Individual Workplaces as Preferred Places (08-06-10)

Hua and her colleagues assessed worker satisfaction with various sorts of collaborative spaces and some of their findings have been discussed in other Research Design Connections blog posts.  This article focuses on their results related to individual workstations.

Data were collected at public workplaces in eleven office buildings in eight American cities:  “The sites were selected with help from the General Service Administration, on the basis of building accessibility and similar level of need for collaboration in the work activities which these buildings accommodate.  The vintage and spatial layout of the buildings studied were representative of the profile of workplaces in the public sector.”

This research by Hua and her team has shown that individual workspaces are key for interpersonal activity:  82.3% of those completing their study survey used individual workstations for casual conversation, 32.8% indicated that they utilized kitchens and coffee areas for the same purpose, while meeting rooms were preferred by 31.8%.  Open meeting areas, shared printer areas, and circulation spaces were chosen by from 23.7% to 24.7% of participant for conversations.  For collaborative work, meeting rooms were preferred by 88.6% of workers as compared to 52.8% who selected individual workstations with open meeting areas trailing at 24.7%. 

Even when there are shared spaces in the workplace, “there is a clear preference for individual workstations as places for collaborative work and casual interaction.”

The researchers conclude that “Workstations are still critical elements in workplaces, and they need to be carefully designed and tailored to the nature of work in a particular organization in a way that considers their relationship with shared spaces in the workplace.”

Ying Hua, Vivian Loftness, Robert Kraut, and Kevin Powell.  2010.  “Workplace Collaborative Space Layout Typology and Occupant Perception of Collaboration Environment.”  Environment and Planning B:  Planning and Design, vol. 37, pp. 429-448.