Working in Digital Space by Samuel Higgins

WORKIN G I N D I GI TAL S PAC E

Copyright Statement Copyright of this text rest with the author. Any copy made (in full or part) can only be done so with the permission of the author and any request should be lodged with the John Rylands Library - University of Manchester. Any copy made should include this page as copyright reference. The intellectual property rights of this text rests with the University of Manchester. No copy may be made without the permission of the University of Manchester, which will provide the terms and conditions of any agreement which may be made. Further information regarding the copying and disclosure of any of the information herein can be obtained from the Head of Department of the School of Environment and Development - University of Manchester.

Declaration The content of the text and work herein is my own. Any reference to the work of others is attributed to the relevant source. Signed Samuel Higgins.

WORKING IN DIGITAL SPACE _

How is a work space analysed in the digital age?

Analysing classifications of overlaps in programme, technology and workers in the electronically

enabled networked society.

ABSTRACT Working environments as spatial or architectural typologies have become increasingly difficult to define since the days of the Bürolandschaft. The aim of this dissertation is to critically assess a series of recent office layout typologies, working practices/ activities within work spaces, and types of worker who principally operate in the digitally networked world. Taxonomies will be established to allow a relative comparison between the existing commentaries on workspace, activities and workers, with the aim of understanding the contemporary architectural conditions of working space(s) in the digitally based knowledge economy. In order to test the taxonomies of new working spaces, they are compared with focused case studies of transient, intermediate and fixed digital workplaces.

“I discovered – as did many others – that I no longer had to go to work ... the work now came to me.” (Mitchell, 1995, p3)

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

OVERVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW _ THE HISTORY OF OFFICE DESIGN

LITERATURE REVIEW _ OFFICE DESIGN & WORK PRACTICE

LITERATURE REVIEW _ NON-PLACES & NETWORKS IN ARCHITECTURE

LITERATURE REVIEW _ DIGITAL COMMUNICATION & TECHNOLOGIES

LITERATURE REVIEW _ TECHNOLOGY IN ARCHITECTURAL SPACE

LITERATURE REVIEW _ SUMMARY

CHAPTER I _ ANALYSING TAXONOMIES

CHAPTER II _ CASE STUDIES

CASE STUDY 1 _ THE HOME OFFICE

35 CASE STUDY 2 _ THE CAFÉ

CASE STUDY 3 _ THE TRAIN

CHAPTER III _ ADDING DEPTH TO THE ANALYTICAL TOOLKIT

CHAPTER IV _ CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OVERVIEW Context

Technological development has been a key driver in the progression of office design from the 1880s to

the present day (Abalos & Herreros, 2003). Until the 1980s, progressions were made within a strictly architectural context - with building services, spatial arrangements and workflow structures enabling the implementation of technologies into the office building envelope (van Meel, 2000 ; Abalos & Herreros, 2003). The technology of modern office work is now portable and the requisite information infrastructure is global (van Meel, 2000 ; Myerson & Ross, 2003 ; Mitchell, 1995, 2000, 2003 ; Castells, 2000).

If work now comes to workers wherever and whenever they are, then the architectural boundaries and

defining conditions for existing work places can no longer be relevant to digital working. Office work is no longer constrained by office buildings, and formal offices remain as “dematerialised” architectural frames for the adaptation of new technologies and working methodologies (Abalos & Herreros, 2003). Electronic Nomadism

“Gradually emerging from the messy but irresistible extension of wireless coverage is the possibility of a

radically reimagined, reconstructed, electronic form of nomadicity - a form that is grounded not just in the terrain that nature gives us, but in sophisticated, well-integrated wireless infrastructure, combined with other networks, and deployed on a global scale” (Mitchell, 2003, p.57). The notion of an electronically nomadic worker is the conceptual starting point for this dissertation. Enabled to move smoothly throughout the globally distributed network of the space of flows, a nomadic worker can occupy and perform within an ever-expanding repertoire of architectural conditions.

This dissertation will compare the existing tools that could be appropriated for the classification of

nomadic digital workplaces. Recent office design typologies will be compared with the typological breakdowns of work practice/activities and the classified requirements of digital workers and working conditions. A relative comparison will highlight the ability of existing tools to predict and describe the spaces of digital working. Digital workspaces

Digital workspaces in the context of this dissertation are atypical of previous workspaces (in the sense

that they are not primarily programmed to function as such), and transcend the idea of architectural typology. They are often the result of the amalgamation of existing architectural spaces (be that library, café, home, or indeed any conceivable and occupiable space) with infrastructural and technological interjections to bend them into suitable working environments. “...[S]paces that have wireless access to computation and communication are transduced by a mobile device accessing that network; for example, the laptop computer accessing a wireless network transduces the café, the train station, the park bench, and so on into a workspace for that person” (Dodge & Kitchin, 2011, p.17). The consistent fluctuation in frequency and type of use results in myriad temporal architectural conditions and occupancies which are difficult to quantify or classify. Can the existing analytical tools for working environments, working practice or contextual classifications of digital working suitably describe these newly forming digital spaces? 5

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW _ THE HISTORY OF OFFICE DESIGN Typological shifts: 1880s - 1980s

The progression of office design and functional typologies is well documented in a number of sources. From

the 1880s pioneering Chicago skyscrapers through to 1990s early digital office cultures, with brief commentary of the place of the home-office, Abalos and Herreros, in 'Chapter 5 – The Evolution of Space Planning in The Workplace' - of their seminal work, 'Tower and Office' (2003, pp.176-206), document the linear progression of office design and principles. These documentations often rely heavily on descriptions and commented plan sets to depict the chronological lineage of office architecture, building design issues and interior layout changes.

The key paradigmatic shifts in office design start with the advent of the Taylorist principles which

manifested mass-manufacturing ideologies in the work place, provoking the division of office labour into production-line style incremental tasks completed by regimented workers in strictly defined conditions (Abalos & Herreros, 2003, pp.177-189). The Bürolandschaft office principles which began in the 1960s were the next major shift. They reflected new task delegation and structural breakdowns in office work practice and design which were made possible by the new-found malleability and flexibility of available input and storage devices (Abalos & Herreros, 2003, pp.196-204).

There was a clear seminal shift throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s from the office building's

envelope to its interior. In this era, office work’s flexibility, movement and constantly changing technological requirements became situated within an architectural typology where “[t]he building became dematerialised and was gradually reduced to serving as a provider for air-conditioning and energy services” (Abalos & Herreros, 2003, p.201). Abalos and Herreros' (2003) description of this shift does not take the notion of office building dematerialisation a step further to detail the liberation of electronic, technological tools (software / hardware) from their hosts (building / place). This is perhaps because their thesis is fundamentally concerned with the relationship between office / work programmes and buildings programmed to accommodate offices - evidence of which is found in their title, 'Tower and Office', which insinuates co-dependence between the two. The dematerialisation of office design in recent times is a key contributor to enabling the nomadicity that digital infrastructures are capable of creating.

The global information economy which permits digital working - with placeless, distributed nodes and

transient, plug-in users - relies on the fact that “[t]he centre has become a multiple, disseminated concept, with locations determined by economic interests in relation to the availability of infrastructure” (Abalos & Herreros, 2003, p.206). Centralisation and decentralisation are key concepts for understanding digital working methodologies, as are the masterplanning and family space planning notions that are affected by the changing attitudes towards the digital information based networked society. Abalos and Herreros' (2003) work touches upon some of these fundamental restructures of the office, acknowledging that “... suburban sprawl has given way to new theories suggesting alternatives to urban development, including revising the home-office within the parameters of computerized labour” (2003, p.206). Their thesis, however, is only intended to document the architecture of the office and its history in the built, historical sense. As an analytical tool for understanding 7

digital working environments, this resource is useful to contextualise the notion of digital working as an extension to the lineage of previous office design developments, but it does not provide any insight into the resulting architectural conditions and spatial effects, the technological developments, or the social and cultural impacts of the emergent digital working typologies. Technological Shifts and Prophesies: 1980s - 2000s

The '1980s: Electronic Offices' (van Meel, 2000, pp.43-46) were notions of office design which suggested

that the obsolescence of office buildings was fast approaching. Due to scaling down of technologies (especially desktop computers) and their prevalence throughout the white-collar working environment, it was assumed that the workforce could operate from wherever they wanted as these technologies liberated working practices from preprogramed architectural typologies. The notion of this supposed shift by van Meel (2000) is reinforced by commentaries by Frank Duffy (1983), Toffler (1981) and Naisbett (1984). Although prevalent in the 1980s, this idea of nomadic digital working culture is countered by the reality of office design in this period: that computers and their infrastructures (HVAC, wiring, power) where essentially being hard wired more efficiently into the hearts of the new office buildings (van Meel, 2000).

The notion of the ‘1990s: Vitual Office’ (van Meel, 2000, pp.47-49) focused on the technological shift

towards the internet, intranets and email coupled with the portable technologies of mobile phones and laptops. It embodied changes in working structures - “business process re-engineering” (van Meel, 2000, p.47) - which were aligned with the change to a technology-driven utopian ideal where the individual could be “free of place and time.” (van Meel, 2000, p.47).

In the 'Electronic Office' and the 'Virtual Office' working typologies, home-working and the digital

liberations of strict architectural office forms are considered. However the analyses of these typologies is still mainly preoccupied with offices as traditional, programmed, built forms functioning as essential business hubs. These trends preclude the notions of electronic nomadism and full digital working methodologies, as they are inherently tied into the idea of offices in their historical sense as buildings strictly designed to function as workspaces.

In general, there was a trend in the way technology was perceived in architectural and interior office

design writing up until the 2000s. Many writers were eager to comment, and often prophesise, about electronic / digital communicative technologies and their potential influence on workplaces. 'Office Space Planning: Designing for Tomorrow’s Workplace' (Marmot & Eley, 2000) shows the home-office and teleworker as simplified extensions of the central office, with telephone, desktop computer and fax machine integrated into the home. This view is also consistent with 'Tomorrow’s Office' (Raymond & Cunliffe, 1996, pp.179-180). 'Reinventing the Workplace' (Worthington, et. al., 1997) contains a section titled 'Emerging influences on the future workplace' (p.42) which has some inclusion of the extended network of nodes from the business hub, but fails to describe any of the conditions in these spaces and what network or nomadic ideologies have formed them. 'Working@Home' (Cuito, 2000) details some interesting case studies of studio space living, but makes no architectural interpretation as to why these spaces have come into existence, where they fit into the knowledge based network society or how the 8

architectural typology of home/workspace is articulated. These resources are somewhat reductive of the context in which nomadic digital workspaces operate, the technological dominance of the space and the resounding architectural typologies that are amalgamated.

There are more detailed descriptions of potential digital work environments in some of the writings of

Francis Duffy, Jeremy Myerson and Phillip Ross, William J Mitchell and Manuel Castells, which will be focused on as part of this literature review.

LITERATURE REVIEW _ OFFICE DESIGN & WORK PRACTICE Working Practices in The New [Digital] Office

Francis Duffy (1997) attributes the inadequacies of 1980s and 1990s understanding of the electronic shift

towards digital working practices to the fact that it was not evident how many organisations would embrace the shift to such a high degree. More freedom for workers in their home, work and leisure time, the efficiencies in occupational costs of loose temporal usage of office space and the wireless networking of company infrastructures were variables with unknown extents that contributed to the flourishing of a global knowledge based networked society (Duffy, 1997, p.54).

In 'The New Office: New Ways of Working' (1997), Duffy is clearly on the crest of the wave of businesses

and office design that were entering the fully digitally enabled network society. Duffy’s analysis was prescient in the way it understood the changing nature of the business world as it responded to digitisation. The creation of ancillary support industries - out-of-house performance and efficiency enhancing consultants and services enabled the streamlining of business structures and was a key factor in enabling the fundamental shift towards digitisation in business practice in the mid-1990s (Duffy, 1997, p.55).

Throughout the history of office design, working practices and work space provision have been integrally

linked. By virtue of the fact that “a new office culture [was] emerging” (Duffy, 1997, p.55 - emphasis added), it is made critically clear that the way the office as a work space and a series of working practices are understood and designed needs to be re-addressed to suit the altered conditions of 'The New [Digital] Office'. There are flaws in the nature of previous office design as little consideration is given to this direct relationship between office design and working practice. Duffy defines the technological dependence of 'The New Office' by stating, “[t]he physical features and appearance of the new office will depend upon, and be stimulated by, powerful, integrated, interconnected, and ubiquitous information technology” (Duffy, 1997, p.56).

In the newly forming digital office there was “a new flexibility, with an ever-wider range of work settings

in response to choices in the timing of work and the ways in which it is carried out” (Duffy, 1997, p.57). The requisite notions for nomadicity - wirelessness and the ubiquity of information - are present at this time, but Duffy does not use them as a vehicle to prophesise the potential of a nomadic worker oriented, aspatial, digitally networked work scenario. 'The New Office' has notions of “[p]atterns of occupancy of space over time”, and a “[d]istributed set of work locations (which may be nomadic, mobile, in the office or at home) linked by networks of communication in which autonomous individuals work in project teams” (Duffy, 1997, p.58). This defines the methodology of digital working and the new work spaces as “multifunctional work settings ... occupied on an as-needed basis” (Duffy, 1997, p.58). Duffy (1997) utilises a taxonomy of workplace programme types to inform office design strategies for the digital age (Fig. A.01).

Fig. A.01

The taxonomies are defined by the amount of interaction and autonomy they provide (Fig. A.02). They are not strict classifications; allowing crossovers and interpretations to be made across the different types. The lowest autonomous and interactive workspaces converge on the bottom left of the diagram, with the intention that workflows of this nature suit non-human office tasks. The highest autonomous and interactive workspaces project off the top right of the diagram, insinuating types of work and users that do not need to be tethered Fig. A.02

by the place-based nature of the taxonomies.

The Hive Low interaction / low autonomy The workspace is constituted of simple, regular workstations, and work patterns adhere to strict time based shifts, i.e. 9-5. They are usually uniform, open plan, screen partitioned and impersonal.

Fig. A.03

The Cell Low interaction / high autonomy These independent workspaces are enclaves where intense tasks can be carried out. They can be shared

Occupation times are less rigid allowing intermittent,

? x1

and personalised.

irregular use.

Fig. A.04 The Den High interaction / low autonomy The den favours workflows of shared tasks and collaboration. Workers are group based and perform a variety of simple tasks. They are open plan for flexibility and provide a combination of individual user areas and shared breakout / meeting areas.

Fig. A.05

The Club High interaction / high autonomy Clubs can cater for the widest range of work practices. Users often have long-range goals, where both individual (cell style) and group interaction (den style) spaces are required for working. Time does not govern the occupation of the space, and it is suited to integrating home and teleworking.

Fig. A.06 12

All the classifications of office space that Duffy portrays are based in what could be described as defined

workspaces. They are traditional because they are office typologies designed to be based in office environments and office buildings.

The New Office acknowledges wireless technologies in the office environment. However, it is evident

from the spaces that are described that the new digital nature of office work was assumed to be majorly based in semi-familiar workplaces. The taxonomies show very relevant examples of the way office space design was changing due to the increasingly available technology in 1997. The unforeseen ubiquity of wireless connectivity and the range of technological working platforms and devices that are available for contemporary workers today may make some of the content of the classifications seem somewhat redundant, but the general principles of autonomy, interaction, work patterns and work flow still dominate the way in which work is carried out.

It could be argued that added parameters of intranets, staff emails, home-working and mobile phones

create fundamentally altered working environments across the spectrum. Due to these further shifts in digital work practice, the top right arrow of Duffyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diagram (Fig. A.02) can also be applied to the Hives, Dens and Cells of contemporary working environments.

Office Design for the 21st Century

Due to the unpredictable and variable nature of the emerging digital office typologies in the early 2000s,

there was a shift in classification techniques towards understanding the function and underlying design intent of working environments. Jeremy Myerson and Philip Ross' 'The 21st Century Office' (2003) represents a pictorial analysis of built office typologies in the early 2000s. It clearly defines four types of office working methodologies and ideologies, and their built forms; Narrative, Nodal, Neighbourly and Nomadic offices (Fig. A.07).

It is noted that Myerson and Ross' subsequent publication - 'Space to Work' (2006) - defines another

set of office design typologies associated with the agora, the academy, the lodge, and the guild (2006, pp.1213). However, their 2003 taxonomy of working environments was taken to be the more definitive and suitable classification tool in the context of digital working environments.

Fig. A.07 13

Narrative Office as brand experience The telling of a company's story, articulated by experiences or journeys through business space with the aim of bringing brand values to life. Branding and reputation are inextricably linked, and visual stimuli in the environment compound this. The office is a receptacle for the corporate “memory”. Fig. A.08

Nodal Office as knowledge connector The resource centre office allows the free flow of information in a flexible environment. It is the physical manifestation of an organisation in a virtual world - a node for a flexible workforce, allowing plug-ins for users to pass through / connect to the business hub. Fig. A.09

Neighbourly Office as social landscape A corporate society - mirroring the dynamism of a modern city. Designed to encourage social interaction, the social landscape’s aim is to bring people together. Town squares, garden fences, entertainment zones, quiet spaces, lively bars...etc., create a work orientated Fig. A.10

microcosm of the city.

Nomadic Office as distributed workspace Atemporal work zones, designed around the fluidity of digital work and work patterns. Geographically distributed, they permeate time and space (often globally) to allow users to drop/plug-in via technological connectivity (devices and networks) to suit their variable business lives.

Fig. A.11

The nomadic office - office as distributed workplace (Myerson & Ross, 2003, pp.198-232) - is extremely

relevant to the notion of electronic nomadism and digital working methodologies. Through the nomadic working typology, work leaves the built office environment and enters into the extents of everyday life, creating a placeless and asynchronous version of the working routine.

Nomadic working is not associated with buildings per se, but constituted by interior architecture. Myerson

and Ross' (2003) precedents for nomadic office spaces visually represent an interesting global vernacular style. In one of the case studies they discuss Granada Workspace by BDG McColl. This provides the prototypical version of nomadic workspaces, where the “Workspace” and “Lounge” could well be the discrete interiors of global coffee chains and international airport lobbies; "icon[s] of the global elite" (Dodge, 2012, p.55). These places are now arguably synonymous with a transient working population and unidentifiable with any specific place and time of the past, forming some of the non-places of the digital working world.

The development of ubiquitous wireless office and external connectivity was already becoming evident

in the early 2000s. Myerson and Ross (2003) use wireless technology as a vehicle to sum up the future of the 21st-century office. They state that “many companies have adopted a wireless technology that makes it possible to connect ... from anywhere in the building” (Myerson & Ross, 2003, p15). With the scaling and development of wireless communications in the nine years since this book was written, it is clear that some, if not all, of the typologies documented above would have undergone fundamental changes towards mass wireless flexibility. They would now almost always comprise an agglomeration of corporate flexible hubs combined with myriad nomadic, semi-public disassociated spaces with enabled communication technologies.

Contemporary Digital Workspaces

Contemporary office descriptions were consulted to depict current trends in the analysis of digital

working environments. The August 2011, Channel 4 documentary - 'The Secret Life of Buildings: Work' (Dyckhoff, 2011), utilises case studies, interviews and explanation by Tom Dyckhoff and others to give an indication of the standards of office buildings in the UK. The themes focus around working conditions, functionality, productivity, power and the psychology of working in specific contexts.

One typical example of analysis in the documentary is 'Interpolis' - an insurance company in Holland

- which was designed by Erik Veldhoen and has a flexible, varied, “joyful collection of spaces” (Channel 4, 2011) where activities govern the design of space. Employees come and go and utilise the space as they see fit. Dyckhoff and Veldhoen depict power and control for the employees as the enabling factors which permitted the architectural / conceptual space of the scheme. They do not acknowledge the importance of the available technologies and infrastructure, the networked ideologies influencing the way employees were encouraged to work, the enabling factors of home-working and any cultural conditions Holland may have had to engender these attitudes. The building, in essence, functions as a huge asynchronous hub for the 2,500 employees to plug into with their mobilised technology when appropriate. It can be argued that the building needs to be viewed as a mere shell, with the right degree of propinquity for employees and the requisite levels of fluid technology and infrastructure.

There is an important recognition by the company and architect that a space permitting the electronic

nomadism of digital working was the most appropriate and profitable way to design the building - enabling workers to operate in an architectural combination of Duffy’s (1997) Club (Fig. A.04) and Cell (Fig. A.06), and Myerson and Ross' (2003) Nomadic (Fig. A.11) typologies. Similar to the other resources examined so far, there is no acknowledgement of the disassociated spaces - the distributed, myriad additional workspace nodes - or the level of fixed and fluctuating technological infrastructure which contribute to the workers’ ability to utilise this building as a drop-in, centralised hub around which their working practices revolve.

LITERATURE REVIEW _ NON-PLACES & NETWORKS IN ARCHITECTURE Non-Places

The void left in the classifications of workplaces and work practices by Duffy (1997) and Myerson and Ross

(2003), and Dyckhoff’s (2011) analyses can begin to be understood when digital work spaces and practices are put into the context of the architecture of “non-places” described by Augé in 'Non-Places: An Introduction To Supermodernity' (1995).

In the chapter titled 'From Places to Non-Places', Augé outlines the spaces which this study aims to target:

the requisite architectural conditions of Duffy’s (1997) top right arrow off the interaction/autonomy diagram (Fig. A.02), and the disassociated plug-in nodes of Myerson and Ross' (2003) Nodal (Fig. A.09) and Nomadic (Fig. A.11) working typologies. These nodes of electronic nomadicity are explained in the context of time and space. Augé states that “…a space which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. […S]upermodernity produces non-places [that] do not integrate the earlier places“ (Augé, 1995, p.63). The spaces of digital working culture are non-places by definition because they have no predecessors, and their uses are therefore asynchronous with a vernacular or local historical context.

When the spaces of supermodernity are utilised by digitally enabled nomadic workers, their architectural

programme is fundamentally skewed. They go from being a motorway or airport into temporary office spaces, asynchronous and globally extended away from their initial programmatic requirements. Augé’s (1995) nonplaces suggest a framework of myriad supermodern spaces which can be overlaid with technology to enable them to function as digital workplaces. However, there needs to be supplimentary analysis of the technology, context and architectural implications which are inherently linked in digital workspaces to understand what kind of space is rendered as a result of their fluid typological shifts. The Network Society

As non-places in the urban environment provide a set of physical platforms within which nomadic digital

working exists, it is true that the 'The Space of Flows' and 'The Network Society' provide the cultural, social and technological groundings for the societal shift towards the contemporary digital-cultural zeitgeist, and the resulting digital working methodologies (Castells, 2000). There is a fundamental change in interrelationship between space and time in 'The Space of Flows'; that “space organises time in the network society” (Castells, 2000, p.407). The locations and accessibility of networked nodes of work, production, information flow and provisional infrastructure are the defining parameters for the way in which space is used in time. “The informational, global economy is organised around command and control centres able to co-ordinate, innovate, and manage the intertwined activities of networks...” (Castells, 2000, p.409).

Castells’ argues that because of the failed precedented shift to the prophesised digital culture in the 1980s

and 1990s, the networked society of the future will not be “the direct consequence of available technology” (2000, p408). It could be argued that because he wrote at the start of the new millennium, he was unaware 17

of the impact ubiquitous wireless communications and implemented everyware technology was to have, and continues to have, on the use of space and its governing networks (as argued by Mitchell (1995, 2000, 2003), Bratton (2008) and Greenfield (2006)). Digital workplaces create “complexity [through] the interaction between technology, society and space” (2000, p.408), which is clearly analysed in the theory of 'The Network Society.' However, the resounding impact that technological development has had to the progression of the networked society and the resulting spatial/architectural conditions must be assessed in further detail in order to understand the architectural implications of digital working environments.

'Everyday life in the Electronic Telecottage: the End of Cities?' (Castells, 2000, pp.424-429) is Castells’

analysis of home-working in the network society. The empirical data is from surveyed sources collected from 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, which immediately raises questions of contemporary relevance, even in the context of his work in 2000.

Castells believed that digital working would

constitute “telecommuting from telecentres; that is, networked computer facilities scattered in the suburbs of metropolitan areas for workers to work online with their companies” (2000, p.425) - see Fig. A.12. This would generate drastic transport infrastructure implications as the city became more decentralised (Castells, 2000, pp.424-426).

The description of teleworking, similar to the

analyses of Duffy (1997), and Myerson and Ross (2003), Fig. A.12

is orientated around office work being contained within an amended office environment, where shifts in

time and space allow workers to re-arrange their lives outside of work around these new shifts to the network society. Ubiquitous information flow, improved telecommunications and technological progression in recent years have had fundamental implications on digital work processes, work/social life and the architecture of digital work spaces. These factors need to be amalgamated into the complexity of 'The Network Society' to begin to understand the context in which digital workspaces operate and their spatial implications.

Further to Castells' teleworking, he describes “the diversification of working sites for ... particularly its

most dynamic, professional segment. Increasingly mobile telecomputing equipment will enhance this trend towards the office-on-the-run, in the most literal sense” (Castells, 2000, p.426). If we combine this notion of on-the-run nomadism with an appreciation of the importance of developing telecommunication technologies, the ability of non-place shells to morph into new architectural programmes and the notion of the ubiquity and permeability of information flows, then a suitable model for understanding digital working spaces may begin to emerge. The 'Space of Flows' (Castells, 2000) begins to explain the conceptual and infrastructural shifts into a networked society with the potential for nomadic digital working, but cannot provide a holistic analysis of the complexity of the 'Space of Flows' and the potential spaces which it could create as the architectural implications were not, and are still not, fully known and the technologies are emergent. 18

LITERATURE REVIEW _ DIGITAL COMMUNICATION & TECHNOLOGIES Physical and Digital Space

The notion of an environment where the digital and physical worlds collide is key to understanding

the spaces of digital work environments. Mitchell argues in ‘e-topia’ (2000) that real world space is being (re) formed by the collision of physical and digital space. He states that “we must recognise that the fundamental web of relationships amongst homes, workplaces and sources of everyday supplies and services – the essential bonds that hold cities together – may now be formed in new and unorthodox ways” (Mitchell 2000, p.8). A new kind of variable physical space is rendered by the function of technological / digital infrastructure. With the explanation that “These interactions of visual and physical meeting places unfold differently when electronic connectivity is scarce and when it is abundant [-] the locations of connection points matter,” he describes digitally enabled fluctuating spaces of the temporary work/meeting place (Mitchell, 2000, p.91). Mitchell describes coffee shops’ abilities to mix technology, business and coffee in the digitally enabled platforms of working coffee tables, socialising this new technologically imbued space by linking it to individuals’ desires for functional public space (Mitchell 2000, p.92).

The growth in numbers of hotels and conference centres - essential types of non-place (often located

in close proximity to vital transport infrastructure) - is not just a result of general economic expansion, but is a spacial inevitability of the nature of digital/physical environments and denotes “characteristic behaviour of geographically distributed business, professional organisations, and interest groups” (Mitchell, 2000, p.91). Individuals who use these spaces are electronically connected nomadic workers and socialites who exist in their asynchronous, multi-locational zones. The spaces created for these pop-up, drop-in facilities are similar to those of hotels in the past, but now have the underlying purpose of providing a multi-functional context, laden with programmatically defining technology to allow the real and digital worlds to co-exist (Mitchell, 2000, p.91). The Network and Space of the Electronic Nomad

In 'City of Bits' (1995), Mitchell uses salesmen as the typical vehicle for describing nomadic working,

stating that they “... can be readily transformed into high-technology nomads who remain continually online and almost never have to visit the home-office” (Mitchell, 1995, p.96). The electronic nomad operates in a skewed version of traditional architectural space - one that does not belong to a single time and place (Mitchell, 1995, p.44). By analysing technological working tools such as videoconferencing to see the implications of the crossover of physical and digital space, it is clearly evident how digital asynchronous communication can enter the physical realm and skew space, directly juxtaposing different spaces and times simultaneously (Mitchell, 1995, p.44).

Information, speed and portability are paramount to digital working in the contemporary networked

society. Individual storage nodes are made obsolete in terms of information transfer - “when it can be transferred almost instantaneously through high-bandwidth channels, it makes more sense to maintain it on central servers and deliver it where needed on demand” (2003, p.46). This is appropriate for the definition of place in digital 19

working environments; that the infrastructure has somewhat fixed locations, but the user and access points are totally interchangeable throughout the reach of the networks.

The electronic nomad, as defined by Mitchell (1995, p.96), provides alternatives to Castells' home-working

scenario (or telecottage – see Fig. A.12). The statement, “[w]e are entering the era of the temporary, recombinant, virtual organisation – of business arrangements that demand good computing and telecommunications environments rather than large, permanent home-offices” (Mitchell,1995, p.97), insinuates a network of flexible fluctuating nodes combined with variable households which can be appropriated as working environments if necessary.

In terms of nomadic working and digital working methodologies, “… the ancient distinctions between

user and tool, building and inhabitant, or city and citizen, no longer serve us well” (Mitchell, 2003, p.38). The highly programmed and specifically functional “boxes” of architecture are being replaced by the “less functional boxes” of the technological objects with which we plug into the information superhighways (Mitchell, 2003, p.47). In order to understand what the spatial conditions of the residual, flexible boxes of architecture are, how the technological objects fit into them, and what new space is rendered, a detailed study of space and technological crossovers needs to be consulted.

LITERATURE REVIEW _ TECHNOLOGY IN ARCHITECTURAL SPACE Technological Interventions and the Transduction of Space

The architectural implications of the digitally enabled network society lie in the comprehension of the

crossover of individual spaces and the (often latent) technological interventions which aid and enable them to function. These myriad variations in permutation and combination can be described by comparing software (code), space and the interrelationship between the two.

Technologically enabled objects which depend on code (at many scales) constitute “coded objects” that,

when employed, comprise a set of specific spatial conditions - “code-space” and “coded space” (Kitchin & Dodge, 2004, 2009, 2011). A code/space is “a space which is dependent on software for it to be transduced as intended.” Coded space is “a space that is transduced by software but is not dependant on software to function as intended” (Kitchin & Dodge, 2011, pp.261-262).

The transduction of space is integral to understanding the way in which digital working environments

are enabled and perform. The malleability of common architectural typologies into work spaces is dependent on their ability to transform. Dodge and Kitchin summarise this concept by stating, “spaces that have wireless access to computation and communication are transduced by a mobile device accessing that network; for example, the laptop computer accessing a wireless network transduces the café, the train station, the park bench and so on into a workspace for that person” (2011, p.17).

Dodge and Kitchin (2011) provide a glossary of concepts in 'Code/Space'. These, combined with the

taxonomies outlined in 'Software, objects, and home space', form the basis for a set of tools which can be appropriated for the analysis of code/space and coded space in the context of digital working environments. Dodge and Kitchin (2009) provide exactly this level of spatial analysis in regard to the home, detailing three home-coding vignettes; case studies of varying home environments where the underlying technology of code defines the spaces (2009, pp.1353-1359). In this study there is, however, a great amount of variability in the specific homes in terms of the provision of technology. Something that is ascribed to lack of data, circumstances, background, age, social status, etc., and as a result the study does not aim to provide a classification or taxonomy of different home spaces (Dodge, 2012). In fact, there may be too many variables and parameters for this analysis to be a useful differentiation of home life scenarios.

When looking at digital office / working provisions however, the variables may be less intricate. With

requisite infrastructural technologies that dictate telecommunications and enable digital work - internet coverage (WiFi), telephone networks (mobile, 3G), power sources, etc. - the classification and examination of generic coded spaces and code/spaces that are produced to allow digital work environments and electronic nomadism may be more feasible.

LITERATURE REVIEW _ SUMMARY

The architecture of digital working environments is comprised of complex contextual influences and

myriad working practices and architectural conditions, which are aligned with the technological interventions which allow them to function. Bringing the sources in the literature review together it is possible to analyse a knowledge gap between them, which consists of the following: - Documentation of the history of the office and workplaces predicts (often incorrectly) the conditions of this new, digital architectural space. - Recent workplace writings and resources provide architectural typologies and work practices that hint towards the provision of varied, fluctuating, temporal workspaces and practices, but do not pay them significant attention. - Writings concerning supermodernity and the networked society provide the context of digital working socially, philosophically and architecturally, but do not detail the spatial implications of such practice. - Writings concerning communicative infrastructures and digital technologies provide commentary on the conditions, context and associated notions of digital working, but again do not detail the space adequately.

If the available architectural resources do not singularly comprise a framework for the architecture of

digital workspaces, can they be combined to constitute a suitable analytical tool for understanding electronic nomadism and digital working environments?

Chapter I ANALYSING TAXONOMIES

CHAPTER I _ ANALYSING TAXONOMIES Combinations

Throughout the literature review existing commentaries on the history of the office, contemporary office

design and practice, nomadic workers, the networked society and non-places were analysed in their own capacity as tools to provide an architectural analytical tool for comprehending the spaces of digital working. In each case the abilities, flaws and overlaps of each were discussed. As concluded in the review, no single tool is appropriate for the analysis of digital work spaces.

In order to understand new ways with which these tools can be cumulatively used to assess digital

working environments they are preliminarily grouped into areas of office design, working practice and contextual taxonomies. This method creates a simple basis for the categories and their detailed taxonomies to be crosscompared. Office Design Taxonomy

Working Practice Taxonomy

Contextual Taxonomy

Fig. B.01 Office Design and Working Practice

To begin the taxonomy comparisons, Francis Duffyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1997) working practice typologies are linked to

Jeremy Myerson and Phillip Rossâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2003) office typologies, to understand where their conceptual bases are similar and how they can potentially highlight new classifications for working space/practice types.

Fig. B.02 24

A new taxonomy of working environments immediately emerges from the combination of office design

and working practice methodologies. These types are ordered by their office type first, defining the primary architectural principles as offices, then grouped based on the work practice that is permitted.

Narrative Hive

Nodal Cell

A branded, experiential office where

A flexible, plug-in work environment

workers are regimented in work

for individual tasks in a fully

and time based patterns, with low

autonomous setting with little

autonomy and low interaction.

interaction and few working time

Fig. B.03

Fig. B.04

Fig. B.05

Fig. B.07

parameters.

Narrative Cell

Nodal Den

A branded, experiential office where

A flexible, plug-in work environment

workers can fulfil individual tasks in

for group tasks, with individual and

a fully autonomous setting with little

shared work stations based on high

interaction and few working time

interactivity and low autonomy.

parameters.

Fig. B.08

Narrative Den

Nodal Club

A branded, experiential office where

A flexible, plug-in work environment

workers fulfil group tasks, with

for varied and overlapping time

individual and shared work stations

patterns and work types in a highly

based on high interactivity and low

autonomous and interactive setting.

autonomy.

Fig. B.09

Narrative Club A branded, experiential office where workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; time patterns and work types can vary and overlap in a highly autonomous and interactive

Fig. B.06

Fig. B.10

Fig. B.11

environment.

Neighbourly Den

Nomadic Cell

A socially orientated working

An atemporal, geographically

landscape for workers to fulfil group

distributed work node for individual

tasks, with individual and shared work

tasks in a fully autonomous setting

stations based on high interactivity

with little interaction and few working

and low autonomy.

Fig. B.12

time parameters.

Neighbourly Club

Nomadic Club

A socially orientated working

An atemporal, geographically

landscape for varied and overlapping

distributed work node for varied and

time patterns and work types in a

overlapping time patterns and work

highly autonomous and interactive

types in a highly autonomous and

setting.

Fig. B.13

interactive setting.

There are a series of exclusions in the working practice and office design matrix above. These have been

made by assessing the incompatibilities of the practice and design, and are as follows: The Nodal Hive could not exist because the working practice of the Hive is based upon rigidity of time and tasks and the principles of the Nodal office designate spaces created for the knowledge economy, fed by the flexibility and flow of resources, information, work patterns and workforce. The Neighbourly Hive is not permitted because the Hive is based upon providing low interactivity and the Neighbourly office is designed principally to engender community interaction and cohesion of the workforce. The Neighbourly Cell is not permitted because the Cell work methodology is based upon atemporal high autonomy in a low interactivity environment. This is in opposition to the high interactivity design and common time based nature of the social landscape in the Neighbourly office. The Nomadic Hive could not exist because the working practice of the Hive is based upon rigidity of time and tasks, and the principles of the Nomadic office provide environments where globally distributed users can plug-in at atemporal intervals to digital networks and perform a wide variety of tasks. The Nomadic Den is not permitted because the Den work methodology is based upon low autonomy, and a defining principle of the Nomadic office is the fluctuation and variation in the nature of atemporal, autonomous, digitally distributed nomadic work.

Initially, from analysing the working practices of Duffy (1997) and the office typologies of Myerson and

Ross (2003), it is evident that the typologies which may be suited to digital working and electronic nomadism are the Cell, the Club, the Nodal office and the Nomadic office. This is reinforced by referencing these individual classifications with their combined classifications above: the Nodal Cell, the Nodal Club, the Nomadic Cell and the Nomadic Club. These typologies embody ideologies of atemporal work, distribution of location, flexibility and autonomy. However, to be able to understand their actual abilities to adequately describe workplaces in the digitally enabled network society, there needs to be direct comparison with the contextual taxonomy of digital working, latent technology, non-place and the networked society.

Contextualising Office Design and Working Practice

The office design taxonomies and working practice taxonomies are contextualised in terms of digital

working by the electronic nomadism they permit, their ability to situate within non-places and the network society, their telecottaging properties and their reliance upon the technological latency of coded objects, assemblages and infrastructures. Fig. B.14

Francis Duffy’s (1997) analyses of working practices, after having their properties analysed in the literature review, are assigned the above coloured classification based on their contextual relevance to digital working methodologies. (Fig. B.14) All of the categories rely on the latent coding of technological objects, assemblages and infrastructures to permit them to function as offices. Mitchell’s (2003) electronic nomad is able to perform work related tasks in all of Duffy’s (1997) working practice environments.

Fig. B.15

Jeremy Myerson & Phillip Ross’ (2003) analyses of office typologies, further to analysis in the literature review, are also assigned the coloured classification system based on their contextual relevance to digital working methodologies. (Fig. B.15) Again, all of the categories rely on the latent coding of technological objects, assemblages and infrastructures to permit them to function as offices. No other contextual condition is common across all of the office typologies, however, the Nodal and Nomadic types describe the context of digital working methodologies to different degrees.

This analysis shows the how the individual typologies of Duffy’s (1997) working practice and Myerson

and Ross' (2003) office classifications relate to the wider social, technological and architectural contexts of digital working. They give additional substance to the existing classification systems for office design in the wider sense, and they immediately highlight the Cell, the Den, the Nodal office and the Nomadic office as typologies suited to digital working in the network society. 27

A Matrix for Working in Digital Space

To understand a holistic view of the existing tools for classification of digital work environments, analyses

of working practice, office design and contextual conditions are compared in a matrix (Fig. B.16). Fig. B.16

The linking lines in the matrix show new taxonomies of digital working environments; where a

classification must have a link between the three preliminarily grouped areas of office design, working practice and contextual taxonomies. The resulting classifications are: The Nodal Cell, The Nodal Den, The Nodal Club, The Nomadic Cell, and The Nomadic Club. It should be noted that these classifications are not mutually exclusive within an environment. The nature of temporary, asynchronous digital working environments means that they are constantly able to fluctuate; mutating and adapting between the classifications to render a space as an evolutionary platform with multiple possible scenarios and uses. The level and type of digital working in any environment is governed by when, how, why and by whom the space is being used and for what specific purpose. The Nodal Cell is a working environment with 3 of 4 of the contextual requirements to situate it in contemporary digital working methodologies. It is utilised by mainly singular autonomous workers within the knowledge economy and is fed by the flexibility and flow of resources, information, work patterns and work force. The users are typically electronic nomads who plug-in to the latent technology for connectivity and do not work within defined time periods. The users Fig. B.17

can combine this with other fixed nodes, their central work hub and their telecottage in order to contribute to the network society.

The Nodal Den is a digital working environment with 2 of 4 contextual requirements. It is utilised by interactive (technologically enabled) workers within the knowledge economy and is fed by the flow of resources, information and group work force. It is not typically suited to telecottage workers, as time shifts are common amongst the group based workforce and their tasks. The Nodal Den is a designated, situated workplace and does not permit great flexibility of design or location. Fig. B.18

The Nodal Club is a digital working environment with 3 of 4 contextual requirements. It is utilised by autonomous and interactive workers performing a wide variety of tasks and requires the flexibility and flow of resources, information, work patterns and workforce. The users are electronic nomads who plug-in to the latent technology for connectivity and who do not work at defined time periods. The users can combine this with other fixed nodes, their central work hub, and their telecottage Fig. B.19

to contribute to the network society.

The Nomadic Cell is a working environment with 4 of 4 contextual requirements. It is utilised by autonomous workers who are free of time and place, and fed by the flexibility and flow of resources, information, work patterns and workforce. The users are electronic nomads who plug-in to the latent technology available throughout the distributed network of similar workspaces and their telecottage, where and when they choose. The nomads work and migrate mainly through nonFig. B.20

places in the network society.

The Nomadic Club is a working environment with 4 of 4 contextual requirements. It is utilised by autonomous and highly interactive workers who are free of time and place, and fed by the flexibility and flow of resources, information, work patterns and workforce. The users are electronic nomads who plug-in to the latent technology available throughout the distributed network of similar workspaces and their telecottage, where and when they choose. The nomads work and migrate Fig. B.21

mainly through non-places in the network society.

The Nomadic office, by virtue of its description by Ross & Myerson (2003), is consistently the most

appropriate office typology for digital working and electronic nomadism. It embodies all the requisite notions of technological infrastructure, non-place situation, network society integration and conditions for electronic nomadism. When these architectural and contextual conditions are combined with Duffy’s (1997) working practice typologies of the Cell and the Club, with their autonomy and atemporal natures, they form a malleable and consistently relevant description of digital working conditions.

Situating the taxonomies in the context of digital working provides much needed contemporary grounding

to the existing classification tools. The five new classifications have arisen because of their ability to provide the social, cultural, technological and architectural requirements of digital working, as described below. Technological Intervention

Every element in the matrix is governed by its technological capacity. From the 1908s onwards, the notion

of functioning in a contemporary working environment has been integrally linked with the use of information and communication technologies (van Meel, 2000). Each working practice and environment is therefore reliant upon or based around technology for it to function and constitute, by Dodge and Kitchin’s (2011) standards, Code/Spaces (which need software to function) or Coded Spaces (which are transduced by software) (Dodge & Kitchin, 2011, pp.261-262). The Network Society, the Space of Flows and Telecottages

The Nodal and Nomadic office typologies are inherently aligned with Castells’ (2000) theories of the

network society because “... the space of flows is constituted by its nodes and hubs” (Castells, 2000, p.443). The free flow of information, characterised by the Nodal office, and the fluidity of a globally distributed network of nodes that make up the Nomadic office, are key factors in Castells' “informational, global economy” (Castells, 2000, p.409) which is “based upon knowledge, organised around networks, and partly made up of flows” (Castells, 2000, p.429). The network society telecottage described by Castells fits succinctly with the function and principles of the Cell, the Club, the Nodal office, the Nomadic office, and their amalgamations. They all constitute mass decentralisation from office buildings in their traditional, centralised sense: as the company hub. These models have the requisite information technology to allow users to work online, but also create the infrastructural and transportation implications, which allow the digital work that is carried out in these nodes to be classified as constituent elements in the network society. Non-Places

The Cell, the Club, the Nodal office, and the Nomadic office are non-places by definition, satisfying

Augé’s (1995) two distinct definitions. They are spaces formed in relation to certain ends (spaces for work to be undertaken) and define the relations that individuals have with these spaces (what type of work can be carried out) (Augé, 1995, p.76). Although, importantly, the mediated link between individual (worker) and nonplace is not so often created by texts or words, as Augé claims, but instead mediated by the technological and 30

architectural capacity which will allow the user to carry out their work. Because the Nodal and Nomadic offices rely on flexibility, distribution and connectivity, they suit the kinds of ubiquitous spaces described by Koolhaas in 'The Generic City' (1995). The spaces of a city “liberated from the captivity of center” which constitute “nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability” (Koolhaas, 1995, pp.1249-50) are the same spaces which can permit atemporal, drop-in work, and the same globally distributed conditions for user connections to their networks. The Electronic Nomad

William Mitchell states that “[t]he old social fabric – tied together by enforced commonalities of location

and schedule – no longer coheres [in the digitally enabled, network society]” (2000, p.5) . He adds that ”[the c]ommunity doesn’t have to depend on propinquity” (2000, p.7). Both of these points articulate the atemporal digital working and distributed architectural conditions which are permitted by the Cell, the Club, the Nodal office and the Nomadic office. The contemporary electronic nomad operates within “well-integrated wireless infrastructure ... deployed on a global scale” (Mitchell, 2003, p.57), and can therefore operate efficiently within the digital working environments illustrated by these new taxonomies.

Chapter II CASE STUDIES

CHAPTER II _ CASE STUDIES Overview

In order to understand how the five proposed taxonomies of digital work spaces (distilled from previous

studies of office design, working practice and contextual taxonomies) are able to describe nomadic working environments, three case studies have been chosen to test against. The defining parameters of the proposed taxonomies will be compared against the real-world architectural context of these digital workplaces, to assess the accuracy and relevance of the proposed classifications. Case Study 1 - The Home-office

The home-office, or telecottage - a fixed node of digital working - is a space which is fundamentally

ordered around working in digital space, and as such is appropriate for classification analysis in this study. Location:

M19 2AG, Manchester, UK

Role:

Sales Executive

Worker:

Joseph Weston, 24

Fig. C.01

Based 4 miles from Manchester city centre in a residential suburban zone, the home-office is located in

close proximity of motorway network access, and the site was chosen primarily because of this. The workerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s typical work patterns are mainly situated in the home-office, but also fluctuate regularly between a network of transient and distributed, disassociated working environments. Figure C.01 illustrates the typical digital and physical networks within which the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s digital working life operates. The home-office represents a Nodal Cell (Fig. B.17). It is a space physically situated in a fixed location which is constantly connected to the company networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s centre of factory / headquarters. The centre is 300 miles away and the user seldom has reason to physically operate in this space. The integral working link is enabled digitally through wireless networks, a remotely accessible server and regular telecommunications contact. The 33

user can remotely contact the company and clients whenever it is suitable, but this is mainly during common business hours of 9-5, Monday to Friday. The user is fully autonomous in his working patterns and his ability to adapt the fixed local environment to suit his needs.

As a salesperson, a “high-technology nomad who remain[s] continually online” (Mitchell, 1995, p.96), the

user is also able fluctuate between other digital working environments. His car is the physical means of transit between his distributed network of temporary or fixed work and meeting sites. The technological capacity of the user’s working tools are what enables him to transduce his car, the temporary work nodes and fixed meeting places into perpetually connected extensions of office environments. He is able to transduce any space into a temporary office with his laptop and smartphone, provided there is ample accessible infrastructure (WiFi/3G connectivity).

The home-office is a generic shell which has the requisite levels of infrastructure for the user to log onto their company network and communicate with co-workers and clients. The telephone port, power sockets and modem are the consistent technological requirements needed in order to function in this environment. Into this, the laptop, phone, printer and external hard drive are able to connect so that work can be carried out on these interchangeable portable platforms and devices.

Fig. C.02

The home-office as the Nodal Cell has 3 of 4 necessary contextual requirements for fully integrated

electronic nomadism. The space constitutes Castells’ telecottage by definition, decentralising the position of the company hub and increasing infrastructural pressure by permitting the user to move between usable nodes of all kinds including the telecentre. The user plays an integrated role in the network society by relying on the flows of information, bits and business to allow him to function in this decentralised node.

The user is perfectly aligned with Mitchell’s (1995) electronic nomad, who is autonomous with varied

working time patterns, and whose primary environment forms part of Mitchell’s “new urban tissues ... characterized by live/work dwellings” (Mitchell, 1995, p.7). The environment is not characteristically a non-place as it is situated within a recognisable vernacular which belongs to a set epoch in architectural and urban terms.

The space of the home-office can be succinctly described by framing it within the parameters of the new

5 digital working environment taxonomies. It is contextualised and has its primary architectural function and 34

working patterns described by the classification as a Nodal Cell. It is integrated within digital networks and a working environment network comprised of myriad additional nodes; Nomadic Dens and Nodal Clubs.

Although this analysis is useful for the high level classification of space, to understand the intricacies

of the architectural environment the technological provision needs to be analysed. The space is a coded space, which could function as a household bedroom if not needed as a home-office. However, to function as an office it is fundamentally reliant on the coded infrastructures of the house’s electrical supply, the coded assemblages of internet and phone connections, and the necessary portable coded objects (laptop, phone, etc.). The bedroom space is transduced into an office as soon as the coded objects are activated in their networks and coded assemblages / infrastructures. The phenomenon of transduction is true of all digital working environments, but in this context a new architectural typology of office overlaid onto home space is created which is different every time, with the fluctuation in frequency and type of transduction. The space, contrary to Castells’ predictions of the network society, becomes “the direct consequence of available technology” (Castells, 2000, p.408). Fig. C.03

Case Study 2 - The Café The café is an intermediate working environment and an agora of the 21st century digital working community (Mitchell, 1995, p.97 ; Myerson & Ross, 2006, p.12). It was analysed for 4 hours (between 8:30am and 11:30am) on Thursday 5th April 2012 to test the suitability of the 5 taxonomies of digital working environments in a fixed location that had varied occupation and usage over time. Location:

M3 3WR, Manchester, UK

Organisation:

Centurion House Starbucks.

Starbucks Corporation.

Opening Times: Mon - Fri 07:00 – 18:30, Sat 08:00 –

18:00, Sun 09:00 – 16:00.

The café is situated within close proximity of multiple office buildings and the major Spinningfields complex. At the time of the research, the main seated customers where assumed to be workers, using a variety of portable technologies (See Appendix D for data set).

The primary function of the café space is to vend drinks and snacks, therefore the counter is the main

visual node in the space with signage (aligned with Augé’s (1995) notions of non-placeness) and staff presence which mediate between the user and space. The space of the café has an architectural sameness; devoid of place based context, and is in line with Koolhaas’ (1995) descriptions of genericism and ubiquity in the city. Therefore, it provides an indistinct backdrop for myriad working activities to take place. 35

Fig. C.04 36

The seats and tables provide a variety of functions: among them and key to this research, were their

accommodation of meetings, singular laptop / portable device based work practices and phone calls. The autonomous digital worker is able to utilise this space asynchronously, throughout an 11 hour open day as an enabled node in the network society. The users, occupying an environment free of time and place, are working nomads who can electronically activate the latent infrastructures in the space. In all working scenarios in the café, there was a fundamental shift in typology and use: a transduction, where the coffee tables transformed from static planes to platforms which imbued the users with the latent technological capacity to carry out their business. The proposed taxonomies suggest that this space is a combination of Nomadic Cells (Fig. B.20) and Nomadic Clubs (Fig. B.21). In different areas simultaneously, the space can be occupied by sole practitioners, autonomously carrying out work in their individual Cells, and groups of free flowing business people scheduled to meet, discuss and work in the Club. The space is generic, detached, and provides continual connectivity for users. It is numerous nomadic offices at once because it neither belongs to the user or the vernacular of the place, and forms part of a network of geographically distributed similar nodes.

The taxonomies situate the café space in general digital working terms, but it is the technology that

defines how the space is used. The points of physical connection (the power sockets) saw the extended use of portable devices - in one case for approximately two hours - and these points formed an architectural representation of where the longest-stay users where zoned. It is assumed that the presence of the café wireless internet connection was key in enabling many types of work, encouraging workers to utilise this space because of its free infrastructural WiFi provision (Free WiFi was the joint second most important enticement for visiting coffee shops, with 15% of 1,962 surveyed (Mintel, 2011)). The mobile and 3G networks which permeate the space allow users to remain connected with their other telecommunication devices necessary for work. Each time the space is transduced by a coded object assessing this latent infrastructure the typological balance of the place changes. It becomes more office and less café as the frequency of working use increases, creating a new flexible architectural typology of office overlaid onto semi-public social space. This imbalance of function, defined by use, needs to be addressed in architectural design to structure the development of working environments that transduce physical spaces into digital amalgamations.

This method of analysis is somewhat flawed because it only surveys the operations of one environment for

a short period of time on one particular day. For a comprehensive investigation into the architectural conditions of a multinational café work setting, multiple stores in many regional contexts over a wider variety of times would have to be analysed; something which was not possible in the context of this research.

Case Study 3 - The Train

The train as a potential working environment is transient. It occupies a linear route between nodes, is

almost constantly in motion, and has variable occupancy rates and usage patterns. It is the least definitive of all three case studies and therefore is a suitable platform for digital working taxonomy analysis. A journey was taken in order to assess the architectural, working and technological conditions on-board an 08:15am train, on Wednesday 28th March 2012. Location:

Manchester - London Coach B (Standard)

Operator:

Virgin Trains The carriage space is ubiquitous in its design, familiar to many UK trains with tables, seating, aisle and toilet. By definition, the train carriage is a non-place. It connects fixed nodes, stations and destinations, and forms part of the indeterminate “traveller’s space”; “the archetype of non-place” (Augé, 1995, p.70). The space is a small part of the infrastructure of “major communication nodes, where the space of flows materializes ephemerally” (Castells, 2000, p.450) as people flow through it and transduce it simultaneously.

Fig. C.05

The carriage allows the users to function efficiently as electronic nomads as they can continually access

electronic networks whilst occupying the transitional network, allowing their work to be free of place. The architecture of this space can be classified as a shell for the provision of two digital workspace programmes: the Nomadic Cell (Fig. B.20) and the Nomadic Club (Fig. B.21).

From observation, it is clear that the seating areas with tables separating two rows of facing seats are

the most architecturally suited to the Nomadic Club working typology. They provide a fixed arrangement where groups of up to four can congregate. They provide the largest usable plane for users to appropriate and are also the point of fixed electrical connection to the train’s power supply.

The individual pairs of seats which occupy most of the carriage are well suited to the Nomadic Cell working

typology. They provide some spatial enclosure, with a seat in front to delineate usable space, which itself is an adaptable working environment. The fold-down miniature table from the seats allow the autonomous use of a plane suitable for electronic devices (mainly the laptop), which then can transduce the space into an electronically enabled working environment. It is noted that even the aisle space and the entrance / exit zones in the carriage could be appropriated for use by workers standing whilst accessing their mobile / smart phone networks, which again can transduce any of those spaces into micro Nomadic Cells.

The proposed taxonomies depicting the working practices, the general architectural typology and the 38

nomadic working context of this transient space allow the train to be comprehended architecturally as a digital working environment. However, as in all cases, it is the technological interventions into the programmed architectural space which transduce the space into a suitable working environment.

The train carriage is similar to the café space

in the way the latent technological and connectivity infrastructures

provide

requisite

conditions

for

electronic nomadic working. The positioning of the power supply sources - at the fixed tables - begin to architecturally govern the most desirable spaces to use electronic work devices for extended time periods. Like the café, it is assumed that the presence of the wireless internet connection was key to enabling many types of work in the space. However, the train WiFi is different from the café in terms of its accessibility. The café provided the infrastructure as an additional service after purchase, but purchasing a ticket on the train did not provide free access to the available network in standard class. This is done by paying a third party (T-Mobile) for the right to use the network. The train operator sees some of its infrastructure as articulated and separate from the primary function of the carriage; consumers must pay for the right to use it as a WiFi enabled workspace, suggesting that the transduction of space through this network is a recognised ancillary and optional function of its primary architectural environment as a carriage.

The mobile and 3G networks permeating

the space offer alternative connectivity from that physically on-board the train, allowing users with the Fig. C.06

requisite coded objects and access privileges to digitally work in this space. The transduction of space in this case is variable as the motion of the train can cause fluctuations in signal. For users of these networks, their ability to digitally work “unfold[s] differently when electronic connectivity is scarce and when it is abundant” (Mitchell, 2000, p.92). 39

Again, this analysis is flawed because it only assessed the conditions of one carriage, on one journey on a

particular time and date. To gain an insight into the typical architectural conditions of digital working spaces onboard trains, a study would have to assess multiple times and journeys throughout a globally distributed network of transit systems; something that was not feasible in the context of this study. Networked Case Study Context

The nature of the network society suggests that all of the workspaces studied, and all of the taxonomies

proposed, are parts of larger networks of electronically enabled working nodes and infrastructures. These workspaces cannot be viewed as standalone working environments; they must be understood in the context of the networks in which they operate, as Castells states â&#x20AC;&#x153;... no place exists by itself, since the positions are defined by the exchanges of flows in the networkâ&#x20AC;? (2000, p.443).

Physical and Digital Crossover

Due to the networked nature of digital workspaces,

it is possible for a user to be simultaneously connected and detached to both physical and digital space (Fig. C.07). The synchronised / hybrid nature of space allows a user to operate within the two realms simultaneously. This dramatically affects the sense of time and space in the environment. The spaces are typically mediated by the architecture of walls, signs, furniture, etc., but the layering of space with digital communications and devices adds another notional, digital realm into the mediation of those spaces. This mediation between architectural space and digital space can fluctuate due to usage, where the level of mediation is determined by the level, amount and type of interaction with the digital and physical realms.

Fig. C.07

Case Study Summary

The purpose of the case studies was to assess the abilities of the proposed taxonomies to describe the

conditions of architecturally specific digital working environments. In each of the studies the taxonomies were able to easily suggest a classification of digital workspace to which the space corresponded. These classifications were contextually descriptive of the environment and highlighted some of the potential digital working practices and workspaces that were permitted. However, all of the case studies relied on an elaborated description of the (coded) objects, assemblages and infrastructures which enabled the use of these spaces. The taxonomies are not accurate or descriptive enough to understand the latent architectural nature of these working environments; in all cases a detailed study of the technological interventions and transductions of space is necessary to supplement the classifications. These flaws in the classification system bring our attention to ways of improving the tool set. 40

Chapter III ADDING DEPTH TO THE ANALYTICAL TOOLKIT

CHAPTER III _ ADDING DEPTH TO THE ANALYTICAL TOOLKIT The Nature of the Place

The architectural condition of belonging to a place - being fixed in space and time - contributes to the

extent of nomadism that is permitted in any space. The fixed places in the network of digital working environments and the space of flows - the home-offices, and other Nodal spaces - make up fixed points where the nomad is actually stationary in digital workspace for a time; where they undertake their work in a constant environment, a fixed node in the network. There are layers of intermediate spaces in the urban environment which permit digital working; they are the cafés - or any form of transducable space which without digital working, constitutes a fixed node in the urban fabric with an alternate primary programme. Once they are transduced by users, they constitute an environment in flux, based in a place, but disassociated with primary use and context as users dropin at atemporal intervals, appropriating the space and skewing the architectural typology. The transient spaces in the network society and the space of flows - the train, the car, etc. - are the architectural conditions which constitute the highest level of nomadicity. They constantly move through space whilst being transduced from their primary architectural programme of vehicle, into perpetually fluctuating spaces; “the office-on-the-run, in the most literal sense” (Castells, 2000, p.426). Due to these dramatic shifts between time, place and non-place in terms of electronic nomadism, it is appropriate that any classification system of digital workspaces should assess spaces in terms of their situation in time and place - as fixed, intermediate or transient.

Technological Transductions

As highlighted in the case studies, the interrelationship between technology and space is flexible and

unpredictable, however their mutual interaction fundamentally constitutes the way in which space can be (re) appropriated as a digital working environment. Castells argues in the Network Society that it is “the technological infrastructure that builds up the network [and] defines the new space” (2000, p.443), but Dodge & Kitchin (2011) believe that because of the variable nature of space and occupancy in which the technology operates, digital working environments are “...inconsistently transduced; ... never manufactured and experienced in the same way” (2011, p.18). Therefore, any classification system of digital workspaces must include a great deal of investigation into how, when, why and what results occur in the spaces where technology and architecture meet. Studying the myriad types of transduction and their results can enable a classification system to accurately measure the architectural implications of spaces that are transduced into digital working environments.

A Layered System for Analysing Digital Workspaces

The following three layers of digital workspace analysis have been proposed to logically describe and

classify an architectural space which is being appropriated by digital working practices. The first stage of analysis uses the taxonomies developed previously. This represents an analytical flow diagram to assess the context of the digital working practices, their relationship to general office type settings and the levels of interaction and autonomy, and indicates the resulting digital working environments (Fig. D.01).

Fig. D.01

The second layer of analysis aims to define the place based nature of a digital working environment. The

degree to which a space is fixed, intermediate or transient governs the level of nomadicity permitted by the digital workspace, and the amount of freedom it associates with the electronically nomadic user. This analysis generates a much more accurate set of ten potential digital working environments which can be used for classification (Fig. D.02).

Fig. D.02 43

The final layer of analysis suggests a framework of analysis for the architectural implications of the

transduction of space by coded assemblages, infrastructures and objects. The classification of a digital workspace must first take into account the latent, fixed levels of technological provision in the space - interventions that can architecturally govern the use of the space (as shown in Case Studies 2 & 3). Then the digital workspace analysis must acknowledge the types, frequencies and lengths of transduction that occur due to the use of portable coded objects (Fig. D.03).

Fig. D.03

There are myriad combinations and permutations in terms of the influence portable work enabling

technologies can have upon an existing architectural environment. Therefore, there will be an indeterminate amount of extending arrows from the right hand column of Fig. D.03, where the type and amount of implications individually affecting the architectural context produce conditions particular to each transduction of the space. The nature of the individual lines of code embedded in each technological device have an influence over the way in which the technology mediates between the user, the physical and the digital space. The transductions of space are, as a result of this massive fluctuation and unpredictability, almost indeterminate. However study into the interrelationship between user, code, technology, infrastructure and architecture is necessary to gauge the specific conditions of these emergent digital working environments (Dodge, 2012, p.59).

Chapter IV CONCLUSION

CHAPTER IV _ CONCLUSION Context

The contextual analytical tools assessed in this dissertation were the architectural notion of non-places, the

network society, electronic nomadism and technological latency in architectural environments. In each of these cases, the writings were heavily situated within specific fields and were not directly transferrable or compatible with the architecture of digital working environments.

The architectural environments associated with electronic nomadism are highly suited to analysis using

Augé’s (1995) notion of non-places. Digital working environments are often overlaid onto a series of architectural typologies which are informed by their relative position in time and place, their congruency with architectural history, their generic design and attitudes towards the mediation of architecture and user. By appreciating the architectural and philosophical grounding of the context in which these digital workplaces operate, we can begin to understand the enabling factors which permit digital working environments to adapt existing spaces as variable, malleable office-overlay typologies.

The social, cultural, economic and technological context within which digital workplaces operate

are fundamental elements when beginning to understand the nature of these newly forming spaces. A high level classification of digital working environments begins to emerge when they are positioned within the practices, networks and physical implications of working within an integrated physical and digital environment. Understanding the spacial implications of the collisions of physical and digital space and time, and their contexts, is paramount to understanding the architectural conditions of nomadic digital working practices.

The asynchronous knowledge economy work which is typically suited to digital working environments

(Dodge, 2012) is an integral function of ‘The Network Society’ - where the users, technological objects, information flows and architecture are both produced by, and produce the ‘Space of Flows’ (Castells, 2000). By comprehending the elaborate (often global) networks which facilitate electronic digital working methodologies, we are able to begin to contextualise the practices and environments.

The worker who operates in these undefined, fluctuating spaces of flow in a globally extended

networked society is an electronic nomad (Mitchell, 1995). When we justify their requirements - socially, culturally, technologically and spatially - a layer of detailed analysis is added to the context of digital working environments. The users' conditions and requirements are further defined by the way in which digitally enabled technology mediates between them and physical and digital space (Dodge & Kitchin, 2011). A framework for the analysis of architectural space and its dependency and mutual interaction with technological objects, assemblages and infrastructures is required to understand the architectural intricacies of spaces which are skewed as a user changes their typological definition by transducing them into a working environment. This detailed bespoke analytical tool for the assessment of technological interventions into architectural space operates at a scale which is relevant to the frequency and variability with which defined architectural typologies are transformed into digital working environments. 46

The context within which digital working methodologies and electronic nomadism have risen up and come

to dominate the white collar working world is very complex. It covers all scales of social, cultural, architectural, economical, business-ontological, and technological development. Therefore, if the available resources of context analysis are looked at independently, they do not holistically describe the context of digital working in the past or present. There needs to be a cross-comparison, taking into account the wide range of available resources, to adequately situate these recent architectural and working trends in their appropriate contexts. Working Practice and Office Design

The nature of behaviours, patterns, schedules and methodologies in working practice are fundamental

to analysing the architectural implications of digital working environments and their utilisation. Duffyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1997) work on the Hive, the Den, the Cell and the Club as malleable working scenarios is extremely relevant to defining the way working space is ordered, architecturally controlled and understood in the context of digital working practices. Classifying the working methodologies of electronic nomadism and digital working environments provides analysis for the way in which occupancy and behaviour in space affect the architectural programme and function of working environments. However, as independent tools of analysis, the working practices of digital workspaces leave knowledge gaps in the comprehension of the architectural implications of these emergent working environments. It is through their combination with the taxonomies of office spatial design and contextual analyses that they begin to form a fundamentally useful tool for the analysis of the processes and practice of digital working environments.

The creation of typological classifications for working environments has been a key analytical tool

for understanding the architectural nature of office design since the advent of the Taylorist principles in the 1880s. Myerson & Rossâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2000) office typologies provide a system of classification which allows digital working environments to be grouped at a high level based on their business and architectural ideological principles. To analyse digital working environments, the nature of architectural identity, decentralisation of business structures, the sociality of business ideologies and nomadicity in workspaces must be understood. The set of analytical tools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Narrative, Nodal, Neighbourly and Nomadic - which are developed in Chapter I are very relevant to the analysis and descriptions of digital working environments, to situate their governing architectural design and business principles at a high level. Again, it is through their combinations with other available taxonomies (of working practice and contextual classification) that they become a useful tool for the analysis of the kind of architecture which is associated with digital working methodologies. Analysis of Taxonomies

When the constituent elements of digital working environments - the complexity of the context, the

working methodologies and the office design typologies - were compared, combined, overlapped and analysed in a matrix, they began to highlight a new taxonomy framework for the classification of digital working environments. The five proposed classifications - The Nodal Cell, The Nodal Den, the Nodal Club, The Nomadic Cell, and The Nomadic Club - provided detailed descriptions of digital workspaces based on the architectural type of offices rendered, the working practice they permitted and their ability to situate within the wider context of 47

digital working and electronic nomadism. The proposed classifications are not mutually exclusive, allowing the system to respond to variable conditions in occupancy, frequency, use and space. Case Studies

The suitability and adaptability of the five proposed taxonomies was tested against three case studies. From

a high level analytical view, the taxonomies were able to classify each of the digital workspaces quite effectively, clearly articulating which types of environment were present in the spaces and how they were situated within the context, working practices and typological design of digital working environments. However, as detailed in Chapter II, they were still not suitable analytical tools for understanding the detailed and varying architectural conditions present in these spaces. They always relied on additional substance and detailed analyses of the nature of the place and the technology which constituted the working environments. Although the research methodology was flawed in terms of its scope and relationship to the wider networks and systems which enable digital workspaces, the case studies served as suitable vehicles for highlighting the capabilities and failures of the proposed taxonomies.

Place and Technology in Electronic Nomadism

Due to gaps in the suitability of the five proposed digital workspace taxonomies as highlighted in the

Case Studies, the integral notions of place and technological intervention were examined in greater detail to provide the analytical framework with additional definition. Understanding the transient, intermediate or fixed nature of the place of any digital working environment enables improved accuracy in the classification of the architectural conditions. This detailed analysis generated double the previous amount of taxonomies for defining a digital workspace, which allowed greater precision and definition of the architectural typologies of digital workspaces to be made.

The spaces of digital work are bound into the network society where â&#x20AC;&#x153;the nature of [this] new society

[is] based upon knowledge, organised around networks, and partly made up of flows, [and] the informational city is not a form but a process...â&#x20AC;? (2000, p.429). The process which enables digital working can be described in terms of the technological interactions, interventions and developments which permit shifts in society, culture and, importantly, working typologies and digital methodologies. Providing detailed assessment into the nature of technological interjections into space is the only suitable method for analysing the specific architectural conditions of digital working environments. The analysis of these spaces must take into account the latent, fixed technological (coded) assemblages and infrastructures present, and the portable (coded) electronic devices which access networks and systems - ultimately changing or creating architectural spaces as amalgamated, skewed, variable and unpredictable environments for conducting electronic work.

The New Analytical Framework

The three stage analytical framework proposed in Chapter III (shown in full in Appendix A) constitutes

this dissertation’s findings. It merges together all the available analytical tools to provide a holistic framework for architecturally defining (or predicting), and ultimately designing digital working environments. Firstly, the high level context, practice and typologies in digital working environments are assessed to gain overviews into the general type of working environment that is produced. Secondly, it situates the taxonomies in the context of place, movement and the nomadicity which they are able to permit, which in turn generates a series of more specific classifications of the taxonomies. Thirdly, it zooms in to the detailed architectural level to allow spaces to be understood via analysis of the underlying technological interventions. This stage allows very specific descriptions of spaces based upon the frequency, type and level of transductions of space into working environments, raising architecturally prescient notions of the frequency of transduction and the tipping-points of typological and programmatic definitions of space. The Future

Classifying, understanding and predicting digital working environments is already a much needed

architectural tool for understanding the nature of the contemporary urban environment, culture and society. The fundamental shifts in building typology, urban fabric and day-to-day usage of (working) space result from the contemporary and ever-developing nature of the network society. Castells states, “if the space of flows is truly the dominant spatial form of the network society, architecture and design are likely to be redefined in their form, function, process and value in the coming years” (2000, p.448). It is argued that these fundamental shifts are already well underway, and the urban environment has changed almost beyond recognition, in technological and conceptual terms, since Castells’ writing in 2000. The nature of the new architecture and design that produces contemporary digital spaces has to be understood for further architectural and urban design, commentary and intervention to be relevant to the contemporary conditions of the network society. It is believed that technological progress will continue, making the interaction between coded objects, assemblages and infrastructures, and the architecture they inhabit, even more prescient in architectural and urban design in the future. The network society benefits from the technological reduction of “search and uncertainty, [minimising] the time required to get what we need” Mitchell, 2003, p.57) - therefore there is no reason to believe that this condition will not continue to develop, placing the architecture of digital / physical environments at the forefront of future architectural debates.

Adam Greenfield’s 'Everyware' (2006) and Benjamin Bratton's 'iPhone City' (2008) give prescient indications

as to the coming digital reality of the built environment and the mediation between users and physical and digital space. The implementation of technology and connectivity for every person and into every conceivable surface in the urban realm would make digital working environments the definitive typology of the digital age, and place their analysis and comprehension very highly on the architectural agenda. The growth of ubiquitous wireless technology, the development of technological capabilities in portable devices, and recent software developments (cloud computing, "server virtualisation" and "desktop virtualisation" (Chee, 2010, p.221) For example, Microsoft’s Office 365 or Adobe's Creative Cloud - which allow users to access their chosen platform, 49

work and company network from any suitable location) tend to point towards Mitchell's (1995, 2000, 2003), Greenfield's (2006) and Bratton's (2008) depictions of the new digital age being quite realistic.

Although the ubiquity of technology in space could be seen as an accepted notion in Western society, the

extent to which business and workers will fully accept the pervasive digital working opportunities is unknown. Martin Dodge (2012) believes there will be inertia within some business institutions, where the transfer to digitisation could be a slow process. Resistance to these working methodologies and nomadic digitisation could also be more prevalent, as some institutions and workers will not want their information to be ubiquitous, or the space and time of their extra-working lives to be governed by the asynchronicity of their work. Dodge (2012) cites the growth of the electricity grid as a precedent for the wholesale adoption of these working methodologies; that although suddenly specialisation of spaces into electronically permitted workspaces became possible, this didn’t necessarily happen - social norms dictated that most architecturally specific environments remained the same, whilst existing workplaces became more efficient as a result of available electricity.

The idea that “[t]he pervasive and always on network connectivity and your data everywhere will

somehow … make everything possible everywhere - ... doesn’t necessarily mean that people will do that. [T]here are many other forces around - physical bodies, ergonomics, family relations, norms of behaviour, fears of crime, being overheard or overlooked” (Dodge, 2012, p.61) - which will no doubt affect whether the ubiquity of digital working environments continues to both spread further throughout the urban environment and skew more architectural typologies into electronically enabled, nomadic workspaces. Furthering the Study

To add clarity and depth to the study, more focused analysis into specific architectural conditions would

be necessary. The short-sightedness of the case studies would be taken into account and elaborated on to cover analysis of a wider range of digital working environments, in order to test the taxonomies’ abilities further and to understand them in the context of the networks in which they operate. The transductions of space into digitally enabled working environments would be focused on in much greater detail, creating articulate descriptions of the architectural conditions of digital workspaces, in an attempt to understand fully the latent nature of technology and spatial interaction within architecture and workplaces. The social and cultural impact of the digitally enabled nomadic worker in the network society would be assessed through interviews, extended case studies and analysed data to begin to understand the real-world implications of these new architectures and their associated lifestyles, issues and benefits.

+ APPENDICES

APPENDICES APPENDIX A _ Analytical Framework for Classifying Digital Working Environments.

APPENDIX B _ Interview with Martin Dodge (Co-author of Code/Space 2011) - 20/04/12. Conducted in Martin’s office at the Arthur Lewis Building, University of Manchester. Martin Dodge = MD Sam Higgins = SH SH: Do you mind if I go through what I’ve done in my dissertation so I can put you in the context of what I’m trying to do. MD: Yeh sure go ahead... SH: I’ve titled it Working in Digital Space and the conceptual starting point is William Mitchell’s electronic nomadicity. The point of the dissertation I suppose (…) from reading Mitchell ... I kind of realised in architectural discourse, at least, there wasn’t a framework for understanding these electronically mobilised spaces. That was the starting point. I looked at a couple of seminal pieces of office analysis from the past. I started with Francis Duffy’s The New Office. MD: I haven’t heard of that one to be honest, I think someone told us we should have read it, is it to with ergonomics and the like? SH: Yeh, yeh. MD: Some kind of organisation of space. SH: Yeh he was head of DEGW - an office design consultancy firm from London. He was interested a lot in the working practices of offices and how that could be used to design spaces. But, working in 1997, obviously, its obviously a bit far out from the context of what we’re talking about now, but I wanted to try and embody some of his principles of office methodology of the hive, the cell, the den and the club, and his autonomy vs interaction diagrams. MD: So he can assign spaces or people to particular points in a grid? SH: Yeh, he advocates (office) design for the digital age being orientated around understanding the way people actually use the space as opposed to what the building envelope looks like or how the desk internal layout should be. Find out how people are going to move and interact with the space... MD: Yeh they didn’t do a very good job with this building!... Hahaha (both laugh) SH: I went through and basically ideogrammed the requisite nature of each of these spaces that he describes. The point of my literature review was to take all of these existing analytical tools to understand how they could be used to understand digital working environments. Straight away my conclusion was that, writing in 1997 he is obviously way behind the game in terms of what we’re talking about now. The advent of technology and code into all of his working environments kind of renders a lot of his stuff firmly in the past. MD: Yeh, yeh. SH: Then I looked at Jeremy Myerson & Phillip Ross, in 2003 three they did a taxonomy of office design, they got the narrative, nodal, neighbourly, nomadic. And I did exactly the same process there, I diagrammed what I thought constituted the parameters of their office design typologies. They wrote another book in 2006 when they kind of said Goodbye to all of this – it was a bit looser and you can see... 54

MD: ...That the typology didn’t really work in the real world. SH: No, no. It is an architectural coffee-table picture book where there are many images of their case studies. But, there’s a few cool things in the nomadic one, there are a lot of airport lounges and how they’re being skewed towards the flexible office spaces you know now. MD: Yeh, kind of the icon of the global elite, yeh, yeh. SH: Definitely. So that was where I got up to trying to understand the positions of working practice and office design, as analytical tools and frameworks. And I started looking at context of what William Mitchell is talking in. looking at super modernity and what Augé had written about non-places in architecture and Koolhaas’ Generic City and how that all feeds into this idea of the Network Society by Castells. MD: Yeh, I think its a bit – not old, but a bit hack.... I mean a decade ago Castells was very big. I don’t know what happened, whether he did other things or what, but he never built on top of what he did. SH: Right.... He talks a lot about home-working and telecottages, and obviously that’s pretty prescient in terms of what I’m getting on about.... ...I analysed all the Mitchell stuff and how that fit in, and how I could define taxonomies around that. Then I looked at your and Rob Kitchin’s code/space and started talking about that. That’s essentially all the resource I used to get to where I was going, then I started overlaying all of them together... MD: Haha, to kind of see if they work? SH: Yeh, I drew up the conceptual links between working practice and office design – to begin to get a level starting plane to see how these taxonomies could be used. Then I established a contextual taxonomy, I mean how much electronic nomadism was permitted, how much... MD: Right, so where we’re sitting is this (points to Nodal Cell)... SH: Yeh, its a working cell, and its a nodal point in the university’s network, we are attached to their network, but we are fixed in a space. Not a nomadic, transient space. MD: Yeh SH: Yeh, I’ve layered all these up and set up new taxonomies for all of this, which was quite interesting to do. But, contextualising it, there was this blue area - the fact that these taxonomies do depend on technology for them to fluctuate, and that’s the only common one... MD: Right, so they’ve all got electricity or all need lighting. SH: Yeh, yeh.... So I started to overlay all this stuff into a matrix which started to show where the most relevant digital working environments were. And obviously I start getting the Nodal cell, the Nodal club, the Nomadic cell and the Nomadic club. The I detailed them up as my five new typologies. And then I do some case studies to test whether or not they actually work. MD: Yeh. SH: Joe Weston, he’s a sales man, which I think William Mitchell says, is a “high technology nomad who remains almost continually online.” MD: Ha, yeh. That’s where some of these things get really interesting, where you actually do, actually try and get real people, and try and get data. I mean that’s the criticism of code/space and the work that I’ve done. Me and Rob (Kitchin) the work we’ve done you know studying practice and the world and processes and stuff, but we never actually really go and try and observe how that happens within real people and real environments. I mean sometimes we kind of make it up, based on our own experiences of travelling through an airport, which is 55

kind of valid, but its not perfect. At some point we do want to actually do these kind of micro space and micro observations, where you know – at what point do these people actually reach for the keyboard? And you know, what do they click? What has that click actually done in terms of …. I mean the thing that I’m really interested in is at what point do different algorithms do stuff that you’re not necessarily anticipating, or are aware of, and this kind of thing. I think that’s the point at which code really makes a difference. In a sense you kind of know when the phone rings or the document comes out of the printer, but that kind of other esoteric – not subversive – but... backgrounded kind of processes. And I mean again we kind of make hand waving generalisations about when you’re driving in the car, or walking down the street or in the supermarket, you know. There’s multiple things going on, multiple algorithms and databases being accessed and stuff. But we’ve never really properly … audited what they are and you know, this is kind of the great unknown when it comes to software – trying to actually pick the decision point in that algorithm... you know the spam filter, or the kind of web proxy or the kind of.. when you double click on a document, you know the particular points when decisions are made automatically. We’ve never really been able to expose those things in that area. And, that I think is the main challenge.. when people on the engineering / technology side will say... “its all well and good you saying social and cultural matters, but you know, tell us how!” Well, not quite how, because we don’t really know the algorithms and stuff yet, but you know... I have a friend who kind of works as a IT manager for a big pharmaceutical company, and I was talking through the code/space stuff and he was telling me the transaction systems and the kind of online systems they have, basically he couldn’t really get a handle on why would social scientists be interested in this, and you know we still haven’t got the real articulation about why does the level of software, as opposed to the bits and switches, door knobs and other bits of technology make a difference... Door knock interrupts... MD: I think it gets down the … I can’t even remember writing code these days, but it gets down to the <if>, <then>, <and>, which actually accesses a record and uploads that column in the oracle database, and that kind of thing. That’s really for me the kind of bit that we’ve not quite got to. SH: I find the home-coding vignette thing you did quite interesting to start to appreciate that kind of level of analysis. MD: Well.... that was kind of made up... In the sense that it was based on myself and talking with Rob (Kitchin) … Rob’s like, “we haven’t got time to do the empirical properly”... again there’s more to actually get at when you’re actually flicking around on your digibox, you know. On one level you know what happens when you press the button, but, on another level there’s other things going on within the digibox, and other things going on at the end of the phone line as well, I mean you get a sense of that when you get your bill at the end of the month or something, you know there’s more that has gone on, but you know there’s more to uncode there. SH: Yeh, that’s evident in a lot of the assemblages and infrastructures you talk about, you might just see the interface but there’s a lot more behind the scenes, which is a bit of a strange one. To start to get at that I sat in a café for about four hours or so, and started to try and understand like the frequency of transduction – me and Nick (Dunn) were talking about that being the kind of tipping point of an architectural typology – from a place as a café and social meeting place where you can eat and drink, into this flexible working environment. What the levels of interaction and transduction actually are that change, that skew it into a totally different architectural typology. MD: Did you get it? 56

SH: Well, I got all the data, but like you say, person by person it is so... kind of unpredictable... unless I asked every single person “how much of their time you spend looking at your emails, in a work based context,” because there’s guys sat there on their laptops for like 5 hours, and you don’t know whether they’re chatting to people on Facebook (obviously, that’s a transduction, but a different kind of one from what I’m intrinsically interested in) MD: Yeh, finding the salaried slave... SH: Yeh, finding out who’s getting paid for the work they do. But it was quite interesting to do, taking those typological definitions and seeing what they said. The ones that were important here (the café) were the Nomadic Club, and the Nomadic Cell, and how the infrastructure in terms of power sourcing was defining the uses – longevity for instance – over time the amount of transductions that happened because one person was sat at a table with a laptop, as opposed to some guys coming in with mobile phones, having meetings and calling people in the office. (Referring to café space diagram) It was quite nice to layer up, but it only really gave me these vague kind of zonings, that let me understand what kind of tables and what kind of positions in the café permitted different types of working methodologies, I guess. I did this diagram for the standard class train when I went down to London. MD: Hmm, that’s an interesting one. I mean I commute in and on the train I notice more and more screens, and its kind of interesting, you know in the dark winter going home, when people’s phones – you can see people’s faces lit up, with the smart-phones that give off much more light than my old style mobile phone (shows phone with small screen and push button keys). I still feel conscious of working on a laptop on a train, in the sense that that’s still not quite... you know.... its still that transition from reading a newspaper, that switch from reading novels to the kindle, and stuff like this, its still a period of transition. SH: Yeh definitely. I found the tables were the most permissive space on a train – although you’ve got the fold down seats on the Pendolino carriage on the Virgin train – but the power sources again determined who sat there for the longest and what they were doing. At the end of the case studies, I kind of say “look these classifications I’ve made are pretty redundant. They talk high level about the space and its uses, but they don’t actually understand the nature of it for each of these spaces.” The first level of additional analysis I do is about the place based nature of the space, whether its fixed, intermediate or completely transient – so this is obviously (the train) a transient space. And that has all the implications of fluctuation in terms of signal you can get on there, because you know the 3G network stops as soon as you go into a tunnel. Does this stop being a work environment as soon as this happens? Is that the point of inflexion where it turns back into a train? MD: Yeh, where does the download stop and the software pick up? Yeh its a good one... I’m on 3G at the minute at home because I haven’t got the broadband setup, and its just terrible! I mean its just spiky. You’re fine for 5 minutes, and you kind of get in the rhythm of doing stuff and then it’ll drop for 30 seconds, and your just like “ Uhh”, its very random. SH: Yeh its a killer. Joe Weston (Case Study 1) said his office was in a bedroom in the house and if he can’t get the internet he goes completely wild – it completely ruins his day, he’s got meetings to organise, things to sort out... MD: Yeh, its like the power cut isn’t it. What do you do when the powers out? You feel like, “I can’t do that, I can’t do that either!” SH: Yeh, when it turns off you become redundant, you can’t actually operate. Its quite funny … Having done those case studies, having seen the flaws, I start to look at this new taxonomy breakdown, contextualising it, 57

getting the general office type based on the context, looking at the level of interaction and autonomy, and then predicting what type of new taxonomy is chosen. Then it cites it within a fixed, intermediate, or a transient place, in terms of non-places, network society theory, all of that, to generate these 10 new ones. But then, the bit that I’m coming unstuck on, which I think is very much your area, is sort of how to set up an analytical understanding of the latent technological and software based nature of these spaces. I realised in your home-coding vignettes that there isn’t any kind of move towards a prediction of a classification system of different kinds of houses. I assume that’s because of so many environmental factors of income, background, families, etc, etc. MD: Yeh, I think that we didn’t really have the data to do that, and it was based on very subjective kind of knowledge. I mean we tried to do it a little bit in terms of the particular kinds of households – I think the elderly person is different from a family with young children, but we didn’t kind of map that in total, so you know... the terraced house vs the bungalow vs 5th floor apartment vs the 1st floor ground level flat. It could well be very valid, but you know its the kind of thing which we didn’t actually have time and resource to actually go and audit homes and actually kind of walk round them, but you know I think it could be quite revealing in some ways. Its getting from the particular to the general; is a kind of terraced house in Rusholme - its a particular one - but is it generalisable to UK 2012 lower class urban terrace? Or is it more particular to South Manchester and that particular working class ethnicity or whatever? I mean, I don’t know. Its certainly... if you’ve got the time to do, then do it, and then tell me what the result is! … I’ve been more interested than Rob (Kitchin) when trying to do the empirical auditing. I’m keen to actually draw up a survey spreadsheet and actually go and count the number of screens house or whatever. The last paper that we’ve been doing is thinking about toilets – public toilets. And there again, I’d be quite interested to actually really do an audit on lots of different public toilets and be counting the number of sensors and the different kind of configuration of the sensors, and Rob is like, “We could do that, but it doesn’t.. we don’t need it, lets just do the paper.” SH: Because of the complexity of houses, lets say, and what we’ve just talked about, do you think it’d (workspaces) be more predictable or definable – just because of the fixed infrastructure that is there...? MD: If you’re talking about the white collar, paper based economy... SH: The Knowledge Economy. MD: But even then there is some variation and complexity. There may be a generational thing there as well – I’m not digital digital, but maybe I am more digital than somebody who’s a professor or whatever, who grew up in a telephone/fax context. So there may be variations, but if you got beyond the knowledge economy, then working environments are really interesting, you know different productive, creative spaces that people are working in. Thinking about creativity in more ways than just typing text, or drawing in PhotoShop. There’s different degrees in creativity, then lots of different spaces, potentially become working environments with digital technology. So, not next week, the week after I’m taking some of my students up to a dairy farm as part of a course they do on food and farming. And its a work environment. In some ways you may not think farming is creative, but you know, in other ways he is a problem solver and he is kind of self reliant. He has to be aware of many factors. Then we are thinking about how technology and code is making it different to him, because he has gone down quite a sophisticated, robotic route where he has these 2 big machines that are fully automated and the cow just walks into them, gets fed, and the robot kind of clips on the suction devices to the udders and all this kind of stuff. All the milk is monitored so the cows all have RFID tags. So in his working environment, it is very coded. Now, he says if you speak to his neighbours who haven’t bought into this robotic technology, their systems or whatever are much less coded. Those types of working environment are potentially really rich. Getting beyond the cubicles and 58

the desks with PC’s on and stuff like that. Looking at ways technology is making a difference in supermarkets, in cafés, consumption, work – there’s different types of creativity going on. Ultimately in terms of the kind of distinction between paid and unpaid work, the domestic and the non-domestic breaks down – I mean that’s a very kind of gendered thing as well, seeing the working environment as beyond the home... the home-working thing is kind of flipping that on its head isn’t it. You know the kitchen table becomes the office for 2 mornings a week or whatever. SH: Yeh, I saw this really interesting table that had a piece of electronically activated glass so that it was a dining table when off (opaque) so you couldn’t see what was under it, but if you were working, you made it transparent again and it had all your stuff under it. That simply changes the room from one space into the next, which was quite cool. In terms of what I’ve set up here, the 2 levels of analysis (points to last level of transduction in final matrix) do you think I’m right looking at the amount and accessibility of fixed coded assemblages and infrastructures to start to appreciate what’s inherently there in a space? MD: Yeh even some of these become very rich when you begin to unpack them in terms of the software running on a laptop, or installed on a laptop and running in different ways, or whatever. You know the thing where you actually look at what the processors actually running on Windows or whatever, I’m always amazed at the number different things. That thing - after you take a laptop out of the box, then after a couple of months, that ecosystem just expands and expands. SH: Like an emergent organism, that just collects more and more and more. MD: These layers (laptop, smart-phone, etc.) break out to lots and lots of layers and then there’s the softwares that are on there, which is also dependent on the software running in Apple’s cloud or whatever, which again is dependent on something running on something else. SH: Yeh the knock on effect. So... do you think I’m right in terms of putting fixed and implementable/portable coded objects in different strata almost? MD: Yeh, I think in terms of people’s everyday cognitive experiences or whatever. So that (points to laptop in last column) does solve different things in different ways. That will be in my bag (points to his laptop) and that will be staying here (points to desktop in office) ... So there’s something going on in terms of the difference between the 2. In other working environments they’re trying to minimise that aren’t they. Through whatever device you see the corporate, whatever space – the corporate Intranet, your email is always on the device that is in your hand. In other ways its becoming less of a cognitive difference whether its too heavy to lift, or whether its in my pocket doesn’t matter too much maybe. SH: How you feel about the Everyware technologies? I’ve been looking at the Microsoft 365, the new Office platform that they’ve got. MD: Is that like their cloud? SH: Yeh, from what I’ve read, you take the program from the cloud, your computer is then only the interface for it, the cloud deals with all the back-end of everything, your company has their infrastructure within the cloud, so you can open all your documents from there as well. Suddenly anywhere that you go with a portable interface which allows you to utilise this becomes a workspace. Adobe have done it as well with their Creative Cloud that comes out in a couple of months, and that’s going to change the whole design community. MD: I’m a bit, er, resistant, maybe because I’m from a different generation – and the generation before PC’s it was all working on mainframes. The cloud really is nothing new, its kind of going back to the 60s, where people 59

had terminals and everything was on a single mainframe in a computer centre. So the kind of liberation of having your own PC, I’m part of that liberated generation I guess of the 80s and 90s. And I still kind of like to know where my files are, and that that is the copy of the spreadsheet, and that if I delete that copy... SH: It no longer exists. MD: It no longer exists. So I am more of a tin-foil kind of privacy nut than some people may be. When you buy stuff on Amazon and Google and stuff like this, and you know, I’m a part of it, but I’m kind of more resistant to kind of sharing everything to the cloud. Whereas, in fact the cloud isn’t this kind this kind of nebulous thing, it actually a part of a very specific economic entity that exists in a very specific territory – and this situation, where people are sharing stuff on Facebook isn’t somehow this neutral resource, it is a very specific set of computers operated and run by a very specific set of people with specific goals who are subject to legal requirements. People are willingly naïve about what goes on. There’s still this psychological thing going on, where its a this conversation between me and the screen, but actually there’s a million people on the other side of the screen watching you (metaphorically). SH: On “All watched over by machines of loving grace” - a documentary that was on a couple of months ago, there was a prolific blogger in the mid-90s that realised she was being commodified and that her information was just for the purposes of making money for other people, so she completely stopped in her tracks. MD: Yeh, yeh. I’m talking to undergrads about the evil Facebook, and they come and look at me with a blank look, and I’m saying its not just privacy – you’re being ripped off, you’re being exploited. They are not giving you a fair transaction. They’re saying they’re giving us all this for free, its like, no, that costs peanuts, relative peanuts. Why do you think (Mark) Zuckerburg is the youngest billionaire in the world? Its because you’re giving him money, effectively you’re giving your money out of your pocket. SH: Bearing in mind the ubiquity of mediums like that (Facebook) do you think working practice will make a shift to that, say, in line with Adam Greenfield’s Everyware theory, that we will be able to log on wherever we want, whenever we want? MD: Yeh, you see, I think there seems to be a trend. I don’t know if it will come and bite people. With people being stung by licensing movies, music and books as terms change, people become more resistant to it. Certainly I think businesses will get stung. I’m sure legal firms and people with sensitive data are already thinking through the ramifications of this. So I’m not sure that the trend is irresistible, but certainly you know the trend is in that direction. SH: Do you think that that will render set typologies of an environment - say like the building we’re in – do you ever think it’ll take the full step away from that typology and become the shell for your meetings or your drop-ins essentially, and everything else (work-related) is permitted anywhere else that you fancy doing it? MD: Yeh, it could well do. As I say, I’m not necessarily a good example, in that I’ve got lots of bits of dead media around. I’m sure there will be a level of inertia across different fields and a different value to work individuals do or whatever. Does that mean that suddenly the lower values of the knowledge economy would be working wherever, then the company wouldn't have to pay for real estate, insurance, heating? It’s going back to the prefactory, isn’t it, where whoever organised the cotton manufacture before the factories, it was done domestically in people’s houses ... the heating and the floorspace was all taken care of by the worker. So certainly that logic could come round again. SH: Do you think that’ll start skewing (from a code and transduction point of view) the way that every other architectural typology starts to function? 60

MD: Err.............. I don’t know is the answer. SH: I know studying the train, I hadn’t assumed that it was this digital working environment, but having seen the frequency and amount of use, and the amount of varied use that was going on there, I begun to question whether it could be classified as the typological definition of a train. What was the tipping point which determined whether it belonged to one category or another? Were all spaces which are permeated by 3G networks suddenly enabled as these new working environments? MD: I often wonder whether the history of the grid of the electricity network is the archetype. Before electricity, certain things could only be done in very specific places and at specific times. Obviously, electricity is a kind of universal power source now that every building, every room now has. Electricity somehow becomes the background, but new levels of specialisation grew on top of that. You still have a living room, bedroom, bathroom and a kitchen, even though all the equipment could have operated in all the environments. The pervasive and always on network connectivity and your data everywhere will somehow erase – not erase – but make everything possible everywhere, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people will do that level of specialisation – it won’t disappear. SH: When looking at the diagram for the home office, that, in theory, he never even has to be at home, but there’s this hard wire to the factory and the headquarters, that is a dedicated phone line. There are a couple of levels of fixed software/code that keep him there (at home). He operates in this network, using the car as the main mobiliser, he goes through hundreds of these fixed meeting places which are little Nomadic Clubs dotted around the country. Sits in cafés and stuff, with his laptop on and doesn’t necessarily have to be in the home office. I think you’re right in saying that everything isn’t all necessarily liberated completely – his front room isn’t an office as well – it could be, but it is much more defined to the bedroom. Case study by case study, there would be massive variation in the way people were willing to accept or... MD: Yeh, I think there’s a generational difference as well about whether 19 y/o is different to people my age is different to say my dad’s age, in terms of what counts as doing work or where work should be done. Whether the trends will continue to go into a fog where everything spreads out and gets universal or there will be kind of countervailing trends in terms of acceptable things. You know people fighting back against being always contactable, or how work bleeds into home life and these types of things. People saying it has to stop at 5 o’clock. A lot of knowledge workers, I think, are burning the candle at both ends in that sense. Although I think businesses realise as well that it is kind of good that their star workers do actually have their weekends off, because that way they do get more done on a Monday, as opposed to being continually being on call or whatever. I don’t know, maybe having electricity in every space makes everything possible everywhere – in that sense I don’t know. You can take the anti-deterministic view that there are many other forces around – physical bodies, ergonomics, family relations, norms of behaviour, fears of crime, being overheard or overlooked. I don’t know a way to predict the trend. I’m sure smart people in Silicon Valley are doing that.

APPENDIX C _ Case Study I _ Data Collection.

Occupation Time 0830-1700

USAGE Nomadic Cell

TRANSDUCTIONS Work Related Internet Usage (mins) Phonecalls 100 22

Laptop use (mins) 320

Emails Sent 18

Printing (x) 4

APPENDIX D _ Case Study II _ Data Collection. USER Occupation Times 0830-0859 0900-0930 0930-1000 1000-1030 1030-1100 1100-1130 Totals

Male 17 33 18 30 13 20 131

Female 8 13 7 10 4 11 53

USAGE Nomadic Cell 10 21 18 15 15 19 98

Nomadic Club 7 9 3 10 1 5 35

PORTABLE TECHNOLOGY Laptop 5 4 1 7 1 5 23

Tablet 1 5 3 7 4 5 25

Phone 22 44 25 35 16 30 172

Case Study II full data set can be found at:

Meeting 7 7 2 9 1 4 30

Transduction Rating* 35 60 31 58 22 44 250 * Sum of Portable technology transductions.

<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvYK9Y0AnrdPdHZib0hLWlpTcjJOUUlrY0oxUkhBOEE>

APPENDIX E _ Case Study III _ Data Collection.

Surveyed Time 0850-0900 0950-1000

Total Passengers 58 60

USAGE Potential Nomadic Cell Users Potential Nomadic Club Users 29 8 22 5

OBSERVABLE TRANSDUCTIONS Laptop users Phonecalls Meetings 7 22 3 8 14 2

+ BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abalos, I. & Herreros, J. (2003) Tower and Office From Modernist Theory to Contemporary Practice. Massachusetts, MIT Press. Augé, M. (1995) Non-Places An Introduction to Supermodernity. London, Verso, Bratton, B. H. (2009) iPhone City. In: Leach, N. ed. Architectural Design: Digital Cities, 79 (4) June, pp.90-97. Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society Vol. 1 The information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Oxford, Blackwell. Chee, B. J. S. (2010) Cloud Computing Technologies and Strategies of the Ubiquitous Data Center. New York, CRC Press. Cuito, A. (2000) Working@Home Working and Living Spaces. London, HarperCollins. Dodge, M. (2012) Transduction of Digital Workplaces Interview. [Digital Audio File] Manchester. (See transcript: Higgins, S. (2012) Working in Digital Space Appendix B. Dissertation, University of Manchester). Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2011) Code/Space Software and Everday Life. Massachusetts, MIT Press. Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2009) Software, objects, and home space. Environment and Planning A, 41, pp.1344– 1365. Duffy, F. (1983) Taming the Beast from the Wild. Computer Weekly, Jan 19. Duffy, F. (1998) Design for change The Architecture of DEGW. Basel, Birkhauser. Duffy, F. (1992) The Changing Workplace. London, Phaidon. Duffy, F. (1997) The New Office. London ,Conran Octopus. Greenfield, A. (2006) Everyware The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. California, AIGA. Hascher, R., Jeska, S. & Klauck, B. (2002) Office Buildings A Design Manual. Basel, Birkhauser. Ibelings, H. (1998) Supermoderism Architecture in the Age of Globalization. Rotterdam, NAi Publishers. Koolhaas, R. (1995) S,M,L,XL. Rotterdam, 010 Publishers. Marmot, A. & Eley, J. (2000) Office Space Planning Designing for Tomorrow’s Workplace. London, McGraw-Hill. Mintel (2011) Coffee Shops - UK - February 2011. [Internet] London, Mintel. Available from: <http://academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_academic//display/&id=545197> [Accessed 30 March 2012]. Mitchell, W. J. (1995) City of Bits Space, Place and the Infobahn. Massachusetts, MIT Press. Mitchell, W. J. (2002) E-Bodies, E-Building, E-Cities. In: Leach, N. ed. Designing For a Digital World. London, Wiley Academy. Mitchell, W. J. (2000) e-topia "Urban Life, Jim - But Not As We Know It". Massachusetts, MIT Press. Mitchell, W. J. (2003) ME++ The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. Massachusetts, MIT Press. Myerson, J. & Ross, P. (2003) The 21st Century Office. London, Laurence King. Myerson, J. & Ross, P. (2006) Space to Work New Office Design. London, Laurence King.

Naisbett, J. (1984) Megatrends Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York, Warner. Raymond, S. & Cunliffe, R. (1996) Tomorrow’s Office Creating Effective and Humane Interiors. London, Taylor & Francis. The Secret Life of Buildings. (2011) Work. London, Channel4, 08 August [video:TV]. Toffler, A. (1981) The Third Wave. London, Pan Books. van Meel, J. (2000) The European Office Office Design and National Context. Rotterdam, 010 Publishers. Varnelis, K. (2008a) Networked Publics. Massachusetts, MIT Press. Varnelis, K. (2008b) The Infrastructural City Networked Ecologies in Los Angeles. Barcelona, Actar. Worthington, J., et. al. (1997) Reinventing the Workplace. Oxford, Architectural Press.

IMAGES All diagrams and Illustrations created by Higgins, S. (2012). With Creative Commons License attributed additions as follows: Fig. A.03: “Clock” symbol by Brandon Hopkins, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/clock/#icon-No1164] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. A.06: “House” symbol by Maurizio Pedrazzoli, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/house/#icon-No1439] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. A.06: “Telephone” symbol by The Noun Project, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/telephone/#icon-No441] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. A.11: “Business person” symbol by Devochkina Oxana (everyone), from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/businessperson/#icon-No1057] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. A.11: “Smartphone” symbol by George Agpoon, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/smartphone/#icon-No1023] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. A.11: “Laptop” symbol by Daxx Longaphie, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/laptop/#icon-No974] (20th Feb 2012) Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Fig. C.01: "Car" symbol by anaonymous, Germany, from The Noun Project collection. [http://thenounproject.com/noun/car/#icon-No468] (06th April 2012) Creative Commons: Public Domain Mark 1.0