/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

My Space, Your Space, Our Space -

FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH ON SPACE OWNERSHIP, WORKPLACE

PERSONALIZATION, EMPOWERMENT & PRODUCTIVITY

Smart and Flexible Work and Living in Metropolitan Areas - CityWorkLifeMay 2014

My Space, Your Space, Our Space - Findings from Research on Space Ownership, Workplace Personalization, Empowerment & Productivity

Author and layout: Riikka ManninenEditors: Satu Koivisto & Emma Nordbäck

Smart and Flexible Work and Living in Metropolitan Areas (2013-2014) – CityWorkLife

Virtual and Mobile Work Research UnitAalto University

Photos: Werkheim - Hamburg 01

Technological innovations combined with outside and inside pressure for change have created a wave of physical office space transformations. There are several layers when it comes to un-derstanding how organizations work and how commonly used spaces affect users. Workplace changes and their effects have been researched extensively in the past decades and many in-teresting findings have shed new light into the ways in which offices should be designed.

The changing nature of work and the ways of working have shaken the foundations of what has traditionally been considered as good office design. New paradigms have entered the picture as we are just beginning to un-derstand the effects of the advancements in different technologies as well as new needs for effectiveness and flexibility in the work-ing life. Organizations are looking for ways

to make the best use of their spaces to cut back on fixed costs while also trying to bal-ance providing for human needs and require-ments. However, many companies have fall-en short with the difficult task of finding the optimal balance1. Another trend that has altered the workplaces of many is an ever-growing in-terest to have better collaboration within the

My Space, Your Space, Our Space -

FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH ON SPACE OWNERSHIP, WORKPLACE PERSONALIZATION, EMPOWERMENT & PRODUCTIVITY

Introduction

Hot-desking =

Non-territorial workspaces are called hot-desking offices or hoteling. They comprise of shared workspaces that must be reserved, and work materials and personal items need to be removed at the end of the day or whenever the reservation period has ended. Hot-desking removes most phys-ical markers of status, functional group boundaries and hot-desking offices uti-lize space more efficiently.Turner, G. & Myerson, J. (1998). New Workspace, New Culture: Office Design as a Catalyst for Change. & Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating Physical Envi-ronment to Self-Categorizations: Identity Threat

and Affirmation in a Non-Territorial Office Space. Administrative Science

Quarterly.0302

Sundström, E. (1986). Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories. & Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A. (2003). Personalization in non-territo-

rial offices: a study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. & Heidmets, M. (1994). The Phenome-

non of Personalization of the Environment: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Russian &

East European Psychology.

Personalization = The term comes from environ-

mental psychology: it refers to the display of personal and work-related

items or the arrangement of the work-space to distinguish the occupant from

others. Personalization can also occur to make oneself familiar with a place, both at

home and in the organization. Personaliza-tion can be done by individuals to their own spaces or by groups to their collective spaces and it can be done to places or to objects that belong to the user/s either permanently or

temporarily.

addition to enhancing cross-functional col-laboration and interaction3 these types of offices have also been praised for aiding an organization to achieve a level of organiza-tional agility and a refocus on the core com-petencies4. Consequently, some fundamental changes have also happened in the actual planning process when re-designing office spaces. Understanding the possible benefits of a well-executed office design process has reached bigger audiences and the growing trend nowadays is to aim at satisfying em-ployee needs through new office designs. The ultimate goal of such an endeavor is of-ten to maximize satisfaction and thus produc-tivity at work5. However, some researchers have claimed that achieving this can be inter-preted as a paradox since, at the same time, companies are moving towards space sharing and clear desk principles1. The controversy lays in the lack of possibilities for person-

alization and of personal control as people change desks on a daily basis and thus can-not create a space of their own anymore1. Expressing one’s identity through modification of one’s workspace has been considered as an important part of organiza-tional behavior with many implications related to performance at work. The complexity of shifting towards openness and sharing within the physical space is evident and quite top-ical. There seems to be a tension between the concept of non-territoriality and the con-cept of personalization6 and as research has

shown, the need to personalize is not a minor phenomenon: different surveys mostly done in North-America have shown that approx-imately 70 to 90 percent of the workforce personalizes their immediate surroundings in an office environment7. This behavior can include having pictures of family at sight or hanging posters or artwork on the walls, for example. Understanding the motivations be-hind this behavior provides one route toward understanding the larger context of workplace change processes going on today.

office walls. The unofficial conversations that used to be considered as needless chitchat have been proven to promote cooperation and innovation, and this evidence has not gone unnoticed by many managers2.The shift to open plan offices and, in recent years, to hot-desking has slowly knocked down many

walls that have seemed to be making knowl-

edge-sharing more difficult. These non-territorial workspaces

r e m o v e most status m a r k e r s and group

boundaries and this has been argued

to have sev-eral benefits. In

Why is personalization important to employees?A wide range of research has aimed at finding out the reasons why personaliza-tion occurs and the possible implications of loose or strict personalization policies in companies. Findings have indicated that there are several positive outcomes when a company enables and even promotes the possibilities for personalization. Being able to personalize one’s space can lead to feelings of personal control which has been found to have several benefits such as reducing stress and enhancing mental health8. One clear topic of academic dis-cussion has been the notion that person-alization might enhance a person’s attach-ment to their environments9 and, in the

end, to the actual organization itself. Sev-eral studies have also hinted that personal-ization is simply related to satisfaction with the physical work envi-ronment and job sat is fact ion10 which is one of the important indica-t o r s of life e x -pec-tan-cy11.

AN ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: CHANGE THROUGH DESIGN

04

A pioneer in the field of workplace design, Francis Duffy, addressed the importance of workplace transformation processes in re-gards to employee satisfaction and the pos-sible changes for improving overall wellbeing of employees: “An organization that wishes to change its culture – to abandon hierarchy, to encourage interaction, to stimulate creativ-ity, to accelerate innovation, to break across previously impenetrable organizational silos – would be foolish to attempt such changes while persisting with an office environment that expresses -- exactly contrary values”. He argues that far too many offices have been crafted by factory-type of thinking and they reflect values from over a century ago. The vast possibilities of physical transformation processes are relevant today and more people acknowledge this. The con-creteness of a physical design solution has the potential to transform values such as egali-tarianism, transparency and creativity into forms and layouts. Duffy continues: “physical design, with its ubiquity, its longevity and its sustainability, is arguably far the most pow-erful medium available to businesses to pro-claim their values”. Duffy’s widely read and cited article Design and facilities management in a time

of change was written almost 15 years ago and although changes have taken place since then, there is still a great amount of knowl-edge-work that happens in rather stiff spatial structures. Duffy criticizes the architects, de-signers and facility managers because of the slow pace of change in office environments. These professions would have had the oppor-tunity to anticipate emerging user demands and thus create more user-friendly office en-vironments but, according to Duffy, this un-fortunately did not happen – at least not fast enough. Francis Duffy highlighted the need for the whole design profession to reinvent itself and prove its importance to a higher degree. He argues that a more systemic un-derstanding and a better integration of de-sign, construction and space management are needed. There is also a clear need for re-search that would use comparative data from cumulative case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of using work-place design to achieve strategic purposes. Through re-design of these fields and proof of success from research we can “unleash the full potential of design to business”.

Duffy, F. (2000). Design and facilities managent in a time of change. Facilities.

The debate regarding whether a company should allow its employees to personalize has been going on for decades. An orga-nization might perceive personalization as office clutter, while an individual can see personalization as a way of establishing his or her identity at the office12. It has been proven again and again that even though a company would restrict the possibili-ties to personalize, the employees will do it anyway. These findings throughout the years have suggested that we might have a strong psychological need to personalize our enviroments9. Looking at the topic from the perspective of organizational wellbeing, it has also been proposed that allowing em-ployees to personalize can better the whole organizational climate. Research has in-dicated that companies that have allowed personalization have had less absenteeism, company costs and also the employees have tended to stay longer in the compa-ny9. Past experiences have also shed light on the possible negative implications re-garding restricting personalization. A study of three large British organizations showed the flip side of the coin: “the organizations’ strong stance against office personalization led to conflict, subversive personalization of workspace, and apathy among employees – all leading to decreased productivity”13. Personalization can take many forms and it can also happen within groups

of people. The act of personalization can be motivated by the need to associate one-self with a certain group14. Some research-ers have suggested that teams should be free to express their own identity within their work environment thus differentiating them-selves from other teams15. For example, this might mean that a peer group would attach stickers to their phones in order to create a common identity14. This kind of behavior can create a feeling of belonging6. Group per-sonalization can be one option to increase motivation of the employees but it should be done in a way that does not compromise the identification with the organization as a whole15. The possible strategy of encourag-ing group personalization is backed by a so-cial identity approach to organizational life. This approach proposes that employee rec-ognition and involvement can increase moti-vation and engagement by increasing orga-nizational identification16. Researchers Sandra Brunia and Anca Hartjes-Gosselink recently summa-rized the existing research regarding per-sonalization and its implications. They con-cluded that personalization helps individuals to place themselves in an organization, and that personalization can be linked to identi-ty, emotion, job satisfaction, work productiv-ity, control, territoriality, status, and organi-zational factors like company policy, having assigned workplaces and functional group

In the early 2000’s, quite radical suggestions were made for office designs regarding personalization: for example, Wells and Thelen suggested that high-sta-tus employees should be provided with the private space they need to display their per-

Work-place Identity =

Workplace identity refers to the distinctiveness and status self-categorizations used by an indi-vidual to signal his or her identity in a workplace. These self-categorizations include personal identity categoriza-tions, which signify a person’s intragroup distinctions and status (”I’m an efficient worker”), and social identity categoriza-tions, which signify a person’s distinctive and status-oriented affiliations (”I’m an engineer”). These identity categoriza-tions do not need to be work-related but they need to be used by an individual to define him- or herself at work.

Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office decor. Journal of

Organizational Behavior.

0706

boundaries6. The list is extensive; however, it is important to note that many research-ers have found only indirect correlations be-tween personalization and the related bene-fits. In the end, a company’s personalization policy might merely be an indicative of oth-er company policies that have a positive ef-fect on organizational wellbeing9. Therefore personalization should only be seen as one

aspect of many in regards to good policies that

can create more m o t i v a t e d personnel. One big contradic-tion in re-sea rch seems to be:

why do we ac-t u a l l y

personalize our work environments? Are we expressing our identities or are we just marking our territories? The answers are multifaceted and research supporting both views can be found. Some results have indi-cated that workplace personalization helps employees to develop a workplace identi-ty17 while, on the other hand, many results have emphasized the perspective that per-sonalization is actually a form of behavior that is mostly motivated by territoriality and the actual situation at the workplace (the personalization policies, for example). For instance, researchers Meredith Wells and Luke Thelen have suggested that an in-dividual’s personality does not predict the expression of his or her personality through personalization at the office. This would hint that personalization might be more re-lated to the actual situation of an individ-ual at the organization and thus personal-ization should be seen as a type of status marker18.

Are hot-desking environments a threat to work-place identity?Personalization is integral to the general dis-cussion regarding the current larger scale shifts in office design. In the time of the “Lap-top Era” research on personalization has tak-en new directions. Academic researchers from different fields have tackled issues regarding personalization combined with space sharing and increased mobility because these chang-es have clear effects on ownership of space at the office. Kimberly D. Elsbach from Univer-sity of California investigated the effects of new spatial arrangements that restrict per-sonalization on perceived employee well-being and satisfaction. She interviewed and observed one high-tech company’s em-ployees who had moved into a hot-desk-ing office six months before starting the research project. Her research aimed to understand the issues relating to identity threat in new non-territorial office spaces.

Elsbach’s research showed that some em-ployees felt that their workplace identities had been threatened in the process of mov-ing into this new office environment. The results emphasized the importance of per-sonalization in relation to the employees’ distinctive identities because many reported feelings of losing a part of their identity with the new arrangement. In order to communi-cate their distinctive personality traits many workers started to carry portable artifacts with them that reflected their identities. She concluded that the loss of office personal-ization “appeared to leave employees with a strong need to affirm personal distinctive-ness” but the environment did not provide many options to engage in this behavior17. Elsbach suggests that provid-ing opportunities to use both portable and permanent objects to showcase different workers’ personalities might be an appeal-

sonal belongings and this would increase their psychological wellbeing18. However, in many companies of today which see re-duced hierarchical structures as an integral part of their ways of working, this strategy can hardly be seen as an appealing option.

7 MEANINGS OF PERSONALIZATION

Found by interviewing and observing office workers in a space sharing environment.

1. Comfortable and familiar environment: personaliz-ing spaces to improve the feel of the environment. Also: seeking for familiarity by creating one’s “own” workplace with items.

2. Status and achievements: the need to showcase achievements of successful cases like photographs, trophies or having an assigned office space.

3. Territoriality: creating territories by personalizing and claiming space.

4. Control: having the control over the environment, not being disturbed when there is an important task to deliver for example.

5. Recognition, clarity, certainty, and rest: meanings given to personalization that are related to lack of personal control. People value clarity and certainty: similar routines and territories can give tranquility of the mind.

6. Identity: decreasing the anonymity at the office, recog-nition, creating a pleasant environment in your own way, memories.

7. Dehumanization: behavior against the policies that de-crease the ‘human feeling’ by personalizing the space (even though it would be against the rules).

Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A. (2009). Personalization in non-territorial offices: a study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate.

ing strategy in terms of providing long-term benefits for the whole company. However, the problem of employees feeling like inter-changeable parts in a machine and thus dis-engaging with the company has many more layers to it than the actual physical arrange-ments of an office space. Therefore, Elsbach notes that even though it is important to look at the ways in which we can increase pro-ductivity in the working life, there are still other aspects that need to be taken into ac-count. According to her, more consideration should be made in regards to enabling the expression of individuality within the office environments17. This can mean providing specific places and spaces for personaliza-tion but there are other possibilities, too.

To look into the topic more holistically, one needs to understand the physical environ-ment, and the linkages between space, work patterns and organizational culture19. Personalization policies and new spatial ar-rangements represent some aspects that, in the end, determine whether the work-ers can perform well in their daily chores at the office. Looking into a company that is known for its inspiring organizational cul-ture might reveal vital aspects regarding contemporary office arrangements and the possible need for personalized spaces. A case study in which a proper-ty consultant company Drivers Jonas LLP was examined aimed at deconstructing their recipe for success. This high-ranked

08

ter conducting a case study in a govern-mental organization which had moved into a space sharing environment: “The situa-tion at organization X shows that employ-ees used their talks and complaints about the new work environment as a new bind-ing element which probably influences the effectiveness and efficiency more than ex-pected. Increased usability might be gained when the user’s knowledge, expectations and perceptions about the new work en-vironment were better inquired, developed and implemented not only in the new work environment itself but also in development and design processes”6. The power and possibilities of a well-executed spatial change process is mentioned time and time again in the most current research. Complementary sugges-tions have also been provided through ex-perimental research. Craig Knight and Alex-ander Haslam from the University of Exeter

made interesting findings by conducting experiments in which office space man-agement was manipulated through specific conditions. The aim of these experiments was to find evidence on the impacts of dif-ferent kinds of workspace management strategies on organizational identification, wellbeing and productivity. The two experiments conducted revealed that lean conditions at the office may actually induce lower performance. The result contradicts with the popular idea that lean (minimalistic and tidy) offices would be the key to efficiency and produc-tivity22. A striking finding was that empow-ering users to participate in designing their office spaces increased productivity up to 32 %. The experiments provided consistent support to the idea that design and user empowerment play a crucial role in deter-mining people’s response to their work en-vironment22.

1110

spite of the rules of a particular design. This is why business ethics is being brought up in literature as the tensions between user experience, efficiency and effectiveness ought to be taken into close consideration by managers6. Some case examples have extend-ed the understanding of successful change processes: “it becomes clear that prepar-ing a future change in the workplace might include an explicit discussion of human needs to identification and sense- making by personalization”6. These “softer issues” have not been widely addressed by man-agers in the past, but evidence has start-ed to pile up, and a deeper understanding and consideration of the human needs is being asked for by many well-established researchers. Several topical insights were sum-marized by two Dutch researchers af-

Alternative strategies to workplace design and management

Lean Office =The lean approach regard-

ing office spaces has promoted minimalism as a pathway toward efficiency and productivity. The idea has been strongly influenced by prop-ositions made by Frederick Taylor. Key recommendations in the lean approach are that all personal items should be re-moved from workstations, there will be tight managerial control over the work-space and there is standardization of managerial practice and workspace design.Pruijt, H. (2003). Teams between Neo-

Taylorism and Anti-Taylorism. Economic and Industrial Democracy.

The positive and negative examples show-case the complexities of workplace change management. Human beings are the cru-cial factor in the success or failure of the non-territorial office concept – of any kind of an office concept. It is evident that these

change processes are not as simple as

cause-effect log-ic which would

mean that “if we change this, peo-ple will do t h a t ” 2 1 . How us-ers expe-rience the office space inf luences

their behavior in

company had been featured in the “Sunday Times 100 Best Companies to work for” (UK) listing for four years in a row when the case study was written in 2008. The company’s spaces had been designed as a multifunctional hot-desking environment and it seemed that they had worked their way out from the problem of whether the worker’s needs for privacy, identity and personal control are automatically compro-mised in a space sharing environment. The most central finding from the study was that the culture of an organization is the key factor when determining whether a workforce can own their own space in a space sharing environment. In terms of trying to increase workplace satisfaction and per-formance, the researchers identified that all space planning techniques and methods will fall short, if an organization does not have the right culture to support the ideas. One example of a practical way to give some form

of assistance to the employees in this new environment was introducing an electronic and easily accessible employee profile sys-tem. The profiles told the reader the position of the person in the company, their academ-ic and professional qualifications, previous projects and provided a link to their elec-tronic CV. This was one way of compensat-ing the reduction of possibilities to showcase one’s identity and status to coworkers in this low-hierarchy promoting environment1. The case study also brings forth another important notion: a simple path to ensure employee satisfaction is to involve end-users in the space planning process. It has been proven that employee involvement will almost certainly enhance their overall perceptions of the workplace20. The idea was embraced by Drivers Jonas LLP and their new work environment was designed as a cooperative effort by the planners, inte-rior designers and the actual users.

12

New frontiers: about partner engaged design and placemaking

Collaborative Design =

Collaborative Design expands on the ideas behind participatory

design: in collaborative design (co-design) actors or teams share an

identical goal and contribute in order to reach it. The solution for the prob-lem at hand is guaranteed by having strong constraints of direct coopera-tion. A collaborative design process is a process of negotiation among dis-ciplines and stakeholders, and find-

ing the compromises together in a transparent manner.

Détienne, F. (2005). Collaborative design: Managing task interdependencies and

multiple perspectives. Interacting with Computers.

Looking at the findings from Knight’s and Haslam’s research, their idea of empowered offices goes well with newer approaches in the field of design that are taking participa-tion into the level of “full empowerment” of the stakeholders letting them to be active participants in the design process. These novel collaborative design processes have been widely discussed and tested out but they are not commonly used in office design – at least not yet. A group of researchers from In-teractive Institute in Sweden aimed at re-fining the process of collaborative design through a real project related to workplace design. The aim for this “Experiment Office” project was to develop a design process that would better integrate the complex and fast changing conditions of today’s work environment. Their argument was that the workplace of tomorrow will be developed together with the users who are the real experts of their needs. The goal for the de-sign researchers was to construct the right kind of a setting for fruitful collaboration. In practice this meant that they created struc-tured design workshops where collaborative inquiry and the actual design took place. The researchers from the Inter-active Institute tested out the collaborative design process by utilizing various tools and design artifacts to ease the dialogue regarding possible designs of the new en-

vironment (video cards, board games, sce-nario building and interactive digital space visualization). These methods are often used for user-involvement in design and they were tailored for this specific project in order to promote creativity and facilitate a shared understanding of the de-sign problems at hand. They explained the process further: “A partner en-gaged col-laborative des i gn process d e v e l -ops new concepts through joint inter-action and dialogue. It includes active collabo-ration between us-ers, different stake-holders and designers -- The partners play an active role in exploring exist-ing workplaces and the whole making of new work environments”23. The experiment revealed that col-laborative design approaches in workplace design are possible and can lead to suc-

13

participants’ feelings of autonomy and deci-sional involvement and this led to increases in comfort, job satisfaction and productivity. However, as a corollary, these effects were attenuated when participants were disem-powered”22. These kinds of research results provide crucial pieces of information for pro-fessionals who are concerned with creating the built environment. The trend of involving users more fully in change processes, par-ticipatory design, is nowadays gaining more attention in design education and practice. Thus, to find evidence that user-involvement in office design can actually increase pro-ductivity is an important indication for the

whole design field to continue on this track. Some pioneering companies have been using participatory design methods al-ready from the seventies23 and the approach has strong roots in Scandinavia24. When participatory processes were developed in architecture and design, the focus was in promoting democracy. In a properly execut-ed participative change process, the design professionals would examine and fulfil the employee’s explicit requirements regarding

their work spaces. Nevertheless, the expe-rience has shown that the process has not always gone as planned. It has for exam-ple been noted that sometimes the level of participation remains only shallow: “The role played by the workplace designer was to let the employees feel their input had been tak-en care of and at the same time represent the client so that she/he still is in control of the overall process”23.

Participatory Design =

The activity of participation in a design process is based on the principle that the environment works better if users are active and involved in its creation and manage-ment. Users have the needed practi-cal information but often lack insight into new possibilities and implemen-tation strategies therefore the final design ought to be a common effort crafted by design professionals and users.

Sanoff, H. (2006). Multiple Views on Partici-patory Design. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture.

The gathered data provided strong evi-dence that design-led change processes can have positive effects on employees but the greatest gains seem to be made possi-ble only through involving the users in spa-

tial design and even in the space making

processes. Knight and Haslam concluded: “having in-put into the design of their work space in-creased

cessful outcomes (not chaos) through careful planning. The researchers empha-sized that the participants need to have a clear purpose in participating. This shared mission is required in order to keep the process going. Overall, the process in-dicated that collaborative methods might have much more to give in terms of user engagement than the traditional participa-tory approach but further research needs to be conducted to validate this. They ar-gued that the methods used seemed to utilize the competences of the people to a greater extent than the traditional meth-ods23. As in the case of the “Experiment Office”, many practitioners have woken up to the need of developing their product - the design process. The experiments that have tested out the possibilities of partic-ipatory and collaborative design seem to be acknowledging the complexity of de-signing for groups of people better com-pared to the old and simpler ways of con-ducting the same task. A British architect and a Professor from Sheffield University, Irina Bauman, summarized many of these new changes in mindsets in her text At

PRACTICAL TIPS

best architecture is about placemaking. In-sights from her own practice tell the story of a complicated endeavor which aims at systemic excellence: “At its best, architec-ture interfaces with its context to create man-made places that enhance our expe-rience of being together”25. According to Bauman, the future of spatial design is in resilient and sus-tainable placemaking – and achieving this is not a simple task. This means that in change processes the aim would be to understand the complexities of changing needs by finding a balance between what is permanent and what is temporary, and to understand the complexities of humans and their experience of space by finding ways of using stepping stones, temporary trials, evaluation and modification. Again, close collaboration is being asked for by Bauman, but also a crucial change in the prevailing attitudes: spatial changes ought to stem from a deep understanding, humil-ity and reflection25.

14

Enable personalization to reap the many benefits of it- Fighting the battle against workplace personalization might not be the smartest move as companies who have allowed and promoted personal-ization have been found to have a better organizational climate and less turnover.- A strict “no” to workplace personalization might also create a reduc-tion in productivity.- In an office with individual desks / rooms: build flexibility and spaces for personalization into the office design (bookshelves, tackable surfac-es, etc.)- In an office with shared desks: - Provide dedicated places for “the most important things” such as trophies. - Create possibilities to use portable identity markers: mobile carts, mobile walls, project rooms that you can acquire for lon- ger times. - Explore the possibilities of digital personalization. - Think about possibilities to have groups / departments / floors personalize spaces in some ways. - On a larger scale: if there is a need for bigger changes, con - sider “procedural personalization” = participatory and collaborative processes in designing and making of the spaces. - Remember a holistic perspective: creating a culture of an organization that supports the decisions that are being made regarding personalization and space ownership is the key.

Respect human needs- Understanding the bigger picture: user experience, effectiveness and efficiency can create tensions which ought to be noticed and balanced.- Empower people: empowerment (sincere user-involvement) creates good results so this should not be overlooked when conducting any changes at the office.- Invest in real empowerment opportunities: giving freedom to the em-ployees and then taking it away can have extremely negative impacts.- Co-creation can save costs: employees are the best experts of their own needs. Appropriate design can take place when it is done with real facts not assumptions.

Main references: 1. Pitt, M. & Bennett, J. (2008). Workforce own-ership of space in a space sharing environment. Journal of Facilities Management. 6, p290-302.

2. Fayard, A. & Weeks, J. (2011). Who Moved My Cube?. Harvard Business Review. 89 (7/8), p103-110.

3. Zelinsky, M. (1997). New workplaces for new workstyles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

4. Gibson, V. (2003). Flexible working needs flexible space?: Towards an alternative workplace strategy. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. 21 (1), p12-22.

5. Stallworth, O. E. & Kleiner, B. H. (1996). Recent developments in office design. Facilities. 14 (1/2), p34-42.

6. Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A. (2009). Personalization in non-territorial offices: a study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 11 (3), p169-182.

7. Ruark, J., Thelen, L. & Wells, M. M. (2007). Workspace Personalization and Organizational Culture Does Your Workspace Reflect You or Your Company?. Environment and Behavior. 39 (5), p616-634.

8. Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aver-sive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psycho-logical Bulletin. 80 (4), p286-303.

9. Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 20 (3), p239-255.

10. Sundstrom, E., Burt, R. & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: architectural correlates of job satis-faction and job performance. Academy of Manage-ment Journal. 23, p101-117.

11. Lueder, R. (1986). The Ergonomics Payoff: Designing the Electronic Office. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

12. Haynes, B. P. (2007). The impact of the behav-ioral environment on office productivity. Journal of Facilities Management. 5 (3), p158-171.

13. Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office decor. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior. 25, p99-128.

14. Blom, J. (2000). Personalization - A Taxonomy. Chi, p313-314.

15. Abrams, D., Ando, K. & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psy-chological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24 (1), p1027-1039. & Peters, T. J, and Waterman, R. H. (2004). In search of excellence. London: Profile Books.

16. Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A. & Reynolds K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing Social and Personal Identity Resources to enhance organi-zational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 76, p83–113.

17. Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating Physical Envi-ronment to Self-Categorizations: Identity Threat and Affirmation in a Non-Territorial Office Space. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48, p622-654.

18. Wells, M. M. & Thelen, L. (2002). What Does Your Workspace Say about You?: The Influence of Personality, Status, and Workspace on Personaliza-tion. Environment and Behavior. 34, p300-321.

19. Haynes, B. P. (2007). Office productivity: a shift from cost reduction to human contribution. Facili-ties. 25 (11/12), p452-462.

20. Duffy, F. (2000). Design and facilities mana-gent in a time of change. Facilities. 18 (10/11/12), p371-375.

21. Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information. 36 (3), p231-240.

22. Knight, C. & Haslam, A. S. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An experimental examination of the impact of work-space management strategies on well-being and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 16 (2), p158-172.

23. Johansson, M., Fröst, P., Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Messeter, J. (2002). Partner Engaged Design: New Challenges for Workplace Design. PDC02 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, p162-172.

24. Sanoff, H. (2006). Multiple Views on Participa-tory Design. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. 23 (2), p131-143.

25. Bauman, I. (2013). At best architecture is about placemaking. In: Marlow, O. & Dermot, E. Code-signing Space. London: Artifice books on architec-ture. p29-30.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /