Thanks for sharing this. I found the HBR version <http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/research-cubicles-are-the-absolute-worst/>of this article particularly insightful thanks to its regression analysis into main frustration factors and impact of these factors on overall worker satisfaction (see spider diagram)
There's a *big difference* between creating an *open-plan office* (where there is only open work stations and some meeting rooms), and designing a *collaborative workspace* (whether that using coworking or activity-based working principles) that truly caters to the working and personal needs of users (often incorporating a variety of work settings). "Lack of sound privacy" and "lack of space" are not direct outcomes of an open-plan office but a *poorly designed open-plan office*. I've seen and heard plenty of first-hand examples from poor implementation and execution of an "open-plan office" (giving the name a bad rap and resulting in statistics like this survey). The HBR article notes that the* amount of space* was both the most* frustrating and greatest determinant to overall worker satisfaction,* yet this c*ontradicts our experience* in the coworking industry. We have some of the* highest density of worker populations* (higher than any activity-based corporate workplaces) and yet our members like our workspace so much and feel it contributes to their productivity that they actually *pay to work *in our spaces. It makes me question whether it is really the amount of space (e.g.* in square meters/feet* per person) or the access to the *right type of space* that is the biggest challenge / opportunity. In the research presented, a variable representing *access to a variety of workspace types* was not included. In our experience, people *don't mind being in a high-density *space, so long as they have the access to facilities to *support what they need to do* (private phone booths for phone calls, cafe style environment for informal meetings, sufficient formal meeting spaces, solo work booths for focused solo work etc). At Hub Australia, we have incorporated a variety of different spaces (including things like Buzzihoods <http://www.buzzispace.com/products/buzzihood> and small rooms for solo focused work) to ensure people have the "sufficient space" to make phone calls and do uninterrupted work. To me, this shows that the "access to space" identified in the research may not be specifically access to a certain *quantity of space*, but the *availability and variety of spaces*. The most successful work style transitionsalso ensure a sufficient level of culture change readiness and management is undertaken. If time is taken to *consult with the users* to understand their *current and future use* and need states, and invite them to *participate actively *in the changes it's likely to be much more engaging and successful. I recommend taking 6-9 months to fully understand user needs and begin to prototype physical workplace designs. On Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:56:29 PM UTC+11, Will Bennis, Locus Workspace wrote: > > > http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/nov/18/open-plan-offices-bad-harvard-business-review<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2F2013%2Fnov%2F18%2Fopen-plan-offices-bad-harvard-business-review&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEKtU8vR-omH_T_hqzXQqQ-dHpVbw> > > Putting this out there because I suspect what gets posted is generally > filtered toward the "coworking positive". > > While cubicles are the worst, this article is about shortcomings of > open-plan offices more generally. > > Putting aside the obvious fact that even if open-plan offices aren't for > everyone, they're certainly preferred by many of us, my existing bias has > been that most independent workers would do better (in terms of > psychological health as well as productivity and work quality) over the > long run in a social work environment than in a private/enclosed office. > But articles like this make me wonder if that really is just my own bias. > > Most of the findings suggested are contrary to what I would expect for > independent workers, and I wonder how much the results here may be > contingent on working in an organization (where being in an open plan > office also corresponds to being lower in the work hierarchy and where many > of the people you're working alongside are implicit competitors). > > Thoughts? Where does this article go wrong (other than suggesting one size > fits all)? Does it suggest that ideal coworking space design would work > include ample opportunities for more private work and more isolated > collaboration? > > Will > -- Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
