 |
|
|
|
|
|
Our company
is getting ready to move into a new building (still on the drawing board) and this is an
opportunity to make some significant changes to the work environment. Our engineering
dept. (of which I am the supervisor) is a typical "Dilbert environment" made up
of a few offices and many 5-foot high partitioned cubicles. Upper management has taken the
standpoint that walls are expensive, relatively immovable, and offer no capability for
expansion for increase in engineering personnel in the future. The standpoint taken by my
engineers and me is that cubicles are a noisy, distractive environment which is
non-conducive to the creativity and concentration required in developing circuits and
software effectively and efficiently, and does not promote an incentive for prospective
new engineers nor a sense of well being for the existing engineers.
My question is: What is your opinion on cubicles vs. individual offices (even small ones), and can you reference any studies or textual matter which can be used in support? --Cubed In
Dear Cubed:
Work environments should be geared to the work. Configurations for sequential work are shifting from vertical lines to clusters, and that applies to brain work as well as assembly and manufacturing. Therefore, those who argue for a flexible work space, have more on their side than just cost per square foot effectiveness.
There are, however, some big buts to flexible open office spaces and cubicles, and you have mentioned several of them: noise, interruptions, distractions, and what you did not mention, is status and privacy.
The research which is reported in such journals as The Academy of Management Journal has found rather unequivocal support for the belief that privacy matters. I have visited organizations that have very attractive open 5-foot high partitions with attractive decor (paintings, mobiles, stabiles, and green plants being regularly rotated from area to area) and covering white-noise and music. Even in these workplaces those at the top took the windowed corners and walled offices. In one place, the EOC vice president wanted and needed privacy which he did not have.
Rarely does a work group have an opportunity to design a new workspace from the drawing board up. The decision-making process of input is one that you are now engaging in, collecting data, opinions, and seeking support for your position. This can be an exciting and frustrating time. Keep cool and persist in asserting that your people have a viewpoint that grows out of their current work experience. Seek to have representatives on the design committee that meets with the architects. Ask that the design committees do informational off-site tours of benchmark companies that have units that do similar work to yours.
Possibly a configuration can be designed that accomodates some work space that brings clusters of engineers together regularly in open work areas, but also houses individuals in adjacent, private, sound-proofed offices. Such an arrangement should have the advantage of open communication, work unit cohesiveness, and privacy, and therefore is attractive to new personnel.
How does this arrangement sound to you?
WEGO is the process of turning space into place. Marking one's space is a process of making your workspace your workplace.
Bill Gorden