Physical Space: The Forgotten Factor
September 15, 2009 by Daniel Rose
I happened to stumble upon some notes that I had in an old notebook about a project that I had some involvement with while working at Bell Canada. It was about the development of Bell’s “campus” that was being built in the suburbs of Toronto. The idea was to collapse all of the smaller offices in and around the city into one big campus for the purposes of increased collaboration amongst employees. The assumption was that if everyone was located in a few buildings on the campus the company would be able to move more quickly, be more proactive, nimble and all of those other good things that companies strive for.
Our group became involved in the real estate discussions because as professional collaborators we thought we could contribute to the discussion based on our experience in designing for human interaction (albeit on an “intervention” basis) and in designing physical space to support those human interactions. In conversing with the architects, we learned some interesting things.
- Research suggests that workers in large office environments tend to interact with people who are only within 150 feet (50 metres) of their own desk.
- Up to 87% of knowledge creation is gained informally, through such means as social learning (water cooler wisdom), learning in the moment, communities of practice and other techniques. Information transfer occurs formally, through lectures, workshops and seminars.
* Farrow Partnership Architects
The conclusion I drew from this was that simple co-location does not even come close to guaranteeing increased collaboration amongst employees.
The conceptual solution that I had envisioned was threefold:
- Apply architectural design principles that are used to build dedicated collaborative spaces to an entire office complex. It’s no secret that traditional cubicle farms don’t exactly lend themselves to lots of interesting conversations among inmates. While the initial dot-com boom accelerated the notion of a more “social” office space as a way of being more creative and productive, there are some deeper principles at play that go beyond free chocolate bars and a pool table. Innovation Labs has a whitepaper on the topic of designing collaborative spaces.
- Train a network of specialized workers/facilitators/information synthesizers to be responsible for certain physical areas of each office floor. They would help to “design” the work that the employees are doing, facilitate small and large meetings, perform graphic recording, information visualization and other specialized tasks designed to tease out the collective intelligence of the organization. These types of workers would be part of a network of practitioners within the organization who are more in tune with the concept of social business design, the concept of which is now being put into play by the folks at Dachis Corporation. As a network of practitioners they would be in communication with each other and act as a “biological overlay” for the otherwise mechanistic organization. It is a lot to ask for a corporation to switch its mindset to being “social” but if there were networks of people within the organization acting behind the scenes to make this happen, wholesale revolution might not be necessary.
- Implement the necessary Enterprise 2.0 software to enable knowledge sharing, insight generation, weak signal monitoring and other techniques that will allow the network of practitioners to bring the work from the rest of the organization into their areas of responsibility. They are acting as the eyes and ears to the rest of the organization (and the world at large) for the group to which they’ve been assigned. A further benefit of training these types of workers is that it adds a level of governance and risk mitigation for executives who see social media as being a risky endeavour.
I did my best to sketch out what this might look like at Bell Canada but it’s quite generic and could be applied anywhere. The idea is that with tens of thousands of employees it’s impossible to be co-located. With good design principles, implementation of a soft infrastructure based on principles of collaboration and a hard infrastructure of the right social tools it’s possible to realize a significant shift in how legacy organizations transition to becoming social businesses.







A forgotten factor indeed! The general lack of attention to this dimension is one of the great mysteries of my life as a designer. With the exception of Peter Block, very little has be written in management books regarding how design can encourage or discourage interaction. Reducing the open office planning to an either/or question is over-simplifying the issue. I think we need people and places that act as “knowledge activists.” Yes, I’m the person who presented those stats at Bell Canada a few years ago!
I’ve done some research on informal information sharing. One thing that you often lose when you move from a downtown location to a suburban employment zone is the bars and restaurants in which people get together after work and talk about their projects. In an urban environment, where people walk, bike or transit to work, a group of people will often leave together at lunch or after work and go have a meal or drink. In a suburban area, everyone drives to work, and even if there is a place to eat/drink nearby, it’s often not very interesting, and you have to drive to get there. Most people don’t bother. As one person told me; “Once I’m in my car, I’m just going to head home”.
Which is to say, if you are building a campus, put a nice pub in the middle, and serve good, cheap food and booze.
Here’s a gross generalization that might be completely wrong. Architects and interior designers are trained to design something that tends to be very static and permanent. A building. A floor plate. Walls. Kitchens.
What they aren’t designing for is human interaction. The question is how to design a space that supports and actively facilitates the best possible human interaction? Some of those elements would be permanent and some elements would be left up to the inhabitants to define in their own way.
Dave Gray is doing good work on how to manage creative people and one of his theories is on physical space and how they have to be built to promote serendipity. Spaces have to somehow strike the balance between providing a physical shell framework and also getting out of the way and letting its inhabitants manipulate it best.
To Michael’s point, that reinforces Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language quite nicely and I can wholeheartedly agree from personal experience. I’m not sure if too many corporations would put a bar in their campus.