Collaboration Next Planning for the way we work now and into the future

from Workplace Advisory at Allsteel Collaboration | Next Planning for the way we work now and into the future This paper is an update to our 2012 pa...
Author: Ginger Terry
6 downloads 2 Views 2MB Size
from Workplace Advisory at Allsteel

Collaboration | Next

Planning for the way we work now and into the future This paper is an update to our 2012 paper called “Just Because You Build It Doesn’t Mean They Will Come1.” Since then, many organizations have learned a lot about how best to support the broad range of activities happening in the office. This update reinforces the logic behind reallocating space from workstations and offices to settings that support group work and the notgoing-away-anytime-soon need to concentrate; and summarizes new information about the team dynamics that are proven to correlate to knowledge worker productivity. It also updates our “checklist” of considerations when planning, provisioning, and using non-workstation/non-office spaces – so we’re again including it in this edition.

Let’s start with the widely accepted premise that work itself fundamentally changed with the advent of “knowledge work” – and continues to evolve, in the words of Judith Heerwagen, noted environmental psychologist, “…to be much more collaborative, cognitively complex and dynamic, requiring workers to possess both social skills and technological competence.”

environments that provide the team space, technology, and work protocols their employees need to collaborate – without losing site of the still-very-relevant requirement for spaces that support deep focus.

And while it wasn’t long ago that hanging out around the espresso machine was viewed as wasting time, today organizations are designing the workplace to encourage this kind of behavior; having realized that social interactions enable behaviors that contribute to team cohesion, effective information sharing, and trust – which are now proven to correlate to knowledge worker productivity2. Projects often move faster, toward more successful ends when people can share knowledge and experience, get instant feedback, build trust and camaraderie, and profit from diverse ideas and points of view. The original 2012 paper was co-authored by Steve Hargis, then with HOK’s Advance Strategies Group. See the paper here. 2 Allsteel sponsored research conducted by Advanced Workplace Associates (AWA) and The Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa), which identified six factors with the highest correlation to knowledge worker performance. In order of the strength of the correlation, they are: Social Cohesion, Perceived Supervisory Support, Information Sharing, Vision and Goal Clarity, External Communication/Outreach, and Trust. See the “Measuring Knowledge Worker Productivity” paper by Jan Johnson and Karen Plum here. 3 Cross, Rob et.al, “Collaboration Overload”, Harvard Business Review, January – February 2016, pp. 74 - 79 1

Whether it’s brainstorming an idea or developing a plan for a new product launch, the average knowledge worker spends roughly half of his or her time working with others. Data collected by Harvard Business Review over the last two decades indicates that collaboration time for managers and employees has expanded by upwards of 50%3. The challenge for organizations is to provide

1

Unfortunately, the physical plan is all too often a kneejerk reaction to aggressive density targets and/or a way to recognize status rather than a study of how work actually happens; with collaborative spaces the first to be eliminated during a “value engineering” exercise.

Instead, we’re advocating the purposeful rebalancing of space allocation4. Yes, we do agree that individual workstations or offices can be smaller, but let’s be clear about how and why we do that; and let’s make sure we balance that with a mix of team and common spaces – by understanding the nature of the most business-critical behaviors and work processes.

We have found it helpful to refine the way we talk about this range of settings – so instead of just using “I” and “We” spaces, we now use “solo,” “team,” and “common.” It helps us to be clear about who’s using a given space and what attributes might be most appropriate. Historically, a typical floor plan might assign 80% of its area to what has been called “I” or “solo” space. The other 20% was “we” or “team” and “common” spaces. In our experience, this ratio has definitely shifted – in some cases, closer to 50/50.

There are two major drivers reducing “solo” spaces as a percentage of the floorplate: they’re smaller and/or they’re used by more than one person. Smaller mostly because we‘re not storing as much “stuff” as we used to, we may not need all the layout space we once did, and technology is smaller. And, as said above, because we no longer expect to do the majority of our jobs at our desks. We’re spending way more time working in other places more conducive to particular activities, and less than we’d have thought at our desk. Desk-sharing is also a great way to improve space utilization, but again, should be thoughtfully strategized to ensure it’s an appropriate and properly supported approach5.

But with the opportunity to shrink the overall requirement for workstations or offices, comes the need to provide those “other” places – including places (and permission) to get away and think deep thoughts or finish that report without interruption. All the noise in the media these days about workers who can’t concentrate would suggest that we still haven’t gotten that part of the formula right.

So if spaces for teamwork and other shared activities represent an ever-increasing percentage of a floor plan, and are necessary to getting work done and supporting the behaviors that correlate to productivity, how can we make sure we “get them right” now and over time as work and organization both continue to evolve?

Creating the right settings for effective collaboration The “if we build it they will come” model of providing collaboration spaces for employees rarely works. Workplace experts will tell you that collaborative areas can sit empty too much of the time. This under-utilization may have several causes, including lack of “permission” or management support to work in collaborative areas vs. at one’s desk, or not providing the right type of space with the right attributes for the types of collaborative activities the group needs to perform, or simply not doing the type of work that requires collaboration.

So how do we get the formula right in order to make the best use of a real estate investment?

Savvy workplace makers follow a robust methodology for creating environments that provide the right types of settings in the most appropriate locations that truly support the range of activities and desired behaviors of an organization. This methodology takes into account several factors: • Context is critical. Workplace plans and protocols must be informed by the organization’s industry, maturity, strategy, culture, and work practices. Every organization has unique characteristics that color how they interpret work practices and behavioral protocols. • We need to thoroughly understand the work processes being supported. As stated above, many spaces dedicated to collaborative work go unused because the spaces are in the wrong place or don’t support the type of work being done. Three general types of group activities – creation, problem-solving, and knowledge transfer – can require somewhat different types of collaborative spaces.

4 5

2

See the “A Balanced Approach” blog by Amy Hill here. See the “Mobility“ paper by Eric Johnson here.

to monitor progress and enclosed but immediately accessible spaces for periodic sprint review and updates. Knowledge transfer activities may be well-supported by more traditional meeting spaces – conference rooms or training areas – where groups are larger, and the ability to easily use technology is the most critical factor. • The average worker still spends half of his or her time performing activities that require concentration. We need to strike a balance between providing spaces for collaboration and heads-down concentration. Highly creative teams, for example, likely rely on physical artifacts or visual materials and can benefit from the “over-the-life-of-the-project” display of these items – also called “visual persistence.” The proximity of these spaces to the team’s individual work areas can be slightly less important than for other types of workers, since the creative process can sometimes benefit from removing oneself from distractions of the phone or the work on one’s desk. On the other hand, teams working 24/7 towards a critical deadline or on brand-new technologies might be most comfortable in a space that merges individual areas with collaborative areas and supports a high degree of flexibility and instant reconfiguration. And is right next door. Technology teams that use agile or scrum processes as they develop both new and updated technologies require immediate daily access to the scrum board

Case Study One financial institution has been struggling with complaints from their employees across their campus, focused on the need for more collaboration space. The real estate and facilities groups were constantly hearing that no conference rooms were available when needed. By observing their current meeting spaces carefully, the company discovered that the total percentage of space dedicated to collaborative space was not that far off. Rather, the floors had the wrong mix of “scheduled and unscheduled” spaces in their portfolio, and conference spaces were the wrong sizes. The average size of collaborative areas was designed for eight people, whereas the size of a typical meeting was only three people. In general, they needed more, smaller impromptu meetings spaces to do their work.

3

• As technology advances and mobility – outside and inside the office – becomes the norm, virtual and face-to-face collaboration are both critically important. These technologies may include document sharing tools, social media for real time online collaboration, desk top video conferencing for one-to-one collaboration, telepresence suites for HD group collaboration. To ensure these tools are used effectively, protocols for virtual communication, collaboration, and document sharing must also be developed and implemented.

This list seems like common sense. Yet frequently they are not addressed, often because organizations don’t invest the time to study the organization’s work processes in sufficient depth.

Typical Floor

Measure

Total Floor Area

39,096

Collaboration Area % of Total Area

17%

Total Collaboration Area

6,373

Total Count Conference Room Seats

257

Average Meeting Room Capacity

7.14

Actual Average Meeting Size

2.78

Collaboration Room SF Per Person

24.8

Ratio Collaboration Seat Per Person

1 : 1.11

At Allsteel, we use many of the same processes and tools that are a part of our business process improvement toolkit to do that deeper dive into how work is happening. We ask groups to identify their most critical-to-the-business processes, then break those down into the activities that make up that process. Once we have those key activities identified, we can ask questions about proximity, duration, what technology is needed, etc. To help avoid planning pitfalls, and to provide settings that will truly support your requirements, we developed (and recently refined) this checklist tool to ensure you cover all the important design elements. As you interpret what you learn about the work process meant to be supported and prepare to create settings for those activities, “thingsto-be-considered” fall into three categories: Planning, Provisioning, and Use.

Planning considerations Planning involves how the space relates to its context: like how big the space should be and where – in relation to other things – to put it. Consider:

because too much “public” traffic flows past these spaces for the potential users to be comfortable either socializing or working in them.6

• Location/Proximity: Is the space a “common” space – intended to draw to it a wide range of people from across the whole organization, like a café or training room – so it should be prominent and accessible? Can you take advantage of its proximity to other destinations, such as locating a break area near the training rooms?

• Occupancy/Density/Duration: How many people, on average, should the space accommodate, and over what periods of time? How much space will each person, plus any equipment and materials, require? What infrastructure is required for the space? As you consider the number of people using the space on any given day, keep in mind that you might have a mix of staff who are there every day, and mobile workers who aren’t. For example, organizations that have adopted flexible or mobile work strategies may have more people in the office during peak periods than those with assigned seats, and collaborative space help with this capacity need.

Or is it needed by a particular team? Based on the type of activity it supports, how close to or distant from its users can the space be to remain effective? For example, a team who do lots of spontaneous, critical problem-solving will need the space to be “right there,” while their client-facing demo room could easily be located near reception or the café.

Table 1 on page 5 is an example of an organization with a variety of locations. Each has a different combination of “externally mobile” workers and workers assigned permanently to a seat. This chart compares two different locations – one with only assigned individual seats and one with an aggressive desk-sharing program – and uses different ratios of collaboration spaces to seats for individual work. Note that the number of “collaboration” seats plus

• Acoustic/Visual Privacy: How crucial is it that those using a space cannot be overheard and/or not disturb individuals using areas adjacent to the space? How important is it for users to see to the outside or for others to see in? Transparency can be distracting or helpful. When the setting is in the open, is the area too open to be conducive to the activity you’re hoping to support? We’ve seen organizations place soft seating or café settings in atriums or lobbies without some sort of buffer or separation, and have them sit empty

4

Fayard and Weeks, “Who Moved my Cube?”, Harvard Business Review, July – August 2011. 6

Assigned scenario: 100 workstations for 100 people

Number Number of Spaces of Seats

Mobile scenario: 100 workstations for 250 individuals

Total Seats

Ratio of People to Spaces

Space Type

Ratio of People to Spaces

Total Seats

Number Number of of Seats Spaces

100

100

100

1:1

Individual Workstation

2.5:1

100

100

100

3

1

3

30:1

Phone Booth

50:1

5

1

5

3

4

12

40:1

Huddle

60:1

16

4

4

7

3

21

12:1

Focus/Small Meeting Room

20:1

36

3

12

4

8

32

8:1

Project Room (Small)*

20:1

48

8

6

1

12

12

16:1

Project Room (Large)*

40:1

24

12

2

2

6

12

50:1

Conference Room (Small)

100:1

18

6

3

1

12

12

100:1

Conference Room (Large)

200:1

12

12

1

1

0

0

100:1

Library-Filing

250:1

0

0

1

100

Total Individual Seats

100

104

Total Shared/Collaboration Seats

159

1.04:1

Ratio Collaboration: Individual Seats

1.6:1

* Ratio of people to spaces based on the number of people who mostly work in teams, not the total population. Table 1. This table shows different recommendations for collaborative space based on whether employees are mobile (not assigned permanent work settings) or assigned. Adapted from the 2012 paper.

the number of individual seats in the shared scenario are enough to accommodate all 250 workers IF they all showed up on the same day. So peak capacity is handled. And that’s not including all the other “common” spaces, like the breakroom. • Likelihood of Change: How dynamic is the organization? Is it constantly reorganizing and/or changing work processes? How long is the company planning to stay in its space? Is it a short-term lease? An owned facility? Is the space supporting activities that will most likely be performed for many years to come, or is are the activities likely to evolve over time, or be completely unnecessary in a couple of years? How likely is it that users with different work styles and processes will move into the space, and will need the space to be reconfigured? If there is technology involved, how quickly might it become obsolete, or replaced with something with very different space requirements? If the space is client-facing, what levels of finishes are appropriate? Will the investment be short-term or built to last? Given the infrastructure investment required for the space, and the degree to which it may change,

5

can connections to building systems such as HVAC, power/data/voice, or things like the ceiling plane be designed to make reconfiguring the space easy and relatively inexpensive?

Provisioning considerations Provisioning considerations have to do with what needs to be in the space. As you think about how to select wall treatments, i.e., white boards, furniture, technology or other equipment, consider: • Range of Postures: Based on the range of activities the space will support, which postures should be accommodated? This includes positions like standing, leaning, lengthy sitting at a computer, casual use of a computer and lounging. Is sit-to-stand relevant, and something the organization is willing to invest in for group work spaces and not just an employee’s primary workspace? • Intended Duration: How long will users be in that posture or using the space? Is quick “in-and-out” the goal (so standing might be best), or do work sessions typically last for several hours (so ergonomics are important)? Are users encouraged to get comfortable and linger?

A tour of potential collaborative spaces

surfaces support quick team work; teams create norms for managing noise, interruptions, and access

Though not an exhaustive list of possible collaborative spaces, the examples below demonstrate how different spaces can support various situations.

Individual workstations/offices: • Open, semi enclosed or enclosed workspaces that support individual work and some collaboration • Clustered together to create neighborhoods for teams or departments

Common areas: e.g., café, internal coworking spaces • Provide a centralized open environment to support both small, informal meetings/collisions and larger group work sessions

• Flexible spatial and component kit-of-parts (KOP) streamline reconfigurations and change • Spaces may be assigned or unassigned

• Destination location – central to most workers, adjacent to major circulation paths/points of entry; may be supported by food services and co-located with training to increase utilization

Informal meeting areas: e.g., breakout spaces • Greatest variety of uses and application

• Multiple, flexible work settings – seated and standing height, open tables and booths, large and small tables, digital display and document sharing, easy access to power Project/team spaces: e.g., team/war/project rooms, scrum or sprint review spaces • Support ongoing team collaboration – providing location for team and their physical artifacts, and support for visual persistence • Enclosed or semi enclosed; typically dedicated or assigned to a team for the duration of a project • May be adjacent to individual team workspaces or between different teams/neighborhoods; often away from primary circulation • Movable tables and seating to create different work settings; vertical surfaces covered with white boards/ tack boards to support visual persistence; flexible, integrated technology to support document sharing and virtual collaboration Pods/bullpens: (originally identified in “Offices that Work,” the classic study by Frank Becker and William Sims from Cornell University) • Facilitate quick, seamless ad hoc communication and collaboration in tandem with individual focused work • Individual workspaces – open or enclosed – clustered around shared informal meeting spaces. These individual spaces support focus, and create a sense of enclosure/boundary; moveable tables and vertical

6

• Typically open to support spontaneity, but separate from open individual workspaces to minimize noise and visual disruptions • Adjacent to destination spaces – pantry, training, café, etc., located on or adjacent to major circulation • Broad range of settings – standing height tables and stools, lounge seating, worksurfaces for quick document review, access to power and data

• Technology/Materials Used: What types of information do users require as they work, e.g., large display or white boards, and/or access to digital files? Is storage needed (and if so, for what and how much)? What quantity and configurations of vertical or horizontal writing surfaces are needed? Where do they belong in the space to ensure information is easily accessible or displayed for all to see; and/ or so the materials can stay up when needed for long periods of time? Given the above, how should power/data/voice distribution be handled? Should power sources be under tables so cords don’t create tripping hazards? Or located to power wall-mounted monitors, or ceiling mounted projectors, etc.? • Degree of “Multipurpose-ness:” Is there a need for the space to frequently be used in different ways – so furniture needs to be easy to move or be reconfigured? How will reconfigurations influence technology and power placement, and other features? Keep in mind, too, that while mobility within the office is becoming the norm for many organizations (equipping their staff with laptops and cell phones), we can’t lose sight of the fact that in many industries – like oil and gas – some types of knowledge workers can be constrained by their need to access massive files or software that requires processing power not

7

typically available on mobile computing devices or laptops. Access to technology is critical to their work; and can be a limiting factor for sharing workspaces, and is often an overlooked aspect in team and common spaces. Providing availability, security, and access across all areas enable these knowledge workers to take full advantage of collaborative and social spaces.

Use considerations These considerations address how the space will be used and managed over time. • Support: does the average user know how to use the technology/equipment, scheduling software, etc., or are instructions available or a help line accessible? If activities/needs change, and the space needs to be modified accordingly, do user groups know who to contact/how to make that known? • Protocols: Is the space used only by a specific team or department, or is it considered a common space available to all? What are the protocols for scheduling – is it on the calendar tool, or on a first-come-firstserve basis (can you hold it for days/weeks/months or only for hours?) What are the protocols for duration (can’t stay in a focus room for more than four hours), or the condition of the space when you finish with it (walls clean of writing, furniture back to its original arrangements)?

What aspects of the space can the users “mess with” themselves to better meet their needs? Do they know that, and is it clear to all that they have permission to do so?

Work continues to change from primarily repetitive tasks to a mixture of creative work and complex problemsolving, requiring a broad range of different spaces that accommodate specific collaborative activities and support change hour-by-hour or day-by-day. Collaborative spaces must be both flexible and evolutionary in order to optimize space and support these evolving work patterns7.

These spaces are already a large part of our spatial vocabulary and becoming even more so, making it increasingly important to “get it right” – matching the space and its attributes to the work and all of the activities it needs to support. Different kinds of work mean different requirements for privacy, ownership, spontaneity, technology, and the “persistence” of visual display.

Collaboration in the future Experts all agree that our world is only getting more complex and the need to put our heads together to solve difficult problems will only become more and more pronounced. The disagreement comes in what forms collaboration will take and how collaboration truly supports effectiveness and productivity.

Those who embrace technology believe that the workplace of the future will include a mélange of enhanced social networks, holograms, and virtual reality simulation; and that our real world and virtual worlds will collide – driving the need for highly advanced “theater like” immersion rooms as well as a reduction in the number of face to face meeting spaces.

Others believe that the need for face-to-face interaction is on the rise and that our collaborative spaces need to become more like our living room – relaxed, comfortable settings for developing trust, a deeper understanding of culture differences, and the possibility for common ground.

Most likely, we’ll have a combination of both high tech and high touch; while the workforce will continue to evolve to become even more diverse and demanding, and technology will continue to advance and enable new ways of working. How all these factors will shape the workplace has yet to be revealed. In the meantime, studying how, when, where, and why people collaborate, along with the informational, social, and personal resources required for effective collaboration is the best method for rightsizing the workspace and building a platform for effective communication at all levels in the business7.



Cross, Rob et.al, “Collaboration Overload”, Harvard Business Review, January – February 2016. 7

8

References

Workplace Advisory at Allsteel

Cross, R. et.al, “Collaboration Overload”, Harvard Business Review, January – February 2016.

The Workplace Advisory team listens. And we apply research and our extensive workplace experiences and insights to assist organizations develop and implement a situationally appropriate workplace strategy: one that aligns with their organizational culture and business goals, supports their workers’ ability to work effectively, utilizes their real estate assets as efficiently as possible, and is highly adaptable to changing business and work practice requirements.

Fayard, A. and Weeks, J. “Who Moved My Cube?”, Harvard Business Review, July – August 2011. Hill, A. “A Balanced Approach”, September 2014. Johnson, E. “Mobility”, August 2014. Johnson, J. and Plum, K., “Measuring Knowledge Worker Productivity”, September 2015.

INSIGHT from Allsteel The INSIGHT mark identifies material – papers, presentations, courses – created specifically by the Workplace Advisory team to share our workplace strategy knowledge and perspective. Additional INSIGHT material may be found at allsteeloffice.com.

About the Author Jan Johnson is the Vice President of Design and Workplace Resources at Allsteel, a US-based office furniture provider. Allsteel works to demystify the office planning process by helping customers align their workplace strategy with their business strategy. With an extraordinarily accessible team of partners and a highly adaptable portfolio of furniture and architectural walls, Allsteel addresses customers’ needs across the entire workplace – today and tomorrow. Jan has spent her career strengthening the correlations between business strategies and the planning, design and management of workplaces. She is a highly respected workplace strategist; leads Allsteel’s Workplace Advisory team; and frequently writes, speaks, and teaches.

Allsteel Inc. Muscatine, Iowa 52761-5257 allsteeloffice.com

(06/16)

©2016 Allsteel Inc. Allsteel is a registered trademark.