The drivers and methodologies behind space, and the importance of internal and external roles in the process of adapting space.
Physical space is the easy part. For a business focused on profit and loss, space densification can save money – perhaps 10 or maybe 20 percent of recurrent cost – but it is the staff that the space encloses that generate turnover. How they are accommodated is, arguably, the true focus of space. Dealing with people is often referred to as the “soft issues”. Actually it’s the hard part. Perhaps instead of “real estate” it should be called “people estate”. Driving cohesiveness, efficiency, productivity, and business performance from people, is the key to effective real estate.
The delivery of space to staff falls under two categories: the ‘tell’ model and the ‘listen and sell’ model, here we explore the latter. When we think about office space in the broadest terms, we need to ask: what is the objective? Facing this question at initiation of a project is a sure way of aligning space to performance. By their very nature, management have different objectives to staff. The business unit may have different objectives to the overall group. Establishing management’s business objectives defines very quickly what any space will need to achieve. Often the first step of objective mapping is missed – frequently leading space towards a whimsical fashion show – however the question is relatively straight forward : “What are your business needs and goals, and how do these map against space?”.
Performance and Productivity
In a straw poll conducted at 2009’s Asia Office Space Congress in Hong Kong, 11 out of 96 attendees indicated that productivity or improved performance was a significant driver for decisions on office space. That translates to 12 percent of companies in the room identifying productivity or business performance as a key driver of space. Is it worth considering what other aspects of a business, apart from space, might reflect similar percentages in regard to cost and productivity?
A less straight forward question is: how can we focus on productivity as a driver for space? Measurement of productivity is an elusive goal. Sick days, meeting bookings, Engage analysis of software used by staff for how long and when, growth in profit or turnover – all form significant statistics. However, linking these specifically back to space as the driver is tenuous. To tell a business leader that space implemented by external consultants has upped productivity suggests the leader is incapable of growing and running a business themselves.
If productivity is the goal, then measuring the aspects that combine towards productivity is an effective methodology. The ability to meet, collaborate and concentrate in a comfortable and flexible setting impacts on the productivity model.
The Importance of Culture
A second straw poll at 2009’s Asia Office Space Congress asked the question “Is the place (in which) you perform your work of little consequence to you?” revealed that 96 percent of respondents care or have a view about where they work. This demonstrates, people care about the space they inhabit – not a surprise, given how much time people spend at work. Staff care, but typically they care most about what immediately affects them. Simply listening to staff by creating a structured listening environment geared towards the audience, including simple, structured interviews, surveys and focus groups can be a tremendous tool for getting all parties to participate in and support a project.
Rules of Engagement
The exercise of measurement and engagement is not, however, a linear process. Current thinking suggests that the process of engagement follows a trajectory that experiences highs and lows. We see this pattern on every successful project. The ‘J’ curve of emotional engagement typically starts by going up as expectations are unrealistically inflated, then the curve heads sharply downwards as issues such as storage reduction or hierarchy come up against vested interests (‘Project B’, in the diagram below). Alternatively the curve may simply head straight downwards, as in the case of a group that has to move but doesn’t want to (‘Project A’, in the diagram below). Capturing a down curve and realigning it to an upward trajectory is an exercise requiring nuance. At the point when the emotional curve is at its lowest, the internal party trying to drive the initiative can be blamed, the project halts and recriminations fly.
Understanding the Process
Metrics results in a client with an increasing understanding of the core issues, and when mapped against identified business objectives the result becomes a conclusion. Of course the process of measurement and engagement is non linear and reflects an iterative process, however we may compare this to a more traditional process where a series of new and clever ideas, reflected against sporadically identified need, occurs as a sequence of discrete events until such time as the construction schedule defines the conclusion and forces a decision to be taken.
Contextualising the Discussion
So, how does this all map against the business environment of the past year? In some ways we have seen staff become increasingly malleable; they may be willing to accept more (or less, as may be the case). Upon improvement in the job market, however, history indicates the potential for exodus, especially with those who are eminently employable. Thus, actively engaging staff in the discussion is all the more important. In terms of how space projects are owned and driven, if we take the measurement and engagement process and map it against introducing other workplace initiatives such as hot-desking, mobility, or activity-based environments, then the risk profile against the importance of success increases exponentially. Concurrently, the importance of asking the hard questions, and perhaps butting up against the sacred cows, is elevated. Integrating management’s requirements, aligning them with the culture and having the ability to ask the right questions without fear, requires a symbiotic relationship between the internal and external parties.
When we look at the office as a reflection of business requirements, we can see how space can become the manifestation of the change drivers within the business. Saving space can have the consequence of saving money and over the past year one could say that anyone making decisions about allocation of Capital Expenditure has their head above the parapet. Table stakes on all projects is an immediate business case demonstrating savings, and perhaps this past year more than any other has reinforced the importance of this.
A Case in Point
One natural response to this could be referred to as the ‘do nothing’ model. Our Workplace team was once called into a group who identified the potential for something new. In reality there were some serious problems in the office. Staff had previously been asked what workstation they wanted. Of course the answer had come back: ‘L’ shaped workstations and high partitions. Safe and secure. When we visited the office, however, we were immediately confronted by two senior staff members on their knees in a workstation cubicle, whispering into a speaker phone. In the next cubicle a staff member was reading a report; his hands cupped over his ears and with a frown on his face, clearly unable to concentrate. The office was a disaster.
In fact, the key attributes of the group that we discovered were that they worked in teams of three or five and needed to maintain line-of-sight with each other to have quick, frequent conversations. No aspect of their interaction was supported by the office, yet personal space and visual privacy were their highest priorities. Effectively phrasing questions is critical. The group knew what they needed to do their job; management knew where they wanted the business to go; and when this was reflected back to them a dramatically different solution was agreed. The ‘J’ curve was, however, substantial and I suspect that an internal person wading into that exercise would have been buying a one-way ticket.
The Future
All of this does not even touch upon technology, so what about tomorrow? While recently shopping with Sam, my six year old son, he picked up an iPhone display model, scrolled through the menus, swiping his finger across the screen, selected a game and started playing it. Amazed, I asked if he had used an iPhone before. He continued to play whilst he answered me “no”. I asked him how he knew how to use it, and he turned at me with a look that said “Dad, everyone knows how to use things”. Apply that to how he is going to expect to function in an office. Perhaps in fifteen years he will say “Dad, why did some of you sit in tennis courts and some in chicken coops? What was that about?”
So what is the future of the office? I believe there will be increasingly two camps. First, businesses and offices are aligned; experimentation is accepted, measurement is key and flexibility of space to accommodate and reflect the dynamic of the business and productivity is simply table stakes. And the rest, who muddle through in increasingly redundant space, occasionally embracing new ideas like a coffee machine or bean bags. The divide between the two will become a chasm.
