At our recent Design and Management of Learning Environments conference, Ian Stickland of Charcoalblue spoke about his work designing and installing auditoriums, not just in learning environments and theatres, but also in workplaces.
Whilst he covered the effects of the digital age in both the design and use of lecture theatres and presentation spaces, even more interestingly he dwelt too on the why and how of designing spaces that enhance the relationship between the presenter and their audience. So once again the importance of engagement was highlighted as a driving and necessary force in the design of a productive space.
The session also drew on the rich history of theatre, teaching and storytelling spaces to explain the fundamentals of auditorium design.
We don’t usually release our conference videos except to our delegates, but just on this occasion we really wanted to share this with you!
Filmed and edited by our friends at McLeod Audio Visual.
From Day 1, the new HQ for the International Olympic Committee, Olympic House in Lausanne, has been positioned not only as a construction project but also as a transformation project by the IOC.
As a result, a user centric approach was implemented to define the needs which were the basis for the international architecture competition launched by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Out of the 12 architecture companies selected to present a project, Danish architecture firm 3XN was the one selected by the IOC to design and build Olympic House, in a consortium with local swiss architect Itten+Brechbühl.
After a 7-year long process, Olympic House was inaugurated last month on 23 June 2019.
We’re delighted that Nicolas Rogemond, programme manager at the IOC and Søren Nersting, senior associate at Danish architects 3XN will be at our Workplace Trends Copenhagen conference on 19 September to present how they have collaborated to make sure the user needs were translated in the architecture of Olympic House.
Photo Credit: Copyright IOC/Adam Mork
In 2008 Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein published their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
‘Nudge’ is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and behavioural economics which proposes positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions as ways to influence the behaviour and decision making of groups or individuals. Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, like education, legislation or enforcement. The concept has so far influenced British and American politician and several nudge units exist around the world at the national level (UK, Germany, Japan and others) as well as at the international level (e.g. World Bank, UN, and the European Commission).
Our friends at Netherlands-based WorkWire have developed a new methodology called Workplace Nudging, that addresses behavioural challenges and psychological resistance to change in the workplace and is aimed at giving employees a gentle “push” in the right direction.
The concept of Workplace Nudging is directed at influencing human behaviour, but does not force a particular choice. It has a positive nature, as it focusses on offering attractive alternatives for current behaviour habits.
The design of a Workplace Nudge is based on two aspects: 1) the motivation to show specific behaviour and 2) the ease with which new behaviour can be implemented. And it will always answer the key question: how can we make it easier and more fun for employees to change the way they work?
I’m delighted that WorkWire’s managing partners, Esther Roelofs and Simone Leenders, will be speaking at our Workplace Trends London Conference this October, outlining their Workplace Nudging methodology and giving delegates some prime case study examples of successful implementations.
Our current list of attendees and speakers are looking forward to seeing them there. I hope you can join them!
Workplace Trends London, 15 October 2019
The debate on open plan versus enclosed offices rages on, but it’s not binary, it’s not black or white, it’s not a dichotomy.
Plus office occupants appear to have different preferences from the wide range of workplace design solutions that are available. We need to understand what drives these individual preferences. Is it factors like personality, personalisation, flexibility, sense of belonging and familiarity that affect where people prefer to work?
Together with partners Nigel Oseland of Workplace Unlimited, and Herman Miller, Workplace Trends is conducting independent research into people’s preferences for their work environments.
As part of the study we’d be very grateful if you could complete a short questionnaire. It takes less than ten minutes and as a thank you for your time you can choose to enter a prize draw for a free ticket to a Workplace Trends Conference and also to receive an early copy of our research report.
Please also share this page and our survey with your employees and colleagues!
Click here to take the Office Preferences Survey
PS Registration for our next London Workplace Trends Conference is open now – will you be there?
Catherine Gall of Steelcase, speaking at our 2012 Workplace Trends Conference, on Office Culture and Wellbeing.
It’s interesting to look back on this six years later. Workplace has definitely moved on, but there’s still much to do.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-pGEf_9ss&w=560&h=315]
Understanding local culture is vital to using space as a key strategic tool for global organizations. Whether you think your company is global or not, you’re global. Businesses compete in a global marketplace.
Catherine presented new research that demonstrates the importance of understanding the differences in how people work, their sense of hierarchy and teamwork, how they manage others, negotiate, and conduct knowledge work activities.
Louis Lhoest of Veldhoen + Co, speaking at our 2012 Workplace Trends Conference, on the concept of ABW, just as relevant today as it was then.
According to Wikipedia, the term “activity based working” was first coined in the book the Art of Working by Erik Veldhoen, Dutch consultant and author of the book The Demise of the Office.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSYXmrrF04&w=560&h=315]
Society is changing, technology is changing even faster and the complexity of our world and overload of information is giving people and organisations new challenges. Reflecting on this there is no other answer than that our past and current ways of working will not be able to match the needs these changes bring about.
Customer demands rise, employers behaviours change and organisations must be able to cope with continuous change in order to survive and flourish. New ways of working are inevitable and will help organisations and individuals to meet the new challenges.
Activity Based Working is a way of looking at how work could be organised and supported differently. It does not offer solutions but provides a framework for developing and realising new ways of working.
More info on ABW and a short animated video can be found on Veldhoen’s website here.
We aim to highlight new thinking at Workplace Trends events. Happiness and wellness are today’s buzzwords, but even way back in 2012 we were honoured to have Nic Marks, whose happiness and wellbeing research methodology is world-renowned, give the keynote at our Workplace Trends autumn conference.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Bf7ilDUrw&w=560&h=315]
Sometimes people think that happiness is somewhat frivolous in a business context but Nic argues that happiness is in fact highly functional. Happiness helps people build stronger relationships, become better able to deal with unexpected events and be generally more creative and innovative. People are happier at work if they are able to be themselves, have a sense of control and progress, are surrounded by people they along with and importantly feel their work is meaningful and socially valuable. A focus on happiness can help make organisations higher performing as well as a better places to work.
Nic is perhaps best known for his trailblazing work on the Happy Planet Index, National Accounts of Well-being and the Five Ways to Well-being which is used extensively within health and education institutions as well as within governmental policy. Nic is the founder of Friday, an organisation that changes the world of work for the better and is a fellow of nef (new economics foundation) and on the board for Action for Happiness. Read more about Nic at https://nicmarks.org/about/
Nigel Oseland’s introduction to our recent Workplace Trends Conference in London, 17 October 2018.
This is particularly useful if you’d like to find out more about the purpose and thinking behind our events.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2mG5MI4DiI&w=560&h=315]
Our next event is the Workplace Trends Research Spring Summit in London, 21 March 2019.
In his introduction to our recent Workplace Trends Autumn Conference in London: People, Place, Performance, Nigel Oseland referred to the Workplace Zoo. Here’s his original blog post from back in 2012 – still as relevant today for the workplace and learning environments as it was then then.
I visited Colchester Zoo over the Christmas holidays and was really impressed with the quality of the animal enclosures. Clearly a lot of thought had gone into their design and a great deal of effort made in meeting the animals’ needs and making them comfortable. This was evident in the way the animals behaved and through the success of their breeding programme.
It got me wondering whether any lessons learned in zoo design are relevant to the workplace. However, I am not the first to make this comparison. Judith Heerwagen suggests “For insights, it is useful to look not at buildings, but at zoos. Zoo design has gone through a radical transformation in the past several decades. Cages have been replaced by natural habitats and geographic clustering of animals. And, as in nature, the animals have much greater control over their behaviour. They can be on view if they want, or out of sight. They forage, play, rest, mate, and act like normal animals”[1]. She continues “A key factor was concern over the animals’ psychological and social well-being. Zoos could keep animals alive, but they couldn’t make them flourish”. Heerwagen proposed that we learn from the new philosophy of enriched zoo enclosures, providing for well-being rather than simple survival, but can we also learn from the basic design principles in zoo enclosures?
Provision of a suitable environment is the most fundamental of five key principles in zoo practice – “the temperature, ventilation, lighting and noise levels of enclosures must be suitable for the comfort and well-being of the particular species of animal at all times”[2]. Painstaking effort and meticulous detail has been taken to ensure the enclosures at modern zoos provide each species and sub-species of animal with the best environment to allow them to “flourish”. In contrast, in the workplace, post occupancy evaluations (POEs) repeatedly show that satisfaction is low with temperature, ventilation and noise[3]. Although much effort is made to ensure that comfortable environments are provided in the workplace, POEs often show satisfaction with comfort is significantly below 50%. Individual preferences, behaviours and activities mean it is difficult to provide comfort for everyone, but such a, repeatedly, low level of satisfaction is neither acceptable nor considered good design. Similarly, when commuting into London last summer when temperatures on the Underground reached 40°C, as I stood sweating in a crowded carriage I often wondered to myself why it is illegal to transport livestock at temperatures above 35°C but not humans[4].
I am a fan of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs[5]; he proposed that for humans to perform to their maximum capability several categories of needs must be met in acceding order. The lower order needs refer to comfort and safety, the basics of zoo enclosures, and if these fundamental needs are not met then our performance is inhibited. In contrast, the higher order needs refer to more psychological, emotional and social factors. Interestingly, another core provision for animal enclosures is the opportunity to express most normal behaviour – “accommodation should take account of the natural habitat of the species and seek to meet the physiological and psychological needs of the animal”[2]. I have previously explored the psychological needs of humans in some detail and have also expressed my concern that they are not being met in modern homogenised workplaces[6]. It seems that a focus on space efficiency and reduced property costs override the individual needs required for maximum well-being and performance in the workplace.
It might be argued that zoo enclosure design is easier than workplace design as it accommodates a single species with a basic animalistic drive for survival. Firstly, humans have evolved into different races that have adapted to different climates, but nevertheless we are one species. Secondly, Richard Dawkins postulated in theSelfish Gene[7] that the single motivator for human behaviour is survival. So, on the one hand it could be counter-argued that both the design of zoo enclosures and workplaces comes down to a thorough understanding of the occupants’ needs and designing to meet them. Although we share the territorial and social behaviours of animals, these are often overlooked in the workplace. In addition, I believe that there are many other factors that drive how humans behave on a daily basis. We are a complicated species, separated from the animals by our intelligence and personality, as well as neo-cortex size and opposable thumbs. We know that specific personality traits, e.g. introvert versus extrovert and internal versus external, lead to certain behaviours and needs. In a zoo, if an animal exhibits a particular characteristic that requires a specific environmental adjustment for them to “flourish” then it is very likely that the zoo keeper would make the provision. However, this is not the case in the workplace; we provide a homogenous environment for a “single species” and there is little recognition of individual differences and the associated requirements to enhance comfort and performance.
Although Heerwagen beat me to the analogy between the workplace and zoo enclosures, I think I was the first to compare the modern workplace to chicken coups[8]. Battery-farm hens are accommodated in high density environments with poor daylight and ventilation. In contrast free-range hens have lots of space in which they can roam and explore, and have access to the outside with unlimited daylight and ventilation. Battery hens are sad unhealthy chickens with a short life-span, whereas free-range hens are happy, healthy, inquisitive and playful chickens that live around five times as long as a battery hen. In terms of productivity, there is a high yield of eggs per sqm for battery hens, but the quality of the eggs is poor and the demand and market value of them is low compared to free-range eggs which offer a higher return on investment. So I recommend free-range workplaces with high quality space which offers people achoice of environments where they can explore and socialise or alternatively seek privacy. I wonder if the original bürolandschaft office might be considered free-range whereas the modern open-plan office is more akin to a battery-farm?
So isn’t it about time that we follow the example of the modern zoo and design workplaces so that individuals (and businesses) flourish rather than simply survive?
References
From an original post by Nigel Oseland at the blog of Workplace Unlimited,
Photo by Waldemar Brandt on Unsplash
Further in our series of guest blogs by speakers and supporters of our up-coming Workplace Trends Autumn Conference in London: People, Place, Performance, HB Reavis’ Michal Matloň has some observations on fashion in the workplace (no, not apparel).
The urge to follow fashions is strongly ingrained in our nature. Imitation is one of the basic learning mechanisms that we use as children to quickly adopt behaviour appropriate for the society we live in. Fashion saves us from burdensome decision making, because it offers us an easy, socially accepted solution to any problem. Do what other people do and the worst thing that can happen is that you make the same mistake as everyone else.
This is not so bad if the effects of our decisions apply only to ourselves. When wearing fashionable, but uncomfortable clothes, the only miserable person will be us. But it’s something very different if we make decisions based on fashion that influence daily lives of many other people. The reason is that fashion helps ideas and solutions spread quickly, based on shallow or non-existent understanding of why it emerged in the first place.
And so, managers, architects and consultants are often caught in this trap of fashionable thinking. Instead of thoroughly analysing the real and specific needs of their organization, employees or clients, they limit their scope to what they see others are using. They let their fear of judgement prevail over actually choosing a superior solution that might not, at first glance, look that well. They fear others might say it’s uncool, old-fashioned or perhaps, boring.
As a part of a certain project, I’ve been watching dozens of videos of office tours in American technological start-ups and companies. I’ve been noting down the characteristics and features these offices have and the way they look. After finishing, I realized, that with some minor differences, they are all the same. We think these companies carry innovation in their hearts. We expect them to be radically open to making things better, even if it means being different than everyone else. But the reality doesn’t match. Because they too, only follow the fashion.
So, you could ask: how can we expect a manager in a corporation or an architect in an established studio to heroically face the social pressure to conform? I say we should. Because the inability to do so has already created many working environments, which, although fashionable, don’t serve the real purpose of enabling people to work in the most effective and enjoyable way.
Fashion (supported by short-term financial goals) brought us the incorrect use of the open-space environment for purposes for which it’s not fit. Fashion allowed us to easily sell it under the claim that it increases the quality of collaboration, while it can often do the complete opposite. Fashion helped us decrease our productivity, while feeling good about the result.
And there are many other fashions. They change in time and are often cyclical. But what never changes is the fact, that we should invest the majority of our energy into solving the most fundamental and timeless problems, which often has the highest impact, while looking inconspicuous from the outside.
It’s possible that the happiest and the most productive workplace in the world will never show up in your social media feed. Because who would click on such a boring thing?
Guest post by Michal Matloň of HB Reavis.
Michal will be speaking on “Crisis of Focus: What we are forgetting about in the age of connectedness” at Workplace Trends London on 17 October 2018.
Photo by Hello I’m Nik on Unsplash