--
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
JEROME CHANG
Mid-Wilshire
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea) | Los Angeles CA 90036
ph: (323) 330-9505
Downtown
529 S. Broadway, Suite 4000 (@Pershing Square) | Los Angeles CA 90013
ph: (213) 550-2235
Thanks for sharing this. I found the HBR version of this article particularly insightful thanks to its regression analysis into main frustration factors and impact of these factors on overall worker satisfaction (see spider diagram)There's a big difference between creating an open-plan office (where there is only open work stations and some meeting rooms), and designing a collaborative workspace (whether that using coworking or activity-based working principles) that truly caters to the working and personal needs of users (often incorporating a variety of work settings). "Lack of sound privacy" and "lack of space" are not direct outcomes of an open-plan office but a poorly designed open-plan office. I've seen and heard plenty of first-hand examples from poor implementation and execution of an "open-plan office" (giving the name a bad rap and resulting in statistics like this survey).The HBR article notes that the amount of space was both the most frustrating and greatest determinant to overall worker satisfaction, yet this contradicts our experience in the coworking industry. We have some of the highest density of worker populations (higher than any activity-based corporate workplaces) and yet our members like our workspace so much and feel it contributes to their productivity that they actually pay to work in our spaces. It makes me question whether it is really the amount of space (e.g. in square meters/feet per person) or the access to the right type of space that is the biggest challenge / opportunity.In the research presented, a variable representing access to a variety of workspace types was not included. In our experience, people don't mind being in a high-density space, so long as they have the access to facilities to support what they need to do (private phone booths for phone calls, cafe style environment for informal meetings, sufficient formal meeting spaces, solo work booths for focused solo work etc). At Hub Australia, we have incorporated a variety of different spaces (including things like Buzzihoods and small rooms for solo focused work) to ensure people have the "sufficient space" to make phone calls and do uninterrupted work. To me, this shows that the "access to space" identified in the research may not be specifically access to a certain quantity of space, but the availability and variety of spaces.The most successful work style transitionsalso ensure a sufficient level of culture change readiness and management is undertaken. If time is taken to consult with the users to understand their current and future use and need states, and invite them to participate actively in the changes it's likely to be much more engaging and successful. I recommend taking 6-9 months to fully understand user needs and begin to prototype physical workplace designs.
--
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
maybe we should expect open-plan offices to struggle in comparison for some time, moving down in fitness before they can move back up to a new local optima that might be much "fitter" overall. I wonder how much this is a standard issue with cultural change from some long-standing tradition.
--