 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
IWSP Publications
Under pressures to reduce cost, the first tactic for many organizations is to increase density. It is fast and relatively inexpensive, compared to leasing more space. Density Varies Widely The usable square feet using the IWSP Group Density measure (comparable to the Building Owners and Managers Association measure, but focused on the area where a group or department resides within a floor) for employees in team-oriented bullpens ranged from 51-106 s.f.; in cubicles from 71-144 s.f.; and in offices from 112-235 s.f.. Generally, but not always, the more enclosure, the larger the size range. The BOMA floor density measure showed the study firms ranging from 76 s.f. to 200 s.f.. The average s.f./person for different office types using the IWSP Group Density measure ranged from a low of 64 s.f./person in team-oriented workstation pods to a high of 153 s.f./person in private offices. The sample was too small to draw any solid conclusions, but it is worth noting that the lower densities (more s.f./person) were not always associated with the larger, more established corporations. Densities simply varied by office type within and across the business units studied.
Density and Cost
To capture the impact of different office types on cost, we did some simple "order of magnitude" calculations. A space plan with 10,000 s.f. was able to accommodate 90 workspaces in bullpen configuration (50 s.f. each), 60 workspaces in pod configuration (75 s.f. each), 45 cubes (100 s.f. each), and 30 offices (150 s.f. each). Assuming in all cases that of the 10,000 s.f. that 2000 s.f. would go toward support space, 3000 s.f. toward circulation space, and 500 s.f. toward what we called "inaccessible" space (e.g., server rooms not intended for daily work activities), this left 4500 s.f. for whatever type of office we were considering. Using this form of analysis, the floor density within each workspace ranged from a high density of 110 s.f/person (all bullpens) to a low density of 330 s.f/person (all closed offices). At an assumed annual rent cost of $20/s.f., the differences in cost per employee ranged from $2,200 to $6,600. While these cost figures are rough, they do capture the fact that there are significant reductions in real estate cost associated with higher density. When that fact is coupled with the less well-accepted one that the more open type of work environment actually enhances communication that promotes work effectiveness, one begins to have an answer to part of the wicked problem we posed at the beginning of this report: How does one enhance work effectiveness while reducing costs? The answer, our research suggests, is more team-oriented bullpens and pods. Our research, like others, , , shows that the typical high-paneled cubicle, the kind made infamous by the Dilbert cartoons, is almost universally disliked and generally dysfunctional. Contrary to conventional wisdom our research suggests, however, that the answer is not necessarily closed offices, but rather some form of team-oriented bullpen or pod. This kind of more open environment, if implemented on a small, team-oriented scale, provides opportunities for communication and concentration. And it can do it at lower costs (because of higher densities). Such environments are not perfect. None are. Our interview data show is that the presumed trade-off between the greater concentration and fewer interruptions in the private closed office, and the higher levels of communication but more distractions in the open office, is not as clear as commonly thought. By creating an environment in which workers get to know each other well, and can easily visually learn and observe cues about when interruptions are best timed, the more open environment of the team-oriented bullpen benefits both communication and concentration. Preferences vs. Effectiveness Most employees, when asked what type of office they prefer or feel they are most productive in, will answer "closed" office. If what they have experienced in their working life is an "open" office that is a high-panel cubicle, then it is not surprising that they would prefer a closed office. At least until recently, relatively few American workers would have experienced a well-designed cluster or pod arrangement. The predominant office type has been the high-paneled cubicle that flooded offices for the two decades between 1970 and 1990s (and which are by no means absent today). It is also worth examining in closer detail the main complaints about "open" offices. These are about uncontrolled noise and distractions: overhearing co-workers (especially from different departments and disciplines) on the telephone and in informal meetings; and people "popping" in uninvited to chat or ask a question. To a somewhat lesser extent, concerns about confidentiality, especially in functions like human resources, finance, and legal, also frequently surface. Such distractions undermine work effectiveness, particularly when effectiveness is defined individually and organizationally in terms of individual achievement or productivity. Without doubt, working with others is more difficult and requires more personal adjustments than working alone. But if the key is not maximizing benefit along any single dimension, whether comfort, cost, or individual performance, then the greater effort required in more team-oriented open environments may be justified. Costs and Benefits of Individual Preferences Our research suggests, for example, that younger workers are more interested in learning from their peers and more experienced workers, than are older employees. Locating more experienced staff in closed offices, while increasing their comfort level and allowing them to work more productively individually, has the potential to significantly slow the development and learning opportunities for the younger workers. It also has the distinct potential to support the freezing of the older workers' development and skills, since they also lose the benefit of being pushed by younger staff to learn new skills and think in new ways about problems they have developed a fixed way of approaching over the years. Given the need to balance cost and effectiveness, the better solution would seem to be office designs that are more open and dense at the individual desk level, thereby allowing for a good number of enclosed meeting and work areas while still maintaining a moderate density overall. With wireless telephony and laptop computers, workers can easily move to one of the closed offices for a small group meeting or simply to work without interruption. Zoning In several of our research sites, what made the team-oriented bullpen effective was just this sort of functional zoning. Software developers sat near software developers; human resource people sat near human resource people. Even, or especially when, cross-functional teaming is desired, it is critical to provide clusters of people engaged in common work. Our interview data showed that concentration is possible in this kind of open environment because one could judge by looking at the other person and their computer when it made sense to interrupt and when not. It was the high-paneled cube, where to see what the person was doing meant, de facto, interrupting the person, that prompted dislike of "open plan" offices. Another form of zoning combines physical layout and user protocols or planned etiquette. In this case, as was done in KPMG offices in Stockholm, a section of a floor can be separated by screens from a work area, with those in the "quiet area" not allowed to use a phone, talk with other people, or interrupt another person in the same zone. Loosely-Coupled Settings Turning the Office Inside Out We began this report by talking about "wicked problems." They are so because by their very nature they embody competing interests and claims. The one hundred percent solution, the one everyone enthusiastically embraces always remains, like a rainbow, just out of reach. Our research does not change that. The employee who wants a closed office, for reasons of comfort, professional identity, a sense of entitlement, or to support their own personal work style and productivity, is unlikely to welcome a more open, team-oriented environment. Yet our research suggests that work, even work requiring high levels of concentration, is ultimately a social activity. Individual performance is grounded in the performance of others. If more team-oriented environments can reduce costs, increase flexibility, and help build and strengthen the social ties that underlie the fast flow of information on which organizational agility ultimately depends, then we think such environments make sense. One implication of this viewpoint is that we should consider turning inside out the way we plan offices today. Rather than thinking of the office as a place primarily for solitary activity, from which one occasionally breaks out in time and space to settings intended for social activity, we might design the office primarily as a social setting, from which one occasionally seeks out more private places for contemplation, concentration, and confidentiality. Both needs exist, but with the figure and ground, the primary and secondary functions, reversed. Part of this workplace ecology recognizes, as noted above, that not all work must or does occur in the "office" or in spaces assigned exclusively for one individual's use. The underlying premise is that space, ultimately, is not about real estate. It is about using all of the organization's scarce resources to their fullest potential to meet pressing business challenges. That means recognizing that the office as we have known it over the past 50-100 years is an "idea," not an indubitable form. It is shaped by values, technology, economics, and demography. It started out as a social space, and as we launch the 21st century, it may well become that again. End Notes:
Home
| Search | Become
a Sponsor | Links |
||||
