The Self-Created Workplace Gabriel Maricich
The Self-Created Workplace Concepts and tools for developing a high performance workplace
Gabriel Maricich
The University of the Arts Master of Industrial Design Program Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Š May 2010
The Self-Created Workplace Concepts and tools for developing a high performance workplace Gabriel Maricich This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Industrial Design at The University of the Arts Approved: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Benjamin Olshin Ph.D Committee Chair Associate Professor, UArts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------William Krebs Thesis Advisor Principle, MGZA Architects
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jonas Milder Associate Professor, UArts Director MID Program
Thesis Statement Often organizations simply cannot afford to continually adapt to changing work styles and developing technology – yet workers need to be actively supported in their pursuit of a high performance work environment. The self-created workplace can provide this framework for support. Abstract The value of this work is to provide support to office workers who need to be supported in a high performance work environment, yet their company lacks either the resources or desire to invest in their workspace. A secondary goal is to place renewed value on the individual workers themselves and use their self-knowledge and expertise as an asset. Our methods include the analysis of eight work environments, formal and informal interviews and the deconstruction / analysis of two workspace redevelopment case studies. As a result of the above research, we further validated our supposition that individuals self-create a workspace that supports their preferred work modes. Our insight also strongly suggests that with minimal support, guidance and tools, work groups can actively engage in redeveloping their own workspace. This work implies that renewed focus on the individuals who work in a specified environment can, with simple tools and guidance, modify and redevelop their existing space with minimal oversight to provide the support necessary for a higher performance work environment.
Table of Contents acknowledgements I. Introduction • problem II. Background • history of office development • generational work • knowledge workers III. Methods • research methods IV. Results • research data • model comparison V. Conclusion • explanation of discovery • value of research VI. Direction for Future Work • application • further testing • guide development & implamentation resource list
Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of the people in the University of the Arts Industrial Design program. In
particular my fellow MID’ers, your encouragement, ideas and suggestions have been invaluable. Thank you to my thesis commitee: Dr. Benjamin Olshin - Thesis Director Jonas Milder - MID Program Director
Bill Krebs - Principle MGZA Architects Key partners and contributors include: Keith McMillon - Steelcase, Philadelphia
Steve Slifka - Steelcase & Nurture, NYC
Giulia Witcombe - OpenSpace, Charlottesville VA
Adelaide Lancaster - In Good Company Workplace, NYC
Rachael Maricich - Ferguson & Shammomian architects, NYC Frank Grauman - BCJ architects, Philadelphia Parker Whitney - IndyHall, Philadelphia
The Accounts Payable Office & the Campbell’s team in particular: Regina, Rose and Lin
A special thank you to my fellow 2nd year MID’ers. I have the deepest respect for each of you, I
cannot tell you how much I have learned from you over the past two years. You made this program worth the intense work and late nights! Fraser
Gareth
Megan Jeff
Justin
Rachael Victoria
Yu-Ching
To my East Coast and West Coast family, thank you.
Petar - thanks for your huge smiles when I get home, even if you are up way later than a 8 month old should.
Matteo - let’s go to the park and play soccer, baseball and go on the slides. I hope you’ll forget how many times I put off going to the park so I could read another article, write one more paragraph or learn how to model in Rhino.
Marisa - thank you for holding down the fort for the past two years. Thank you also for believing that I could do this even when I doubted myself. With all my love, as always, ~Gabe
About the author:
Gabe grew up in the little town of Maple Valley about a half hour outside of Seattle. Formally trained as a classical musician, he reapplyed those skills while leading product training and field testing teams with REI (Recreational
Equipment Inc) in Seattle. Inspired by the potential of the design process and user research he left REI to pursue a Masters of Industrial Design in Philadelphia. www.gabrielmaricich.com
Section I. Introduction
Campbells 2006
Section 1 Introduction In the current economic climate it is incredibly difficult for companies to support their employee work at the highest levels desired, which can have negative impact on a company. At this time, the inability to make a large investment in office space and technology is often cited as the reason for not making necessary changes to work environments. This dearth of resources often leads to a lack of action on the part of employers, which means companies are tacitly encouraging employees to stagnate in their work. This also follows the historical top down corporate structure, which often succeeds at suppressing creativity and innovation.1
Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey / United
1
States / Working Differently pg8
Traditional, large square footage, formal work environments are becoming more and more questionable regardless of financial abilities. According to a case study by Steelcase, at any given time throughout the workday 60% of Intel’s workstations were empty!2 This suggests that some of the traditional office design paradigms may be approaching the point of obsolescence. In its simplest form, a workplace is a dynamic combination of people and place. To create a clear understanding of the opportunities at hand, we will begin by taking a historical look at workspace paradigms, the type of work being accomplished and the people participating in the work. If a company hopes to remain competitive on any level they must more fully leverage the possibilities of their workspace. This must be done not only as a tool for hiring and retention, but to ensure that employees can perform to their full potential. Workers must be given the opportunity to work with the space, not in-spite of it. i.1
Steelcase 360:ezine newsletter Real-
2
Estate on the Cutting Edge. June 2009 pg2
Finance Office 2009
i.2
If we look at a multitude of examples across many industries we see illustrations of innovative groups who work around this challenge and manage to create great workspaces with very little financial investment. In other words, working with constrained resources can be a fabulous opportunity to leverage the need for workplace innovation while working within aggressive financial limits. This provides us with an exciting problem. Workspaces are usually full of furniture, yet they are often not optimized for use by the individual company, workgroup or small team. This reality can be compounded by company cultures that inhibit workgroups from individually optimizing their space. As we will examine in greater detail later, this is particularly troubling, because who knows better how they work than the team themselves? Of course, the workgroup is often too close to their work habits to make unbiased judgments. However, we will discuss some tool and techniques to employ this bias and co-design a high performance workplace. Not only is the involvement necessary for creating a worker focused workspace, but it can also lead to a higher level of employee investment and morale. Time is also another major constraint that discourages companies for workplace redevelopment. The amount of time spent on a project can be quite substantial, especially when taking into account the amount of time lost by a workgroup in transition between spaces. One financial services company estimated that it cost as much as $10,000 per person to relocate and redevelop an office, once they calculated all factors including lost productivity.3 The current model of office redevelopment regularly requires complete replacement of office furnishings. Wiping the slate clean if you will. Yet much of this furniture is often in good shape, with years of life left. This is anything but ideal from an environmental perspective. Beyond potentially being wasteful from a resource perspective, this model often fails to fundamentally address the root i.3
Alice Lindenauer, Director, Work Force
3
Development Team, SEI Investments – presentation October 5, 2009
In Good Company workplace 2010
i.4
of why workspaces need to be redesigned and redeveloped. During a conversation with principle Bill Krebs from MGZA, I asked what the main struggles are in helping a company transform their workplace. “Well, if there are four main objections, the first three would be money and the fourth would be company culture.”4
Bill Krebs, Principal MGZA Architects.
4
personal communication February 4, 2010
Donald Norman: The Design of Everyday Things “Architect Sam Sloan coordinated a project in which employees…were able to select their own office furniture and plan office layout. This represented a major departure from prevailing practices in the federal services where such matters were decided by those in authority. Since both the Seattle and Los Angeles branches of the FAA were scheduled to move into new building at about the same time, the client for the project, the General Service Administration, agreed with architect Sloan’s proposal to involve employees in the design process in Seattle, while leaving the Los Angeles office as a control condition where traditional methods of space planning would be followed.5 So there really were two designs: one in Seattle, with heavy participation by the users, and one in Los Angeles, designed in the conventional manner by architects. Which design do the users prefer? Why the Seattle one, of course. Which one got the award? Why the Los Angeles one, of course. Here is Sommer’s description of the outcomes:
i.5
“Several months following the move into the new buildings, surveys by the research team were made in Los Angeles and Seattle. The Seattle workers were more satisfied with
p.152 Donald Norman. The Design of
5
Everyday Things. New York : Basic Books. 1988
Campbells 2008
i.6
their building and work areas than were the Los Angeles employees… It is noteworthy that the Los Angeles building has been given repeated awards by the American Institute of Architects while the Seattle building received no recognition. One member of the AIA jury justified his denial of an award to the Seattle building on the basis of its ‘residential quality’ and ‘lack of discipline and control of the interiors,’ which was what the employees liked the most about it. This reflects the well-documented differences in preferences between architects and occupants…. The director of the Seattle office admitted that many visitors were surprised that this is a federal facility. Employees in both locations rated their satisfaction with their job performance before and after the move into the new building. There was no change in the Los Angeles office and a 7 percent improvement in rated job performance in the Seattle office.”6 With the vast number of knowledge workers beginning to flood the market, we are already seeing a dramatic shift in the way people work. To further inform our understanding let’s take a walk through workspace history to gain a clearer point of view and frame of reference. We will also look briefly at who is working in the office and what type of work they accomplish.
i.7
D. Norman p.152 (Sommer, R. (1983).
6
Social design: Creating buildings with people in mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.)
Campbells 2006
i.8
Section II. Background
Steelcase 2010
Section 2 Historical Background Workplaces present many challenges and make an easy target for disparaging humor. To validate this point, one needs only to look at the myriad of pop-culture comedy aimed at workspaces: Dilbert, Office Space, The Office, The Producers and Terry Tate ‘Office Linebacker’ among many others. What are the factors that lead to this attitude and outlook? Let’s take a brief historical look at workspace design and the people who inhabit the spaces. Near the beginning of the 20th century, formal offices were developed in a Taylorist manner, meaning that they were modeled after factories. These offices were laid out in formal rows so that paperwork could be passed from worker to worker and the employees could be observed easily by a middle manager. Accounting was the primary type of work done in such an office. Drafting and engineering work also fell under this type of office structure with junior draftsmen and engineers deployed in rows. The Taylorist office was the predominant motif until the 1960’s when the Burolandschaft or ‘Office Landscape’ came into vogue. This office paradigm acknowledged the many divisions and function groups throughout a corporate structure. These office or division groups were grouped together to achieve greater levels of communication and collective focus. One of the main theories behind this model was to promote collaboration and communication through proximity. This paradigm is still one of the more prominent models actively used today. This type of office was used across an array of functional groups; creative, management, finance and communication. It also placed an emphasis on the fabric of an organization, the people. ii.1
National Museum of American History 2010
ii.2
In 1968 Herman Miller deployed the Action Office. This formally designed office was one of the earliest examples of an exhaustively researched workplace. For the first time, a workspace was developed to support multiple work modes and acknowledge that each person routinely performs several types of work on any given day. The concepts of multiple work modes and physical support for those shifting tasks are still relevant today. This type of research set the stage for other furniture companies and exemplified the level of detail required to reinvent the industry. In a testament to it’s truly innovative nature, the Action Office is still considered one of the best office models with little departure from the original concept.1 Not only is the action office still available in very similar form, but many of the elements used in cutting edge offices today see their genesis here. The curved work surface, half-height walls, reconfigurable layouts, semi-private and collaborative areas were all a part of this revolutionary design.
ii.3
http://www.wired.com/print/culture/design/
1
magazine/17-04/pl_design
Herman Miller. Action Office. used with permision. www.hermanmiller.com 2010
ii.4
Beginning almost immediately after the launch of the Action Office, many companies tried to copy elements of the concept. One of the more significant developments was the half-height or semitransparent walls that gave the Action Office a sense of privacy. These walls quickly grew in popularity as competitors replicated the design. In the 1980’s these copies became a paradigm of their own, known as the Cube Farm. Though ‘cubes’ provided a high level of privacy, they also made it very difficult to engage in-group or collaborative work in the way the original Action Office intended. As office tools and workers become more mobile and less tethered, the need to create fixed work stations that enforce private focus space has become less critical.2 Unfortunately this paradigm of the cube farm is seen throughout many office buildings and workspaces. Many elements compound the problem of the cubicle. One of them being its relatively high level of acceptance, we’re used to it. They are also difficult to customize without a facilities or construction team and therefore are relatively inflexible as far as the average user is concerned.
ii.5
The cube farm was often embraced by
2
many large scale technically oriented companies. Boeing, IBM, AT&T and other companies of this stature often used cube farms to smooth hierarchy structures with varying levels of success.
Campbells 2008
ii.6
In 1994 Chiat/Day launched their new office in Los Angeles. This building was created to support the needs of creatively developing ideas. The space was very open with few assigned workspaces. The goal was to support creativity and play, while acknowledging that many desks are empty for a majority of the work day. However, the employees at Chiat/Day did not seem to be prepared for this ‘Open Office’ paradigm and resigned in droves. The current workspace paradigm is often referred to as the ‘Blended Office’. This nomenclature refers to the blending of work – life boundaries. It acknowledges how we are becoming accustomed to responding to work while at home and in turn, expecting more family or personal life support from work. In many ways this blended office is more actively supported by corporate policy and services rather than spatial design. However, spatial support for the blended office can include: on-site childcare, fitness centers and meals. In addition to spatial shifts, these workplace paradigms parallel shifts in the type of work being done and the culture of the workers. Whether it is the more individually focused baby boomer of the cube farm or the socially connected GenXer in the blended office.
ii.7
Chiat/Day, Los Angeles
ii.8
Workspace and worktype
One thing we hope to point out is that the type of work being performed in each different office structure can be as varied as the physical space itself. We also see that as work styles and tasks change, the space that supports those people and actions must change as well. Today, unfortunately, it is common to see individuals working in a place that was created for a work paradigm that is 10, 15 or even 20 years old. As one observes people working in these spaces, you see many ‘work around’ solutions of workers functioning ‘in-spite’ of their space. A clear call for a paradigmatic shift. In the Taylorist office workers performed specific functions in regular patterns and order. In the Office Landscape people performed different tasks within a defined field, such as advertising or engineering. The Action Office was created to be installed across many different types of work environments and be able to support whatever work needed to be done. The Open Office of Chiat/ Day was specifically imagined to encourage and facilitate creative play. However the blended office of today and the new models of tomorrow are geared towards supporting a different iteration of worker: the Knowledge Worker.
ii.9
ii.10
The Knowledge Worker
Peter Druker first coined the term knowledge worker in 1968. However it did not enter the common lexicon until Nonaka and Takeuchi’s seminal work The Knowledge-Creating Company. They describe knowledge workers as providing value to a company through their ability to interpret information in a specific subject area. This information is used to identify alternative actions and solve problems.3 Current examples of knowledge workers include, engineers, accountants, managers, IT disciplines, programmers, many medical professionals, marketers and social media workers, among others. Knowledge workers are often thought of as subject matter specialists. This designation is often reflected in entry level position titles: marketing specialist, communications specialist or training specialist to name a few. It is the workers of this ‘knowledge economy’ whom we will specifically focus our research throughout the remainder of this work. They are the type of worker most universally found in a more traditional office environment while often being well equipped to absorb new work concepts. Now that we’ve developed a simple understanding of historical office models and a brief glimpse at the type of work being assigned in those spaces, we need to grasp a basic viewpoint of the people doing the work. Who are our current office workers?
ii.11
pg.7 Nonaka and Takeuchi. The
3
knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York. Oxford University Press 1995
ii.12
Current office workers: age & culture of workers
Who is present in the current workplace environment? Currently four generations are present in the workplace on a considerable scale. This fact is significant in and of itself. Previously, life expectancy, distribution of knowledge workers, percentage of workers in other fields and the financial possibility of retirement had made this phenomenon rare. Yet today we are confronted with a work environment where ages span as many as 60 years or more. On a broad level, the demographic breakdown of these generations are as follows: Traditionals, ages 64-81, with characteristics such as - dedication, respect for authority, patience, loyalty, hard work and delayed reward. Next we have baby boomers, ages 46-63 who emphasize – eternal youth, personal gratification, individuality, health & wellness and personal growth. Generation X is the next group, ages 29-45, whose characteristics encompass - informality, technology, global thinking, detachment, self-reliance and entrepreneurship. Finally we have Millennial’s / GenerationNext, ages 10-28, whose traits include - optimism, confidence, street smarts, diversity, civic duty, automation throughout life and are perceived as having been nurtured. This broad age range breeds very different outlooks and perceptions of work. Coupled with rapid and dynamic changes in tools and resources, this makes for a plethora of work styles and habits.
ii.13
ii.14
Upward absorption of work ways
The work habits of these generations are as broad as their age range. In these work habits we see a convergence of people who were originally trained to work on a typewriter as well as those who don’t know a world without Wi-Fi. However, as younger generations bring ever more flexible and creative work styles, the more senior generations are adopting and adapting these practices with great speed. In some ways the convergence of several generations in the same space seems to have almost smoothed out some of the differences rather than exacerbate the stylistic alternatives. We are beginning to see the Starbucks generation take coffee shop work habits into the corporate world en-mass.4 In my opinion it is very important to use this historical reference and contextual understanding to avoid repeating the pitfalls of previous models. By being aware of pre-existing conditions we can hopefully provide a framework for redevelopment that serves the people who use it day in and day out. We clearly see through this historical viewfinder that to be a viable work concept, the paradigm must be both readily adaptable and flexible. This flexibility of space and work mode support is demanded by companies trying to develop a high performance office. This workspace will then in turn support high performance workers.
ii.15
Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey / United
4
States / Working Differently pg 12-13 Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey / United States / Working Differently pg 14-15
ii.16
What is the High Performance Office?
The High Performance Office is a term that is becoming an active part of the workplace lexicon. But what does it mean? A high performance office dynamically supports and encourages people to engage in the four main modes of work: Focus, Collaborate, Learn and Socialize. Specifically it supports more collaboration and learning than the average office. In fact, top performing companies spend 23% more time collaborating, 40% more time learning, 16% more time socializing and 21% less time on focused work than average performance companies.5 These top performing companies design their space to encourage these high performance work modes by devoting space and resources to primary workspace, common areas, meeting areas and training areas. What is the actual benefit of being a high performance company? The benefits are broad and tangible. There are of course, human capital benefits, including worker morale, job satisfaction, employee engagement and retention. However, nearly as interesting is that their three year average profit growth increases in direct relation to their workplace performance index (WPI) . One example depicts a 28.2% increase in profit growth, nearly double the growth of the lowest workplace performance index ratings.6
ii.17
The workplace performance index (WPI)
5
is a proprietary evaluation tool developed by gensler for workplace analysis and benchmarking. The WPI takes many spatial, environmental, leadership and workplace culture factors into account.
Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey / United
6
States / Working Differently 24
Collaborate
Focus
Collaborate
Focus Learn
Socialize
Average Performance
Learn
Socialize
HighPerformance
ii.18
In its simplest form, a high performance workplace helps a company perform better financially. It can be a strategic advantage and key differentiator. The point is that the dynamism and support of a work environment can directly influence the bottom line profitability of a company. Another exciting element of the high performance workplace is that it also correlates directly to higher employee engagement and worker retention. So, in essence, your company performs better, retains its best employees and attracts the brightest workers. A High Performance Workplace is designated such a place by it’s ability to support employees in their need to actively engage in and transition between the four key modes of work which are: Collaboration7, Learning8, Focusing9 and Socializing10.
What do all of the numbers and ratings mean?
This research points specifically to the direct qualitative and quantitative value of a workplace that supports high performance work modes. It suggests that not only will a high performance workplace provide human capital returns, but also direct financial benefits as well.
ii.19
Innovative capital • on average people
7
spend 32% of their time collaborating.
Intellectual capital • on average people
8
spend 6% of their time learning.
Productive capital • on average, people
9
spend 48% of their time in focus work.
Social capital • on average, people spend
10
6% of their time socializing.
Socializing
Collaborating
Learning
Focusing
ii.20
Section III. Methods
Section 3 Methods After developing a historical framework through which we could more clearly understand and contextualize current office developments, we began interviewing workers, designers and managers. In conjunction with the interview process we began analyzing both traditional and alternate workspaces. We focused our research specifically on small organizations with limited ability to invest in the redevelopment of their workspace. We began our user research by conducting expert interviews. This began with Bill Krebs a principle with MGZA Architects in Wilminton Delaware. Bill was instrumental in the development of the historical trends and culture relevance. This was followed by Keith McMillon of Steelcase in Philadelphia. Keith spent several hours guiding us through the Steelcase design process and sharing their experience, research and workplace philosophy. Following the development of this foundational framework, we began visiting more workspaces and gathering user research. After these early interviews it became apparent that there was a very exciting dynamic between formally designed workspaces and what we call ‘self-created’ spaces. We became particularly interested in the high performance potential of ‘self-created’ spaces. Much of this interest was generated by early user observations. User observation is another key method I employed during this study. I would like to acknowledge and differentiate between user observation and ethnographic analysis, which originates in anthropological studies. Ethnographic analysis is employed by anthropologists, usually over long periods of time, to create a factual account of what and why things are happening. iii.1
iii.2
User observation is much more interested in specific and actionable insight, rather than creating a perfectly accurate representation of life. We also analyzed two case studies, the first of which was the Finance Office project. This project was started in the Fall of 2009 with the goal of redeveloping the accounts payable office at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia. The Finance Office project began with the goal of redeveloping the space using only the resources already found within the space. The second case study was the Campbells project which was developed during the Summer of 2006 and employed many user centered design and co-design methods and concepts. These two case studies are used extensively in the creation of the re-development guide and practical application of concepts. The final key method that was employed during this work was ‘Changing the Nature of the task’. To change the nature of the task, one reformats or rearticulates the problem to more clearly or simply seek out a solution. This concept informed most of the following research concepts and points of view. We reframed one of our key questions by stating, rather than trying to create low investment and accessible high performance workplaces, why don’t we go out and try to find if these places already exist. So we change the nature of the task from creating to seeking. The final method is one I call adventure officing. Which comes from adventure racing. We began in Philadelphia and traveled up and down the East Coast, from NYC to Charlottesville Virginia visiting as many ‘alternate’ office environments as we could during our available time, which was roughly February through early April. During our travels we conducted both expert and user interviews, a substantial amount of user observation and photographic ethnography. iii.3
The Finance Office project was a branch of the StudioNext collaboration. An interdisciplinary College of Art and Design initiative.
Uarts 2009
OpenSpace 2010
Campbells 2008
iii.4
Some of the many places we visited along the East Coast include: OpenSpace • Charlottesville Steelcase • Philadelphia In Good Company workplace • Manhattan Nurture and Steelcase • New York Ferguson and Shamamian Architects • SoHo MGZA Architects • Wilmington Independents Hall • Philadelphia • University of Virginia • NYU • The University of the Arts • Jefferson • The New School • a myriad of coffee shops During our travels we interviewed many people and observed many more. During this field work some interesting patterns began to surface. We tried to gather as broad a sampling as possible within the time available to ensure that our findings were not overly localized to one area or industry. This is what we discovered:
iii.5
NY
PA
NJ MD DC
DE
VA
iii.6
Section IV. Results
Starbucks 2010
Section 4 Results What did we begin to see and hear during our journey? We began by touring and interviewing people at as many nontraditional work models as we could. During this time we began to notice an interesting blend and dynamism between formalized models and ‘flex or open’ spaces.
Almost immediately we began to notice patterns and similarities in spaces and the way people worked. One of our earliest realizations was discovering where high performance work modes seem to appear naturally. As discussed earlier, high performance workspace support collaboration, learning, socializing and focus work with a heavy weighting towards collaboration and learning. These naturally supportive spaces appear to be coffee shops, coworking spaces and university campuses. These places all share naturally dynamic environments, flexible spatial arrangements, diverse populations and seemingly enormous untapped potential. In a more pragmatic analysis of individual workers, we observed very similar work structures and habits within these ‘self-created’ workspaces. We discovered that our subjects, created ‘push-out’ work zones. These work zones tend to be flanked by buffer zones that ‘protect’ and designate a space and work area. After an area is ‘marked’, tools are deployed across a combination of both horizontal space and vertical levels. Another particularly interesting dynamic and one that is more difficult to observe and analyze was work that happened across zones. Many of the people we interviewed and observed worked and collaborated across multiple time zones. Often this affects how they structure their work and the relevance or hierarchy of tasks.1 iv.1
pg11Rob Cross. The Hidden Power of
1
Social Networks: Understanding how work really gets done. Boston. Harvard Business School Press, 2004
Starbucks 2010
iv.2
After gathering our first round of user research and interview data we began to see parallel patterns between the ‘self-created’ worker environment and the ‘natural’ worker environment. The further we developed this awareness, we began to see many more similar parallels. From these parallels we drew a core of analogies from which we could glean further insight.
pg 159. Malcom Gladwell. Blink: the power
2
of thinking without thinking. New York. Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
What are we trying to do?
We are not asking ‘what kind of workplace do you want?’ We are cmoing at this obliquely.2 We’re saying, ‘let’s discover how you work best and then we’ll adapt the space to work for you the best way we can’. And we’re going to do this together. The co-design element, engaging the workers directly in the process, is key. We want to keep elements of the culture that keep the workers as they are. However, we also want to innovate and optimize the space and the worker experience.3 We believe that if we share our learning and redevelopment tools, we can provide almost everything necessary to redevelop a workspace.
iv.3
M. Gladwell. pg161
3
In Good Company 2010
iv.4
So first lets make sure we clearly understand how most people in an ‘alternate workspace’ are actually working. Based on everything we learned through our travels, observations, case study analysis and interviews, this is how we believe a majority of people ‘self-create’ their office.
We’ve broken this down as clearly as possible into a five step
process. Of course, this process is not actually this cut and dry, but it is a little bit simpler to understand and deconstruct if it is discussed in this manner.
A. we begin to see people mark a space or set up a boundary or
border. This area starts to define their ‘work zone’. These work zones usually include protective ‘buffer zones’.
B. tools are arranged in a personalized fashion depending on the first task at hand. In general these tools are arrayed in a semi-circular
fashion.
C. work ‘enhancers’ are usually deployed after tools are arranged.
Often these take shape as sound barriers such as headphones, but
they can also be visual dividers.
D. portals to other spaces and people such as phones and Wi-Fi are engaged to create a more complete network.
E. personalization such as coffee mugs, cups, sunglasses and
watches assist in defining and marking a space. iv.5
Throughout this work we are designating coffee shops, university campuses and coworking spaces as ‘alternate workspaces’.
Individual identifier
Audio divider
Storage zone Core tool Central workspace
Now that we’ve gone through a brief overview, we will examine each step in greater detail.
In Good Company 2010
iv.6
A. We began to see people mark a space to set up a boundary or border. This area begins to define their ‘work zone’. These work zones usually include protective ‘buffer zones’. In almost every instance, the individual situates themselves in the center with their tools arrayed across a roughly 180 degree area. The core tools tend to be distributed in a somewhat more central 90 degree zone.
work zone
iv.9
buffer zone
B. Tools are arranged in a personalized fashion depending on the first task at hand. In general these tools are arrayed in a semicircular fashion. There are of course many ways to arrange individuals tools. However, this is a pattern that we have seen replicated on numerous occasions through our work. There seems to be little variation regardless of dominant hand.
iv.10
C. Work ‘enhancers’ are usually deployed after tools are arranged. Often these take shape as sound barriers such as headphones, but they can also be visual dividers as well. These buffer zones allow people the opportunity to create their own environment without having to physically alter the space or relocate.
iv.11
D. Portals to other spaces and people such as phones and Wi-Fi are engaged to create a more complete network. These enabling technologies are the support structure that allow the concept of the self-created office to be a reality.
iv.12
iv.13
We also observed how people work across vertical space as well as time. The upper and lower reaches of vertical space tend to be relegated to storage areas. These are often used to organize and display work. Time can be difficult to analyze, but often the key factor in the hierarchy of work tasks. We met several people who worked across both time and space. Having clients and coworkers in different locations and timezones. These constraints often factored into when and how their collaborative work was tackled.
iv.14
We also began to see fairly structured patterns and layouts which are reminiscent of patterns we observed in nature. These patterns we have recreated are of course more formalized that the ones we observed on a daily basis, but not by much.
This pattern is a replica of a common Starbucks ‘L’ layout. We observed many similar arrangements in other cafes, as well as in coworking spaces.
iv.14
iv.15
Analogies Through our observation and analysis we’ve begun to see a plethora of patterns across the segment of workers we’ve examined. These patterns appear to be a parallel or a mirroring of what we observe in the natural world. Some of our most interesting parallels are drawn from the animal world, from working creatures. The types of patterns that they create and the way they build workspaces from the center out are analogous to the way many knowledge workers create their own space. Some of the creatures in nature who display a similar type of behavior include wolves. Wolves mark and self-define their ‘area in which they work’. They also work together in packs to amplify their physical capabilities when hunting. Honey bees also reflect some of the behaviors we have discussed earlier. They build from the inside-out, creating supporting structures that are adaptable and customized to their physical environment. Ants create incredible labyrinths with hundreds of connection points and portals. These workspaces and the collaborative nature of their work is another example of similarities in nature.
Other very visual analogue is are soap bubbles. Individual bubbles could be seen as self-created spaces and collections of bubbles quickly aggregate and build touch points or connections from one to another. This visual networking or knowledge through proximity is another phenomenon in the self-created office. It is through these connection points or portals that we often shift from our focus work to learning, collaboration and socializing. iv.16
iv.17
Beavers build circular and semi-circular structures. These homes and dams often have several portals or outside connections points. Beavers also tend to work in collaboration while building. To use more scientific analogies, both the International Space Station and Space Station Mir were built in modules that connect to create one station. These individual models could be thought of as function groups; crew quarters, science lab, command center and so on. This is very similar to how division teams are often created in offices. Spiders also create ‘workspaces’ that array out in a circular fashion. These individual workspaces are often interconnected to other webs and intricately addapted to the surrounding environment.
iv.18
iv.19 iv.21
Other very visual analogue is are soap bubbles. Individual bubbles could be seen as self-created spaces and collections of bubbles quickly aggregate and build touch points or connections from one to another. This visual networking or knowledge through proximity is another phenomenon in the self-created office. It is through these connection points or portals that we often shift from our focus work to learning, collaboration and socializing.
This is the future of work.
iv.20
iv.21
Section V. Conclusion
Section 5 Conclusion We have already begun seeing this shift in workspace paradigms on a broad scale chronicled across the country. The following are accounts that further support this conclusion and point of view.
Non-Traditional work models:
The following are examples of non-traditional work environments, that actively support the four previously identified modes of working: focus, collaboration, socializing and learning. T he three alternate environments that actively support these four modes of working include: coffee shops, coworking spaces and academic environments, most notably college campuses.
The Daily Grind:
In the New York Times article Daily Grind author Deirdre Dolan highlights the use of New York coffee shops “to re-create the office environment they no longer have to complain about”. This phenomenon is in full swing across the country, particularly in large cities with strong coffee shop cultures. What makes these environments so appealing? Is it just a place outside of your residence where you can park a laptop, get power, tap Wi-Fi and drink some coffee? Based on responses from ‘shop workers’ (those who work in the coffee shop, not for the shop), there is more to it than just coffee, power and Wi-Fi. According to architect Bohb Jadhav who spends six hours each day working at Park Slope coffee house, it’s the “stimulating environment, music and conversation”. “This place is critical to my sanity, if I was at home I’d be more easily distracted. And it’s nice to have the company of others.”1 Hattie Elliot runs her matchmaking service almost entirely out of a coffee shop in the West Village. She had previously rented an office for interviewing clients, but found it was easier to get people talking v.1
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/27/
1
opinion/28opart.html
v.2
in the cafe. Unlike her previous work as a business development consultant, Ms. Elliot “had to build this business smart and lean”. The shop “saves me thousands of dollars a month, my clients feel more comfortable and I help out by buying $500-$750 of coffee per month.2 Ruthie McCombs relates a similar experience. After losing her investment banking job the year before, she keeps exactly the same office schedule: five days a week, eight hours a day, vanilla soy latte for breakfast, bag lunch and afternoon tea. Only now her desk is along the front wall of a coffee shop. She spend her day working hard applying to graduate school, developing business plans, brainstorming ideas and writing two blogs. “I used to think people who hung out in coffee shops were flaky, but I’ve met some accomplished people in here. I wish my office was more like this.”3
nytimes pg2
2
nytimes pg2
3
Individually together: the coworking movement
What is coworking? Loosely defined it is a space where individuals or groups of people can work. The scope of coworking is as varied as the ever-increasing number of communities developing around the world. Many spaces have a formal membership fee structure and daily use rates. They provide a range of amenities from basic tables and Wi-Fi to full concierge services and top of the line conference rooms. What is consistent is that people gather to work, mostly on individual projects, together.4
v.3
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/
4
business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html pg1
v.4
Most coworkers are drawn in for similar reasons. They like working independently but are less effective when sitting at home alone. Coworking provides more opportunities and support for what we have highlighted as the key factors in highly productive workplaces: focus, collaboration, socializing and learning. In this light, coworking offers a great opportunity to learn how people provide for their needs and desires. Coworking provides more structure than a coffee shop, while still providing the energy and social aspects of working around other people. The coworking movement has demonstrated a deep understanding of the needs of knowledge workers. What is even more exciting is that this understanding is supported by workers in action. “Despite their differences, these spaces share a critical commonality – they’re built to serve the needs of a new class of workers who require a new class of workspace.”5 According to Giulia Witcombe,a concierge at OpenSpace (a brand new coworking space in Charlottesville) they are attempting to scale up the role of coworking in the Charlottesville community. Not only do they provide a beautiful space with top of the line furniture and technology packages, they are also attempting to connect with and support the community at large on a deeper level. They use their space to support social and learning events and are exploring opportunities to collaborate with the surrounding university community.6 In that same spirit of learning and collaboration Adelaide Lancaster, co-founder of In Good Company spends much of her time supporting the business owners who work there. In Good Company (a womenfocused coworking space in Manhattan) offers a variety of business consulting services, learning opportunities and networking functions to further support the individuals who use the workspace.7 v.5
pg70 I’m Outta Here! How coworking
5
is making the office obsolete. Jones, Sundsted & Bacigalupo. Not an MBA Press, Brooklyn • Austin. 2009
Personal communication. February 19,
6
2010. Charlottesville, VA
Personal communication. October 5, 2009.
7
Philadelphia, PA
v.6
The Collegiate Experience
Flexible and adaptable working is the way we do everything. If we don’t have the resources at our disposal, we find something that will work in its place. We usually don’t have all the resources we think we need whether that’s space, technology, money, time, whatever… so it doesn’t really seem out of the ordinary that we have to create a space that works best for us. I mean, sure, many of the tools we use allow us to work this way – but we’ve adapted to working this way pretty quickly.
What is the collegiate experience?
We’ve found that it usually entails a disparate group of individuals coming together to work on semi-individual projects. Their work spaces are varied and irregular. Dorm rooms, apartment floors, kitchen tables, park benches, beach towels, hallway corners, dining hall tables, coffee shops and almost any other place you can imagine. This type of work environment breeds the elements and outlook that encourages the self-created office. As these students have joined the workforce in ever-increasing numbers, so too have their work styles.8 If we understand the conditions that encourage this type of behavior we can better support current workers in adapting this outlook of their work environment.
What does this mean for the office?
If high performance work environments can be “self-created” in coffee shops, coworking spaces and university campuses for very low cost, what does this mean for the more traditional workspace - the office? It means we need to find ways to more naturally and organically support they way people work. And with little ingenuity and a few tools it is very possible. v.7
pg 6. Steelcase 360: ezine Attracting &
8
Engaging Today’s Workers. August 2009
v.8
It should be noted that the ways we work are being transformed at a lightning-fast pace. With each leap forward in technology, communication, transportation and education, there is a new coping strategy developed to work with the new tool. We are not experiencing evolutionary steps forward, but almost complete transformation. To manage the explosive transformation we need to develop strategies that are nearly as flexible and adaptable as people. If we can create strategy and tactic based around the intrinsic behaviors of people, the opportunity for ongoing application will be much greater. In essence we are seeking to develop a human centered workplace strategy that can be adapted to any knowledge worker’s environment. These concepts could then be scaled up or down based on the size of the work group and resources available for investment. Based on our entering knowledge and research, we have begun seeking examples in both the workspace environment and in the natural world. Some places have a certain energy about them, a culture of the space, a dynamic. This, is of course, very difficult to quantify but also seems to be a very important element nonetheless. This dynamic cultural element seems to be particularly cultivated in university campus environments and coworking spaces. Café’s and coffee shops seem to have more individualized and ambiance centric flavors, but this too seems to be very representative of the area and clientele. “You need a space. The space is really important, but at the same time it’s not really that important, because it’s about the people and the culture they create. We could move to a new space v.9
v.10
tomorrow and we’d still have IndyHall if a core group moved with us. I mean, we just put tables and chairs in the space and people create the culture that makes this place IndyHall. Some things are more important than others. The whiteboards are key, they play a pretty big role in the culture of this place.” - Parker Whitney – Space Coordinator, Indy Hall9
Personal communication, Indy Hall -
9
Philadelphia March 25, 2010
Clearly space is important and work needs to happen in a place. But how important is a space? Can a culture continue beyond a designated place? “We have a nice space and we try to provide a very positive work environment. However, nearly three quarters of our members do not work in our coworking space. They utilize many of our programs and take advantage of some of the consulting services we offer, but it’s really about learning from each other and supporting one another. We celebrate success and collectively help solve problems. The space is often what draws people in, but that’s not why they stay.” - Adelaide Lancaster, co-founder In Good Company workplace10 Back to our original question, can these concepts be adapted from coworking, coffee shops and campuses and applied to more traditional workplaces. If we couple our fieldwork with our case study information we can begin to develop a clearer understanding of how to make this a reality. One key concept we learned from our case studies is that how you redesign a space matters almost as much as what you design. This is often known as co-design or participatory design. This way of working can directly contribute to encouraging the development of the culture that many of the people we spoke to deemed of high importance. v.11
personal communication, In Good
10
Company workplace - Manhattan March 10, 2010
v.12
How are these offices created?
In the previous chapter we discussed and analyzed how these spaces are created from a physical and spatial viewpoint. There are several other key factors that we would like to briefly point out. In the self-created office paradigm, the top down structure and prescribed ways of working are out. Individuals create their space on a model that is customized to their own work habits and preferences. There are, as we have seen, many similarities and natural patterns, but these are not forced upon the user, nor are they prescribed.
A summary of our learning
To briefly summarize what we’ve learned and discovered, space matters. The answers to this question is both yes and no. Having a space to work matters a great deal, but individuals rapidly adapt and are creative when the space is not overly ‘designed’. People matter much more than the space. This seems incredibly obvious, yet based on much of our historical research, the people working in a space are quickly forgotten. The beauty of the selfcreated workplace is that it not only is customized for the individual, but it’s customized by the individual which leads to a greater level of self-direction, autonomy and personal investment. Any new concept must be both flexible and readily adaptable. Because this paradigm is created by the user, it has almost limitless flexibility and it’s adaptability is only constrained by creativity, imagination and forces that govern our physical world - gravity.
v.13
v.14
This illustration highlights some of the concepts we’ve discussed thus far. It visually describes some of our research and insight. In particular it denotes that much of our research takes place along the fringe of current work environments and begins to understand the interplay between work modes, work spaces and people. Some of the specific elements we’d like to point out in this paradigm include: portals, interfaces, connections points, adaptable, customizable, interlocking, flexible and reconfigurable.
Dynamic work in action.
v.15
v.16
Section VI. Directions for the Future
Section 6 Directions for the Future We believe that this is what the future of the workspace may look like. Change is one of the few constants in business and design today. This metaphor can be applied to many aspects of workplace redevelopment including: distributed workforce, service models, spatial flexibility, human capital needs, real-estate cost and benefits. Most interesting is that it allows us to frame a new paradigm in an organic format. This is not a new model or philosophy, it is reality. This is a natural example of how the working world develops. We can deploy strategies that take this paradigm into account and leverage many existing assets and previous knowledge.
What does this mean to the workplace?
Change is here to stay. We can, of course, use research methodologies to help forecast what the future of work might be. Yet we also know that these are highly education projections and that in essence, all bets are off. This paradigm suggests that change is here to stay, until it changes again. We are surrounded by almost constant work shifts. Some of the more common examples include: outsourcing work, flex scheduling, results only work, coworking, hoteling and mixed-use space. We need to learn from these changes and discover how to function within these parameters knowing full well that more changes are on the way. The type of learning we describe here, refers to both institutional learning and individual learning. By institutional learning we refer to organizations or companies that collectively become more adept at using these tool and concepts to more actively support their personnel. vi.1
This paradigm illustrates the connections, flexibility, portals, shifting and susceptibility to environmental changes that we see mirrored in the workplace.
vi.2
By individual learning we refer to individual insight and perspective that is brought to the table by individuals and learned throughout the process. (This can be thought of as both collective and individual learning or knowledge). Flexibility, self-study and reflection are important. We can try to predict what changes will happen in the future and develop flexible frameworks that allow shifts to happen more organically and naturally. This framework and help by providing a more stable, yet flexible background to future work. Recent economic developments have highlighted the need for flexibility and adaptability. These two ideas are key concepts within the framework of the self-created office. Based on our previous research and knowledge we know that both workplace redevelopment and worker support are quite sensitive to changes in business function, work styles and the type of work performed. This could suggest the need for a service that would facilitate the user-centered co-design process that we have outlined here. The feasibility and opportunity for creating a service such as this is something we would like to pursue in the future in conjunction with further developing this framework and guide. Another key opportunity we would like to address is that the self-created office also supports the reversal of the formal top down office structure. In our earlier research we observed many examples of work methods and styles that are quickly co-opted by other workers. This would support the self-direction and work group investment by allowing them to create a better workspace for themselves. This method of self-creating a space provides framework resources and then encouraging team development, while it also provides an opportunity for more workplace innovation. Rather than the traditional office-in-a-box that often results from lower cost workplace redevelopment. vi.3
This concept is not geared directly towards our current economic climate We expect to see a departure from some of the workplace spending habits that proceeded the recession of 2008/9.
vi.4
Future Steps We have two future steps that we would like to engage in upon the completion of this thesis. 1. We intend to pursue further partnership with our stakeholders: • MGZA Architects • Steelcase • BCJ Architects 2. We would like to test the user guide in it’s entirety. All of the individual pieces have of course been tested, but not in it’s newly created format. 3. Based on the successful testing of the redevelopment guide, we would like to pursue the development of a consulting model based on guiding workgroups through this co-design process. There can be a steep learning curve to using some of the tools and methods. We believe this could be a valuable intermediary service that works with companies to help their employees recreate and redevelop a workplace. Final thoughts: We believe these concepts have value because they are complex enough to describe the dynamic nature of this environment, yet are simple enough to be useful. Secondly we believe these concepts have great potential because they are built upon the actual habits and behaviors of people themselves.
vi.5
vi.6
User Guide The Self-Created Workplace
User Guide The Self-Created Workplace
User Guide Direction for the Self-Created Workplace Based on everything we’ve learned, we see the need for a scalable workplace
redevelopment guide being unmet. Can we leverage simple tools, methods and personal insight to facilitate the further development of the self-created office? Can we support the natural inclination for self-created workspaces?
Using several previous project and process guides as case studies, we believe we can produce an early version of a Self-Created Office guide. In theory, this guide
will help facilitate the redevelopment of existing workspaces. Or guide research for new workspaces. A key differentiator for this guide is be the inclusion of tools and
elements from co-design and human centered design methodologies. We believe it is necessary to engage the primary stakeholders, the workers, in redeveloping
their own office. Through this direct engagement and process facilitation, they can
Tips: Formal powerpoint presentations work fine, but you can also post all of your work on the walls and have a ‘mingle event’ where people check our the concepts and have informal conversations.
bring their deep level of insight and cultural knowledge to bear on the project. We strongly believe that it is necessary to move beyond simply designating a
certain number of square footage per employee workstation. We see sharing
the design process with the workers themselves as a great opportunity to further
optimize workspaces, and to continue learning about how people move through the range of work modes.
This of course, is not the final version. This is somewhere between iteration 1.5
and 2.0. It might be best thought of as a functional draft. Each tool and method has been deployed and improved upon at least twice within the context of office
redevelopment. Substantial improvement and innovation is still necessary to make this guide more valuable. However, by packaging the resources, research and
concepts together, we hope to present a more comprehensive value proposition. At it’s most basic level there are three steps to developing your own self-created workspace. Those three steps are discovery – understanding – action. Of course this is an over simplification of how a new space can be created, but is a valid framework for beginning.
Tips: Analysis is simply studying and identifying the relationship between differnt pieces of information. Simply begin by ‘connecting the dots’.
Tips: It’s very important to delay criticism of concepts. Rather than criticise an idea, play off it and use it as fodder to create a new concept and branch out in a new direction. We have found 30 minutes to be a great beginning timeframe for a brainstorming session.
Discover
In some ways this step is already underway when the idea of office redevelopment comes about. Most people acknowledge that their workspace is not ideal and
could use some improvements. One key element of the discover phase is taking
the time to step back and gain a fresh perspective, especially if you have been in a space for an extended period of time. Tips: Have people initial the note if you have more people in your group than sticky note colors. Regardless of position or job title within the company, each vote carries the same weight and value.
It can be helpful to look at the space as if using a telephoto lens to zoom in and
out. One needs to be able to create clear pictures of both micro and macro scales
to grasp small details, but also be able to understand how the details interact in the ‘big picture’.
Understand
How do you digest everything you learned during the discover phase and what it
means? This process will help to create a clearer picture of all the pieces collected during the discovery process. It provides the opportunity to digest the gathered information and further develop insight for effective redevelopment. Tips: scenarios can be written as stories. They can be acted out in ‘performance research’. Paper cut outs or little games can be used to tell the alternate reality of a scenario.
In some ways this stage can be thought of as the point where everything
converges. It helps to create a bridge between learning and acting where many concepts and possibilities are in play.
Act
Now that you’ve created an in-depth understanding, what can you do with it? At this point we can examine the feasibility and viability of the concepts that were developed during the understanding phase. This stage is also what sets this
process apart from a work place report or survey. The point is that active steps are taken within the constraints uncovered during earlier points of the project.
Here is where you make things real. Whether it’s creating a new office process
or protocol or re-creating the space where you work. All the digested analysis is transformed from strategy to a new reality.
Why a guide? What is the goal of this work? The goal of this process and guide is to provide office workers with the tools and resources to make meaningful changes to the work environment. This method supports the bottom up, organic nature of work habits. Our field research validates our hypothesis that individuals and groups of workers can self-create high performance workspaces. This guide can help create the support they need to: focus, collaborate, learn and socialize. It almost seems overly simple to say ‘each person knows what is best for themselves’. While we are not suggesting that professional office development and design is passĂŠ, we are suggesting that we need to move beyond the top-down structure of development. The employees, the users of the space must be engaged in the entire process from concept through completion. Once you have completed the redevelopment of you office remember to celebrate! Invite people from throughout your organization who can come and appreciate your work and collaboration.
What tools will you need?
Don’t worry about having a fancy collection of tools and resources. This guide is design to be used with simple available tools and on a very low to non-existent
budget. Once the work is underway, people become interested in the work and often discover some financial resources to support the project and workplace redevelopment. • camera
• post-it notes
• large format post-it’s or pads of paper • medium / large white board • online or paper survey
• interview questions / guide • personal note pads
• model making materials (raid your children’s lego collection) • dry erase or regular markers
• space blueprint (ask facilities) or a tape measure • guide instructions • an open mind
• some level of tacit management approval Disclaimer:
Remeber, this is version 1.5 or earlier. This guide is far from complete. You are
strongly encouraged to innovate and add to the methods listed above. This is only designed to give you a place to start and show intrinsic value in redeveloping a space. The rest is up to you. Best of luck and don’t forget to have some fun!
1. Interview
A structured conversation to begin developing insight and a shared understanding about the people you are working with.
Scott, Jen and Beth conduct an interview.
We begin by asking simple questions,
in an Interview. We ask questions like; what’s your name, job title, role, manager, what tools to you use… and many others.
The favorite
among many interviewee; would you
rather have a pet squirrel or drive the getaway car?
Be creative and have some fun, the
goal is to gather information quickly and accurately while also engaging the people you speak with. The goal
of the interview is begin developing a level of insight
Tips: Sometimes it helps to think of an interview as a structured conversation. This can help create more of a two-way dialogue rather than just question-answer. It’s also helpful to have at least two people ‘team interview’. One person can lead the interview and the other can help record answer and ask follow up questions.
2. Survey
A survey is a great tool to gather a broad range of information quickly and annonymously.
A survey in use with the Finance Office.
It can be helpful to gather a wider range of responses than is possible from interviews.
A survey can be
deployed rapidly and used to maintain a level of anonymity or confidentiality. Online surveys can be built quickly and deployed with ease. This can be a great opportunity to identify problem areas or places that need greater focus and questioning.
Tips: Some good resources for free online surveys include: www.questionform.com www.surveymonkey.com www.kwiksurvey.com www.freeonlinesurveys.com
3. User Profiles
Highlight hopes needs and goals of the people you are creating for, user profiles can help keep you on track and focused.
Kiki and Jess post information on the wall that will be used to create our user profiles.
One method for understanding interview and survey data is to create user profiles. Category profiles can be utilized to understand the preferences and habits of user types. Creating complete profiles with photographs, pseudonyms, work styles, preferences, habits and quotes can give a sense of life and vitality to a project.
Tips: Try to identify core concerns and hopes when creating a user profile. Useing profiles can shortcut arguments among the development team by identifying what is important to the people who work in the office.
4. Observation
Is the quest for insight which can be used to fuel your concepts and understanding of how people work.
Rose files some of her papers. Why is the top of a set of filing cabinets being used as a work surface?
We like to think of observation as listening with your eyes. It’s more than just watching people work. You are looking for insight. The little things the people do, the ideosyncrasies and habits often provide some of the richest data.
Be sure to pay
attention to what people don’t do, this sometimes speaks the loudest.
Definition: Ethnographic analysis is sometimes used synonymously with observation. Ethnography comes from anthropological methods and is often used in field work to create a accurate representation of the subject. Design is more focused on looking for key insights rather than creating a perfectly accurate account of the user.
5. Mapping
Is showing who is doing what and where these actions are taking place. And questioning why?
Tom works on a rough map that identifies travel paths and current workflow.
The goal of this tool is to capture an accurate representation of what is happening within the space. Simple flow maps traced on floor blueprints, time lapse photos and video are all effective methods for capturing what is happening in the space.
Tips: It is very helpful to have someone from outside your immediate work group perform the mapping. It is easy to overlook common patterns and behaviors if you are familiar with the space and people. These habits can contain some of the greatest insight.
6.Analysis
Is simply studying and identifying the relationship between different pieces of information. Simply begin by ‘connecting the dots’.
Donovan write key points from interviews and observation to begin analysis.
Following the early research and datagathering phase the interview, survey, profile and ethnographic information must be analyzed. One simple way to analyze all of the information is to cross reference the data to create a compilation of patterns of movement, similar interview responses, repetitive issues or concerns.
Tips: It’s incredibly helpful to have large white boards or large format post-it-notes to write all your key topics and headings on the wall so everyone can literally work off the ‘same page’.
7. Common Threads
Are key connection points between pieces of information. This can highlight areas for more research or an area of focus.
Fraser writes common elements that will be posted on the wall.
The sheer volume of data you will have at this point can be a little
overwhelming. Looking for common threads by posting all your relevant information on the wall and then looking
for
commonalities
connection points.
and
Tips: Sometimes it can be fun to actually use a piece of string to physically connect the information with push-pins to create a web of threads.
8. Brainstorm
Is using your creativity to begin developing ideas to solve the problems you identified during the previous work.
Bethany adds a nerf football to the mix that include donut induced sugar highs imagination at it’s best!
Now that the key categories have been identified, it is time to begin brainstorming ways to tackle the problems. Among the many different techniques, I have found two to be the most valuable: setting set a defined time period for the brainstorm and write everything up on a white board or large pieces of posted paper. Engage your imagination – this is a great time to really have fun and see what exciting new ideas you can invent.
Tips: It’s important to delay criticism of concepts. Rather than criticise an idea, play off it and use it as fodder to create a new concept and branch out in a new direction. We have found 30 minutes to be a great beginning timeframe for a brainstorming session.
9. Filter Concepts
Lets you digest the ideas from your brainstorming session and begin to filter down to viable and feasable concepts.
After taking a break from your brainstorming session, begin filtering brainstorm ideas. One way to filter concepts is to vote by sticky note or use a ‘gravity’ filter. The ‘sticky vote’ is organized by giving each member of the team a different color sticky note, each person places their sticky note next to the concepts they vote for. The ideas with the most sticky notes get ranked the highest.
Tips: Have people initial the note if you have more people in your group than sticky note colors. Regardless of position or job title within the company, each vote carries the same weight and value.
10. Scenarios
Let you test concepts in a storylike format, they help you understand how an idea might work in reality.
Scott, Jen and Beth conduct an interview.
Once you have a list of ranked concepts, scenarios.
begin Scenarios
developing can
be
thought of as stories that put concepts into action. Using your concepts in scenarios will help create a greater depth of understanding of how the idea will work when deployed.
Tips: scenarios can be written as stories. They can be acted out in ‘performance research’. Paper cut outs or little games can be used to tell the alternate reality of a scenario or you can barrow a lego set.
11. Modeling
Allows you to make ideas physical. They give us the opportunity to play with ideas and understand how they will work in a risk free environment.
Rachael plays with a paper model of an office layout. Beauty in simplicity.
Once
scenarios
are
underway,
modeling the spatial aspects of a space can be invaluable. Of course nice models are wonderful, but don’t underestimate what can be learned from creating a paper model with glue, markers and scissors. Want 3D, try legos, cardboard or foam core. This is not only a great opportunity to learn more about your space, but also an opportunity for the team to work together, creatively and constructively.
Tip: Don’t be surprised if ideas ‘jump out at you’ when you begin modeling the space. Creating a model you can physically work with often seems to have just that effect.
12. Present
This is simply the concept of using your research as a mirror which you hold up for people to see how they actually work.
Josh leads a model walkthrough of a model during a presentation.
Now that a level of understanding has been developed it is a great time to present your findings and suggestions to the rest of your workgroup.
This is a opportunity
to validate your findings and early concepts. Not only is this step an exciting chance to show your work, but it is also for gathering further insight and showing the value of the work.
Tips: Formal powerpoint presentations work fine, but you can also post all of your work on the walls and have a ‘mingle event’ where people check our the concepts and have informal conversations.
13.
When you discover a tools that’s missing, You can use this as a template and share it with otthers.
Create your own custom tool.
Tips: Describe how the tool is used and how it might apply to another groups project. Thank you.
14.
When you discover a tools that’s missing, You can use this as a template and share it with otthers.
Create your own custom tool.
Tips: Describe how the tool is used and how it might apply to another groups project. Thank you.
Thank You. The Self-Created Workplace
Index of Resources Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Brenda Laurel & Peter Lunenfeld. MIT Press. 2003 Emotional Intelligence. Daniel Goleman. New York. Bantam Books 1997 The design experience : the role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. Mike Press & Rachel Cooper. Burlington VT. Ashgate Publishing. 2003 The Design of Everday Things. Norman, Donald. New York. Basic Books 1998 I’m Outta Here! How coworking is making the office obsolete. Jones, Sundsted & Bacigalupo. Not an MBA Press, Brooklyn • Austin. 2009 Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Malcom Gladwell. New York. Little, Brown and Company, 2005. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Nonaka and Takeuchi. New York. Oxford University Press 1995 The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding how work really gets done. Rob Cross. Boston. Harvard Business School Press, 2004 Articles: Steelcase 360: ezine Attracting & Engaging Today’s Workers. August 2009 Steelcase Professional Service Research overview guide. Steelcase 360:ezine newsletter Real-Estate on the Cutting Edge. June 2009 Gensler 2008 Workplace Survey / United States / Working Differently They’re working on their own, just side by side – New York Times: Feb. 20, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html http://www.wired.com/print/culture/design/magazine/17-04/pl_design OP-ART: The Daily Grind – New York Times: Nov. 29, 2009 http:www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/27/opinion/28opart.html