bobb@cognos.uucp (Bob Barr) (02/01/88)
I appreciate your dilemma. About 2 years ago our company planned to build a new building, which we now inhabit. It was announced that the "open office" concept was to be used. This is the architectural propaganda for "cubicles -- no offices". I was certain that the distraction factor would drive down my productivity, and that of everyone who worked for me. Hence, I did a little research at 2 local university libraries, trying to locate studies done on the issue of how cubicles/offices affect productivity. What I found -- mostly in architectural journals -- addresses your questions and frustration. Briefly, the studies collectively seem to conclude that: > "open offices" are good for clerical workers, particularly secretaries, who need to see a lot of people during their day, and who don't do much work that requires intense concentration. > open offices are poor for the morale of all workers, particularly because they feel a lack of privacy. > the major factor that determines people's degree of satisfaction with their work environment is how much physical space they have (or appear to have -- a good illusion often helping immensely, which I can attest to since I have begun sitting beside a large window. > the major reasons for adopting an open-office concept are cost-saving reasons: 1) it is cheaper to light an open office because the wiring is simpler and the diffusion effect from central lights reduces the number of individual lighting units needed, 2) it is cheaper to heat (and air-condition) cubicled offices, because there is less ductwork that needs to be installed in the building and air circulates more freely -- no doubt a major consideration here in the Great White North, and 3) it is allegedly cheaper to maintain the furnishings with cubicles, because (in the long run) when the need to change how the work areas are laid out occurs, cubicles can be dismantled and re-shuffled much more easily that knocking down walls and putting up new ones. > No one mentions the tax advantages. I know nothing about the tax situation myself. No one in the studies I looked at tackles the issue of productivity for professional workers head-on -- probably because of the difficulty in measuring white-collar productivity. They hint that it is counter-productive for people who need to concentrate, and that people leave their desks a lot to gain privacy, but no one seems willing to try to measure how much disgruntlement affects productivity. About a year ago I changed jobs and departments. I had to move into a smaller workspace (another cubicle). Since I had less storage space for documents, I was forced to throw out all the articles I had gathered on this subject, so I can't give you my bibliography. It may help you to know, however, that there are articles out there in architectural journals on this subject. By the way, I presented all my findings to the person in charge of designing the new building. It was ignored. I wish you well in convincing your people that cubicles are a mistake.
dave@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU (Bharat Dave) (02/08/88)
Here's one book that has something to say about human behavior in various settings: `Personal Space' by Robert Sommer. This is an old reference (pub. 1969)-I read it during my undergrad study in architecture. It does not directly address issues in office design but introduces the notion of `territoriality' -both actual and perceived, from the viewpoint of behavioral psychology. Territoriality is a very fluid concept, constantly changing with the physical and social contexts in which you find yourself. In this sense, architects have got an impossible task to please everyone. Finally, it comes down to how the management views its personnel- what degree of personal choices in physical environment will it entertain for its workers. And that may be shaped by pecking order and permanence it attaches to you as an employee, and how `modular' the various projects are in the office. This discussion about cubicles vs. open offices involves `agents' that interact with each other differently. Designing an office is very similar to programming an interface that could be customized- someone has to decide if it is really wanted! - Bharat Dave dave@cad.cs.cmu.edu
hersh@boxbro.dec.com (Harry Hersh) (02/10/88)
About 5 years ago Steelcase, the office desk and cubicle manufacturer
commissioned a Gallup pole on attitudes toward office layouts. Although
I no longer have a copy of the report (it recently was purged in an
annual file cleaning), the results were clear and rather striking:
o By a large and highly significant margin, office workers
preferred offices with floor to ceiling walls. Next came
cubicles, and last came bull-pens.
o People responsible for the offices preferred bull-pens, then
cubicles, then full offices.
o People responsible for the offices had very little insight
into the attitudes of the workers in their offices.
Moreover, they really were not concerned with the workers'
attitudes.
The bottom line of the Gallup pole was that choice of office layout was
first and foremost an economic issue for management, with workers'
preferences accounting for next to nothing.
It is a little like the situation in the NFL with astro-turf. There is
clear evidence that football players experience more frequent and more
serious injuries playing on artifical grass than on natural grass. But
the artificial grass is more inexpensive to maintain. Love that profit
motive.
Harry Hersh
hersh@3D.dec.com