In previous posts, we advocated for alignment between an organization’s workplace strategy and its unique combination of current realities and business strategies, as well as its brand, values and culture, to ensure the workplace is truly tuned and tailored to that unique organization. And we made the case for supporting worker effectiveness with through needs analysis processes to understand and appropriately interpret work function and behavioral requirements.
Turning to our third key element, Efficiency, we’re focused on making the most of space and other resources, but only when doing so does not compromise alignment or effectiveness. If a space is highly efficient but not aligned with overall organizational goals, the space will not optimally support the business. If a space is highly efficient but not effective for the work that needs to be done, any cost savings in space will be more than offset in lost productivity. Do the math: My real estate consulting friends tell me that the total all-in costs of an organization’s real estate is usually about 2-3% of revenue. Improving worker effectiveness has way more upside than real estate cost savings.
We’ll quickly review the usual levers that get us to greater efficiencies: optimizing individual spaces, getting the types, amounts and attributes of team spaces right, and doing the same for shared community multi-use spaces. Because so much has changed in the last several decades, the first of these three is often the hardest to get right.
In the not too distant past, when we believed ‘work’ was mostly a solo activity done mostly at one’s desk, we used to fill each floorplate with “status-sized” sized cubicles and/or offices. Over time, knowledge work has evolved to be way more of a team sport—complex and highly interdependent—and the average knowledge worker is now only in their assigned seat about 35% of the time. The move to digital documents and storage, and thin monitors and laptop-sized (or smaller) computers has enabled cubicles and offices to get smaller and smaller, as has the general move away from office-size-as-status-symbol to activity-based. But before we all rush out and install benching and other forms of open plan, there are still jobs that are predominantly sets of solo activities, and there are functions whose predominant work practices are not about constant collaboration.
So, if size is one of our levers when it comes to individual spaces, the other is whether they are assigned one-to-one, or are shared in some form. Here again, let’s not let the tail wag the dog. Desk sharing (free-address, hoteling…call it whatever you like) should only be implemented when it’s helpful to that worker’s work processes or preferences and doesn’t undermine their or their team’s effectiveness. Form should follow function.
Any savings from the above should be reallocated to team spaces. Having pointed out that most knowledge workers are, on average, only in their individual seats for 35% of the time, spaces for concentrating or reflection, and spaces for group work in all the forms discovered while doing needs analysis should be a part of each team’s neighborhood. Add to that places to socialize, train, and host clients or other guests—those spaces shared by the entire organization—and design them to be as multi-purpose as we can make them without sacrificing their suitability, so we maximize their use.
Which brings us to our third lever: to optimize utilization, or said another way, to have most spaces occupied most of the time.
Challenge: Getting the ‘Mix’ Right
Thorough needs analysis helps us to make well-educated guesses about what range of space types in what quantities and in what proximities are needed. Utilization tracking—be it low tech or high tech—helps us to make informed adjustments once use patterns settle in. If we find, for example, that large meeting spaces usually only have 2-3 people in them, we might divide those large rooms into twice as many small ones. Or if a smaller space for focused work is only infrequently used, let’s investigate why – is it too close to noisy functions, or is on a corridor so widely used that users feel like they’re on display, or is the furniture just not conducive to long hours of heads down computer work?
This is a great segue to our fourth key consideration: adaptability. We’ll make the case for planning for change in the next post; but until then…
Calls to Action
Organizations: do not sacrifice alignment or effectiveness to efficiency. It’s not a worthwhile trade-off. Yes, individual spaces can get smaller – but don’t go too far. Three members of Jacobs wrote a great paper to answer “How Dense is too Dense.”1
And check in with teams to see what’s working and what’s not and fix the stuff that isn’t.
Designers and workplace strategists: Demonstrate that thorough needs analysis and fixing the mix increases overall utilization. Build in physical flexibility – using modularity and “kits-of-parts” to make the fixes as easy as possible to make.
References
1 Ellen Keeble, Amy Manley, and Lisa McGregor. Respecting Human Limits: Densification Research and Design. Jacobs Workplace Strategies, 2017.
