Alan,
On 4 Aug 2005, at 08:33, Alan Penn wrote:
> Anzir,
>
> Both organisational and task structures certainly bring people
> together,
> however these are dictated by the current view of 'what is
> important' as
> defined by the organisation. There is some evidence that what the
> building
> provides (or inhibits) is the pattern of 'who knows who' that supplies
> innovation - the network of people that nobody knew needed to know
> each
> other to solve a problem. Tom Allen says things about this issue.
> This is
> partly confirmed by the 'if you aren't seen you aren't found
> useful, if you
> are seen you may or may not be useful' the latter depending in part
> on your
> role, status and personal attributes.
This suggests that "visibility" is perhaps the most important
criterion (I have no connection to research in this area, I am merely
commenting as someone whose interest in the internal configuration of
buildings relates mostly to shopping centres).
In this respect, have any studies approached the changes in
organisational productivity and staff satisfaction in relation to
open plan offices v individual ones? I know when I first started
working on an open plan office I felt very uncomfortable, as if under
surveillance the whole time - and it was not unusual for people to
disappear into meeting rooms to work alone.
> The issue of comfort is also important. There is evidence that a
> proportion
> of reporting of discomfort in building sickness studies is actually
> response
> to specific bad managers.
Is internal configuration, such as locations of water coolers,
printers, fax machines etc. important to productivity? Perhaps this
is not quite in the realm of space syntax as we would use it "out of
doors"
--
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
|