Search results

The purpose of this paper conducts a co-design framework, thanks to different kinds of interviews with expert pilots in different space contexts for each stage of the technical development of the system.

To speak about the question of “spaces” and especially spaces in the design process, this paper is focussed on the transdisciplinary design research for commercial airline pilots. This design research combined a “Human-Centred Design” approach (Boy, 2015) with an occupational psychology, including a “Clinic of Activity” perspective (Kloëtzer et al., 2016). It integrates experts within the research process to design a new technological tool for indicating weather conditions in flight (Boulnois, 2018).

This study explains how the crossed self-confrontation interview under special space conditions allows dialogue to take place between the designers and the pilots for imagining the future workplace by using an emergent workspace.

The physical, psychological and social “space” conditions were worked on throughout the design process – including during the work analysis and design testing phases – and were revisited.

In this way, the occupational psychologist organised the framework for dialogue about the present situation and future workspaces, to anticipate changes in work organisation, enhance inter-professional collaboration and, finally, increase health and safety benefits for pilots, and potentially other workers, at the same time.

This chapter focuses on the physical work environment, in particular, the possibilities and limitations of biophilic design in hotel office space. Biophilic design has already gained attention in directly influencing the guest experience, but little focus has been given to workspace. Traditionally, the hospitality industry places employees' office spaces in parts of the hotel not appropriate as guest space due to lack of daylight and windows. Many studies have shown that improving the workplace with nature-based features can play a role in increasing employee well-being. Data collected from employees with both extensive managerial and back-of-house hotel experience established that employees would welcome the opportunity to work in such an environment and currently find back-of-house design basic and lacking any aesthetically pleasing elements. An understanding of the obstacles in initiating such changes was shown as well as employee initiatives to improve work spaces. This initial exploratory study concludes that the needs of employees in terms of comfort, wellbeing, motivation and work satisfaction are often overlooked when considering back-of-house spaces. There is a general understanding and expectation that management needs to develop awareness and practical initiatives to address the deficits of the physical work environment. Biophilic design can be influential in promoting a calming and restorative environment at the workplace and thus positively impacting employee motivation and performance.

Making a workplace entails two essential factors: the physical action of designing, and the design of the work space itself. This paper illustrates how building stock can be used as a vehicle to create new, small and medum‐sized enterprises in which a participatory and learning process gives users control of their costs and stimulates creative channels between tenants. Workplace making can be the source of new understanding and communication between disciplines that do not usually cooperate in innovative situations ‐ demonstrated by the Volvo case study, which resulted in a totally new production system for the final assembly plants. In conclusion, it is paramount that the company itself leads the design process. To outsource workplace making is to outsource the knowledge and ability to use space as a long‐term production resource, which can restrict space productivity. To ensure the best use of future production space it is vital that a company listens not only to the architects but to its own employees.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what organisational and management practices used in connection with open space flexible offices create business value. It seeks to identify what consequences this may have for successful real estate practices.

This paper utilises an inductive case study approach. The international telecom company Telenor has implemented open space flexible offices from top to bottom amongst their 35,000 employees. The case description and analysis is based on secondary data, user evaluations and 20 interviews with middle- and top-level managers across levels and functional departments.

The case of Telenor reveals that leadership and organizing issues are important, together with work modes and communication technology, for a productive use of work place design. The paper highlights specifically how the open, transparent, flexible office solution creates business value when used with centralised and standardised organisational management systems and a participative, informal leadership culture.

The study is based on one case, so the findings need to be tested across a representative sample of companies.

Managers need to take both organisational and management issues into consideration when implementing new office space design. This challenges also the existing real estate strategies to include the organisational and management issues in their planning.

The originality and value of the paper lies in the analysis and findings of the Telenor case introducing organizational and management perspectives to real estate issues.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the current trend of designing workspaces to foster creativity. The paper brings forth themes that seem to be connected with the so-called ‘creative workspaces’. The paper discusses how the findings relate to recent theory and research. Finally, the paper develops propositions to further elaborate the issue.

The paper adopts an inductive and social constructionist approach. In all, 40 internet pictures of workspaces claimed to be creative among a broad range of industries and companies which were analyzed through an aesthetic lens and compared to what theory and research about organizational creativity and space inform us.

The designs of ‘creative workspaces’ follow a rather standardized and deterministic assumption of what kind of spaces are considered to produce creativity: open offices, happy, playful communities of close-knit teams and spatial arrangements that resemble home, symbols and memories, sports, technology and nature. This view of creativity and workspaces remains a management fad unless a more balanced approach to the issue is assumed.

The sample is not to be representative and the findings generalizable as such, but to bring forth the phenomenon. This exploratory and inductive approach calls for a systematic study to prove the propositions in a more controlled research setting and with a bigger sample.

The paper makes a few suggestions of what companies should pay attention to when building workspaces to improve organizational creativity – and to overcome the fad.

The proposed end-user perspective may ultimately save costs, if people can voice their needs on the space arrangements from the beginning and throughout the building process, not only after the spaces are fully complete, as is typically the case.

The paper provides a critical view on the trend of building work spaces to purposefully enhance organizational creativity. It brings forth themes that are connected to creativity and workspace designs and suggests that more nuances are involved in the issue.

The focus on designing spaces for users in the last decade or so signifies the gradual change in the mission of libraries from provision of resources to that of a pro-active partner in learning. Planning for user space in support of learning is far more complex as it needs to take into account the variety of users’ needs and behaviour. Before specifying the actual layout and design of users’ spaces it is important to consider all the major factors that affect the use of the intended library space. The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide to library planning base on the experience of the authors at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Libraries.

The framework for planning library spaces developed at NTU Libraries consists of four components – collaborative space, sanctuary space, interaction space and community space. Discussion on the rationale of these spaces and suggestions for their implementation will assist others in asking appropriate questions on their own library space planning exercise.

The paper reinforced the view that a good library building has to provide a wide variety of spaces, some of which are contradictory as the needs of a student is different from another. A student also has different needs at different times. Providing and balancing these needs is essential.

This paper provides a tried and tested conceptual framework for use by library space designers.

The most serious barrier to achieving a “forgiving building” is the cost of its special building systems. The library is increasingly becoming a “hi tech” and “smart” building. A sophisticated facility is required to support current collections and the emerging electronic and optical technologies that will occupy (and perhaps dominate) the future library. It is far less expensive to provide the capacity to support future components at the time of initial construction than to subsequently renovate a building to provide needed capacities at a later date. The real challenge for librarians is to convince those who fund library construction that the “forgiving building” is the least expensive alternative in the long run.

The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the role of fit in the relationship between the design of working spaces and organizational culture.

The research is based on a set of two case studies compared on two levels of analysis (company and work group level). Empirical results are based on triangulated data involving observations, as well as interviews with the users, managers and designers of spaces in two organizations.

The results suggest that the overall “fit” of space and culture are not sufficient to engender positive outcomes (such as job performance and employee satisfaction). In particular, the results point to the moderating factors on the work group level of analysis (such as the type of job and employees’ personalities), as well as on the company level (implementation of the change management process), as crucial drivers of job satisfaction and productivity.

The authors demonstrate that a singular focus only on the fit between space and organizational culture leads to equivocal results in terms of cultural change outcomes. A more fine-grained analysis on the work group level considering the match between space, type of job, personality and seniority of the users of that space reconciles these differences.

This paper aims to categorize the typologies of co-working spaces and describe their main characteristics.

The aim is reached by means of analyzing 15 co-working spaces located in the capital area of Finland. The data used consist of interviews, websites, event presentations and brochures.

As a result, six co-working space typologies were identified: public offices, third places, collaboration hubs, co-working hotels, incubators and shared studios. The categorization was made by using two axes: business model (for profit and non-profit) and level of user access (public, semi-private and private).

The results provide a viewpoint on how co-working spaces can be categorized.

In practise, the results can be applied by all stakeholders who are working with alternative workplace solutions to respond to the needs of new ways of working, especially via workplace services for multi-locational and flexible working, including facilities managers, corporate real estate executives and designers.

This research builds on the previous academic literature on co-working spaces by making the phenomena more explicit for researchers and practitioners who are facing the challenges of developing new alternative workplace offerings.

This chapter focuses on learning space design for students’ technology-rich lifestyles, in particular the evolution and future of learning spaces in the United States. JISC design principles – bold, supportive, future proof, creative, and enterprising – frame discussion in the chapter’s first section, “Planning for the learning spaces of tomorrow.” The section begins with pioneering work in the field and follows with recent learning spaces (both classrooms and informal learning environments) that seek new and innovative ways for students to collaborate. Examples clearly point to students’ need for continual access to flexible, tech-rich spaces that support their work and study habits.

The chapter’s second section, “The future of learning spaces: On-demand apps and Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT),” is a case study focused on software virtualization’s influence on learning space design at Indiana University. The section brings in examples from the University of South Florida and the University of Iowa, asserting that physical and virtual learning spaces must be designed to come together seamlessly, echoing students’ on-the-go lifestyles and constant connectedness. Ultimately, the section makes a bold contention about the evolution of learning spaces: Any space can become a tech-rich learning environment, if students have access to virtualized software.

Throughout, the chapter touches on compelling questions about meeting the learning needs of digital natives: How do we challenge traditional educational paradigms? Can we flip the classroom to further the potential of all learners? What is the role of collaboration in learning? Which models will energize and inspire learners and instructors of the future?