Description

Managers tend to use the term ‘human resources management’ to refer to employee perform­ance and efficiency. In connection with improving efficiency, it is not only technology that is increasingly taking on a more important role, but also the design and optimisation of office space and its equipment. Spatial structures can have a positive influence on collaborative work processes, and they create the framing conditions that can support the individual activities or functions of the employees.

These are needs related to work tools or devices, space, spatial acoustics, visual and thermal comfort, and ergonomics – and also psychosocial components like interaction, nearness, privacy, territory and status. The individual factors reciprocally influence each other, indicating the exceedingly complex demands made on the planning of office space. For example, the subjectively felt private sphere is intimately linked to the soundproofing, the ergonomic design of the workplace, the arrangement of the space, the information policies and the content of the work as well as employee motivation, while humidity and air currents have a direct effect on the individual’s perception of temperature.

Yet human needs remain relatively constant. Changing corporate structures with the ‘new work forms’ that accompany them transform primarily the need for space, from the extended workplace to the building structure. Psychosocial factors are also closely linked to this. In new office environments one encounters a strain between efficiency and individuality, where people should be the focus.

Workplace design

In the analysis of office work, there are three fundamental questions: what does one do, with whom and where? Office work ranges from design activities through routine duties to informative functions, and it can be divided into different fields of activity [1] such as ‘logistics and information,’ ‘transactional knowledge exchange,’ and also ‘projects.’ Depending on the position and function of the employee, the different fields of activity are combined in the course of a day, leading to changing spatial requirements. These can vary from a secluded space to one allowing easy communication. With clever design of the individual workplaces and skilful arrangement of the office space, even contradictory needs can be met.

The individual workplace – consisting of desk and chair and the necessary space to move – forms the basic module of office space planning. This is true both of conventional office forms and of new interactive work environments. However, the traditional desk is transformed, just like the office chair, into a multifunctional object of many talents that permits working in a sitting position, standing up and even lying down.

Even the standards of finishing in this domain are hardly ever determined by rank or position any more. A few occupation-related workplace types that increasingly resemble each other in form and function are replacing the workplaces of the past typical of secretaries, clerks, heads of department or managers. The crucial factors in this development are the complex mix of activities in modern project work, technological developments in computer and information and communication technology, flat hierarchies and the demand for more efficiency in the planning of space. Together these lead to an increasing concentration of work steps, and the devices necessary to carry them out at a single workplace, the so-called workstation and thus to more flexibility in the organisation of space.

The workstation can be executed either as a universal computer workplace or as a touchdown workplace for staff who frequently perform mobile work and use personalised laptops. This basic computer workplace module is complemented by additional modules such as meeting or communication zones, or surfaces to put computers on, entailing a certain variability. The discussion islands or discussion tables jointly used by the staff for formal and informal communication are increasingly considered to be on a par with the two aforementioned workstation models. They thus form the third basic module.

Further supplementary elements are particular for the most part to monofunctional special work­places such as those for high-quality CAD and multimedia work, or to “thinking cells” such as the club or the lounge. The importance of mobile work in trains, in hotels or at home is growing in parallel.

Combining basic modules with sporadically used special workplaces generates a variety of work areas that are supplemented by additional and special functions. Relaxation zones, kitchens, storage and office services are typical of these additional functions. Other special areas such as foyers, conference and training centres and cafeterias may include central functions. Of these, buildings usually have only one of each category.

The basic module of the universal computer workplace and the one most used today is the workstation, even if it will change because of future IT developments. The floor area requirement per workplace remains an important basis for all planning decisions just as it always has been. Government regulations and guidelines for these vary significantly from country to country. The standard in Germany, for example, is at least 8 to 10 m², while in the UK a spatial volume of 11 m³ is required. In addition, there are regional and cultural influences and habits, which are reflected in experience and in the guidelines of individual enterprises and organisations.

A few additive basic modules not only meet the requirement for more variability and flexibility, but also bring significant economic advantages. Thus, for example, the costs for moving and renovations that arise with changes in spatial organisation or with a high churn rate can be considerably reduced.

Growing importance is ascribed to identity and individuality as factors that can counteract uniformity in office environments caused by the need for flexibility and variability. A study carried out by Steelcase in 1996 shows that 85% of all Americans, particularly older people, personalise their workplace with photos, plants or a radio, for example. The strong desire for personalised design was explicitly recognised in this study as a counter-reaction to the standardisation of the work environment. By contrast, younger employees often find other factors to foster identity. A corporate identity and image-promoting work tools[2] (laptop, palmtop, mobile telephone, etc.) play an important role, but so do clubs, lounges and basketball courts (such as those that TBWA/Chiat Day have in Los Angeles). Free choice of workplace does not mean ‘homelessness’ for them, but instead self-determination – and in their case, it is the desktop of the computer (accessible from anywhere) that is personalised.

In the strain between efficiency and individuality, a great variety of office environments are therefore conceivable; however, innovative office concepts place more value on the supplementary options mentioned above while conventional concepts tend more to optimise the basic module of the computer workplace.

Work forms and workplace organization

Office work is of course carried out by individuals, by groups or by teams. These work forms give insight into the appropriate spatial relations between the basic modules.

Permanent or project-based group activities are those in which the participants have a common goal. In group work, the total task is distributed to individual specialists and worked on in a relatively autonomous fashion. In contrast, the essence of collaborative teamwork lies in the interaction between all those involved. Karen Lalli distinguishes different forms of teamwork: [3]

• The sequential team is characterised by an information and data flow – in which the development of each stage is based on the previous one – with the accompanying organisational structure.

• The matrix team brings together people whose strengths lie in different areas in order to carry out specified tasks. It consists of employees from different departments, so the matrix team is cross-functional, multi-disciplinary and often decentrally organised, which is to say independent of spatial conditions.

• The independent team is also cross-functional. However, the employees belong to the same department, and in spatial terms, the team is centrally located so that significantly greater intensity can be attained with regard to group processes. Here, the focus is on the most effective combination of employees with special knowledge and experience for carrying out a task.

Employees’ knowledge is today an enterprise’s most important source of innovation, its capacity for change, and its competitive advantage. Knowledge work in the form of collaborative teamwork is therefore developing into a strategic factor in the success of the enterprise, and in future will form the most important part of office work. Spaces that promote interaction between team members and thereby support very varied forms of teamwork are created through specific combinations of the basic module.

Office space planning and communication

Often, people entirely fail to appreciate how important the social aspect of the work environment is. It is incredibly important to meet each other. Many people overlook the difference between the exchange of information and communication. Although they talk about communication, they mean the exchange of information. Communication is the exchange of information that one was not previously aware of.

Herman Hertzberger [4]

The planning of interaction and communication is a central theme that places complex demands on the design of all rooms, increasingly transforming the office building into a spatial representation of communicative processes.

In every community, there is a multiplicity of different communication processes. Formal communication such as that which takes place at conferences, or scheduled meetings with clearly defined spatial correspondents, are goal-oriented and often serve to stabilise familiar structures. They are calculable and can therefore also be planned. In contrast, informal communication of a spontaneous and unexpected face-to-face nature targets change and development. This activity also serves to build trust and the exchange of ideas. With greater complexity of the tasks to be performed in the office and the accompanying collaborative work forms, communication becomes increasingly necessary. As spontaneity and chance cannot be planned, and even if there are no clearly defined spaces for this form of communication, they can be fostered in a targeted fashion by the overall layout.

Regardless of innovative IT infrastructure and knowledge management, the way in which work areas are linked to each other or separated from each other has an influence on communication processes and on the exchange of information. The interlinking of individual work areas or larger team areas has a significant influence on the opportunities for and the frequency of interaction between all employees. In contrast, the development of so-called “neighbourhoods” emphasises physical and social separations by facilitating internal communication and strengthening em­ployees’ identification with their own team.

Boundaries can be developed in a multitude of ways, and they can take on different functions, ranging from clear separation in the form of walls or room dividers to blurred transitions in which the team is only recognisable by the arrangement of the workplaces. Blurred transitions or the extension and arrangement of additional functions used in common – ranging from special workplaces, central office services, filing cabinets and meeting zones to kitchens or relaxation zones – allow boundaries to become linking elements.

In order to do this effectively, the additional functions must be strategically positioned, for example in direct proximity to circulation areas common to all. Apart from this, they should also be semi-public in character yet at the same time, offer the opportunity for confidential conversations.

Access structures and their design

Access areas can accelerate the movement of people or retard it; they are predestined for functions such as promoting informal communication in a targeted way.

In the past, access areas were reduced to the minimum in order to save money; today they are designed and structured in such a way as to encourage people to linger and thereby promote chance encounters. They are given names like ‘market place,’ ‘street’ or ‘piazza’ that refer to the complexity and variety of urban life, thus reflecting their status. Forms of access can be subdivided into centralised, linear and decentralised structures.

The choice of access form depends primarily on the urban context and is closely connected with economic considerations and the specific organisational structure of the enterprise. All forms are suitable for fostering communication; it is the spatial extension, the programme and its design that are decisive.

Decentralised access structures are laid out in grid form for the most part. The connecting arteries may be hierarchically graduated as main streets and side streets, or similarly developed. Centraal Beheer in Apeldoorn (Architect: Herman Hertzberger) is an example of similar development. The organisational structure of the enterprise, which is based on similar team units of approximately twelve employees, has been translated to a unique spatial structure. A wide-meshed net of 9 x 9 metre units opening onto the connecting arteries was created.

Serial structures can be developed as lines or combs, although an access structure in the form of a line is more suitable for relatively autonomous individual work. Comb structures enable clear spatial formulation of larger teams or whole departments and promote employees’ identification with their own group. Enlargements of the spaces between the ‘teeth’ create small central communicative plazas, promoting informal communication. At the Burda Mediapark in Offenburg (Architect: Ingenhoven Overdiek Kahlen und Partner) wide access stairways create visual links between staff in the editorial, graphic and layout departments.

Centralised access structures are characterised by connecting paths arranged in the shape of stars or rings. Combined with an atrium, as in DATAPEC’s office building in Gniebel (Architect: Kaufmann Theilig und Partner), this creates varied, uninterrupted views within the building. Like the town square, of which it is reminiscent, the atrium serves not only for access but to provide a central point for informal encounters.

People, the tasks they perform and the communication necessary to do this should be the starting point for all planning decisions. Even if, due to innovative IT infrastructure and knowledge management, information and data flows can take place without regard to spatial proximity, spatial linking is becoming increasingly important to employees; this changes the requirements for space considerably. New office environments are distinguished by design based on people and the tasks they perform; for this reason, they are becoming increasingly varied.

---

Originally published in: Rainer Hascher, Simone Jeska, Birgit Klauck, Office Buildings: A Design Manual, Birkhäuser, 2002.