Mark Ng . Stage 3 Architecture . Dissertation . Newcastle University . 2018 – 2019

1

ARC3060 Dissertation in Architecture Studies de5: Architecture’s Unconscious, Kati Blom

Student no. 160534838 A dissertation written in partial fulfilment of the BA (Hons) Architecture degree 2019.

Copyright @ Ng Ka Chun, Mark. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements I wish to offer my immeasurable gratitude to those who have supported me throughout the dissertation journey.

To my supervisor, Kati Blom, for her exceptional guidance and supervision.

Her extensive knowledge in the field of architecture and psychology are truly valuable and crucial to the completion of my dissertation.

To Dr. Juliet Odgers, for offering insights and useful information during her dissertation tutorials.

To two students from Stage 3 architecture of Newcastle University, for their time and effort in participating in interviews.

To my parents, for their unconditional love and support throughout the process.

1

THE IMPOSSIBLE OFFICE TRINITY Towards a New Typology of Flexible Workplace Design

Keywords Personalisation, Privacy Regulation, Activity-based Workplace, Open-Plan Office, Workplace Flexibility, Modular Furniture

2

3

Abstract

From the Taylorism movement to the cubicle farm, the idea of the modernist open-plan has been highly influential to the development of office design since the last century. Its shortcomings, nonetheless, is more evident than ever with more corporations adopting this type of workplace arrangement. In response to its deficiencies including a lack of privacy and a rigid office hierarchy, the more innovative activity-based approach has been introduced as an alternative which encourages workplace flexibility with the introduction of a wide variety of working spaces. Concerns are however paid on the problem of workspace personalisation with the random and flexible nature of such design approach, and the field of office design is waiting for the improvements of the current strategies or even a new way of designing the office environment.

In search of the future of workplace design, rather than overfocusing on the imagination of how the future of the society will shape the office culture, perhaps a looking back to history and a critical evaluation on the different interests of stakeholders and their psychological motivations behind will be more pertinent ways to the solution. Therefore, the dissertation will start by examining the history of office design as well as the psychology of office occupants in relation to their working environment. This will ultimately lead to a site investigation on the studio culture of the Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, followed by a proposal for the improvement of the current design approach as a possible future office typology.

4

Contents Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Introduction

7

1.1 Background Information 1.2 Aims and Objectives 1.3 Research Methodology

9 11 12

History and Development of Workplace Design

13

2.1 The Earlier History – A Brief Introduction 2.2 Recent Development

15 19

2.2.1 Cubicle Farm – Liberation to Standardisation (1980s – present)

2.2.2 The Open Plan Revival – Tearing Down the Wall (1990s – present)

2.2.3 Activity-based Workplaces – Uniformity to Diversity (1990s – present)

Open-Plan Offices and Activity-based Workspace: A Psychological Point of View

27

3.1 Personality Psychology

29

3.1.1 Extraversion and introversion

3.1.2 Locus of Control

3.1.3 Accommodating the different personalities: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based Workspace

3.2 Social Psychology

3.2.1 Visual Privacy

3.2.2 Social Interaction

3.2.3 Retreating to private spaces: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based

35

Workspace

3.3 Environmental Psychology

5

3.3.1 Personalisation of workspace

3.3.2 Identity-oriented marking

3.3.3 Control-oriented marking

3.3.4 The conflicts of choice: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based Workspace

41

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Site Visits to the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (Newcastle University)

47

4.1 The Students’ “Disobedience” 4.2 Findings and Analysis

49 51

4.2.1 Altered Space: Personalisation

4.2.2 Altered Space: Privacy Regulation

4.2.3 Unaltered Space

4.3 Conventional Office Typologies Reconsidered

61

A New Approach to Flexible Workspace

63

5.1 Solving the “Impossible Office Trinity” 5.2 Lessons from the Action Office and the Principle of Affordance 5.3 The New Office Prototypes

65 67 69

5.3.1 High Degree of Personalisation

5.3.2 High Degree of Privacy Regulation

5.3.3 Flexible Workstation Arrangement

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

81

Bibliography

85

Illustrations

88

Appendix I

95

Appendix II

97

6

Fig. 1 Atrium of the Larking Administration Building by Frank Lloyd Wright.

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

8

Chapter 1

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Information 1. Duffy, F and Hannay, P. (1992). The changing workplace. London: Phaidon.

2. Corporate Partners Program (2018). Open Concept Office: Good for Business? Los Angeles: Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at University of California, p. 6.

3. Shafaghat, A., Keyvanfar, A., Lamit, H., Mousavi, S.A. and Majid, M.Z.A. (2014).

Open plan office design features affecting staff’s health and wellbeing status. Jurnal Teknologi, 70 (7), p. 85.

4. Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P. and Janssen, I. (2011). An end user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), pp. 122-135.

9

The office design has long been dominated by the typology of open-plan arrangements which grew in popularity with the emergence of the industrial-style “Taylorism” in the early 20th century. The open-plan office is characterised by a rigid office layout with the accommodation of a large number of workers within a large space. Its emphasis on efficiency has been welcomed by corporations as financial benefits such as the ease of re-arrangement, higher net usable area and density of occupants make it a cost-saving alternative to private cubicle offices.1 With about 70% of offices designed with an open-plan in 2017,2 a plethora of research has nonetheless revealed its negative effects on the occupants’ overall satisfaction and productivity. Believed to encourage collaboration among co-workers, open plan offices are found to increase the level of workplace noise, increase external distractions and deprive the workers of their privacy, reducing their job satisfaction and performance on their work.3

With the society quickly changes from an industrial-oriented to a knowledge-based economy, together with the advancement in technology, there are a shift on the understanding of the role of offices as well as their values on corporations and employees. An emphasis on innovation, creativity and flexibility is gaining its strength, replacing the mundane repetitive industrial way of working mentality. Telecommunication technologies and computers allow employees to work at any time and in anywhere. The changes in the way employees work, the requirements on workplace environment as well as the degree and ways of interactions all drive designers to adapt their design to the changing socio-economic patterns. Activity-based workplace has now become a new trend of workplace design as a substitute for the open-plan offices.

The activity-based working is a workplace design approach that tries to flexibly accommodate a wide variety of programmes varying in privacy. It recognises the difference in the activities employees engage in and the different types of work setting to accommodate these activities.

The traditional office layout is transformed into a more flexible layout with which employees are now given freedom of choice in how, when and where they work. However, with a strong focus on flexibility, adaptability and the availability of choices, this new approach to office design in giving employees more options to their working programmes and schedule is however challenged by some of the critics, who suggested that employees do not change workspaces as often as anticipated by this approach,4 and many prefer to have their personal workspace. The concept of flexible design therefore seems to be in conflict with users’ preference on personalisation of workplace.

Chapter 1

The above raises questions on the type of office design widely adopted in modern times. Should the open-plan office approach be totally abandoned owing to its lack of concern on employees’ need for privacy?

Is the flexibility of the activity-based workspace a blessing or a curse for employees which does not require such “flexibility”? Is the activity-based approach the final solution to the defects of the open-plan office design?

If the answer is no, what then will be an alternative typology of office design that can overcome the deficiencies of the two dominant workspace design approaches? Despite the shortcomings of the open-plan office and the activity-based approaches, they are not without their benefits with respect to the employees and the corporations. Therefore, the research will follow an approach of investigating the office psychology of the employees with an attention paid on the concerns of corporations on office design. The merits and weaknesses of the two approaches will be thoroughly examined, with careful consideration of a new path towards the future of workspace design.

10

Chapter 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The aim of the dissertation is to reflect on the two most prevalent approaches of current workspace concept (open-plan offices and activitybased offices) through the study of psychology literature on office design as well as a site visit aiming to investigate preferences of the occupants’ use of space as well as the conflicts arisen on their choice. Therefore, the objectives towards the aim are: 1) To compare the effectiveness of open-plan and activity-based workplace environment in enhancing employees’ job satisfaction.

2) To analyse different schools of psychological theories and their application on workplace design.

3) To investigate the potential conflicts between employers and employees with respect to their concerns over the layout and arrangement of office design.

4) To suggest improvements the current design elements of the working environment, and to consider an alternative approach which solves the current problems of the two types of office design as well as the conflicts between the two parties with regard to the issue.

11

Chapter 1

1.3 Research Methodoloy

Literature Review A thorough and critical analysis of the literature related to my research topic will be conducted. The literature review regarding theories of personality, social and environmental psychology and its application to workplace design will be studied. The advantages and disadvantages of open-plan office design and activity-based workplace design will be assessed based on the suggested psychological theories with the support of case studies.

Observation and Documentation An observational site study to Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape stage 3 studio space will be conducted. Photos of the working spaces will be taken and the patterns of the use of studio space by the students will be documented and examined.

Interviews Interviews of two stage 3 architecture students will be conducted.

Questions ranging from the personality of the interviewees, the patterns of their use of studio space, their opinions on the open-plan workspace and the shared workstations as well as their feelings towards the level of privacy and interaction in the studio will be asked. A coherence of results is expected to be found with the previous literature review, and gathering more personal and first-person experience on the use of space is also hoped to generate more innovative ideas and inform my suggestions on workspace design.

12

Fig. 2. Interior of Johnson Wax Headquarters by Frank Lloyd Wright.

13

Chapter 2: History and Development of Workplace Design

14

Chapter 2

Chapter 2: History and Development of Workplace Design 2.1 The Earlier History – A Brief Introduction 5. Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, p. 4. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi. it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/ Book%20-%20History%20 of%20the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018]

The office design layout (fig. 3 and 4) in this period was to a large extent in the form of private offices which can be defined as offices with a large floor space separated by permanent walls to form a number of individual offices.5 Officials with higher administrative positions usually work in the corner offices and are exposed to two sides of the window.

There also have a greater degree of privacy and occupy a larger square footage.

Fig. 3. Layout Plan of a Private Office in Wainwright Building,

by Louis Sullivan, St. Louis.

(1890).

Fig. 4. The Easiest Way, an American drama directed

by Jack Conway depicting a private office (1931).

15

Chapter 2

Chapter 2

Fig. 5. A typical Taylorist openplan offices in the 1930s.

Fig. 6. The layout plan of the Johnson Wax Building, by Frank Lloyd Wright, Racine.

(1937).

Nonetheless, the introduction of modern materials like steel and glass and technologies like the elevator, together with effect the two World Wars and the economic crisis in the late 1920s and 1930s, drove corporations to take a more economical approach to office design known as the Taylorist open-plan offices (fig. 5 and 6), which are offices imitating the factory production line spatial arrangement by lining up clerical workers in rows with large rooms.6 Frederick Taylor, the father of the Efficiency Movement, hoped to break down complicated tasks into simple, repetitive acts to employees. Uninterrupted workflow and close supervisions of workers by seniors were made easier with such an open office layout. It also helped companies to reduce the costs by fitting more desks and workers into a room compared to the private cellular offices.

6. Ibid, p.5.

16

Chapter 2

7. Rassia, S. T. (2017). Office Building: A Brief Historical Overview.

In: Workplace Environmental Design in Architecture for Public Health.

SpringerBriefs in Public Health. Springer, Cham, p. 13.

Fig. 7. Bürolandschaft Osram Offices by Quickborner, Munich. (1963).

Fig. 8. Bürolandschaft office planning in the Island Block (1975).

17

The trend of office design moves towards a more human-centred approach, with the short-term popularity of Bürolandschaft (fig. 7 and 8) in Germany and the 1950s and the Action Office in the US in the 60s. Due to the emphasis on openness, equal distribution of resources after WWII, a more egalitarian management approach the Bürolandschaft, or “office landscape was adopted in office design in Europe and North America, aiming to minimise hierarchical relationship and promote egalitarian human interactions by the random arrangement of furniture.7 This flexible and non-rigid layout, though increase workplace flexibility and fostered collaboration, was however challenged with criticisms focusing on the difficulty in enabling workers to familiarise with the office space.

Chapter 2

Fig. 9. A highly personalised workspace in an Action Office.

Fig. 10. Modular furniture system of the Action Office.

Taking inspiration on the Bürolandschaft movement and the ideological context of hostility towards communism and the emphasis on the idea of “freedom”, a furniture system, known as the Action Office (fig. 9 and 10), designed by Robert Propst for US Furniture manufacturer Herman Miller was introduced, acknowledging the importance for office to cater for individual preferences and the freedom to make choices. Propst recognised that each office-user had the “the right to be different”.8 The Action Office, as described by Propst, was “… [an] integrated combination of furniture and wall components that could be rearranged, as needed, into highly variable groupings.”9 The corporations however found it financially unsustainable due to the use of expensive materials, the difficulty to assemble and the possibility of replacing furniture for future needs, despite its short success of the Action Office II in 1968.

8. Propst, R. (1968). The Office: A Facility Based on Change.

Ann Arbor, MI: Herman Miller Research Corporation, p. 35.

9. Propst, R. (1966). The Action Office. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors Society, 8(4), pp. 299-306.

18

Chapter 2

2.2 Recent Development

10.

Propst: “not all organisations are intelligent and progressive. Lots are run by crass people who can take the same kind of equipment and create hellholes. They make little bitty cubicles and stuff people in them. Barren, rat-hole places.”

2.5 Cubicle Farm – Liberation to Standardisation (1980s – present)

The office concept of Action Office II was exploited and misinterpreted in a manner that departed from Propst’s original intention.

Propst believed that the Action Office is a means to free the workers from the dull, repetitive and suppressive nature of the Taylorist open plan offices, but he soon realised his idea was corrupted in a way that corporations’ increasing emphasis on profitability at the expense of workers’ well-being produced a new version of depressing office spaces.10 The rapid rise in the number of middle management staff who were too senior for a common desk in a Taylorist open plan but too junior for a private office, coupled with the availability of economical modular walls, also led to the formation of a sea of cubicles in the 1980s.

11. Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, p.5. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi. it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/ Book%20-%20History%20 of%20the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

The cubicle farm (fig. 11 and 12), or a sea of cubicles, is a sea of compact, uniform and semi-enclosed workspace (usually 1.5 to 1.8 m tall) separated from neighbouring workspaces by partitions to provide a certain degree of acoustic and visual privacy in an open plan office.11 When copying the office typology of the Action Office, corporations neglected its flexibility and the attention to detail but just focused on the partitions, thus producing replicas of a series of repetitive uniform cells of trapping employees in the walls.

Fig. 11. The layout plan of the cubicles of the Chase Manhattan Bank, SOM, New York. (1961).

19

Fig. 12. Cubicle farm 20

Chapter 2

2.6 The Open Plan Revival – Tearing Down the Wall (1990s – present)

12. Lohr, S. (1997). Rethinking Privacy vs. Teamwork in Today’s Workplace. NY Times. [online].

Available at: http:// www. nytimes.com/1997/08/11/ business/rethinkingprivacyvs-teamworkin-today-s-workplace. html?pagewanted=2/ [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

The typology of a uniform, mechanical sea of cubicles was questioned in the 1990s of isolating employees. Even Propst used the term “monolithic insanity” to describe the disappointing layout of cubicle farm in modern corporations just three years before his death.12 With the rapid development of a knowledge-based economy in more developed countries, there was a boom in technology and creative industries. These innovative businesses realised that openness instead of isolation is the key to success. They believe that by removing the partitions, the creation of serendipitous connections of the office environment will be able to foster communication and collaboration thinking among workers.

The second wave of the open office (fig. 13 and 14) reintroduced low or even no partitions to employees. Rather than the having the uniform rows of the Taylorist open plan in which employees were facing the same direction, workers could sit in groups facing each other. This new type of open plan was designed to promote collaboration and team work and to increase face to face interaction. This has however become a way for corporations to reduce the operational cost by fitting more employees into smaller spaces. The average 1.8 x 1.8m cubicle suddenly shrank into a 1.8 x 0.6m workstation.

This new design also worsened the problem of noise and privacy in an open office layout.

Fig. 13. Layout Plan of the West Forever Office.

21

Chapter 2

Fig. 14. Absence of partitions in the open plan of West Forever Office 22

Chapter 2

2.7 Activity-based Workplaces – Uniformity to Diversity (1990s – present)

As more countries changed to a knowledge-based economy, corporations, especially those in the design and innovative industries, started to recognise the complexity of the tasks performed by their employees as well as the importance of creating an environment that can provoke inspiration and creative thinking. They also acknowledged the changed in the style of working of the new generation who put more emphasis on the importance of work-life balance and having autonomy in their style of working. An open plan layout may therefore not be able to satisfy the above changing demands.

13.

Hartmans, R. and Kamperman, L. (2009). People organize their own flow. Boss Magazine, 36, pp. 22–26.

14. Eastman, P. and Milne, R. (2016). The effect of individualised work settings on productivity and wellbeing.

New York City: Perkins Eastman, p. 12.

15. Ibid.

Therefore, in the 1990s, the Veldhoen + Company founded the activity-based work approach (fig. 15 and 16), in which employees were given right to choose the right spaces to complete their work productively. They believed it was irrational to ask workers with different tasks to complete them in a fixed location, and thus provided a variety of spaces that suit their needs.

Therefore, the activity-based workplace aimed at encouraging collaboration, creating an environment for creativity and empowering entrepreneurship.13

Activity-based workspaces can be defined as workspaces that allows employees to choose from a variety of different workspace, of varying level of privacy for instance, to choose from.14 This type of offices are characterised by two types of spaces: individual assigned workspaces and non-assigned spaces,15 and the ratio of these two sets of spaces will vary depending on the scale of the corporations. For larger corporations, like Google, a sufficient amount of assigned and unassigned will be available for employees to choose from, while small or medium scale companies may contain mostly unassigned working areas with a limited amount of fixed seats.

Fig. 15 ChiatDay offices. Clive Wilkinson Architects. Los Angeles. 1997 23

Chapter 2

Fig. 16. A private corner in an activity-based office 24

25

26

Fig. 17. A relaxing place in an activty-based 27

Chapter 3: Open-Plan Office and Activity-based Workspace: A Psychological Point of View

28

Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Open-Plan Office and Activity-based Workspace: A Psychological Point of View

Since the 1990s, the return of the open plan layout has become a widespread phenomenon of office typologies. With the increasing popularity of the activity-based working approach in recent years, an intense debate has arisen regarding on the office layout that would best benefit the employees. In this chapter, different psychological theories will be briefly introduced, and a psychological approach will be used to examine the relative effectiveness of open-plan offices and activitybased workspace in enhancing employees’ well-being, satisfaction and productivity. The limitations of these two types of office designed will also be highlighted and discussed with the support of case studies.

3.1 Personality Psychology 3.1.1 Extraversion and introversion 16. Oseland, N. (2009). The impact of psychological needs on office design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(4), p. 245.

17.

Corr, J. (2004).

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Personality.

Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. [pdf] 18. Ibid.

Fundamental to the personality theories of psychology is the classification of introverts and extroverts by Hans Eysenck.16 Introverts are over-stimulated people who preferred solitary activities and places which are quiet and reflective to avoid excessive arousal.17 Conversely, extroverts are less stimulated, and thus they are more into excitementseeking activities and active in social engagement.18 Therefore, in the context of office design, introverts may prefer more private places so that they will not be distracted by noise and commotion, whereas extroverts who are easily distracted when working alone may prefer to work with others in a more open area. Nonetheless, there is a complexity and dynamism on human personalities that should not be viewed as absolute and static qualities.

3.1.2 Locus of Control 19. Rotter B. (1990). Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a Variable. American Psychologist, April 1990, pp.

489-493.

20. Ibid.

29

The Locus of Control is another personality theory originated by Julian B. Rotter. It refers to the tendency to which people believe that the control over the outcomes of events resides internally within them, or external circumstances out of their control.19 An “internal” believes that the outcome of their behavior is associated with their personal choice and behavior, whereas an “external” believes that the outcome is guided mostly by outside influence such as fate, luck or others.20 In the office, therefore, internals may be self-motivated and prefer a more flexible working arrangement, while externals may be more comfortable with an open-plan environment with more supervision. However, the locus of control is also more of a spectrum rather than a definite characteristic of personality, and also varies in different situations.

Chapter 3

3.1.3 Accommodating the different personalities: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based Workspace

In short, each personality type may have different requirements on workplace environment. An office design layout, therefore, should be able to accommodate introverts and extroverts as well as “internals” and “externals”, whose well-being, satisfaction and productivity will thus be enhanced by offering a wide variety of office design strategies that accommodate their needs and preferences. The above analysis is also supported by a study from one of the largest furniture manufacturers the OPP, which examined the different methods for office design to increase employees’ satisfaction. It identified 16 types of personality (fig. 18) and asked for their ideal working environment. The study found out that those in the Conscience category, for instance, prefer working alone and having their own personal space, whereas those in the Nurturer category enjoying surrounded by people in their workspace and do not prefer being separated from their colleagues by partitions.21 This report also coincides with Allread and Marras’ studies that more anxiety is expressed by workers of which their personalities do not align with their preferred working environmental settings.22 Hence, the question is whether the more traditional open-plan office layout, or the more innovative activitybased workspace design approach, are more successful in catering to the diverse personalities of employees.

21. Eastman, P. and Milne, R. (2016). The effect of individualised work settings on productivity and wellbeing.

New York City: Perkins Eastman, p. 32.

22. Allread, G. and Marras, W. (2006). Does personality affect the risk of developing musculoskeletal discomfort?

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sciences, 7(2), pp.

149-167.

Fig. 18. The 16 personalities identified by OPP.

30

Chapter 3

Fig. 19. Individual boxes for employees requiring high concentration. Vitra Citizen Office.

Fig. 20. Enclosed boxes for employees preferring private working spaces. Vitra Citizen Office.

Fig. 21. Meeting boxes for more intimate interactions between office users. Vitra Citizen Office.

31

Chapter 3

Working spaces of varying degree of privacy in activity-based workspace design definitely help unite workers with different personalities into a single workspace. A notable example is the Vitra Citizen Office (2010) whose design revolves around the concept of a “city” which balances public and private as well as close and open areas. (fig. 22) The offices offer the sense of enclosure and security for introvert workers by providing working volumes such as individual boxes (fig. 19 and 20), freeing them from the arousal and distractions in an open-plan office. Meeting boxes (fig. 21) are also designed to allow them to interact with their colleagues in a relatively enclosed and safe area that they will feel comfortable with.

More open areas such as the forum space (fig. 22) and other communal areas are also provided to all people especially the extroverts or the “externals”, thus fostering social gatherings and collaborations between colleagues.

Fig. 22. A wide variety of private and public spaces as seen in the layout plan of the Vitra Citizen Office.

Fig. 23. The more open forum space for collaborations and meetings. Vitra Citizen Office.

32

Chapter 3

Fig. 24. Pantry area for relaxation. Tectonic Office.

Fig. 25. Outdoor terrace garden for relaxation. Tectonic Office.

Fig. 26. The lack of partitions between workstations with an open-plan environment.

Tectonic Office.

33

Chapter 3

Fig. 27. Open-plan layout of the Tectonic Office.

An open-plan office approach may not be able to satisfy the psychological needs due to their lack of relatively enclosed and quiet space for reflection, as in the case of Tectonic, a digital experience design studio which provides an open workspace (fig. 27) that includes several rows of open-plan work stations, two conference spaces and an entertainment area. Though the office tries to include relaxation areas (fig. 24 and 25) as alternative spaces for employees to complete their work, it lacks spaces such as the Vitra Citizen Office’s private boxes which are more serene and enclosed for more introverted people to work comfortably. The lack of partitions between workstations (fig. 26) means frequent visual and social contact with other workers, thus creating a possible increase in anxiety among people with a relatively introverted character.

Despite the different nature of the above two office scheme, the Vitra Citizen Office (the activity-based workspace approach) seems to provide a better working environment that accommodates employees of different personalities than the Tectonic office (the more open-plan approach). As pointed out by Taylor, striking a balance between open and private, focus and collaboration, and introverted and extroverted space is pivotal to catering for the needs of employees and the success of a productive workplace.23 An activity-based workplace design, in this respect, is able to combine the desire for interaction and collaboration, and the need for privacy and concentration.24 Therefore, it can be concluded that the activity-based office approach is more successful in meeting the needs of employees of different personality types than the open-plan office layout.

23. Taylor, E. (2015). Giving back control: a user-centered approach to the design of a work environment. Winnipeg: Department of Interior Design, University of Manitoba, p. 26.

24.

Corporate Partners Program (2018).

Open Concept Office: Good for Business?

Los Angeles: Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at University of California, p. 3.

34

Chapter 3

3.2 Social Psychology 3.2.1 Visual Privacy

25. Hildebrand, G. (1999).

Origins of Architectural Pleasure. Berkley: University of California Press, p. 32.

26. Ibid, p. 22.

This theory, originally used in the study of outdoor landscape, was reinterpreted by Grant Hildebrand (1999) from Jay Appleton (1875) in the “Origins of Architecture Pleasure” into a theory for architecture design. In relation to the concept of visual privacy, Hildebrand believed that a sense of refuge can be achieved architecturally by having dimmer lights, solid walls, enclosure from the three sides and lower ceilings, thus providing the opportunity for concealment and surveillance.25 He believed that prospect – having an unobstructed view, transparent walls and high ceilings – must happen continuously with refuge such that the “refuge must be able to survey the prospect; from the prospect we must be able to retreat to the refuge”,26 in order that the psychological needs of achieving a desired level of visual privacy of different occupants can be satisfied.

3.2.2 Social Interaction

27. Oseland, N. (2009). The impact of psychological needs on office design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(4), p. 248.

28. Ibid, p. 249.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

35

The Proxemic Framework (1963) (fig. 28) by Edward T. Hall is one of the most important social psychological theories that study the preferred distances of social interactions between people. He indicates that the most preferable “social distance” with acquaintances is approximately 1.2 to 2.1 m, but personality factors (such as introversion and extroversion) and personal factors (such as age and gender) also affect the preferred distance.27 This theory can be applied in today’s office design by looking at whether the density of the occupants, the distance between employees and the design of workstations may generate discomfort to the workers.

The Privacy Regulation Theory by Irwin Altman (1975) is a theory that aims to conceptualise privacy as not a static process of social withdrawal but a dialectic and dynamic regulation process to control the access to others.28 According to Altman, “dialectic” means engaging in or withdrawing from social interaction, whereas “dynamics” means that the change in the desired level of interaction over time which varies with individual differences and circumstances.29 He believed that solitude and isolation is the result of the actual level of privacy being greater than the desired one, while stress and the sense of overcrowdedness is the result of the actual privacy being smaller than the desired.30 Therefore, whether an office design can provide satisfaction and comfort to employees can be determined by the availability of architectural spaces and signifiers that help the occupants adjust to their required level of privacy.

Chapter 3

3.2.3 Retreating to private spaces: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based Workspace

Therefore, it is apparent that a good office design should be able to provide at the same time bright and open places as well as enclosed and private areas so that the desires of “seeking” and “hiding” of the occupants as well as their changes in the preferred level of privacy can be met. The spacial dynamism of activity-based offices is thus more successful to meet the psychological requirements of individuals in terms of their required level of visual privacy and social interactions than an open-plan office where spaces of varying degree of privacy are absent.

A study conducted by architecture practice Gensler (2013), for instance, showed that more than a half of the employees responded said they were constantly disturbed by others while completing work requiring concentration in open plan office spaces.31 The unwanted observation (visual privacy) may be a reason for the reduced level of privacy of the occupants, leading to overstimulation and negative attitude towards the office environment which fails to meet their preferred privacy level.32

31. Walsh, J. (2015). Designing Work: A study of collaboration and concentration in openplan offices. Iterations Issue 2, p. 44.

32. Kim, J. and de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, p. 19.

7.6 m 3.6 m 1.2 m

0.45 m

Fig. 28. A chart depicting Hall’s interpersonal distances of man (Proxemic Framework).

36

Chapter 3

Fig. 29. Conference area on the mezzaine floor. Hybrid Office.

Fig. 30. Book-arena on ground floor. Hybrid Office.

Fig. 31. Private carved-bed area. Hybrid Office.

37

Chapter 3

The combination of public and private spaces in an activity-based office provides both opportunities for “prospect” and “refuge” as well as the possibility of “regulating” their required privacy level which Altman believes is dynamic. A notable example is the Hybrid Office by Edward Ogosta Architecture. Despite the office’s overall open plan design, (fig.

32) it contains a collection of typological hybrids, creating several private, enclosed and introverted spaces. From the very open conference area (fig.

29) to the relatively warm and intimate book-arena, (fig. 30) and finally to the wholly introverted carved-bed, (fig. 31) the office successfully includes a wide range of office spaces with varying degree of privacy for people to retreat to the refuge from the prospect and to survey the prospect from the refuge. The changing preferred level of privacy of employees can also be met by switching to another space, satisfying their psychological needs and reducing their negative reactions at work.

Fig. 32. The ground floor plan and mezzaine plan of the Hybrid Office.

38

Chapter 3

Fig. 33. An open pantry area for relaxation. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Fig. 34. A sitting area for relaxation. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Fig. 35.

Open-plan workstations. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

39

Chapter 3

Fig. 36. Open-plan layout of Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

An open-plan office design, on the contrary, fails to provide a wide spectrum of spaces of different privacy level that can satisfy the occupants’ desired level of visual privacy and social interaction. As seen in the Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy, the layout is characterised as a linear open space with three rows of workstations on one side and two on the other. (fig. 35 and 36) The layout, though contains an open pantry (fig.

33) and a sitting area (fig. 34) for relaxation, lacks relatively intimated or enclosed spaces for working. Workers thus are not allowed to retreat to “refuge” spaces and the desired level of privacy may be higher than the actual level for introverted employees, leading to anxiety to the working environment and thus possibly affecting their performance at work.

Moreover, one workstation is shared among 4 workers who are closely sitting together (less than 1 m), hence not attaining the preferred social distance between colleagues (1.2 to 2.1 m) as suggested by Hall.

Hence, the Hybrid Office seems to better cater to the psychological needs of employees to “prospect and refuge” and to flexibly adjust to their required level of privacy. Therefore, it can be summed up that the activitybased offices are more effective in complying with the dynamic tendency of employees of being visually private on the one hand and socially engaging on the other hand than open-plan office by accommodating a wide variety of private and public spaces.

40

Chapter 3

3.3 Environmental Psychology 3.3.1 Personalisation of workspace 33. Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L. and de Dear, R. (2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health.

Building and Environment, 103, p. 213.

34.

Noorian, T. (2009).

Personalization of Space in Office Environments. Msc thesis, University of Eastern Mediterranean, p. 82.

35. Ibid, p. 92.

36. Ibid.

Personalisation, is defined as a type of territorial behaviour which helps the occupants express ownership and define boundaries by allowing the rearrangement of individual spaces and the display of items that reflect their personal identities.33 It can also be classified in the following parts: displaying personal objects in the workspace; changing or rearranging the furniture of the occupied space; adding or removing physical objects in the space.34 In the context of office design, personalisation is more realised using ones’ personal objects to mark and define personal space and territory to adjust to the required level of social interactions, known as the “identity-oriented” marking and the “control-oriented” marking techniques.

3.3.2 Identity-oriented marking

Identity-oriented marking is a method of marking personal space that provides individuals with the opportunity to construct and express their self-identities to others and to themselves as well as to distinguish themselves from others.35 Hanging diplomas on walls, displaying family pictures, using titles before their names to show status and placing personal belongings, for instance, are ways of markings that help establish personal identities.36

3.3.3 Control-oriented marking 37. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey: Brooks cole publishing.

38. Ibid.

The other way of marking boundaries is known as the controloriented marking. This kind of marking involves the use of symbols that indicate the boundaries of a territory and the ownership over the space.37 Instead of expressing personal identities, the purpose of using this kind of marking is to control the communication channel, discourage accesses by others and prevent unnecessary interactions.38

41

Chapter 3

3.3.4 The conflicts of choice: Open-Plan Office vs Activity-based Workspace

As Sundstrom suggests, employee satisfaction with the physical workspace environment has a close relationship with the amount of space available for displaying personal belongings.39 Therefore, offices providing the opportunity of enabling the exercise of identity-oriented and control-oriented markings of employees can satisfy their desire for the psychological ownership of space and their overall satisfaction towards workplace environment. (fig. 37) Undesirable as the inflexible nature of the open-plan offices may seem, it may still provide a certain level of customisation of workplace area compared to the activity-based workplace. For instance, due to the blurred boundary between public and private space, employees in open-plan offices often use “controloriented” marking to indicate their working boundaries and control people’s access to their area.40 On the contrary, the flexibility of activitybased workplace may indeed hamper employees’ desire of seeking personal identity in the office and defining territorial boundaries in a sense that they may need to keep switching their workstations every day.

39. Sundstrom, E. (1986).

Privacy in the office.

Winemsnn behavioral issues in office design, New York: Van nostrand reinhold company Inc.

40.

Noorian, T. (2009).

Personalization of Space in Office Environments. Msc thesis, University of Eastern Mediterranean, p. 93.

Fig. 37. Proposed model of the relationships between office personalization, gender, employee well-being and organizational well-being by Wells, 2000.

42

Fig. 38. The open-plan environment of the Economia’s 43

office.

Chapter 3

A certain level of workplace personalisation is evident in openplan offices. (fig. 38) The lack of privacy can be seen as a deficiency of the open-plan offices, but it can indeed be an opportunity for office workers to exercise their territoriality and their control over their workspace in response to the existing environmental conditions. For instance, employees in an open-plan office environment put their personal belongings or using audible indicators like special telephone ring to make their territory around their cubicles. An example is the Economia’s office of which the employees will be able to stick some notes or photos on the front partitions, and there is also a small partition on the side of each table indicating the boundary for each worker. (fig. 39) Occupying a fixed place enables employees to put their belongings there as long as they want without being afraid of removing it or relocating it to another space.

Fig. 39. Front partitions and the nature of fixed seats allow a certain degree of personalisation of workspace.

Economia’s office.

44

Chapter 3

Fig. 40. More public lounge areas. Cisco Office.

Fig. 41. More private lounge areas. Cisco Office.

Fig. 42. An employee seating in a private sofa box with her laptop.

45

Chapter 3

Fig. 43. Grey area as the layout plan of the activity-based workspace. Cisco Office.

The limited availability of assigned seats in activity-based offices may limit the chance of employees’ tailoring the workplace and thus their psychological requirement on territoriality and self-identities. The Cisco Office (fig. 43) will be a good illustration of the shortcomings of this type of more innovative office. The office, characterised as a variety of lounge areas with a varying degree of privacy, (fig. 40 and 41) enables employees to change to their preferred workspace. Most of the working area are sofas with the lack of a front desk or an area to put a large number of personal belongings. Employees therefore will mostly carry their laptops to work without any other extra work-related belongings, let alone personal ones. (fig. 42) This freedom to choose their preferred seats may be able to satisfy the desire for “prospect” and “refuge” for workers of different personality types and for the control over their environment, but they may have less control over how to organize or tailor their workplace which is an important criterion for the improved satisfaction of workplace environment for some employees.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Economia’s office (the openplan approach) seems to better satisfy the psychological requirements of employees of having a sense of control over workplace environment and displaying self-identities than the Cisco Office (activity-based approach) by allowing employees to add identity-oriented and control-oriented marking (adding personal belongings) into their personal space.

46

Fig. 44. Primary entrance to the Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape.

47

Chapter 4: Site Visits to the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (Newcastle University)

48

Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Site Visits to the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (Newcastle University) 4.1 The Students’ “Disobedience”

After carrying out an in-depth analysis on the psychological theories associated with the design of office space, I believe that studying the layout and the studio culture of the architecture building will be an interesting perspective to gather first-hand data on the user preference on working space and to take inspirations from their behavior on the use of space in relation to the improvement of the deficiency of the openplan and the activity-based approach. It is expected that there will be consistency with the investigation done in Chapter 3 and that new reasons will be discovered on people’s intention on the use of space.

Zone A

Fig. 45. Second floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Zone B

Fig. 46. First floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Zone D

Fig. 47. Ground floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Zone E

49

Zone C

Chapter 4

Fig. 48. An email from school telling students not to occupy the studio desk.

The first reason I have chosen it is that it contains part of the characteristics of an open-plan office and the activity-based workspace.

The studio space from the University is basically open plan, and students can, in theory, choose their seats and change their seats wherever and whenever they want, resembling the flexibility and a large number of unassigned seats in activity-based offices. Another reason is that students in Stage 3 start to break the constraints set by the school and the available facilities in the studio in a sense that they ignore the warnings from the schools and start to construct their own personal space. Despite tutors and emails from school insisting that students do not have any rights to claim their own desk space and put their belongings on their desk, many of the Stage 3 students just do it anyway. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate the motivations behind students’ desire to alter the use of space as well as the impact to their overall satisfaction on the working space and working productivity.

The Stage 3 architecture studio space is spread across the ground, first and second floor. Both the ground and the second floor contain an open-area for students to work, while the first floor is subdivided into three open areas. The layout of these studio spaces is characterised as several rows of open desks with either 4 to 6 desk modules as a row and the addition of a row of computer desks. However, this open-plan arrangement became less “open� with the certain rearrangement of space and addition of partitions in the zone A and B area of the building.

Therefore, my investigation will include observational analysis on all the stage 3 studio spaces and the analysis of interviews conducted with two current students (Interviewee A and B) who have altered their workspace, and will examine whether the psychological theories of privacy regulation and personalisation can be applied in this study. Attention will also be paid on the unaltered space of the studio.

50

Chapter 4

4.2 Findings and Analysis 4.2.1 Altered Space: Personalisation

41. “I also make this a comfortable place for me to work on by getting a monitor and putting a picture of the Buddha on my desk.�

(Interviewee A)

Fig. 49. A desk on the second floor are rotated to form an L-shaped arrangement with a site model put on the corner of the desk.

51

The expression of self-identities, as well as the discouragement of access and unnecessary interactions, are two reasons that nearly half of the stage 3 unassigned workspaces being converted to personal workspaces with the addition of personal belongings and studio materials. For instance, putting a picture of a Buddha on the desk from Interviewee A indicates that there is a desire self-expression and the indication of private space by declaring territoriality.41 (Fig. 48) Apart from using identity-oriented marking to suggest personal territory, controloriented marking is also widely used among the students. For instance, the original linear layout of the open-plan studio is slightly altered by some students who have formed an L-shaped desk which acts as a kind of physical barrier to discourage assess by others. For instance, on the second floor of the studio, a student has rotated the desk 90 degrees so that the two desks together form a relatively intimate space which is less convenient for others to access directly as before. The putting of a site model (control-oriented marking) on the corner of the L-shaped desk also tried to define territorial space and satisfy the psychological requirement of territorial control. (Fig. 47)

Fig. 50. A picture of Buddha is displayed on the workstation of interviewee A on the first floor.

52

Chapter 4

42. I think it’s more convenient to have two screens at the same time when doing all my work as I can at the same time open multiple windows and using different software without the need to keep switching the window on the same screen.”

43. “These partitions also allow me to pin up or hang up some of the paper documents… I think it’s more convenient to have two screens at the same time when doing all my work as I can at the same time open multiple windows and using different software without the need to keep switching the window on the same screen.”

(Interviewee B) 44. “As at the back of my workspace is the pod, there is a wall at my back… The outer wall of the pod also enables me to hang my panels and my work so that I can keep referencing them when I am doing my project.”

(Interviewee A) 45. “I think I will not change to another working area as I have already put my monitor and all my stationary here. It will be more convenient for me to walk to the studio without carrying anything and work immediately after I arrive at my workspace as I do not need to search for another sitting area where I have to arrange all my stuff again on the desk.”

(Interviewee A) Fig. 51. Models and other architecture materials are put on a workstation on the first floor.

53

A more convenient working approach, as suggested by the two interviewees who occupies the originally unassigned desks and add personal items, will be another factor for the alteration of studio arrangement. For example, interviewee B indicates that he puts a monitor onto his own desk just because it is easier for him to work with two screens so that he can use different software and open more windows at the same time.42 (Fig. 50) Besides, he mentions that it will be more convenient to hang the paper documents on the partitions at the front,43 while interviewee A also pins up his panels and his works on the wall at his back so that he can easily refer to them when he is doing his assignments.44 (Fig. 51) When asked about whether the option of changing to another workspace will be considered, interviewee A who has occupied the workstation for a while say he would not consider it due to the need of rearrangement and relocation of personal belongings.45 Moreover, books related to architecture, models and sheets of paper are also placed on the desks and shelves by students who can have easy access to these architecture materials and thus conducive to their studio work. (Fig. 49 and 52) Therefore, the displaying of personal items can be also associated with the improvement of workplace productivity.

Chapter 4

Fig. 52. Interviewee B puts his personal monitor on his occupied workstation.

Fig. 53. Interviewee A pins up his panels and his works on the back wall of the pod.

Fig. 54. Interviewee A pins up his panels and his works on the back wall of the pod.

54

Chapter 4

4.2.2 Altered Space: Privacy Regulation 46. “When I am looking at the monitor, I will inevitably look at my friend who is working on the other side of the desk.

So putting … cardboard at the front is just to prevent too many distractions by people when I need to do some tasks requiring focus.” (Interviewee A) “Putting a cardboard partition on the front … just means I will not have a direct visual connection with the person sitting in front of me …, thus enabling me to focus on my work without the interference of others.” (Interviewee B) 47. “Although I love interacting with my course mates, I find it a little bit uncomfortable if someone is working and peeking at me at the back every time. Working in this desk area enables me to have a full glimpse of what the others are doing.” (Interviewee A)

Fig. 55. A “refuge area” of interviewee A “prospecting” the front studio area.

55

Combining the research from the observational studies of the studio spaces and the two interviewees, the desire for regulating privacy level is another reason that some students try to change the wholly openplan layout of the studio space despite the school’s objections. The need for achieving prospect and refuge, as evidenced by the two interviews, will be the main reasons for the utilization of studio and architectural materials to create a relatively more protective space. Both the interviewee A and B hold the opinion that putting cardboard partitions at the front of the desk prevents visual interaction with the person sitting in front of them, thus making them easier to concentrate on their work,46 (fig. 54 and 55) and the “side partitions” are also added in the workspaces of the two interviewees and in many other workstations, creating a semi-enclosed space and becoming a space for refuge. (fig. 56) Indeed, the working area of the interviewee A perfectly complies with the idea of prospect and refuge as the back of his working area is just the wall of the pod while all the workstations are located at the front of his desk. Hence, when asked about the reason of choosing the desk as the working area, the interviewee says he is not secure enough if someone is prospecting at him at the back and he can now have a full glimpse of the people in that area.47 (fig. 53)

Chapter 4

Fig. 56. Shelves and partitions put near the workstations act as visual barriers for regulating privacy on the second floor.

Fig. 57. Front partitions are put to prevent direct visual connection with the person sitting at the front.

Fig. 58. A side partition is added to form a semienclosed area.

56

Chapter 4

48. “I think I am more of an extrovert.” (Interviewee A) 49. “Now, I also insert a “Japanese door” using the waste materials from the primer stage just to feel safe.

As my sitting area is closed to the corridor, I just don’t want anyone who is walking along it peeks at me at the back when I am working.” (Interviewee A) 50. “I found it very difficult to work at home because I will easily get distracted when I am alone. But having a lot of my course mates working together in the studio, I feel that I am more motivated on my work” (Interviewee A) 51. “I will call myself now an introvert.”

52. “It’s quite fun that we can actually work together in the studio and share our thoughts and opinions on our projects.”

(Interviewee B) 53. “I indeed don’t want to talk to others even with my close friends when I am concentrating on my work.”

(Interviewee B)

Fig. 59. A hinge connecting the Japanese door to the wall of the pod.

57

The notions of introversion and extroversion as more of a spectrum than a definite character is manifested in the behaviours of the two interviewees. Interviewee A who proclaims himself as an extrovert48 also exhibits qualities of introversion with regard to his use of space. An illustration is that he has reused a timber frame, an exhibition material left during the Primer Stage, and converted it into a “Japanese” door with hinges attached to the wall of the pod next to it. (fig. 57 - fig. 61) The door, he believes, allows him to feel safe and to prevent people who are walking along the corridor from distracting him.49 Nonetheless, he does say he will easily get distracted when working alone at home and is more motivated when working with course mates in the studio.50 Interviewee B who is an introvert51 says he enjoys exchanging ideas with his course mates in the studio52 though he prefers concentrating on his work done first.53 Therefore, the boundary between introversion and extroversion is blurred given the example of the interviewees who at the same time enjoy interacting with others but need a certain degree of concentration with the use of different physical devices to control their preferred level of privacy.

Fig. 60. Japanese door closed (view from inside).

Fig. 61. Japanese door opened (view from inside).

Fig. 62. Japanese door closed (view from inside).

58 Fig. 63. Japanese door opened (view from inside).

Chapter 4

54. “… I don’t think the cardboard and the shelf would reduce the interaction with others. They indeed make me more voluntarily chat with others whenever I would like to.” (Interviewee A) “… interacting with others is just a means to help me get rid of my boredom when I feel that I need to regain my energy through communication and interaction.” (Interviewee B)

Fig. 64. Cardboards acts as partitions to allow a certain degree of privacy.

Fig. 65. The cardboard can be moved to the side to allow communication between the two students facing each other.

59

The dynamism of the required level of privacy of individuals is also evident in the students’ alteration of space. Asked about whether the adding of partitions in front of and at the side of the workstation will limit the interactions with others, both interviewees say the partitions are just a means for them to adjust their varying need of privacy and the exercising of voluntary rather than mandatory interaction with others. The cardboard partition can indeed be a flexible device that allows students to actually interact with others.54 For instance, students are able to chat with their course mate sitting in front of them by moving the cardboard to the side, thus creating a gap for them to communicate and exchange their ideas. (fig. 62 and 63) Therefore, the dynamic privacy regulation process as suggested by Altman may indeed be a reason that students try to create these controllable and flexible architecture devices to satisfy their individual needs psychologically.

Chapter 4

4.2.3 Unaltered Space

Aside from the altered and highly personalised studio spaces as mentioned above, Zone C, D and E did not drastically change the overall layout of the studio arrangement. No carboards and wood panels are inserted between the workstation and identifiable personal items such as monitors and picture frames are not seen in these areas. (fig. 64) However, architecture-related materials such as drawing boards, models, books and sheets of paper are put on the desks overnight, indicating that students did not actually switch different spaces to work which is contrary to the original intention of the use of the space. (fig. 65)

Fig. 66. The open-plan layout is kept unchanged with the absence of partitions and identifiable personal items (Zone D).

Fig. 67. Despite the openplan layout, drawing boards, models, books and sheets of paper are put on the desks overnight. (Zone E).

60

Chapter 4

4.3 Conventional Office Typologies Reconsidered

55.

Noorian, T. (2009).

Personalization of Space in Office Environments. Msc thesis, University of Eastern Mediterranean, p. 85.

61

The above analysis of the architecture buildings, coupled with the literature review of the psychological theories, poses doubts on the two dominant office types: the open-plan office and the activity-based workspace in terms of their benefits towards satisfying the needs of different individuals psychologically. In office design, employees will still customise their workspace even corporations have clear policies of restricting it, as suggested by Noorian, who believes that people tend to have a strong desire of personalisation of their space psychologically.55 Therefore, the “revolt� of the students turning a totally open-plan studio space into a relatively intimate and enclosed space, as well as the conversion of the concept of random sitting into a variety of fixed and personalised sitting areas, raise the question on the potential conflicts of an open-plan office and the concept of unassigned seats in activity-based offices with the needs and will of the office workers. From the above, it is patently clear that the current typologies of office design should be reconsidered and an alternative approach to office design is critical for the improvement to employees’ workplace satisfaction and productivity.

Fig. 68. Secondary entrance to the Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape.

62

Fig. 69. Conceptual collage of the new flexible workplace.

63

Chapter 5: A New Approach to Flexible Workspace

64

Chapter 5

5.1 Solving the “Impossible Office Trinity”

In exploring the possible alternative towards a new approach of workplace design, we should first identify the potential conflicts between the different characteristics of workplace design. The need for personalisation, the desire for privacy regulation, and the strive for an economical design can be said as the “Impossible Office Trinity” in today’s office context.

These design decisions may seem to be incompatible in a sense that having an economical and highly personalised workspace may result in an open-plan arrangement that neglects the need of employees requiring high level of privacy such as the introverts due to the inflexible privacy regulation mechanism of the office layout. Providing a variety of private and private spaces and at the same time being an economical design, as in the cases of the activity-based offices, can satisfy the psychological requirements of employees of different personality types and at the same time saving the costs of the corporations, may however deny the workers’ opportunity of workspace personalisation due to the presence of a significant number of unassigned seats. Despite the activity-based approach of large corporations like Google providing a large number of unassigned and assigned seats which satisfy both the need of personalisation of workspace in a fixed working area, and the need of regulating privacy with workspaces of different privacy level, small and medium-sized companies may not be able to afford such low density working environment for their employees. The trilemma of allowing high degree of personalisation and privacy adjustment of employees as well as the demand of cost-saving from corporations, I believe, can be solved by a flexible workspace furniture system.

65

Chapter 5

Fig. 70. A diagram showing a new typology to flexible workplace as the solution to the “Impossible Office Trinity.�

66

Chapter 5

5.2 Lessons from the Action Office and the Principle of Affordance

The Action Office was a proposal of a flexible modular furniture for office first putting into practice by Robert Propst. The user-centred office approach of providing a more organic layout and allowing the high level of personalisation and a certain level of privacy was however quickly abandoned by corporations who found the furniture system difficult to assemble and dissemble as well as economically unsustainable owing to the use of expensive materials and the need for future replacement.

Therefore, a new typology of flexible furniture system should allow employees’ easy modification of the system furniture and reduce its cost by avoiding the use of a wide variety of complex mechanisms.

56. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T. (1994). Humancomputer interaction. Boston, Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd, p. 6.

67

The term affordance, defined as the easy identification of the action possibilities of an object or a system,56 is an essential concept for the design of a user-centred furniture system such that employees can easily regulate their privacy and personalise their workspace using certain signifiers. The term became popular with James J. Gibson’s definition in his 1979 book “The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception”, and was further reinterpreted in the context of product design by Donald Norman in his book “The Design of Everyday Things” (1988). The modular furniture system thus should be able to provide perceptible affordance such that the actors (the employees) are able to act upon the provided affordance with the information available, hence allowing them to easily modify the system and give them a sense of ownership and control towards their workspace. Using easily transformed and combined of furniture design system instead of the more complicated and expensive one, as in the case of the Action Office, will be a more financially sustainable option for small and medium-sized corporations.

Chapter 5

Fig. 71. The Action Office modular furniture system.

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Fig. 72. An activity-based office.

81

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

82

Chapter 6

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

The relatively newer and more human-centred approach of the activity-based offices can be said as the cornerstone of the development of office design with its challenge to the traditional open-plan offices by allowing employees’ freedom to choose their preferred way of working and the place in which they work. Nonetheless, from the above-mentioned analysis of real-life examples and investigation on the application of different schools of psychology, it seems that the need of workspace personalisation is pivotal to some, if not many. Coupled with the concerns of corporations on the financial sustainability of the office design, the proposed prototype of a flexible modular furniture system is thus intended to balance the employees’ need of personalisation and privacy regulation with the corporations’ economic concerns.

The research and proposal, nevertheless, are not without their limitations with regard to its scope of investigation and the actual outcome.

The research aims at studying, in theoretical level, the psychological behaviours of workplace occupants through a critical analysis on different psychological theories and case studies, together with a more careful analysis on their behaviours through the unprecedented architecture studio culture of the University. Although the proposal is meant for a universal application to all office spaces with its flexible nature, the research lacks the exploration of the employees’ requirement from different industries which may require various types of office arrangement, and thus the actual proposals for different types of offices may slightly vary. The idea that, whether a different design approach or a general prototype or even a combination of both can apply to corporations of different natures, may be a line of investigation for further study on this topic.

The pendulum of office design was always swinging back and forth when at a moment of history it favoured the overall well-being and satisfaction of employees (the Bürolandschaft and the Action Office) while at another point moves to the side of corporations for more functional and economical design (the cubicle farm and open plan offices). The development of history seems to suggest that the well-being of companies and their employees are mutually exclusive, and it will always be the gaining of a party at the expense of the other. The proposal is a challenge to this long-held concept with an aim to satisfy the concerns and requirement of both sides in order to promote a more balanced and healthy relationship between the two stakeholders. The management team of the corporations should acknowledge the importance of employees’ well-being in relation to the association’s overall productivity and success so that employees in return can put faith in their company. The proposal will thus be the first step of mediating the differences between their concerns, and it is only through mutual understanding and cooperation can a win-win situation and a prosperous future for both sides be attained.

83

Chapter 6

THE FUTURRE OF OFFICE DESIGN ?

84

Bibliography

Bibliography Allread, G. and Marras, W. (2006). Does personality affect the risk of developing musculoskeletal discomfort?

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sciences, 7(2), pp. 149-167.

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey: Brooks cole publishing.

Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P. and Janssen, I. (2011). An end user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), pp. 122-135.

Arundell, L., Sudholz, B., Teychenne, M., Salmon, J., Hayward, B., Healy, G. N. and Timperio, A. (2018).

The Impact of Activity Based Working (ABW) on Workplace Activity, Eating Behaviours, Productivity, and Satisfaction. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(5).

Caruso, A. (2014). A short history of the development of the office explained in terms of the economic and social context of the last 100 years. Workforce: a better place to work, 43, pp. 122-143.

Corporate Partners Program (2018). Open Concept Office: Good for Business? Los Angeles: Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at University of California, pp. 3, 6.

Corr, J. (2004). Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. [pdf] Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. Available at: http://www.philipcorr.net/uploads/downloads/28.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec 2018].

Daniel, R. M. (2015). Herman Miller’s Action Office: Corporate Interiors in the Cold War. Interiors, 6(1), pp.

5-20.

Danielsson, C. B. and Bodin, L. (2009). Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, pp. 241-257.

Duffy, F., Cave, C. and Worthington, J. (1976). Planning office space. London; New York: Architectural Press; Nichols Pub. Duffy, F. and Hannay, P. (1992). The changing workplace. London: Phaidon.

Duffy, F., Laing, A., Crisp, V., DEGW London Limited and Building Research Establishment. (1993). The responsible workplace: The redesign of work and offices. Oxford; Boston: Butterworth Architecture in association with Estates Gazette.

Duffy, F. and Wankum, A. (1969). Office landscaping: A new approach to office planning. 2nd. ed., An Anbar monograph no. 9. London: Anbar Publications.

Eastman, P. and Milne, R. (2016). The effect of individualised work settings on productivity and wellbeing.

New York City: Perkins Eastman, pp. 12, 32.

Fitzgerald, C. J. and Danner, K. M. (2012). Evolution in the office: How evolutionary psychology can increase employee health, happiness, and productivity. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(5).

85

Bibliography

Gibson, V. (2003). Flexible working needs flexible space? Towards an alternative workplace strategy. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 21(1), pp. 12-22.

Hartmans, R. and Kamperman, L. (2009). People organize their own flow. Boss Magazine, 36, pp. 22–26.

Hoendervanger, J. G., Ernst, A. F., Albers, C. J., Mobach, M. P. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2018). Individual differences in satisfaction with activity-based work environments. PloS one, 13(3).

Hildebrand, G. (1999). Origins of Architectural Pleasure. Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 22, 32.

Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L. and de Dear, R. (2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Building and Environment, 103, p. 213.

Kim, J. and de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, p. 19.

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp. 4-5.

Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].

Littlefield, D. and British Council for Offices. (2009). Good office design. London: RIBA Publishing.

Lohr, S. (1997). Rethinking Privacy vs. Teamwork in Today’s Workplace. NY Times. [online]. Available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/1997/08/11/business/rethinking-privacyvs-teamwork-in-today-s-workplace. html?pagewanted=2/ [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

Marmot, A., & Eley, J. (2000). Office space planning: Designing for tomorrow’s workplace. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.

Noorian, T. (2009). Personalization of Space in Office Environments. Msc thesis, University of Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 82, 92-93, 95.

Oseland, N. (2009). The impact of psychological needs on office design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(4), pp. 245, 248-249.

Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T. (1994). Human-computer interaction.

Boston, Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd, p. 6.

Pile, J. (1978). Open office planning: A handbook for interior designers and architects. New York: Whitney Library of Design.

Propst, R. (1966). The Action Office. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors Society, 8(4), pp.

299-306.

86

Bibliography

Propst, R. (1968). The Office: A Facility Based on Change. Ann Arbor, MI: Herman Miller Research Corporation, p. 35.

Rassia, S. T. (2017). Office Building: A Brief Historical Overview. In: Workplace Environmental Design in Architecture for Public Health. SpringerBriefs in Public Health. Springer, Cham, p. 13.

Reay, T., Chreim, S., Golden-Biddle, K., Goodrick, E., Williams, B.E., Casebeer, A., Pablo, A. and Hinings, C. R. (2013). Transforming new ideas into practice: An activity based perspective on the institutionalization of practices. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), pp. 963-990.

Riratanaphong, C. (2006). Flexible workplace: benefits and concerns in facilities management. Journal of Architectural/ Planning Research and Studies, 4(2).

Rotter B. (1990). Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Case History of a Variable. American Psychologist, April 1990, pp. 489-493.

Saval, N. (2015). Cubed: The secret history of the workplace. New York: Doubleday.

Shafaghat, A., Keyvanfar, A., Lamit, H., Mousavi, S.A. and Majid, M.Z.A. (2014). Open plan office design features affecting staff’s health and wellbeing status. Jurnal Teknologi, 70 (7), p. 85.

Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Platts, L. G. and Westerlund, H. (2016). Does personality have a different impact on self-rated distraction, job satisfaction, and job performance in different office types? PloS one, 11(5).

Sundstrom, E. (1986). Privacy in the office. Winemsnn behavioral issues in office design, New York: Van nostrand reinhold company Inc. Taylor, E. (2015). Giving back control: a user-centered approach to the design of a work environment.

Winnipeg: Department of Interior Design, itoba, p. 26.

Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Research and training center on community living, 5(2), pp. 1-21.

Vischer, J. C., (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23(3), pp. 175-184.

Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people are affected by environments for work. Architectural science review, 51(2), pp. 97-108.

Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building research & information, 36(3), pp. 231-240.

Walsh, J. (2015). Designing Work: A study of collaboration and concentration in open-plan offices. Iterations Issue 2, p. 44.

87

Illustrations

Illustrations Fig. 1 Atrium of the Larking Administration Building by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp. 4-5.

Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 2 Interior of Johnson Wax Headquarters by Frank Lloyd Wright.

ScJohnson, (2016). Designed to Inspire: SC Johnson’s Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Administration Building. [online] Available at: https://www.scjohnson.com/en-gb/a-family-company/architecture-andtours/frank-lloyd-wright/designed-to-inspire-sc-johnsons-frank-lloyd-wright-designed-administrationbuilding [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 3. Layout Plan of a Private Office in Wainwright Building, St. Louis by Louis Sullivan (1890).

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

4. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 4. The Easiest Way, an American drama directed by Jack Conway depicting a private office (1931).

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

4. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 28 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 5. A typical Taylorist open-plan offices in the 1930s.

LABS, (2017). The Transformation of Office Design. [online] Available at: https://labs.com/blog/thetransformation-of-office-design/ [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 6. The layout plan of the Johnson Wax Building, Racine, by Frank Lloyd Wright (1937).

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

5. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 10 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 7. Bürolandschaft Osram Offices by Quickborner, Munich. (1963).

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

6. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].

Fig. 8. Bürolandschaft office planning in the Island Block (1975).

British History Online, (2010). Some post-war buildings. [online] Available at: https://www.british-history. ac.uk/survey-london/bk17/plate-45 [Accessed 3rd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 9 A highly personalised workspace in an Action Office.

Shanahan, A. (2015). The office cubicle: from commercial flop to best-selling design classic. [online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/02/01/office-cubicle-50th-birthday-herman-miller-robertpropst/ [Accessed 3rd Jan. 2019].

88

Illustrations

Fig. 10 Modular furniture system of the Action Office.

Cookson, G. (2014). Action Office: The Office Cubed. [online] Available at: https://guycookson.com/tag/ action-office/ [Accessed 10th Jan. 2019].

Fig. 11. The layout plan of the cubicles of the Chase Manhattan Bank, SOM, New York. (1961).

Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

8. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 12. Cubicle Farm Topsimages, (2014). Empty Office Cubes. [online] Available at: (https://www.topsimages.com/images/ empty-office-cubes-4f.html [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 13 Layout Plan of the West Forever Office.

Archdaily, (2015). Office Interior in Strasbourg / Nicola Spinetto + Stephane Raza. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/778967/office-interior-in-strasbourg-nicola-spinetto-plus-stephane-raza [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 14 Absence of partitions in the open plan of Strasbourg Office Archdaily, (2015). Office Interior in Strasbourg / Nicola Spinetto + Stephane Raza. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/778967/office-interior-in-strasbourg-nicola-spinetto-plus-stephane-raza [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 15 ChiatDay offices. Clive Wilkinson Architects. Los Angeles. 1997 Kotlyarov, A. (2015). History of the office. [pdf] Milan: Politecnico di Milano Faculty of Architecture, pp.

10. Available at: https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/103923/3/Book%20-%20History%20of%20 the%20Office.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2018].

Fig. 16. A private corner in an activity-based office Archdaily, (2018). Cisco Meraki / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/904888/ cisco-meraki-studio-o-plus-a [Accessed 4th Jan. 2019].

Fig. 17. A relaxing place in an activty-based office Archdaily, (2015). When One Size Does Not Fit All: Rethinking the Open Office. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/595033/when-one-size-does-not-fit-all-rethinking-the-open-office [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 18. The 16 personalities identified by OPP. Eastman, P. and Milne, R. (2016). The effect of individualised work settings on productivity and wellbeing.

New York City: Perkins Eastman, p. 31.

Fig. 19. Individual boxes for employees requiring high concentration. Vitra Citizen Office.

Archdaily, (2011). The Citizen Office Concept by Vitra. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/182117/the-citizen-office-concept-by-vitra [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

89

Illustrations

Fig. 20. Enclosed boxes for employees preferring private working spaces. Vitra Citizen Office.

Archdaily, (2011). The Citizen Office Concept by Vitra. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/182117/the-citizen-office-concept-by-vitra [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 21. Meeting boxes for more intimate interactions between office users. Vitra Citizen Office.

Archdaily, (2011). The Citizen Office Concept by Vitra. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/182117/the-citizen-office-concept-by-vitra [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 22. Layout plan of the Vitra Citizen Office.

Archdaily, (2011). The Citizen Office Concept by Vitra. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/182117/the-citizen-office-concept-by-vitra [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 23. The more open forum space for collaborations and meetings. Vitra Citizen Office.

Archdaily, (2011). The Citizen Office Concept by Vitra. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/182117/the-citizen-office-concept-by-vitra [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 24. Pantry area for relaxation. Tectonic Office.

Archdaily, (2017). Tectonic / Graham Baba Architects. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/871383/tectonic-graham-baba-architects [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 25. Outdoor terrace garden for relaxation. Tectonic Office.

Archdaily, (2017). Tectonic / Graham Baba Architects. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/871383/tectonic-graham-baba-architects [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 26. The lack of partitions between workstations with an open-plan environment. Tectonic Office.

Archdaily, (2017). Tectonic / Graham Baba Architects. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/871383/tectonic-graham-baba-architects [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 27. Open-plan layout of the Tectonic Office.

Archdaily, (2017). Tectonic / Graham Baba Architects. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/871383/tectonic-graham-baba-architects [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 28. A chart depicting Hall’s interpersonal distances of man (Proxemic Framework).

Taylor, E. (2015). Giving back control: a user-centered approach to the design of a work environment.

Winnipeg: Department of Interior Design, itoba, p. 42.

Fig. 29. Conference area on the mezzaine floor. Hybrid Office.

Archdaily, (2012). Hybrid Office / Edward Ogosta Architecture. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/229636/hybrid-office-edward-ogosta-architecture [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 30. Book-arena on ground floor. Hybrid Office.

Archdaily, (2012). Hybrid Office / Edward Ogosta Architecture. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/229636/hybrid-office-edward-ogosta-architecture [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

90

Illustrations

Fig. 31. Private carved-bed area. Hybrid Office.

Archdaily, (2012). Hybrid Office / Edward Ogosta Architecture. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/229636/hybrid-office-edward-ogosta-architecture [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 32. The ground floor plan and mezzaine plan of the Hybrid Office.

Archdaily, (2012). Hybrid Office / Edward Ogosta Architecture. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/229636/hybrid-office-edward-ogosta-architecture [Accessed 7th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 33. An open pantry area for relaxation. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Archdaily, (2014). Stampsy & IO Studio / Archiproba. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/559642/stampsy-and-io-studio-archiproba [Accessed 9th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 34. A sitting area for relaxation. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Archdaily, (2014). Stampsy & IO Studio / Archiproba. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/559642/stampsy-and-io-studio-archiproba [Accessed 9th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 35. Open-plan workstations. Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Archdaily, (2014). Stampsy & IO Studio / Archiproba. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/559642/stampsy-and-io-studio-archiproba [Accessed 9th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 36. Open-plan layout of Moscow Office of IO and Stampsy.

Archdaily, (2014). Stampsy & IO Studio / Archiproba. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/559642/stampsy-and-io-studio-archiproba [Accessed 9th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 37. Proposed model of the relationships between office personalization, gender, employee well-being and organizational well-being by Wells, 2000.

Noorian, T. (2009). Personalization of Space in Office Environments. Msc thesis, University of Eastern Mediterranean, p. 82.

Fig. 38. The open-plan environment of the Economia’s office Archdaily, (2013). Economia Building / Ricardo Bofill. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/433367/economia-building-ricardo-bofill [Accessed 10th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 39. Front partitions and the nature of fixed seats allow a certain degree of personalisation of workspace.

Economia’s office.

Archdaily, (2013). Economia Building / Ricardo Bofill. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/433367/economia-building-ricardo-bofill [Accessed 10th Oct. 2018].

Fig. 40. More public lounge areas. Cisco Office.

Archdaily, (2014). Cisco Offices / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/469722/ meraki-now-cisco-offices-studio-o-a [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 41. More private lounge areas. Cisco Office.

Archdaily, (2014). Cisco Offices / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/469722/ meraki-now-cisco-offices-studio-o-a [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

91

Illustrations

Fig. 42. An employee seating in a private box sofa with her laptop.

Archdaily, (2014). Cisco Offices / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/469722/ meraki-now-cisco-offices-studio-o-a [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 43. Grey area as the layout plan of the activity-based workspace. Cisco Office.

Archdaily, (2014). Cisco Offices / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/469722/ meraki-now-cisco-offices-studio-o-a [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

Fig. 44. Primary entrance to the Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Microsite Newcastle University, (2015). On Course to NCL. [online] Available at: https://microsites.ncl. ac.uk/oncoursetoncl/ucas-experience-architect/ [Accessed 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 45. Second floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 46. First floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 47. Ground floor plan of the architecture building. Grey area as stage 3 studio space.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 48. An email from school telling students not to occupy the studio desk.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 49. A desk on the second floor are rotated to form an L-shaped arrangement with a site model put on the corner of the desk.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 50. A picture of Buddha is displayed on the workstation of interviewee A on the first floor.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 51. Models and other architecture materials are put on a workstation on the first floor.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 52. Interviewee B puts his personal monitor on his occupied workstation.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 53. Interviewee A pins up his panels and his works on the back wall of the pod.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 54. Interviewee A pins up his panels and his works on the back wall of the pod.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 55. A “refuge area” of interviewee A “prospecting” the front studio area.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

92

Illustrations

Fig. 56. Shelves and partitions put near the workstations act as visual barriers for regulating privacy on the second floor.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 57. Front partitions are put to prevent direct visual connection with the person sitting at the front.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 58. A side partition is added to form a semi-enclosed area.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 59. A hinge connecting the Japanese door to the wall of the pod.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 60. Japanese door closed (view from inside).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 61. Japanese door opened (view from inside).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 62. Japanese door closed (view from inside).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 63. Japanese door opened (view from inside).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 64. Cardboards acts as partitions to allow a certain degree of privacy.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 65. The cardboard can be moved to the side to allow communication between the two students facing each other.

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 66. The open-plan layout is kept unchanged with the absence of partitions and identifiable personal items (Zone D).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 67. Despite the open-plan layout, drawing boards, models, books and sheets of paper are put on the desks overnight. (Zone E).

Author’s own from site visit. (2018) [Photography] [taken 25th Nov. 2018].

Fig. 68. Secondary entrance to the Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape.

Wikimedia Commons, (2013). File: Architecture Building, Newcastle University, 5 September 2013 (3). jpg. [online] Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Architecture_Building,_Newcastle_ University,_5_September_2013_(3).jpg [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

93

Illustrations

Fig. 69. Conceptual collage of the new flexible workplace.

Author’s own diagram. (2018) [Illustration] [produced 5th Jan. 2019].

Fig. 70. A diagram showing a new typology to flexible workplace as the solution the “Impossible Office Trinity.”

Author’s own diagram. (2018) [Illustration] [produced 5th Jan. 2019].

Fig. 71. The Action Office modular furniture system Design Applause, (2013). Why. Herman miller. [online] Available at: https://designapplause.com/design/ home/home-office/why-herman-miller/37932/ [Accessed 5th Jan. 2019].

Fig. 72. An activity-based office.

Archdaily, (2014). Cisco Offices / Studio O+A. [online] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/469722/ meraki-now-cisco-offices-studio-o-a [Accessed 2nd Jan. 2019].

94

Appendix I

Appendix I Interview transcript 1

Date: 1st November 2018 Time: 5:00 pm - 5:15 pm Venue: 1st-floor studio of School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (Newcastle University) Mode of interview: A personal face-to-face interview Interviewee: Stage 3 Student A

Q1: How would you describe your personality?

“I think I am more of an extrovert. When I was a child I couldn’t sit properly in class and liked chatting with my classmates. It wasn’t until high school that I can get more controlled of myself and stay focus on my work.

I really like meeting new friends in groups sport and group outings. I think I am also a more straightforward person as I will express my emotions openly and make clear of my preferences and choices. When I encounter difficulties, I will seek others help and ask for their opinions.”

Q2: How often will you come to the studio?

“Basically, I spend almost every day in the studio as I have put my laptop here. Working in the studio enables me to interact with my course mates and I also get to know how their projects are going and learn something new every day. I found it very difficult to work at home because I will easily get distracted when I am alone. But having a lot of my course mates working together in the studio, I feel that I am more motivated on my work. I usually don’t go to the library to do more work as I am not able to discuss conveniently with others.”

Q3: Regarding the noise level of the studio, do you think it is appropriate for you to concentrate on your work?

“I would say 90% of the time it works fine for me. Although I like working and interact with people, when I have to do some individual research on my project or on my dissertation, I will usually wear my headphones to concentrate. But when I am working on my design or doing things that don’t require that much analysis and thinking, and prefer knowing what others are chatting about and what are they doing. I have to say however sometimes I find the studio is too noisy as my desk space is just next to the pod. Which is a semienclosed space, some of my course mates just chat too loudly that I am not even able to concentrate on my work when I am wearing my headphone.”

Q4: Why would you choose this desk as your area to work in the studio?

“As at the back of my workspace is the pod, there is a wall at my back. Although I love interacting with my course mates, I find it a little bit uncomfortable if someone is working and peeking at me at the back every 95

Appendix I

time. Working in this desk area enables me to have a full glimpse of what the others are doing. The outer wall of the pod also enables me to hang my panels and my work so that I can keep referencing them when I am doing my project.

Q5: Why would you have such arrangement on your workspace, such as putting a partition on the front and on the side?

“When I am concentrating on my work, I really don’t like people distracting me. If I didn’t put a piece of cardboard on the front, When I am looking at the monitor, I will inevitably look at my friend who is working on the other side of the desk. So putting the wooden shelf on the side and cardboard at the front is just to prevent too many distractions by people when I need to do some tasks requiring focus. Forming this semienclosed area is also an indication to others that this is my workspace. I also make this a comfortable place for me to work on by getting a monitor and putting a picture of the Buddha on my desk. Now, I also insert a “Japanese door” using the waste materials from the primer stage just to feel safe. As my sitting area is closed to the corridor, I just don’t want anyone who is walking along it peeks at me at the back when I am working. It is also to act as a barrier to prevent people to take my stuff whenever I am not in the studio, even though people can actually open the door.”

Q6: Do you think the level of interaction with others is limited when you have used these “partitions” to form a semi-enclosed space?

“I don’t think it is limited. Last year, I also worked a lot in the studio, but I sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable when I am not able to concentrate on the work which requires full attention as I am surrounded by all my course mates. This even makes me more anxious just to get my work done and thus I didn’t talk that frequently with others. But this year I think I even chat more with others after adding these partitions as I can more effectively finish work that requires concentration so that it makes me more willing and having more time to interact with others. Therefore, I don’t think the cardboard and the shelf would reduce the interaction with others. They indeed make me more voluntarily chat with others whenever I would like to.”

Q7: Would you consider changing another area to work in the studio?

“I think this workspace works fine for me. I think I will not change to another working area as I have already put my monitor and all my stationary here. It will be more convenient for me to walk to the studio without carrying anything and work immediately after I arrive at my workspace as I do not need to search for another sitting area where I have to arrange all my stuff again on the desk. Besides, I think I am able to work very efficiently and at the same time interact with my course mates. It is also easier to form a strong bond with the course mates near me as we will meet every day at the same place but at the same time I will still have the opportunity of visiting other areas of the studio space and get to know the others.”

96

Appendix II

Appendix II Interview transcript 2

Date: 14th December 2018 Time: 2:30 pm - 2:45 pm Venue: 1st-floor studio of School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (Newcastle University) Mode of interview: A personal face-to-face interview Interviewee: Stage 3 Student B

Q1: How would you describe your personality?

“I will call myself now an introvert. I would say I am an extrovert when I was little as my parents often say I was always a bit over-excited and liked wandering around and talking a lot. But since I have attended high school, I seemed to be quieter and enjoy more on being alone myself though I still participated in several extra-curricular activities to meet new friends. When there is anything bad happen, I often leave all the feelings to myself and seldom will I tell what I think, except maybe one or a few friends.”

Q2: How often will you come to the studio?

“I would say I almost come to the studio every day now. Last year when I was in Stage 2, I seldom come to the studio because I rent a house with a few friends who also studied architecture. I find it quite productive last year to worked at home alone and discussed any questions about architecture with my friends. Also, there aren’t any fixed seats in the studio, so I am not able to put all of my models and all my other stuff.

Therefore, I seldom went to the studio to do my design project and all my other assignments. However, this year I am leaving in a private studio suite and no longer rent a house with my friends, so I think it’s better to work in the studio, and I find it quite comfortable indeed to work in this environment as I can get to chat with my friends and also know how the progress of other people’s works are going.”

Q3: Regarding the noise level of the studio, do you think it is appropriate for you to concentrate on your work?

“I think it depends on which day I am working in the studio. Normally, in the weekends or days which we do not need to rush our coursework and design projects, there aren’t a lot of people working in the studio.

But I find it a bit too noisy and annoying when there is someone using the pod near my working area and when the whole studio space is full of people. I will usually wear my headphones in order to concentrate on my work.”

Q4: Why would you choose this desk as your area to work in the studio?

“I think it really gives me the incentive to work in the studio space as I am able to choose my preferred seats now unlike last year when there isn’t a fixed workspace. I have chosen a desk on the first floor rather 97

Appendix II

than that on the second floor as I think the light conditions here is better and the ceiling is higher, and most importantly, I am able to form like a little corner with my friends who are seating near me. It’s quite fun that we can actually work together in the studio and share our thoughts and opinions on our projects. I also choose this desk because it is close to the window area where I can receive natural light and it’s relatively intimate and enclosed compared to seats.”

Q5: Why would you have such arrangement on your workspace, such as putting a partition on the front and on the side?

“Without these partitions, I think it’s quite difficult for me to concentrate on my work, be it doing design projects or dissertation there are too many distractions around me. Putting a cardboard partition on the front and a wood partition on the side just means I will not have a direct visual connection with the person sitting in front of me and who sits next to me, thus enabling me to focus on my work without the interference of others. These partitions also allow me to pin up or hang up some of the paper documents.

Besides, I just use my laptop to do all my assignments and projects originally, but after some of my friends have bought a monitor, I think I have to get one. I think it’s more convenient to have two screens at the same time when doing all my work as I can at the same time open multiple windows and using different software without the need to keep switching the window on the same screen. Therefore, it just makes things easier for me to put a monitor in my workspace in the studio.”

Q6: Do you think the level of interaction with others is limited when you have used these “partitions” to form a semi-enclosed space?

“Well, compared with last year, I think I have more interaction this year with my friends and my course mates as I am now working in the studio instead of at home. But aside from that, I indeed don’t want to talk to others even with my close friends when I am concentrating on my work, so I think the cardboard and the wood panel can help me reduce unnecessary interactions with others. I will just have a chat or discuss with others whenever I am free or I have temporarily finished a part of my work after which I can just relax a bit. Therefore, I am not working in the studio mainly intended for social interaction but to effectively finish my work while interacting with others is just a means to help me get rid of my boredom when I feel that I need to regain my energy through communication and interaction.”

Q7: Would you consider changing another area to work in the studio?

“I am not sure about that. As I have already set up all my stuff here and also the fact that all of my friends are also working in the same area, I think I will probably stick to this space. I may go and work in another area if I need a large desk to work which I believe my current desk is a bit small for me to make relatively large-scale models. But I think I can still remove the partitions to form a large area for working if my friends sitting near me is not in the studio.”

98

101

P