crucial to their vision and their product”. They are actively seeking to create a skilled and motivated workforce by investing in their employees through world class learning and development excellence. Their mode of executing these goals is through a program called the Ford Leadership Development Program. The program consists of a blended learning method, a combination of classroom, self-study, developing relationships, and real experience. The key areas that Ford wants their employees to focus on are self-insight, developing others, team effectiveness, building relationships, operating in an global environment, and fostering a leadership environment. By utilizing employee empowerment, Ford is seeking to build a culture of continuous improvement, with employees taking active roles in their own professional development and the overall success of the company’s business. Through the program employees have access to a multitude of resources such as: virtual and web based training, classroom training, experiential learning, special projects, task forces, mentoring and coaching, social networking, lunch and learns, etc. Ford is looking to foster functional and technical excellence, encourage teamwork, promote Ford values, and enhance their ability to deliver results by providing their team with these options for bettering themselves. By investing directly in their employees, Ford is able to “leverage their global scale and standardize as much as possible at all levels of their organization.”
60
case study 2: cerner “Our job is one of the major parts of our lives where we should be and want to be constantly learning.” —Neal, Cerner Chief Executive Officer Cerner has very limited information about life at Cerner as an employee. Some of the opportunities that were mentioned are tuition reimbursement options, the Cerner Certificate in Health Care Leadership (7 month long program to broaden the employee’s healthcare knowledge), and uLearn (an online learning tool). There was no mention of any kind of educational outreach and very minimal emphasis on the importance of their employees. Their main focus is on continuing education for climbing the career ladder. They offer a few different programs to help their top talent ascend the ranks at the company. The first is called Academy, it is for employees with 0-6 years experience and is considered the entry level training program. The next program is called Accelerate. It is for employees with one year experience and have been identified by the management as promising top talent. It is a two year program to prepare the employees for future leadership roles. Drive is a program for employees with 2+ years experience who are aspiring for executive positions. Navigate is a program for new Cerner Executives. It is a 2 year program to help them assimilate into their new roles as executives.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
case study 3: cisco “Multiplying impact through inclusion and empowerment.”
At Cisco, the values are braod and widespread. Through something they call Culture Inclusion, they seek to change the world, focus intensely on customers, make innovation happen, win together, respect and care for each other, and always do the right thing. None of those values necessarily focus on the employee or their needs. In the description of Life at Cisco, they discuss the innovation learning opportunities that they provide: Nerd Lunches, Code Spirit, Hackathons, and Idea Jams. They believe that they are creating a “playground for innovation”. They promote health, wellness, and rewards for their employees. They also offer flexibility on when, where, and how their employees work through open plan work spaces, computer access, privacy rooms, lounges, e-cafes, and recreation spaces outfitted with technology. In terms of career counciling and development they offer a variety of different personalized training options: mentors, online learning portals, performance goals, and personalized career development plans. They also believe in giving back to their community through Corporate Social Responsibility with lots of volunteet opportunities and monetary donations.
62
case study 4: ideo “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.” —Tim Brown, president and CEO Unlike the other company case studies, IDEO does not vastly boast via bulleted lists the available perks for their employees. Instead, they have a “Life at IDEO” page that is a blog of all the activities that their employees are participating in. The page begins by stating, “In the heart of Silicon Valley, a young designer named David Kelley once wrote a letter to a friend that included these words: ‘I want to start a company with all my best friends as employees.’ Built on this foundation of friendship and entrepreneurial verve, IDEO today is made up of over 550 individuals in offices around the world. Together, we navigate each day with curiosity, optimism, and a sense of humor. We are makers, designers, hackers, builders, thinkers, explorers, writers, listeners, risk-takers, and doers— and we love what we do.” IDEO is clearly not the typical corporate company type. Their employee pool is made up of creative designers who seek to bring together what is desirable from a human point of view with what is technologically feasiable and economically viable. That mindset clearly contributes to the fun culture that is fostered at IDEO.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
64
WHAT COMES NEXT?
4
Conclusions And the research continues...
It has become clear from this research effort that this disconnect between the four seperate groups (Higher Education, the World of Work, Students, and Employees) is something that has the potential to be impacted by architectural design and by rethinking the way that spaces and these groups are currently being organized. By re-evaluating the current practices of universities and corporations and creating a middle ground where both groups can interact on a more regular basis, we would improve both the experience of higher education as well as the world of work. Through the process of defining what success is and recognizing that success is not the same for all groups, we can now beging to cater more directly to the needs of groups based specifically on their personal definitions of success. The next steps would be to see how this information can be directly translated to architectural design in order to provide positive impact for all groups and begin to explore how to break down the walls that are preventing these groups from working cohesively together and creating success for all involved.
66
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
67
references
Sources for Part I
Cassidy, Robert. “Rethinking Workplace Design.” Building
Haake, Alexandra. “Incentive Primer: Focusing on
Workplace Design to Improve Business.”
Incentive Mag. Print.
and Construction 47.3 (2006): 22-27. Print.
Chigot, Pierre. “Controlled Transparency in Workplace
Design: Balancing Visual and Acoustic
Harrison, David A., and Stephen E. Humphrey.
Interaction in Office Environments.” Journal of
“Designing for Diversity or Diversity for Design?
Facilities Management 2.2: 121-30. Print.
Tasks, Interdependence, and Within-unit
Differences at Work.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 31: 328-37. Print.
Danna, K. “Health and Well-Being in the Workplace:
A Review and Synthesis of the Literature.”
Journal of Management 25.3 (1999): 357-84.
Print. Davis, Andrea. “Rethinking Workplace Design with
Hassanain, Mohammad A. “Analysis of Factors Influencing
Office Workplace Planning and Design in
Corporate Facilities.” Journal of Building
Appraisal: 183-97. Print.
Wellness in Mind; Tennessee Employer Literally
Walks the Talk with Office Redesign.(Quality of
Heeroma, Daphne M., Frans W. Melissen, and Marc
Life).” Employee Benefit News 15 June 2011.
B. Stierand. “The Problem of Addressing Culture
in Workplace Strategies.” Facilities (2012): 269-
77. Print.
Print. Davis, Ann, and Eddie Blass. “The Future Workplace: Views
from the Floor.” Futures (2006): 38-52. Print.
Johannsson, Martin, Peter Frost, Eva Brandt, Thomas
Binder, and Jorn Messeter. “Partner Engaged
Duncan, Mitch J, Mahbub Rashid, Corneel Vandelanotte,
Design: New Challenges for Workplace Design.”
Nicoleta Cutumisu, and Ronald C Plotnikoff.
Print.
“Development and Reliability Testing of a
Self-report Instrument to Measure the
Kern, P., R. Breining, and R. Eckert. “Workplace Design-
Office Layout as a Correlate of Occupational
General View and Some Special Experiences.”
Sitting.” International Journal of Behavioral
International Journal of Production Economics:
Nutrition and Physical Activity: 16. Print.
203-09. Print.
Genn, Adina. “Free Range Workers.” Long Island Business
68
News 47.51 (2000): 29. Print.
Kim, Seok Eun. “Physical Workplace as a Strategic Asset
Rashid, Mahbub, Kevin Kampschroer, Jean Wineman, and
for Improving Performance in Public
Craig Zimring. “Spatial Layout and Face-to-
Organizations.” Administration and Society 46.5
face Interaction in Offices—a Study of the
(2013): 496-518. Print.
Mechanisms of Spatial Effects on Face-to-face
Interaction.” Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design: 825-44. Print.
Knoll, Michael, and Rolf Van Dick. “Authenticity, Employee
Silence, Prohibitive Voice, and the Moderating
Effect of Organizational Identification.” The
Rashid, Mahbub. “A Study of the Effects of Colocation on
Journal of Positive Psychology: 346-60. Print.
Office Workers’ Perception.” Journal of
Launis, M., M. Vuori, and J. Lehtelä. “Who Is the
Corporate Real Estate (2013): 98-116. Print.
Workplace Designer? — Towards a Collaborative
Mode of Action.” International Journal of
Richter, Cathy. “Workplace Design: A Laboratory for
Industrial Ergonomics: 331-41. Print.
Inventiveness.” The Journal for Quality and
Participation (2001): 52-55. Print.
Levin, Arnold Craig. “Changing the Role of Workplace
Design within the Business Organization: A
Schlosser, Julie. “Cubicls: The Great Mistake.” Fortune
Model for Linking Workplace Design Solutions
to Business Strategies.” Journal of Facilities
Management (2005): 299-311. Print.
Schneider, Jay W. “Focus on Workplace Design.” Building
Lievois, Mary Ann. “Workplace Design: Gaining a
Competitive Advantage.” Detroiter 101.2 (2010):
40-41. Print.
Magazine. Print.
Design and Construction 48.3 (2007): 33-37.
Print. Schwede, Dirk A., Hilary Davies, and Brian Purdey.
“Occupant Satisfaction with Workplace Design
Morgan, Andrew, and Sarah Anthony. “Creating a High-
in New and Old Environments.” Facilities: 273-
performance Workplace: A Review of
88. Print.
Opportunities.” Journal of Corporate Real Estate
10.1: 27-39. Print.
Stephens, Suzanne. “Beyond Cubed.” Print.
Ménard, Julie, and Luc Brunet. “Authenticity and Well-
Stryker, James B., and Michael D. Santoro. “Facilitating
being in the Workplace: A Mediation Model.”
Face-to-Face Communication in High-Tech
Journal of Managerial Psychology: 331-46. Print.
Teams.” Research-Technology Management
(2012): 51-56. Print.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
69
references continued Tanaka, Ryohei. “Future Workplace Design.” Displays: 41-
Brian Costello, and Mary Jones. “Of Boxes and
48. Print.
Bridges. A Quality Experience in the Interface
of Higher Education and the Workplace.”
Verespej, Micheal A. “Welcome to the Works Place.”
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Workplace 15 Apr. 1995: 24-30. Print.
26.5 (2001): 437-48. Print.
Vohs, K. D., J. P. Redden, and R. Rahinel. “Physical
Gardner, Howard. “The Five Minds for the Future.” Schools:
Order Produces Healthy Choices, Generosity, and
Studies in Education: 17-24. Print.
Conventionality, Whereas Disorder Produces Creativity.” Psychological Science 24.9 (2013): 1860-867. Print.
Williamson, Bill. “Creativity, the Corporate Curriculum and
Heeroma, Daphne M., Frans W. Melissen, and Marc
B. Stierand. “The Problem of Addressing Culture
in Workplace Strategies.” Facilities 30.7/8 (2012):
269-77. Print.
the Future: A Case Study.” Futures: 541-55. Print.
Sources for Part II
Kolko, Jon. “Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The
Drivers of Design Synthesis.” Massachusetts
Brown, Judith O. “The Portfolio: A Reflective Bridge
Institute of Technology Design Issues 26.1
Connecting the Learner, Higher Education,
(2010): 15-28. Print.
and the Workplace.” The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education 49.2 (2001): 2-13. Print.
Cassidy, Robert. “Rethinking Workplace Design.” Building
Lanks, Belinda. “Cozy in Your Cubicle? An Office Design
Alternative May Improve Efficency.”
Businessweek 18 Sept. 2014. Print.
Design and Construction 47.3 (2006): 22-27.
Print.
Owoyemi, Toyin. E., and Taiwo. A. Olowofela. “Effects
of the Learning Company Approach on
Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies
Students’ Achievement in Chemistry.” Asian
Social Science 9.1 (2012): 142-54. Print.
3.4 (1982): 221-27. Print.
Duffy, Richard. “Shaping the Office for a Prosperous
Palumbo, Chris, and Nigel Cutts. “Look Good, Feel Good.”
Future.” Los Angeles Business Journal 23.21
(2001): 60. Print.
Estates Gazette 242 (2002). Print.
Schwede, Dirk A., Hilary Davies, and Brian Purdey. Ernst, Barbara Van, Helen Paterson, Anne Langworthy,
70
“Occupant Satisfaction with Workplace Design
in New and Old Environments.” Facilities 26.7/8
(2008): 273-88. Print.
Websites www.ku.edu
Seagraves, Liz, Michael J. Osborne, and Ian J. Kemp.
“Are Academic Outcomes of Higher Education
Provision Relevant to and Deliverable in the
Workplace Setting?” Higher Education 32.2: 157-
76. Print.
www.honors.ku.edu www.careerservices.ku.edu www.ideo.com
Stryker, James B., and Michael D. Santoro. “Facilitating
Face-to-Face Communication in High-Tech
Teams.” Research-Technology Management
(2012): 51-56. Print.
Thomas, Douglas, and John Seely Brown. A New Culture
of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a
World of Constant Change. Lexington, Ky.:
[CreateSpace?], 2011. Print.
www.cerner.com www.ford.com www.cisco.com www.hermanmiller.com
Vila, Luis E., Pedro J. Perez, and Francisco G. Morillas. “Higher Education and the Development of Competencies
for Innovation in the Workplace.” Management
Decision 50.9 (2012): 1634-648. Print.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
71
72
This publication is for Gould Evans reference only and not intended for distribution.
Gould Evans Research Fellowship Spring 2015
73
The Gould Evans Research Fellowship is a collaboration between Gould Evans and the University of Kansas School of Architecture, Design, and Planning
goul de van s Kansas City
Lawrence
San Francisco
New Orleans
Phoenix
Tampa