Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

18
Paul Vos MA is a consultant at Adviesgroep Voor Kantoorinnovatie (Advisory Group for Office Innovation), Tilburg. Further, he is attached to Centre for People and Buildings, a newly formed knowledge centre that is engaged in research on the relationship between man, work and build- ings. Prior to this he worked for several years as researcher at the Department of Real Estate & Project Management of the Delft University of Technology. He is (joint) author of many publica- tions on office design, including ‘The Office, The Whole Office and Nothing But The Office’. 1 Dr Theo van der Voordt is Assistant Professor at the Department of Real Estate & Project Management at the Faculty of Architecture of the Delft University of Technology. He specialises in the evaluation of buildings in use and the implications for briefing and design. He has published many articles and books on design for all; adaptable housing; socially safe designs; functional quality of buildings; and specific studies of, among others, health centres and housing and care for the elderly. In recent years, his research has concentrated on the effects of office innovation on the performance of organisations and their employees. He is currently attached to the Centre for People and Buildings. ABSTRACT Many organisations have changed to new ways of working, steered or followed up by design interventions and sharing of activity- related workplaces. Expectations have been high. Innovative offices should lead to more efficient use of space and other facilities; greater job satisfaction; the projection of a positive image to clients; an improved performance of the organisation and its staff; and reduced costs. Have innovations in the working en- vironment fulfilled these high expectations? Are the new offices really more efficient and more pleasant to work in? Or will constant changing of the workplace reduce satisfaction and productivity? What are the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of teleworking? Are the extra costs of nice ergonomic furniture, high-tech information and communication technology (ICT) and image-boosting gadgets counterbalanced by the expected profits in higher productivity and more efficient use of space? Evaluative re- search results show a mixed picture. Be- sides the considerable satisfaction with the attractive design and the improved oppor- tunities to interact, there are many complaints about problems in concentrating on work. Psychological mechanisms, such as the need for status, privacy and individual territory, Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of innovation in the working environment Paul Vos* and Theo van der Voordt** Received (in revised form): 21st September, 2001 *Centre for People and Buildings, Delft University of Technology, Berlageweg 1, 2628CR Delft, The Netherlands; Tel: 31 15 2781114; Fax: 31 15 2783171; e-mail: [email protected] **Department of Real Estate & Project Management, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; Tel: 31 15 2786846; Fax: 31 15 2783171; e-mail: [email protected] Journal of Corporate Real Estate Volume 4 Number 1 Page 48 Journal of Corporate Real Estate Vol. 4 No. 1, 2001, pp. 48–65. Henry Stewart Publications, 1463–001X

Transcript of Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

Page 1: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

Paul Vos MA is a consultant at AdviesgroepVoor Kantoorinnovatie (Advisory Group for OfficeInnovation), Tilburg. Further, he is attached toCentre for People and Buildings, a newly formedknowledge centre that is engaged in research onthe relationship between man, work and build-ings. Prior to this he worked for several years asresearcher at the Department of Real Estate &Project Management of the Delft University ofTechnology. He is (joint) author of many publica-tions on office design, including ‘The Office, TheWhole Office and Nothing But The Office’.1

Dr Theo van der Voordt is Assistant Professorat the Department of Real Estate & ProjectManagement at the Faculty of Architectureof the Delft University of Technology. Hespecialises in the evaluation of buildings in useand the implications for briefing and design. Hehas published many articles and books ondesign for all; adaptable housing; socially safedesigns; functional quality of buildings; andspecific studies of, among others, health centresand housing and care for the elderly. In recentyears, his research has concentrated on theeffects of office innovation on the performanceof organisations and their employees. He iscurrently attached to the Centre for People andBuildings.

ABSTRACT

Many organisations have changed to newways of working, steered or followed up bydesign interventions and sharing of activity-related workplaces. Expectations have beenhigh. Innovative offices should lead to moreefficient use of space and other facilities; greaterjob satisfaction; the projection of a positiveimage to clients; an improved performanceof the organisation and its staff; and reducedcosts. Have innovations in the working en-vironment fulfilled these high expectations?Are the new offices really more efficient andmore pleasant to work in? Or will constantchanging of the workplace reduce satisfactionand productivity? What are the ‘pros’ and‘cons’ of teleworking? Are the extra costs ofnice ergonomic furniture, high-tech informationand communication technology (ICT) andimage-boosting gadgets counterbalanced by theexpected profits in higher productivity andmore efficient use of space? Evaluative re-search results show a mixed picture. Be-sides the considerable satisfaction with theattractive design and the improved oppor-tunities to interact, there are many complaintsabout problems in concentrating on work.Psychological mechanisms, such as the needfor status, privacy and individual territory,

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes:Effects of innovation in theworking environment

Paul Vos* and Theo van der Voordt**Received (in revised form): 21st September, 2001*Centre for People and Buildings, Delft University of Technology, Berlageweg 1,2628CR Delft, The Netherlands; Tel: �31 15 2781114; Fax: �31 15 2783171;e-mail: [email protected]**Department of Real Estate & Project Management, Delft University of Technology,PO Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; Tel: �31 15 2786846;Fax: �31 15 2783171; e-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Corporate Real Estate Volume 4 Number 1

Page 48

Journal of Corporate Real EstateVol. 4 No. 1, 2001, pp. 48–65.�Henry Stewart Publications,1463–001X

Page 2: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

According to visionary consultants andarchitects, isolated little rooms and musty,cellular offices have no place in thenetwork society. Innovative offices withsexy names like ‘non-territorial’ office,‘club office’ and ‘fun office’ are bettersuited to modern ‘knowledge workers’.Because, increasingly, office workers donot — or do not have to — put in anappearance at the office, the occupationrate drops. The efficient handling of spaceand facilities requires the sharing ofworkplaces. The central office isincreasingly assuming the character of ameeting place, and this demands a greatdegree of open space, and cosy corners.These factors act as a stimulant tointeraction, consultation and creativegroup processes. This is why variousorganisations have chosen to undergo aprocess of change in order to attuneaccommodation, ICT and other facilitiesto changing work processes; this is adevelopment called, in short, ‘workplaceinnovation’.2 Since workplace innovationbegan in the Netherlands, the Departmentof Real Estate & Project Management ofthe Delft University of Technology — incollaboration with the Dutch Govern-ment Buildings Agency, and later with theABN AMRO Bank — has researched thisphenomenon; a line of developmentwhich, enriched with the expertise ofother organisations, has been continued inthe recently established Centre for Peopleand Buildings. The focal point is thequestion of the optimal match betweenaccommodation and facilities on the onehand, and organisations and workprocesses on the other, and this ininteraction with an environment in whichall sorts of societal, economic andtechnological developments are takingplace. In this paper, the authors brieflycharacterise workplace innovation, someexperiences with it in practice and itspossible implications for the future.

do not necessarily hinder ‘flexi-working’, butonly when the new situation provides consider-able added value. Teleworking offers morefreedom of choice, but there are attendant risks.

Keywords: workplace innovation, of-fice design, post-occupancy evalua-tion, lessons learned, flexible working

Modern society is very dynamic. Themedia are full of reports on flexibility,globalisation, digitalisation and e-com-merce. Profit and nonprofit organisationsare investing substantially in new technol-ogy, such as Internet and digital subscrip-tion lines (xDSL); in the near future theywill also be investing in broadband. Fast,powerful, small and mobile resources aremaking the importance of time and placequite relative. People can work just aswell at home, at the client’s, or under way.They do not have to congregate in onebuilding to be productive. Virtuallyoperating project teams are being set upin many organisations. Work processes aregetting a facelift. Staff members work atthe time and in the place that best suitsthem, if, that is, as long as the final resultsagreed to are achieved.

Management leaves the ‘how’ and‘where’ more and more to the staffmembers themselves. In the race torecruit increasingly scarce, highly qualifiedpersonnel, autonomy, trust and respon-sibility are important work benefits.Office workers seem to be seeking,specifically, an interesting, exciting andcreative existence, where work andprivate life fit in well with each other.If it were up to management orshareholders, in the future work wouldproceed more quickly, still better andeverywhere.

These developments make greatdemands on the work environment.

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 49

Page 3: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

WORKPLACE INNOVATIONINVESTIGATEDThe way in which workplace innovationis carried out can vary considerably, butmany of the ingredients are very similar.They include the following:

— Rebuilding a cellular office environ-ment or an open-plan office as a combioffice: enclosed workplaces at the frontof the building for individual or duouse and concentrated work, around anopen central area for group work,meetings and common facilities

— Introducing ‘flexi-working’ withshared workplaces (desk sharing: use ofone workplace by more people);interchangeable workplaces (deskrotating: workplaces that are notdesignated to one person); andactivity-related workplaces (variedsupply of workplaces designated tovarious tasks)

— Attractively designed and ergonomi-cally responsible furniture: for instance,height-adjustable or otherwise adjus-table worktops and chairs

— Advanced information and com-munication technology (ICT), such aspowerful and mobile computers(laptops), mobile phones, intranet andInternet

— A different filing system (central, digi-tal)

— Distance working — at home, at theclient’s or under way — either digitallyconnected with the central office ornot; often several part-days per week;sometimes in a continuous period whenworking together on a project in a satel-lite office (teleworking office for staff ofthe same organisation) or hotel office(teleworking office where several or-ganisations can rent space and facilities).

These ingredients can be summed up as

Figure 1Relationship

between facilities,organisations and

work processes

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 50

Source: Van der Voordt, D. J. M. and Vos, P. G. J. C. (1999) ‘Evaluatie van kantoorinnovatie:model en methoden’ [Evaluation of office innovation: model and methods}, Delft University Press.

Output

Environment

Products/servicesWork processesOrganisation

Input Throughput

FacilitiesBuildings - ICT - other facilities

Page 4: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

workers: for instance, increased job satis-faction through an attractive workingenvironment. One complicating factor isthat objectives often originate from morethan one level. It is then important torealise that different priorities and objec-tives are ascribed from each of the threelevels. The interests can complement eachother, and then synergy is created. Thusan attractively decorated and healthyworking environment will not only havea favourable effect on the contentment ofstaff members, but also be perceptible inimproved production results and reducedsick leave. Interests can also conflict: avirtually classic example is that of savingsin costs through the use of fewersquare metres versus work satisfaction. Ifemployees are more cramped, and have tosurrender their fixed workplaces, thisalways results initially in dissatisfaction. Itis then of primary importance thatmanagement sets clear priorities in itsobjectives.

The degrees to which the more impor-tant objectives of workplace innovationhave been achieved are set out in the nextsection.

DOES IT WORK BETTER?

Activity-related work in a combiofficeThe combi office was developed asan appropriate workplace concept forworkers with a varied pattern of tasks. Anoffice worker is, on average, engagedapproximately half the time in computerand reading work, and the other half inmeetings, dialogues and filing.6

The thought behind the combi office,or cocoon office, is that a differentiated setof tasks calls for differentiated ‘activity-related’ workplaces: places suited tocommunication, formal and informal con-sultation, concentration, briefly mailing

changes in location (from the home officeto workplaces at a distance); in layout(from a closed to an open structure,and all sorts of combinations); and inthe use of workplaces (from a personallydesignated workplace to a non-territorialworkplace).3

The expectations have been high.Through workplace innovation, organisa-tions hope to be better tuned to changingwork processes, to achieve a higherdegree of employees’ job satisfaction, andto achieve higher work productivity andconsiderable savings in costs.4 Often, oneof the conditions made prior to innova-tion is that the well-being of the workersremains at least the same. Other aims arethe encouragement of change (the workenvironment as catalyst for a change ofculture, increased dynamics, greater flexi-bility of organisation and staff); gainingexperience with new technologies (forinstance, experiments with cordless work-ing); or fulfilling the function of setting anexample (for instance, government, whichwishes to reduce automobile use throughteleworking).

The objectives of workplace innovationcan be distinguished at three levels:society (macro), the organisation (meso)and the individual employee (micro).5

Macro objectives have a view to thebetter functioning of the society as awhole: a cleaner environment achievedthrough a reduction in the use of thenumber of square metres of space, or thereduction of commuter traffic by buildingat work locations and stimulating tele-work. Macro objectives are formulatedchiefly by public (government) organisa-tions. Meso objectives have to do withthe interests of the organisation: forinstance, reduction in costs through thesharing of workplaces, or productionimprovement through working moreefficiently. Micro objectives are directedtowards the individual interests of office

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 51

Page 5: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

something, etc. The work is done in theplace best suited to it. Regular changeof workplace (desk rotating) is usuallycoupled with the sharing of workplaces(desk sharing). Except for some large-scaleprojects at Interpolis NV, the TaxationDepartment, The Dutch GovernmentBuildings Agency and the ABN AMROBank, the combi office is mainly beingtried out in small-scale experiments. Theexperiences are varied. Open workplacesare experienced positively, because of theencouragement to communicate and theenhanced feeling of space. Increase anddecrease in the number of staff, andinternal moves, are easier to handlebecause of the greater degree of flexibility.Weighed against these benefits is the factthat quite a few people complain of a lackof privacy (visual, acoustic, territorial) andfind it difficult to concentrate.7 Con-centration cells are often small and

cramped and insufficiently isolated acous-tically. There are also psychological bar-riers, such as a feeling of being cooped up;lack of ways to control things oneself; andvisual stress.

Because of the wide central areas andthe transparent set-up, many combi of-fices look like busy newspaper officeswhere stressed-out people are engaged infeverish activity. It seems to be veryimportant to investigate accurately whichwork the users actually do; how it isdistributed over time; whether workersare at the office full-time or only veryirregularly; and what spatial consequencesthese factors have.

Innovative projects have not seldomfailed because design decisions had beenmade on the basis of wrong assumptions.To be sure, it looks very up to date if staffspend a lot of time with the client,brainstorm creatively, and work together

Figure 2 Divisionof office activities

by time

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 52

Source: Vos, P. G. J. C. (1997–99) ‘Werkt het beter in het Dynamischkantoor Haarlem?’ [Does itwork better in Dynamic Office Haarlem?], Department of Real Estate & Project Management,Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology.

6.4%

7.9%

10.2%

10.6%

11.7%

53.1%

Other activities

Filing

Telephoning

Informalcommunication

Formalcommunication

Desk work

Page 6: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

phonic accessibility (person-dedicated in-stead of place-dedicated telephones) has infact made it easier for people to reacheach other.

What is noteworthy is that flexi-workers finally adjust without making toomany problems about having to give upa set workplace. After stiff opposition inthe initiation phase, afterwards, in the usephase, there are few complaints. Onthe basis of current theories from en-vironmental psychology more oppositionwould be expected. Think of the need forstatus, privacy, identity, personal controland personal territory.12 The proverbialphoto of the ‘home front’ (a hobbyhorseof the opposition to workplace innova-tion) is evidently more of a romanticisedimage that refers to times past thansomething that really concerns staff mem-bers. For that matter, in the old situation,there was often no photo on the desk, andits possible lack is easily compensated forby installing the photo as a screensaver.

It has to be said, though, that if peopleget the chance, they will almost alwaysimmediately seize their own spot again.This happens especially when there areplenty of workplaces and flexi-work is notstrictly necessary. Even when there is ascarcity of workplaces, flexi-workers stilloften try to claim their own spot. Manypeople have a favourite spot: for instance,because of the view, protected back, be-cause it is quiet (at the end of a corridor)or close to colleagues they like. Just aspeople at the beach claim their spot byspreading out beach towels and putting upa wind screen, flexi-workers start withdropping their papers and other posses-sions at their favourite spot. This ‘fixedflexi-working’ has been noted in variouscase studies.

In some functions, flexi-working doesnot seem to be a good alternative. In apilot study at a research department of theDelft University of Technology, flexi-

in multidisciplinary teams, but when thisis not the case, and when they are for thegreater part of the time alone at thecomputer or reading paperwork, a cellularoffice is a better option than an openflexi-layout. Bad timing (people are notready for it) and an insufficiently thought-out implementation process can also harmthe project considerably.

Flexi-workThe experiences with flexi-working atthe Ministry of Economic Affairs,8 the‘Dynamischkantoor Haarlem’9 and ABNAMRO bank10 illustrate that, in the newsituation, workers consciously seek eachother out more frequently. They com-municate more with each other on an adhoc basis. The experience of InterpolisNV confirms a strengthening in internalcommunication.11 Though it is difficult todetermine whether work is being dis-cussed, increased communication is, inany case, good for the atmosphere andgroup feeling. One negative effect offlexi-working is that people lose moretime on the planning and organisation ofactivities, such as looking up informationand putting away documents. This appliesparticularly to leaving the workplace clean(clean desking) and the storage of personaleffects in a mobile chest of drawers (trol-leys). Because flexi-workers do not pos-sess a permanent workplace with theirown storage space, they have to be veryconscious of the sort of work they wantto do on a particular day, and whichthings they will need to do it. Quite anumber of flexi-workers lack this over-view. Other minus points are the lossof time through the regular adjustmentof furniture, and logging-in again. Thefear of its being more difficult to reachcolleagues has proved unfounded. Be-cause of the innovative office’s enhancedtransparency, keeping track of who issitting where, and the improved tele-

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 53

Page 7: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

working proved to be non-discussible,both for practical reasons (nearly everyonethere works full-time and staff are fairlyconstantly present) and for psychologicalreasons (‘in research, one needs one’s ownspace to hatch new ideas, and a bookcase’).13 At KPN Telecom’s legal depart-ment, an innovative plan was reversedbecause the lawyers emphatically claimedto need their own room because of themany confidential discussions.

In a flexi-work situation, managers haveto get used to exercising a different kindof control. When staff are very mobileand have more freedom in carryingout their tasks, control has to beexercised differently: from control ofstaff presence to output-oriented control.Many managers cannot or will not dothis. One thorny problem is that theoutput of a knowledge worker is difficultto measure; Interpolis NV has solved it bysetting targets for everyone and in all

functions. The targets can vary, fromclosing 100 policy agreements per weekto rounding off a project on a due date.However, not every function lends itselfto a quantitative evaluation of output.

Although the productivity of staff isdifficult to measure, there is the impressionthat this is influenced by flexi-workingrather more positively than it is negatively.Internal moves are more easily managed,without interference to the surroundingsand the concomitant inconvenience. Thereare no signs of increased sick leave.

The staff’s own estimation of the effecton their productivity is often moderatelypositive. Flexi-working demands work-ing more strictly to programme. Theimproved communication enhances theexchange of information, expertise andskills. The possibility of being able towork with full concentration is a majorpoint that demands attention. Advancedinformation and communication technol-

Figure 3 Perceivedproductivity after

the move to aflexible working

environment

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 54

Source: Van den Brink, A., (2000) one of the researched cases, in: ‘De effecten in kaart’ [Effectsof Flexible Offices], ABN AMRO Bank BV and BMVB, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University ofTechnology.

51%

44%40%

27%

8%14%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%positive neutral negative

Productivity

old

new

Page 8: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

leagues left behind often experience anincrease in work demand, brought aboutby taking telephone calls, doing rush jobsand solving all sorts of problems thatwould normally be solved by the absentcolleagues.

Informal contact with colleagues is nolonger a matter of course, and because ofthis, much valuable information is notsatisfactorily received, or is received toolate. Communication is chiefly via thetelephone, the mail, or e-mail, instead offace to face. People miss the ‘corridors’and the coffee corner where, even (orespecially) in the digital age, much isdiscussed and decided. Gentronics is anexample of an experiment with workingat home that was terminated ahead oftime because colleagues missed each othertoo much. In addition to the need forconviviality, the issue here was also thatthe development of software is teamwork.Even the newest technology cannot com-pletely bridge the physical distance be-tween workers. Home workers thereforerun the risk of losing social contacts andthe bond with the organisation itself. Tocompensate for this, more information issupplied (eg by electronic memos). Often,a limit is set on teleworking (eg not morethan two days per week), time blocks areintroduced, and the traditional monthlydrink and the yearly sailing party with theworkers’ partners are added to by devis-ing creative solutions to the problem.One example of this is that of the In-spectie Milieuhygiene Regio Oost (En-vironmental Health Inspection, EasternRegion), where teleworkers, in the inter-ests of regular contact and of strengthen-ing the team spirit, regularly as a groupput in some work on an ‘adopted’ area offorest.

The experience with teleworking inoffice buildings furnished specifically forthis purpose is varied. Telework centres inAlmere, Tilburg and Utrecht have proved

ogy increases efficiency if it is supportedby an adequate help desk. The com-patibility of hardware and software andthe ability to make a rapid responseto complaints and problems are majorpreconditions.

TeleworkExperiments with distance working havedemonstrated that workers can con-centrate better at home.14 There is lessinterruption at home than there is at theoffice; thus, people think that they candeliver their product better and morequickly. Other advantages in this situationare: the worker’s greater autonomy (theworker can organise his/her own time;there are no clothing regulations); it iseasier to combine work and private life(eg, care tasks; being home for a repairman without having to take time off);reduction in sick leave (eg, working onwith a sport injury); saving in travellingtime; and — especially important from anenvironmental viewpoint — reducingtraffic congestion (less home–work trafficless overburdening of the traffic infrastruc-ture through, for example, first answeringthe mail at home and then going to workonly after the peak hour).

There are, however, also disadvantages.Work and private life tend to overlapto such a degree that people have thefeeling that they are never free. Manyteleworkers have difficulty in combiningwork and private life in an adequateand healthy way. From recent researchby TNO Arbeid (TNO is the Nether-lands’ central organisation for AppliedScientific Research), it has been shownthat home workers put in many morehours than their colleagues do.15 Easilythree-quarters of teleworkers who workmore than half the time at home put inan average of seven hours overtime perweek. This increases the risk of stress. Atthe organisation’s central office, those col-

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 55

Page 9: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

to be less successful than expected.16 Atelework collective office in Purmerend had toclose its doors after three years (1992–1995). Teleworkers would rather keep onworking at home, in their familiar sur-roundings, than in a telework office intheir neighbourhood. A poll of staff at theDepartment of Public Works confirmedthis scenario: more than three-quartersindicated that they preferred a workplaceat home to a satellite office or local office.Two experiments by the Dutch Govern-ment Buildings Agency with satellite officesin Arnhem and in ‘DynamischkantoorHaarlem’ were, in time, given up. Insuffi-cient insight into the users’ needs anda negative balance between costs andbenefits (limited time gain through lessdistance to travel) are the explanatoryfactors here.

Another project of the Dutch Govern-ment Buildings Agency, the hotel office‘Bleijenburg’ in the Hague, was, however,a great success.17 Positive factors werethe favourable location (close to othergovernment buildings, thus suited to solvetemporary lack of space); the user-friendlywork environment (an historic buildingwith modern interior); and a wide rangeof supporting facilities (luxurious furni-ture, high-quality ICT, all sorts of con-venience services). Because the buildingreceived a different designation, the ex-periment ended after three years. Be-cause of Bleijenburg’s success, the DutchGovernment Buildings Agency is lookingfor another suitable building. The Regusoffice hotels, Mulbees’ work cafés, D-Office’s hotel offices and the BusinessCorners in AC Restaurants are all ex-amples of successful market initiatives.

Partly because of the disadvantages,teleworking has not reached the heightspredicted by the supporters of this in-novative way of working. It is true thatfigures show that, in Europe, the Nether-lands is in the lead, but there are

still no more than 140,000 registeredteleworkers.18 It is remarkable that evenin the ‘new economy’ businesses in theICT sector, teleworking is not a matterof course, and it is doubtful whether inthe near future one should expect aswing towards teleworking. The technol-ogy to be able to work differently has,after all, already been available for a longtime.

Often, teleworking is limited to ex-tending the working day: in the morning,first reading some e-mail; on the wayhome and in the evening, doing somemore work; knocking off a couple ofhours earlier and making up the work atthe weekend. Work times then becomemore fluid (boundaries between work andprivate life become vague), more ex-tended and more fragmented (no longernine-to-five).

IS IT CHEAPER?Driven by the economic crises of the1980s, an increasing number of organisa-tions were compelled to seek ways toreduce operating costs. Saving space andreducing housing costs became aims inthemselves. The sharing of working space— whether or not combined withteleworking — was seen by manyorganisations as a major means of cuttingcosts. Numbers of workplaces; total floorareas; building materials; energy demands;maintenance costs; and rent or deprecia-tion will all be reduced. Organisations canalso achieve lower internal moving costs,through a more flexible layout, and lowertravelling costs, through teleworking.They can further look forward to improv-ing the balance between cost and produc-tion, as follows:

— Catalyst for innovation (more flexible,more creative, more dynamic);

— Higher degree of work satisfaction

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 56

Page 10: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

workplaces, there was a saving of 20per cent on the usual arrangement ofspace.22 The application of a similar con-cept at the director’s offices of the Minis-try of Internal Affairs and the Ministryof Economic Affairs resulted in a spacesaving of 36 per cent.23 Precise figureson the cost reduction achieved are notknown. At Interpolis NV, the combina-tion of teleworking and flexi-workingmade, at that time, building a secondoffice tower unnecessary. This meant acost reduction of NLG 35m. Neverthe-less, because of the organisation’s rapidgrowth, work was begun on the tower inearly 1999.

Weighed against these substantial reduc-tions in space and cost, there are consider-able additional costs generated by officeinnovation. Some likely categories arelisted below:

— Structural rebuilding or alterationcosts;

— Finishing and layout: attractive andergonomically responsible furniture;flexible walls, floors, ceilings; moresupport spots (coffee corners, clubs,seating);

— Advanced ICT: including mobilephones, laptops, Internet and intranet,central/digital filing system;

— Adaptation and installation of equip-ment;

— Rental and equipment of externalworkplaces: teleworking; home work-ing; flexible workplaces in office hotelor satellite office;

— Implementation costs for advisers,meetings and workshops; pilot withtrial layout, product development,training in a new way of working;

— Extra office management for, amongother things, reservation and allocationof flexible workplaces and supervisionof central filing system;

— Extra cleaning costs connected with

through free choice and autonomy,high-quality layout and design andimproved health and well-being;

— Higher work productivity (workingmore efficiently and effectively);better transfers of communicationand information; better telephonicand electronic accessibility; enhancedproblem-solving ability for the or-ganisation as a whole and for individualemployees; more flexible disposition ofstaff; less sick leave;

— Attracting and retaining scarce highlyqualified staff;

— Attracting and retaining clients (posi-tive image; closer to the clients;better accessibility; better service;quicker trajectory between thinking upproducts or services and getting themonto the market).

Erik Veldhoen, trend-setter in the fieldof workplace innovation, writes in ‘TheDemise of the Office’ about savings infloor space that can amount to as much as50 per cent and savings on the totalfacility that can reach 40 per cent.19

Croon, on the basis of case studies atInterpolis NV and Andersen Consulting,even talks about possible cost reductionsof 62 per cent per employee, dependingon the rental rate of space in the officebuilding.20

Heijink calculated for the Ministry ofTransport and Public Works that, throughthe introduction of flexi-working in com-bination with longer opening hours, a36-hour working week and one or twodays per week teleworking, it would bepossible to scrap 10 per cent (137) of thetotal number of workplaces.21 Assumingan average of NLG 25,000 per workplaceper year, this is a saving of NLG 3.4m. Bycombining six departments of the Minis-try for Housing, Physical Planning andEnvironment in the ‘DynamischkantoorHaarlem’, and the application of flexi

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 57

Page 11: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

extensive glass and intensive use offlexible workplaces.

The user-friendly, ergonomically designedfurniture is generally more expensive thanthat used in traditional office plans. Thesupporting ICT and other equipment, andalso the architectural adaptations necessaryto realise innovative planning concepts,are similarly very expensive. According tothe Dutch Government Buildings Agency,the furnishing costs of an innovative officeare approximately 75 per cent higherthan the furnishing costs of a traditionaloffice.24 Part of the savings is thus oftenused to enable the implementation of thequalitatively superior concept. In KPNVastgoed’s (Royal Dutch Post and Tele-com Company) innovative office, close tothe total saving of 15 per cent wenton the new outfitting. In addition, thetime-consuming design and implementa-tion process, the further indirect expensesof more complex management (regulationof workplace allocation, extra cleaningcosts) and the rental and outfitting costs ofexternal workplaces raise costs. Accordingto Troost, at a rental rate of NLG 240 persquare metre rentable floor space, a spacereduction of at least 24 per cent is neces-sary to compensate for the extra invest-ment.

Recent research at the Delft Universityof Technology shows that, on balance, theinvestment costs per employee sometimesturn out to be tens of per cents higher inan innovative office.25 The exploitationcosts per employee, however, are oftenlower than in traditional offices (savings ofapproximately 10–20 per cent). The addi-tional costs and the reduced costs, both intotal as per cost item, appear to varysignificantly per project. The major causesof the wide spread in cost reductionsare due to a large number of variables,such as the potentially realisable spacereduction; the rental price; the projected

quality level of the outfitting; the terms ofamortisation; and (assumptions regarding)development and implementation costs,service costs and transaction costs.

HIGHER JOB SATISFACTION?A new concept is almost always accom-panied by advanced ICT, new furnishingsand a central filing system, digitised ornot. There is mainly a positive evaluationof the possibilities that these facilitiesprovide for the user. Roomy desks,comfortable chairs and attractive, freshcolours contribute substantially to a posi-tive evaluation of innovative workplaces.Individually adjustable furniture (desktop,chair) is, however, not always used asintended. Staff do not always take thetrouble to make the right adjustments.People find it annoying and a waste oftime and not everybody knows how to doit. There is a clear need for instruction onthe desirable (health and safety) height.Translation of health and safety legislationinto the home situation has yet to cut itsteeth.

Minus points that give rise to muchirritation are lockers that are too small andtrolleys or flexi-cases for personal files thatare too heavy; and technical breakdowns,laborious procedures for the use of a helpdesk, etc. Properly functioning ICT hasproved to be crucial to successful officeinnovation. Just after delivery, in par-ticular, there is often annoyance about anetwork that is not adequately flexible,compatibility problems caused by theapplication of differing hardware andsoftware, unequal user possibilities (a fullyequipped computer at the permanentworkplace or at the flexi-workplace, butnot in concentration cells and teamspace), time-consuming PC logging-inprocedures, and technical disruptions.Many people find protracted use of alaptop unpleasant. A PC or a dock-

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 58

Page 12: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

tools in creating a successful filing sys-tem.

CONCLUSIONSPartly thanks to the attractive interiordesign and advanced facilities (IT, attrac-tive supporting facilities), the evaluationof workplace innovation has, on balance,been favourable in many projects. Al-though most users estimate that little haschanged in their productivity, a majorityfinds that innovative work and layoutconcepts fit in well with their work. Theydo not wish to return to the old typeof cellular office (separate rooms). Thehigh perception value, advanced equip-ment, pride in being one of those at theforefront, and sometimes also not wantingto face the bother of new changes in theoffice concept and being tired of change,seem to be the most plausible explana-tions. As a user of the ‘Dynamischkantoor

ing station is preferred by applicationdevelopers and programmers.

Central filing can provide consider-able savings in the volume of filingspace. There are, though, often startingproblems, such as insufficient access to thedata and an unclear ordering of informa-tion. However, it is found that after afamiliarisation period there is often lesstime lost in looking for and filingdocuments. The use of glass partitionsconsiderably reduces the space availablefor placing cupboards. It was noted alsothat in some places there was not enoughfiling space. It is important that thecommon filing system does not come atthe bottom of the list, but that from thevery beginning it is included as a point ofattention. This applies likewise to thestorage of journals and the arrangement ofthe departmental library. Information,training and the introduction of a docu-ment management system are important

Figure 4 Increasein job satisfaction ina researched case

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 59

Source: Vos, P. G. J. C. (1997–1999) ‘Werkt het beter in het Dynamischkantoor Haarlem?’ [Does itwork better in Dynamic Office Haarlem?], Department of Real Estate & Project Management,Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Auditiv

e pr

ivacy

Conve

rsat

ion p

rivac

y

Visual

priva

cy

Climat

e co

ntro

l

Daylig

htView

Climat

eSize

Conve

nienc

e

Exterio

r

Flexibi

lity

Distan

ce fr

om

colle

ague

s

Wor

kplac

e co

ncep

ts

Tota

l impr

essio

n

Page 13: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

Haarlem’ put it: ‘There are indeed com-plaints about the building, but that doesn’ttake away from the fact that we’re quiteproud of what’s happening here.’

In spite of the positive experiences, andthe predictions of workplace gurus thatthe traditional office will rapidly disap-pear, the great breakthrough of the combioffice has still not come about. Telework-ing, combi offices and flexible workplacesare still not common in the Netherlands.Only 10–15 per cent of all office or-ganisations have (part of) the office laidout on innovative lines. This percentageis slowly growing. The most importantreasons for this seem to be the necessarilyhigh investment, fear of negative effectsand disinclination toward the complexprocess of implementation and manage-ment. Several objectives of workplaceinnovation are difficult to combine. Thedesire for more communication is often atodds with the need for concentration and

privacy. The desire for cost reduction is atodds with the necessity for a wide varietyof types of workplaces, luxurious andergonomically designed furniture and ad-vanced ICT.

The sharing of workplaces is con-trary to the deep-rooted need for one’sown clearly recognisable spot. Further,workplace innovation is not equallyattractive to, or worth while for, allprofessional groups. For workers whospend much time at the office, especiallythose whose work requires a lot ofconcentration or who carry on a lot ofconfidential discussions, the familiar, per-sonal work room is still a valid concept,if in a more modern style and withpowerful ICT.

To sum up, the following conclusionson workplace innovation can be arrivedat:

— Teleworking at home often leads to

Figure 5 Totalimpression of

flexible workingenvironments in a

researched case

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 60

Source: Vos, P. G. J. C. (1997–1999) ‘Werkt het beter in het Dynamischkantoor Haarlem?’ [Does itwork better in Dynamic Office Haarlem?] as for Figure 4.

5.9%

13.2%

49.3%

31.6%

opinion

positive

negative

No

Missing

Page 14: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

being constricted.— The ‘risks’ of workplace innovation

can be traced chiefly to insufficientlyaddressing universal human needs, suchas privacy, identity, status and personalcontrol.

LESSONS LEARNEDThe variety of partly ambivalent ex-periences shows that no blueprint canbe given for the best office of thefuture. The ultimate choice concern-ing place, space and use of workplacesmust, above all, be tuned to the typeof organisation, the office culture andthe style of management, to the natureof the activities and to the physical,social and psychological needs of theemployees. A sound inquiry into or-ganisational characteristics and activitypatterns is a necessary precondition forsuccessful innovation. Probably the ap-plication of different concepts is theoptimal solution. Workplace innovationin an existing building requires alsoa careful examination of the buildingand its potential for change. Carefulexecution of the plan is equally andhighly important. A wrong estimate ofthe number of flexi-workplaces, a poorsound isolation in the concentration cells,or problems with ICT may lead to manycomplaints, even if a concept in itself fitswell with the organisation and the work-ing processes.

To make the right choices a lot ofresearch is needed. Many questionsremain. Can indicators be developed forthe relationship between the number ofworkers and the number of flexi-workplaces, for the implementation costsper employee, and for number of squaremetres of rentable floor space perworkplace? What is the optimal size ofa concentration cell? What is thetelework optimum, for the organisation

working in a more concentrated wayand to more freedom of choice in theallocation of time and way of work-ing. However, there is the threat ofa decline in contact with colleaguesat the home office; a limited bondwith the organisation; and an increasedworkload for the colleagues at thehome office.

— The application of a combi office,flexi-workplaces and activity-relatedworkplaces leads, in general, to moreand better communication, but also toproblems with concentration on work(visual distraction, noise nuisance) andto complaints of lack of privacy.

— Through the application of flexi-workplaces, available space can be usedmore efficiently. Depending on thenumber of employees that share aworkplace, and the number of squaremetres per workplace, reductions ofsome tens of percentage points arepossible. The savings in costs areproportional. Against this, there areconsiderable additional costs because ofthe user-friendly furnishing, advancedfacilities, the more complex design andimplementation process, and the morecomplex management of innovativeworkplaces.

— In spite of negative side effects, inmany projects the majority of usersindicated they would not want to goback to a more traditional office set-up.

— The most positive aspects of officeinnovation for its users are: morefreedom in the choice of workplace,the increased possibility of com-munication, the application of ad-vanced technological aids and theluxurious surroundings.

— The most negative aspects for the usersare: loss of concentration, less privacy,a feeling of pressure (’stimulus over-load’) and sometimes also a feeling of

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 61

Page 15: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

and for the individual? Therefore it isextremely important for organisations todocument information about housingprocesses and how the working environ-ment is experienced by the users. Onlythen are they likely to succeed inbuilding a ‘body of knowledge’ aboutworkplace concepts that exceeds thequality levels of anecdotal success-stories.

Apart from a good product, a carefullycarried-out implementation process is acritical factor. The clear communicationof ‘how’ and ‘why’, an enthusiasticpioneering role on the part of manage-ment, good follow-up and good main-tenance are all factors in achievingsuccess.

The following recommendations havebeen distilled from involvement in in-novation projects:

— First chart the organisation and thework processes. Useful instruments areusers’ questionnaires, interviews withkey personnel and time monitoringof occupation rates at representativetimes.

— Organise a start-up meeting to informall involved organisation members as tobasic assumptions and aims, the ap-proach to the process and the an-ticipated final result. Be clear about thepreconditions (square metres norms,budget, the existing building).

— Ensure a project organisation withclearly defined tasks and authority ofthose involved, and ensure clear proce-dures.

— Ensure there is a balance betweensteering from a clear policy position(‘top down’) and development on thebasis of users’ ideas (’bottom up’).

— Organise workshops with the users,to gain insight into desired and ex-pected changes in the organisation,work processed, ICT and housing.

— Tune the number of workshops to theneed for information and discussion,efficient use of time and a reasonablelength of time for the project (indica-tion: 3–5 workshops).

— Organise, in a fairly early phase, anexcursion to innovative work environ-ments (seeing is believing).

— Involve the architect early in theprocess, so that work processes andtrends are clear and the first contoursof the desired workplace concepts startto be discernible.

— Come to clear agreements on the useand management of the new accom-modation; provide training for theusers so that they will make good useof the new accommodation.

TOMORROW’S OFFICE?The combi office seems to be the goldenmean between the traditional cellular of-fice and the open-plan office. Once, thecellular office was the answer to thecriticism of industrial offices as beingsimilar to ‘white-collar factories’ in aTaylorian work style. Office employees incellular offices have a fixed workplace ina one-person room or a room shared byseveral people, with the allocation ofspace and furnishing appropriate to theirstatus.

Because of the need for more flexibility,and influenced by the wave of democracy,the open-plan office was introduced inthe 1960s. This open concept was to leadto more interaction, better communica-tion, more egalitarian accommodation foreveryone, and to easier adjustment toincreases and decreases in staff. Lack ofprivacy, nuisance from noise, physicaldiscomfort (dry throat, burning eyes,headaches) and not enough opportunitypersonally to influence the workingenvironment (not being able to regulatethe central heating oneself, non-opening

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 62

Page 16: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

Psychological mechanisms such as theneed for sufficient space, privacy, andone’s own fixed place as expressions ofidentity and status are firmly rooted. Thisprobably explains why the vast majority ofoffices in the Netherlands are still laid outaccording to the cellular office plan. Manyorganisations expect that the situation willnot be very different in the future.However, all this does not rule out thefact that modern adaptations can be madein the form of ICT, furniture and otherfittings, without there being a drasticintrusion into the existing concept andlayout. There is something to say for bothideas: steadily progressing office innova-tion versus keeping to more traditionalconcepts, but in a modern style.

REFERENCES

(1) Vos, P. G. J. C., van Meel, J. J. andDijcks, A. (1999) ‘The Office, theWhole Office and Nothing But theOffice: A Framework of WorkplaceConcepts’, version 1.2, Real Estate &Project Management, Faculty ofArchitecture, Delft University ofTechnology.

(2) Van der Voordt, D. J. M. and Vos, P. G.J. C. (1999) ‘Evaluatie vankantoorinnovatie: model en methoden’[Evaluation of Office Innovation: Modeland Methods], Delft University Press.

(3) See ref. 1 above.(4) Dewulf, G. P. R. M. and Vos, P. G. J.

C. (1998) ‘De (on-)mogelijkheden vankantoorinnovatie: een fenomeenbeschouwd’ [The (im-)possibilities ofoffice innovation], M&O, No. 1,January/February, p. 12.

(5) Dewulf, G. P. R. M. and Vos, P. G. J.C. (1999) ‘Searching for Data: AMethod to Evaluate the Effects ofWorking in an Innovative Office’, DelftUniversity Press, Delft; Van Dien, A.G. (1998) Kantoororganisaties;‘Organisatie en Kantoor: doelstellingenbij kantoorinnovaties’ [Organisation and

windows) are the reasons for this type ofoffice not being very popular. A com-promise was found in the group officeand, later, the combi office. Under theinfluence of powerful and mobile ICTfacilities, nowadays people are able towork where and whenever they want. So‘the office is where you are’, eitherteleworking or flexi-working throughthe common use of activity-regulatedworkplaces.

The latest developments point in thedirection of completely virtually operatingnetwork organisations that have only aninterestingly furnished habitat for meet-ings and for sport and games (fun offices).Trend-setters thus predict that the officewill disappear and will make place for‘network accommodation’: a collection ofaccommodation solutions varying fromcentral office to tele-workplace. After all,modern ICT makes it possible to workwhere (and when) one wants: ‘the officeis where you are’. It is thought thatthe office could undergo a transforma-tion into a ‘club’ (a name that refersto the (old) traditional gentlemen’s as-sociations), a meeting place with placesfor project groups, team discussions andbrainstorming sessions. An example of thisis The Vision Web, a network organisa-tion with 500 consultants, ICT specialistsand marketers. The entire virtual network(there is no office) meets and confers in‘grand cafés’. Multi-user touchdown of-fices also seem — judging by the successof the Regus offices, Mullbees and D-Office — to be looking forward to abright future.

However, concurrently, there arecounter-forces that cause developments tomove less rapidly than some hadexpected. Because of the need for formaland informal contact, people want to keepon meeting each other face to face. Evenmany hip dot.com organisations do notdare to go in wholesale for teleworking.

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 63

Page 17: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

Office: Objectives of OfficeInnovation], Vakgroep InterneOrganisatie, Faculteit der EconomischeWetenschappen, Erasmus UniversityRotterdam.

(6) See ref. 2 above; van der Voordt, D. J.M. and Beunder, M. (2001) ‘De rodedraad: ervaringen met flexibel werkenin een innovatief kantoor’ [TheContinuous Thread: experiences withoffice innovation], Real Estate &Project Management, Faculty ofArchitecture, Delft University ofTechnology and ABN AMRO BankBV, Delft/Amsterdam.

(7) Vos, P. G. J. C. and van der Voordt, D.J. M. (2000) ‘Flexibel werken inDynamischkantoor Haarlem’ [FlexibleWorking in Dynamic Office Haarlem],Real Estate Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 12, p.17.

(8) Beunder, M. and Bakker, P. (1997)‘Innovatief werken inkantoorgebouwen: de invloed vankantoorinnovatie op het functionerenen huisvesten van een organisatie’[Flexible working in office buildings:the effects of office innovation on theorganisations’ and workers’performance], thesis, Real Estate &Project Management, Faculty ofArchitecture, Delft University ofTechnology.

(9) Vos, P. G. J. C. (1997–1999) ‘Werkt hetbeter in het DynamischkantoorHaarlem? Nulmeting, eerste en tweedenameting, eindevaluatie’ [Does it workbetter in Dynamic Office Haarlem?],Real Estate & Project Management,Faculty of Architecture, DelftUniversity of Technology.

(10) See ref. 6 above.(11) De Jonge, J. and Rutte, C. (1999) ‘Een

quasi-experimenteel veldonderzoek naarde psychologische effecten van eenflexibel kantoor concept’ [Aquasi-experimental case study of thepsychological effects of officeinnovation], Gedrag & Organisatie, Vol.12, No. 6, December, p. 442.

(12) Gifford, B. (1996) ‘EnvironmentalPsychology: Principles and Practice’,2nd edn, Allyn & Bacon, London.

(13) Van der Voordt, D. J. M. (1999) ‘Deleer- en werkomgeving: verslag vantwee proefprojecten kantoorinnovatiebij de TU Delft’ [Learning andworking environment: report of twooffice innovation pilots at the DelftUniversity of Technology], DelftUniversity Press.

(14) Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat,(1999) ‘Op weg naar anders werken:van statisch naar dynamisch’ [Towardsnew ways of working: from static todynamic], The Hague; and see ref. 6above.

(15) Kraan, K. and Dhondt, S. (2001)‘Telewerken in de praktijk: grenzen aantijd en vrijheid?’ [Telework in practice:limits to time and freedom?],pre-published extract from the book‘Een nieuwe economie, een nieuwetijd?’ (werktitel), TNO Arbeid, p. 8.

(16) Snijders, T. (1997) ‘Telewerkkantoorenbestaan niet meer’ [The demise oftelework offices], Telewerken No. 3,June.

(17) Teunissen, R. and Thijssen, H. (1997)‘Hotelkantoor blijkt succesformule’[Hotel Office proves to be a bigsuccess], Facility Management Magazine,June.

(18) Klomp, H. and van Oosterhuis, B.(2001) ‘Telewerken is niet te stoppen’[Telework is here to stay], Intermediair,No. 1, January, p. 28.

(19) Veldhoen, E. (1998) ‘Kantooren bestaanniet meer’ [The demise of the office],version 2.0, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam.

(20) Croon, T. (1998) ‘Huisvestingslasten’[Real Estate Costs], thesis, EconomischeFaculteit Universiteit van Amsterdam.

(21) Heijink, D. (1997) ‘KantoorinnovatieMinisterie VWS: Interne communicatieen Arbeidssatisfactie’ [Office InnovationMinistry of Health, Welfare and Sport],thesis Bouwmanagement &Vastgoedbeheer, Faculteit Bouwkunde,Technische Universiteit Delft.

Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes

Page 64

Page 18: Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of ...

University of Technology, 010Publishers, Rotterdam.

NOTE:

The Foundation Centre for People and Build-ings addresses itself to the relationship betweenman, work and the work environment. TheKnowledge Centre promotes research, productdevelopment and transfer of knowledge in thisfield for organisations whose primary fieldof interest is not in real estate. The Centrefor People and Buildings is a developmentof the Delft University of Technology, theDepartment of Public Buildings and Construc-tion and the ABN AMRO Bank, with col-laboration from, among others, the Ministryof Public Works, the Taxation Department,the Rabobank, TNO, the Catholic Univer-sity of Brabant, the University of Technology,Eindhoven and the University of Groningen.

(22) Pullen, W. R. and Vos, P. G. J. C.(1997) ‘Leren door proberen’ [Trial anderror], in ‘Dynamischkantoor Haarlem’,010 Publishers, Rotterdam, p. 40.

(23) Ministerie van Economische Zaken(1998) ‘Geen plek voor de foto van dehond: verslag van de kantoorinnovatiepilot ‘‘Wisselwerken’’ bij de directieInterne Zaken’ [Office InnovationMinistry of Economic Affairs],Beheerscommissie Wisselwerken,September.

(24) Troost, K. (2000) ‘Onder welkevoorwaarden is kantoorinnovatiekostenbesparend?’ [When is officeinnovation profitable?] Real EstateMagazine Vol. 3, No. 12, p. 26.

(25) Van der Voordt, D. J. M. (2001) ‘Costsand benefits of workplace innovation’in H. Bekkering et al. (eds), TheArchitectural Annual 1999–2000, Delft

Vos and van der Voordt

Page 65